or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Motorola seeking 2.25% of Apple's sales for standard-essential patent license
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Motorola seeking 2.25% of Apple's sales for standard-essential patent license - Page 4

post #121 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou View Post

Will be announced at the Super Bowl with an ad. expect weeping.

The rumor was for an Apple TV announcement but this latest leak makes more sense

Ohh...

I like that... Why 2012 won't be like any other year -- it will be the year of the...
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #122 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IIRC, that's the settlement Apple made with Nokia, agreeing to give a percentage of iPhone sales revenue to them in exchange for use of Nokia's IP.

I thought the Apple/Nokia agreement is all just rumor and heresay with nobody really knowing the details? Sort of like the agreements MS has. Everyone keeps throwing around figures like $5-$15 per phone but I've never seen any of that confirmed.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #123 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

I thought the Apple/Nokia agreement is all just rumor and heresay with nobody really knowing the details? Sort of like the agreements MS has. Everyone keeps throwing around figures like $5-$15 per phone but I've never seen any of that confirmed.

AI ran an article on that here:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...ith_apple.html

Based on the one-time royalty payment of Euro 430 that was publicly reported, Apple is probably paying a bit less than 1% of their iPhone sales revenues ( and probably 3G iPad sales) as an on-going license fee to Nokia. Actually a pretty good deal for Apple since there was no way they were going to successfully argue that they weren't using Nokia's IP without permission (stealing?).
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #124 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

That is the difference between FRAND based patents that form a standard and those patents that do not form a standard but can be just as hard to design around.

Designs "patents" can be easily worked around. With the current rules, as long as one characteristic of a "patent" is not met, it isnt infringing.

Standard bearing patents are extremely hard to work around as it is dealing with the actual technology itself.

This is why design "patents" dont get the same weight as regular and real patents. Hence, why Apple just likes to call foul on the technicality of the patents not on its substance.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #125 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IIRC, that's the settlement Apple made with Nokia, agreeing to give a percentage of iPhone sales revenue to them in exchange for use of Nokia's IP.

You have a copy of the agreement?

There was a $600 million payment that showed up in Nokia's books, how do you know it wasn't a one off?
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 #126 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

There was a $600 million payment that showed up in Nokia's books, how do you know it wasn't a one off?

I believe it probably wasn't. Are you of the opinion it was a one-time payment with no ongoing royalties? If so you are almost certainly wrong.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #127 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Hence, why Apple just likes to call foul on the technicality of the patents not on its substance.

I have no idea what you mean by that. Could you explain?
post #128 of 140
Apple can't argue they aren't using Moto's IP since it's deemed an essential standard, meaning the iPhone couldn't operate without it. Apple is arguing other points instead.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #129 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apple can't argue they aren't using Moto's IP since it's deemed an essential standard, meaning the iPhone couldn't operate without it. Apple is arguing other points instead.

Oh I see. Or rather I see the meaning, but not the relevance to the argument. Apple have disputed some patents on validity, and this one on terms (not really a technicality either). That doesn't seem to reflect in any way on their preferences - it just indicates what they see wrong with this case.
post #130 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Oh I see. Or rather I see the meaning, but not the relevance to the argument. Apple have disputed some patents on validity, and this one on terms (not really a technicality either). That doesn't seem to reflect in any way on their preferences - it just indicates what they see wrong with this case.

I don't see the relevance either.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #131 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Appeals to authority are not a good way to prove a point. They are based, in essence, on faith, rather than on fact.

I might believe Muller if he cites facts for his opinion. But unless he does, you trust that he is correct.

Maybe he is. But I have less than full faith.

It is, of course, relevant when he clearly knows somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 times as much about patent law and licensing as you do. Given the choice between believing him and believing you, anyone in their right mind would believe him before you.
"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 #132 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

It is, of course, relevant when he clearly knows somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 times as much about patent law and licensing as you do. Given the choice between believing him and believing you, anyone in their right mind would believe him before you.


"Muller said it.
I believe it.
And that's it."


Got it.
post #133 of 140
I'm with Barrak Obama on this one "Patient reform" as he has mentioned in the past
post #134 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I believe it probably wasn't. Are you of the opinion it was a one-time payment with no ongoing royalties? If so you are almost certainly wrong.

I'm of the opinion that no-one knows, apart from a select few people at Apple and Nokia.
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 #135 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

"Muller said it.
I believe it.
And that's it."


Got it.

People in courts said it.

Mueller reported it

It forms part of the information required upon which to base a belief.

Get it?
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 #136 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

I'm of the opinion that no-one knows, apart from a select few people at Apple and Nokia.

Perhaps you should reconsider your opinion then. I figured you were arguing just to argue and somewhat surprised you weren't aware of this. It was widely reported, even by AI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

There was a $600 million payment that showed up in Nokia's books, how do you know it wasn't a one off?

From Nokia's press release on the settlement: "...The financial structure of the agreement consists of a one-time payment payable by Apple and on-going royalties to be paid by Apple to Nokia for the term of the agreement..."
http://press.nokia.com/2011/06/14/no...nt-with-apple/

While the details are unpublished, the basic settlement terms are very public.
They include the one-time payment and on-going royalties to use Nokia's IP as well as granting a license to Nokia for some of Apple's patents, including even some "innovations that make the iPhone unique" as Apple put it.

Apple confirmed that part at AllThingsD.
“Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each others’ patents, but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique,” the company said. “We’re glad to put this behind us and get back to focusing on our respective businesses.”
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #137 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

People in courts said it.

Mueller reported it

It forms part of the information required upon which to base a belief.

Get it?

Mueller, while his opinions are not always agreeable, makes a clear distinction between what he reports directly from the court (and filings) and his own analysis. All to say, I consider him to be a credible source.
post #138 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

You have a copy of the agreement?

There was a $600 million payment that showed up in Nokia's books, how do you know it wasn't a one off?

Wasn't that payment a bribe from Apple to make sure Nokia uses Windows Phone instead of Android?

post #139 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

People in courts said it.

Mueller reported it

It forms part of the information required upon which to base a belief.

Get it?

Umm, no. We are not talking about what anybody said in court. Thanks.
post #140 of 140
Apparently the 2.25% licensing rate that Moto is asking from Apple is in fact their standard FRAND rate according to Florian Mueller at FOSSPatents. That might make Apple's negotiations just a bit more difficult since it now appears to be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory if the reports are accurate.

"Motorola has consistently demanded a royalty to the tune of 2.25% of Microsoft's sales of the aforementioned and other products implementing the H.264 codec. The 2.25% rate was mentioned multiple times at today's public court session by the presiding judge, Dr. Holger Kircher, as well as counsel for both parties. If that percentage sounds familiar, that's the rate MMI is also demanding from Apple for all products implementing the 3G/UMTS wireless telecommunications standard. I (Mueller) have furthermore heard from an executive of a large company in this industry (who is not affiliated in any way with Apple or Microsoft) that Motorola also declared years ago that it deemed a 2.25% royalty appropriate for its patents related to 4G/LTE."
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Motorola seeking 2.25% of Apple's sales for standard-essential patent license
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Motorola seeking 2.25% of Apple's sales for standard-essential patent license