or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Motorola wins major injunction against Apple's iPhone, iPad in Germany
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Motorola wins major injunction against Apple's iPhone, iPad in Germany - Page 2

post #41 of 135
Oh Baby! My biz here in Germany since this morning has just rocketed stratospheric!

Thank you Motorola, for getting the "fence-sitters" to commit... because fact is, nobody but nobody wants the alternative to Apple iOS products... but there were more than a few of my clients that thought they could wait until prices went down after the holidays, or the new iPad 3 comes out.

Biggest complaint is that I wont have a vacation until end of February... bit I can deal with it

PS. Anyone think it's bad of me for not telling my clients that it's probably not enforceable until next year... and even then it will probably be a monetary settlement?
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #42 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab View Post

I believe any company intending to design such a complex product is faced with potential infringement of hundreds of patents. Some of thse can be clearly identified and resolved, but others would require years of negotiations, which obviously Apple could not afford. having said that, it is also true that in many cases (Apple trademark, etc ...) it is Apple's (or better Steve's) strategy to move along, and then negotiate. this is not necessarily counterproductive, since anyway you have to negotiate at some points, as these matters are often resolved after negotiation, apart from legal system/dispute. My guess is that, as it is done in any company, they have eavaluated the pros and cons of each strategy. Only future will tell whether they were right or not (but the public will not be able to tell,because in case of negotiations the terms are never made public).



Fair points, but I meant from a more ethical standpoint - Steve Jobs made some serious noise (as do many others still on his behalf) about Google/Android and the way they played the game, this is no different. It may be more cost effective, but you can't accuse one company of being unethical then do it yourself, it's hypocrisy.

Apple would rather infringe knowingly then litigate than pay terms, than seems apparent, and this is not the first example. Google are doing the same, both are on morally shifty ground, but the rules apply to all parties following this model. So the next time someone on here starts shouting the odds against Samsung, remember this ruling. I'm not taking sides, just clarifying my argument.
post #43 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by sip View Post

Germans like their tech and can afford it -- I have no idea how many iPhones have been sold in Germany but they've always been keen on Apple products, and produced lots of software pre-OSX.

They may well take out their frustrations on Googarola.

Germans may like their tech, but they also like morality.

Many Germans will never buy another Apple product, just as many AI posters will never buy another Samsung product (except for the multiple Samsung products they buy which are encased in plastic and say "Apple" on the outside).
post #44 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

It's funny how these iHaters are so giddy when Apple loses. The fact that their own favorite toys are emulating Apple in almost every way alludes their little pea sized brains. Without Apple you guys will still be using a stylus to work your "smartphone". Without Apple, pushing the boundaries of hardware and software, you pea brains would still be rocking with your chicklet keyboards.



Yes, because owning an Apple product vs Google or Windows makes you an intellectual giant. What a tube. I own three Macs, but use a Samsung Focus and a Playbook, where does that leave me? Smart for 12 hours of the day? You're worse than any "Fandroid."

p.s. Eludes.
post #45 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab View Post

I believe any company intending to design such a complex product is faced with potential infringement of hundreds of patents. Some of thse can be clearly identified and resolved, but others would require years of negotiations, which obviously Apple could not afford.



Let us hope that the judge finally teaches Apple that they cannot afford any longer to steal from other people.

Let us hope that the judge imposes penalties so astronomically hight that Apple never steals anything ever again. That would be called "justice".
post #46 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidW View Post

The question is how much are others paying Motorola for a license to use the patents in question. If the patents are essential for the working of a mobile device then Motorola can not force Apple to pay more than what they charge others for the same license. So is Motorola getting 2.5-3.5% per device from the others?

It won't necessarily matter what others are paying if I read German IP law mentions correctly. Assuming Apple is confirmed to be "stealing" Moto's IP, as some here would write if it was the other way around, then FRAND terms (if this is even a FRAND patent) aren't required for the infringing period. To repeat, that's if I've understood prior mentions of German court decisions correctly.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #47 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

They are NOT newbies.

Apple has more lawyers than most companies have employees. The suits were advised of every detail and nuance. The Apple suits gambled that they could get away with stealing, and that stealing stuff would make them richer.

Apple knew EXACTLY what it was doing. Apple knew EXACTLY what the stakes were. Apple tried to sleaze its way into profits, but has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar.


All the suits who decided to steal as a business strategy should be fired. Every last one of them.

Why? It "still" looks like a decent strategy... because even the "suits" didn't expect the iPhone to do as well as it did... even SJ was shocked.


So... why pay up front when everybody and his dog thought Apple was going to fail anyway.... and even the true believers such as SJ and Friends, were floored at the iPhone's success.

With 100 BILLION in the bank by the end of this quarter, whats even 100 Million... if it even comes to that. I'm to busy too do the math, but I bet Apple makes that only in interest in a very short period of time.

Too bad you're so full of hate, that you can't reason well. You'd never make a good manager or officer, let alone a techblog poster.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #48 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison View Post

If the initial premise was correct -- if Apple always had the intention to attempt to invalidate Motorola's patent -- then the course of events that has followed would have been exactly what Apple wanted to happen, according to the only strategy that could have them led them to obtaining standing to attempt to have the patent invalidated.


If Apple's strategy was to be prevented from selling their most popular products during the Holiday Season in Europe's biggest and richest market - then yes. This is exactly what Apple wanted.

Somehow, however, I don't think Apple wanted this.
post #49 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM View Post

Apple approached Motorola years ago about licensing the patents on FRAND terms. Motorola Mobility decided to play hardball.

Apple is more than happy to settle out of court. Nokia is a good example. Nokia has far more patents than Motorola Mobility and has done more to develop mobile communications standards than anyone else. They had a brief war of words, but then later came to an amicable settlement.

I wouldn't go so far as to claim that Apple is happy to license the patents. If so it never would have come to this. Depending on the facts as written so far, Apple declined to take a license if they were not going to be allowed to challenge the validity of the patent. It would have been a very poor business decision on Motorola's part if they allowed the granting of a license to an entity who has stated they're doing so under duress and intend to sue at some future time, not convinced it's a valid patent to begin with.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #50 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Oh Baby! My biz here in Germany since this morning has just rocketed stratospheric!

Thank you Motorola, for getting the "fence-sitters" to commit... because fact is, nobody but nobody wants the alternative to Apple iOS products... but there were more than a few of my clients that thought they could wait until prices went down after the holidays, or the new iPad 3 comes out.

Biggest complaint is that I wont have a vacation until end of February... bit I can deal with it

PS. Anyone think it's bad of me for not telling my clients that it's probably not enforceable until next year... and even then it will probably be a monetary settlement?

You're not a patent lawyer, so no, there's nothing wrong with that last bit. Enjoy the sales spike for as long as it lasts.
post #51 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Why? It "still" looks like a decent strategy... because even the "suits" didn't expect the iPhone to do as well as it did... even SJ was shocked.


So... why pay up front when everybody and his dog thought Apple was going to fail anyway.... and even the true believers such as SJ and Friends, were floored at the iPhone's success.

With 100 BILLION in the bank by the end of this quarter, whats even 100 Million... if it even comes to that. I'm to busy too do the math, but I bet Apple makes that only in interest in a very short period of time.




I think that a few people will gloat over Apple's ill-gotten gains. The rest of us will not.
post #52 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I wouldn't go so far as to claim that Apple is happy to license the patents. If so it never would have come to this. Depending on the facts as written so far, Apple declined to take a license if they were not going to be allowed to challenge the validity of the patent. It would have been a very poor business decision on their part if they allowed the granting of a license to an entity who has stated they're doing so under duress and intend to sue at some future time, not convinced it's a valid patent to begin with.

The crux of the debate is that to definitively assert a FRAND defense, apparently one needs to admit prior infringement. The net effect of this is that someone who genuinely believes a FRAND patent is invalid is caught between a rock and a hard place. Either pay the FRAND royalty and waive the ability to contest the patent, or take your chances in court. Apple has the resources to do the latter. But not every company does.

This exposes a flaw in the FRAND system (one that, ironically, the principle is supposed to prevent). I.e. if misused, FRAND patents could be used anti-competitively.
post #53 of 135
So Apple comes out with a phone. In order to build a phone, you have to go out and buy parts which include wireless chips. So who should pay the FRAND? The companies that make the chips or the companies that put the chips together to make a phone. It seems unfair that companies like Motorola who contributed to world wireless standards get to double dip. How is it possible that I can buy a feature phone for $20 where I live? This FRAND cost must be very small.
post #54 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Germans may like their tech, but they also like morality.

Many Germans will never buy another Apple product, just as many AI posters will never buy another Samsung product (except for the multiple Samsung products they buy which are encased in plastic and say "Apple" on the outside).

Oh really? Considering that a) there's no alternative to iOS yet, since Android has been shot out of the water here already last summer. Maybe you didn't understand the German press releases and reports telling all how Google is data-mining here, with everything, including Google Street View cars and Android.

Germans love their Data Privacy rights FAR more than they will ever hate Apple for stepping on a FRAND patent... believe me.

BTW: I'm right here on the "front".

Just to make this fair: what the people/business are waiting for outside of Apple devices, is Win8/Nokia phones. The only other "meaningful" contender in Germany. Sorry: Goog-Droid is definitely not on the list of "Ich wurde es gerne haben".
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #55 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 View Post

Fair points, but I meant from a more ethical standpoint - Steve Jobs made some serious noise (as do many others still on his behalf) about Google/Android and the way they played the game, this is no different. It may be more cost effective, but you can't accuse one company of being unethical then do it yourself, it's hypocrisy.

Apple would rather infringe knowingly then litigate than pay terms, than seems apparent, and this is not the first example. Google are doing the same, both are on morally shifty ground, but the rules apply to all parties following this model. So the next time someone on here starts shouting the odds against Samsung, remember this ruling. I'm not taking sides, just clarifying my argument.


In case you don't understand. The only thing that could be in dispute for a FRAND patent is the amount of license fee you have to pay, but even that is determined by what other licensees are paying. All FRAND patents, by definition, is going to be licensed to anyone for more or less the same amount of license fees. If there is a dispute, it's usually the patent holder somehow tries to extort more than FRAND rate out of the potential licensee.

This is completely different from the cases where Apple sued others for violating their design patents, which are most certainly NOT FRAND patents.
post #56 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Apple thinks that it is cheaper to ask a judge for forgiveness than to ask an IP owner for permission.

Too bad Apple decided upon a "don't license, litigate instead" strategy. I hope that they have learned something from all this. Just because they have more money than other companies, they are NOT invincible, and while the wheels of justice turn slowly, the miscreant lawbreaker will always have his day of reckoning.

Too bad the day of reckoning involves the biggest market in all of Europe, and too bad the day is during the busiest selling time of the entire year. But criminals who steal other people's stuff can't choose when they get punished.

Apple fans need to hang their heads in shame.

Your satire is top notch. Too bad no one else seems to see it.
post #57 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Why? It "still" looks like a decent strategy... because even the "suits" didn't expect the iPhone to do as well as it did... even SJ was shocked.

So... why pay up front when everybody and his dog thought Apple was going to fail anyway.... and even the true believers such as SJ and Friends, were floored at the iPhone's success.

With 100 BILLION in the bank by the end of this quarter, whats even 100 Million... if it even comes to that. I'm to busy too do the math, but I bet Apple makes that only in interest in a very short period of time.

Too bad you're so full of hate, that you can't reason well. You'd never make a good manager or officer, let alone a techblog poster.

...at least don't bother linking to their comments, because that undermines the purpose of ignoring them.

ConradJoe is unaware of or doesn't care about actual facts in this case, and has an anti-Apple bias. This commenter continues on here in spite of misbehavior because they generate thread posts in response to their tirades. The moderators seem to prefer to allow continuance of the behavior - so there you are. In any case this suit predates the "look and feel" suits that CJ is complaining about, so the contention that this is "pay-back" of course is stupid and silly - but what else is expected?

According to the details of the case as published out on FOSS, Motorola actually went back to the chipmakers they had originally licensed the technology to under FRAND and specified that they could not sell the tech to Apple - in other words Motorola used their FRAND leverage to specified bias sales against Apple - apparently in order to slow down Apple sales, or gain revenue separate from the FRAND terms being covered by the chipmakers. If the chipmakers failed to comply Motorola would refuse to deal with them and their standardized technology could not be included in the chip feature set.

Apple tried to challenge the bias direction of Motorola's attempt to extort money from Apple separate from all the other buyers of the chips in question - its a cutthroat move in a cutthroat business - and one of the reasons that Apple has maintained such a large "warchest" as the outcomes of these litigations is not cut and dried. Courts normally do not have a high degree of technical expertise and thus must try on the merits as presented. Unfortunately Motorola was very canny in using the German courts to try the case as they are known to not be FRAND-friendly, and thus gave Moto a chance to win. That being said, if the higher courts on appeal look at Moto's bias activity, they may decide against them, as the EU is reviewing FRAND policy to try and tighten things up on companies that rely on FRAND standard participation to support adoption of their technologies but then turn around and try to use that same position to extort money from sucess competitors in the marketplace.
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
If you are going to insist on being an ass, at least demonstrate the intelligence to be a smart one
Reply
post #58 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 View Post

Fair points, but I meant from a more ethical standpoint - Steve Jobs made some serious noise (as do many others still on his behalf) about Google/Android and the way they played the game, this is no different. It may be more cost effective, but you can't accuse one company of being unethical then do it yourself, it's hypocrisy.

Apple would rather infringe knowingly then litigate than pay terms, than seems apparent, and this is not the first example. Google are doing the same, both are on morally shifty ground, but the rules apply to all parties following this model. So the next time someone on here starts shouting the odds against Samsung, remember this ruling. I'm not taking sides, just clarifying my argument.

Pretty far reaching statements based on no knowledge of what is really going on behind the scenes. Then again it is a rumor site so i guess you can start rumors you do know.
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 #59 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

I think that a few people will gloat over Apple's ill-gotten? gains. The rest of us will not.

Considering that no-one but no-one.... including you, gave them a chance in "Mobile-Hell"... how is it that their gains are "ill-gotten"?

And at that point in time of "well... we're not exactly sure ourselves"... why would they even think about being allowed to be mugged?


Fact is, that Apple was being shrewd... as they are famous for... in not signing a template-contract, and added the clause to review the validity of the patent, but they would pay anyway. Motorola got all uppity and refused the amended contract, and wanted Apple to pay even more.

So tell me: would you have stood up to the thugs... or went about your business of trying to get a product out the door, that you "thought" might be a hit, but ya weren't exactly sure just yet?
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #60 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

...at least don't bother linking to their comments, because that undermines the purpose of ignoring them.

ConradJoe is unaware of or doesn't care about actual facts in this case, and has an anti-Apple bias. This commenter continues on here in spite of misbehavior because they generate thread posts in response to their tirades. The moderators seem to prefer to allow continuance of the behavior - so there you are. In any case this suit predates the "look and fell" suits that CJ is complaining about, so the contention that this is "pay-back" of course is stupid and silly - but what else is expected?

According to the details of the case as published out on FOSS, Motorola actually went back to the chipmakers they had originally licensed the technology to under FRAND and specified that they could not sell the tech to Apple - in other words Motorola used their FRAND leverage to specified bias sales against Apple - apparently in order to slow down Apple sales, or gain revenue separate from the FRAND terms being covered by the chipmakers. If the chipmakers failed to comply Motorola would refuse to deal with them and their standardized technology could not be included in the chip feature set.

Apple tried to challenge the bias direction of Motorola's attempt to extort money from Apple separate from all the other buyers of the chips in question - its a cutthroat move in a cutthroat business - and one of the reasons that Apple has maintained such a large "warchest" as the outcomes of these litigations is not cut and dried. Courts normally do not have a high degree of technical expertise and thus must try on the merits as presented. Unfortunately Motorola was very canny in using the German courts to try the case as they are known to not be FRAND-friendly, and thus gave Moto a chance to win. That being said, if the higher courts on appeal look at Moto's bias activity, they may decide against them, as the EU is reviewing FRAND policy to try and tighten things up on companies that rely on FRAND standard participation to support adoption of their technologies but then turn around and try to use that same position to extort money from sucess competitors in the marketplace.

Thank you for the excellent and well reasoned post. I also agree on the over the top anti Apple crap being tolerated to add drama here. My ignore list is getting pretty long. My wish is replies to these numb skulls were also blocked if they are on your ignore list.
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 #61 of 135
So, how long before they settle? It's just an amount of time before Apple reaches in its virtual sock drawer and settles up.

On another note, Apple needs to hurry up and deliver my retina display iPad 3.
post #62 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

...at least don't bother linking to their comments, because that undermines the purpose of ignoring them.

ConradJoe is unaware of or doesn't care about actual facts in this case, and has an anti-Apple bias. This commenter continues on here in spite of misbehavior because they generate thread posts in response to their tirades. The moderators seem to prefer to allow continuance of the behavior - so there you are. In any case this suit predates the "look and feel" suits that CJ is complaining about, so the contention that this is "pay-back" of course is stupid and silly - but what else is expected?

According to the details of the case as published out on FOSS, Motorola actually went back to the chipmakers they had originally licensed the technology to under FRAND and specified that they could not sell the tech to Apple - in other words Motorola used their FRAND leverage to specified bias sales against Apple - apparently in order to slow down Apple sales, or gain revenue separate from the FRAND terms being covered by the chipmakers. If the chipmakers failed to comply Motorola would refuse to deal with them and their standardized technology could not be included in the chip feature set.

Apple tried to challenge the bias direction of Motorola's attempt to extort money from Apple separate from all the other buyers of the chips in question - its a cutthroat move in a cutthroat business - and one of the reasons that Apple has maintained such a large "warchest" as the outcomes of these litigations is not cut and dried. Courts normally do not have a high degree of technical expertise and thus must try on the merits as presented. Unfortunately Motorola was very canny in using the German courts to try the case as they are known to not be FRAND-friendly, and thus gave Moto a chance to win. That being said, if the higher courts on appeal look at Moto's bias activity, they may decide against them, as the EU is reviewing FRAND policy to try and tighten things up on companies that rely on FRAND standard participation to support adoption of their technologies but then turn around and try to use that same position to extort money from sucess competitors in the marketplace.

Well this time, leaving the entire quote is justified

Thanks for the balanced, and quite insightful, reply.

Being here "vorort", doesn't necessarily allow me to dive into the topic as deep as I would like to. Selling and setting up Macs and iOS devices is more than a full-time job, not including me design consultation business

Thanks for taking the time out.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #63 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

The Watch List:


What does this mean?

The Watch List:

The State of North Carolina,
OMG here we go again...
Reply
OMG here we go again...
Reply
post #64 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Thank you for the excellent and well reasoned post. I also agree on the over the top anti Apple crap being tolerated to add drama here. My ignore list is getting pretty long. My wish is replies to these numb skulls were also blocked if they are on your ignore list.

Eh, I just skip over his posts. I still don't understand the victory dance, though.

Everyone realizes they will settle and Apple will get back to making billions and Motorola will get back to being at the bottom and near irrelevant(think Xoom).
post #65 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

According to the details of the case as published out on FOSS, Motorola actually went back to the chipmakers they had originally licensed the technology to under FRAND and specified that they could not sell the tech to Apple - in other words Motorola used their FRAND leverage to specified bias sales against Apple - apparently in order to slow down Apple sales, or gain revenue separate from the FRAND terms being covered by the chipmakers. If the chipmakers failed to comply Motorola would refuse to deal with them and their standardized technology could not be included in the chip feature set.


source for that?
post #66 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Germans may like their tech, but they also like morality.

Lol history would disagree with you.
post #67 of 135
Is this patent one of the one's where Motorola terminates the license agreement of baseband chip makers, when they sell them to Apple?

If so Motorola is going to experience a big bag of hurt when the EU cracks down on this anticompetitive behaviour.

Motorola better have a good reason for discriminating against Apple in this way.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #68 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 View Post

Joking aside, the more of these details that come out, the more it seems that Apple didn't really play ball when it came to the patents for the iPhone. They just built it, released it and then worried about what they had infringed.... To be fair, they were coming into the game as newbies, but there's still a right and wrong way of doing things.

If you seriously believe Apple (or anyone really) designs their products in this way, you are either insane or seriously deluded.

You also know nothing about how Apple designs it's products, how the company works in general etc.

[insult removed]
post #69 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshmaker View Post

Lol history would disagree with you.

Regardless of the person and statement being replied to: that is a very SERIOUS and PATHETIC low blow! i.e. NOT FUNNY!
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #70 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

If you seriously believe Apple (or anyone really) designs their products in this way, you are either insane or seriously deluded.

You also know nothing about how Apple designs it's products, how the company works in general etc.

[insult removed]

Hee!hee! Good one
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #71 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by fecklesstechguy View Post

According to the details of the case as published out on FOSS, Motorola actually went back to the chipmakers they had originally licensed the technology to under FRAND and specified that they could not sell the tech to Apple - in other words Motorola used their FRAND leverage to specified bias sales against Apple - apparently in order to slow down Apple sales, or gain revenue separate from the FRAND terms being covered by the chipmakers. If the chipmakers failed to comply Motorola would refuse to deal with them and their standardized technology could not be included in the chip feature set.

Apple tried to challenge the bias direction of Motorola's attempt to extort money from Apple separate from all the other buyers of the chips in question .

The basic understanding that I have is similar to yours with one major piece left out. According to reports other than Florian's, Moto specified that Apple did not have a license to the patents because Apple had already signaled their intention to sue on grounds that the paten(s) were not valid to begin with and thus no payments should be due. If true then Motorola would be remiss is allowing a license to them if Apple's intent was to attack Moto over the patents validity, wouldn't you agree?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #72 of 135
Does apple have any FRAND patents?
post #73 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshmaker View Post

Lol history would disagree with you.

Lol. History sucks sometimes
post #74 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 View Post

Fair points, but I meant from a more ethical standpoint - Steve Jobs made some serious noise (as do many others still on his behalf) about Google/Android and the way they played the game, this is no different. It may be more cost effective, but you can't accuse one company of being unethical then do it yourself, it's hypocrisy.

.

This is the difficult point. Are we talking about business or ethics (or justice ..) ? From business standpoint, all these matters are treated from the cost/benefit angle, that's all. As I am (nevertheless ...) an Apple fan, I should also say that in this particular case, there also seemed to be a question of validity of the patent, raised by Apple (I am not qualified to say whether this is justified or not).

Given the tens (may be more) cases which are now currently brought to Justice (everyone accusing everyone, on many different subjects), anybody will anyhow find arguments to point at the "bad guy", based on the outcome of a particular case. It is clearly more complicated than that....

Having said that (and I aggravate my case ...), it makes no doubt for me that some companies innovate, while others just copy. This does not always translate into Justice decisions, because justice is about legislation, not ethics ...

As this argument will probably used against me, yes Steve did say that great artists copy. But in the context of this statement (Xerox innovations), it can be pinted out that :

1) Xerox management knew what they were doing in showing their research results, and that was part of a deal (see Isaaccson's book)
2) the Xerox interface only ran on a costly machine, and what Apple made out of it was clearly a vast improvement on many points, not just servile copy
3) I have not heard of Xerox suing Apple (but may be my information is incomplete)
post #75 of 135
Since its a GPRS patent that Apple "breaks".
Just turn of 2G. GPRS is a part of 2G, not 3G.

Do Apple even have GPRS in their phones? The slowest I have seen is EDGE that is 10 times faster then GPRS.

This will also accelerate Apples move to 4G. 4G devices would only have to be 3G backward compatible. Since 3G don't use GPRS, Apple should be in the clear.

Does Google own this patent after buying Motorola mobile?
post #76 of 135
Wouldn't this decision have consequences throughout the EU and not just in Germany?
post #77 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDMeister View Post

So Apple comes out with a phone. In order to build a phone, you have to go out and buy parts which include wireless chips. So who should pay the FRAND? The companies that make the chips or the companies that put the chips together to make a phone. It seems unfair that companies like Motorola who contributed to world wireless standards get to double dip.

If you are arguing for patent exhaustion, keep in mind that Apple either argued that and lost, or decided that it was not a good argument.
post #78 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by sranger View Post

Pay back is a bitch....

Apple definitely deserved this one....

True, they have been harassing everyone lately when their house is not even in order. Well, it does not matter to me as long as I am able to buy my apple products in the states. Only the investors have to worry.
post #79 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

If you seriously believe Apple (or anyone really) designs their products in this way, you are either insane or seriously deluded.

You also know nothing about how Apple designs it's products, how the company works in general etc.

[insult removed]

To be fair: Most large companies do just like that.
The fines that a company have to pay for breaking a patent is insignifacent to their revenue when a company is large enough.

Not quite the same, but almost: MSFT abused its position and killed of Netscape. They had to pay a fine, but it was just a couple of % of a years profit. MSFT abused its position and overpriced its products and had to pay over a billion fine to EU. MSTF does not care. Its just a couple of % of a years profit.
Same with Google. Youtube had illegal content. Googles fine is that they have to pay a couple of cent of the material when its played.
Apple used Nokia's 3G technology in their phones. The settlement gave Nokia 500 million dollars. Apple have almost 30 billion in profit each year. 500 million does not matter.

When a company is large enough they can do what they want.

That is why Google can link to warez with its search engine.
When thepiratebay does the same thing: many years jail time.

Google App store is plagued with pirated apps. (since anyone can upload an app, just take a competitors app and upload its as yours). Rom emulators to play Nintendo/SEGA and other systems. Somehow Google are not punished.
post #80 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Oh really? Considering that a) there's no alternative to iOS yet, since Android has been shot out of the water here already last summer. Maybe you didn't understand the German press releases and reports telling all how Google is data-mining here, with everything, including Google Street View cars and Android.

Germans love their Data Privacy rights FAR more than they will ever hate Apple for stepping on a FRAND patent... believe me.



If what you say is true, then why is Apple spending millions in an attempt to not allow Germans to buy them?

If what you say is true, then there would be no market in Germany for them, and Apple will have wasted resources.

I don't believe that Apple got into a messy public pissing contest, using loser arguments, for no good reason. They saw the strategy as their best method to pull in the big bucks. They lost. Get over it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Motorola wins major injunction against Apple's iPhone, iPad in Germany