or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's $2.7B Motorola bond actually yearly estimate, could be worth $16B
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's $2.7B Motorola bond actually yearly estimate, could be worth $16B

post #1 of 35
Thread Starter 
Motorola could be forced to pay up to $16.2 billion in guaranteed compensation if the company ultimately loses its patent dispute with Apple in Germany, as the $2.7 billion figure the iPhone maker was quoted as seeking in November has been clarified as a yearly estimate.

In a hearing on Friday, Apple made clear that it estimates a bond of $2.7 billion per year will cover the losses suffered if Motorola prematurely enforces possible injunctions on iCloud that are later overturned, according to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. He goes on to say that a lawyer on Motorola's legal team mentioned the case may last until 2018, potentially making the $2.7 billion yearly bond worth $16.2 billion.

The suit is part of an ongoing worldwide dispute, with Motorola alleging that Apple's iCloud infringes on certain existing synchronization technology patents. Although previous reports say that Motorola is likely to win at least one of the German suits, Apple still has the ability to set a bond to recoup damages in the event of a win during the appeal process, which could take years.

A permanent injunction can be "preliminarily enforceable" in Germany, meaning that if Motorola wins an initial court hearing it can enforce the ruling prior to appeal, however the company would be liable if the injunction is found to have been improperly granted at the end of the process.

Mueller explains that "the end of the process means that the ruling (or a subsequent appellate decision) can no longer be appealed, or it is appealed but the next higher court isn't willing to hear the appeal, or a party doesn't exercise its right to appeal."

Insurance against an improperly handled injunction comes in the form of a bond, which Apple was thought to have set at $2.7 billion in November, but has gone on to clarify that the figure was an annual payment estimate that would be applied to the number of years it takes to resolve the suit.

Despite the risk of bond liability, some patent holders sometimes go through with preliminary enforcement, possibly to leverage a settlement in a worldwide dispute. In this case, the two companies are waging a worldwide patent war.

It is unclear whether the court will agree to Apple's annual bond, however if the company can prove that the products in question can generate $2.7 billion per year in Germany, the figure may be accepted.

A hearing is set for Feb. 3, 2012, when Mueller expects the court to reveal its decision as to how much Apple's bond is worth.
post #2 of 35
There is a law suit being filed in the country of the antarctic. The penguin court is set to convene over the patent dispute of thermal dynamics of Mac's and how they stay cool. The cooling effect is an antarctic patent, being that its colder there than any other place on earth. The penguins are very upset and feel that Apple needs to have some respect for the continent and their inhabitants. As of now all Penguins are using Galaxy Tabs and seem to have some sort of bias against Apple and its products. When asking one of the leaders, how they felt about this matter all that could be said was a sort of trumpeting sound and constant pecking at the interviewer. The interviewer barely made it out alive. When asked how he felt about the interview he said My God man they are out for blood.
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #3 of 35
Patents... the next meaningless thing after analysts
post #4 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

There is a law suit being filed in the country of the antarctic. The penguin court is set to convene over the patent dispute of thermal dynamics of Mac's and how they stay cool. The cooling effect is an antarctic patent, being that its colder there than any other place on earth. The penguins are very upset and feel that Apple needs to have some respect for the continent and their inhabitants. As of now all Penguins are using Galaxy Tabs and seem to have some sort of bias against Apple and its products.

This doesn't make sense. For starters, the iPad specs say functionality isn't supported below 32° F (0° C) and the penguins already got a ban on the device for coming in black and white.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #5 of 35
This is a world wide war being fought not on the battlefields, but in the courts and Motorola is part of the Axis powers. These current patent cases are actually going to last for longer than the second world war lasted for.

Motorola doesn't have much of a case, and from my understanding, the patents that Motorola is trying to use against Apple are part of FRAND, much like Samsung is trying to do. That is not going to fly. Apple will crush them all.

Apple should use it's massive cash balance to weaken it's enemies and hurt them financially. The competition and the copytition should quit whining and begin innovating if they wish to remain relevant.
post #6 of 35
First Judge definitely will not take Apple's claims on face value and will reduce the amount , say to a 1.5 billion dollar per year ( from 2.7 claimed)

Secondly this would be an yearly amount , say for one year the Motorola will need to furnish bond for 1.5 billion dollar, if case stretches beyond that then it will be 3 billion dollar for next year and so on.

So what is the amount that Motorola needs to pay to make a bond of 1.5 billion dollars as of now. Around 1% of the value, since it would be in the form of bank guarantee.

1.5% of a billion dollar is 15 million dollar.

Not a big deal.
post #7 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

There is a law suit being filed in the country of the antarctic. The penguin court is set to convene over the patent dispute of thermal dynamics of Mac's and how they stay cool. The cooling effect is an antarctic patent, being that its colder there than any other place on earth. The penguins are very upset and feel that Apple needs to have some respect for the continent and their inhabitants. As of now all Penguins are using Galaxy Tabs and seem to have some sort of bias against Apple and its products. When asking one of the leaders, how they felt about this matter all that could be said was a sort of trumpeting sound and constant pecking at the interviewer. The interviewer barely made it out alive. When asked how he felt about the interview he said My God man they are out for blood.

* Happy Feet Likes this.
post #8 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

First Judge definitely will not take Apple's claims on face value and will reduce the amount , say to a 1.5 billion dollar per year ( from 2.7 claimed)

Secondly this would be an yearly amount , say for one year the Motorola will need to furnish bond for 1.5 billion dollar, if case stretches beyond that then it will be 3 billion dollar for next year and so on.

So what is the amount that Motorola needs to pay to make a bond of 1.5 billion dollars as of now. Around 1% of the value, since it would be in the form of bank guarantee.

1.5% of a billion dollar is 15 million dollar.

Not a big deal.

ROTFLMAO.

Let's assume that you're right and it gets reduced to $1.5 B (actually, I'd expect it to be reduced even more). Let's also assume that the judge will allow the bond to be paid one year at a time. A $1.5 B bond is not a big deal? That's blatantly absurd. Even to a company the size of Motorola, it's a huge deal. There's a lot more involved than out of pocket cost (even if your 1% estimate is accurate):

- It ties up $1.5 B in borrowing resources - which drives up their borrowing cost for everything else
- It becomes a $1.5 B liability on their balance sheet - which can greatly affect stock price
- It could effect the Google acquisition significantly

And keep in mind that this is only one country. If Motorola takes a $1.5 B hit to the balance sheet over one country, investors are going to be taking a serious look at the risks involved.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #9 of 35
It's not Apple's fault that they are 'too big to sue'.
post #10 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem View Post

It's not Apple's fault that they are 'too big to sue'.

No one is too big to sue. In fact, the bigger you are, the more frivolous lawsuits you seem to attract.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #11 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

ROTFLMAO.

Let's assume that you're right and it gets reduced to $1.5 B (actually, I'd expect it to be reduced even more). Let's also assume that the judge will allow the bond to be paid one year at a time. A $1.5 B bond is not a big deal? That's blatantly absurd. Even to a company the size of Motorola, it's a huge deal. There's a lot more involved than out of pocket cost (even if your 1% estimate is accurate):

- It ties up $1.5 B in borrowing resources - which drives up their borrowing cost for everything else
- It becomes a $1.5 B liability on their balance sheet - which can greatly affect stock price
- It could effect the Google acquisition significantly

And keep in mind that this is only one country. If Motorola takes a $1.5 B hit to the balance sheet over one country, investors are going to be taking a serious look at the risks involved.


At the end assume Moto wins. They now get their bonds released back to them, plus have Apple's own valuation of the "stolen IP" to submit to the court as a requested award on Motorola's behalf. Is that correct? If so there's dangers to both sides.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #12 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

At the end assume Moto wins. They now get their bonds released back to them, plus have Apple's own valuation of the "stolen IP" to submit to the court as a requested award on Motorola's behalf. Is that correct? If so there's dangers to both sides.

No. If Motorola wins, then they haven't infringed and Apple doesn't have to pay anything. Motorola doesn't get an award if they win. They simply avoid having to pay.

As a separate issue, Motorola could ask for the judge to order Apple to pay some or all of its legal expenses, but that's not easy to get - and would be a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars in potential damages.

Seriously, if your understanding of legal matters is that weak, you shouldn't be commenting. AT ALL.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #13 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

ROTFLMAO.

A $1.5 B bond is not a big deal? That's blatantly absurd. Even to a company the size of Motorola, it's a huge deal. There's a lot more involved than out of pocket cost (even if your 1% estimate is accurate):

- It ties up $1.5 B in borrowing resources - which drives up their borrowing cost for everything else
- It becomes a $1.5 B liability on their balance sheet - which can greatly affect stock price
- It could effect the Google acquisition significantly

And keep in mind that this is only one country. If Motorola takes a $1.5 B hit to the balance sheet over one country, investors are going to be taking a serious look at the risks involved.

You are making erroneous assumptions.

Well how does it affect Google's acquisition significantly? This liability is actually pea nuts for Google.

I understand there are other repercussions for a bank guarantee creation, but it is wrong to assume that it will have investors have serious look at risk or anything like that.

A strategic advantage at a serious competitor who is hell bent on suing you to oblivion will always be looked positively by Investors or most surely will have positive impact on price.

It is not a question of one country or more, it is a question of Strategic advantage for Motorola and also for Google..
post #14 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

ROTFLMAO.

Let's assume that you're right and it gets reduced to $1.5 B (actually, I'd expect it to be reduced even more). Let's also assume that the judge will allow the bond to be paid one year at a time. A $1.5 B bond is not a big deal? That's blatantly absurd. Even to a company the size of Motorola, it's a huge deal. There's a lot more involved than out of pocket cost (even if your 1% estimate is accurate):

- It ties up $1.5 B in borrowing resources - which drives up their borrowing cost for everything else
- It becomes a $1.5 B liability on their balance sheet - which can greatly affect stock price
- It could effect the Google acquisition significantly

And keep in mind that this is only one country. If Motorola takes a $1.5 B hit to the balance sheet over one country, investors are going to be taking a serious look at the risks involved.

Thanks for the explanation. In your obviously knowledgeable opinion in this matter, does it seem like Apple are doing this from a position of strength or as just a tactical maneuver? In other words can you read any significance into this? I don't recall reading Apple doing this in other cases ... maybe in just missed them, but if not why not?

Update... Just read Gatorguy comment ... This is a defense strategy then... Wow I'd love to understand legal stuff!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #15 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No. If Motorola wins, then they haven't infringed and Apple doesn't have to pay anything. Motorola doesn't get an award if they win. They simply avoid having to pay.

As a separate issue, Motorola could ask for the judge to order Apple to pay some or all of its legal expenses, but that's not easy to get - and would be a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars in potential damages.

Seriously, if your understanding of legal matters is that weak, you shouldn't be commenting. AT ALL.

I think you've confused IP cases. In this one it's Motorola suing Apple for infringement.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No. If Motorola wins, then they haven't infringed and Apple doesn't have to pay anything. Motorola doesn't get an award if they win. They simply avoid having to pay.

As a separate issue, Motorola could ask for the judge to order Apple to pay some or all of its legal expenses, but that's not easy to get - and would be a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars in potential damages.

Seriously, if your understanding of legal matters is that weak, you shouldn't be commenting. AT ALL.

Again you have proved you do not understand facts. It is about following patents which Motorola is asserting against Apple

EP (European Patent) 1010336 (B1)

EP (European Patent) 0847654 (B1)

If Apple is found to be infringed, they have to pay.

It is your understanding that is questionable, if you somehow related the Apple suing Motorola with Motorola submitting bond (regardless of whether you know fact or not)
post #17 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

You are making erroneous assumptions.

Well how does it affect Google's acquisition significantly? This liability is actually pea nuts for Google.

Google is paying $12.5 B for this division of Motorola. Motorola's attorneys say the the case will go on until 2018 - so we're talking about 7 years. Even if we accept your figure ($1.5 B bond), that means a total potential liability of $10.5 B. You don't think a $10.5 B potential liability has any impact on a $12.5 B deal? If you really believe that, I'd strongly encourage you never to invest money in anything.

And that's just one country. Expand that potential liability around the globe and it looks even worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

I understand there are other repercussions for a bank guarantee creation, but it is wrong to assume that it will have investors have serious look at risk or anything like that.

You really think that investors don't look at risk? They aren't going to care about $1.5 B (potentially $10.5 B) appearing as a liability on the balance sheet?

Once again, put your money under your matters. You have no business investing anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

A strategic advantage at a serious competitor who is hell bent on suing you to oblivion will always be looked positively by Investors or most surely will have positive impact on price.

So investors are going to see it as a positive that Motorola is being sued for billions of dollars? Are you REALLY that clueless?

Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

It is not a question of one country or more, it is a question of Strategic advantage for Motorola and also for Google..

It's also a matter of the number of countries. If Motorola is facing a potential liability of $10.5 B in just one country, the worldwide total is much, much higher. How does a potential liability of tens of billions of dollars give you a strategic advantage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I think you've confused IP cases. In this one it's Motorola suing Apple for infringement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

Again you have proved you do not understand facts. It is about following patents which Motorola is asserting against Apple

EP (European Patent) 1010336 (B1)

EP (European Patent) 0847654 (B1)

If Apple is found to be infringed, they have to pay.

It is your understanding that is questionable, if you somehow related the Apple suing Motorola with Motorola submitting bond (regardless of whether you know fact or not)

Read the article:
Quote:
Motorola could be forced to pay up to $16.2 billion in guaranteed compensation if the company ultimately loses its patent dispute with Apple in Germany, as the $2.7 billion figure the iPhone maker was quoted as seeking in November has been clarified as a yearly estimate.

Apple sued Motorola and Apple is asking the court to make Motorola put up a bond for the potential losses. The above issue - and, particularly, the bond that is being discussed is part of Apple's suit against Motorola.

The cases you are citing are Motorola's countersuit (which involves FRAND technologies and is therefore likely to be settled with Apple simply paying the same license fees as everyone else, anyway).
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #18 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Google is paying $12.5 B for this division of Motorola. Motorola's attorneys say the the case will go on until 2018 - so we're talking about 7 years. Even if we accept your figure ($1.5 B bond), that means a total potential liability of $10.5 B. You don't think a $10.5 B potential liability has any impact on a $12.5 B deal? If you really believe that, I'd strongly encourage you never to invest money in anything.

And that's just one country. Expand that potential liability around the globe and it looks even worse.

You really think that investors don't look at risk? They aren't going to care about $1.5 B (potentially $10.5 B) appearing as a liability on the balance sheet?

Once again, put your money under your matters. You have no business investing anything.

So investors are going to see it as a positive that Motorola is being sued for billions of dollars? Are you REALLY that clueless?

It's also a matter of the number of countries. If Motorola is facing a potential liability of $10.5 B in just one country, the worldwide total is much, much higher. How does a potential liability of tens of billions of dollars give you a strategic advantage?

Read the article:

Apple sued Motorola and Apple is asking the court to make Motorola put up a bond for the potential losses. The above issue - and, particularly, the bond that is being discussed is part of Apple's suit against Motorola.

The cases you are citing are Motorola's countersuit (which involves FRAND technologies and is therefore likely to be settled with Apple simply paying the same license fees as everyone else, anyway).

You are beyond reasoning now. The patent in question for this lawsuit is Second patent that I mentioned and it is not a Frand Patent

Please follow below link to understand the facts

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...in-german.html

Secondly , adding figures for 7 years time and making it a reference point for today is totally unreasonable. Court will not ask Motorola to give a bond for 7 years as of today. It will be for a single year at at time. And Extrapolating an action in one country to all world is again stupidity. Owing to very strict German Patent Laws, any company is much more likely to get such injunctions there. For example I cannot see Motorola getting injunction based on this in US ( because of clause of irreparable harm and less strict laws). So German Injunction will most likely be one off case and a strategic weapon for Google and Motorola.

Anyways I invest a lot and make a good amount of money on that.
post #19 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

You are beyond reasoning now. The patent in question for this lawsuit is Second patent that I mentioned and it is not a Frand Patent

Once again, that is not the issue that is involved with the bond. That is an entirely unrelated case (other than the parties being the same). Read the original article again. Apple sued Motorola and is asking the court to order a bond.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

Please follow below link to understand the facts

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...in-german.html

Once again, a different case. Search that link for the word 'bond' to see if it's involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

Secondly , adding figures for 7 years time and making it a reference point for today is totally unreasonable. Court will not ask Motorola to give a bond for 7 years as of today. It will be for a single year at at time. And Extrapolating an action in one country to all world is again stupidity. Owing to very strict German Patent Laws, any company is much more likely to get such injunctions there. For example I cannot see Motorola getting injunction based on this in US ( because of clause of irreparable harm and less strict laws). So German Injunction will most likely be one off case and a strategic weapon for Google and Motorola.

None of that matters. Motorola estimated that the case would go for 7 years. If they are ordered to post $1.5 B (or $2.7 B or any other number) bond annually, the potential liability is 7 times the annual number. Whether they have to post it all today is not a big issue. The total potential liability most certainly is.

And whether they could get a bond in other countries is not really all that relevant. If the court accepts that Motorola needs to put up $1.5 B for the next 7 years in Germany, that says that the potential liability is $10.5 B IN GERMANY ALONE. If Motorola loses in Germany and faces $10.5 B in damages, that creates a risk that they will lose somewhere else, too, creating many more billions of dollars in damages.

It's not about the bond at all. It's about the fact that if the court orders the bond, the court is saying that there's a possibility that Motorola could have to pay many billions of dollars in damages in Germany in this case. That is an immense risk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

Anyways I invest a lot and make a good amount of money on that.

Then it's dumb luck if you think a $10 B liability won't affect a $12 B deal.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #20 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

Again you have proved you do not understand facts. It is about following patents which Motorola is asserting against Apple

EP (European Patent) 1010336 (B1)

EP (European Patent) 0847654 (B1)

If Apple is found to be infringed, they have to pay.

It is your understanding that is questionable, if you somehow related the Apple suing Motorola with Motorola submitting bond (regardless of whether you know fact or not)

Facts are in the mind of the beholder to some posters here. They are malleable, like the meanings of common words.
post #21 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Once again, that is not the issue that is involved with the bond. That is an entirely unrelated case (other than the parties being the same). Read the original article again. Apple sued Motorola and is asking the court to order a bond.

.

Where in the article it is written that. Artcile says "In a hearing on Friday, Apple made clear that it estimates a bond of $2.7 billion per year will cover the losses suffered if Motorola prematurely enforces possible injunctions on iCloud, "

So who is enforcing injunction , Apple or Motorola?

Actually your post is all based on the belief that Apple is suing thereby enforcing injunction and asking Motorola for bond. By this logic definitely Motorola is in big trouble.

And for your financial analysis of making future financial liabilities all applicable to current scenario when one cannot be sure how much years case will prolong ( one, two or ninetty nine), really Kudos!
post #22 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by caelitus View Post

Patents... the next meaningless thing after analysts

Ignorant commentary passed off as insightful - sincere and present danger to the continued success of a society
post #23 of 35
So what's the realistic takeaway from this? Can someone explain it to me in Star Wars?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #24 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

Where in the article it is written that. Artcile says "In a hearing on Friday, Apple made clear that it estimates a bond of $2.7 billion per year will cover the losses suffered if Motorola prematurely enforces possible injunctions on iCloud, "

So who is enforcing injunction , Apple or Motorola?

Actually your post is all based on the belief that Apple is suing thereby enforcing injunction and asking Motorola for bond. By this logic definitely Motorola is in big trouble.

And for your financial analysis of making future financial liabilities all applicable to current scenario when one cannot be sure how much years case will prolong ( one, two or ninetty nine), really Kudos!

Give up. At this point, you're making Androiders look foolish.
post #25 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Apple sued Motorola and Apple is asking the court to make Motorola put up a bond for the potential losses. The above issue - and, particularly, the bond that is being discussed is part of Apple's suit against Motorola.

The cases you are citing are Motorola's countersuit (which involves FRAND technologies and is therefore likely to be settled with Apple simply paying the same license fees as everyone else, anyway).

Sorry, but you're still mistaken Jragosta. This is a case where Moto sued Apple. In German preliminary injunction requests the defendant, Apple, is allowed to ask the plaintiff, Motorola in this case, post a bond covering the potential monetary losses that Apple might suffer if the injunction is granted but later determined that there was no patent infringement.

Don't be so quick to proclaim others wrong. A little bit of checking would have told you what this was all about. I'll get things started for you.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...6-billion.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Give up. At this point, you're making Androiders look foolish.

Yeah, I am appearing foolish in my eyes too trying to explain obvious facts so many times to a person who just ignores them. Really Hoped he will understand

Anyways Good Advice
post #27 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

Yeah, I am appearing foolish in my eyes too trying to explain obvious facts so many times to a person who just ignores them

Good Advice

If they are obvious then why are you explaining them?

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #28 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

If they are obvious then why are you explaining them?

Actually I was pissed off when some one was trying to ignore them.

Anyways that is why I told I am appearing foolish. A person who cannot see who is defendant or who is plaintiff , it was futile for me to convince him otherwise
post #29 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

First Judge definitely will not take Apple's claims on face value and will reduce the amount , say to a 1.5 billion dollar per year ( from 2.7 claimed)

Secondly this would be an yearly amount , say for one year the Motorola will need to furnish bond for 1.5 billion dollar, if case stretches beyond that then it will be 3 billion dollar for next year and so on.

So what is the amount that Motorola needs to pay to make a bond of 1.5 billion dollars as of now. Around 1% of the value, since it would be in the form of bank guarantee.

1.5% of a billion dollar is 15 million dollar.

Not a big deal.

Just a coupld of comments.

1) The $16.2 billion amount is the undiscounted amount; the correct amount should be discounted; however, with interest being low, the discount amount will be close to the undiscounted amount.

2) As for the 1% to 1.5% value, you have to keep in mind that the bank stands really to provide said value (be it $16.2 billion). My point is it may be a 1% - 1.5% fee, but it is STILL a $16.2 billion credit extension.
post #30 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So what's the realistic takeaway from this? Can someone explain it to me in Star Wars?

Star Wars, I don't know. But here is how I see it:
  1. Motorola (Google) for once has a valid patent (both in Germany and in the US at least) that is not encumbered by FRAND and that covers an essential operation of iCloud. Apple is probably in breach.
  2. The question is how much Apple must pay yearly to operate iCloud, this is a complete unknown and if Google does not want money (as with Apple versus Google/Samsung on the design patents for iPad/iPhone) they can completely block Apple. So, it seems here there is a first real case of Google having something in the Moto portfolio that is very useful in the patent war.
  3. A win for Google/Moto is not 100% certain of course (you never know with courts), so Apple ups the ante for Google/Moto trying to actually block sales of iCloud-aware devices. "Try to stop us and if you loose, you will pay dearly". This is a tactic Samsung could copy in the Apple vs Samsung design patent cases ("block our holiday sales and if we win, we will let you pay dearly") but they haven't so far afaik, maybe because this is specific for Germany. Samsung actually has decent sales, so using this could work for them to put pressure on Apple.
All in all, this one does not look good for Apple. That is, if the original Moto patent on mobile syncing to the cloud stands.
post #31 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by simpleankit View Post

First Judge definitely will not take Apple's claims on face value and will reduce the amount , say to a 1.5 billion dollar per year ( from 2.7 claimed)

Given the number of devices this would affect and how much in sales they would lose if they had to go back and remove iCloud from their line up, the judge might take that number as legit.

But in the end it only matters if Motorola does anything with their win. If their lawyers are worth their fees they will know that Apple is going to appeal any loss. So they will do nothing, other than perhaps have the court order that Apple must keep a full accounting of every iCloud capable device sale and if they ultimately lose get that accounting to Motorola and the courts to decide the damages.

So Apple keeps selling while they appeal and in the end they win and they have lost nothing and Motorola owes them nothing of that money. Or they lose and pay according.

BUT if Motorola pulls the dumb move of getting an injunction against those products, cutting off sales etc and then loses, then they have to pay Apple for the loss

Something which Apple had to agree to do in Germany (or was it the Netherlands) to get an temp injunction against Samsung.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #32 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chungst View Post

1) The $16.2 billion amount is the undiscounted amount; the correct amount should be discounted; however, with interest being low, the discount amount will be close to the undiscounted amount.

Not necessarily. The discount rate is a function of not only the interest rate, but also the market risk premium (MRP).

There is considerable evidence that the MRP is higher now, compensating (whether exactly, more, or less is, however, not clear) for the lower interest rates.
post #33 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No. If Motorola wins, then they haven't infringed and Apple doesn't have to pay anything. Motorola doesn't get an award if they win. They simply avoid having to pay.

Is not Apple the plaintiff, is Motorola. Is Motorola the ones asking for an injunction against Apple products.

If Motorola wins, Apple has to pay damages to them
post #34 of 35
what was the amount of the actual bond ordered by the court?

". . .preliminarily enforceable against Ireland-based Apple Sales International in exchange for a €100 million ($134 million) bond unless Apple wins a stay" . Not even close to the billions mentioned in this thread.

The injunction was confirmed today with Apple's iPhones and 3G iPads shown in violation of Motorola patents. Baring the Apple request for a delay in enforcement, this puts Apple in a bit of a tight spot in Germany.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...an-patent.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #35 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

what was the amount of the actual bond ordered by the court?

Mueller finally wrong? Noooooo
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's $2.7B Motorola bond actually yearly estimate, could be worth $16B