or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Tulkas

And Qualcomm's followup to that letter:     Looks like Qualcomm's law firm just lost a client.
I was thinking she looked awfully manly, then read about the name change. Makes perfect sense. Also good to see Apple making moved to improve security.
As a Canadian, I hope this means AWS for HSPA but the realist in me knows that it doesn't.
They didn't license them or have patent protection from Google. Google 'loaned' them to HTC, that is they gave them to HTC to use in lawsuits against Apple. This was done specifically because of the weakness of HTC's patent portfolio. HTC was stuck in a difficult position. The patents they held were determined to be essentially useless in their battle with Apple. If they are SEP, that is an unproven offensive weapon and if they weren't, there is no indication Apple was...
Yes, I recall the judge determined HTC didn't own them enough. But I'd thought that was because of an agreement to transfer them back to Google not from some limitation on their ownership. If they were indeed fully transfered to HTC and the judges concern was the whole transaction of loaning them out temporarily, there might not be a legal basis for preventing them from re-licensing them. Given how poorly thought out the entire adventure of buying up Motorola for FRAND...
I'd actually be really interested knowing if Apple gained access to the 9 patents Google gave/loaned to HTC. That would be the single funniest event of the smartphone patent wars if it happened. HTC copies Apple, Apple gains access to Google's patents.
Except they settled with Nokia for a cross licensing deal.    Also, why is that Apple simply says they would reserve the right to appeal if they felt the court determined royalty was too high and they sets the judge off, while at the same time if the rate was too low Motorola would obviously also appeal. Appeals are a basic, so why would acknowledging this upset the judge so much?
An argument could be made that since Apple is buying the chips from Qualcomm, then the licensing should be $0. You don't expect to pay royalties to all the companies that you car company paid when you buy a car. If patent exhaustion is not found to be the case here, then certainly one could still argue that as a third degree implementor, that is as a customer using chips from Qualcomm, who made the chips with a license, Apple should not expect to pay the identical...
Strange. The reasoning seems to be that the judge felt Apple's conditional offer of up to $1/device demonstrated they were not serious and were instead interested in dragging it out. Seems to me that the offer was very reasonable. What was Apple supposed to offer? Moto was asking for insane royalties, so why wasn't action taken against them?
All iPhones are not sold unlocked in Canada this year. In previous years, as long as you bought it from Apple for full price, then they were unlocked. But for the iPhone 5, they are only unlocked if you buy it from the Apple website. If you buy it from the Apple retail store, they are locked.
New Posts  All Forums: