Google to continue Motorola's FRAND licensing that seeks to monopolize H.264, UMTS - Page 2

It's so laughable that all this is coming from the company which not so long ago promoted its corporate culture as being "Don't Be Evil"... and actually seemed to believe it.

Now they seem to be falling over themselves to Be Evil... not just this example of blatant hypocrisy, but so many other, for instance the story in the NYT yesterday about selling users' private search information for use by the very shady data aggregation industry. Not to mention Google's appalling skulduggery over net neutrality, and so much else.

Perhaps Eric the Mole's appointment of Tony Soprano as Ethics VP wasn't such a good choice after all...

Advice: Stop while you're behind.

Try 20-30 THOUSAND FRAND patents per device and you'd be closer to the mark.

Your overactive imagination?

No one has shown my points to be wrong yet. Pehaps you're the one that can show Moto expects more from Apple than their other licensees?

Are you certain you haven't confused Motorola with Samsung?

LOL Not this again. Did DED get tired waiting for Florian Mueller to post something?

Though we disagree often your, posts are always a pleasure to read...well thought out and pretty neutral when it comes to perspective.

Pleasure to have you around.

I've been trying to track this issue for some time. Basically, this guy Mueller sources about 110% of all the real information; if he doesn't report it, it goes unsaid. FossPatents.BlogSpot.Com. Read his conflict statement and be as careful as he is about separating fact & opinion you sound like the type who'll be able to do so, but this is a huge, complex area and it may not be easy.

On to your concerns that this sounds like people have their hair on fire: there were something like 1200 patents that went into the various pieces of the GSM standard; if you don't implement all, you don't have a GSM capable device. If each one is worth 2.25% of your product, you would have to pay about $18,000 on a $600 phone. See a possible case that 2.25% each might not be reasonable? Obviously, nobody is paying that. And the claim that the IP Moto gets from other GSM Musketeers (all for one & one for all) makes it fair still can't hold water. This is simply an attempt to lock Apple out of GSM telephones in Europe. Period.

The MPEG-LA deal is even stranger. You can go to their website and see their claim that THEY license AVC/h.264 as a pool. So why is Moto, which put its patents into the pool, trying to separately sue Microsoft over Windows 7, IE9, WMP and Xbox, when Microsoft is already a licensor of the patents? And why at a rate that is many times as much as MPEG-LA's claimed rate? Supposedly, when these firms all agreed to put their patents into a pool, they agreed to a split on the (very modest) licensing revenues, and a company that wants to implement it can sign one deal, not worrying about one individual such as Moto holding them up. I never saw a formal count of the h.264 patents, but scanning thru the list, with possible overlaps due to multiple countries, I'd guess 3,000 of 'em. Who is going to implement h.264 if they have to negotiate a separate deal for each, especially when a holdout can perform highway robbery?

The MPEG-LA deal has an explicit promise of FRAND, and it's totally bizarre that this can happen. I hope we'll hear them describe why anybody should ever trust them again. Maybe they only cover US licenses? I am not an expert here, just a hobbyist following the issue, but something makes zero sense.

The GSM deal has an even more interesting history. Moto was one of a handful of companies that invented the GSM standard with the intent of splitting up the business between 'em. You can Google & find some academic and industry papers that claim Moto was active in keeping Japanese competitors out of the European market, and slowing GSM's acceptance in other markets, for its purposes way back in the 90s. This appears to have been tolerated because the various government-owned telecoms wanted to promote the European businesses (Nokia, Ericcson, Alcatel, ..., look 'em up) and so turned a blind eye to blatant anti-trust actions. To get the GSM accepted around the world, the patent-holders went low-key on rights, but I don't think there's ANY formal commitment on the books to do anything Fair, Reasonable or Non-Discriminatory. (In this regard, I think Mr. Mueller has not paid enough attention to specific rules and contracts, relying too much on common sense and sound legal principles in normal times, quite a plus, but not so much here, I fear.)

The one thing that this news DOES confirm is my suspicion last August that Motorola rushed Google into buying them by pulling the pin on a grenade of a huge patent kerfuffle against any & all. At the time, Jha and Icahn (CEO & biggest shareholder, respectively) said they were going after newcomers in smartphones, which many took to mean the Android partners, to exploit their patent holdings. That would've killed Android, so Google paid whatever it had to fell on the grenade to shut up Moto.

Does the fact that Google offered NO assurances to the EU anti-trust regulators by today's deadline mean that they are going to let go of the deal, and Moto is free to make a mockery of Schmidt's bogus patents claim? It's too bad that no real journalists have seriously picked up on this thread (only some lightweight stories quoting Mueller in Bloomberg, the WSJ, NYT and the Guardian) because it sure looks HUGE about the future of Android and the whole smartphone industry.

Unlike Moto's game, these guys aren't using patents that are under FRAND.

personally I'm starting to think that all patents that are declared part of a standard need to either become free use or be administered by some 3rd party that gets like 5% of the royalties and then the tech companies split the rest equally per the whole standards rules. Not per standard but one group that over sees all royalties for all standards. And has nothing to do with the markets involved. And anyone that wants to use the standard, regardless of size etc, pays a flat rate per year rather than all this % of sales nonsense.

but of course neither is likely to happen

Because it is supposed to be the same amount, not rate. And 2.25% of $100k in sales is a lot different than 2.25% of $100m

Seriously? Did you ever see the first videos of Android OS? It looked a lot like windows Mobile. Which is to say ugly and not finger friendly. Then iOS was shown to the world then you saw Google completely rewrite the UI to blatantly copy the iOS interface.

the formula is the very nature of FRAND. It is not fair, reasonable etc to make one company pay many times more what everyone else does even if the % is the same. Because the dollars are not.

Its AT&T that drops calls, not Apple Einstein. Reading the rest of your post was pointless after this comment.

For it to be non-discriminatory they would need to be demanding the same amount (per unit) from all other H.264 licensees - including other Android OEMs and (ironically) Google.

BTW, is it possible to be a H.264 licensee if you are asserting patents against the standard itself? Moto isn't currently a H.264 licensee, but Google is...

Moto is not part of the H.264 licensor pool. Check it out at MPEG-LA.

Of course, this just makes a total mockery of Google's WebM strategy. H.264 clearly has much stronger patent protection than WebM, but even that isn't sufficient to stop a patent troll like Moto (soon to be Google). If H.264's pool isn't sufficient to protect H.264 licensees, then there is no way that WebM is not patent encumbered.


Agreed. Apple and Microsoft have very strong portfolios and can likely defend themselves against Moto. But Samsung would have had much more trouble, and HTC wouldn't have stood a chance. Moto had Google over a barrel and took them to the cleaners.

Just a thought -is it possible that the Motorola FRAND payment was already made when Apple bought the components? Similar to the issues raised by the Samsung case where Qualcomm provided docs to prove that it that they were covered already and that Samsung might be "double dipping"? If that's the case, then it's unfair and discriminatory.

Mueller raises that issue here:

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...-sales-in.html

it's the same amount per dollar.

motgle

I stand corrected, but even more astonished that Motorola was allowed to claim patents as essential to h.264 without contributing them to the pool.

I note also that Google has put no patents into the pool but licenses h.264; that seems also interesting, too. Any takers on a wager that the Google/Moto deal falls thru, given that its completion implies Google can license everybody else's work for a pittance, while they refuse to license their own work except at a high price?

PS: Any guesses on how Moto patents got declared essential to h.264 without their being forced into the pool?

I'm not sure you meant to use the word "revoking" in your sentence. If I understand the fight between Moto and Apple in the EU, Apple is also asserting that the Moto patent was paid by Qualicom to make the chip that Apple used in their iDevices, so applying it to the end devices at the same rate is wrong AND Apple is being charged twice to have access to ONE patent: Once at the component level and again at the finished good level.

I don't see Moto winning this case if Apple has already paid for the patent as part of acquiring the Qualicom chip/sub-assembly. Also, imagine if Detroit wanted to give a automobile communications capability. Let's see, 2.25% of a $50,000 car....

OK MR. CAKEHOLE U MUST BE AN IDIOT I TAKE IT..

is your head so far up your aRse that you can see forest for the trees???

i suppose apple has over 100 BILLION in CASH because the are selling COCAINE here in the US right???
and they are the NUMBER 1 SMARTPHONE COMPANY IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW ... maybe you should GOOGLE it , no better yet BING IT u FOOL!!! obviously your a troll and an APPLE H8r don't forget to vote for Newt Gingrich ok.

From reading Foss for months, it seems the usual licensing fees are for a percentage of the sale price of the chip using the patents. The chip usually costing 5-15$.

From reading several sources, the problem with Samsung and Moto, is they are asking for a % of the total device selling price of $650+

If Apple or any other phone maker had to pay ever patent holder 2.25% royalty on the whole device selling price, the royalties would cost more than the phone.

No, the assertion put forth is that Motorola have been fairly consistent about the 2.25% number when they have asked for payment outside of FRAND terms, on the few occasions they have, and whatever FRAND technology that might involve.

The implication is, that once you release something to FRAND, as part of a technology, the body (such as MPEG LA) takes care of setting the terms as a group. Furthermore, the group works out licenses for component suppliers, such as Qualcomm, such that when their products are included in a device, the device maker does not have to pay again; or, if they do, because of special use terms, the patent holder can't refuse a reasonable license when asked, that is line with the rate that is set for the whole package and paid by everyone else.

The assertion (because these are after all FRAND patents and should be quite straightforward) is that Apple is being singled out in the case of 3G, and MS is being singled out in the case of H264, but, yes, Moto is consistently asking for 2.25% in both cases, unrelated and unfair and discriminatory though those requests are. Or, that the number they keep asking for is consistently around 2.25 (first 2.5, then making another offer, etc.), in attempted negotiation after negotiation (that Apple and MS are rightly refusing). The implication being that perhaps Moto (and Google) have some kind of strategy in mind that involves delaying tactics and exasperating the other parties.

Correct, and what's ironic is that Microsoft or Apple could do hostile take overs of Moto Mobility and the rest of Moto and part them off or return all the cash to investors and burn the organizations to the ground.

Both Motorola Solutions and MMI constitute less than one quarter of Apple's Gross Sales.

MMI has > 50% gross margins and yet only 7.7% net profit margins. That's some serious debt and baggage for 23,000 employees.

Total Debt to equity is 29.44:1.

What a turd. They are in good company. Cisco has run itself into the crapper as well.

Boycott google!

Yes there is good and evil especially when someone has been claiming the don't do evil mantra.

From your comment it seems it's okay for a company to be a lie about their activities.

From studies they also show there is little tolerance for lying companies.

Motorola revokes the licenses of companies like Qualcomm, Infineon and Broadcom when they sell chips to Apple.

Other companies pay for the chips with the license fee paid based on the value of the chip.

Apple is being singled out for unfair and discriminatory treatment.



Source (pdf)

You are behind.

It doesn't need someone to show that you are wrong, common sense says it all.

Google:
We have the world largest warez tracker with Google search engine.
We have the world largest pirated video collection in YouTube. If your pirated stuff its here, its up to you to demand that its taken down. Meanwhile we make money of it.
We have people in Apples board room that saw the Iphone prototypes. We cloned the Iphone.
We track our users, datamine and other fun stuff. We love knowing gender, telephone number and other stuff so we can get higher advertising revenues.
We love Linux. In fact: we love it so much that we "clean up" the code by removing the original authors name. Sure. We lost the trial and had to pay 5 million, but we make that in minutes.

Google App store is filled with pirated apps. We don't care. We care about advertising revenue. Free pirated apps are a great selling point. MSFT was the masters of this technique, why cant we use it?

Our Android vendors knows that Android violates against patents. That is why every single Android vendor exempt 2 (who are sued by MSFT) pays a protection fee to MSFT. We did not help our vendors, since it does not concern us. We are only concern about advertising revenue. The vendors can pay billions. Our bottom line is not affected.

The whole world is against us. They don't accept the internet economy that "everything is for free" on the net. Thats why we have to strike back.

We think its totally logical that Apple should pay patent fees for parts more then one time.
We know that Qualcomm already have payed the patent fee for the 3G parts, but we think Apple should pay it again since Apple are so evil and wont just hand over all patents to us.

We think MSFT should pay 140 times higher licensing fee for H264 since they can afford it. We are a poor internet upstart that all big companies tries to stop.


----


This company is supported by majority of all uneducated nerds on the net. Called Fandroids. Google Chrome is a great exampel of the brain washing. Somehow Chome is the second biggest browser. It RuleZzzZZ according to Fandroids. Safari SuXxX according to them. Still: Safari and Chrome use the same rendering engine. Last years my Fandroid friends screamed with happines: Chrome now supports HTML5! I said to them: Yes. Its because WebKit have done that for many years. Safari have done it for over 1 year. Fact does not work on them.

I think its interesting to see how uneducated and mad the world is. Each year Microsoft/Google is amongst the most valuable brands that people look up to. In MSFT case: They have never done a good product. They have never been able to stay in a market where they have competition. Still people think they are great. This is why democracy does not work. To many idiots in the world that accept subpar products. 30 years and Windows still does not work.

Windows: Detected new hardware. Installing drivers for new hardware. General PNP Monitor. YES BILL! YES. ITS THE SAME MONITOR THAT I HAVE USED THE LAST 7 YEARS. FUN THAT YOU THINK ITS NEW EVEN IF I HAVE USED IT WITH YOU FOR THE LAST YEARS.

Without MSFT we would have flying cars and clean energy. Google have at least so far not destroyed the world as much as MSFT have done.

But how.
I for example hate StreetView.

I have not given Google permission to take picture of my house. To show my cars/motorbikes that are parked in my drive way. No wonder that crime is on the rise. The thief's can see on maps exactly where people lives, what kind of cars they have, how the neighbors are and so on.

The funniest thing is that Google are honest about this.
They say: Don't search for anything that you don't want anybody else to find out.
Google saves EVERY SINGLE search you do.

I watch my search history since 2001. Google does not delete it. Why do they need that data?
Is it for strong arming politicians?
Hello Obama. We see that you in 2002 Googled for "Donkey Porn". Do as we want, or we will publicize this to the press.

And all poor idiots that use Google DNS.
Every single website you visit is stored on Goolges servers for all eternity.

Today its almost impossible to avoid Google.

(and boycott Samsung to. One of the most unethical companies in the world)

Yes, because whatever the EU get will go directly towards the European debt. All whatever millions it is - pennies. What are the US going to do? They owe 1000 times what Europe do, and we kept our AAA rating thanks.

I don't see that as unfair in business. It's business, cat and mouse. Apple are attempting to get access to the patents using the back door, Moto are closing it. The game continues. That's business.

Which back door would that be?

The one that every phone manufacturer uses in the way the industry has been working for years.

Notice the first aggresive action by Motorola was bullying the Chi Mei Corporation in August 2007, long before Apple instigated any legal actions and barely a month after the iPhone was first launched.

Motorola is the aggressive wanna be bully who has taken on the wrong opponent.

So how long until Apple can hit back with their Nortel 4G patents or perhaps some of their own h.264 patents, only if they want to stoop as low as Motorola scumdogs.

As to the wager...

I have this recurring thought that Google's recent actions are directed to assure that the Google/Moto deal does fall through -- at the least possible cost to Google.

Is it okay for you to lie? You lie on a date to embellish a story that make you seem more or less whatever. You might not say its ok but that doesn't mean you won't do it. What if you told a lie that saved a life.

But lies aren't typically breaking any laws, they are almost always issues of ethics. So what about breaking the law? Do you break the law? No? Have you ever driven even 1 mile over the speed limit?

Of course one would have to be crazy to label one "evil" for driving one mile over the speed limit... but apparently there are plenty of people that do categorize any lie, any deviation from the simple truth (even if the truth was technically stated), and any breaking of the law as "evil".

Such simple classification sounds like carpet sweeping to me. What I'm doing is analysing each event and determining for myself if I find the lies and law breaking deal breakers for my personal usage. I use Google for search (with plenty of their analytics disabled) but that's about it. I find their practices shady and don't like being the product.

However none of that I'd classify as evil. This is real life, not Greek mythology. They are doing business and one part of doing business is getting is trust. Google's shady actions could hurt their bottom line which is a reason for them to curtail their actions, not because they have a motto that says don't be evil.


edit: Perhaps I'm the one placing moral absolutism on these terms but it's not not to when they are stated with so much certainty and no context or nuancing.

Is MS evil for stealing Apple's UI? I think they did steal it but then again the court found them no guilty. Does that absolve them if the legal system is on their side? How about Apple Computer's first legal battle with Apple Corp? I didn't think Apple crossed any line due to the different business models of each company yet Apple Corp won the first legal battle. Does winning a legal battle change one's morale compass? Do we blindly agree with the results of a case? I certainly don't. In the end Apple Corp overstepped their reach and ultimately lost to Apple Inc. It's an incredible history of legal battles but I find it hard to say that we can set such static terms of good and evil and still claim to be objective.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...Apple_Computer

Google is evil no ifs or buts about it. I might as well as stop using the free services. I never paid for their stuff and never will.

I see that AbsoluteDesignz is pulling out all the propagandist tricks, in this case: accuse your opponents of your own sins. You almost think he must be a shill rather than simply the irrationally rabid fanboy I fancy him, since it's impossible to imagine how any intelligent person can honestly see Google/Motorola in the right in this instance. But, I suppose there is the other alternative.

You must have never had a Motorola V60. The return/breakage rate on that phone as astronomical. The RAZR devices were extremely brittle as well.


2.25% isn't FRAND, consider that the radio components of the iPad costs less than 18.70$:
http://www.isuppli.com/PublishingIma..._iPad2_BOM.png
2.25% on 829 is 18.64, or more than the cost of the parts the radio makes up. Even if you only take into account the 130$ price difference between an iPad and a iPad with 3G, is only 2.9$

A percentage of the finished item is not FRAND any way you frame it. Does everyone remember what happens to companies that undermine standards? Look up RAMBUS.