or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Microsoft joins Apple in pledging support for injunction free, FRAND patent licensing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Microsoft joins Apple in pledging support for injunction free, FRAND patent licensing

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
Microsoft has issued a public statement outlining its position regarding standards essential patents, committing itself "to always adhere to the promises it has made to standards organizations to make its standard essential patents available on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms." The move joins an effort initiated by Apple last fall, and begs for comment from Google to do the same.

Microsofts' "Support for Industry Standards" page published earlier today also outlines how the company participates in patent pools that it views to be "vitally important to the development of the Internet and to interoperability among mobile devices and other computers."

It further notes, "The international standards system works well because firms that contribute to standards promise to make their essential patents available to others on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms. Consumers and the entire industry will suffer if, in disregard of this promise, firms seek to block others from shipping products on the basis of such standard essential patents ."

Microsoft subsequently states that in addition to honoring its commitments to FRAND licensing terms for such standards-essential patents, the company "will not seek an injunction or exclusion order against any firm on the basis of those essential patents."

The company also says it "will make those essential patents available for license to other firms without requiring that those firms license their patents back to Microsoft, except for any patents they have that are essential to the same industry standard," and that "Microsoft will not transfer those standard essential patents to any other firm unless that firm agrees to adhere to the points outlined above."

Microsoft's February 2012 = Apple's August 2011

Microsofts view of standards essential patents and how they should be licensed is nearly identical in the views and recommendations Apple outlined in a letter last August addressed to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute.

Apple similarly noted that it "owns a portfolio of cellular standards essential patents relevant to certain cellular standards of ETSI and other standards setting organizations," adding that since 2007, Apple has committed to license these patents to other companies under FRAND terms

"It is apparent that our industry suffers from a lack of consistent adherence to FRAND principles in the cellular standards arena," Apple's intellectual property head Bruce Watrous wrote in the letter (embedded below).

11-11-11 Apple Letter to ETSI on FRAND

Apple similarly outlined the need for owners of patents that are "standards essential" and "made a FRAND commitment to license its cellular standards essential patents […] must license those patents at an appropriate rate," that is, "one that is reflective of the party's portfolio of cellular standards essential patents and patent applications as compared to the total industry-wide pool of such patents and applications."

"This commitment should guide each party's initial offer, as well as the final terms of any license."

Apple also stated "a party who made a FRAND commitment to license its cellular standards essential patents […] must not seek injunctive relief on such patents. Seeking an injunction would be a violation of the party's commitment to FRAND licensing."

Apple also noted that since first disclosing a series of FRAND committed telephony patents to open mobile standards in 2007, it would be disclosing a supplemental listing of 140 Apple patents and patent applications expected to be considered essential to LTE, MTS, EDGE, GPRS and GSM. Apple notes that the patents it is contributing "include newly issued Apple patents and published applications, as well as assets acquired from third parties."

Google promises not to shake things up

Yesterday, Google issued a letter to standards organizations in what is reported to be an assurance to 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.

Motorola's legal strategy appears to be reflected the words of one of its legal experts, who claims that a single patent 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."

Given the 250,000 potential patents that could be claimed against any given smartphone design, were each patent holder to make demands like Motorola already has, manufacturers would owe absurd royalties amounting to hundreds of times the cost of the device. Motorola appeared to be gunning for $1billion of Apple's revenues just for its participation in crafting one element of the design of the 3G data network the iPhone needs to connect to in order to function as a smartphone.

Google will need to clarify what it means by its promise to continue Motorola's actions, because so far, if taken literally, this would make Google into the very "hostile, organized campaign" "waged through bogus patents" weaponized to stop innovation rather than promote it, the very concerns Google made public in its "When patents attack" blog last August.

However, if Google joins Apple and Microsoft in actually honoring FRAND licensing commitments, it will have to scuttle Motorola's claims now in progress and accept that it has very little bargaining power to refuse to pay Microsoft royalties for its legacy mobile technologies, and will have to accept restrictions from Apple that limit which of the company's unique features Motorola could appropriate in its own devices.

Such a move would also further devalue Motorola as a patent trove capable of "defending Android" from its own infringement cases and winning concessions from other smartphone makers (including other Android licensees), causing Google's already incredibly large acquisition valuation for Motorola to look even more irrational.




[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 32
It comes down to the fact that Apple has sought injunctions against other manufacturers, in many courts. The other OEMs are simply looking to force Apple into cross licencing deals, since up until now Apple had refused to license many patents, instead looking to block their competitors sales.
post #3 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Google promises not to shake things up

Yesterday, Google issued a letter to standards organizations in what is reported to be an assurance to 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 will need to clarify what it means by its promise to continue Motorola's actions, because so far, if taken literally, this would make Google into the very "hostile, organized campaign" "waged through bogus patents" weaponized to stop innovation rather than promote it, the very concerns Google made public in its "When patents attack" blog last August.

However, if Google joins Apple and Microsoft in actually honoring FRAND licensing commitments, it will have to scuttle Motorola's claims now in progress and accept that it has very little bargaining power to refuse to pay Microsoft royalties for its legacy mobile technologies, and will have to accept restrictions from Apple that limit which of the company's unique features Motorola could appropriate in its own devices.

I'm certain you realize that Google probably has no control over lawsuits that began prior to their purchase offer and acceptance by Moto. While Google is reported to require advisement of any new legal filings, that wouldn't include a suit such as this that was initiated well-prior to Google's purchase offer, assuming what FOSSPatents reported was accurate.

Of course if the eventual Moto purchase is approved (for which there's no assurance) I would certainly expect Google to approach their FRAND obligations in a more friendly manner than Motorola, and would be disappointed and critical if they didn't. As for this particular case, it's all on Moto in my opinion and shouldn't reflect on Google yet. Of course that wouldn't make the story as titillating.

FWIW, some others reporting on Google's response anticipate the same commitment that Microsoft ( and apparently Apple?) has made.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #4 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post

It comes down to the fact that Apple has sought injunctions against other manufacturers, in many courts. The other OEMs are simply looking to force Apple into cross licencing deals, since up until now Apple had refused to license many patents, instead looking to block their competitors sales.

Motorola first moved to revoke the license on Infineon chips made by Chi Mei Corporation specifically when sold to Apple in August 2007.

The brainwash inspired propaganda of Google overlords doesn't wash.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #5 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Motorola first moved to revoke the license on Infineon chips made by Chi Mei Corporation specifically when sold to Apple in August 2007.

The brainwash inspired propaganda of Google overlords doesn't wash.

That's another claim that would benefit from a reliable reference. I agree that at some point in 2007 Moto licensing terms changed with some Infineon chips (they also contracted with Infineon on a new chip design based on Moto IP at around the same time). Is there some evidence that the licensing changed only where Apple was involved?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #6 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post

It comes down to the fact that Apple has sought injunctions against other manufacturers, in many courts. The other OEMs are simply looking to force Apple into cross licencing deals, since up until now Apple had refused to license many patents, instead looking to block their competitors sales.

Abusing FRAND agreements has nothing to do with Apple's litigation. There aren't special provisions in FRAND terms to the effect that you must make your licenses "fair and reasonable unless the other guy sues you for patent infringement, in which case feel free to use your FRAND technology as a weapon."

I wish people would stop lumping FRAND stuff into the general give and take of patent litigation. FRAND agreements put your technology on a different footing, that's the whole point.
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 #7 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That's another claim that would benefit from a reliable reference. I agree that at some point in 2007 Moto licensing terms changed with some Infineon chips (they also contracted with Infineon on a new chip design based on Moto IP at around the same time). Is there some evidence that the licensing changed only where Apple was involved?

Here's a link to court documents: http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws....doc_num-93.pdf

Apples original iPhone went on sale in June 2007. Apples original iPhone contained
an Infineon baseband chipset, which incorporated technology covered by patents that
Motorola has declared as essential. Apple purchased the Infineon baseband chipset through
a manufacturing agreement with Chi Mei Corporation, which manufactured the Infineon
baseband chipset under a licensing agreement with Motorola. On August 4, 2007, Motorola gave Chi Mei a 60-day suspension notice on its licensing agreement.

On December 16, 2009, Apple and Qualcomm entered into a contract whereby Apple
would purchase chipsets from Qualcomm that were compliant with the CDMA2000
standard. The chipsets incorporated technology that Qualcomm licensed from Motorola.
On January 11, 2011, on the day Apple announced the Verizon iPhone 4, Motorola notified
Qualcomm of its intent to terminate any and all license covenant rights with respect to
Qualcomms business with Apple, effective February 10, 2011.
post #8 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerMach View Post

Here's a link to court documents: http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws....doc_num-93.pdf

Apples original iPhone went on sale in June 2007. Apples original iPhone contained
an Infineon baseband chipset, which incorporated technology covered by patents that
Motorola has declared as essential. Apple purchased the Infineon baseband chipset through
a manufacturing agreement with Chi Mei Corporation, which manufactured the Infineon
baseband chipset under a licensing agreement with Motorola. On August 4, 2007, Motorola gave Chi Mei a 60-day suspension notice on its licensing agreement.

On December 16, 2009, Apple and Qualcomm entered into a contract whereby Apple
would purchase chipsets from Qualcomm that were compliant with the CDMA2000
standard. The chipsets incorporated technology that Qualcomm licensed from Motorola.
On January 11, 2011, on the day Apple announced the Verizon iPhone 4, Motorola notified
Qualcomm of its intent to terminate any and all license covenant rights with respect to
Qualcomms business with Apple, effective February 10, 2011.

I've seen that. It doesn't answer the question whether Apple was the only customer affected by the Chi Mei suspension, or whether it had anything at all to do with Apple. The timing by itself isn't evidence that Apple was singled out.

As for the second point it's currently moot as the 4S using the Qualcomm chipset isn't part of the suit. In any case, I don't think Apple should ever be singled out and if it's happened it's not fair.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #9 of 32
[QUOTE=Gatorguy;2040574]...Of course if the eventual Moto purchase is approved (for which there's no assurance) I would certainly expect Google to approach their FRAND obligations in a more friendly manner than Motorola, and would be disappointed and critical if they didn't...[QUOTE]

I've got some ocean front property in Yuma if you're interested.
post #10 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post

It comes down to the fact that Apple has sought injunctions against other manufacturers, in many courts. The other OEMs are simply looking to force Apple into cross licencing deals, since up until now Apple had refused to license many patents, instead looking to block their competitors sales.

What are you talking about? People throw that term "fact" around so loosely, what a joke.
post #11 of 32
I've spent the past 45 minutes or so reading various legal pleadings and docs filed by both Apple and Motorola. Here's what I personally come away with for now: It looks like a cat-n-mouse game between the two.

Apple and Moto began negotiating a license for the subject patents back in Sept/07. Motorola from the beginning, according to Apple, wanted to tie the royalties to the cost of the device. Apple objected, as I would expect any business to, so no surprise there. All normal I would think. FWIW Apple's recent letter to the the EU's telecommunications standards group advocated just that, tying royalties to the total device cost rather than a single component. Perhaps due to Apple's comment in that letter that they expect to contribute some patents to new standards, thus wishing to get some significant royalties themselves?Hard to say.

In any case, Apple and Moto could never agree, so now Moto wants an injunction because Apple has no license.

Here's the really confusing part. It seems at least some of the patents that Moto is attempting to license to Apple, if not all of them, aren't technically part of the current standards. Moto claims they're essential and thus can't be avoided. If true than Apple couldn't claim not to use them and would be required to obtain a license. But that's part of Apple's counterclaims. They say they don't use the tech that Moto's patents apply to, basically saying that the Moto patents aren't essential and subject to FRAND.

Now things get weirder. Apple claims that if Moto said the patents were essential then they must license them under FRAND terms in accordance with whatever regulatory or advisory group holds sway in that area, even tho Apple claims not to use them in the first place. On the flip-side Moto says that altho they consider the patents essential, no regulatory body has yet adopted them as part of any industry standard and thus they shouldn't be required to adhere firmly to FRAND terms..

Somewhere in there are several nuggets of conflicting truth. Both are making competing claims on both sides of their arguments and appear to want their cake and eat it too as your mom might say. The whole suit is seriously confused with claims in direct opposition to other claims made by the same parties. It's less than clear whether the asserted patents are actually essential or not. Both Apple and Motorola have reasons to say they are in certain respects but not in others. Personally I don't understand how they can be both.

In the end the court seems to be saying that if Apple wants to argue that Moto isn't negotiating in good faith under FRAND terms then they have to take a license to the patents first, something Apple is trying hard to avoid. Perhaps that's tied to Apple's hopes that they can have at least some of the patents declared invalid, something they can't do if they acknowledge the patents under Moto's terms.

I don't see a clear right or wrong party as things stand.

If you want to dive in and read the issues involved for yourself, here's a good starting document.
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...9768/190/5.pdf
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #12 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

As for the second point it's currently moot as the 4S using the Qualcomm chipset isn't part of the suit. In any case, I don't think Apple should ever be singled out and if it's happened it's not fair.

I do believe you misread his post. He specifically says iPhone 4 (not 4s and therefore not moot) that Verizon started selling early in 2011. Now that we've unmooted the point would you care to address the evidence that you requested and he provided? Thanks a bunch!
post #13 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregInPrague View Post

I do believe you misread his post. He specifically says iPhone 4 (not 4s and therefore not moot) that Verizon started selling early in 2011. Now that we've unmooted the point would you care to address the evidence that you requested and he provided? Thanks a bunch!

AFAIK the Qualcomm license issue isn't part of the argument, with the court already agreeing with Apple that the patent claims as they pertain to the Qualcomm chipset have been exhausted. Do you have better info that the Qualcomm claims are still in play? I didn't see that right off and still believe it's a moot point now unless there's still some claim being made.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #14 of 32
Google's letter to the IEEE regarding it's commitment to FRAND obligations has been published. Tho it pledges to not seek injunctive relief from parties negotiating in good faith on licensing terms, at this time it falls short in stating that injunctions are off the table altogether. In addition it shows Google's intention to continue general licensing terms of 2.25% of a devices net selling price, less the value of cross-licensed patents. While Apple suggested selling price at the basis of royalty rates in it's own letter to the IEEE, it certainly wasn't suggesting a base-rate specific to each individual device. Instead Apple suggested an average sale price of an entry-level model capable of using the patented technology.

Personally I'm disappointed in Google's letter and had hoped they were above some of the shadier IP practices shown by their rivals. I only hope that this is simply an initial response to be used in negotiations with the EU, and leverage in arranging cross-licensing with Apple.

A 2.25% royalty rate, if adopted industry-wide, would be completely unsustainable and cause severe issues for price-conscious consumers.

IMHO, not good so far Google.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80976133/1...on-MMI-Patents
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 32
The "cross licensing" thing seems to be a real sticking point (if I recall correctly that was the problem early on with Moto's demands from Apple).

What I'm hearing is "you have arguably the most polished, sophisticated mobile platform out there, plus you have the advantage of being a first mover. We, on the other hand, have boilerplate tech fundamental to how cell phones work, which we agreed to FRAND terms when that tech was made part of the standard. Fair's fair, we'll let you make a functioning cell phone if you let us copy your platform with impunity."

Of course, there's quite a bit of difference between being able to use a functioning baseband chip and something like inertial scrolling, data detectors and the like. Some people seem to feel that once Apple has demonstrated how to make a desirable product, such attributes become essential and are thus fair game for copying. It's very telling how quickly the basic template of the iPhone has become what many people consider to be simply what a smartphone has to be.
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 #16 of 32
Quote:
It comes down to the fact that Apple has sought injunctions against other manufacturers, in many courts. The other OEMs are simply looking to force Apple into cross licencing deals, since up until now Apple had refused to license many patents, instead looking to block their competitors sales.

Also I hope that you realize that none of the apple patents there suing motorola over are standards based patents that are under FRAND terms. All of apples patents there suing over are private IP patents and Design patents that are not FRAND based.
post #17 of 32
Also like the article states apple has agreed to FRAND terms on all of its Standards essential patents and agreed not to see injunctions against licensee's of those patents unlike motorola and samsung who are completely stomping on FRAND agreements they have made
post #18 of 32
If the EU goes after Moto for abusing FRAND patents, I wonder what that does to Google's acquisition plans? Doesn't a Google strapped to a Motorola that has been found to abuse patents become a GoogoMoto that is going to invite additional scrutiny? Is that the kind of scrutiny Google really wants?

I guess it depends on timing, if in fact Moto is ever investigated. If the merger goes through before there's much to talk about, I imagine that Google would be willing to take their chances. But if federal regulators keep the process hung up for a while, and an investigation is launched and has a chance to generate some headlines, I think it becomes an issue.
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 #19 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

If the EU goes after Moto for abusing FRAND patents, I wonder what that does to Google's acquisition plans? Doesn't a Google strapped to a Motorola that has been found to abuse patents become a GoogoMoto that is going to invite additional scrutiny? Is that the kind of scrutiny Google really wants?

I guess it depends on timing, if in fact Moto is ever investigated. If the merger goes through before there's much to talk about, I imagine that Google would be willing to take their chances. But if federal regulators keep the process hung up for a while, and an investigation is launched and has a chance to generate some headlines, I think it becomes an issue.

I don't see this one getting scrutiny from the EU unlike the Samsung situation. This particular set of patents isn't technically FRAND-pledged as far as I can tell, even tho Moto is trying to assert they're essential. Confusing to say the least.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 32
Interesting. Apple team up with Microsoft to take on Google and Samsung. The battleground is Motorola. Who's going to die?
post #21 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerMach View Post

Here's a link to court documents: http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws....doc_num-93.pdf

The court documents that you have cited are in regard to this case - 11-cv-178-bbc. Actually, the outcomes are quite damning toward Motorola. The court found in favour of Apple in all but one claim, the one being dismissed on technical grounds. Even in respect of antitrust behaviour below (taken verbatim from the court documents):

b. Antitrust
Apple contends that Motorola violated the antitrust laws by making false licensing commitments to standards setting organizations and by failing to disclose essential patents or applications to those organizations until after certain standards were adopted.


The judge decided:

Therefore I will deny Motorolas motion to dismiss Apples counterclaims under § 2 of the Sherman Act and the California Business and Professional Code § 17200.

Therefore, Apple was reasonable in claiming antitrust behaviour. Further (although of course, there is a lot more than just this), Apple claimed that Motorola was not a liberty to withdraw patents from FRAND conditions that it had previously claimed were essential and had committed to the standards bodies, resulting in this:

d. Promissory estoppel
To survive a motion to dismiss on a promissory estoppel claim, Apple must plead that Motorola made a promise that it should have reasonably expected to cause Apple to change its position, and that the promise caused Apple to change position in such a manner that injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise. Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 26 Wis. 2d 683, 693-94 133 N.W.2d 267, 273-74 (1965). Motorola contends that Apples promissory estoppel claim should be dismissed as inadequately pleaded because Apple has not alleged that Motorola made any promise to Apple. I disagree.
(Judge's words.)

So it seems that Motorola is attempting to use FRAND encumbered patents to prevent Apple using non-FRAND encumbered patents against Motorola and others. Apple is claiming essentially, that Motorola is committing fraud. The judge in this case it seems agrees.

Senior executives at Google had better somehow start losing email records of dealings with Motorola because once a second party can be shown to be participating in the fraudulent behaviour, such behaviour is known as civil conspiracy.
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 #22 of 32
Now Cisco has joined in and published their standing, which mirrors Apple and MS. I have a feeling far more companies will agree with these proposals than Google/Motorola/Samsung.

As mentioned on a few sites, should a BMW with a UMTS phone built in be required to pay $1,000 to Motorola? This is what Motorola and Google think.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #23 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

AFAIK the Qualcomm license issue isn't part of the argument, with the court already agreeing with Apple that the patent claims as they pertain to the Qualcomm chipset have been exhausted. Do you have better info that the Qualcomm claims are still in play? I didn't see that right off and still believe it's a moot point now unless there's still some claim being made.

Is that why Apple and Qualcomm happily provided Moto with their contract terms in discovery? As per Moto's request? Something Apple and Qualcomm just agreed to do in the Samsung case too?

Any exhaustion judged would have been based on those contracts in the Moto case, making that entirely relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IHere's the really confusing part. It seems at least some of the patents that Moto is attempting to license to Apple, if not all of them, aren't technically part of the current standards. Moto claims they're essential and thus can't be avoided. If true than Apple couldn't claim not to use them and would be required to obtain a license. But that's part of Apple's counterclaims. They say they don't use the tech that Moto's patents apply to, basically saying that the Moto patents aren't essential and subject to FRAND.

Not so confusing if you consider the FRAND and non-FRAND parts separately even though they are filed in one case. Moto is trying to leverage non-standards burdened patents (so not FRAND issues) as essential to Apple's 3G implementation. Which is odd because they aren't part of the standard so how exactly can the be essential to implementing it? That will have to be unraveled by the courts but Muller has stated doubts that they could actually be essential and unable to be worked around since Moto is a signatory to the standard and stated it's essential patents at that time. If they weren't essential then, it is a big task to prove they are essential to that standard now. And/or as you noted Apple can just state they don't use the claimed non-standard IP, which again is a question only the court can answer as that has more to do with language definitions in pre-trial motions than what the patents themselves actually were intended to be patenting when filed.

The FRAND stuff is also in the case, but can be considered in it's own niche. In the end those claims are probably simpler to work out because a lot of agreement on Apple's use is agreed to up front by Apple when they claim non-FRAND terms were demanded by Moto.

Quote:
Now things get weirder. Apple claims that if Moto said the patents were essential then they must license them under FRAND terms in accordance with whatever regulatory or advisory group holds sway in that area, even tho Apple claims not to use them in the first place. On the flip-side Moto says that altho they consider the patents essential, no regulatory body has yet adopted them as part of any industry standard and thus they shouldn't be required to adhere firmly to FRAND terms..

Exactly. That's just Moto trying to muddy the water. Either the patents are essential and Moto did not claim them as essential when the standard was made, or the patents really are not essential. Most of that gets a lot clearer when the facts come out on specific dates and if Moto is a signatory to the standard. If Moto is part of the standard pool, their case takes a major hit because patents devised post standard are by definition either non-esential to the earlier patent or invalidated by prior art in the standard. If Moto is not a signatory in that standards portfolio than they can claim anything they want. What do you think the probability is that Moto is not a signatory in ALL the 3G wireless standards?



Quote:
In the end the court seems to be saying that if Apple wants to argue that Moto isn't negotiating in good faith under FRAND terms then they have to take a license to the patents first, something Apple is trying hard to avoid. Perhaps that's tied to Apple's hopes that they can have at least some of the patents declared invalid, something they can't do if they acknowledge the patents under Moto's terms.

That is the legal position of a single judge in Germany. Moto already won in that case, but it is on appeal. Only time will tell if that is based on a German precedent, or will be overturned on appeal. Whichever way the appeals go will shape most of the rest of the Moto & Samsung FRAND cases in Germany -- if the EU doesn't weigh-in before the appeals are done.

Quote:
I don't see a clear right or wrong party as things stand.

More or less. Part of the answer is whether or not Apple has ben escrowing FRAND rate license fees like they did in the Nokia case. If they did Apple is on relatively clean moral ground and won't take a bath whatever the specific licensing outcome, but could come out way ahead in a settlement if the courts don't favor the licensers.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #24 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

A 2.25% royalty rate, if adopted industry-wide, would be completely unsustainable and cause severe issues for price-conscious consumers.

IMHO, not good so far Google.

More than severe issues. It would put the entire communications industry out of business. The patents are so spread out amongst vendors that it is literally impossible for a single company to deliver an end to end system that is not infringing on some amount of other companies existing, registered, IP. On just about any communications device there are dozens to hundreds of patents as part of the standards declarations. That scrambled egg won't unscramble.

44 patents @ 2.25% doubles the cost of a device, but that raised the price requiring even more license fee when based on device cost. The curve actually breaks even at 28.8 patents (rule of 72) for a doubled cost item. I doubt any communications device can meet that low bar.

Literally Moto's licensing demands, if upheld in court, are a form of patent armageddon for the entire communications industry, and specifically the form of situation why standards bodies devised the concept of FRAND in the first place.

And by Google's specific offer to purchase guidance where Moto can not engage in any patent suits without Googles express permission, it looks like Google is not only turning a blind eye, but explicitly blessing Moto's expanding patent cases. Something that is wholly at odds with the already weak statement they have made about IP and FRAND.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #25 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The "cross licensing" thing seems to be a real sticking point (if I recall correctly that was the problem early on with Moto's demands from Apple).

I thought about that overnite. I've now come to the conclusion you have it nailed. This isn't about the money at all. Just as with Nokia's suit with Apple, this is about forcing cross-licensing, which Nokia did successfully. They essentially disposed of most of the IP-suit threats from Apple by using their essential patents are bargaining chips to get permission to use Apple's IP. It worked.

Motorola started down the same path that Nokia took, and Google has put Apple and Microsoft on notice that unless they're willing to sit down and negotiate then they'll continue walking the walk. Google wants an end to the major IP wars. Reading Google's letter it's clear that they expect cross-licensing of IP rather than an exchange of money. Note the reference to an all-cash royalty if a licensee chooses not to share IP.

The "discovered" Apple letter yesterday alongside Microsoft's exceptionally fast companion response to it was timed to appear just hours before Google's letters to EU regulators and authorities became public. IMO it was a timed PR ploy to put Google under pressure and it certainly works. Interestingly Google didn't blink yet. Perhaps they won't.

I still don't like everyone down in the dirt and playing nasty, no exception for Google. My guess is they feel this is the best and perhaps only path to disposing of the Apple/MS IP attacks. At least I hope that's what the end-game is. If this is really just about the money to be had from royalties then tie yourself in folks and lock up your wallets.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Reading Google's letter it's clear that they expect cross-licensing of IP rather than an exchange of money.

Well that's a big win for all of you who want an end to litigation... and open the barrier to innovation. </sarc>

" We will swap our FRAND IP, which is what makes a phone... a phone. And you can swap your design and UI IP which makes your phone.... different."
post #27 of 32
Based on that extract, to me, there appears to be some vindictive action by Moto, whether or not directly targeted towards Apple. At this stage I'm not clear about Google's involvement in relation to their working relationship with Moto pre-purchase of Moto Mobility.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I've seen that. It doesn't answer the question whether Apple was the only customer affected by the Chi Mei suspension, or whether it had anything at all to do with Apple. The timing by itself isn't evidence that Apple was singled out.

As for the second point it's currently moot as the 4S using the Qualcomm chipset isn't part of the suit. In any case, I don't think Apple should ever be singled out and if it's happened it's not fair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerMach View Post

Here's a link to court documents: http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws....doc_num-93.pdf

Apple’s original iPhone went on sale in June 2007. Apple’s original iPhone contained
an Infineon baseband chipset, which incorporated technology covered by patents that
Motorola has declared as essential. Apple purchased the Infineon baseband chipset through
a manufacturing agreement with Chi Mei Corporation, which manufactured the Infineon
baseband chipset under a licensing agreement with Motorola. On August 4, 2007, Motorola gave Chi Mei a 60-day suspension notice on its licensing agreement.

On December 16, 2009, Apple and Qualcomm entered into a contract whereby Apple
would purchase chipsets from Qualcomm that were compliant with the CDMA2000
standard. The chipsets incorporated technology that Qualcomm licensed from Motorola.
On January 11, 2011, on the day Apple announced the Verizon iPhone 4, Motorola notified
Qualcomm of its intent to terminate any and all license covenant rights with respect to
Qualcomm’s business with Apple, effective February 10, 2011.
post #28 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Microsofts' "Support for Industry Standards"

Xbox360, HD-DVD, no Blu Ray on Xbox360, Silverlight, Active Server Pages, Exchange, Windows, WMV, WP7 apps, WinCE apps, Xbox360 apps...

Yup, whole 'bunch of industry standards there.
post #29 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Xbox360, HD-DVD, no Blu Ray on Xbox360, Silverlight, Active Server Pages, Exchange, Windows, WMV, WP7 apps, WinCE apps, Xbox360 apps...

Yup, whole 'bunch of industry standards there.

Whinghing about the wrong kind of standards. Try bus signaling, cache coherency methods, device protocol implementations, UTF formatting, memory strobing, digital signal processing and the like.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #30 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic View Post

Also I hope that you realize that none of the apple patents there suing motorola over are standards based patents that are under FRAND terms. All of apples patents there suing over are private IP patents and Design patents that are not FRAND based.

Yes, but it could be argued that multi-touch, for example, is something that is obvious and essential to a modern phone. So Apple's case against android is far from cut-and-dry. So why not cross license, save everyone a lot of trouble, and simply compete in an open marketplace.
post #31 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post

Yes, but it could be argued that multi-touch, for example, is something that is obvious and essential to a modern phone. So Apple's case against android is far from cut-and-dry. So why not cross license, save everyone a lot of trouble, and simply compete in an open marketplace.

Not to be disrespectful, however, at the time of the release of the first iPhone either there was nothing available that by your definition could have been considered modern or multi-touch was not obvious. Multi-touch is not essential to a modern phone, only to one that its manufacturer hopes will compete on its merits.

Still, I'm not completely familiar with the market at the time. I could be wrong. \

All the best.
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 #32 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeb85 View Post

Yes, but it could be argued that multi-touch, for example, is something that is obvious and essential to a modern phone. So Apple's case against android is far from cut-and-dry. So why not cross license, save everyone a lot of trouble, and simply compete in an open marketplace.

Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

Not to be disrespectful, however, at the time of the release of the first iPhone either there was nothing available that by your definition could have been considered modern or multi-touch was not obvious. Multi-touch is not essential to a modern phone, only to one that its manufacturer hopes will compete on its merits.

Still, I'm not completely familiar with the market at the time. I could be wrong. \

All the best.

None of this has any relevance to industry standard essentialness, so it becomes meaningless when discussing IP.

Essential is only meaningful in the context of a industry standards body standard. At the time the standard is created, the standards body members declare which of their patents are essential to the standard, and in return for those bits of IP being accepted and not worked around, the granter gets a small but steady income stream from anyone who uses the standard. To get the income stream the standard helps create the granter has to agree to not take certain types of legal action (injunctions) over their included IP if it was used as part of the standard.

Apple's multi-touch may look to some like it is essential to a smartphone, but there is no industry standard that says so. So it really isn't essential in any form of legal sense, it's just a feature that consumers have come to expect. That' differentiation, and something it is legal and ethical for companies to want to protect.

Companies arguing over use of cellular radio digital signaling algorithms necessary to connect with cellular towers following an industry-wide standard is something that fits the essential in a legal sense because those algorithms were contractually pledged to be included on the standard in return for no questions asked, easily paid FRAND steady income streams.

Going to court over a FRAND pledged patent and asking for injunctions is a direct assault on the whole set of agreements and government anti-trust language that makes the current telecommunications industry work. This is not a small thing.

Publicly stating you want 2.25% of the final sales price for each standards pledged patent used in a device when it is known that there are hundreds of patents in every device also flies in the face of logic and 30 years of established industry practice. That is an industry killing stance that only a company desperate for any kind of cash would make.

If Moto and Google lose a couple key cases, they will be left without a paddle, and be made pariahs since it will then be obvious they chose to not participate in the mass money-making standards party and the losses will remove any illusion of credible threat that they have. No other company will trust them and in cellular technology a generational shift will remove the income potential from their patent pools. Worst worst case for Moogle is a loss and then being uninvited to the standards formation process for follow-on standards. They are risking that right now. A desperate company (Moto) and one that is critically short on experience in how to play nicely with others IP (Google), collectively making a series of bad decisions that are only getting harder to recover from.
.
Reply
.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Microsoft joins Apple in pledging support for injunction free, FRAND patent licensing
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Microsoft joins Apple in pledging support for injunction free, FRAND patent licensing