or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

  Non-discriminatory means Moto can't discriminate who can access their patents - and must be open to all willing to negotiate/pay.  It says nothing about the rate at which Moto licenses their FRAND patents.  Further, "fair" and "reasonable" don't mean that all customers enjoy the same low royalty rate. 
    In this lawsuit, Apple's argument is not based on "patent exhaustion."  Apple is not denying Moto's rights to collect patent royalties.  What Apple is asking the court to do is to set a low licensing rate for Moto's FRAND patents.    I understand that Moto is being investigated by the FTC for possible anti-trust violation, but that's a completely different matter.
  No,  Infineon or Qualcomm can't dictate how much Motorola charges its own customers. 
  There are several lawsuits going on between Moto (Google) & Apple. Do you understand the difference between the plaintiff and the defendant?     Case No. 11-CV-178-bbc Hon. Barbara B. Crabb   APPLE INC., Plaintiff,           v. MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC. Defendant.   (hint: it's' almost always the plaintiffs who initiate lawsuits).   ROFL!!  Of course, that must be why Apple is gaming the US patent system.   Duh! Apple'd better have respect for standards - after all,...
    Can you then explain why Apple asked the court to set a FRAND rate in the first place?   Yes, precisely, that's why judge Crabb tossed the lawsuit.    Apple is required to pay what everyone else pays?  why?  because you said so?  ROLF!!
  Most of Apple's LTE patents are from Nortel - and I'm pretty sure all the existing licensing agreements between Moto & Nortel are still binding.    If I understand correctly, Apple has only ONE SEP H.264 patent in the pool - most H.264 SEP patents are held by Microsoft, Sony, Samsung, LG, Motorola (6+%), and other real tech companies.  I don't hear Apple whining about the H.264 royalty rates, so I'm guessing Samsung & Moto are being more than generous here.    It's...
  http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012110322254380   From the judge's order:   ...Apple states that it will not commit to be bound by any FRAND rate determined by the court and will not agree to accept any license from Motorola unless the court sets a rate of $1 or less for each Apple phone....   In other words, if Apple is unsatisfied with the rate chosen by the court, it “reserves the right to refuse and proceed to further infringement litigation.” ......
  I believe GE's effective rate is about 12%..  far from "nothing". 
  try telling that to Tim Cook.  He also insists that iPad mini is not a 7" iPad.      http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57541135-37/fact-checking-tim-cook-on-7-inch-tablets-and-microsofts-surface/     The 7-inch tablets are tweeners, too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with an iPad. Cook's response was that Apple didn't make a 7-inch iPad, but rather an iPad with a display that was closer to 8 inches -- nine-tenths of an inch bigger than a 7-inche
New Posts  All Forums: