or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google to continue Motorola's FRAND licensing that seeks to monopolize H.264, UMTS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google to continue Motorola's FRAND licensing that seeks to monopolize H.264, UMTS

post #1 of 113
Thread Starter 
Google's worst fears about greedy H.264 patent holders and "bogus patent" warfare involving Android are coming true, albeit at the hands of Motorola, a company it seeks to acquire. Google is now promising to continue this same behavior itself after it buys the increasingly unreasonable and (outside of patent claims) unprofitable Android licensee.

Google declared war on H.264 early last year, describing it as patent encumbered and an enemy of open video distribution. It subsequently began decrying "when patents attack" last year, a complaint that accused Apple, Oracle and Microsoft of using patents as "a weapon" to stop innovation.

According to a report by Bloomberg, Google is now seeking to assure EU regulators and standards bodies that it will continue to license Motorola's patents under the same fair reasonable and non discriminatory or "FRAND" terms Motorola has.

The problem is that Motorola is currently waging patent wars that make a mockery of FRAND licensing, recently demanding from both Apple and Microsoft a 2.25 percent royalty on their sales related to a single patent involved with 3G/UMTS wireless standards in the case of Apple, and a single H.264 video standard patent in the case of Microsoft.

Google's outrageous patent hypocrisy

Last August, Google's David Drummond, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer took to the company's blog to complain that, in regard to Android patent infringement claims, "our competitors want to impose a 'tax' for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers."

And yet that's exactly the strategy Google's acquisition target Motorola has taken, demanding 2.25 percent royalties from Apple for all of the company's products using 3G data networks based on a patent Motorola holds in the open (but not free) industry specification involving UMTS.


Credit: Foss Patents


In a separate case profiled by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, Motorola is demanding the same royalty rate from Microsoft related to a single patent among 17 patents Motorola has contributed to the similarly open (but not free) H.264 patent pool.

In both cases, Motorola promised to license the patents under FRAND terms, yet in both cases, it is demanding a rate that is neither fair and reasonable nor nondiscriminatory. Instead, Motorola's expert report explained that the value of a FRAND licensed patent in a larger patent pool like UMTS or H.264 is worth at lest as much as the entire patent pool collectively, because, in his words forwarded by Motorola, "it only takes one bullet to kill."

FRAND licensing commitments are intended to give all the participants of a patent pool, such as the H.264 video standard, a proportional fair share of the relatively small, collective royalties that all licensees of the standard pay.

Motorola's argument, however, is that any standard that has incorporated a patent owned by the company should have unilateral bargaining value, the very issue Apple began complaining about when it called out Samsung and Motorola for their efforts to effectively monopolize the standards process leveraging patents the companies had already committed to FRAND licensing.

Mueller calculated that Motorola is demanding a rate from Microsoft for a single patent related to H.264 that is between 73 and 146 times greater than the entire H.264 licensing royalties sought by MPEG LA for use of the entire patent pool. Retaliatory attempts to extort such royalties as a bargaining chip in a patent dispute defy every letter of the FRAND acronym.

Google promises business as usual after Motorola acquisition

In the case of H.264, Google and its supporters originally insinuated that Apple and Microsoft were primary patent contributors of the video standard and were therefore pushing it upon the web in order to financially gain from its use. In reality, Apple is a minor contributor of H.264 patents, despite contributing the foundational package format from QuickTime (which it did royalty-free). Microsoft has stated that it pays in about as much as it gets from royalties.

Google is now in the process of finalizing its $12 billion acquisition of a profitless company that holds at least 17 H.264 patents, an acquisition that it expressly noted was done primarily to "protect the Android ecosystem," despite the fact that Motorola does not appear to have valuable defensive patents applicable to modern smartphones.

Instead, Motorola has used its FRAND licensed standards patents to bring new suits against Apple and Microsoft that do nothing to "protect" Android, and instead only seek to profit from its technology that has already been committed to standards that have no direct relationship to the Android platform.

To curry favor for its acquisition plan among EU regulators, Google reportedly "plans to send a letter to standards organizations reassuring them it will license Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. patents on a fair and reasonable basis," but it appears Google is already aware of Motorola's FRAND-centric legal strategy because it has been feeding the company with ammunition to use in its various patent cases.

Google is apparently aware, for example, that Motorola's FRAND patent against Apple, which demands a royalty of around $10 per iPhone, is nowhere near the typical FRAND rate for licensing industry standards. Mueller notes that Via Licensing's WiFi patent pool ranges from a nickel to 55 cents per device.

When Apple attempted to charge $1 per device for licensing FireWire, the industry recoiled in horror. And yet Google appears to be promising to continue Motorola's push to demand $10 per iPhone, for a single patent among the entire pool that Apple already pays for, and for which its component makers already pay to license collectively.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

In both cases, Motorola promised to license the patents under FRAND terms, yet in both cases, it is demanding a rate that is neither fair and reasonable nor nondiscriminatory.

How is it discriminatory if Moto is asking the same 2.25% consistently, with even the articles source (FOSS Patents) noting that an industry exec with no connections to either Apple nor Microsoft says they've asked the same rate for years?

Mueller: "I 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. Someone there appears to think that 2.25 is a lucky number."

Fair and reasonable? If others are paying it without going to court, that would be one indication it is IMO. If the report that they've asked 2.25% royalities for quite some time is incorrect, then that's another thing altogether. So far I haven't seen that claimed even by FOSSPatents.

Personally I'm no fan of all these IP suits, no matter who's asserting them. I feel they're a hindrance to the marketplace and by extension consumers. I know many would disagree with me.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #3 of 113
Maybe Google decision to buy Moto Mo wasn't such a dumb move after all.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #4 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Maybe Google decision to buy Moto Mo wasn't such a dumb move after all.

If they've completely abandoned the whole "don't be evil" thing, perhaps they can actually generate some real profits from smartphones now.

Google has sold its soul. Wonder how long it'll take for the Android/WebM/FOSS fans to realize they are now in the strange position of supporting the wholesale conversion of "open" into the opposite of that.
post #5 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

If they've completely abandoned the whole "don't be evil" thing...

I don't believe in this good or evil mantra in business. There are ethical and unethical and legal and illegal ways a company can act but being good or evil isn't one of them. Even Samsung who has blatantly and mercilessly copied from Apple isn't evil in their actions. They've taken calculated risks with their maneuvers and it appears to be paying off handsomely for them while their Android using counterparts are suffering. Whether I think personally it's right or wrong is irrelevant because objectively they are thriving from their actions.

Now the question of whether survival of the fittest is the best maneuver for the group as a whole is debatable. There are more than a few anthropological studies showing that the happiest communities are those where there is good balance among all parties. So one could argue that Apple's dominance in all arms of their business (PC, tablet, handset, and PMP) isn't good for the whole.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #6 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Google's worst fears about greedy H.264 patent holders and "bogus patent" warfare involving Android are coming true, albeit at the hands of Motorola, a company it seeks to acquire. Google is now promising to continue this same behavior itself after it buys the increasingly unreasonable and (outside of patent claims) unprofitable Android licensee.



When Apple attempted to charge $1 per device for licensing FireWire, the industry recoiled in horror. And yet Google appears to be promising to continue Motorola's push to demand $10 per iPhone, for a single patent among the entire pool that Apple already pays for, and for which its component makers already pay to license collectively.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]


AND so is born another Patent Troll GOOGMOT. Google is pure evil and the addition of Motorola it will be a bigger drain on innovation.

Motorola has been and will always be a mediocre product company - sure they had some hits but mostly there were misses.
post #7 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsonice View Post

AND so is born another Patent Troll GOOGMOT. Google is pure evil and the addition of Motorola it will be a bigger drain on innovation.

Motorola has been and will always be a mediocre product company - sure they had some hits but mostly there were misses.

I like MOOGGOT better
post #8 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssls6 View Post

I like MOOGGOT better

i preferred the GOGGOMOBILE, at least it was fun
post #9 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssls6 View Post

I like MOOGGOT better

+1 Winner
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
post #10 of 113
What did anybody expect from Google? They have made money by using content from others to benefit their search. To top it all, the owners of Google benefited from SJ guidance when they started the company. A certain snake in the grass did a Trojan Horse on Apple, regarding the iPhone. Guess who it was?!
post #11 of 113
Does this article seem more like an editorial rather than a news story? It seems to be editorializing on most of the actions being taken by Google, and it's often difficult to separate the facts from opinion here.

Some more information is needed to put this into context, such as the current and historical patent royalty rates for wireless standards; the importance of the Motorola patents in the base 3G standards compared with the whole standard; and whether such a royalty rate is reasonable for such a patent.

The article seems to be equating Motorola Mobility's allegedly outrageous behaviour with its H.264 patents demanding a 2.25% royalty, and then suggesting that a royalty rate of 2.25% for a 3G patent is equally outrageous. Without more information about the patents in these areas it is difficult to evaluate this argument.
post #12 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsonice View Post

AND so is born another Patent Troll GOOGMOT. Google is pure evil and the addition of Motorola it will be a bigger drain on innovation.

Motorola has been and will always be a mediocre product company - sure they had some hits but mostly there were misses.

Their build quality, especially lately, is second only to Apple, IMO. And as far as durability, they are second to none when it comes to smartphones. I mean, the Droid Razr is metal, gorilla glass, Kevlar, and a water resistant inner coating. That's pretty tough.

Although, having said that, they are a worthless software company, their Android skins are far and away the worst out there of the major players, and their user experience is horrible. I would love to see a Moto Nexus (or MOTONEXS, as they would probably call it) phone. I wouldn't buy it, but at least it would be legitimate competition to Apple on both the hardware and software level for once.
post #13 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

How is it discriminatory if Moto is asking the same 2.25% consistently, with even the articles source (FOSS Patents) noting that an industry exec with no connections to either Apple nor Microsoft says they've asked the same rate for years?

Mueller: "I 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. Someone there appears to think that 2.25 is a lucky number."

Fair and reasonable? If others are paying it without going to court, that would be one indication it is IMO. If the report that they've asked 2.25% royalities for quite some time is incorrect, then that's another thing altogether. So far I haven't seen that claimed even by FOSSPatents.

Personally I'm no fan of all these IP suits, no matter who's asserting them. I feel they're a hindrance to the marketplace and by extension consumers. I know many would disagree with me.

Maybe not discriminatory, but is it reasonable?

From the article: "Mueller calculated that Motorola is demanding a rate from Microsoft for a single patent related to H.264 that is between 73 and 146 times greater than the entire H.264 licensing royalties sought by MPEG LA for use of the entire patent pool."

I wonder if Google is pulling strings to get their "open" video format back on track...
post #14 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

Maybe not discriminatory, but is it reasonable?

From the article: "Mueller calculated that Motorola is demanding a rate from Microsoft for a single patent related to H.264 that is between 73 and 146 times greater than the entire H.264 licensing royalties sought by MPEG LA for use of the entire patent pool."

I wonder if Google is pulling strings to get their "open" video format back on track...

Ummm. . . the same MS that supposedly wants upwards of $15 per Android device for patents that may not even be valid? It took lowly Barnes & Noble to challenge them and now MS is removing some of the patent claims rather than have them invalidated.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20207110012776

Pot meet kettle.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

How is it discriminatory if Moto is asking the same 2.25% consistently, with even the articles source (FOSS Patents) noting that an industry exec with no connections to either Apple nor Microsoft says they've asked the same rate for years?

Mueller: "I 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. Someone there appears to think that 2.25 is a lucky number."

There's no assertion that anybody is paying 2.25%. The FOSS Patents article only brings Mueller's statement to the table as it reflects the same number (2.25%) that Moto is demanding from both MS and Apple. In each case the patents are for unrelated technologies (one related to 3G, one to H264 and one to LTE) but the rates being brought to the table by Moto are identical.
post #16 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I don't believe in this good or evil mantra in business. There are ethical and unethical and legal and illegal ways a company can act but being good or evil isn't one of them. Even Samsung who has blatantly and mercilessly copied from Apple isn't evil in their actions. They've taken calculated risks with their maneuvers and it appears to be paying off handsomely for them while their Android using counterparts are suffering. Whether I think personally it's right or wrong is irrelevant because objectively they are thriving from their actions.

Now the question of whether survival of the fittest is the best maneuver for the group as a whole is debatable. There are more than a few anthropological studies showing that the happiest communities are those where there is good balance among all parties. So one could argue that Apple's dominance in all arms of their business (PC, tablet, handset, and PMP) isn't good for the whole.

That's a whole lot of meaningless BS devoted to suggesting "evil" isn't something that a company can be, which is rather stupid considering that it was Google that invented the phrase to describe its corporate philosophy.

As far as actual reality however, Google has proven itself to be intentionally dishonest, fraudulent and without scruples. Some obvious examples:

- Advertising illegal prescription drugs with ad space it knew to be illegal, yet continued to do with approval from the top.
- Ripping off Oracle (knowingly, with internal advice clearly stating that the company knew it needed to work out a licensing deal, i.e. Lindhold email) and then mounting a public defense that accused Oracle of mounting "bogus" IP claims.
- Blatantly ripping off Apple, and similarly accusing Apple of mounting 'bogus' claims and persecuting it's Android platform while it feeds Motorola with patent attacks aimed at doing the same thing it professed to the public to be unconsciously actions by its competitors.
- Stealing book content and then trying to work out a deal afterward.
- Stealing music streaming rights and then trying to work out a deal afterward.


Just goes on and on. If you've ever used AdSense, you'd know Google cheats everyone. So sure, if Google was another corporation you could write off they actions as the "we break the law until the law forces us not to" kind of activity that "every corp" does. But Google has gone out of its way to promote itself as a super righteous company that "does no evil," making its contempt for the law and everyone else's rights particularly reprehensible.
post #17 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Personally I'm no fan of all these IP suits, no matter who's asserting them. I feel they're a hindrance to the marketplace and by extension consumers. I know many would disagree with me.

For good reason they would disagree.

Anyway, Google/Motorola are creating a storm of trouble for themselves with the EC in the future. Google has money, the EU needs money. See how that works?
post #18 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

If they've completely abandoned the whole "don't be evil" thing, perhaps they can actually generate some real profits from smartphones now.

Google has sold its soul. Wonder how long it'll take for the Android/WebM/FOSS fans to realize they are now in the strange position of supporting the wholesale conversion of "open" into the opposite of that.

Thanks for say that. It is exactly what I see. After Page stepping as CEO it appears to me that Google is now all evil.
post #19 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

That's a whole lot of meaningless BS devoted to suggesting "evil" isn't something that a company can be, which is rather stupid considering that it was Google that invented the phrase to describe its corporate philosophy.

As far as actual reality however, Google has proven itself to be intentionally dishonest, fraudulent and without scruples. Some obvious examples:

- Advertising illegal prescription drugs with ad space it knew to be illegal, yet continued to do with approval from the top.
- Ripping off Oracle (knowingly, with internal advice clearly stating that the company knew it needed to work out a licensing deal, i.e. Lindhold email) and then mounting a public defense that accused Oracle of mounting "bogus" IP claims.
- Blatantly ripping off Apple, and similarly accusing Apple of mounting 'bogus' claims and persecuting it's Android platform while it feeds Motorola with patent attacks aimed at doing the same thing it professed to the public to be unconsciously actions by its competitors.
- Stealing book content and then trying to work out a deal afterward.
- Stealing music streaming rights and then trying to work out a deal afterward.


Just goes on and on. If you've ever used AdSense, you'd know Google cheats everyone. So sure, if Google was another corporation you could write off they actions as the "we break the law until the law forces us not to" kind of activity that "every corp" does. But Google has gone out of its way to promote itself as a super righteous company that "does no evil," making its contempt for the law and everyone else's rights particularly reprehensible.

I will frame your post and put on my wall! Perfect.
post #20 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by muddybulldog View Post

There's no assertion that anybody is paying 2.25%. The FOSS Patents article only brings Mueller's statement to the table as it reflects the same number (2.25%) that Moto is demanding from both MS and Apple. In each case the patents are for unrelated technologies (one related to 3G, one to H264 and one to LTE) but the rates being brought to the table by Moto are identical.

The assertion put forth by Mueller is they've asked for 2.25% fairly consistently, the same as they're now asking of Apple and Microsoft. Again, how is that discriminatory? Is anyone actually paying what Moto is requesting, and will Apple and/or MS be able to negotiate a lower percentage in royalties? Perhaps yes to both, but nothing I've read so far indicates Moto is expecting any more from Apple than any other licensee. Do you see something I haven't?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #21 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Ummm. . . the same MS that supposedly wants upwards of $15 per Android device for patents that may not even be valid? It took lowly Barnes & Noble to challenge them and now MS is removing some of the patent claims rather than have them invalidated.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20207110012776

Pot meet kettle.

Microsoft's patents aren't FRAND though, whether they're valid or not.
post #22 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

Microsoft's patents aren't FRAND though, whether they're valid or not.

And. . .?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And. . .?

And since they're not FRAND, they have every right to charge whatever they want for them. FRAND patents are different. There are laws that prevents companies from using essential, required-to-use patents to extort money from their competitors.
post #24 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

That's a whole lot of meaningless BS devoted to suggesting "evil" isn't something that a company can be, which is rather stupid considering that it was Google that invented the phrase to describe its corporate philosophy.

As far as actual reality however, Google has proven itself to be intentionally dishonest, fraudulent and without scruples. Some obvious examples:

- Advertising illegal prescription drugs with ad space it knew to be illegal, yet continued to do with approval from the top.
- Ripping off Oracle (knowingly, with internal advice clearly stating that the company knew it needed to work out a licensing deal, i.e. Lindhold email) and then mounting a public defense that accused Oracle of mounting "bogus" IP claims.
- Blatantly ripping off Apple, and similarly accusing Apple of mounting 'bogus' claims and persecuting it's Android platform while it feeds Motorola with patent attacks aimed at doing the same thing it professed to the public to be unconsciously actions by its competitors.
- Stealing book content and then trying to work out a deal afterward.
- Stealing music streaming rights and then trying to work out a deal afterward.


Just goes on and on. If you've ever used AdSense, you'd know Google cheats everyone. So sure, if Google was another corporation you could write off they actions as the "we break the law until the law forces us not to" kind of activity that "every corp" does. But Google has gone out of its way to promote itself as a super righteous company that "does no evil," making its contempt for the law and everyone else's rights particularly reprehensible.

When you use terms like good and evil you sounds emotional which means you aren't being objective.

As for their slogan, it's a slogan, not a philosophy, manifesto or a way or doing business. Apple had a Think Different campaign yet during the Q&A session of WWDC in 1997 Jobs basically said that he has no problem with not thinking different. It's about thinking better. Do you really think Apple is "green" because it's good for the environment or because it's good for their bottom line? For profit companies aren't hear to set your morale compass, you set that yourself when you choose to buy or not buy a product.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #25 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And. . .?

And Microsoft has no commitment to be reasonable.
post #26 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

And since they're not FRAND, they have every right to charge whatever they want for them. FRAND patents are different. There are laws that prevents companies from using essential, required-to-use patents to extort money from their competitors.

And. . .?

I still haven't seen anything that indicates Moto is expecting anything different from Apple than any of the other licensees. FRAND doesn't mean almost free. There's no set formula for determining royalties on (F)RAND-committed IP as far as I know. Do you have something you can point me to that shows that Moto's 2.25% royalty rate would be illegal if it's applied equally?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #27 of 113
I am over Google. I switched all my default settings to Bing - web and iOS. I don't love Bing, but I have to say it gets the job done 85% of the time


I see three Legal silver bullets aimed at Google's heart,

1. Directly related to above, the EU finds Motorola (and Google) in abuse of FRAND licenses. The EU has already opened up an investigation on Samsung. It's only a matter of time they do the same with Motorola

2. Oracle's wins its lawsuit that Android stole code from Java. This has the potential for severe damage reward of one+ billion $ and large on-going licensing fees. It could effectively make the Android effort unprofitable for Google. It looks like this is finally heading to some type of resolution

3. Apple starts patent lawsuits over its Multi-Touch patents. This is the most visual of Apple's innovations and they have patented the crap out of it. I can't wait to see how Motorola/Google and Samsung try to respond to this.


I look forward to when Motorola results are included in the Google earning results. Investors are going to sh** in their pants

Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL

Reply

Windows survivor - after a long, epic and painful struggle. Very long AAPL

Reply
post #28 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

And. . .?

I still haven't seen anything that indicates Moto is expecting anything different from Apple than any of the other licensees. FRAND doesn't mean almost free. There's no set formula for determining royalties on (F)RAND-committed IP as far as I know. Do you have something you can point me to that shows that Moto's 2.25% royalty rate would be illegal if it's applied equally?

The FOSS article you cited above portrays it as unreasonable. That's enough for me for now, although I suspect we'll find out definitively in court soon enough. I don't think the Moto patents would have been included in the standard if their 2.25% rate had been known at the time.
post #29 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Oak View Post

I am over Google. I switched all my default settings to Bing - web and iOS. I don't love Bing, but I have to say it gets the job done 85% of the time


I see three Legal silver bullets aimed at Google's heart,

1. Directly related to above, the EU finds Motorola (and Google) in abuse of FRAND licenses. The EU has already opened up an investigation on Samsung. It's only a matter of time they do the same with Motorola

FWIW the EU has an active investigation concerning Apple underway on a different issue. An investigation doesn't indicate wrong-doing. They're often closed with no findings of anything illegal.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdsonice View Post

AND so is born another Patent Troll GOOGMOT. Google is pure evil and the addition of Motorola it will be a bigger drain on innovation.

Motorola has been and will always be a mediocre product company - sure they had some hits but mostly there were misses.

Motorola makes the most solid phone circuitry in the business. In that respect, Apple is mediocre. Apple's innovation was the dropped call.

If GOOGMOT is evil, then what does that make Apple? Remember, Apple is telling Samsung they can't make rectangular devices. I guess Apple thinks they have a patent on rectangular shaped mobile devices (even though those shaped devices pre-dated the iPhone).

You can't be calling Google and Moto evil while somehow thinking Apple is a saint. Apple started the fuss with useless patent lawsuits and with Motorola being the pioneer that Apple built its "phone" on, I'll bet Apple isn't going to be the one to end it. After all, Apple is the newbie of the cellular phone world. Motorola is just welcoming them to the party
post #31 of 113
Google, per se, is not evil. However, the people who make the decisions under the Google moniker are deceitful, cheaters, and law-breaking manipulators of the market. Their development and promotion of Android is a direct result of Schmidt's involvement on the Apple Board (I'll never understand why Steve Jobs thought it a good idea to include him in Apple's inner circle.) And ultimately, they are headed well down the same slimy path Microsoft blazed back in the 90's. Whether Google believes in karma or not, they ought to realize that "it's a bitch", ultimately biting the hand that feeds it.
post #32 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Ummm. . . the same MS that supposedly wants upwards of $15 per Android device for patents that may not even be valid? It took lowly Barnes & Noble to challenge them and now MS is removing some of the patent claims rather than have them invalidated.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20207110012776

Pot meet kettle.

Gatorguy is such a pathetic Google shill. First he gets called on glossing over the whole fair and reasonable part of FRAND, then he brings non-FRAND patents to the argument as his example (attempting to sow confusion seems to be a favorite shill tactic) and also throws in an example of two different patents to show they aren't discriminating. We'll just ignore his mistaken tu quoque above since it's so ridiculously not to the point.

In his defense, it's hard work defending the indefensible.
post #33 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

The FOSS article you cited above portrays it as unreasonable. That's enough for me for now, although I suspect we'll find out definitively in court soon enough. I don't think the Moto patents would have been included in the standard if their 2.25% rate had been known at the time.

Another FOSSPatents article in early December made no such claims of unreasonable when IPCom claimed 2.5-3.5% was average for a single patent, even one considered a standard (FRAND),

"The appellate court explained that the key criterion for determining the value in dispute is IPCom's "[economic] interest" in the enforcement of its rights, which in this case is based on the "expected license fees". The court notes that IPCom argued that in this industry ("electronics or, respectively, telecommunications"), a royalty rate of 2.5 to 3.5 percent for a single patent is reasonable, and that this also applies to standards-essential patents.

So how did Mr. Mueller view this?
"While the court doesn't affirmatively support this particular royalty rate, the court would not have set such a high value in dispute if IPCom's claims had failed to pass a basic plausibility test.

HTC could try to object to this order, but I can't see how it could realistically convince the court that the value in dispute does not reach (easily, in fact) the legal maximum of 30 million euros."


Whaa?? You mean 3.5% wouldn't be unreasonable, in fact quite "plausible"? Motorola is only requesting 2.25%.

Methinks Mr. Mueller has different views of fair depending on who's involved.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Ummm. . . the same MS that supposedly wants upwards of $15 per Android device for patents that may not even be valid? It took lowly Barnes & Noble to challenge them and now MS is removing some of the patent claims rather than have them invalidated.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20207110012776

Pot meet kettle.

They remove patents from ITC cases in order to streamline the case and get a faster result in getting an injunction requiring products to be removed from sale.

Meanwhile the patents are very much alive in the "real" cases where damages are sought and which will take a lot longer to decide.

Maybe you should learn how the law works.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #35 of 113
Dear Dilger,

Please pull your head out of Apple's a(ss). Until Google actually acquires Motorola, all actions that Motorola takes are Motorola's actions, not Google. It's kind of that simple. Until the deal is done, talking about "Google's patent hypocrisy" is complete fabricated BS designed to feed the Apple fanatics and get site clicks, nothing less.
post #36 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

How is it discriminatory if Moto is asking the same 2.25% consistently, with even the articles source (FOSS Patents) noting that an industry exec with no connections to either Apple nor Microsoft says they've asked the same rate for years?

Mueller: "I 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. Someone there appears to think that 2.25 is a lucky number."

Fair and reasonable? If others are paying it without going to court, that would be one indication it is IMO. If the report that they've asked 2.25% royalities for quite some time is incorrect, then that's another thing altogether. So far I haven't seen that claimed even by FOSSPatents.

Personally I'm no fan of all these IP suits, no matter who's asserting them. I feel they're a hindrance to the marketplace and by extension consumers. I know many would disagree with me.

Revoking a 2.25% license on a 50c chip based solely on that chip being sold to selected handset makers, then demanding the same on a completed handset is where the discriminatory and unfair part comes in.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #37 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

They remove patents from ITC cases in order to streamline the case and get a faster result in getting an injunction requiring products to be removed from sale.

Meanwhile the patents are very much alive in the "real" cases where damages are sought and which will take a lot longer to decide.

Maybe you should learn how the law works.

Perhaps you didn't take the time to read the law article I linked and you referenced. That might be MS claim as to why they're removing patent assertions. Actual lawyers doubt that reason in this case.

I'll link it again if you care to read it before replying.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20207110012776
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #38 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Ummm. . . the same MS that supposedly wants upwards of $15 per Android device for patents that may not even be valid? It took lowly Barnes & Noble to challenge them and now MS is removing some of the patent claims rather than have them invalidated.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20207110012776

Pot meet kettle.

As you've been told repeatedly, that's not a useful comparison since MS' patents were not FRAND-encumbered. Since they are not FRAND, they could ask for whatever they want - and the user is free to pay them or not use the technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Another FOSSPatents article in early December made no such claims of unreasonable when IPCom claimed 2.5-3.5% was average for a single patent, even one considered a standard (FRAND),

"The appellate court explained that the key criterion for determining the value in dispute is IPCom's "[economic] interest" in the enforcement of its rights, which in this case is based on the "expected license fees". The court notes that IPCom argued that in this industry ("electronics or, respectively, telecommunications"), a royalty rate of 2.5 to 3.5 percent for a single patent is reasonable, and that this also applies to standards-essential patents.

So how did Mr. Mueller view this?
"While the court doesn't affirmatively support this particular royalty rate, the court would not have set such a high value in dispute if IPCom's claims had failed to pass a basic plausibility test.

HTC could try to object to this order, but I can't see how it could realistically convince the court that the value in dispute does not reach (easily, in fact) the legal maximum of 30 million euros."


Whaa?? You mean 3.5% wouldn't be unreasonable, in fact quite "plausible"? Motorola is only requesting 2.25%.

Methinks Mr. Mueller has different views of fair depending on who's involved.

Or maybe Mr. Mueller is able to read for comprehension.

The citation you gave said that IPCom ARGUED that 2.5 to 3.5% was reasonable. It did not say that the court agreed.

Please use some common sense. A 3G phone will probably have 50-60 FRAND encumbered patents. If 2.5-3.5% per patent was reasonable, then someone like Apple (who does not own any offsetting FRAND patents) could be paying as much as 200% of the selling price just in royalties. Clearly, that's absurd.

Note as well that there was an example given of how much others charge for FRAND. Motorola's demand for H.264 licensing was 73 to 146 times as much as FRAND licensing for the entire rest of the patent portfolio. There were also examples of known FRAND license fees - which are orders of magnitude less than Motorola was asking.

Do yourself a favor - don't believe everything you read or every crazy claim that someone makes.
"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 #39 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

As you've been told repeatedly, that's not a useful comparison since MS' patents were not FRAND-encumbered. Since they are not FRAND, they could ask for whatever they want - and the user is free to pay them or not use the technology.



Or maybe Mr. Mueller is able to read for comprehension.

The citation you gave said that IPCom ARGUED that 2.5 to 3.5% was reasonable. It did not say that the court agreed.

Please use some common sense. A 3G phone will probably have 50-60 FRAND encumbered patents. Heck, Motorola alone was cited as having 17. If 2.5-3.5% per patent was reasonable, then someone like Apple (who does not own any offsetting FRAND patents) could be paying as much as 200% of the selling price just in royalties. Clearly, that's absurd.

Do yourself a favor - don't believe everything you read or every crazy claim that someone makes.

I don't, which is why Mr. Mueller claiming 2.25% is fair, unfair, the right thing to do or whatever isn't my sole reference. Do I consider it "fair"? Not really.
There's a lot of the IP stuff that I personally don't consider fair. Or reasonable. I might feel differently if I had a horse in the race, but I don't.

For this discussion tho I'm not doing anything more that pointing out that Moto's royalty request is reported to be consistent, thus non-discriminatory, and there's no indications other than Mr. Muellers' (and of course Apple and MS) that 2.25% is unreasonable, and even he doesn't suggest it's illegally high. IMO some of the opinion and claims in the AI article aren't supported by the facts as they're currently known. That could change as the case moves thru the courts. For now I don't see that Moto is expecting anything from Apple that they haven't expected from other licensees. Do you?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #40 of 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The assertion put forth by Mueller is they've asked for 2.25% fairly consistently, the same as they're now asking of Apple and Microsoft. Again, how is that discriminatory? Is anyone actually paying what Moto is requesting, and will Apple and/or MS be able to negotiate a lower percentage in royalties? Perhaps yes to both, but nothing I've read so far indicates Moto is expecting any more from Apple than any other licensee. Do you see something I haven't?

2.25% of the price of a chip is how most companies pay the fee when using the chip in a finished product, Motorola is revoking the license of chipmakers when the sell their chips to selected companies and demanding the same fee on completed products, which is unfair and discriminatory.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google to continue Motorola's FRAND licensing that seeks to monopolize H.264, UMTS
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google to continue Motorola's FRAND licensing that seeks to monopolize H.264, UMTS