or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google says it won't support fair licensing in open standards as Apple, Microsoft, Cisco have
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google says it won't support fair licensing in open standards as Apple, Microsoft, Cisco have

post #1 of 132
Thread Starter 
In a distinct departure from the agreement voiced between Apple, Cisco and Microsoft regarding the need for fair, transparent, understandable and consistent licensing policy for open standards, Google has promised to continue to wage Motorola's increasingly hostile patent wars.

While initially described in a report by Bloomberg as an assurance that Google would continue "Fair Licensing for Motorola Patents," along similar lines voiced by Apple, Cisco and Microsoft, a letter from Google to the IEEE standards body suggests just the opposite.

Despite waging a war in the court of public opinion last year in which Google boldly accused its competitors (principally Apple, Oracle and Microsoft) of waging a "bogus" "patent attack" on Android, Google letter to the IEEE indicates the company plans to maintain the same kind of closed, unreasonable patent demands it has long portrayed itself the victim of in patent lawsuits.

FOSS Patents writer Florian Mueller wrote today that Google's letter to standards bodies "indicates no improvement whatsoever over Motorola's FRAND litigation tactics," noting that while the letter "spans over four pages," it still "fails to provide satisfactory answers to those burning questions," issues related to the definition of fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory licensing and the use of injunctions as political theater to push unconscionable licensing terms on competitors trying to license standards essential intellectual property.

12-02-08 Google to IEEE on MMI Patents


Google's letters to the standards bodies "aren't meant to improve anything," Mueller writes. "Google is basically saying that it will do exactly what Motorola is already doing now."

Google "explicitly endorses" Motorola's position that 2.25 percent royalties of the "net selling price of end products" are "fair and reasonable," while leaving the door open to seek court injunctions against companies that are still negotiating these onerous terms, essentially using open standards to threatening to kill competitors' products untiles they agree to pay Motorola, soon to be a subsidiary of Google, significant ongoing royalties completely unrelated to the value those patents add to the overall product in question.

Mueller observed, "To me it looks like Google is taking an extreme position now so it can easily make concessions going forward. It would be a terrible precedent if regulators contented themselves with this."

He adds, "the third paragraph (out of 13) [in Google's IEEE letter] is totally sufficient to see that Google doesn't want to promise any improvement. It s commitment to be 'consistent with MMI's longstanding practice' -- less than a week after MMI just forced Apple to remove various products from its German online store over a standard-essential patent -- is a threat, not a reassurance."

Rather than asking for 2.25 percent royalties of chips that use standards patents, such as a 3G baseband component, Google is clearly stating that any product that incorporates a 3G chip must pay 2.25 percent royalties based on its list price, future that Mueller earlier estimated would amount to $10 per iPhone.

A year ago, Google complained that Microsoft's portfolio of a range of mobile patents it sought to win from various manufacturers, which amounted to around $15 in total per device, was a conspiracy to "make it more expensive for phone manufacturers to license Android (which we provide free of charge) than Windows Mobile."

Google is now saying that one patent owned by Motorola is worth two thirds of Microsoft's entire mobile patent portfolio. Google also outlines a strategy for an "all-cash license option," which Mueller describes as "out of step with FRAND. It's prohibitive, with the sole purpose being to force other companies to let Google user their standards-unrelated patents."

In paying billions for Motorola and other patent troves, Google is working hard to buy the clout it hopes to use to enable it to continue to disregard existing members' intellectual property claims the same way Nokia and Samsung pursued: leverage essential standards as a way to gain access to the original patents of competitors.

Apple settled with Nokia but is still in legal contention with Samsung, Motorola and HTC. Apple has specifically complained that Android licenses are muddling the waters between the patents they have already contributed to standards (and which therefore have little bargaining power) and original patents argued by Apple, which its competitors could avoid infringing, work around or ignore as features.

Mueller concludes that Google's stance against transparency and fair licensing practices in open standards "boils down to saying that Google supports everything MMI has done, and after the acquisition, Google will continue those litigation tactics but obviously with far greater resources and a broader set of strategic objectives, all of which will result in an exacerbation of the problem."

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 132
What a surprise. Not.

Looking for wisdom from Gatorguy... Not.
post #3 of 132
And remember, folks,

Don't be evil!

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #4 of 132
Will be interesting to watch the next time Google needs something and the rest of the industry tells Page to have a Coke and a smile.

Where is Gatorguy on this one? Not 8 hours ago he was sure Google was not going to continue Motorola's patent BS.
post #5 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What a surprise. Not.

Looking for wisdom from Gatorguy... Not.

LOL.

Not a surprise. I just didn't think Google would come right out and say it. "Gives us our 2.25% tariff because we invented the threegees!" I was expecting them to wear their "don't be evil" tattoos on their sleeves so they could get away with it.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #6 of 132
Can the take-over of Motorola be blocked on anti-trust grounds? If not by our DOJ, then by the EU? I think that Google is overreaching with their hubris.
post #7 of 132
Bl**dy Heck. It's going to be hard to keep my New Year's Resolution to be less anti-Google/Android/Samsung...!
post #8 of 132
I think you mean "court injunctions", not "court injections"
post #9 of 132
Mueller is just hired gun from MSFT, I won't believe a single thing from this guy. Now obviously GOOG is trying to attack Apple and MSFT with the patents from Motorola, I mean why else would they pay $12B for it? But the point is, Mueller is not to be trusted. If anything this guy would go against Apple the moment MSFT's WP started to get steam against the iDevices.
post #10 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

Mueller is just hired gun from MSFT, I won't believe a single thing from this guy. Now obviously GOOG is trying to attack Apple and MSFT with the patents from Motorola, I mean why else would they pay $12B for it? But the point is, Mueller is not to be trusted. If anything this guy would go against Apple the moment MSFT's WP started to get steam against the iDevices.

Evidence?
post #11 of 132
I've had a hard time understanding why a phone needs to pay royalties for wireless patents that apply at the chipset level. Wouldn't the chipset manufacturer have to be the sole payer in a reasonable world? If they wanted to take it to the extreme, they could probably have the wireless chip plug in through an expansion port so they can avoid the royalties.
post #12 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

Mueller is just hired gun from MSFT, I won't believe a single thing from this guy. Now obviously GOOG is trying to attack Apple and MSFT with the patents from Motorola, I mean why else would they pay $12B for it? But the point is, Mueller is not to be trusted. If anything this guy would go against Apple the moment MSFT's WP started to get steam against the iDevices.

The arrogant greed of google is way beyond fabrication. Google is showing its corporate culture, top-down, and it stinks. Time to unplug from the matrix, guys!
post #13 of 132
Let's expand this nonsense.

Every time you drive past a traffic light, you have to pay a toll to the inventor of the switch inside the lamp that changes the light colours; every time your flight lands you have to pay a royalty to the tyre manufacturer; every time you have an X-Ray taken you have to pay a royalty to the Marie Curie Institute because she discovered Radium.

Yeah, Google, do no evil why dontcha!
post #14 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

Evidence?

He's probably referring to the fact that Mueller (who does consulting work for any number of clients) is currently working on a MS funded review of FRAND patents. It doesn't remotely make him "just a hired gun", and it's worth noting that this info is being spread by a Google engineer.

Obviously, Google has a vested interest in discrediting Mueller, since he rarely puts Google in a flattering light. But being a bit hard on Google, and having MS as one of your clients, doesn't make you a hired gun.

At any rate, anyone is free to judge for themselves the quality of his posts. There's no real point in distorting what the courts are doing to favor one player or another, since the results will be a matter of public record.
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 #15 of 132
Google's position comes close to evil. I'm not sure there is a fair and reasonable way to standardize licensing fees for FRAND patents, but opposition to the other two parts of the proposal, transparency and the bar on injunctions, is very evil.
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
Mac user since August 1983.
Reply
post #16 of 132
A judge has already ruled in Apple's favour on a contention that Motorola might have no choice but to make patents previously committed to FRAND licensing available under those terms. This judge also ruled in Apple's favour over the notion of possible antitrust against Motorola. Google might be digging itself a mighty deep hole!

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...
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 #17 of 132
Well, what do you expect? Google is paying how many billions for Motorola, of which pretty much their entire value is patents. They need to get at least 2X that back somehow.
post #18 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by esummers View Post

I've had a hard time understanding why a phone needs to pay royalties for wireless patents that apply at the chipset level. Wouldn't the chipset manufacturer have to be the sole payer in a reasonable world? If they wanted to take it to the extreme, they could probably have the wireless chip plug in through an expansion port so they can avoid the royalties.

Motorola revoked licenses to particular chip manufacturers, who at the time had valid licenses, well after Apple had not only designed those chips into products but had been manufacturing with them for some time.

According to a judgement here:

http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws....doc_num-93.pdf

Moto might be on the losing end of this. \
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 #19 of 132
Anyone notice in their letter that Google refers to the licensing standard as RAND instead of FRAND, which effectively drops the word FAIR from the acronym? \

Obviously they don't want to be fair.

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #20 of 132
What's fair?
Apple's patented multitouch technology isn't part of any standard but Apple's own.
Therefore Apple should charge Android manufacturers 200% of the handset selling price.
Oh, and sue the cr@p out of Googola if the merger is allowed.
post #21 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

Motorola revoked licenses to particular chip manufacturers, who at the time had valid licenses, well after Apple had not only designed those chips into products but had been manufacturing with them for some time.

According to a judgement here:

http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws....doc_num-93.pdf

Moto might be on the losing end of this. \

That link isn't working for me.
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 #22 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

That link isn't working for me.

Sorry:

http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws....doc_num-93.pdf

Hope that works. \
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 #23 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

Anyone notice in their letter that Google refers to the licensing standard as RAND instead of FRAND, which effectively drops the word FAIR from the acronym? \

Obviously they don't want to be fair.

It's RAND in Europe..hence why some people write it as F/RAND

edit: I may have it backwards...I think RAND is preferred in the US and FRAND in Europe...someone correct me if I'm wrong.
post #24 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

Mueller is just hired gun from MSFT, I won't believe a single thing from this guy. Now obviously GOOG is trying to attack Apple and MSFT with the patents from Motorola, I mean why else would they pay $12B for it? But the point is, Mueller is not to be trusted. If anything this guy would go against Apple the moment MSFT's WP started to get steam against the iDevices.

So if you don't like the message, shoot the messenger? The problem with your theory is that

(A) it is not just Microsoft, but also Cisco & Apple (and doubtless more companies will add their name) who object the the abusive way Google is misusing FRAND

(B) You only have to read the evidence cited in Mueller's posts to see that he is absolutely right about Google, Motorola and Samsung abusing the whole basis of essential patents and FRAND

I find it amazing that Google could be behaving so stupidly. I can only assume that it is out of sheer desperation as the noose tightens in numerous court cases around the world on its gross and persistent hypocritical misconduct in the misuse of IP, copyright and patents, where Android is being taken apart by Oracle, Apple and Microsoft and others.

In previous posts I have said that Google were the moving hand behind this cartel's monopolistic abuse of trust. I had expected Google to try to deny this. Instead this Google's letter explicitly admits and agrees that they fully endorse Motorola's misconduct.

Apple appear to have played a blinder, suckering Google and Motorola in the Manheim courts into gross abuse of FRAND, leaving no choice for the EU to include Google and Motorola in their antitrust investigation of Samesung, who in turn Apple had complained about to the EU.

This has extraordinarily serious consequences for Google and their band of pirates. The EU has ultimate jurisdiction and can, and I am sure will, annul all the cartel's little victories and illegal injunctions in the German Courts. More significantly, the EU can and probably will, fine all three companies 10% of their global revenue as a warning to others (welcome billions for the financially hard pressed Euro). They can also ban the Google take-over of Motorola, which will be devastating because Googarola will not be able to operate in the 450 million people European market.

Finally stripped of their outrageous FRAND defences the Google cartel will be picked apart by Apple, thoroughly degrading Android, stripping it of all the bits they have stolen and receiving countless billions in compensation for the hundreds of millions of Android units sold.

It appears that Apple and Oracle can both prove wilful infringement by Google, entitling them to injunctive relief and triple damages! (Apple because, while at working at Apple Rubin (head of Android) was actually working in the team which developed patent '263 meaning he can hardly deny that he knew full well of Android's wilful infringement of this patent and Oracle because of the incriminating internal emails amongst the senior executives which Google have desperately but unsuccessfully tried to get excluded from evidence before the jury).
post #25 of 132
<S>

I trust Google.

I also trust the politicians, always.

</S>
post #26 of 132
If for any reason Motorola won this lawsuit, wouldn't this just give more leverage to Apple and Microsoft who own a larger amount of patents that are FRAND?

Let Motorola win and then lead Microsoft and Apple create an environment where the two together will pull all patents together and just kill off mobile smartphones created by android vendors, I'm sure they'll be screaming about FRAND licensing at that point.

Like how stupid is Motorola? They are suing a company for one patent that is in a patent pool that they use, and the company they are suing owns a large amount of patents in the pool as well?

I mean I'm making the assumption that Apple owns a large FRAND portfolio, I know Motorola's been around a while and use to make a significant amount of contributions before there recent spiral.

Either way I've lost all respect for Google at this point. Standards are essential and without it the market would be a disarray. Imagine companies having to create standards that would only apply to their company. Soon enough each carrier could only support one manufacture, or have to increase prices as the hardware for each antenna would increase significantly. Small companies wouldn't cut the line to make it onto there antenna space, and half or more of the manufacturing companies behind smart phones would fall out.

All theoretical of course, I don't believe this would ever happen as its just too much money lost for companies not to solve this together, though I believe it would be beneficial towards Apple, they would likely kill off most android competitors.
post #27 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

Anyone notice in their letter that Google refers to the licensing standard as RAND instead of FRAND, which effectively drops the word FAIR from the acronym? \

Obviously they don't want to be fair.

The term RAND is apparently also used in the U.S. alongside FRAND. Not by accident however, the 'F' is dropped with great intention it seems. \

Interesting that in parts of the world, for any contract to be valid, it must be shown to be fair on all parties and can be challenged on this basis. Don't know about the U.S.
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 #28 of 132
to get into the search business; google may find that they can't assume the gravy train will last forever.

Steve was willing to go to nuclear war with them; with $100bn in the bank, what does apple have to lose?
post #29 of 132
Does anyone know how many FRAND patent licences (including cross-licensed ones) are required to sell a functional 3G mobile phone? 500 maybe? If they all required 2.25% of the selling price a manufacturer would have to pay out 1125% of the selling price of the phone in royalties!
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #30 of 132
Matter of time before they start to show their horns.

This action of their is downright stupid IMHO because it is one against many and imagination moto has to pay royalties to many companies.

Since moto becomes a part of goog they can be sue for infringement for mobile patents own by many companies. It is like hilter declaring world war two.

Yes now it should be Be Evil.
post #31 of 132
Really starting to hate Google.

I hope facebook eats their lunch in advertising.

Google is going downhill regardless...
They have turned into technology thieves instead of innovators.

Time will tell.
post #32 of 132
show of hands...who read the letter?
post #33 of 132
The patents are theirs (well, Moto's) so they can do what they want with them. From that point of view I support them. However they should act in their long term self-interest, not short-term.

Face it, this kind of harassment is not going to stop the iPhone. All it will do is make things bitter with Apple (and now Cisco and MS coming in to it). How long until the next big thing comes along and Google needs to make a deal with one of these companies? There is such a thing as competing, playing hardball, fair enough. But there is also such a thing as just being a d*ck.
post #34 of 132
I really wish Apple would make a search engine and some decent maps so I could vote with my feet and not use Google's products.
post #35 of 132
"a maximum of 2.25%"

I feel that means something....
post #36 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by winforddenning View Post

I won't believe a single thing from this guy.

Except he is reporting data from a court room. Would you care to explain why he would sit in a court room and make stuff up?

A couple of days ago, the same legal team that are fighting for both Motorola and Samsung in Germany, were in court against Microsoft as well. Again they wanted 2.25% royalties on the retail selling price of Windows for the use of Motorola's patents that were rolled into h264.

Yes you read it right, Motorola are suing Microsoft for 2.25% on each and every copy of Windows because they have a single codec for playing back h264. If they get away with this they could effectively shut Apple's use of any of it's hardware down as Apple have built a huge amount of stuff around that format.
post #37 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadash View Post

Where is Gatorguy on this one? Not 8 hours ago he was sure Google was not going to continue Motorola's patent BS.

Is he that naive? No wonder he has highly opinion of Google.
post #38 of 132
If 2.25% of the net selling price for a FRAND patent is acceptable to Google, Apple should make a offer of licensing patent '263 for 57% of net handset price, then go back and collect royalties for all the devices that have infringed upon it until this point.
post #39 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanistheryan View Post

If for any reason Motorola won this lawsuit, wouldn't this just give more leverage to Apple and Microsoft who own a larger amount of patents that are FRAND?

Let Motorola win and then lead Microsoft and Apple create an environment where the two together will pull all patents together and just kill off mobile smartphones created by android vendors, I'm sure they'll be screaming about FRAND licensing at that point.

Like how stupid is Motorola? They are suing a company for one patent that is in a patent pool that they use, and the company they are suing owns a large amount of patents in the pool as well?

I mean I'm making the assumption that Apple owns a large FRAND portfolio, I know Motorola's been around a while and use to make a significant amount of contributions before there recent spiral.

Either way I've lost all respect for Google at this point. Standards are essential and without it the market would be a disarray. Imagine companies having to create standards that would only apply to their company. Soon enough each carrier could only support one manufacture, or have to increase prices as the hardware for each antenna would increase significantly. Small companies wouldn't cut the line to make it onto there antenna space, and half or more of the manufacturing companies behind smart phones would fall out.

All theoretical of course, I don't believe this would ever happen as its just too much money lost for companies not to solve this together, though I believe it would be beneficial towards Apple, they would likely kill off most android competitors.

The letter Google sent out was really more like a Declaration of War than anything else. For Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, and others to ramp it up to thermo-nuclear war, would cause more damage then be helpful. The EU courts have shown to not have much sympathy for companies who mis-behave. Google and Moto are playing a dangerous game of "chicken."

The only reason I can see for such over-the-top corporate behavior is they are desperate. MotoMobile is losing money and nearly broke. Google over-paid for Moto and can't see any way of recovering their money unless they force a money-grab. Furthermore, Google's earnings are off... they've neglected their cash cow; the search business. Taking on manufacturing cell phones will further dilute their focus. Getting smacked down by the EU could cause an implosion at GooMoto.
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #40 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

What a surprise. Not.

Looking for wisdom from Gatorguy... Not.

Then you didn't look in the proper place. I posted my disappointment and link to Google's letter well before AI (or you guys) got around to it.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=143118

Post 14
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Google says it won't support fair licensing in open standards as Apple, Microsoft, Cisco have
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google says it won't support fair licensing in open standards as Apple, Microsoft, Cisco have