Originally Posted by Scaramanga89
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.
Actually, if the claims in the court document are true, that's the definition
of unfair and discriminatory. There is no 'back door'. Your implication is that Apple is attempting to utilize something illicitly which it has no rights to.
Motorola made an agreement with the chip manufacturers which allowed them to use their technology in the chips, and sell them to third parties. Included in that agreement was the royalty fee for the use of the IP. Apple made agreements with the chip manufacturer(s) to buy the licensed
chips for use in devices to sell to third parties. The chip manufacturers cost to Apple includes the cost of building the chip (which includes the cost of the licensing of the IP). Then Motorola then says that the otherwise valid agreement with the chip manufacturer is revoked because they sold their properly-licensed product to a specific
third party (Apple). Unless the original terms of the agreement between Moto and the chip manufacturers contained explicit wording that invalidated the agreement if they sold to Apple, then that's, by definition, unfair. On top of that, even if they did include that wording, then unless they also offered an agreement to Apple to license the IP on the basis of the same cost (% of the price of the chip - not another basis) as was offered to the chip manufacturer, then that's discriminatory.
Try this wording: Motorola isn't asking for royalties for Apple's
use of the technology, they're asking for royalties for the chip manufacturers'
use of the technology. Apple's products use the chips (which Apple paid for), not Moto's IP. The chips
use Moto's IP (which the chip manufacturers' paid for).
And how about this: let's say the electronics etc for the camera in the iPhone accounts for roughy 10% of the price of the phone (just a fictional number for demonstration purposes). The camera doesn't use the chip incorporating Motorola IP for GSM communications to function. Yes, the data from the phone can be saved in memory, then the data can be processed through the chip to be sent across the cellular network, but the camera's functionality is not linked to the chip in any way. However, Motorola is suggesting that Apple should be paying 2.25% of the money generated by the camera functionality because some other part of the product uses Moto's IP - even though they're completely separate.
2.25% (or any percentage) of the price of the chip might be one thing - if they weren't unfairly discriminating against Apple (as in, they're not asking everyone else who incorporated the chips in their devices for the same) by requesting that "double-dip" royalty. However, 2.25% of all the other unrelated components in the finished device is unreasonable.
If this was in truth "fair", then Motorola would also be well within their rights to knock on the door of every person who purchased a phone that incorporated those chips (which incorporated their technology), and demand a royalty of 2.25% of the selling price of the device, because the user is using the phone, which uses the chip, which uses the Moto IP. They could also
contact every application developer that used GSM communications from a smartphone, because every copy of the application which is sold can use the device, which uses the chip, which uses the Moto IP. What about the automobiles with the integrated bluetooth connectivity? Now the car is using the phone, which uses the chip, which uses the IP. Should Motorola be collecting 2.25% of that 35,000.00$ car (on top of the collected 2.25% of the 650.00$ phone, and 2.25% of the 30.00$ chip)?