AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple lodged FRAND abuse complaint against Motorola with European Commission
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple lodged FRAND abuse complaint against Motorola with European Commission - Page 2

post #41 of 131
2/18/12 at 1:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

I built this rig at the end of 2010. At the time the cost was around 1200, So Far other then the bad ram I had when I purchased with it(Swapped out for free). I have not had any cost with this thing other then the 600+ that I sunk to the steam store. If you build with quality you will never have any issues. I may however at the end of the year either swap out video cards or Swap the motherboard, cpu and gpu but that is the cost of ownership that comes with a gaming rig.

How much did Windows cost?

"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 #42 of 131
2/18/12 at 1:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibod View Post




However, if I spec that system with a iMac 27" like spec including an ups display of similar quality, things go slightly wobbly and the Mac actually works out cheaper!

Do you attribute that to the efficiencies of Apple's AIO design?
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 131
2/18/12 at 1:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinman0 View Post


The average computer user is an idiot.


If true, then around half of them don't even rise to the level of idiot.

Like I said, Apple has a bright future.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 131
2/18/12 at 1:46pm
This is what the standard body OASIS uses as its RAND(FRAND) definition:

Quote:
RAND - [An Obligated Party] will grant to any OASIS Party or third party: a nonexclusive, worldwide, non-sublicensable, perpetual patent license (or an equivalent non-assertion covenant) under its Essential Claims covered by its Contribution Obligations or Participation Obligations on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms to make, have made, use, market, import, offer to sell, and sell, and to otherwise directly or indirectly distribute (a) Licensed Products that implement such OASIS Standards Final Deliverable, and (b) Licensed Products that implement any Final Maintenance Deliverable with respect to that OASIS Standards Final Deliverable.

RF-RAND or FRAND - [An Obligated Party] will grant to any OASIS Party or third party: a nonexclusive, worldwide, non-sublicensable, perpetual patent license (or an equivalent non-assertion covenant) under its Essential Claims covered by its Contribution Obligations or Participation Obligations without payment of royalties or fees, and subject to the applicable Section 10.2.2 or 10.2.3, to make, have made, use, market, import, offer to sell, and sell, and to otherwise directly or indirectly distribute (a) Licensed Products that implement such OASIS Standards Final Deliverable, and (b) Licensed Products that implement any Final Maintenance Deliverable with respect to that OASIS Standards Final Deliverable. .... [and with] license terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ...

Motorola and Samsung are attacking Apple because Qualcomm isnt allowed to use their FRAND patents. It is non-sublicensable meaning Apple is not off the hook just because they've bought it from a FRAND licensee Qualcomm. Apple has materially benefited (quite healthily might I add)from the use of their patents. Therefore, both of these companies are after their fair share of the deal. Other companies have paid these companies their shares. Apple, on the other hand, refused to do so relying on the above mentioned statements.

Once this very important word gets out, the European body's investigation will come to a halt and will side with Motorola and Samsung in its decision. Apple's entire counter claim was based on this single word ( or lack of it as they say).

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20213092754823

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #45 of 131
2/18/12 at 1:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

This is what the standard body OASIS uses as its RAND(FRAND) definition:



Motorola and Samsung are attacking Apple because Qualcomm isnt allowed to use their FRAND patents. It is non-sublicensable meaning Apple is not off the hook just because they've bought it from a FRAND licensee Qualcomm.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20213092754823

I was wondering if anyone was going to bother pointing that out. I came across that a few days ago at one of the patent-blog sites.

For all the talk of what was fair and Motorola's obligations under FRAND, it seems no one bothered to look at the standard agreement from the body who composed the applicable FRAND standards, and Motorola's obligations and rights under it.

EDIT: I couldn't remember exactly where I had seen it (I originally thought PatentlyO), but here it is.
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....20213092754823

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 #46 of 131
2/18/12 at 3:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

If you build with quality you will never have any issues.

This statement is so utterly untrue that it's funny!

Make your own hardware, do you?

Writing your own software and drivers?

Unfortunately, 'building a PC with quality' involves far too many third parties trying to make compromises for this to occur as you have claimed.

Bring us the girl, and wipe away the debt.

Reply

Bring us the girl, and wipe away the debt.

Reply
post #47 of 131
2/18/12 at 3:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

This statement is so utterly untrue that it's funny!

Make your own hardware, do you?

Writing your own software and drivers?

Unfortunately, 'building a PC with quality' involves far too many third parties trying to make compromises for this to occur as you have claimed.

I wonder what examples people who believe that can make?

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

Reply

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

Reply
post #48 of 131
2/18/12 at 3:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

This is what the standard body OASIS uses as its RAND(FRAND) definition:



Motorola and Samsung are attacking Apple because Qualcomm isnt allowed to use their FRAND patents. It is non-sublicensable meaning Apple is not off the hook just because they've bought it from a FRAND licensee Qualcomm. Apple has materially benefited (quite healthily might I add)from the use of their patents. Therefore, both of these companies are after their fair share of the deal. Other companies have paid these companies their shares. Apple, on the other hand, refused to do so relying on the above mentioned statements.

Once this very important word gets out, the European body's investigation will come to a halt and will side with Motorola and Samsung in its decision. Apple's entire counter claim was based on this single word ( or lack of it as they say).

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20213092754823

So when you buy a phone YOU should pay license fees because according to your contention, the company you bought the phone from is SUB-LICENSING FRAND patents to you?

See how you are wrong.

"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 #49 of 131
2/18/12 at 3:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I was wondering if anyone was going to bother pointing that out. I came across that a few days ago at one of the patent-blog sites.

For all the talk of what was fair and Motorola's obligations under FRAND, it seems no one bothered to look at the standard agreement from the body who composed the applicable FRAND standards, and Motorola's obligations and rights under it.

EDIT: I couldn't remember exactly where I had seen it (I originally thought PatentlyO), but here it is.
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....20213092754823

According to that argument you would have no problem with having to pay extra at the checkout whenever you buy any product with FRAND patents, because apparently the licenses being paid by the manufacturer don't count and should be paid for by the end user.

The whole FRAND based standards system is based on preventing this from happening as it leads to anti-competitive behaviour.

"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 #50 of 131
2/18/12 at 3:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So when you buy a phone YOU should pay license fees because according to your contention, the company you bought the phone from is SUB-LICENSING FRAND patents to you?

See how you are wrong.

Did you even read the Oasis FRAND standards statement he posted or just wing it as you wrote?

"to make, have made, use, market, import, offer to sell, and sell, and to otherwise directly or indirectly distribute (a) Licensed Products that implement such OASIS Standards Final Deliverable, and (b) Licensed Products that implement any Final Maintenance Deliverable with respect to that OASIS Standards Final Deliverable.

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 #51 of 131
2/18/12 at 4:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

According to that argument you would have no problem with having to pay extra at the checkout whenever you buy any product with FRAND patents, because apparently the licenses being paid by the manufacturer don't count and should be paid for by the end user.

The whole FRAND based standards system is based on preventing this from happening as it leads to anti-competitive behaviour.

Do yourself a huge favor. Before you presume you understand this, and if you're really interested in being somewhat accurate and informative when replying to others on the subject, visit the link I provided in post 45. It should help with your understanding of how this whole "FRAND thing" works. It's written by real lawyers, yet written in layman's language for the most part.

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 #52 of 131
2/18/12 at 4:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Did you even read the Oasis FRAND standards statement he posted or just wing it as you wrote?

"to make, have made, use, market, import, offer to sell, and sell, and to otherwise directly or indirectly distribute (a) Licensed Products that implement such OASIS Standards Final Deliverable, and (b) Licensed Products that implement any Final Maintenance Deliverable with respect to that OASIS Standards Final Deliverable.

Yep, Apple buying a licensed chip off Qualcomm IS NOT SUB-LICENSING, it's buying a licensed chip.

Quote:
RAND - [An Obligated Party] will grant to any OASIS Party or third party: a nonexclusive, worldwide, non-sublicensable, perpetual patent license (or an equivalent non-assertion covenant) under its Essential Claims covered by its Contribution Obligations or Participation Obligations on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms to make, have made, use, market, import, offer to sell, and sell, and to otherwise directly or indirectly distribute (a) Licensed Products that implement such OASIS Standards Final Deliverable, and (b) Licensed Products that implement any Final Maintenance Deliverable with respect to that OASIS Standards Final Deliverable.

RF-RAND or FRAND - [An Obligated Party] will grant to any OASIS Party or third party: a nonexclusive, worldwide, non-sublicensable, perpetual patent license (or an equivalent non-assertion covenant) under its Essential Claims covered by its Contribution Obligations or Participation Obligations without payment of royalties or fees, and subject to the applicable Section 10.2.2 or 10.2.3, to make, have made, use, market, import, offer to sell, and sell, and to otherwise directly or indirectly distribute (a) Licensed Products that implement such OASIS Standards Final Deliverable, and (b) Licensed Products that implement any Final Maintenance Deliverable with respect to that OASIS Standards Final Deliverable. .... [and with] license terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ...


I suggest you take it up with Galbi, he's the one who seems to think it's important as shown in the formatting of his post, which, as you came in citing the same link, you seem to agree.

"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 #53 of 131
2/18/12 at 4:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Yep, Apple buying a licensed chip off Qualcomm IS NOT SUB-LICENSING, it's buying a licensed chip.




I suggest you take it up with Galbi, he's the one who seems to think it's important as shown in the formatting of his post, which, as you came in citing the same link, you seem to agree.

You're not going to read the article on this that I linked and recommended, are you? You aren't understanding and don't realize it.

In case anyone else would like to help to understand the FRAND issue, here's the link again.

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....20213092754823

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 #54 of 131
2/18/12 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

This is what the standard body OASIS uses as its RAND(FRAND) definition:



Motorola and Samsung are attacking Apple because Qualcomm isnt allowed to use their FRAND patents. It is non-sublicensable meaning Apple is not off the hook just because they've bought it from a FRAND licensee Qualcomm. Apple has materially benefited (quite healthily might I add)from the use of their patents. Therefore, both of these companies are after their fair share of the deal. Other companies have paid these companies their shares. Apple, on the other hand, refused to do so relying on the above mentioned statements.

Once this very important word gets out, the European body's investigation will come to a halt and will side with Motorola and Samsung in its decision. Apple's entire counter claim was based on this single word ( or lack of it as they say).

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20213092754823

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Do yourself a huge favor. Before you presume you understand this, and if you're really interested in being somewhat accurate and informative when replying to others on the subject, visit the link I provided in post 45. It should help with your understanding of how this whole "FRAND thing" works. It's written by real lawyers, yet written in layman's language for the most part.

1 Qualcomm pays a license fee for Motorola's patent to be used in the chip they make.

2 Phone manufacturer buys licensed chip from Qualcomm and uses in device.

There, that's Fair/Reasonable Non-Discriminatory and is how it has worked since the system was introduced to bring to heel a cabal of European phone manufacturers along with Motorola who were using standards essential patents in the nineties to keep Japanese companies out of the European market.

Motorola dictating to Qualcomm how they should not sell chips to Apple on the same terms as they sell to everyone else is discriminatory and hearkens back to the bad old, anticompetitive days which prompted the adoption of FRAND in the first place.

I don't need a law degree or the biased view of Groklaw to tell me how the world works.

"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 #55 of 131
2/18/12 at 5:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

I don't need a law degree or the biased view of Groklaw to tell me how the world works.

You apparently don't. I would imagine you have little use for doctors or teachers either.

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 #56 of 131
2/18/12 at 5:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You apparently don't. I would imagine you have little use for doctors or teachers either.

Not for knowing that what Motorola (and Samsung) are doing is wrong, no.

"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 #57 of 131
2/18/12 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

It's funny how Windows users never consider selling their computer when they're done with its useful life because it really has no value at that point. Reselling my Mac (or any Apple product) levels the playing field as far as price goes and allows me to upgrade more often.

So no Windows user ever sells their old computers? None of them? Then why are auction sites etc full of second hand Windows PCs?

And the resale value of a Mac has dropped massively over the last few years with Apple decreasing the price of new Macs, you would have to be very silly to purchase a second hand Mac at a high figure, especially with Apple dropping support so fast.

I still have a Toshiba laptop and a Mac Mini that were both purchased in 2005, both still work, but the Mac Mini is so slow it isn't usable.
Reply
Reply
post #58 of 131
2/18/12 at 6:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post

I built this rig at the end of 2010. At the time the cost was around 1200, So Far other then the bad ram I had when I purchased with it(Swapped out for free). I have not had any cost with this thing other then the 600+ that I sunk to the steam store. If you build with quality you will never have any issues. I may however at the end of the year either swap out video cards or Swap the motherboard, cpu and gpu but that is the cost of ownership that comes with a gaming rig.

In two years, what value do you think you can get for your rig in open market? I can safely assume a $1200 Mac I bought today will probably sell for around half of that in two years. So in essence, my $1200 Mac really only cost me $600. Your rig on the other hand, really did cost you $1200.
Reply
Reply
post #59 of 131
2/18/12 at 6:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

Then they cost more because the TCO on a PC is significantly higher than a Mac.

In case you didn't get it, it was crappy grammar and I was being an ass pointing it out…
Like this in the next post after yours…
Quote:
So Far other then the bad ram I had when I purchased with...
…
I have not had any cost with this thing other then the 600+ that I sunk to the steam store.
Reply
Reply
post #60 of 131
2/18/12 at 7:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Oracle's latest damages report says they deserve several million for both the copyright and patent claims (of which another has been tossed from the case). No, not billions that Oracle supposedly wanted from Google that was used for splash articles.

Oracle's damages expert, Dr. Cockburn "comes up with a proposed number that is nothing near the multiple billions that made headlines when this case was first announced, the expert now valuing the patents at $57.1 million as the highest proposed figure. He values the copyrights at the highest end at between $52.4 million and $169 million, which is ridiculous anyway, but remember the headlines when Oracle first announced this litigation? That Google could lose up to $6.1 billion if it lost this case? That was never realistic."

Oracle's case appears to have been heavily overstated from the beginning.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20218041255197



Keep in mind, the Judge has put enormous pressure on both parties to settle. The judge essentially wasn't going to allow a trial if Oracle didn't adjust the damages downward. With that said, if Google is found to intentionally have infringed (which based on incriminating emails is likely), whatever the damages are found to be will be tripled. Moreover, unlike patent law where the Judge issuing an injunction is discretionary, Google will face an injunction if Oracle wins on the copyright grounds. Just ask Psystar how the judge ruled in its copyright battle with Apple.

If Oracle wins, the damage award also doesn't cover future licensing. With the pressure of an injunction over Google head, Oracle stands to gain a decent licensing fee. That is what Oracle is really after. The past damage award would be just the icing on the cake.
.
Reply
Reply
post #61 of 131
2/18/12 at 9:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

This is what the standard body OASIS uses as its RAND(FRAND) definition:



Motorola and Samsung are attacking Apple because Qualcomm isnt allowed to use their FRAND patents. It is non-sublicensable meaning Apple is not off the hook just because they've bought it from a FRAND licensee Qualcomm. Apple has materially benefited (quite healthily might I add)from the use of their patents. Therefore, both of these companies are after their fair share of the deal. Other companies have paid these companies their shares. Apple, on the other hand, refused to do so relying on the above mentioned statements.

Once this very important word gets out, the European body's investigation will come to a halt and will side with Motorola and Samsung in its decision. Apple's entire counter claim was based on this single word ( or lack of it as they say).

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20213092754823

Yes, none of these highly-paid lawyers or educated judges ever cared to consider this point, huh?

Explain to me then, if it's not possible to "sub-license" said FRAND patents (assuming your understanding of the term is correct), then why does Qualcomm pay a licensing fee? Why did Motorolla have to specifically target Apple when it cancelled the license? Apparently, no one should be granted a license, including all the other OEMs who use Qualcomm chips. So why is Qualcomm paying a license?

No matter how a contract is worded, the legal principle of patent exhaustion remains in affect.
Reply
Reply
post #62 of 131
2/18/12 at 9:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

On the contrary, Apple is for discerning people who are not swayed by upfront cheap prices and gimmicks. They would rather pay for a product that saves them time in innumerable ways - when things just work, without having to reboot often, or clean up malware/viruses, etc. Whether it is Android or Windows, most people are forced to spend an inordinate amount of time figuring out what is wrong, rooting the OS, etc.

I wonder if people consider the upfront cost of antivirus protection for the life of a Windows machine, plus the performance hit from having to run antivirus constantly.

If you consider the overall value proposition, you are much better off with Apple.

Or maybe you consider Apple folks sheep because they don't want to deal with the malware and viruses that Android and Windows users constantly deal with. If so, let the Android and Windows users be lions, and we will be sheep. Only difference is that it is the Lions that are being slaughtered by the hackers.

I believed you missed the sarcasm dripping from my post, but thanks for the long winded reply.

Sent from my iPhone 4S.
Reply
Reply
post #63 of 131
2/18/12 at 10:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

In two years, what value do you think you can get for your rig in open market? I can safely assume a $1200 Mac I bought today will probably sell for around half of that in two years. So in essence, my $1200 Mac really only cost me $600. Your rig on the other hand, really did cost you $1200.

You can assume that? There is too many unknowns to even think of assuming anything. What happens when Apple drops the price of new Macs? What happens when Apple drops new OS support for three year old Macs? What happens when iOS totally dwarfs OSX?

Personally I think someone is a fool if they pay 50% of todays price for a computer in two years time
Reply
Reply
post #64 of 131
2/18/12 at 11:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You're not going to read the article on this that I linked and recommended, are you? You aren't understanding and don't realize it.

In case anyone else would like to help to understand the FRAND issue, here's the link again.

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....20213092754823

You keep flogging that article as if it has some blockbuster revelation about sub-licensing, but it never even deals with the concept beyond the same boilerplate you've cut and pasted. And I'm not sure what grants that particular article some kind of aura of infallibility-- do you know the author? Does the author have any kind of track record in these matters?

As has been mentioned, it seems pretty absurd to imagine that an army of highly paid lawyers have somehow overlooked a fundamental aspect of FRAND licensing, and anyway, as the article actually points out, there's nothing binding in the language, it merely serves as a guideline.

My guess is this little side gambit will get decisively refuted at some point, and you'll make some murmuring noises and move on. Which seems to kind of be your M.O.-- grabbing on to anything that might put Apple in a bad light, pimping it as hard as you can, at length, in thread after thread, then, when it turns out (as it so frequently does) that there's no "there" there, just sort of wander off. It's like a hobby, with you.
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 #65 of 131
2/19/12 at 1:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

So when you buy a phone YOU should pay license fees because according to your contention, the company you bought the phone from is SUB-LICENSING FRAND patents to you?

See how you are wrong.

Are you serious? Did you just really write that? Wow. lol

That is the most ridiculous comeback I've heard all week. You should be embarrassed.

There is a difference between a consumer and a licensee.

Consumers don't make products for sale.

Licensee's license technology for production and eventual sale of products.

I cant even believe that I'm having to explain this to you.

Thanks for a memorable 600th post. lol

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #66 of 131
2/19/12 at 1:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

You keep flogging that article as if it has some blockbuster revelation about sub-licensing, but it never even deals with the concept beyond the same boilerplate you've cut and pasted. And I'm not sure what grants that particular article some kind of aura of infallibility-- do you know the author? Does the author have any kind of track record in these matters?

As has been mentioned, it seems pretty absurd to imagine that an army of highly paid lawyers have somehow overlooked a fundamental aspect of FRAND licensing, and anyway, as the article actually points out, there's nothing binding in the language, it merely serves as a guideline.

My guess is this little side gambit will get decisively refuted at some point, and you'll make some murmuring noises and move on. Which seems to kind of be your M.O.-- grabbing on to anything that might put Apple in a bad light, pimping it as hard as you can, at length, in thread after thread, then, when it turns out (as it so frequently does) that there's no "there" there, just sort of wander off. It's like a hobby, with you.

People on here dont personally know Florian, the patent lawyer, but yet everyone references his opinion. Should'nt he be held to the same standard as well?

You are trying to sideline the argument at hand here bringing up the authors credibility and refocusing the attention on something else.

Bylaws serve as a general rule among standard bodies. Hence why the author was referencing its wordings which suggests that the FRAND "rules" for telecommunications standards will have similar words in it.

If nothing is "binding", then Apple should get out of using the 3G standards or other teleco standards if they dont want to follow it. If Apple isnt pulling its fair share of the weight, why should the others? That defeats the purpose of having FRAND "rules" in the first place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Yes, none of these highly-paid lawyers or educated judges ever cared to consider this point, huh?

Explain to me then, if it's not possible to "sub-license" said FRAND patents (assuming your understanding of the term is correct), then why does Qualcomm pay a licensing fee? Why did Motorolla have to specifically target Apple when it cancelled the license? Apparently, no one should be granted a license, including all the other OEMs who use Qualcomm chips. So why is Qualcomm paying a license?

No matter how a contract is worded, the legal principle of patent exhaustion remains in affect.

Because Qualcomm licensed it? That is why Qualcomm is paying licensing fees? The "F" in FRAND does not stand for "Free". Am I not seeing something here?

It's most likely that the FRAND terms do have non-sublicensable clause in its wordings.

This is my speculation but a customer probably cannot, by sale of your products, acquire said licenses.

It must have its own license.

Apple contends that through use of Qualcomm's license that they are indirectly paying for it.

However, with words like "non-sublicensable", Apple is barred from this practice. They must have their very own license.

You must have a very favorable view of lawyers.


Apple is setting a dangerous precedent here. If they fail to follow the general guidelines of FRAND and dismiss its obligations based on the non-binding rules like you've said, no one in the industry will give up their patents for the benefit of the industry. They will all hog up their patents, preventing deployment of new technologies, interoperability and bring innovation to a screeching halt. Everyone will becomes it own island.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #67 of 131
2/19/12 at 4:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

You keep flogging that article as if it has some blockbuster revelation about sub-licensing, but it never even deals with the concept beyond the same boilerplate you've cut and pasted. And I'm not sure what grants that particular article some kind of aura of infallibility-- do you know the author? Does the author have any kind of track record in these matters?

As has been mentioned, it seems pretty absurd to imagine that an army of highly paid lawyers have somehow overlooked a fundamental aspect of FRAND licensing, and anyway, as the article actually points out, there's nothing binding in the language, it merely serves as a guideline.

My guess is this little side gambit will get decisively refuted at some point, and you'll make some murmuring noises and move on. Which seems to kind of be your M.O.-- grabbing on to anything that might put Apple in a bad light, pimping it as hard as you can, at length, in thread after thread, then, when it turns out (as it so frequently does) that there's no "there" there, just sort of wander off. It's like a hobby, with you.

I'm not suggesting that the article I recommended proves anything about the Moto/Qualcom/Apple case, and especially not a definitive answer on sub-licensing rights. That's Galbi's push.

What it does do is help me, and probably you if you read it, in understanding some of the rules that FRAND licensees and contributors work with. It goes on to explain licensing bodies and who establishes them, then onto royalties. How are they determined and what are they based on? Do all the rates have to be the same? What is fair or reasonable in a licensing sense, and who decides that?

There's dozens of posts in this thread that presume to be factual descriptions of how FRAND works, along with unequivocal claims that Motorola is acting illegally, the royalties are too high. This or that can't be done, etc. Many of them have no legal background or sources, yet post as if they "know". I'd rather not see disinformation pushed as fact. I would hope you feel the same.

There's no harm in reading an article written by lawyers well-versed in patent law and FRAND, and the benefit is obvious. It doesn't matter if you or I like what it says or disagree with it. We might prefer FRAND worked differently and was more clear-cut with plainly stated rules and bright yellow lines. We might even wish all these software patent issues were done away with, or at the least make it a tougher process as they do in Europe.

If you disregard the Apple/Moto connection in the article and just use it to better understand FRAND licensing rights and obligations as a whole it's a great read IMO. It dispels some of the mythical uneducated comments about how FRAND works and make the process so much easier to understand. Just don't look at it as an end-all on any specific case including the Moto/Apple one, because you're right: It doesn't offer any blockbuster revelation about sub-licensing obligations. It's simply a good explanation of standards bodies, royalties, rights and obligations which many here have shown a misunderstanding of.

If you have another worthy source of comments on FRAND issues and answers, please post a link. I'm not afraid to learn something I didn't know.

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 #68 of 131
2/19/12 at 6:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm not suggesting that the article I recommended proves anything about the Moto/Qualcom/Apple case, and especially not a definitive answer on sub-licensing rights. That's Galbi's push.

What it does do is help me, and probably you if you read it, in understanding some of the rules that FRAND licensees and contributors work with. ...

Interesting attempt at justifying FUD. But when Moto's actions target one company and are contrary to what appears to have been common and industry standard practices to this point, then those actions are not Fair, Reasonable or Non-Discriminatory. So, basically, what the article amounts to is more FUD produced by a biased source being pointed to as "authoritative".
Reply
Reply
post #69 of 131
2/19/12 at 6:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


Personally I think someone is a fool if they pay 50% of todays price for a computer in two years time

That would be true if computers dropped in price more than 25% a year. You may be correct.

I once went shopping for a used laptop. I concluded that the best values were in SOTA new laptops. The used ones had pathetic specs compared to SOTA. The brand new, but just discontinued ones were similarly overpriced compared to the newest ones.

Desktops may be different. Back when I used to build (or specify) my computers, I would shoot for "Last year's best" components, and build something great for cheap prices.

Things may have changed over the years. I haven't shopped for a new computer in 2 1/2 years, given that my former SOTA laptop still works as well as it did on day one. the processor is still very fast, and the 4 gigs of RAM still are enough for my typical use.

Maybe when it is time to move on, the current laptop will be worth very little. But in the meantime, I have enjoyed using a machine that is much faster than any laptop sold by Apple at the time, for any price, with a better screen.

To be fair, it is not as nice visually or tactically as a MBP. But it just works better.
Reply
Reply
post #70 of 131
2/19/12 at 9:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Oracle's latest damages report says they deserve several million for both the copyright and patent claims (of which another has been tossed from the case). No, not billions that Oracle supposedly wanted from Google that was used for splash articles.

Oracle's damages expert, Dr. Cockburn "comes up with a proposed number that is nothing near the multiple billions that made headlines when this case was first announced, the expert now valuing the patents at $57.1 million as the highest proposed figure. He values the copyrights at the highest end at between $52.4 million and $169 million, which is ridiculous anyway, but remember the headlines when Oracle first announced this litigation? That Google could lose up to $6.1 billion if it lost this case? That was never realistic."

Oracle's case appears to have been heavily overstated from the beginning.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20218041255197

Let's assume that you're right.

First, damages grow all the time. Every day that passes, the damages go up.

Second, if the infringement can be shown to be willful (which will be easy given Google's emails), the damages can be trebled. PLUS, punitive damages can be added on. So that total could easily exceed a billion dollars - or more.

Finally, the problem from Google's perspective is not the money, it's the risk that all Android products might have to be pulled off the market. And that would open Google up for lawsuits from their licensees which could easily reach tens of billions of dollars. Not to mention, of course, destroying any credibility Google has and encouraging licensees to look for alternatives. I could picture Windows Mobile to benefit and for some tablet makers to even use WebOS.

No matter how you try to spin it, the Oracle case could hurt Google badly.
Reply
Reply
post #71 of 131
2/19/12 at 9:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No matter how you try to spin it, the Oracle case could hurt Google badly.

I'm not trying to "spin it", just posting the facts and a link to the court transcripts. The current state of the case is so different from what was projected earlier, and what some members expectations (hopes?) of it are, that it's news they'll find informative if not surprising.

Spinning would be the articles here and at FOSS (until recently) that had Google all but convicted and sentenced with Oracle just waiting for their multi-billion check and keys to Google's X lab.

Yes, the case could still hurt Google badly. IMO, the chances of that get slimmer after each court appearance and with each preliminary court decision.

Read the transcripts for yourself and see what you come away with. There's no spin on the judge's part in the official court docs.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...0309143182#445

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 #72 of 131
2/19/12 at 10:11am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm not suggesting that the article I recommended proves anything about the Moto/Qualcom/Apple case, and especially not a definitive answer on sub-licensing rights. That's Galbi's push.

I could not find any other sources that discuss the question of sub-licensing FRAND technology, which seemed odd in itself, but I have a couple of observations:
  1. It does seem a bit strange if the license were required to be paid by all companies in a manufacturing chain. That is not how regular patent licensing works in my experience.
  2. Is it possible that you are misinterpreting the term "sublicense" in this context? To allow sublicensing means that the first licensee may independently license the technology to a third party. Precluding sublicensing by the licensee is a common licensing clause, but it does not mean that a third party making use of the technology has to pay to license from the original licensor, it just means that their license agreement and conditions of use are still defined by the original license, and cannot be changed by the first licensee.
Reply
Reply
post #73 of 131
2/19/12 at 10:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm not suggesting that the article I recommended proves anything about the Moto/Qualcom/Apple case, and especially not a definitive answer on sub-licensing rights. That's Galbi's push.

What it does do is help me, and probably you if you read it, in understanding some of the rules that FRAND licensees and contributors work with. It goes on to explain licensing bodies and who establishes them, then onto royalties. How are they determined and what are they based on? Do all the rates have to be the same? What is fair or reasonable in a licensing sense, and who decides that?

There's dozens of posts in this thread that presume to be factual descriptions of how FRAND works, along with unequivocal claims that Motorola is acting illegally, the royalties are too high. This or that can't be done, etc. Many of them have no legal background or sources, yet post as if they "know". I'd rather not see disinformation pushed as fact. I would hope you feel the same.

There's no harm in reading an article written by lawyers well-versed in patent law and FRAND, and the benefit is obvious. It doesn't matter if you or I like what it says or disagree with it. We might prefer FRAND worked differently and was more clear-cut with plainly stated rules and bright yellow lines. We might even wish all these software patent issues were done away with, or at the least make it a tougher process as they do in Europe.

If you disregard the Apple/Moto connection in the article and just use it to better understand FRAND licensing rights and obligations as a whole it's a great read IMO. It dispels some of the mythical uneducated comments about how FRAND works and make the process so much easier to understand. Just don't look at it as an end-all on any specific case including the Moto/Apple one, because you're right: It doesn't offer any blockbuster revelation about sub-licensing obligations. It's simply a good explanation of standards bodies, royalties, rights and obligations which many here have shown a misunderstanding of.

If you have another worthy source of comments on FRAND issues and answers, please post a link. I'm not afraid to learn something I didn't know.

Yeah, if you're just sort of generally interested in a broad discussion of FRAND terms why are you responding to people by reposting that specific sub-licensing language with the part you think hurts Apple bolded?

You push stuff into every thread without much concern of legitimacy, and when you get called on it you (as I predicted) start this little "I'm not really saying anything in particular, mind you, just think everyone should keep an open mind" shuffle.

If it's just about keeping an open mind and availing ourselves of the facts at hand, why is it you only ever seize on stuff that you imagine is disadvantageous to Apple, or advantageous to a competitor?

I appreciate that you aren't belligerent but I don't think you're being particularly forthcoming about your motives. You can't play at being the disinterested seeker of knowledge while trafficking in one-sided information.
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 #74 of 131
2/19/12 at 10:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Yeah, if you're just sort of generally interested in a broad discussion of FRAND terms why are you responding to people by reposting that specific sub-licensing language with the part you think hurts Apple bolded?

I appreciate that you aren't belligerent but I don't think you're being particularly forthcoming about your motives. You can't play at being the disinterested seeker of knowledge while trafficking in one-sided information.

That was Galbi's bold posting, not mine. I don't think that hurts Apple at all.

There's little doubt that if that passage carries any weight then Moto already mentioned it, and the court duely rejected it. There's a lot of smart lawyers involved and it's not reasonable to think the licensing agreement terms weren't noticed.

FWIW, I'd call out mis-statements by some of the Android users here if others weren't so quick to jump. You guys almost always beat me to it. I believe I did get to point an error out to Galbi today in another thread on one of his iPhone antenna posts.

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 #75 of 131
2/19/12 at 11:49am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

People on here dont personally know Florian, the patent lawyer, but yet everyone references his opinion. Should'nt he be held to the same standard as well?

You are trying to sideline the argument at hand here bringing up the authors credibility and refocusing the attention on something else.

Bylaws serve as a general rule among standard bodies. Hence why the author was referencing its wordings which suggests that the FRAND "rules" for telecommunications standards will have similar words in it.

If nothing is "binding", then Apple should get out of using the 3G standards or other teleco standards if they dont want to follow it. If Apple isnt pulling its fair share of the weight, why should the others? That defeats the purpose of having FRAND "rules" in the first place.



Because Qualcomm licensed it? That is why Qualcomm is paying licensing fees? The "F" in FRAND does not stand for "Free". Am I not seeing something here?

It's most likely that the FRAND terms do have non-sublicensable clause in its wordings.

This is my speculation but a customer probably cannot, by sale of your products, acquire said licenses.

It must have its own license.

Apple contends that through use of Qualcomm's license that they are indirectly paying for it.

However, with words like "non-sublicensable", Apple is barred from this practice. They must have their very own license.

You must have a very favorable view of lawyers.


Apple is setting a dangerous precedent here. If they fail to follow the general guidelines of FRAND and dismiss its obligations based on the non-binding rules like you've said, no one in the industry will give up their patents for the benefit of the industry. They will all hog up their patents, preventing deployment of new technologies, interoperability and bring innovation to a screeching halt. Everyone will becomes it own island.


I never implied the "F" stands for "free". I questioned your understanding of the term "sub-license"; in by best Spanish accents "I do not think it means what you think it means".

If as you imply the license *paid* by Qualcomm does not extend to the person or entity buying and using the chip, what is the point? Apple is not the the only company buying chips from Qualcomm. Since Qualcomm doesn't make phones, why would they be paying if the purchaser also needs to pay? You're implying that Moto should be able to double dip, contrary to the principle of patent exhaustion.

Also, explain why Moto had to specifically notify Qualcomm that Apple was no longer allowed to have the license extend to cover them, and why did they cite the fact that Apple is acting as an aggressor (note, that's where Moto is trying to hang their hat, that Apple violated the license by suing Moto and being an "aggressor")? Why would Apple be mentioned specifically? According to you, the license doesn't apply to any customer of Qualcomm.

As I understand it, "sub-licensing" would indicate creating a new license agreement between the second party and a third party, i.e. a separate license granted Apple by Qualcomm; in reality, by purchasing a licensed good from Qualcomm, Apple is merely a beneficiary of the license.

To end matters, if things were as black and white as you imply with the whole "sub-license" mumbo-jumbo, wouldnt the court have already heard such a statement in a motion for summary judgement or the like? If they did, it's been dismissed; more likely, smarter people than you knew that things aren't as simple as that.
Reply
Reply
post #76 of 131
2/19/12 at 12:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibod View Post

The sole attraction of Android to the OEMS is that it is free, and thus they have a higher margin than similar Winodws or self-developed phone OSs.

Adroid is not free to use. MS make more money from android patent fees than they make from WP7 licences. From memory I think it can cost as little as $5 more to run WP7 (than Android) and OEMS are safe in the knowledge that MS will cover any patent issues.
Reply
Reply
post #77 of 131
2/19/12 at 12:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Are you serious? Did you just really write that? Wow. lol

That is the most ridiculous comeback I've heard all week. You should be embarrassed.

There is a difference between a consumer and a licensee.

Consumers don't make products for sale.

Licensee's license technology for production and eventual sale of products.

I cant even believe that I'm having to explain this to you.

Thanks for a memorable 600th post. lol

Apple is a consumer of Qualcomm chips.

"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 #78 of 131
2/19/12 at 12:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

People on here dont personally know Florian, the patent lawyer, but yet everyone references his opinion. Should'nt he be held to the same standard as well?

Opinion OR reports of the court cases he attends, which no other writer seems to do.

"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 #79 of 131
2/19/12 at 12:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

People on here dont personally know Florian, the patent lawyer,

He's not a patent lawyer, nor any other type of lawyer. More a former advocate for fair patenting standards. He's now a paid consultant representing or working for un-named clients (for the most part) and writing a blog. He generally knows what he's talking about IMO. He also knows exactly what he's doing and why, the reason he's been sought out to represent and/or contract to certain companies who find his advocacy and advice valuable to their businesses.

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 #80 of 131
2/19/12 at 1:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

He's not a patent lawyer, nor any other type of lawyer. More a former advocate for fair patenting standards. He's now a paid consultant representing or working for un-named clients (for the most part) and writing a blog. He generally knows what he's talking about IMO. He also knows exactly what he's doing and why, the reason he's been sought out to represent and/or contract to certain companies who find his advocacy and advice valuable to their businesses.

His main role is attending court cases and reporting on what happens in them

"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: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple lodged FRAND abuse complaint against Motorola with European Commission