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 7

post #241 of 271
12/11/11 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

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.

It is not just a loss for Apple but for the whole FRAND pooled patents that standards systems are based on.

Hence, expect the EU to step in based on the anti-competitive nature of this behaviour, i.e. preventing competitors from complying with standards.

"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 #242 of 271
12/11/11 at 2:05pm
EDIT: Inadvertent duplicate post.

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 #243 of 271
12/11/11 at 2:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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

Damn. That is Evil.


Reply
Reply
post #244 of 271
12/11/11 at 2:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

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.

To quote from Mr. Mueller (which doesn't necessarily make it factual but that's another matter):

"Motorola rejected Apple's offer, arguing that Apple can't expect to receive a FRAND license for the future as long as the parties haven't agreed on damages for past infringement (the period that started with Motorola's termination of certain agreements with baseband chipset vendors with respect to Apple and would end with the conclusion of a FRAND license agreement). Motorola says that no reasonable licensor would grant someone a license without resolving, at the same time, any disagreement over past infringement.

Motorola says that damages for past infringement must be agreed upon or else Apple won't be licensed going forward. Motorola claims those damages are not subject to FRAND since there would otherwise be an incentive for infringers: if they don't get sued, they get to use the patent for free, and if they do get sued, the maximum rate they pay is FRAND. Furthermore, Motorola doesn't want Apple to retain the right to challenge the validity of the licensed patents."

You should be able to see Motorola's point, which would apply to others in the position of dealing with (F)RAND licensing. Without there being a penalty, what incentive would there be for some larger companies with deep pockets to seek out licensing of IP? They could simply ignore it, as Apple seemingly tried to do, until forced to settle. . . if that even happens. Some would probably figure they wouldn't get caught and what's the worst that could happen if they did.

The German court understood the argument and agreed with 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 #245 of 271
12/11/11 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


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


Do you think that their prior and upcoming financial reports about "units shipped" and "units sold" should disclose this?

The German Market is the biggest in Europe. In fact, the injunction would apply to all of Europe. Do you think that Apple flooded all of Europe with product, so it will have enough to sell for months? Wow.
Reply
Reply
post #246 of 271
12/11/11 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman0 View Post

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.


"Business is business" was a phrase often heard in the hallways at Enron and W.R. Grace. But not Apple.


Reply
Reply
post #247 of 271
12/11/11 at 2:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

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.



I think that sums it up.



Quote:
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.


Wait. That came out of nowhere.

I think that it is fair to assume that the standard FRAND license, at least in this instance, included a release of any later claim that the patent is invalid. Apple evidently wanted that to be deleted from THEIR license.

I find it much less likely that Apple brought it up. Unless the standard license included a specific release, Apple would have been able to claim invalidity later. The only reason this could have become an issuer would be if Apple asked to deviate from the standard license terms.


IMO, without having much confidence in my conclusion, it seems to boil down to whether Apple's request for special terms was legit, or whether it amounted to a rejection of the offer made to them. If so, then IMO, Apple seems to be in the wrong here.
Reply
Reply
post #248 of 271
12/11/11 at 2:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

To quote from Mr. Mueller (which doesn't necessarily make it factual but that's another matter):

"Motorola rejected Apple's offer, arguing that Apple can't expect to receive a FRAND license for the future as long as the parties haven't agreed on damages for past infringement (the period that started with Motorola's termination of certain agreements with baseband chipset vendors with respect to Apple and would end with the conclusion of a FRAND license agreement). Motorola says that no reasonable licensor would grant someone a license without resolving, at the same time, any disagreement over past infringement.

Motorola says that damages for past infringement must be agreed upon or else Apple won't be licensed going forward. Motorola claims those damages are not subject to FRAND since there would otherwise be an incentive for infringers: if they don't get sued, they get to use the patent for free, and if they do get sued, the maximum rate they pay is FRAND. Furthermore, Motorola doesn't want Apple to retain the right to challenge the validity of the licensed patents."

You should be able to see Motorola's point, which would apply to others in the position of dealing with (F)RAND licensing. Without there being a penalty, what incentive would there be for some larger companies with deep pockets to seek out licensing of IP? They could simply ignore it, as Apple seemingly tried to do, until forced to settle. . . if that even happens. Some would probably figure they wouldn't get caught and what's the worst that could happen if they did.

The German court understood the argument and agreed with it.

If Motorola hadn't terminated the license agreements of chip makers based solely on the basis of them selling chips to Apple, then this whole mess would never have happened.

Motorola (and Samsung) are being anti-competitive by setting special terms for their existing licensees, outside the terms of FRAND.

Terminating the licenses of companies that are willing and still pay the license fees for chips used by other manufacturers, leading to Apple becoming liable is a situation that Motorola (and Samsung) created.

Hence the rulings in France and why the EU should step in because the standards system is being made a mockery of in a highly abusive manner.

"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 #249 of 271
12/11/11 at 2:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

"Business is business" was a phrase often heard in the hallways at Enron and W.R. Grace. But not Apple.



What are you on about? Apple are a business, it's there to make money for it's shareholders, and it does that. Patents are just a bit of the business.
Reply
Reply
post #250 of 271
12/11/11 at 2:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post



Terminating the licenses of companies that are willing and still pay the license fees for chips used by other manufacturers, leading to Apple becoming liable is a situation that Motorola (and Samsung) created.



Do you think that Apple is some sort of gullible victim here?

Their license agreements with Sammy would have been comprehensive, as would their due diligence. Apple knew everything they needed to know before signing on the dotted line.

So I have to conclude that Apple was not a deluded fool, but instead, knew every word of every relevant document, and went into the deal with their eyes wide open.
Reply
Reply
post #251 of 271
12/11/11 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

If Motorola hadn't terminated the license agreements of chip makers based solely on the basis of them selling chips to Apple, then this whole mess would never have happened.

Motorola (and Samsung) are being anti-competitive by setting special terms for their existing licensees, outside the terms of FRAND.

Terminating the licenses of companies that are willing and still pay the license fees for chips used by other manufacturers, leading to Apple becoming liable is a situation that Motorola (and Samsung) created.

Hence the rulings in France and why the EU should step in because the standards system is being made a mockery of in a highly abusive manner.

I don't know how the process actually works. Could it be that the responsibility for licensing and inclusion of the feature passes to the end-user? The chips may enable the possibility of using the patented tech, but the actual inclusion of it depends on the device itself. Thus the responsibility for paying for the licensed use may have been Apple's or Samsung's or HTC's if their devices offered it. I don't know.

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 #252 of 271
12/11/11 at 3:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Wait. That came out of nowhere.

Yes - I should have been clearer there. I went looking and was unable to find a standard of any kind for what comprises a FRAND-based agreement. Further, Mueller suggested that there was considerable "lack of specificity" in how past damages should be treated. That was the reason for my observation

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

I think that it is fair to assume that the standard FRAND license, at least in this instance, included a release of any later claim that the patent is invalid. Apple evidently wanted that to be deleted from THEIR license.

I find it much less likely that Apple brought it up. Unless the standard license included a specific release, Apple would have been able to claim invalidity later. The only reason this could have become an issuer would be if Apple asked to deviate from the standard license terms.

That was my assumption too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

IMO, without having much confidence in my conclusion, it seems to boil down to whether Apple's request for special terms was legit, or whether it amounted to a rejection of the offer made to them. If so, then IMO, Apple seems to be in the wrong here.

Agreed.
Reply
Reply
post #253 of 271
12/11/11 at 3:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

To quote from Mr. Mueller (which doesn't necessarily make it factual but that's another matter):

"Motorola rejected Apple's offer, arguing that Apple can't expect to receive a FRAND license for the future as long as the parties haven't agreed on damages for past infringement (the period that started with Motorola's termination of certain agreements with baseband chipset vendors with respect to Apple and would end with the conclusion of a FRAND license agreement). Motorola says that no reasonable licensor would grant someone a license without resolving, at the same time, any disagreement over past infringement.

Motorola says that damages for past infringement must be agreed upon or else Apple won't be licensed going forward. Motorola claims those damages are not subject to FRAND since there would otherwise be an incentive for infringers: if they don't get sued, they get to use the patent for free, and if they do get sued, the maximum rate they pay is FRAND. Furthermore, Motorola doesn't want Apple to retain the right to challenge the validity of the licensed patents."

You should be able to see Motorola's point, which would apply to others in the position of dealing with (F)RAND licensing. Without there being a penalty, what incentive would there be for some larger companies with deep pockets to seek out licensing of IP? They could simply ignore it, as Apple seemingly tried to do, until forced to settle. . . if that even happens. Some would probably figure they wouldn't get caught and what's the worst that could happen if they did.

The German court understood the argument and agreed with it.

I do see Motorola's point, and I think that they are correct to pursue it - primarily because I believe that all these companies have a duty to pursue all the legal remedies open to them to protect themselves. If the current situation seems somewhat ridiculous, it is because the system is flawed, not the corporate behavior.
Reply
Reply
post #254 of 271
12/11/11 at 4:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ConradJoe View Post

Do you think that their prior and upcoming financial reports about "units shipped" and "units sold" should disclose this?

The German Market is the biggest in Europe. In fact, the injunction would apply to all of Europe. Do you think that Apple flooded all of Europe with product, so it will have enough to sell for months? Wow.


How does I think Apple flooded Germany equate to I think Apple flooded all of Europe? The injunction only applies to Germany. So called experts have been for weeks saying Apple might lose in Germany. Plenty of time to stuff the channel. Moreover, Apple has said as much. It publicly stated it doesn't think the injunction will effect it through the end of the year (in other words the earnings period). Apple just won the same issue against Samsung in France.

As far as what Apple should disclose goes, I am not an accountant. Apple should disclose what it is legally required to disclose. As far as a company goes often times units shipped and units sold mean the same thing. For instance, if a store buys 60 iPads from Apple that is both units sold and shipped. Perhaps you mean units sold to individuals. I am unsure how you could get an accurate number there.
Reply
Reply
post #255 of 271
12/11/11 at 5:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't know how the process actually works. Could it be that the responsibility for licensing and inclusion of the feature passes to the end-user? The chips may enable the possibility of using the patented tech, but the actual inclusion of it depends on the device itself. Thus the responsibility for paying for the licensed use may have been Apple's or Samsung's or HTC's if their devices offered it. I don't know.

How it works.

Company A buys a baseband chip from company B who pays the license fee under FRAND, the patent becomes 'exhausted', i.e. company A is covered by company B's license agreement so cannot be held liable for using the patent.

Samsung and Motirola have invalidated the licenses of the "company B's" when they sell chips to Apple.

This is clearly discriminatory, anti-competitive and against the principle of FRAND upon which standards are based.

"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 #256 of 271
12/11/11 at 5:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

How does I think Apple flooded Germany equate to I think Apple flooded all of Europe? The injunction only applies to Germany.

That is the crux of it, yes.

"What's significant about the ruling is that it includes a "preliminarily enforceable" injunction against Apple Sales International, the company's wholesale subsidiary located in Ireland. Since the patent is wide-ranging, the courts can prevent Apple from selling all versions of the iPhone and the 3G versions of the iPad across large segments of Europe."

http://informationweek.com/news/mobi...ones/232300232


Info'Week could be incorrect. But if they are correct, this could be a big deal. A big enough deal, in fact, that if apple were warehousing months' worth of merchandise in all potentially affected areas, it would skew the numbers by a material amount.
Reply
Reply
post #257 of 271
12/11/11 at 5:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

To quote from Mr. Mueller (which doesn't necessarily make it factual but that's another matter):

"Motorola rejected Apple's offer, arguing that Apple can't expect to receive a FRAND license for the future as long as the parties haven't agreed on damages for past infringement (the period that started with Motorola's termination of certain agreements with baseband chipset vendors with respect to Apple and would end with the conclusion of a FRAND license agreement). Motorola says that no reasonable licensor would grant someone a license without resolving, at the same time, any disagreement over past infringement.

Motorola says that damages for past infringement must be agreed upon or else Apple won't be licensed going forward. Motorola claims those damages are not subject to FRAND since there would otherwise be an incentive for infringers: if they don't get sued, they get to use the patent for free, and if they do get sued, the maximum rate they pay is FRAND. Furthermore, Motorola doesn't want Apple to retain the right to challenge the validity of the licensed patents."

You should be able to see Motorola's point, which would apply to others in the position of dealing with (F)RAND licensing. Without there being a penalty, what incentive would there be for some larger companies with deep pockets to seek out licensing of IP? They could simply ignore it, as Apple seemingly tried to do, until forced to settle. . . if that even happens. Some would probably figure they wouldn't get caught and what's the worst that could happen if they did.

The German court understood the argument and agreed with it.

That completely ignores the fact that the patens are FRAND. If Motorola weren't trying to extort extra money out of Apple, the royalty rates for both the future and the past are already determined - Apple should pay the same as everyone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

How it works.

Company A buys a baseband chip from company B who pays the license fee under FRAND, the patent becomes 'exhausted', i.e. company A is covered by company B's license agreement so cannot be held liable for using the patent.

Samsung and Motirola have invalidated the licenses of the "company B's" when they sell chips to Apple.

This is clearly discriminatory, anti-competitive and against the principle of FRAND upon which standards are based.

Yep. That alone will get Motorola in trouble with the EU.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

"Fair and non discriminatory"

Apple wanted something special. That is discriminatory.

Still waiting for you to prove that Apple would not agree to Motorola's terms. In fact, Mueller stated above that Apple had agreed to FRAND terms going forward but it was Motorola who wanted more than FRAND for the past.

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.

Yet it was Motorola who rejected FRAND terms for past violations, not Apple. See Mueller's statement.
"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 #258 of 271
12/11/11 at 6:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That completely ignores the fact that the patens are FRAND. If Motorola weren't trying to extort extra money out of Apple, the royalty rates for both the future and the past are already determined - Apple should pay the same as everyone else.



Yep. That alone will get Motorola in trouble with the EU.



Still waiting for you to prove that Apple would not agree to Motorola's terms. In fact, Mueller stated above that Apple had agreed to FRAND terms going forward but it was Motorola who wanted more than FRAND for the past.



Yet it was Motorola who rejected FRAND terms for past violations, not Apple. See Mueller's statement.

Apparently your version is incorrect as the judge ruled differently.

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 #259 of 271
12/11/11 at 6:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apparently your version is incorrect as the judge ruled differently.

That was a German regional court. The EU investigation is completely separate. The German court was simply applying existing German law. The EU may separately determine that Motorola Mobility's use of the law, when viewed in light of other actions, amounted to anti-competitive behavior.
Reply
Reply
post #260 of 271
12/11/11 at 9:05pm
LOL. 7 pages!
Reply
Reply
post #261 of 271
12/12/11 at 2:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

How it works.

Company A buys a baseband chip from company B who pays the license fee under FRAND, the patent becomes 'exhausted', i.e. company A is covered by company B's license agreement so cannot be held liable for using the patent.

Samsung and Motirola have invalidated the licenses of the "company B's" when they sell chips to Apple.

This is clearly discriminatory, anti-competitive and against the principle of FRAND upon which standards are based.

If that were true then how would you explain why Apple approached Motorola for a license to begin with? Going by your argument they never needed one anyway. Do you have any source indicating that Apple needed no license agreement?

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 #262 of 271
12/12/11 at 6:27am
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 set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Reply
Reply
post #263 of 271
12/12/11 at 10:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

If that were true then how would you explain why Apple approached Motorola for a license to begin with? Going by your argument they never needed one anyway. Do you have any source indicating that Apple needed no license agreement?

Perhaps it was because MOTOROLA (AND SAMSUNG) TERMINATED THE LICENSES OF THE CHIPS APPLE USED, leaving Apple unlicensed UNLIKE OTHER COMPANIES WHICH BUY THE SAME CHIPS.

Are you really so obtuse?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

...and set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

troll 1
(trl)
v. trolled, troll·ing, trolls
v.tr.
1.
a. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.
b. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass.
c. To trail (a baited line) in fishing.

Source

"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 #264 of 271
12/12/11 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Perhaps it was because MOTOROLA (AND SAMSUNG) TERMINATED THE LICENSES OF THE CHIPS APPLE USED, leaving Apple unlicensed UNLIKE OTHER COMPANIES WHICH BUY THE SAME CHIPS.

Are you really so obtuse?



troll 1
(trl)
v. trolled, troll·ing, trolls
v.tr.
1.
a. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.
b. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass.
c. To trail (a baited line) in fishing.

Source

Why are you searching out every opportunity to toss an insult my way?

No, but apparently you're guessing at "how it works", with no source as reference. I believe the chip license was pulled AFTER Apple and Motorola could not come to an agreement. This started back in 2007.

EDIT: If you're going to rely on FOSSPatents for your understanding of the case you should probably take the time to re-read what he wrote:

"The ruling explains in detail what kind of offer Apple made to Motorola. That offer is one relating to all of Motorola's FRAND-pledged patents including the one at issue in the case that was heard a week ago.

Motorola overcame Apple's FRAND defense because Apple reserved the right to contest the validity of the patent-in-suit "when, insofar and for as long as" Motorola would seek damages for past infringement -- which in Motorola's opinion goes back to the year 2007 -- above a FRAND rate.

The logic presented by Motorola's counsel convinced the court: someone using a patented invention should have to pay a price for being found to have infringed. While competition law requires the patent holder to extend a license on FRAND terms going forward, past infringement is a different matter. If, in the alternative, damages for past infringement were limited to a FRAND royalty rate, Motorola and Judge Voß argue, an infringer might ultimately get to use the patent on more favorable terms than someone procuring a license at the outset. They say that favorable terms would result from a scenario in which payments for using the patent in the past can be avoided by proving the patent invalid"

Full text here.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...an-patent.html

Also pay close attention to the last section detailing the arguments that Motorola could have made, but didn't need to yet.

In essence, because Apple wasn't willing to accept the same terms as others and wanted the inclusion of terms whereby they get a refund of their licensing fees if the patents are eventually found invalid, Motorola was under no obligation to offer a license under (F)RAND. Florian Mueller was quite clear about this point. Had they accepted the license terms as presented by Motorola they would have been able to mount a FRAND defense. Instead they rolled the dice and decided to take their chances if it went to court. You win some and lose some, that's business.

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 #265 of 271
12/12/11 at 12:19pm
I took time to review several other recent cases in Europe that involved Apple and patent claims. From the French case involving Samsung and Apple I see where you get the idea of patent exhaustion. I agree things can appear confused, especially with so many cases taking place concurrently.

I see no attempt by Apple to raise that defense in the German injunction trial with Motorola. Apparently it either holds no weight with the German courts, or the licensing situation was decidedly different than Samsung/Apple in France. Even Florian isn't suggesting that Apple had a case with that defense in Germany. Mr. Mueller was pretty clear on why Apple lost that particular German injunction challenge.

In any event we've strayed far from the subject of this particular thread. Why is Apple partnering with what many refer to as a "Patent Troll"? Why did the Digitude site suddenly get taken down if they're an above board and legitimate business simply trying to monetize underused IP? And why the timing for the move out of the limelight? Prior to Apple being revealed as a partner they were actively recruiting IP and partners via their website. Did Apple have it removed, trying to avoid a public association, and why so if it's an innocent business deal. A public statement would go a long ways towards dismissing rumors that Apple was afraid to use those patents against competitors for fear of reprisals and tried to attack anonymously instead. Very un-Apple like in any case, creating another PR headache.

EDIT: After the DigitudeInnovations site disappeared around Dec. 4th, it's now back up as of today.
http://www.digitudeinnovations.com/news.html

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 #266 of 271
12/12/11 at 1:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Why are you searching out every opportunity to toss an insult my way?

No, but apparently you're guessing at "how it works", with no source as reference. I believe the chip license was pulled AFTER Apple and Motorola could not come to an agreement. This started back in 2007.

EDIT: If you're going to rely on FOSSPatents for your understanding of the case you should probably take the time to re-read what he wrote:

"The ruling explains in detail what kind of offer Apple made to Motorola. That offer is one relating to all of Motorola's FRAND-pledged patents including the one at issue in the case that was heard a week ago.

Motorola overcame Apple's FRAND defense because Apple reserved the right to contest the validity of the patent-in-suit "when, insofar and for as long as" Motorola would seek damages for past infringement -- which in Motorola's opinion goes back to the year 2007 -- above a FRAND rate.

The logic presented by Motorola's counsel convinced the court: someone using a patented invention should have to pay a price for being found to have infringed. While competition law requires the patent holder to extend a license on FRAND terms going forward, past infringement is a different matter. If, in the alternative, damages for past infringement were limited to a FRAND royalty rate, Motorola and Judge Voß argue, an infringer might ultimately get to use the patent on more favorable terms than someone procuring a license at the outset. They say that favorable terms would result from a scenario in which payments for using the patent in the past can be avoided by proving the patent invalid"

Full text here.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...an-patent.html

Also pay close attention to the last section detailing the arguments that Motorola could have made, but didn't need to yet.

In essence, because Apple wasn't willing to accept the same terms as others and wanted the inclusion of terms whereby they get a refund of their licensing fees if the patents are eventually found invalid, Motorola was under no obligation to offer a license under (F)RAND. Florian Mueller was quite clear about this point. Had they accepted the license terms as presented by Motorola they would have been able to mount a FRAND defense. Instead they rolled the dice and decided to take their chances if it went to court. You win some and lose some, that's business.

Ever heard of the saying "Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves"?

EU, anticompetitive.

Why would Apple even have to discuss these license agreements given that the chips they bought were covered, unless they weren't, at Motorola's instigation?

"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 #267 of 271
12/12/11 at 6:21pm
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.

Oh please.

Lack of patentability or protectionism does not prevent a return on invesment any more than ability to patent guarantees return on investment.

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x2, iPod touch 16gb gen 2, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod...

Reply

Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x2, iPod touch 16gb gen 2, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod...

Reply
post #268 of 271
12/13/11 at 10:04am
Since it's another day, of course there's yet another lawsuit for patent infringement. I wouldn't be shocked to find it's predicated by Apple's recent partnering with a "patent troll", but no direct evidence that it was.

Apple's now being sued over the CallerID function on their smartphones. Unlike some others that want a license agreement to be negotiated, these guys appear to just want it gone from the iPhone altogether. At some point I hope all these tech players realize the absolute mess they're creating. Apple can end up being hurt just as much as helped with all these IP suits. It's time for a truce IMO, but I certainly expect things to get worse before it happens.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...invention.html
http://9to5mac.com/2011/12/13/apple-...droid-vendors/

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 #269 of 271
12/14/11 at 1:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Yeah, it's not like any of them are currently suing Apple.

I think non is suing Apple who wasn't already sued by Apple. I think that is very important. One cannot just say, say, "in 1945 Germany was defending their fatherland from Soviet and American invasion". While that is technically correct, one should never forget that Germany ultimately started something that ended with invasion of Germany in 1945... so the blame was on Germany, even if technically they can be perceived as victims in '45 developments.

Likewise, Apple.


Quote:
Well you're the one who has GalaxyTab in their name, so I don't see how you can criticize Apple for defending itself when it is Google and Samsung that is using dirty tricks.

While on the other side, you with Apple in your name can comfortably criticize everyone else. See the irony?
Reply
Reply
post #270 of 271
12/14/11 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman0 View Post

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.

Because those you are listing actually failed to copy good ideas, keeping to their traditional values, mostly based on isolationism.

Those who have recently started accepting and implementing "methodology of copy" are showing great potential. Like China.

Those who did copy - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan - did more than well.
Reply
Reply
post #271 of 271
12/14/11 at 1:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Exactly. I can't wait to see how that turns out.

People keep talking about competition nonsense. There is a big difference between competition and being a lowlife thief.

There's a little BUT here... it is up to legal system, judges and courts, to decide if any of them is thief or competition... and so far, based on recent judging, it seems that they are much more competition than thief, regardless what Apple would like us to believe.

One can still choose to believe slim, black and rectangular are something that should be patented and defensible in court... likewise, that it really is IP-worthy to envision touch-screen device without physical buttons... but then, one can still choose to believe Santa is real, and Rudolph's nose really is glowing red...

I think that you are really heavily biased here.
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