or Connect
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 3

post #81 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

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

IMO his main role is making money, which doesn't come simply from attending court cases.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #82 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Even if true, which is debatable as they get slower and slower over time, you'd still be running a crap OS from the last century on a machine made of the cheapest junk with a terrible design. Ever thought the reason sales are plunging while Mac sales are soaring could be because Macs are way better., . But of course you already know all this and are just having fun on the blog

That's easily explained, the PC market is saturated (hence slow sales), many exPC people getting a Mac (hence soaring sales), most if not all started with a iPod/iPhone as their first Apple product.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #83 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apple is a consumer of Qualcomm chips.

Okay.... then what does Apple do with those chips?

You wanna play with words eh? Hard to admit that you were wrong?

Your logic:

Once Apple "consumes" the Qualcomm chips they use it just for themselves and dont sell it to others. Yup, all those millions of people with iPhones have no association with Apple are just ghosts.


Perhaps the words "end user" seems more appropriate for you.

"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 #84 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Okay.... then what does Apple do with those chips?

You wanna play with words eh? Hard to admit that you were wrong?

Your logic:

Once Apple "consumes" the Qualcomm chips they use it just for themselves and dont sell it to others. Yup, all those millions of people with iPhones have no association with Apple are just ghosts.


Perhaps the words "end user" seems more appropriate for you.

I agree that Apple is clearly not the consumer or end user, but I still think, as I posted earlier, that you may have misunderstood what is meant by "sub-license". Any thoughts on that?
post #85 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Okay.... then what does Apple do with those chips?

You wanna play with words eh? Hard to admit that you were wrong?

Your logic:

Once Apple "consumes" the Qualcomm chips they use it just for themselves and dont sell it to others. Yup, all those millions of people with iPhones have no association with Apple are just ghosts.


Perhaps the words "end user" seems more appropriate for you.

By your logic, if I buy iPhones and resell them new or used on eBay, I should need to pay Moto a license fee?

Lol, how many times do you think Moto should be paid?
post #86 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Okay.... then what does Apple do with those chips?

You wanna play with words eh? Hard to admit that you were wrong?

Your logic:

Once Apple "consumes" the Qualcomm chips they use it just for themselves and dont sell it to others. Yup, all those millions of people with iPhones have no association with Apple are just ghosts.


Perhaps the words "end user" seems more appropriate for you.

Yep, just like all the other phone manufacturers that use Qualcomm chips, now as Motorola isn't exactly rolling in the money that you'd expect from a 2.25% royalty on almost every handset sold on earth, it's pretty obvious that how they are treating Apple is discriminatory and against the terms of F/RAND.

What I don't get is why you choose to support such anti-competitive behaviour from Motorola.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #87 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I agree that Apple is clearly not the consumer or end user, but I still think, as I posted earlier, that you may have misunderstood what is meant by "sub-license". Any thoughts on that?

He completely misunderstood, perhaps intentionally, and it was fun to watch GG jump on the bandwagon.
post #88 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Okay.... then what does Apple do with those chips?

You wanna play with words eh? Hard to admit that you were wrong?

Your logic:

Once Apple "consumes" the Qualcomm chips they use it just for themselves and dont sell it to others. Yup, all those millions of people with iPhones have no association with Apple are just ghosts.


Perhaps the words "end user" seems more appropriate for you.

Goodness, such belligerent language from someone who pretty clearly is indulging in completely uninformed "analysis" of language he's misconstruing in the hope that it somehow spells doom for Apple......

Again, I believe it's been asked, how do you reckon that an army of lawyers have inadvertently overlooked a passage that, if we are to accept your idea, is fundamental to the nature of the FRAND terms Motorola is asking for and simply moots Apple's response? Qualcomm can't "sub-license" the Moto tech in their chips to Apple, therefor Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on when they argue that patent exhaustion is in play.

Apple must have terrible legal council, but this case must also be being heard by the worst judge ever, since the prima facie facts would appear to make Apple's countersuit complete gibberish and subject to being laughed out of court. Hooray for internet sleuths, once again trumping everybody with their keen insights!
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 #89 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

He completely misunderstood, perhaps intentionally, and it was fun to watch GG jump on the bandwagon.

I can see how one might come to that conclusion from reading the article that was being quoted, especially if one were hoping for such an interpretation.
post #90 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

All fine, but this will not be known for good till the dust is settled.

If there is a proven infringement, there is a strong likelihood of an injunction. At that point it really does not matter if the damages figure is in millions or billions. And you know as well as anyone else, Oracle is not in this just for the money. They will insist that Google remove all the non-compliant features of Dalvik, and respect Java's Write Once Run Anywhere paradigm. Without that, there is no way Google can get a license for Java.

Just wait till Google tries to comply with Java guidelines and see how crippled Android will be after that. In all likelihood, Google will decide to give up on Java/Dalvik and go with C or C++.

Then see the impact.

Yeah, I'm not sure Larry wants just damages or he would have settled long ago. He wants the court to uphold any piece of Java that will put the screws to Dalvik. He doesn't have to give Google a license, just take whatever damages he can get and then say to Google, change it or shut it down. The inconvenience to Google alone will probably be enough joy to get Larry through to the next America's Cup races.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #91 of 131
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

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


Qualcomm didn't sublicense the patent. Qualcomm used the patent to generate the piece of kit they licensed the patent for. When Apple bought a part which was created under patent license the patent holders rights (Moto's) were exhausted, because it isn't legally protected to charge twice for the same thing. Qualcomm even provided the license agreement between them and Moto restating the appropriate parts of that explicitly in the license agreement (if we can believe Apple's and Qualcomm's lawyers summary and it's not likely that gooned it that bad).

So this will actually make it worse for Moto. Not only are they breaking their anti-trust requirements with regards to FRAND patents, but they are suing against those patents when they don't have the rights to do so.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #92 of 131
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.

Maybe before you use big words like "presume" and "informative" and threats intellectual superiority via website links you should understand the WHOLE situation and ALL the rules. Not just some pair of paragraphs you cherry-picked off a website.

While IANAL, YANAL either so give up on the "I found a magic bullet" charade, because there has been a long and distinguished series of folks who do know the law handling these cases, and the rulings and governmental harrumphs have been indicating anything but "Oh MY! How did we all miss that! OK case dismissed. Apple pay Moto another license fee on Qualcomms chips..."
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #93 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

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

With the weak US dollar the price of a new Mac internationally has dropped over the last few years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

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.

A two year old Mac would likely be a C2D, they will be getting too slow for ML
post #94 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Maybe before you use big words like "presume" and "informative" and threats intellectual superiority via website links you should understand the WHOLE situation and ALL the rules. Not just some pair of paragraphs you cherry-picked off a website.

While IANAL, YANAL either so give up on the "I found a magic bullet" charade, because there has been a long and distinguished series of folks who do know the law handling these cases, and the rulings and governmental harrumphs have been indicating anything but "Oh MY! How did we all miss that! OK case dismissed. Apple pay Moto another license fee on Qualcomms chips..."

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.

I didn't cherry-pick any paragraphs. That was Galbi's clip. I figured it was a matter of time before someone pointed to the actual agreement terms that Motorola was operating under. I posted a link to the entire discussion of FRAND licensing which it appears you may not have bothered to read either. Its plain language explanation of FRAND licensing, who sets standards, what are the rules, if any, on royalties and lots more would help several posters in this thread see where they've misunderstood what FRAND requires. Few if any actually bothered to read the Oasis FRAND agreement Motorola obligated themselves to before being so certain they broke the agreement.

I've given you the link to read it as well as comments on what the passages mean. Your choice if you want to know or not. It's not an in-depth study on the Moto/Apple issue in particular (tho it offers some comments on that specific case), but it's a fine start if you really have any interest in understanding FRAND obligations.

In case a lazy reader doesn't feel like following the article links, here's the actual Oasis licensing terms and general requirements for joining the standards body.
http://www.oasis-open.org/policies-g...#licensing_req

If you can't imagine you can learn anything from reading it, then don't. There's no need for me to continue encouraging forum members to read it. It's there.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #95 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I didn't cherry-pick any paragraphs. That was Galbi's clip. I figured it was a matter of time before someone pointed to the actual agreement terms that Motorola was operating under. ...

That sounds an awful lot like an admission by GG that he knew Galbi's argument was bullshit but, in the interest of perpetuating FUD, chose to not only remain silent, but actually to promote the bullshit. Now that it's all been shown to be a house of cards based on misinterpretation (willful or ignorant?) of "sub-licensing, he is, of course, doing his usual backpedaling, trying to distance himself from the notorious troll Galbi and save face.

It's always amusing watching GG's little dances.
post #96 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Yeah, I'm not sure Larry wants just damages or he would have settled long ago. He wants the court to uphold any piece of Java that will put the screws to Dalvik. He doesn't have to give Google a license, just take whatever damages he can get and then say to Google, change it or shut it down. The inconvenience to Google alone will probably be enough joy to get Larry through to the next America's Cup races.

From 9to5's opinion piece, without further comment:
... the short is that Google has talented lawyers disassembling every one of Oracles claims bit by bit and proving there is littleif anythinglegitimate.

Even if Oracle somehow gets the $100 million that is left over, there is no longer any concern for the fate of the Android platform."
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #97 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

There's no harm in reading an article written by lawyers well-versed in patent law and FRAND, and the benefit is obvious.

That would be true if the authors were writing from a neutral position. Neither Groklaw nor Florian (who's not a lawyer) are neutral. Groklaw is a cesspool.

I find it humorous though that they tolerate or in some cases welcome these lawsuits against Apple given that FRAND is not open source friendly.
post #98 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

That would be true if the authors were writing from a neutral position. Neither Groklaw nor Florian (who's not a lawyer) are neutral. Groklaw is a cesspool.

I find it humorous though that they tolerate or in some cases welcome these lawsuits against Apple given that FRAND is not open source friendly.

I don't think that whether they're pro-Apple, anti-Apple or somewhere in between really matters much with that particular article's overall comments on FRAND licensing, how it actually works, and who's responsible for FRAND standards. Did you read it thoroughly or tune it out since it was posted at Groklaw?

EDIT: As an aside, I visit FOSSPatents almost daily. The more you educate yourself the easier it is to separate opinion from fact, as well as recognize when the whole story isn't being told. I find reading both Florian's blog and Groklaw gives me a much better understanding.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #99 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't think that whether they're pro-Apple, anti-Apple or somewhere in between really matters much with that particular article's overall comments on FRAND licensing, how it actually works, and who's responsible for FRAND standards. Did you read it thoroughly or tune it out since it was posted at Groklaw?

EDIT: As an aside, I visit FOSSPatents almost daily. The more you educate yourself the easier it is to separate opinion from fact, as well as recognize when the whole story isn't being told. I find reading both Florian's blog and Groklaw gives me a much better understanding.

Neither you nor Galbi responded on the question of the meaning of "sub-license" - did you not have an opinion on that?
post #100 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Neither you nor Galbi responded on the question of the meaning of "sub-license" - did you not have an opinion on that?

Yes, I posted mine twice. I guess you missed them. See post#94 where I linked both of them again for another poster.

In a nutshell I don't know for certain what Oasis means by the term, tho they may have a definition at their site. It doesn't matter in this particular case (at least IMO) since if it was pertinent to begin with the German judge is likely to have already dismissed that argument for the sake of that case. It would be hard to believe it wasn't mentioned if Moto or Oasis had an argument to make.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #101 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yes, I posted mine twice. I guess you missed them. See post#94 where I linked both of them again for another poster.

In a nutshell I don't know for certain what Oasis means by the term, tho they may have a definition at their site. It doesn't matter in this particular case (at least IMO) since if it was pertinent to begin with the German judge is likely to have already dismissed that argument for the sake of that case. It would be hard to believe it wasn't mentioned if Moto or Oasis had an argument to make.

No, that's just the same OASIS language (and do you have some reason to believe that OASIS is the relevant standards body in this case?) that you keep linking to. The assumption made by you and Galbi is that this represents some kind of smoking gun that renders Apple's patent exhaustion argument moot. The response from multiple posters is that this is highly unlikely, since if such bald-faced terms were in effect it seems pretty much impossible that the various courts involved would have allowed any of this to proceed past an initial hearing.

So are you insisting that "sub-licensing" means that every manufacturer in a chain has to pay royalties to the holder of FRAND patents?

Let me guess: you have no real opinion on the matter, you just want everyone to "educate" themselves by reading up on on licensing body's terms, although they're not saying anything that we didn't already know. More generally you want us to study up on a Groklaw article that apparently must be taken as even handed and informative, but which outside of linking to the same terms you keep linking to seems to have a bit of an attitude re MS and Apple, as after rehashing the nature of FRAND draws conclusions that are anything but based in legal precedence-- i.e. "some people" thought Apple's licensing terms for Firewire were unfair (Apple charges a buck a port, peanuts to what Motorola is demanding); some people have made farfetched arguments about what Motorola's terms might imply (strawman); MS was mean to Linux (irrelevant); and that what "fair" exactly means is open to interpretation (duh).

In other words, you seized on the "sub-licensing" terms as hopefully spelling doom for Apple; once you had some obvious considerations pointed out to you you backed off and started talking about everyone educating themselves by reading your links.

But unfortunately for you even those are weak sauce-- terms from a standards body that I have yet to see linked to the case at hand, and an article at Groklaw that completely goes off the rails in typical freetard language and which clearly has an axe to grind.

If you don't want people taking you to task for irrelevant hand-waving stop jumping on every bit of potentially bad for Apple news without a second thought and following it up with lame damage control when it turns out to be nothing.
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 #102 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

No, that's just the same OASIS language (and do you have some reason to believe that OASIS is the relevant standards body in this case?) that you keep linking to.

Yes, I believe it's in the article I linked you to at Groklaw.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The assumption made by you and Galbi. . .

Umm. . . No, not Galbi and me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

So are you insisting that "sub-licensing" means that every manufacturer in a chain has to pay royalties to the holder of FRAND patents?

No again. See post #94 for my previous statements on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Let me guess: you have no real opinion on the matter, you just want everyone to "educate" themselves by reading up on on licensing body's terms...

You finally got it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

If you don't want people taking you to task...

I encourage anyone to take me to task when I post something as fact that isn't. Point out the error, show me where I'm wrong and I've always been happy to admit my mistake. You're not human if you don't make them.

You've probably noticed that I go out of my way to indicate if something I'm stating is fact or opinion. I love it when others clarify by doing the same.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #103 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yes, I posted mine twice. I guess you missed them. See post#94 where I linked both of them again for another poster.

In a nutshell I don't know for certain what Oasis means by the term, tho they may have a definition at their site. It doesn't matter in this particular case (at least IMO) since if it was pertinent to begin with the German judge is likely to have already dismissed that argument for the sake of that case. It would be hard to believe it wasn't mentioned if Moto or Oasis had an argument to make.

I saw some links to the same article, but no opinion. I don't understand - you jumped into this discussion but now don't seem to want to continue. If you really have no opinion on the meaning of "sub-license" then that's obviously your prerogative, but it's a quite basic term and concept, and an issue that you mentioned as important in post #45, so I'm a bit surprised.
post #104 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I saw some links to the same article, but no opinion. I don't understand - you jumped into this discussion but now don't seem to want to continue. If you really have no opinion on the meaning of "sub-license" then that's obviously your prerogative, but it's a quite basic term and concept, and an issue that you mentioned as important in post #45, so I'm a bit surprised.

You've confused me Muppetry and I can only assume you've either misunderstood something I posted or are reading the wrong comment.

In my post 45 I said:

"I was wondering if anyone was going to bother pointing that out (the actual licensing terms Motorola obligated itself to). 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 (the Oasis agreement linked at Groklaw) 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"

I don't know how you get your idea that I thought sub-licensing in the agreement affected Apple in some way, or that I considered it of primary importance, unless you thought including Galbi's link was an indication to you that I agree with him. At no time have I considered that particular point to negatively impact Apple, and thus spent no time trying to figure out exactly what it meant. In fact I gave sub-licensing itself little thought until someone, perhaps it was you, asked what I thought the term meant. I was more concerned with the overall explanation of FRAND rights and obligations as described at Groklaw.

Since you want an opinion I haven't yet formed, and it's pretty important to you to know what I think on the subject, let me take some time this evening to see if I can get enough information to form one. If there's something more you expect me to say on the subject at the moment I can only refer you back to post 94 where I already quoted my previous opinions on it.

You really think I have a history of dodging a discussion or not supporting my arguments?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #105 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You've confused me Muppetry and I can only assume you've either misunderstood something I posted or are reading the wrong comment.

In my post 45 I said:

"I was wondering if anyone was going to bother pointing that out (the actual licensing terms Motorola obligated itself to). I came across that a few days ago at one of the patent-blog sites.

Miscommunication possibly. What you actually posted in #45:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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.


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

I think that is what confused several posters, myself included - the part of Galbi's post that you quoted there was exclusively about the sub-licensing issue, and you said that you were wondering if anyone was going to point that out. I certainly took that to mean that you agreed with that comment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't know how you get your idea that I thought sub-licensing in the agreement affected Apple in some way, or that I considered it of primary importance, unless you thought including Galbi's link was an indication to you that I agree with him. At no time have I considered that particular point to negatively impact Apple, and thus spent no time trying to figure out exactly what it meant. In fact I gave sub-licensing itself little thought until someone, perhaps it was you, asked what I thought the term meant. I was more concerned with the overall explanation of FRAND rights and obligations as described at Groklaw.

Explained above...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Since you want an opinion I haven't yet formed, and it's pretty important to you to know what I think on the subject, let me take some time this evening to see if I can get enough information to form one. If there's something more you expect me to say on the subject at the moment I can only refer you back to post 94 where I already quoted my previous opinions on it.

Not important - just wondered why you seemed to be ignoring the question. Now I understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You really think I have a history of dodging a discussion or not supporting my arguments?

Not at all - hence my surprise this time.
post #106 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

By your logic, if I buy iPhones and resell them new or used on eBay, I should need to pay Moto a license fee?

Lol, how many times do you think Moto should be paid?

Do you know the difference between a manufacturer and a retailer/reseller?

Manufacturer makes modifications to the actual product itself.

Retailer/reseller do not. Hence, they have no relations or business dealing with the licensing aspect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Yep, just like all the other phone manufacturers that use Qualcomm chips, now as Motorola isn't exactly rolling in the money that you'd expect from a 2.25% royalty on almost every handset sold on earth, it's pretty obvious that how they are treating Apple is discriminatory and against the terms of F/RAND.

What I don't get is why you choose to support such anti-competitive behaviour from Motorola.

I hear that argument before from Android fans in reference to Apple's purported claims of "patent infringement" of "design patents".



P.S. Look at how lively the discussion here at AI is once we have people like me contributing to the arguments. Brings out the passionate fans from both sides, increases post counts for everyone, increases page hits for AI and I get to spend my free time debating with you folks. Everyone is a winner!

Oh and to Gatorguy, Go Gators!

"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 #107 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Do you know the difference between a manufacturer and a retailer/reseller?

Manufacturer makes modifications to the actual product itself.

Retailer/reseller do not. Hence, they have no relations or business dealing with the licensing aspect.



I hear that argument before from Android fans in reference to Apple's purported claims of "patent infringement" of "design patents".



P.S. Look at how lively the discussion here at AI is once we have people like me contributing to the arguments. Brings out the passionate fans from both sides, increases post counts for everyone, increases page hits for AI and I get to spend my free time debating with you folks. Everyone is a winner!

Oh and to Gatorguy, Go Gators!

GatorNation is everywhere. . .
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #108 of 131
IANAL...

I predict Motorola ultimately is going to lose due to trying to double dip on the FRAND GPRS/GSM related patents.

To put it in context, Motorola is pulling the same kind of argument that Fraunhofer tried to pull with the Mpeg-1 Layer 3 (AKA "MP3", ISO CD 11172) format. Where they tried to charge for any form of software, hardware and complete device that can play or create an mp3. Short answer, your patent gets worked-around or unsupported until the patent runs out.

With GSM, there is NO ALTERNATIVE WHATSOEVER, and we can't wait 20 years for the patents to expire. GSM has only been in operation since 1991. It'll be 2040 before all the patents on 4G LTE expire. Qualcomm owns most of the patents on the CDMA, which is an underlying technology in 3G GSM UMTS(W-CDMA), and in 4G LTE.

So it's absolutely absurd that Qualcomm would sell chips to Apple, Samsung, Motorola, and not have the rights to do so. Apple isn't re-implementing GSM, EDGE, UMTS in software.
post #109 of 131
http://press.ffii.org/Press%20releas...%20and%20FRAND

Brussels, 17 Feb 2012 -- The European Parliament Consumer Committee is on the verge to reform the standardisation process in Europe. The reform recognises patented interface specifications which discriminate Free Software implementations. Royalties over standards create an unavoidable barrier of entry in the market for small software companies and independent developers.

Benjamin Henrion, president of the association complains: "The payment of royalties makes it impossible to distribute free software on the web. It creates an enormous barrier of entry for small companies and independent developers. Authors of the software VideoLAN have been previously threatened by patent holders because they implemented an ETSI standard for a video decoder."

The reform recognises digital specifications which are licensed under "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions" (FRAND).

Henrion continues: "Even consortia like ECMA refuse to define what the RAND term means, because it simply does not mean anything. It is a shame that lawmakers use a term that has no clear definition."

Yet that doesn't keep poster after poster in this thread or others from claiming or implying they know what (F)RAND means and Motorola is plainly and illegally violating it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #110 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I didn't cherry-pick any paragraphs. That was Galbi's clip. I figured it was a matter of time before someone pointed to the actual agreement terms that Motorola was operating under. I posted a link to the entire discussion of FRAND licensing which it appears you may not have bothered to read either.

Well, see that's just the second place you were wrong, because I had read the whole Groklaw piece and found it lacking. The first mistake happened when you quoted Galbi, and responded only referencing those paragraphs he quoted. You didn't widen the discussion to the whole Groklaw article until many posts later when you tried unsuccessfully to dig your way out of the hole you made for yourself. You are also slowly expanding your circle of "get me the hell out of this mess quoting" by now linking in your later posts straight to OASIS. You can't get yourself out of a position by waving your hands at a link to a standards body document.

I have never felt overly comfortable with Groklaw's blogs. Too many times have I read multiple other positions on FOSS software licensing which do not agree very well. I have the feeling they are a bit overly "progressive" in some of their FOSS opinions. Take that track record plus an out of context standards document quote that ignores almost everything else factually reported about the Moto case and I don't give that particular article any personal weight.

Because IANAL I'm not "qualified" to say they are wrong, but I am saying I wouldn't bet anything tangible on that blog. And I have a very low opinion of stances that attempt to use that particular blog article as a base to work from, that's just a two legged stool.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #111 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Well, see that's just the second place you were wrong. The first happen when you quoted Galbi, and only those paragraphs he quoted. You didn't widen the discussion to the whole Groklaw article until many posts later when you tried unsuccessfully to dig your way out of the hole you made for yourself.

Dude. . .
Go back and look at the first post where I responded to Galbi, post 45.
Look at the time I posted, then look at the time I edited it to mention I found the original source and linked it.

I've referenced the entire article concerning FRAND issues at Groklaw since my very first post where the Oasis license was mentioned.

I don't expect that to stop the accusations from you of course. You've apparently made up your mind I must be wrong somehow or other. You just haven't been able to nail down where yet.

Rather the the vague "digging yourself out of a hole" you'd help yourself clear up your own confusion by posting just what it was I claimed that I now need to dig from under.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #112 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Neither you nor Galbi responded on the question of the meaning of "sub-license" - did you not have an opinion on that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yes, I posted mine twice. I guess you missed them. See post#94 where I linked both of them again for another poster.

In a nutshell I don't know for certain what Oasis means by the term, tho they may have a definition at their site. It doesn't matter in this particular case (at least IMO) since if it was pertinent to begin with the German judge is likely to have already dismissed that argument for the sake of that case. It would be hard to believe it wasn't mentioned if Moto or Oasis had an argument to make.

No you have not responded to the sub-license commenting. You just posted a link to the same paragraphs that Groklaw (then Galbi) lifted, and conveniently ignored the follow on paragraphs in the OASIS document (you posted!!!) that refer to "OASIS Standards Final Deliverable". That little quoted string is where the patent exhaustion happens. Moto wants to redefine that to become the consumer deliverable, the rest of the industry considers that term to refer to completed standards compliant chipsets before mounting into a specific device.

We won't set the precedent for where that line is drawn because once somebody sues over it, it is judge and jury that do that. But it is very obvious based on simple arithmetic and direct quotes from Moto's lawyers that the Moto lawsuit position is dramatically different that how the communications industry has informally interpreted that for years (decades). Those quotes and arithmetic are freely available in the series of related threads, no need to regurgitate it again here.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #113 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Dude. . .
Go back and look at the first post where I responded to Galbi, post 45.
Look at the time I posted, then look at the time I edited it to mention I found the original source and linked it.

I've referenced the entire article concerning FRAND issues at Groklaw since my very first post where the Oasis license was mentioned.

I don't expect that to stop the accusations from you of course. You've apparently made up your mind I must be wrong somehow or other. You just haven't been able to nail down where yet.

Rather the the vague "digging yourself out of a hole" you'd help yourself clear up your own confusion by posting just what it was I claimed that I now need to dig from under.

Fail. A post post edit doesn't reset the timeline.

And hey, I don't have to decide whether or not you are wrong. I only point out over and over again the chunks of fact you conveniently avoid referencing. Others can decide if you are right or wrong from that. I just like seeing the whole truth cause a cascade of ass-covering and goalpost moving.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #114 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

No you have not responded to the sub-license commenting. You just posted a link to the same paragraphs that Groklaw (then Galbi) lifted, and conveniently ignored the follow on paragraphs in the OASIS document.

I've never discussed sub-licensing at all other than to indicate its wasn't important to me at the moment and I had no opinion on what it meant. Consider reading the previous replies, particularly to Muppetry. When discussing FRAND issues in this thread I've always linked to the entire Groklaw article or the Oasis website and docs directly. I've never clipped out a portion of the license and posted it.

Feel free to correct me.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #115 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Fail. A post post edit doesn't reset the timeline.

And hey, I don't have to decide whether or not you are wrong. I only point out over and over again the chunks of fact you conveniently avoid referencing. Others can decide if you are right or wrong from that. I just like seeing the whole truth cause a cascade of ass-covering and goalpost moving.

Then simply show me what I claimed that I need to "cover my ass" for now. That's an easy request isn't it?

EDIT: Keep looking. . .
It's gotta be there somewhere
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #116 of 131
Quote:

I would hardly take as final the word of an organization that has "No ePatents" as one of it's official taglines for a project designed to create a cross North American/EU patent system. Advertising that they are helping guide the creation of a patent system that they hope disenfranchises certain types of IP is a bit disingenuous in my opinion.

And the FFI's other stated goal of getting the EU to exclude FOSS from having to comply with patents is just a way to do the same thing but by not assaulting the ability to make a ePatent. You would just need to post code online in an open source manner and would automagically be free of patenting restrictions even if you sold something using the patented IP.

You are really trying hard to find anyone who can provide a safe harbor reference-wise. So hard that you really aren't paying attention to what exactly you are associating your posts with. If you really agreed with FFI, you might be saying Moto doesn't have any rights if Apple or Qualcomm open sourced any of the code that dealt with the patent. Yes I'm flinging a little hyperbole here, but it illuminates a very large hole in your debate tactics.
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #117 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Then simply show me what I claimed that I need to "cover my ass" for now. That's an easy request isn't it?

EDIT: Keep looking. . .
It's gotta be there somewhere

Look up. Oh yeah, at all those posts you just suddenly seem to have forgotten. Or is it simply Alzheimer's?
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #118 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

... but it illuminates a very large hole in your debate tactics.

The hole in the debate tactics is your failure to back up a claim with an example.

Still waiting to see your proof for the hole you claim I'm trying to dig out of.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #119 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Look up. Oh yeah, at all those posts you just suddenly seem to have forgotten. Or is it simply Alzheimer's?

I figured as much. If you're going to attempt an honest debate and toss accusations along the way, you might consider having some evidence for your position next time.

Unless you have some to show, your accusations have become tiresome and a bit silly.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #120 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro View Post

Yeah, I'm not sure Larry wants just damages or he would have settled long ago. He wants the court to uphold any piece of Java that will put the screws to Dalvik. He doesn't have to give Google a license, just take whatever damages he can get and then say to Google, change it or shut it down. The inconvenience to Google alone will probably be enough joy to get Larry through to the next America's Cup races.

Oracles' patent case and thus licensing potential for those patents, has pretty much been destroyed by Google's attorneys. This according to both Groklaw and FOSSPatents, one of the more rare times recently they have been in near total agreement.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...s-gosling.html
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20223073144912

Even the copyright claims are increasingly questionable according to both patent bloggers. IMO Oracle's lawsuit is in danger of completely falling apart at the seams.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
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