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 - Page 3

post #81 of 132
2/9/12 at 10:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

show of hands...who read the letter?

I did. And before I post, I always read all other posts, in order to avoid dupes. Unlike some - and I don't mean you specifically. Just responding to your post.

Cheers
Even if you disagree, he is entitled to his opinion, isn't he? Just as you're entitled to your blinders? (Stelligent)
Reply
Even if you disagree, he is entitled to his opinion, isn't he? Just as you're entitled to your blinders? (Stelligent)
Reply
post #82 of 132
2/9/12 at 10:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

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.

I set my search defaults to yahoo. Search seems to be similar. Maps? Use mapquest, or anybody have a good substitute for google maps? I don't want to use anything google anymore, besides, they are building profiles of you constantly which skeeves me out.
if you fight the rumors, you'll lose no matter what. What if a rumor is true and Apple fights it? or if Apple fights all rumors, but let's another rumor fly, does that mean it's the truth? Jungmark
Reply
if you fight the rumors, you'll lose no matter what. What if a rumor is true and Apple fights it? or if Apple fights all rumors, but let's another rumor fly, does that mean it's the truth? Jungmark
Reply
post #83 of 132
2/9/12 at 10:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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

I'll quote myself (which is a quote from the letter ):

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief View Post

"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."

Actually, battiato1981 is correct. The linked letter doesn't actually specify a "finished consumer product" (or any variation of wording thereof). It's typical non-committal quick-talk that can be spun however you need it do, depending on the situation. However, the way it reads, it appears that Apple is pushing for the lowest-cost basis for the royalty calculations, but with wording that makes it seem more palatable for major contributors to the patent pool, which suggests to me that the value of Apple's patents in the pool is/are relatively small. If so, it makes sense; Apple gets minimal value from their contributions, but maximum value for the other contributors IP assets. Apple makes their profits on product margins, not IP licensing, so that's just good business.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 132
2/9/12 at 11:44am
What happened to "Don't Be Evil"?
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 132
2/9/12 at 12:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoodGrief View Post

I'll quote myself (which is a quote from the letter ):



Actually, battiato1981 is correct. The linked letter doesn't actually specify a "finished consumer product" (or any variation of wording thereof).

Assuming you're licensing for use in a smartphone, what "device" do you think Apple is referring to as comparable for licensing purposes?

Going even more generic than that, what type of "communication device" could be used as a reference for royalty purposes that allows for both "voice and data" and makes use of the essential-patents package?

Not trying to be argumentative, but I think it's plainly clear that Apple is advocating a basic smartphone average price if the license is being granted for smartphone use. I doubt anyone would logically contrue it would be for something totally unrelated to a smartphone (or whatever device the patent set is licensed for).

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #86 of 132
2/9/12 at 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Assuming you're licensing for use in a smartphone, what "device" do you think Apple is referring to.

Going even more generic than that, what type of "device" could be used as a reference for royalty purposes that allows for both "voice and data"?

Not trying to be argumentative, but I think it's plainly clear that Apple is advocating a basic smartphone if the license is being granted for smartphone use. I doubt anyone would logically contrue it would be for something totally unrelated to a smartphone (or whatever device the patent set is licensed for).

How can you be so certain that a radio chip isn't a 'device'?

More importantly, if Google really does think that 2.25% of the 'device' selling price is an appropriate royalty, they're dreaming. So they get 2.25% of a throwaway $100 phone or 2.25% of a $75,000 car - for licensing the same technology? Seems like someone has a strange concept of 'fair'.
Reply
Reply
post #87 of 132
2/9/12 at 12:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

How can you be so certain that a radio chip isn't a 'device'?

Is a radio chip in and of itself capable of being used as a communications device for both voice and data?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

More importantly, if Google really does think that 2.25% of the 'device' selling price is an appropriate royalty, they're dreaming. So they get 2.25% of a throwaway $100 phone or 2.25% of a $75,000 car - for licensing the same technology? Seems like someone has a strange concept of 'fair'.

If the technology is more valuable to you, why wouldn't it be fair as a businessman to ask for more? Serious question.

Secondly, it's not only Moto that licenses based on a percentage of the device cost. Apple is already paying royalties to Nokia on that basis, and even advocates that as a proper base for determining royalties themselves. According to FOSSPatents it's not uncommon. He only suggests that 2.25% across the board in all circumstances might be excessive.

Apple's advocated FRAND royalty price policies suggest the price be the average for a comparable base device rather than each specific device. For example Apple would suggest taking the average selling price for base/entry level mobile phones (not necessarily smartphones) that use the same licensed technology as an appropriate reference for negotiating a rate. In essence both Apple and Google agree that a completed device price should be the standard and not just a single chip. They just disagree on whether it should be the specific device granted the license or an average of several comparable devices from various sources.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #88 of 132
2/9/12 at 12:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusj0015 View Post

What happened to "Don't Be Evil"?

Hiding with"Think Different" I guess.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 132
2/9/12 at 1:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apple is already paying royalties to Nokia on that basis,.

Please provide a link to verify this claim.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #90 of 132
2/9/12 at 1:29pm
I did that for you days ago when you suggested in another thread that no one knew if Apple was paying on-going royalties to Nokia (they are). I think you might be just giving me busy work.

If that's a real question just do a simple search for "Apple settles with Nokia". Lots in there that you've apparently missed, including the estimated 1% of iPhone sales revenue being paid to Nokia regularly during the term of the agreement.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #91 of 132
2/9/12 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

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!

Which is why Google looks so absolutely stupid backing away from this.

Though I suspect the answer is no I'll ask anyway. Does Google have a single hardware patent in their portfolio?
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 132
2/9/12 at 2:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I did that for you days ago when you suggested in another thread that no one knew if Apple was paying on-going royalties to Nokia (they are). I think you might be just giving me busy work.

If that's a real question just do a simple search for "Apple settles with Nokia". Lots in there that you've apparently missed, including the estimated 1% of iPhone sales revenue being paid to Nokia regularly during the term of the agreement.

The estimate is entirely speculative. The terms of the agreement-- the initial cash payment, ongoing payment amounts, and the duration of those payments-- are all confidential. As are the specific technologies that were cross licensed, although in this case Apple did state publicly that while Nokia gained access to "some" of the iPhone's unique tech, it was by no means all or even most.

Doesn't really seem to have amounted to much, as Nokia is no longer in the software business.
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 #93 of 132
2/9/12 at 2:48pm
Talk about officially evil.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #94 of 132
2/9/12 at 2:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The estimate is entirely speculative. The terms of the agreement-- the initial cash payment, ongoing payment amounts, and the duration of those payments-- are all confidential. As are the specific technologies that were cross licensed, although in this case Apple did state publicly that while Nokia gained access to "some" of the iPhone's unique tech, it was by no means all or even most.

Doesn't really seem to have amounted to much, as Nokia is no longer in the software business.

The specific's including the agreed on royalty percentage may be speculative, but the fact that on-going royalties are being paid based on iPhone sales is not. As for the length of time the agreement will be in place, I've never stated one, nor have I even seen a guess posted by anyone else.

As for whether a significant number of the patents that make the iPhone unique were licensed to Nokia, who knows. Apple would only say it wasn't the majority of them.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #95 of 132
2/9/12 at 2:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcusj0015 View Post

What happened to "Don't Be Evil"?

It was murdered.

What I don't understand is how this all plays out in the end.

For instance, Moto are already saying that they'll extort a greater fee for their FRAND patents than others with the "only takes one bullet to kill". But what happens next?

1. Lets look at the 5th generation (eg after LTE/4G) - will any group want a Moto patent in a common design or standard if they know that Moto's terms are so much more than their own? Course they won't, so any future standard will got ahead without Moto.

(Can you imagine Apple putting anything in an open standard tomorrow that includes anything Google or Motorola put in? Nope. Microsoft, Cisco and a bunch of others won't either).

2. What happens when Moto/Google want to use a common patent in the future? Can you imagine Apple/Microsoft/Cisco IP offices? Will it be a "hell no" or a "we want 50%". Moto make set top boxes for instance, will Apple/MS/Cisco be checking through the patent agreements they have with Moto? You betcha.


So overall, in the short term this could be a very profitable venture for Moto/Goog, but over the medium this could be absolutely disastrous.
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 132
2/9/12 at 2:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

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.

Your hypothetical example is rather quaint in that it involves only 3 patents. You are aware that to make a standards-compliant mobile phone, you are necessarily going to be implementing technology from literally thousands of patents, all of which need to be licensed? (I found this document that lists all of the patents involved in the W-CDMA standard; remember this is for W-CDMA only and doesn't cover 1G, 2G or 2.5G stuff).

This being the case a royalty rate of 2.25% for a single patent (that's what's MOT is demanding, not 2.25% to licence their whole portfolio) would have to be exceptionally high relative to the cost of most of the patents, otherwise the total royalty rate would easily far exceed 100% of a unit's selling price.

Further, one may argue that whilst from a technical perspective it may be possible to judge one patent to be "more important" than another, the fact of the matter is that all patented techniques involved in a standard must, by definition, be implemented in a device in order for that device to be standards-compliant. As such, all patents are equally important - failure to implement any one results in failing to comply to the standard. From this perspective it is very difficult to argue that any one patent should command a significantly higher royalty rate than any other.

A 2.25% royalty rate for a supposedly "FRAND" licensed patent is completely unjustifiable.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #97 of 132
2/9/12 at 2:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The specific's including the agreed on royalty percentage may be speculative, but the fact that on-going royalties are being paid based on iPhone sales is not. As for the length of time the agreement will be in place, I've never stated one, nor have I even seen a guess posted by anyone else.

As for whether a significant number of the patents that make the iPhone unique were licensed to Nokia, who knows. Apple would only say it wasn't the majority of them.

Well, since we don't know the time frame for all we know it's already expired. Is is shortly to expire. maybe it was a year. Maybe it was 6 months, or 10 years.

I would guess towards the shorter end, however, since the tech tends to date pretty rapidly and current iPhones may not even use the contested IP.
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 #98 of 132
2/9/12 at 2:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman0 View Post

2. What happens when Moto/Google want to use a common patent in the future? Can you imagine Apple/Microsoft/Cisco IP offices? Will it be a "hell no" or a "we want 50%". Moto make set top boxes for instance, will Apple/MS/Cisco be checking through the patent agreements they have with Moto? You betcha.


So overall, in the short term this could be a very profitable venture for Moto/Goog, but over the medium this could be absolutely disastrous.

IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #99 of 132
2/9/12 at 3:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Well, since we don't know the time frame for all we know it's already expired. Is is shortly to expire. maybe it was a year. Maybe it was 6 months, or 10 years.

I would guess towards the shorter end, however, since the tech tends to date pretty rapidly and current iPhones may not even use the contested IP.

My personal guess would be on the longer side, perhaps 5 years or more. Some of the portfolio that Nokia licensed to Apple was considered essential, and those packages take some time before they're no longer pertinent. I doubt Apple wants to go thru this again before the standards are clearly changed. Really Apple probably knows they were getting off cheap so no need to go for a short-term deal. That's my opinion anyway.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #100 of 132
2/9/12 at 3:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hezetation View Post

Though I suspect the answer is no I'll ask anyway. Does Google have a single hardware patent in their portfolio?

My guess is that there are hundreds of them. A really quick Google search found this reference.
http://www.seobythesea.com/2011/09/g...land-research/

and this one:
http://www.mediapost.com/publication...-on-hardw.html

Google currently controls several thousand patents, and that doesn't include any of the 17K plus in Motorola's portfolio.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #101 of 132
2/9/12 at 3:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.

Is that because Google are too lazy to do it in the correct way, i.e. STOP COPYING THEIR STUFF AND COME UP WITH THEIR OWN WORK.

See, it's really quite simple.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #102 of 132
2/9/12 at 3:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.

long time lurker, first time commenter. You dude are the most contrary person I've ever seen, you sir get the "Troll that acts clueless" award for the day.
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #103 of 132
2/9/12 at 3:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The specific's including the agreed on royalty percentage may be speculative, but the fact that on-going royalties are being paid based on iPhone sales is not. As for the length of time the agreement will be in place, I've never stated one, nor have I even seen a guess posted by anyone else.

As for whether a significant number of the patents that make the iPhone unique were licensed to Nokia, who knows. Apple would only say it wasn't the majority of them.

Please post a link showing "the fact that on-going royalties are being paid based on iPhone sales", otherwise you are just making stuff up.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply
post #104 of 132
2/9/12 at 3:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic View Post

long time lurker, first time commenter. You dude are the most contrary person I've ever seen, you sir get the "Troll that acts clueless" award for the day.

If you wish to be a bit more detailed on what part of my post is clueless, I don't mind at all. I'm always open to members views, particularly those I hadn't yet considered. Perhaps you have some insights to share.

So what say you long time lurker?

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #105 of 132
2/9/12 at 4:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.

But you don't gamble with the FRAND patents though. If it was the other non FRAND stuff I could well understand that, but it's not - this is stuff that you've brought to the table to create a standard with the appropriate bodies.

And the bodies themselves don't want this crap either as it makes them worthless. What's the point of a body that promotes a standard, if the owners of the standards are at each others throats all the time?
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 132
2/9/12 at 4:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Please post a link showing "the fact that on-going royalties are being paid based on iPhone sales", otherwise you are just making stuff up.

Even tho you don't supply back-up for your own posted "facts" when challenged, I'm happy to oblige you anyway.
http://www.redmondpie.com/apple-and-...hone-it-sells/

Not familiar with the challenges I'm referring to? I'll refresh a couple from just the last day or so.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...87#post2040587 Post 5

and here, Post 109. I've even been polite about it and didn't accuse you of "making stuff up".
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...=143044&page=3

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #107 of 132
2/9/12 at 4:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman0 View Post

But you don't gamble with the FRAND patents though. If it was the other non FRAND stuff I could well understand that, but it's not - this is stuff that you've brought to the table to create a standard with the appropriate bodies.

And the bodies themselves don't want this crap either as it makes them worthless. What's the point of a body that promotes a standard, if the owners of the standards are at each others throats all the time?

I agree that FRAND patents shouldn't be used in this manner. The problem is that they sometimes are and have been in the past. Probably will in the future too. Apparently the groups responsible for over-seeing standards don't have rules in place on how to determine values, define what is reasonable, or even how to divide revenues when several different entities contribute IP. There doesn't appear to be any clear rules on much of this, or what the law requires.

Now throw in the Orange Book rules that German courts use, but no one else (and that Apple has used to their advantage in other cases), and there shouldn't be any surprise that if a company feels it's back is to a wall those FRAND patents become lawsuit fodder and Germany is the ideal place to use them.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #108 of 132
2/9/12 at 4:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I agree that FRAND patents shouldn't be used in this manner. The problem is that they sometimes are and have been in the past. Probably will in the future too. Apparently the groups responsible for over-seeing standards don't have rules in place on how to determine values, define what is reasonable, or even how to divide revenues when several different entities contribute IP. There doesn't appear to be any clear rules on much of this, or what the law requires.

Now throw in the Orange Book rules that German courts use, but no one else (and that Apple has used to their advantage in other cases), and there shouldn't be any surprise that if a company feels it's back is to a wall those FRAND patents become lawsuit fodder and Germany is the ideal place to use them.

I agree, it should be no surprise, but my point is that a company that pulls these stunts (remember that Apple and Microsoft are not suing over FRAND patents) will find itself on the outside rather quickly.

Where does that leave your business when everyone else is kicking you in the nuts because you were a prat a couple of years earlier?
Reply
Reply
post #109 of 132
2/9/12 at 5:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman0 View Post

I agree, it should be no surprise, but my point is that a company that pulls these stunts (remember that Apple and Microsoft are not suing over FRAND patents) will find itself on the outside rather quickly.

Where does that leave your business when everyone else is kicking you in the nuts because you were a prat a couple of years earlier?

Microsoft may not be using FRAND patents, but the supposedly "strong" ones it has been bullying Android vendors with may not even be valid. This according to ArsTechnica.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...1#comments-bar

That might be why they've insisted on negotiating in secret, and won't even discuss in detail unless the vendor agrees to a non-disclosure. Microsoft is so big with so much money they can outlast many challengers, throwing lawyers at them until the vendor gives in. Simply telling a company that they're filing suit might be enough to bluff some into agreeing to license patents that may be judged invalid anyway.

To repeat, I don't agree with using FRAND-pledged patents to answer challengers. At the same time I consider MS a well-funded bully trying to make Android too expensive to compete with MS mobile plans, and using bogus patents to do so.

As for Apple, I don't really have too many issues with most of it's IP lawsuits so far, with the exception of their dubious Community Design silliness. Those are just a bit over the top and have as much unfair potential to destroy competitors as anything Moto can do with FRAND patents.

Otherwise Apple is rightly proud of their mobile creations and using the courts to assist with protection of their market should be expected.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #110 of 132
2/9/12 at 5:32pm
Remember when Google said this about patent holders trying to get paid for Android's infringments?
Quote:
A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a “tax” for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #111 of 132
2/9/12 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

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.

Why does it have to be Apple? Right now, I'm finding Bing search and maps meet or exceed Google's offerings and have switched all my search defaults. There's a rare occasion where a Bing search fails and I fall back to Google, but the point is that the competition is there. Disconnect from Google and move on. I have. It's really not that hard.

And FWIW, I didn't dump Google because they are Apple's competitors. I couldn't give a rip about that. I dumped Google because their search engine really isn't that good any more and because their search results are overloaded with ads and paid placements. That and their admittance that G+ was an "identity service" made me move on. Google used to be indispensable but not any more. They've spent too much time and energy working on stuff outside their main competencies that the core products have lagged massively.

• • Programmer and designer of Ship out of Luck, an action/arcade game for iPad • • 

Reply

• • Programmer and designer of Ship out of Luck, an action/arcade game for iPad • • 

Reply
post #112 of 132
2/9/12 at 5:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp View Post

They've spent too much time and energy working on stuff outside their main competencies that the core products have lagged massively.

Retool and restart.

Combine maps with GPS with turn by turn with those cars they've been making and sell that technology to every car company in the world.

Give up on ads. People hate ads. Give up on search; you're loading it with ads (well, before six years ago. AdBlock and Ghostery make no ads a reality in Google searches). Give up on everything else.

You didn't reinvent search, Google. You refined the existing model.
You didn't reinvent ads, Google. You refined the existing model.
You didn't reinvent SEO, Google. You refined the existing model.
You didn't reinvent e-mail, Google. You refined the existing model.
You didn't reinvent video, Google. You bought a company and refined it.
You didn't reinvent phones, Google. You stole an OS.
You didn't reinvent desktop OS', Google. You made whatever vaporware ChromeOS is supposed to be.
You didn't reinvent browsers, Google. You perpetuated your proprietary crap.

Be like Apple for once in your existence. Reinvent driving.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #113 of 132
2/9/12 at 5:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.

That's exactly what Google is doing, and it's exactly what's reprehensible.

Again, we have to distinguish between FRAND patents, that are part of the standard and absolutely necessary to building the device, at all, and Apple's solutions to making a new kind of smart phone--solutions that while extremely compelling and quickly enough adopted industry wide as the "correct" solution, are not required of any competitor to create a functioning phone.

You seem very intent on conflating the two, and feel that holding the industry hostage for necessary standards is a fair way for Google to get access to Apple's desirable design and software innovations. And that that somehow is good for all.

I'll never understand the implacable hostility directed at Apple, all the while demanding that its research and development should be treated like a communal grocery store. People often pretend like Apple just gets lucky over and over again, or just happens to hit on the right and obvious solutions slightly before the rest of the industry, so it's somehow unfair for them to try to hang onto their competitive advantages. The thinking seems to go that Apple is just this unfortunate location where the good ideas happen to come to earth, and they must then be quickly wrestled out of Apple's grasp so decent people can enjoy the results, not just those shitty Apple losers.

It'a a really fucked up attitude, but amazingly prevalent. I guess people need some kind of framework to handle the cognitive dissonance of the a company they hate repeatedly inventing the future.
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 #114 of 132
2/9/12 at 5:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Remember when Google said this about patent holders trying to get paid for Android's infringments?

Yup. Still valid IMO, but I'm assuming that's not the point you're trying to make. Apple has some valid complaints, tho any claim that overall Android is a copy of iOS isn't one of them IMO. I don't have any issue with them going to the courts if they have valid reasons to truly feel someone is using their smartphone or tablet IP without permission.

My eyes roll when companies, not Apple specifically, read new meanings into old patents, particularly when they don't use those patents themselves, yet feign egregious harm from someone's use of a feature that can only imaginatively be considered infringement.

Don't even get me started on Community Design stuff.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #115 of 132
2/9/12 at 5:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yup. Still valid IMO...

In that case then Google should get Moto to drop all their licensing fees.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #116 of 132
2/9/12 at 5:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

You seem very intent on conflating the two, and feel that holding the industry hostage for necessary standards is a fair way for Google to get access to Apple's desirable design and software innovations.

Are you apparently not seeing my numerous mentions that I don't agree with using FRAND-pledged patents against competitor's. See post 107 and 109 in just this thread. There's at least one, perhaps two other posts on my displeasure with Google's letter in another thread from last night.

Having an understanding for why something takes place is not in any way the same as condoning it. I understand why some people drive home after having too many drinks. That isn't saying I think it's the right thing to do.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #117 of 132
2/9/12 at 5:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

In that case then Google should get Moto to drop all their licensing fees.

To paraphrase what Apple said in their letter to the IEEE concerning FRAND patent policies, Google would probably "be willing to commit to this framework, provided that other parties reciprocate."

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #118 of 132
2/9/12 at 6:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Are you apparently not seeing my numerous mentions that I don't agree with using FRAND-pledged patents against competitor's.

Having an understanding for why something takes place is not in any way the same as condoning it. I understand why some people drive home after having too many drinks. That isn't saying I think it's the right thing to do.

Nope, sorry, you said this:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy
IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.

That's a more in sorrow than anger backhanded endorsement of Google's strategy, wherein FRAND abuse is necessary for an "equitable arrangement" where "all can have a chance of success."

In other words, Google, bless their souls, just wants perfectly reasonable access to Apple's user experience innovations, and if they have to blow up the entire industry to do it, well, regrettable but understandable.

And of course it goes without saying that Apple's litigation is likely unfounded, since this whole "shooting each other with loaded patents" thing is clearly just out of control aggression, rather than being the legitimate response to seeing your unprecedented work in the mobile space diffuse to your competitors in short order. I mean, Apple sued for a black rectangle, amiright?
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 #119 of 132
2/9/12 at 6:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Nope, sorry, you said this:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy
IMO, the whole purpose of Google holding steady to Moto's 2.25% of the device cost as a royalty is to break the lawsuit cycle and force a cross-licensing agreement with Apple and MS. It's not about the patent revenue at all. It's about getting MS Apple and Google to all sit down and work out an equitable arrangement where they can all have a chance of success in the mobile market rather than trying to shoot one another with loaded patents. They're all more successful using IP and products that each can bring to the table.

That's a more in sorrow than anger backhanded endorsement of Google's strategy, wherein FRAND abuse is necessary for an "equitable arrangement" where "all can have a chance of success."

In other words, Google, bless their souls, just wants perfectly reasonable access to Apple's user experience innovations, and if they have to blow up the entire industry to do it, well, regrettable but understandable.

And of course it goes without saying that Apple's litigation is likely unfounded, since this whole "shooting each other with loaded patents" thing is clearly just out of control aggression, rather than being the legitimate response to seeing your unprecedented work in the mobile space diffuse to your competitors in short order. I mean, Apple sued for a black rectangle, amiright?

You apparently missed post 107 and 109 in this thread, plus at least one other voicing my disagreement and displeasure in a thread from last night.

EDIT: there's also here, post 14 last night, well before anyone else mentioned it, including AI.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...47#post2040747

No need to apologize. It's easy to miss posts here and there. It's a busy forum.

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply

melior diabolus quem scies

"No theatrics and no more personal attacks, just stick to the logic and tell me why I don't have any argument ~ Jragosta/2012

Reply
post #120 of 132
2/9/12 at 7:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Even tho you don't supply back-up for your own posted "facts" when challenged, I'm happy to oblige you anyway.
http://www.redmondpie.com/apple-and-...hone-it-sells/

Going to the source of your link, the ever reliable FOSS Patents blog, I found this:-

Quote:
The dispute started in October 2009. Nokia emerges victorious:

"The financial structure of the agreement consists of a one-time payment payable by Apple and on-going royalties to be paid by Apple to Nokia for the term of the agreement. The specific terms of the contract are confidential."

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com.au/2...t-dispute.html

Although I usually post links like this:-

Source

"ongoing royalties" with no description of how those "ongoing royalties" are determined or whether those "ongoing royalties are based on "number of iPhones sold" or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Not familiar with the challenges I'm referring to? I'll refresh a couple from just the last day or so.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...87#post2040587 Post 5

This is a link I posted earlier in regards to this, I direct your attention specifically to parts C and D.

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

and here, Post 109. I've even been polite about it and didn't accuse you of "making stuff up".
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...=143044&page=3

Refer to the previous link, revoking the licenses of chipmakers means the patent isn't exhausted when used in a device, making demands for payment on the entire cost of the device possible.

Just in case you missed the link I am referring to:-

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

Here it is again, specifically parts C and D.

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

Reply

"The cobbler's children have no shoes", is a saying that applies a lot to companies who provide products and services. -KDarling on Google Search.

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