AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple accused of feeding intellectual property to patent troll
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple accused of feeding intellectual property to patent troll - Page 6

post #201 of 271
12/11/11 at 8:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

From appearances Apple did not want it's name associated with Digitude while Nokia didn't have the same issue with MOSAID. Now that the connection is out in the open it's going to be impossible for Apple to make denials. What Digitude does from here on out is going to be associated with Apple.



Apple and Digitude conspired to do a two-step deal to make it look like Apple is at a distance. However, the connections between Apple's licensee and the Patant Troll were uncovered.

Apple is now a full partner in Digitude's patent-trolling biz.
Reply
Reply
post #202 of 271
12/11/11 at 8:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

That is a matter of opinion. And being sleazy is not illegal.

Yes. This is a matter of opinion.

Most people think that being a patent troll is sleazy. You are the exception. We know that already.
Reply
Reply
post #203 of 271
12/11/11 at 8:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Your analogy is all wrong. Motorola is like a kid who gave up its property for all to use on fair and non discriminatory terms. Legally it has no right to take it's property back. The kid then got jealous of the popular new kid named Apple and wanted to discriminate against the pretty new kid by forcing it to pay a toll nobody else has to pay. So, since the kid chose to discriminate against Apple, Apple decided to keep using the property that it had a legal right to do. Just because the kid turned into a bully and didn't honor its commitments, doesn't mean Apple should have to suffer.

Instead, like when Apple had to deal with that bully Nokia, Apple is setting money aside that it is properly accounting for and that it intends to give to the kid when the kid decides to honor its original commitment to the community.

"Fair and non discriminatory"

Apple wanted something special. That is discriminatory.
Reply
Reply
post #204 of 271
12/11/11 at 8:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Didn't that case end with M$ being vindicated, and Apple running away with its tail between its legs?

There was more then one lawsuit. So, did Apple lose round one (the copyright related lawsuit)? Yes. It is worth noting that was decided by a Judge after Jobs left the company. If Jobs had been running things, I think he would have settled the suit. It is also worth noting that although Apple lost the lawsuit, valuable case law was created concerning various "look and feel" arguments that Apple is using today. The judge in that case agreed Apple had a copyright in the look and feel of its OS, but decided Apple gave Microsoft a license to use the OS.

Did it lose the second round (the patents related lawsuits)? No, Apple gained a hundred million dollar investment from Microsoft, a five year commitment to develop Office for the Mac, the right to use Microsoft patents, which allowed for Apple to incorporate Exchange Server into Mail as well as other technology, an undisclosed amount in settlement dollars, and most importantly valuable time. Further, it sent a message that Microsoft was committed to the Mac. That was one of Jobs best negotiated deals. Apple wouldn't be where it was today without it.
Reply
Reply
post #205 of 271
12/11/11 at 8:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Yes. This is a matter of opinion.

Most people think that being a patent troll is sleazy. You are the exception. We know that already.

Being a patent troll was sleazy up until the posting of this news. All of a sudden being a patent troll was okay because Apple is associated with one.
Reply
Reply
post #206 of 271
12/11/11 at 8:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Didn't that case end with M$ being vindicated, and Apple running away with its tail between its legs?

I think that may be the point though - that case, in the end, hinged on the court's decision that Apple had licensed the individual design elements to Microsoft previously, and that they could not claim that the overall look and feel was more than the sum of the parts. Apple probably learned a valuable lesson there.
Reply
Reply
post #207 of 271
12/11/11 at 8:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

"Fair and non discriminatory"

Apple wanted something special. That is discriminatory.

By "special", are you referring to retaining the right to challenge the patent validity?
Reply
Reply
post #208 of 271
12/11/11 at 8:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

"Fair and non discriminatory"

Apple wanted something special. That is discriminatory.


Yet, you neglect to tell us what is the something special Apple wanted. I didn't see that alleged in any of the legal pleadings.
Reply
Reply
post #209 of 271
12/11/11 at 8:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Most people think that being a patent troll is sleazy. You are the exception. We know that already.

No, I think that it's slightly sleazy.

My point is that when fighting a sleazy war, it is acceptable to sometimes use sleazy tactics.

For example, Google stealing Oracle code is not sleazy, it's illegal and theft.

If Apple decides to hand off a few patents to a third party "patent troll" then that's not illegal at all. Some people might object to it, but so what? They haven't done anything wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #210 of 271
12/11/11 at 8:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

As a matter of fact, I sometimes prefer sleazy women over prudes.

LOL. I agree.
Reply
Reply
post #211 of 271
12/11/11 at 9:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

By "special", are you referring to retaining the right to challenge the patent validity?

That would be correct according to reports. They attempted to modify the contract terms beyond what was offered to the other licensees. In effect Apple wanted Motorola to discriminate against the others. Moto declined, as the judge ruled they had the right to do. FRAND terms would not then extend to the period that Apple chose to use the patented tech without a license. Some here might refer to that as an example of IP theft, using someone else's inventions without permission.

Personally I would view "theft" as an extreme description, just as I would when used to describe some uses of tech by others that is determined at some later date to be infringing.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #212 of 271
12/11/11 at 9:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That would be correct according to reports. They attempted to modify the contract terms beyond what was offered to the other licensees. In effect Apple wanted Motorola to discriminate against the others. Moto declined, as the judge ruled they had the right to do. FRAND terms would not then extend to the period that Apple chose to use the patented tech without a license. Some here might refer to that as an example of IP theft, using someone else's inventions without permission.

Personally I would view "theft" as an extreme description, just as I would when used to describe some uses of tech by others that is determined at some later date to be infringing.

Motorola, like Nokia, doesn't disclose the contracts of other licensees. So, Apple has to make an offer based on essentially what it thinks is fair and non discriminatory, not on what is actually the case. Moreover, it is also known some members of the FRAND licensing body don't pay any royalties at all. For instance, Samsung is using Motorola's patents, but Motorola's isn't getting a royalty.

Finally, some contractual terms are on their face invalid. For example, if I loaned you fifty dollars, I couldn't put in the contract that I'd have the right to burn your house down if you didn't pay. I could still put that in the contract, but it wouldn't be enforceable. Why would any company relinquish it's right to establish the patent it is paying royalties on is valid?
Reply
Reply
post #213 of 271
12/11/11 at 9:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That would be correct according to reports. They attempted to modify the contract terms beyond what was offered to the other licensees. In effect Apple wanted Motorola to discriminate against the others. Moto declined, as the judge ruled they had the right to do. FRAND terms would not then extend to the period that Apple chose to use the patented tech without a license. Some here might refer to that as an example of IP theft, using someone else's inventions without permission.

Personally I would view "theft" as an extreme description, just as I would when used to describe some uses of tech by others that is determined at some later date to be infringing.

I can see how that can be argued as modifying the contract terms. The German view of the limitations of the FRAND defense seems quite restrictive. They appear to be trying to avoid the situation in which there is no downside to witholding licensing payments at a FRAND rate because you can pay them later if you don't manage to get the patents in question invalidated. However, if you pay them up front and then do get the patents invalidated, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to recover the licensing fees - that presumably is what Apple wants to avoid since they are challenging those patents in a separate action.

Unfortunately, that course of action does effectively give them a potentially more favorable situation than other companies which licensed - the special treatment that others have commented on above.
Reply
Reply
post #214 of 271
12/11/11 at 9:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Why would any company relinquish it's right to establish the patent it is paying royalties on is valid?

That is a good question - but it appears that the German court believes that if you want to challenge the patent then you lose the right to a FRAND defense, at least for past use of the technology
Reply
Reply
post #215 of 271
12/11/11 at 9:56am
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Apple


Why didn't Google sue Apple directly instead of giving patents to HTC?

Google has never sued anyone for patent infringement and only uses them defensively. HTC is a core partner, and google is coming to its partner's defense.

Quote:
And why is Samsung trying to sue Apple using FRAND patents?

Uhh... because apple used Samsung's IP without paying?
Reply
Reply
post #216 of 271
12/11/11 at 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Intellectual property doesn't really exist? Since when? Intellectual property most certainly does exist and can be bought and sold like other property. Try coming back when you learn something about intellectual property.

You're scenerios don't exist. They aren't examples that meaningless blanket statements. You'r ignoring my points by altering the context of my point which clearly indicate the opposite of what you suggest with my comments about owning a domain.

Quote:
It's an inflammatory, meaningless term and implies that they did something wrong.

If it's without meaning then how can be inflammatory? Again, as I've stated I see nothing wrong with Apple, Nokia, Samsung, MS, Sony et al. waiting under their patent bridge for someone to cross.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #217 of 271
12/11/11 at 10:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Brown View Post

Google has never sued anyone for patent infringement and only uses them defensively.

1) Didn't Google sue MS for snaking their search results?

2) Are you using defense as in "offense is the best defense"?

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #218 of 271
12/11/11 at 10:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) Didn't Google sue MS for snaking their search results?

2) Are you using defense as in "offense is the best defense"?

I'm sure he worded his response to avoid that situation.

His point stands...Google as of yet has never sued anyone for patent infringement.
Reply
Reply
post #219 of 271
12/11/11 at 10:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) Didn't Google sue MS for snaking their search results?

I don't believe Google has ever sued any other competitor for patent infringement.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #220 of 271
12/11/11 at 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

That is a good question - but it appears that the German court believes that if you want to challenge the patent then you lose the right to a FRAND defense, at least for past use of the technology

I agree that is what the German Court thinks, but Germany is not the rest of the world.
Reply
Reply
post #221 of 271
12/11/11 at 11:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't believe Google has ever sued any other competitor for patent infringement.


It is hard to do when you own very few patents. Even Google's search algorithm is licensed from Stanford.
Reply
Reply
post #222 of 271
12/11/11 at 11:45am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

It is hard to do when you own very few patents. Even Google's search algorithm is licensed from Stanford.

They own quite a few in truth. Well in access of 2000, not including anything from Moto (their 17K still pending)

EDIT: If you're at all curious about Google patent filings, there's an easy to navigate list here, with the most recent listed first.
http://www.latestpatents.com/category/google/

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #223 of 271
12/11/11 at 11:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I can see how that can be argued as modifying the contract terms. The German view of the limitations of the FRAND defense seems quite restrictive. They appear to be trying to avoid the situation in which there is no downside to witholding licensing payments at a FRAND rate because you can pay them later if you don't manage to get the patents in question invalidated. However, if you pay them up front and then do get the patents invalidated, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to recover the licensing fees - that presumably is what Apple wants to avoid since they are challenging those patents in a separate action.

Unfortunately, that course of action does effectively give them a potentially more favorable situation than other companies which licensed - the special treatment that others have commented on above.

That isn't special treatment as intended under FRAND terms (at least in any country other than Germany). Special treatment specifically refers to the amount paid. If Apple agrees to pay the license, does pay the license, and then later the patent is found invalid, Apple wasn't receiving special treatment. Moreover, it isn't Apple's fault if other licensees don't want to challenge the patent. It is absurd to predicate the acceptance of a license payment for a standard based patent on a company not seeking to verify the patent's validity.

Again, what holds true in Germany doesn't hold true else place. Take the US. The judge in Apple's case against Samsung essentially said Samsung is likely infringing a non essential Apple patent, but an injunction wasn't necessary. In Germany, Samsung would be out of luck.

I personally think Apple is sacrificing a pawn. It probably flooded the German market with product, so it will have enough to sell for months (the injunction only effects imports). It is then hoping the European Union's investigation into the matter plays out favorably for it or it hopes its contemporaneous case against Motorola in another Court goes its way. Handing out injunctions is a two way street. Motorola just got lucky and filed in a faster Court.
Reply
Reply
post #224 of 271
12/11/11 at 11:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

As regards to Samsung and HTC, you seem to assume cloning is bad and your _american_ way of thinking is the only acceptable one. I expect you'll then propose to nuke Iran, aggress Irak (ah, already done), invade Afghanistan (ah, already done), steal oil from poor countries (ah, already done), bully countries into voting your way or remove american participation into population-support programs necessary due to american behavior (ah, already done, ask Yemen or even UNESCO their opinion about that), double american-made world air pollution when everyone else is diminishing theirs (ah, already done)...

My point is, asian cultures consider copying good ideas a legitimate method to advance technology and culture. The fact america considers it a bad thing doesn't make it the only way to think.
Open your mind to that fact: others may think differently.

Think different.

And don't get me wrong: America has lots of great things, however self-righteousness is not one of them.

How about stop wasting money, lay off workers and cut university courses because there is no guarantee on a return on your investment in R&D if it can just be stolen and copied.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #225 of 271
12/11/11 at 11:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

They own quite a few in truth. Well in access of 2000, not including anything from Moto (their 17K still pending))

Most of those have been recently acquired to try and defend Android. Google owns very few search related patents. That is odd, since that is it's bread and butter. You can't count the Motorola patents, as Google doesn't own them yet.
Reply
Reply
post #226 of 271
12/11/11 at 11:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

How about stop wasting money, lay off workers and cut university courses because there is no guarantee on a return on your investment in R&D if it can just be stolen and copied.

Then we can let off a few nukes and annihilate the human race since life isn't worth living.
Reply
Reply
post #227 of 271
12/11/11 at 12:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I missed that one. Have you got a link to the statement? Not at all saying it wasn't claimed, just curious about the context and what was actually said since I wasn't familiar with it.

Are you really incompetent enough to be unable to use Google?

May I suggest Bing, less paid for search results obscuring what you are really after

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #228 of 271
12/11/11 at 12:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

You lost me at Google it.

Siri it, f**k Google!

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #229 of 271
12/11/11 at 12:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

That isn't special treatment as intended under FRAND terms (at least in any country other than Germany). Special treatment specifically refers to the amount paid.

Where do you get that from?.

Even in the US the determination of "non-discriminatory" in a RAND (or FRAND) agreement applies to both the terms and the rates. Each licensee is required to be treated equally. If the contract requires them to acknowledge the patents as valid, either specifically or by inference, and Apple wants a "special" contract term that allows the validity to be challenged and money to be refunded then they are not being treated equally. The basic licensing agreement conditions must be the same no matter who the license is being granted to. Without the same basic terms and rates then the RAND obligations meant to ensure a level playing field wouldn't be met. Correct?

If you have some source proving that only the rates are considered and not specific terms, please post them. I willing to admit I've misstated the facts if you can show it.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #230 of 271
12/11/11 at 12:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Are you really incompetent enough to be unable to use Google?

May I suggest Bing, less paid for search results obscuring what you are really after

TBell was already courteous enough to supply a link. You're a few hours late, but thanks anyway.

BTW, smartaleck replies only work when you bother to take the time to check your own link before posting. It doesn't mention the Apple licensed patents at all, which was the question I posed.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #231 of 271
12/11/11 at 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Most of those have been recently acquired to try and defend Android. Google owns very few search related patents. That is odd, since that is it's bread and butter. You can't count the Motorola patents, as Google doesn't own them yet.

Various mentions here and there over the years have shown a laxness on Google's part concerning patents. They just didn't make them a priority. I think that attitude has now changed.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #232 of 271
12/11/11 at 12:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

This is a day for all True Apple Fans to hang their heads in shame.

Why? Apple are a business. They are there to make money and most people have absolutely no problem with that.

If the patents aren't worth their value, then it'll be contested in court, if they are, they'll do an agreement. That's business.
Reply
Reply
post #233 of 271
12/11/11 at 12:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That would be correct according to reports. They attempted to modify the contract terms beyond what was offered to the other licensees. In effect Apple wanted Motorola to discriminate against the others. Moto declined, as the judge ruled they had the right to do. FRAND terms would not then extend to the period that Apple chose to use the patented tech without a license. Some here might refer to that as an example of IP theft, using someone else's inventions without permission.

Personally I would view "theft" as an extreme description, just as I would when used to describe some uses of tech by others that is determined at some later date to be infringing.

Motorola terminates the license agreements of chipmakers, specifically based on them selling the chips to Apple.

Are Apple getting a discount on these chips equivalent to the parts of the FRAND licensing fees paid on them attributable to Motorola?

How does this work are Motorola giving a rebate to Qualcomm and others?

This is highly discriminatory, anticompetitive and against the spirit of standards based patents.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #234 of 271
12/11/11 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight View Post

Apple itself seems to be its greatest enemy these days. Then again, I'll repeat myself: Steve Jobs admired the old HP. Great companies fall from grace and it sometimes is very fast. Let's hope Apple doesn't go this way too soon.

Yes, Apple are huge enemies with themselves. Everytime Cook looks at their current account and see $80bn, he must think "dayam, we're enemies of ourselves".

HP are a very good example of why Apple needs to protect itself. HP makes average computers, for next to no money because they have no Unique Selling Point. They jumped on the PC bandwagon and there is nothing USP that they can add - apart from maybe a piano finish to this years laptops.

There is nothing that HP builds that I can't buy somewhere else which is just as good, whether it's a printer, server, PC, laptop, tablet (lol), nothing.
Reply
Reply
post #235 of 271
12/11/11 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

TBell was already courteous enough to supply a link. You're a few hours late, but thanks anyway.


I don't mind helping out Internet newbies with tips and advice, such as how to use search engines.

Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him how to fish he eats for a lifetime.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #236 of 271
12/11/11 at 12:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Motorola terminates the license agreements of chipmakers, specifically based on them selling the chips to Apple.

Are Apple getting a discount on these chips equivalent to the parts of the FRAND licensing fees paid on them attributable to Motorola?

How does this work are Motorola giving a rebate to Qualcomm and others?

This is highly discriminatory, anticompetitive and against the spirit of standards based patents.

Was that the claim in the German court?

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #237 of 271
12/11/11 at 12:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightspeed

My point is, asian cultures consider copying good ideas a legitimate method to advance technology and culture. The fact america considers it a bad thing doesn't make it the only way to think.

Asian culture is going no where fast anytime soon. If copying good ideas are a legitimate method to advance anything, then Asia wouldn't be in the 19th century right now. The West did it's industrial revolution 200 years ago, whilst Asia (bar Japan) has only really just got started.

Asia does the jobs that the west doesn't want right now, and the only reason things are built in China is because an American/European worker wants $8ph+benefits.

Seriously, Asia, whether it's China, Indochina, Indian Subcontinent, is so far behind it's unreal. If it's methodology to copy everything is so good - why is it so far behind?

Asia (China especially) had a good fireworks show 1,000 years ago and promptly gave up.
Reply
Reply
post #238 of 271
12/11/11 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Brown View Post

Google has never sued anyone for patent infringement and only uses them defensively. HTC is a core partner, and google is coming to its partner's defense.



Uhh... because apple used Samsung's IP without paying?

The manufacturers of the chips Apple uses were paying license fees.

Why did Samsung (and Motorola) refuse to accept payment by terminating licenses, specifically based on selling chips to Apple?

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #239 of 271
12/11/11 at 12:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

I don't mind helping out Internet newbies with tips and advice, such as how to use search engines.

Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him how to fish he eats for a lifetime.

And give a man a proper link before acting smartalecky in the same post.

Your link didn't answer my question concerning the Nokia patents granted to Apple at all. Bing fail apparently, followed by a failure to read before supplying the link.

Still no matter as a Google search by TBell found it for me.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #240 of 271
12/11/11 at 1:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

That isn't special treatment as intended under FRAND terms (at least in any country other than Germany). Special treatment specifically refers to the amount paid. If Apple agrees to pay the license, does pay the license, and then later the patent is found invalid, Apple wasn't receiving special treatment. Moreover, it isn't Apple's fault if other licensees don't want to challenge the patent. It is absurd to predicate the acceptance of a license payment for a standard based patent on a company not seeking to verify the patent's validity.

Again, what holds true in Germany doesn't hold true else place. Take the US. The judge in Apple's case against Samsung essentially said Samsung is likely infringing a non essential Apple patent, but an injunction wasn't necessary. In Germany, Samsung would be out of luck.

I personally think Apple is sacrificing a pawn. It probably flooded the German market with product, so it will have enough to sell for months (the injunction only effects imports). It is then hoping the European Union's investigation into the matter plays out favorably for it or it hopes its contemporaneous case against Motorola in another Court goes its way. Handing out injunctions is a two way street. Motorola just got lucky and filed in a faster Court.

Have I understood this correctly:

Apple offered to pay FRAND rates, but reserved the right to challenge (presumably a challenge would be invalidated if they paid without reserving that right?), at which point Motorola declined to accept FRAND rates. Apple used the technology anyway, on the basis that they had offered and would pay whenever the offer was accepted.

Now Motorola wants non-FRAND rates for the period of use to date and the German court has agreed that they can demand more than FRAND because they believe that Apple lost the right to FRAND when they declared their intention to challenge the patents.

If that is correct, then part of the problem seems to be that there is no standard definition of a FRAND agreement, so individual courts, anywhere, are free to interpret it how they see fit and according to local precedent, if such exists. I could argue this either way. It is clearly a technical loss for Apple. Maybe Motorola are using it as leverage to get Apple to withdraw their patent challenge, at which point they might accept FRAND rates retrospectively. In this jurisdiction, it looks as if Apple need to decide if they want to gamble on saving paying FRAND rates with a potential for a rather larger bill if they lose.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple accused of feeding intellectual property to patent troll