Google says it won't support fair licensing in open standards as Apple, Microsoft, Cisco have - Page 2

THAT'll hurt Google (although Apple is already well on its way to become independent from Google).
Any other suggestions beside Yahoo?

In law a 'public witch hunt' can sometimes have the reverse effect.

'Fair' is very ambiguous non technical term.
Some may think it fair to sell a $200 Windows license to third world workers living on a $ a day.

[S] No, only Motorola's patents deserve higher royalties, wouldn't be fair for Moto to miss out because others charged too much. [/S]

Yeah, I was thinking today of email options for a nonprofit I'm working with and Google Apps was my thought, but then, really. For a charity/nonprofit and any other businesses related to sustainability, it's hard to stick with Google.

(Google Apps is free for only US nonprofits)

There's the free Google Apps but they nicely dropped the email account total from 50 to 10. Anything more and you gotta pay for it. We could sign up for the 10 accounts free-version of Google Apps but there's no SLA on that, plus content farming/ads...

I think we've decided on RackSpace for organisation email, and currently using Gantter.com for simple project management.

Was also thinking of Google Docs and I set up something but I think we'll just go with the free Dropbox. Nobody in the org really needs realtime collaboration on documents, just cloud sharing.

I mean 2GB free for Dropbox, how could you go wrong there? I mean, it won't be sensitive documents even, just research, articles, etc. that will be released publicly for free once published online, etc. I'm on the paid Dropbox 50GB and the syncing is superb so far. Incremental, intelligent, etc.

**** Google Docs.

As for any personal, not-super-critical email, just roll with iCloud. Anything more? Get your own domain and get something like Rackspace for $2 a month per email account.

I have stopped using Google for a year or so. I find Yahoo to be a reasonable substitute. No matter how much better Google does search, their evil behavior is unmistakable.

Um, could we at least get the basic fact that Google isn't doing ANYTHING with FRAND patents currently. It's Motorola that's potentially misusing FRAND patents. Until the Google acquisition of Motorola is final, they are still 2 separate companies carrying out their own separate business activities.

And really, this is the 3rd freaking article this week about this Google letter. And despite the fact that the contents of the letter haven't changed, the tone of the articles mysteriously keeps getting more negative toward Google. Weird how facts apparently change.

Part of Google's takeover bid specifies quite clearly that they get a say in any legal actions Motorola takes, they added that condition out of fear that Motorola would carry out their pre takeover offer threats of going after other Android OEMs.

That judicial decision is especially damning to Motorola. While it only addresses the pre-trial motions, almost everything is going Apple's way. The only thing that didn't was one minor issue that the attorneys didn't properly support. In fact, Motorola comes out looking like idiots from that decision.


No. Apple has very few FRAND patents and I don't believe Microsoft does, either. The big winners would be people like Qualcomm and Motorola, although 'winners' isn't real. If Motorola's numbers were accepted, the existing cell phone market would be dead inside of 2 months.


Someone cited over 1,000, but I can't verify that. It really doesn't matter. Even if it's only 50, the license fees would be greater than the list price of the handset - which is clearly absurd.


I stopped using Google years ago. It's going to be interesting, though. If Facebook plays their cards right, they could mop up the floor with Google in a few years (although I'm not convinced that Facebook is all that much better). How much time does the average person spend with Google in a day? 10-15 minutes? Maybe. And even a very heavy user might spend an hour - at most. How much time does the average person spend with Facebook? Many people spend hours a day on FB.


It is true that the patents belonged to Motorola and they were free to do what they wanted to. However, they chose to license them under FRAND terms via a licensing body. In doing so, they have to follow the agreements they reached and they are not doing so.

That's like selling someone a car and then stealing into their garage at night to take the car for a spin whenever you want. They made a deal, now they need to honor it.


Actually, 'fair' is defined by the agreement Motorola reached with IEEE. And there are examples of how it is interpreted. When Motorola's demands for licensing one h.264 patent are many times greater than ALL THE REST of the patent pool, it's clearly not fair. When Motorola's demands are such that if everyone else used the same standards, the licensing fees would cost many times the entire cost of the phone, that's not fair.

And your example is ridiculous. Most people who mine diamonds can't afford the Hope Diamond, either. That doesn't mean the price isn't fair or reasonable.


That's not true. Read the letter that this article is about. Whose logo is on the letter? Who signed it? Google has clearly taken a position on the matter and it is being discussed here.

it's simply ai posting flamebait for the fanboys/droids to drive its advertising revenue, facts have nothing to do with it

But if Apple takes the phone components outside the phone and puts them in a separate bumper case or slider and only sells iPods, they would presumably only have to pay 2.25% of the bumper cost. Even if the bumper cost $50, they only have to pay Google/Motorola $1. A $10 bumper would amount to 25c in licensing.

Other advantages it has include:

- not being tied to a carrier
- international travel no problem
- carriers/Apple can test reception without using new prototypes
- Apple's products can never be banned from stores based on telecom patents
- much easier to buy as a gift
- easier to upgrade phone and keep the same network
- devices don't have to be designed to ensure good telecom performance, just wifi
- when a faster network standard arrives, upgrade your bumper

You realize that Apple themselves proposed that the royalties on a FRAND patent portfolio be tied to a total device price and not simply a component, right? The only difference is Apple wants that device price to be an average price of basic models that use the IP rather than based on their more expensive iPhones. That would of course impact entry models much more than premium ones.

For Apple's exact suggestion, see here under "Common Royalty Base".
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80899178/1...-ETSI-on-FRAND

Apple doesn't intend to leave too much money on the table when their own patents become part of standards.

I see nothing of the sort in your link. When they refer to "basic communication device" I think they're referring to the baseband chip.

As I saw somewhere else, what Moto is doing is like this...suppose Moto were to own the patent on MP3 audio and Mercedes shipped a car with an audio system that played MP3s. If Moto owned that patent, they would be demanding 2.25% of the retail price of the car. WTF?

I'm currently using DuckDuckGo (https://duckduckgo.com/). They are almost as fast as Google, but not nearly as annoying with the ads!

The point of apple's assertion is that it would provide a basis of the components required to create a functioning device that operates to the licensed standards, so gives more than just chip level cost base, by ensuring there is consideration of the total componentry required to get a phone and data device up and running. this would seem to be a fair basis for an implementation of a standard.

The value add to go from this device to an iPhone has nothing to do with the standards, so why should they be unfairly taxed, or contribute towards the royalties for the standards component of a handset. This is the key point you are missing.

You are damn right that it would impact entry models more than premium ones (as a percentage of sales price) but as a fixed cost component of the phone, this would be a level playing field.

If cheap phones are being sold that purely implement a standard and nothing else it would seem reasonable they are bringing nothing new to the table, and are merely monetizing the standard, so they should pay a higher proportion of their sales price as a royalty to the standards licensees.

So...a"maximum of 2.25%" means nothing?

I feel like that limiting is significant.

Then you would be wrong. That baseband chip is not a "communications device capable of both voice and data communication" as Apple suggests.

This is the beginning of the end for Google..... lots of things are not going their way, but this is going to explode in their face. It's Google against the whole industry, that's not going to work, especially in Europe, not to mention the Far East.

History is repleate with worthless corporate purchases... MOT has been a piece of shit for the last 10 years with old technology that was pioneering in its time, but failed to keep pace.

Just remember the mess they made out of the chips they produced for Apple back in the day, that was the beginning of the end of their technology prowness and after the Razor rage, its been downhill all the way. \ \

So, is this everyone else's interpretation of the letter (by paragraph):

1) We are teh Google. All your Motorola IP are belong to us!

2) Anyone should be able to license our* IP if it's part of a standard, and just because we're buying Motorola, the obligation to pay the "RAND" license fee is still there. (* Oh, and by the way, when we say "our" IP, we only mean the Motorola IP that we're suing other companies over, not anything else Google has, that's off the table.)

3) We're buying Motorola, and yeah, you bet your sweet bippy we're going to charge you ... cough ... "up to" ... cough ... 2.25% of the finished "consumer" product. But, we're nice, we'll offset that 2.25% by the pittance of a royalty fee you're owed if you contribute to the patent pool too. This is SRS BSNS - this letter is irrevocable.

4) Yeah, what we just said. When we say "may charge up to" 2.25%, what we actually mean is "will charge" 2.25%. And we're perfectly happy to negotiate the rate "fairly", on a case-by-case basis, but only if you promise to never sue us, and have never sued us before, and we're not currently in court with you over anything.

5) Oh, and you can pay cash up front too with no royalty fee in place. No really, we won't try to revoke your license later for not paying the 2.25% royalty we've said we want here ... really. By the way, just because it's Moto IP and Google is buying Moto, doesn't mean Google IP will be up for fair licensing though.

6) We can sell the Moto IP any time we want, and you're still stuck with the terms of our highway robbery. Why no, we're not going to milk you then sell the IP to some bottom-feeding patent troll.

7) If you do want to negotiate a deal, that's fine - but then we're going try to suck you dry for using our IP before the agreement is solid (you know who you are), if you don't suck it up and bend over, we're going to sue (you have 30 days to consider it though, we're nice).

8) Really, if you bend over and take it, we won't sue you. And by the way, we're serious about that 2.25% thing. Also, we may hit you with a few other royalty fees if we decide to charge for any other IP we may have in the pool - but don't try to back out, or we'll definitely sue your ass.

9) If we license anything to you, then you'll have to agree not to sue us for abusing your IP.

10) Just recapping everything we've said in the last few paragraphs. And by the way, if we don't think we're getting the best deal (i.e. what most ... ahem ... "fair" to us, or we decide we can squeeze you for more) - we may sue you anyhow. As a matter of fact, all that stuff before only applies if we're not slugging it out in court with you right now - and if you never heard of the IP we're talking about before.

11) We are Google. Motorola is belong to us. Motorola will only do what we say (and by the way, all this stuff is what we say).

12) All this stuff aside, we soooo have our finger on the trigger to sue you. Trust us, we'll litigate you so hard your grandmother will feel it.

13) "Transparency and consistency in licensing" is important, but as per the earlier paragraphs, only if we're talking about Motorola IP that we can get you to pay us for, so we're we're being transparent and telling you that you're consistently going to pay us 2.25% across the board for Moto IP, or we'll spring the lawyers on you. Don't expect that to change, just because Google is buying Motorola. And P.S. "go ahead, publish this letter, we dare you to".

"This common base, as between two negotiating parties, should be no higher than the industry average sales price for a basic communications device that is capable of both voice and data communication."

I have to agree that it can't be only referring to the baseband chip. However, there's lots of wiggle room in there. It sounds like Apple is aiming for the lowest possible number here, even if they have patents in the pool they could be benefiting from. The letter never specifies a finished consumer product. And "sale price" doesn't specify consumer sale price, it could potentially refer to the supplier sale price for the components, sans assembly costs (which obviously would be lower - particularly in Apple's case, what with their high margins).

A "basic communications device" isn't necessarily the finished product, just the sum of the parts that make that functionality possible. Look at it this way, I have an old 1200bps modem and a analog phone - the combined components in those two things meet the criteria specified. Things like casings, screens are out (I used phones that had no screens, for years ), as those have nothing to do with the transmission of data (or voice). RAM or non-volatile storage media is out that's only for saving information, not transmitting/receiving [communicating] it. The A5 isn't a requirement for that specified communications, and the GFX processor on a smartphone is definitely out too, a simple bit of embedded logic will do it for basic communications purposes, and that's way cheaper than a general purpose processor any smartphone will use.

Google maps leaves a lot to be desired anyway beginning with the (evil) fact that they force you to use flash to even use them on the desktop, when it's clearly not necessary. They are also full of so many errors it's ridiculous. Addresses are often complete nonsense and half the databases that run it are seriously out of date.

Wait until Apple's rival system (fingers crossed) is up and running and all the tech sites start doing comparisons (you know Apple would have done comparative tests before they launch). I would bet that all of a sudden Google maps will look like a poor and very stupid cousin.

As for search engines, despite the geekier types going on about how Google is still better than the rest, for the average person doing typical searches it really makes no difference if you use Google, Bing or DuckDuckGo. Also as Siri has taught us, there are large categories of things that are better looked up on Wolfram/Alpha just as most encyclopaedic questions are really answered by Wikipedia and not Google at all.

I've already dropped Google out of most of my activities. I have to have a presence in Google+ for work, but I don't have to actually use it (or any of their products), so mostly I just don't. I also block all Google services and Google analytics in every browser I use. It's quite easy actually.

Hilarious.
(the whole thing)

Has any of the standards bodies stated what is FAIR? Is a maximum of 2.25% fair? Until that is settled then how can any of us say that ISN'T fair? Then again that's a negotiations starting point I'm sure.

I also don't think it's UNFAIR to use your FRAND patents to help you negotiate with your competitor ESPECIALLY if that competitor is suing you for all these near inconsequential NON-ESSENTIAL patents. Apple has admitted that their goal is to go thermonuclear against android handset makers and hasn't shown any indication of their willingness to negotiate and resolve in GOOD FAITH.

I've read in the news that HTC, SAMSUNG want to negotiate. I know MICROSOFT loves to negotiate. Why can't Apple do the same as MICROSOFT?

Instead their intent is to kill their competitors. Just think of it personally. If you own a company and your competitor wants to KILL your company then wouldn't you use everything within your arsenal to fire back?

And if you're saying that those patents are FRAND then I refer you to my first paragraph.

The letter is just a broad description of what they want. A wifi iPad is capable of voice and data communication but not subject to 3G patents.

They are advocating fair licensing terms for devices that use cellular components.

- The percentage rate would be determined by assessing the patent value compared to everyone else's patents. (not feasible really)
- The base to which the rate is applied would be judged on the industry average for a basic device e.g average the selling prices of every 3G phone in the world (not just iPhones) and the amount to pay is the rate applied to that average. (not feasible)
- Nobody can ban products from sale that violate FRAND patents. (If the patent holders comply with fair licensing terms and a manufacturer doesn't follow the licensing, I don't see why they can't ban products from sale. I agree it shouldn't be allowed as a first step)

If someone sells a 3G USB stick, it uses cellular patent tech but should they pay a license rate based on an average selling price that includes mobile phones?

Their suggestions do make sense in some ways though because it would be cheaper for a manufacturer to sell you a 3G USB stick for $30 than bundle the same functionality in a 3G-capable $2000 computer.

The fairest way to me seems to be to charge against the components and not the products. The patent holders can easily increase the rate to reflect this.

- percentage rate would be determined based on the average selling price of the core components. (feasible as there are far fewer component price variations than products)
- The base rate would be the component cost
- It wouldn't matter about injunctions because the patent fee is applied to the components, not the products

This obviously only works for patents that apply to components though and not ones that apply to functionality obtained through the sum of various components that can only be determined after a product is made. Apple's suggestion applies to any patent but I don't think it would be feasible to implement - how would you even begin to assess the relative worth of a patent?

All they really need to do is make Yahoo, or Bing the default search engine in Safari and Mobile Safari, and maybe pull Google completely out as an option. This would probably hurt Google a lot more than Apple creating a new search engine.

Although I do believe Apple will switch to their own mapping system soon.

First Apple is not trying to kill their competitors. They are trying to force their competitors to actually COMPETE rather than steal and copy. There is a huge difference. Microsoft is willing to negotiate and allow others to continue to use its IP, because that is Microsoft's business model; they license software. Apple does not. They sell hardware and write software that allows their products to differentiate themselves from competitors. Therefor they are less willing to allow a competitor to utilize Apple's IP to make their products look and act like Apple's products.

Second, IT IS unfair for a company to submit its IP to a standards body and promise that you will not use that IP to coerce another company in an unfair manner that you have licensed that same IP to another company. The standards body accepts and includes your IP in the industry standard based on that. That's exactly the point of FRAND encumbered patents and IP; that if want us to use your IP as part of an international standard, you have to be fair in licensing.

Third, if you think it is fair for Motorola to charge 2.25% for a single patent, then what happens when other companies begin charging the same thing for the hundreds of other patents that are included as part of the industry standard? The entire system collapses. It would be impossible for a company to make and sell any device. How is any company supposed to pay a total of 300% in licensing fees to produce a product? And you might think I'm being ridiculous, but that's exactly the precedent Motorola is setting.

Understand that this has nothing to do with royalties and everything to do with attempting to put an end to the largest part of the smartphone IP wars. Once the cross-licensing is out of the way, and it will be at some point IMO, you'll see the same or even better level of innovation but much less in legal distractions.

The things being argued now, even by Apple and MS, are the basic elements of smartphones and who should get revenue for them. I believe that eventually a set of smartphone standards will be put together and bundled as FRAND-encumbered, but that point hasn't been reached yet.

ISTM that different patents are worth different amounts. 2.25% may be high for some patents and low for others.

Think about, for example, a new type of memory card. One company might contribute a patent for the basic new memory type, and another might have a patent for innovative packaging. Both might be revolutionary, new and better. In combo, there might be potential to change the entire memory card market.

A third company might have some nifty software stuff to contribute. Stuff that should be part of the standard, but at the same time, stuff that any competent software company could have written, had they been working alongside the first two companies.

ISTM that while all 3 would be essential to companies licensing the tech and making memory cards, the first two patents might be worth vastly more than the third.

So if this chipset is built in to a car as part of an integrated communications system, the royalty fee would be 2.25% of the value of the car ... have I got that right?

I wish I had the e-mail address for this Mr. Gordon Day at the IEEE. I'll write a letter but might not get there before this decision had been made ... but still gotta chime in on this ...

a maximum of 2.25%

You have the email address for Apple don't you? Write and let them know their suggestion to use a completed device price as the royalty base is stupid. Apple could always modify their advice to the IEEE.

I'm a little late to the party here and haven't read through all the comments ... I'm referring to the line in paragraph 3 of the Google letter which is cited in the body of the article. Not aware that Apple ever made a similar suggestion ... can't imagine them doing that.

See post #52 for a link to Apple's letter.

Don't be phony. Google put up $12 billion to buy Motorola, and this is part of their strategy for secretly wooing the government to allow it to go through. Google is feeding Motorola patents. To say that they are completely separate entities is childishly naive, particularly then THIS LETTER is about Google PROMISING to keep doing everything Motorola has been, IN DETAIL!


Wrong again, the contents of the letter was posted for the first time. Maybe if you read the facts that are being presented, rather than working to invent a way to spin things in a comforting way to the audience as you suggest that nothing "negative" be spoken about what Google is actually doing (rather than falsely promising), you'd have a credible position you could edify us with.

Everyone has the rights to sue over their IP. Apple has been the #1 target for the last decade of iPods, and now Apple came out with the popular iPhone and the iPad, which everyone wants to copy. Apple has only sued companies that egregiously steal its technologies.

Microsoft's WM business completely died with the iPhone came out. They tried to resurrect it with WP7, but that's gone nowhere. So MS' main business model is to sell "patent rights" to android Licensees, which it hopes will make Android expensive enough to make WP7 licensing a reasonable alternative.

Samsung and Motorola (and formerly Nokia) all want to get Apple's patent rights for free, but all they have are patents committed to standards and therefore agreed to FRAND licensing. But rather than trying to negotiate fair contracts, they're publicly announcing that "Apple infringes our patents!!!" which is dishonest, because they're simply asking for more than FRAND allows and there fore trying to fraud Apple out of its rights (not money, really).

It's like if you went to buy some music in a store and the shopkeeper insisted that you were "apparently currently stealing music" in a loud voice while quietly demanding you buy all his full CDs of crap and agree to a long term record of the month club, rather than just selling you the single you want to listen to and were prepared to buy for a reasonable price.

Just read it ... didn't see any mention of Apple FRAND licensing being based on the cost of the final product though. Its a letter about Apples commitment to more 'consistent and more transparent application of FRAND licensing ...'. Good common sense stuff, as long as all parties reciprocate.

Googles letter couldn't be more clear that they intend to try to extort onerous terms as a cudgel against competitors. Not exactly the spirit of FRAND.

Then you didn't read it all.
Look for the paragraph titled "Common Royalty Base". It's five paragraphs down.

I do see them referring to basing the fee on an 'industry average sales price for a basic (voice/data) communications device' ...

This is not quite what you are saying, this is an 'industry average' based on something 'basic' ... but perhaps is referencing that as the industry average price of the completed device that utilizes the chipset in question. So you have a point, but there seems to be a big difference. Anyway, I'll leave it to the lawyers now.

And I did get that letter to Gordon Day in the mail already ... I don't get that motivated very often.

I'm especially disgusted by Google's hypocrisy.

Last year, when the issue was whether Google and/or Android licensees would have to pay royalties, Google said:

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/...y-iphone-sale/

Now, when there is the potential for Google to use patents (largely via the Moto acquisition) to extort money and/or block competitors, patents are a good thing.

Just one more reason no one in their right mind should ever trust Google.

They're already doing that, it's called Siri. Apple has (Correctly) identified natural-language queries as one of the forthcoming evolutions of search (The other is social discovery, which Google is focusing on with Google+, but they're too late to that party because Facebook's already eaten their lunch there and the remains are being covered by Twitter and Apps like Ness).

iCloud (Which will grow to include other services like Apple Mapping) + Siri is Apple turning the guns on Google. It's the result of Google's biggest ever mistake - turning on Apple. Google chose to go down the Microsoft route of playing pals with Apple until they saw an opportunity to stab them in the back.

Unfortunately for Mountain View, Apple isn't the kind of company to lay down and get dicked over the same way twice, so Google's great error? They basically invited Apple to help destroy them. Think fighting Facebook's ascension is going to be hard, Google? Pissing off Apple and Microsoft at the same time really was not smart.

If I was a Google shareholder, I would be mad as hell.