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 2

post #41 of 140
2/4/12 at 12:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

The arguement is you don't get to charge the licensing fee twice. So if Qualcomm has already paid the licensing fee on each chip it sells to Apple) then Apple should not need to pay the fee a second time.

Right, that is Apple's argument, that isn't Moto's argument. They say Apple still owes them 2.25% hence my original calculations. That's not my claim, that's my calculations based on Moto's claim.

"Goodbyeee…"

Reply

"Goodbyeee…"

Reply
post #42 of 140
2/4/12 at 12:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's it in a nutshell. FRAND makes it easy. Motorola merely has to show what they're getting from other licensees. If it's less than 2.25%, Moto's attorneys and negotiators messed up big time.

There are no major issues here that can't be resolved very simply.

Except it is more complex than that because Motorola has cross licensing agreements with many other manufacturers so they get a lower rate. How much is the cross licensing deal worth? Does Qualcomm even pay a fee to Motorola or is it cancelled out by the license fees Motorola would otherwise be paying?
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 140
2/4/12 at 12:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Right, that is Apple's argument, that isn't Moto's argument. They say Apple still owes them 2.25% hence my original calculations. That's not my claim, that's my calculations based on Moto's claim.

There is a different chip in the iPhone4S compared with previous 3G iPhones and iPads. Remember the iPhone4S was not included in the temporary ban the other day. It is therefore quite possible the iPhone4S is therefore safe and Apple would only need to pay out on the older phones.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 140
2/4/12 at 12:29pm
This forthcoming win will be a significant blow for Apple!
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 140
2/4/12 at 12:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

There is a different chip in the iPhone4S compared with previous 3G iPhones and iPads. Remember the iPhone4S was not included in the temporary ban the other day. It is therefore quite possible the iPhone4S is therefore safe and Apple would only need to pay out on the older phones.

Possibly. It's more possible that Apple and Wualcomm have already paid for the FRAND. What I don't understand is why my calculations that clearly state I'm including the 4S are being challanged. Show me where I stated this is what Apple owes Moto. I can't my "what-if" calculations more transparent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy View Post

This forthcoming win will be a significant blow for Apple!

And when Apple survives this desperate move you'll simply claim that Apple use their power to stifle any real competition by buying off politicians and judges.

"Goodbyeee…"

Reply

"Goodbyeee…"

Reply
post #46 of 140
2/4/12 at 12:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Moto can only win this if they provide evidence that this is what they receive from other licensees. If they don't and if they receive a far lower figure then they will be in serious trouble as this will prove that they are trying to strong-arm/extort fees from Apple.

Of course, if they do receive fees of this amount from other licensees then they would be making a hell of a lot more money than they currently do.

Nailed it.
Reply
Reply
post #47 of 140
2/4/12 at 12:52pm
Doesn't it seem inevitable that we are shortly to learn of the European investigation into Samsung's attempts to abuse FRAND licensing being expanded to include Motorola?

And if Motorola loses this lawsuit, it can only be because they did, in fact, abuse FRAND licensing, which means they have bigger problems beyond just not getting some money. They could face severe sanctions. And what does that do to Google's acquisition plans?

Apple loses: they have to pay more money than they want and see a competitor get a financial boost. Bummer, but not that damaging in the big scheme. Moto loses, it would seem that they would be pretty much fucked. Wonder if Google is pulling the strings, figuring that if everything goes south they can just walk away?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #48 of 140
2/4/12 at 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

One more royalty payment by Apple to its competitors.

The figures add up.

Next time you purchase another iProduct, a part of your payment goes to your hated rivals of Apple.

How does that make you feel?

This is the difference between companies researching basic, ground breaking technology vs those companies who research its applications.

Application patents you can always get around, basic research patents you certainly can not.





Nothing in the FRAND law that states what is "reasonable".

Its all up to the owners discretion.

Nice try, but it's up to the antitrust court's discretion.
This is the way it works in a world with laws.
Reply
Reply
post #49 of 140
2/4/12 at 1:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by rBels View Post

Like other Apple fans in this forum say:
Quit whining about the 2.25% cut or go somewhere else!
There is a rule book for Apple and one for everyone else on this planet?

Motorola asked to have their tech as part of the standard, now they have to live within the terms of that agreement.

If Apple can prove Motorola is providing less expensive licenses of the standard technology to other Android makers, you add in Googles Moto purchase and you land in a pig steaming pile of anti-trust.
Reply
Reply
post #50 of 140
2/4/12 at 1:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

One more royalty payment by Apple to its competitors.

The figures add up.

Next time you purchase another iProduct, a part of your payment goes to your hated rivals of Apple.

How does that make you feel?

This is the difference between companies researching basic, ground breaking technology vs those companies who research its applications.

Application patents you can always get around, basic research patents you certainly can not.





Nothing in the FRAND law that states what is "reasonable".

Its all up to the owners discretion.

Each patent holder makes the shot.

If the licensee dont pay up, they get sued or be barred from using it.

3G was a minor evolution in wireless technology and was far less significant to the mobile phone market than the introduction of the iPhone. The iPhone was far more groundbreaking. You can point at all the silly Prada's or blackjacks you want, the iPhone was the most disruptive change in mobile phones since the phones moved from car based to person based.

It is amazing how many misinformed people who believe IE and even Software Engineering do not result in ground breaking technology and only EE does.
Reply
Reply
post #51 of 140
2/4/12 at 1:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's it in a nutshell. FRAND makes it easy. Motorola merely has to show what they're getting from other licensees. If it's less than 2.25%, Moto's attorneys and negotiators messed up big time.

From the article: "Motorola would likely respond by arguing that the others cross-licensed their own standard-essential wireless patents."


Seemingly the other companies offered licensed tech in exchange. Apple is not really a player in this sort of tech. Apple dies not license their tech.

Apple therefore was offered a money deal. 2.25% sounds pretty cheap for something that is essential. Apple pays more than that for the screen and for the RAM.
Reply
Reply
post #52 of 140
2/4/12 at 1:20pm
IDCC owns more essential LTE patents than QCOM.
Roughly 25% total depending on the report
Reply
Reply
post #53 of 140
2/4/12 at 1:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

From the article: "Motorola would likely respond by arguing that the others cross-licensed their own standard-essential wireless patents."


Seemingly the other companies offered licensed tech in exchange. Apple is not really a player in this sort of tech. Apple dies not license their tech.

Apple therefore was offered a money deal. 2.25% sounds pretty cheap for something that is essential. Apple pays more than that for the screen and for the RAM.

Apple does cross license. They did with Nokia.
Reply
Reply
post #54 of 140
2/4/12 at 1:29pm
That sounds like a greedy grasp from Moto. On the other hand, that's how these *negotiations* start - one side exaggerating the value of something, the other side dismissing it. I sincerely hope Apple and Moto work this out. A hornet's nest has been stirred here (and, let's face it, Apple is very much complicit in starting the stirring) and it is going to be a bloody mess if the courts are left to decide everything.
Reply
Reply
post #55 of 140
2/4/12 at 1:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

From the article: "Motorola would likely respond by arguing that the others cross-licensed their own standard-essential wireless patents."


Seemingly the other companies offered licensed tech in exchange. Apple is not really a player in this sort of tech. Apple dies not license their tech.

Apple therefore was offered a money deal. 2.25% sounds pretty cheap for something that is essential. Apple pays more than that for the screen and for the RAM.

2.25% is not cheap when you consider the price Apple gets for the iPhone. If I am not mistaken, Apple's deal with Nokia pays the latter ≤ $5 per device. These deals also serve provide the licensor with precise info about the sales of the licensee. So I can see why Apple is fighting it to the last court in the land.
Reply
Reply
post #56 of 140
2/4/12 at 1:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

The EU is as bent as a nine bob note. Don't be fooled.

Have you ever lived in the Continental EU? There are bent coppers and hacks in the UK, Tory peers and MPs have spent time in prison in the UK for fraud, perjury and more. When you say the EU is bent, in which sense do you mean? Do you have any examples - not of individual countries within the EU such as I've just described, but of the EU itself?

Do you use your mobile phone on holiday in the EU? If so, you need to thank the EU for reducing the cost of roaming fees substantially to what the UK regulator was happy with. It was the EU who spanked Microsoft's bum for abusing its monopoly and made it actually change its behaviour, the US courts were politically sabotaged after George Bush changed the trial judge in between judgement of guilt and sentencing for abuse of monopoly. It was the EU that put pressure on Apple to treat different EU countries more fairly with regard to iTunes pricing policies, neither the US nor the UK did.It's the EU that is holding the Intel to account for keeping prices high by use of a cartel with others, not the US courts.

As for another poster laughing at the UK measuring system, who on earth still uses fractions for financial valuations of bonds, stocks etc, and who uses Pounds for weight and Fahrenheit not Celsius?

Fifth Decade Blog Not for the delicate - it's all about International Politics, Business, Finance, Technology, Sport and stuff like that.

Reply

Fifth Decade Blog Not for the delicate - it's all about International Politics, Business, Finance, Technology, Sport and stuff like that.

Reply
post #57 of 140
2/4/12 at 1:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

From the article: "Motorola would likely respond by arguing that the others cross-licensed their own standard-essential wireless patents."


Seemingly the other companies offered licensed tech in exchange. Apple is not really a player in this sort of tech. Apple dies not license their tech.

If cross-licensing with other manufacturers involves standard essential patents, then those too would be subject to FRAND terms. If Apple doesn't have any tech that is subject to FRAND terms then they can't very well participate.

If, on the other hand, Moto is demanding that Apple license proprietary tech that contributes to the iPhone user experience, but which is not a standard nor essential, then that's a whole other ball game.

Quote:
Apple therefore was offered a money deal. 2.25% sounds pretty cheap for something that is essential. Apple pays more than that for the screen and for the RAM.

"Sounds pretty cheap"? Do you have any links to suggest that opinion is based on anything at all?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #58 of 140
2/4/12 at 2:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SwissMac2 View Post

Do you use your mobile phone on holiday in the EU? If so, you need to thank the EU for reducing the cost of roaming fees substantially to what the UK regulator was happy with.

He's not kidding. It costs me about $0.16 to send a text message back to Czech Republic when traveling in other EU countries. But I went to Switzerland (not EU) for a conference in December and realized after the fact that I was getting charged over $0.60 per text message. Stinking highway robbery.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 140
2/4/12 at 2:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I found the UK to be more messed up with it came to measurements. They use imperial units and metrics, MPH and KPH for road speed, F and C for temp depending on which sounds more extreme, and still use stones as a valid unit of mass.

A little while ago my brother was building a cabinet with a glazed front. The store he bought the glass from measured it 16 inches by 24 inches by 6 millimetres.

We just muddle along in the time-honoured British fashion.
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, not even if I have said it, if it does not agree with your own reason and your own common sense.
Buddha
Reply
post #60 of 140
2/4/12 at 2:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

2.25% is not cheap when you consider the price Apple gets for the iPhone. If I am not mistaken, Apple's deal with Nokia pays the latter ≤ $5 per device. These deals also serve provide the licensor with precise info about the sales of the licensee. So I can see why Apple is fighting it to the last court in the land.

Some handset makers were reportedly paying M$ around $15 per infringing handset. AFAIK, none of those were FRAND, so they were presumably worth less than the critical patents in contention here. 12 or 13 bucks per device sounds like it is not out of the range that we've already seen for cross-licensing of smartphone patents.
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 140
2/4/12 at 2:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Can you ever forgive me for adding an 's' to a word I only ever use in a manner that does get an 's' when pluralized. I guess I could point out that stone isn't capitalized mid-sentence but that would just be pedantic. This isn't German we're using.

Watch the telly the next time the weather spikes to 38° in parts of the UK. You'll see reports of 100°F because it sounds more dramatic.

I normally like reading your comments as they usually seem quite reasonable and well informed. I'm not sure why you felt the need to comment on the UK units branch to this thread but it is not showing you in the best light. Of course, the tone of the responses you have received is unreasonably hostile too. I'm sure you have some knowledge of the UK but it seems to be well out of date. We haven't used anything but Celsius on TV news and weather for decades. [Celsius does get capitalised mid sentence ]. Global warming may be having its impact around the globe but it will be a while before anyone could check on whether a news report on a temperature of 38°C would be reported as 100°F in any part of the UK I have lived in.

As for the rest, Since before the end of the last century the UK has used metric units to buy groceries, fuel etc. The unit of mass - stone - is almost exclusively used to describe human body weight and is becoming archaic. That is to say is is being replaced in medical use by the metric kg and, in time, will probably fade away.

Car speedometers are marked in MPH and KPH because speed signs are posted in MPH in the UK but KPH in the EU where a lot of us travel in our cars. Hope this helps to clear up some misconceptions.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 140
2/4/12 at 2:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post




"Sounds pretty cheap"? Do you have any links to suggest that opinion is based on anything at all?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ensing-dispute
http://www.webmasterworld.com/pda_mo...ng/4368299.htm
geektech.in/archives/5134
http://www.pearltrees.com/fredericl/...9-28/id3407480

"Samsung will have to pay Microsoft a small fee – likely between $10 and $15 – for each Android smartphone or tablet computer it sells. "

" ... a small fee..." is how the article describes 10 or 15 bucks. Apple's average ASP puts Motorola's requested royalty smack in the middle of the "Small Fee" range.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 140
2/4/12 at 3:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

O
Nothing in the FRAND law that states what is "reasonable".

Its all up to the owners discretion.

Each patent holder makes the shot.

If the licensee dont pay up, they get sued or be barred from using it.

Ummm, the ND part of FRAND stands for "non-disciminatory", which means that Motorola can't demand more from one licensee than another just because that new licensee has deeper pockets.

Thompson
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 140
2/4/12 at 3:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

This is the difference between companies researching basic, ground breaking technology vs those companies who research its applications.

Application patents you can always get around, basic research patents you certainly can not.

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.
Reply
Reply
post #65 of 140
2/4/12 at 3:47pm
It seems odd that they could use a percentage of sales as the basis for fair pricing at all.

It means for devices with more technology and more expensive technology from other manufacturers, MOTO's cut would get progressively bigger. With a percentage deal they'd effectively be making money off of everyone else's technology on top of their own.
Reply
Reply
post #66 of 140
2/4/12 at 4:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

Except it is more complex than that because Motorola has cross licensing agreements with many other manufacturers so they get a lower rate. How much is the cross licensing deal worth? Does Qualcomm even pay a fee to Motorola or is it cancelled out by the license fees Motorola would otherwise be paying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

From the article: "Motorola would likely respond by arguing that the others cross-licensed their own standard-essential wireless patents."


Seemingly the other companies offered licensed tech in exchange. Apple is not really a player in this sort of tech. Apple dies not license their tech.

It doesn't work that way. FRAND means that for any given technology that is essential to the use of the phone, they have to charge everyone the same amount. They can offset it with other payments, but the license fee can not change.

Simplest example. Company A has a Frand technology that they license for $1.00. Company B has a technology that they license for $0.50. Company C uses Company A's technology, but not company B's.

Now, Company A can not simply reduce its fee to B and call it $0.50. First, that would not be non-discriminatory since Company C has to pay the full $1.00. Furthermore, that would only work if both Company A and Company B sold exactly the same number of phones every year.

The way it works is that each technology has a fee attached to it and then you add up all that is owed by each player to each other player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

Apple therefore was offered a money deal. 2.25% sounds pretty cheap for something that is essential. Apple pays more than that for the screen and for the RAM.

Irrelevant. FRAND means that no one can charge some companies more than others - regardless of whether the amount is large or small.
"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 #67 of 140
2/4/12 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ensing-dispute
http://www.webmasterworld.com/pda_mo...ng/4368299.htm
geektech.in/archives/5134
http://www.pearltrees.com/fredericl/...9-28/id3407480

"Samsung will have to pay Microsoft a small fee likely between $10 and $15 for each Android smartphone or tablet computer it sells. "

" ... a small fee..." is how the article describes 10 or 15 bucks. Apple's average ASP puts Motorola's requested royalty smack in the middle of the "Small Fee" range.

Right, those are settlements involving patent infringements over tech that presumably MS could have simply refused to license.

In other words, not FRAND encumbered tech. Just because the article refers to it as a "small fee" doesn't have any bearing on what a court might find to be reasonable FRAND licensing terms. One would have to assume that the very nature of FRAND means that the licensing fees would be far less than what a successful litigant could extract out of the losing party.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #68 of 140
2/4/12 at 4:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Some handset makers were reportedly paying M$ around $15 per infringing handset. AFAIK, none of those were FRAND, so they were presumably worth less than the critical patents in contention here. 12 or 13 bucks per device sounds like it is not out of the range that we've already seen for cross-licensing of smartphone patents.

$15 per phone to MSFT? Pure conjecture and no real evidence. How is it that we mock certain rumours and yet use others if they support our arguments?
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 140
2/4/12 at 4:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Moto can only win this if they provide evidence that this is what they receive from other licensees. If they don't and if they receive a far lower figure then they will be in serious trouble as this will prove that they are trying to strong-arm/extort fees from Apple.

Of course, if they do receive fees of this amount from other licensees then they would be making a hell of a lot more money than they currently do.

Maybe that's the scam. They get 2.25% revenue from Google too, which works out as $0.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 140
2/4/12 at 4:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Right, those are settlements involving patent infringements over tech that presumably MS could have simply refused to license.

In other words, not FRAND encumbered tech. Just because the article refers to it as a "small fee" doesn't have any bearing on what a court might find to be reasonable FRAND licensing terms. One would have to assume that the very nature of FRAND means that the licensing fees would be far less than what a successful litigant could extract out of the losing party.

"FRAND means that the licensing fees would be far less"? Do you have any links to suggest that assumption is based on anything at all?
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 140
2/4/12 at 5:00pm
Deleted
Reply
Reply
post #72 of 140
2/4/12 at 5:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

The arguement is you don't get to charge the licensing fee twice. So if Qualcomm has already paid the licensing fee on each chip it sells to Apple) then Apple should not need to pay the fee a second time.

Ding-to the-Ding!!
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
Please consider throwing extra cycles at better understanding Alzheimer's, Mad Cow (CJD), ALS, and Parkinson's disease go here <a href="http://folding.stanford.edu/" target="_blank">http://folding....
Reply
post #73 of 140
2/4/12 at 5:45pm
I see everyone ignores the fact that Motorola do have a case here because Apple never paid in the first place.

Quote:
Companies must offer Frand-type patents for a reasonable fee to anyone willing to pay.

Apple had previously said it would be willing to pay the fee going forward, but the two firms dispute how much Apple should pay for failing to license the technology up until now. Missed payments are not covered by the "reasonable" rule, and Motorola is able to demand a more expensive price.
Reply
Reply
post #74 of 140
2/4/12 at 5:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I found the UK to be more messed up with it came to measurements. They use imperial units and metrics, MPH and KPH for road speed, F and C for temp depending on which sounds more extreme, and still use stones as a valid unit of mass.

I have a good friend here in the U.S. that has an ancient father in the U.K. that back during the conversion to a decimal form of currency would often ask her, "How much is that in Christian money?"

On the whole, it seems to me that Europe, including the U.K. is more focused on protecting the consumer from corporate abuses then the U.S. does it's consumers. There is probably a good balance somewhere between extremes, but I have no opinion on where that may be.
Reply
Reply
post #75 of 140
2/4/12 at 5:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by master811 View Post

I see everyone ignores the fact that Motorola do have a case here because Apple never paid in the first place.

That is not necessarily true.
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #76 of 140
2/4/12 at 6:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by master811 View Post

I see everyone ignores the fact that Motorola do have a case here because Apple never paid in the first place.

Because that's not a fact.

If Motorola demands unreasonable fees on a FRAND license, Apple doesn't have to pay. They can wait for the court to order them to pay what Motorola charges everyone else.
"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 #77 of 140
2/4/12 at 6:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Right, those are settlements involving patent infringements over tech that presumably MS could have simply refused to license.

While I'm not sure what patents MS is licensing to Android phone makers and Apple, The number most often quoted is $10 to $15 per handset. Some of these patents, I'm sure MS could refuse to grant a license for, but does so to keep certain MS standards in place with enterprise customers. For example, Apple licenses MS Exchange Server patent from MS, and I heard that license was a great boon to Apple, while keeping the Exchange server protocol central to email messaging.

Quote:
In other words, not FRAND encumbered tech. Just because the article refers to it as a "small fee" doesn't have any bearing on what a court might find to be reasonable FRAND licensing terms. One would have to assume that the very nature of FRAND means that the licensing fees would be far less than what a successful litigant could extract out of the losing party.

I agree, and FRAND also keeps the playing field even for all companies wanting to use the patent technology.

It seems to me that the Moto patent relating to the iCloud should fall under the FRAND rules which would reduce the license to somethng much more reasonable.
Reply
Reply
post #78 of 140
2/4/12 at 6:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

"FRAND means that the licensing fees would be far less"? Do you have any links to suggest that assumption is based on anything at all?

Common sense. FRAND terms are, by there very nature, designed to lower the barriers for entry when it comes to technology that has been incorporated as part of a standard. The idea is that the originators of such technology deserve to make some money from licensing their tech, but they shouldn't be allowed to gouge licensees once such tech becomes necessary for a given market. Hence, you know, "Fair and reasonable."

Contrast that with the kind of payments MS is getting, wherein they have been able to extract moneys out of Android manufactures because Android was infringing on MS patents. There isn't any reason for MS to be particularly generous, in this case, beyond being careful not to price themselves out of the market and setting terms so burdensome it would be worth Google's time to make modifications to the Android code.

Neither of are privy to the specifics of Motorola's demands or Apple's offers, but my scenario at least has the benefit of conforming to what we know about prevailing conditions, whereas you just seem to want Apple to be wrong.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #79 of 140
2/4/12 at 7:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Common sense. FRAND terms are, by there very nature, designed to lower the barriers for entry when it comes to technology that has been incorporated as part of a standard. The idea is that the originators of such technology deserve to make some money from licensing their tech, but they shouldn't be allowed to gouge licensees once such tech becomes necessary for a given market. Hence, you know, "Fair and reasonable."

Contrast that with the kind of payments MS is getting, wherein they have been able to extract moneys out of Android manufactures because Android was infringing on MS patents. There isn't any reason for MS to be particularly generous, in this case, beyond being careful not to price themselves out of the market and setting terms so burdensome it would be worth Google's time to make modifications to the Android code.

Neither of are privy to the specifics of Motorola's demands or Apple's offers, but my scenario at least has the benefit of conforming to what we know about prevailing conditions, whereas you just seem to want Apple to be wrong.


So you have no real support for your assumptions, other than more unsupported assumptions?

My assumption is that unless Apple can bring some essential patents to the table like the other companies did, they will have to pay cash instead. And essential patents seem to me to be worth much more than the non-essential stuff that Microsoft was peddling.
Reply
Reply
post #80 of 140
2/4/12 at 7:42pm
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
Reply
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