or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's latest legal victory over Motorola in Germany declared 'huge'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's latest legal victory over Motorola in Germany declared 'huge' - Page 2

post #41 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post

So Zither,

As Microsoft pointed out in their EU complaint, Motorola's attempt to charge 2.25% of the price of the entire product is outrageous and absurd and an anti-trust abuse of FRAND. They pointed out that there are hundreds of essential patents involved in wireless standards and if everyone charged 2.25% of the product price, a mobile phone would costs many times what it does now!

Surely the point is that if patents amounted to hundreds of percent per unit, the manufacturer would actually lose money on every device sold, regardless of what they charge. That's one way to get rid of Apples cash mountain I suppose!

But I do agree that this is a clear-cut case of anti-trust behaviour from Moto. I think they should be fined 10% of their world-wide revenue for each FRAND violation. Such an example would ensure that companies play nicely in future.
post #42 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Secular Investor View Post

So Zither,

Now you think Apple isn't creditworthy so they should be charged more?

And volume in this context normally means you pay less, the greater the volume. iOS has amongst the highest volumes, so according to your inverse logic Apple should pay more?

As Microsoft pointed out in their EU complaint, Motorola's attempt to charge 2.25% of the price of the entire product is outrageous and absurd and an anti-trust abuse of FRAND. They pointed out that there are hundreds of essential patents involved in wireless standards and if everyone charged 2.25% of the product price, a mobile phone would costs many times what it does now!

Apple obviously have not offered Motorola 2.25% of the price of each iPhone, but the court has sided with Apple, saying that it highly likely to find that Apple's offer is fair and reasonable under FRAND.

But of course you know better don't you Zither.

Nice long reply completely missing Zither's point which was merely asserting the fact that FRAND doesn't mean equivalent. However yes, if Motorola charge everybody else between (for example) 0.1% and 0.3%, the 2.25% is quite a leap.

Also, the case isn't over yet. Motorola will still be claiming that as Apple have shown bad faith in the past by not licensing the patent they should be able to charge more, i.e., the historical behaviour should affect the terms of the FRAND agreement. The judge thinks the finding will be that the historical behaviour and the ongoing licensing are different and thus licensing should not be an issue going on.

Motorola still have the case for past damages for Apple's refusal to pay for the patent in the past. But even if that was $20 per device you are only talking $1b-$2b, small change for Apple, they won't feel any pressure to license their patents in return.

I guess Motorola will take the PUSH email patent around Europe now.
post #43 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by stniuk View Post

I have found Googles strategy completely illogical. What do they have to gain from Android? They are an advertising company, do they actually think that all Android users use their search engine?
They seem to be intent on pissing the rest of the tech world off and are not making a cent into the bargin. In fact his adventure is costing more every day both in money and goodwill from users.

I concur. So insecure and overreaching, and in the process fouling their own nest.

I would hate to be at a company that depended on advertising to keep it all afloat. But how else to you monetize search and not annoy people? Thats been their problem from day one. I have no answer to that.
post #44 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbourable View Post

Surely the point is that if patents amounted to hundreds of percent per unit, the manufacturer would actually lose money on every device sold, regardless of what they charge. That's one way to get rid of Apples cash mountain I suppose!

But I do agree that this is a clear-cut case of anti-trust behaviour from Moto. I think they should be fined 10% of their world-wide revenue for each FRAND violation. Such an example would ensure that companies play nicely in future.

It's nothing of the sort. It's a legal disagreement based around the fact that Apple refused to pay a license for patents that Motorola have that are essential to some products that Apple sell.

Because the two parties can't come to an agreement because Motorola feel that five years of Apple abusing their patent should have a certain cost and Apple think it should be a different cost means nothing.

Apple pushes their patents around, many of them really quite bulls**t like the design patents. Oddly enough when they do that, other companies also press the big red patent button and the only people who gain are lawyers.
post #45 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

The part where "non-discriminatory" means "identical".

From Wikipedia:

Non-discriminatory relates to both the terms and the rates included in licensing agreements. As the name suggests this commitment requires that licensors treat each individual licensee in a similar manner. This does not mean that the rates and payment terms cant change dependent on the volume and creditworthiness of the licensee.


You may want to learn the basics before offering further challenges. Pick you battles. I make mistakes, and you can exploit them if you wish. Your goal is to correct the errors, and not to mis-correct the valid points.

Assuming you are right, then with Apple's high sales volume coupled with it's zero debt and high cash balance yielding a rock solid credit rating, the cost of licensing FRAND patents should be lower than charged to any other.

Do you really think that the pricing that is being demanded of them is that good? Of course, that ignores tge fact that Quaalcom is the original licensee and they paid the initial license fees until Motorola, in a discriminatory move, refused to allow them to transfer the license to Apple (but not others).

Both moves by Motorola are, by your definition, discriminatory.

And, BTW, creditworthiness is rarely used to fix prices in business-to-business sales. It's a discriminatory pricing practice. Rather, creditworthiness defines how much one business is willing to sell another ON CREDIT. It does not affect the phe pricing of goods or services (except for lending rates).
post #46 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

It's nothing of the sort. It's a legal disagreement based around the fact that Apple refused to pay a license for patents that Motorola have that are essential to some products that Apple sell.

Because the two parties can't come to an agreement because Motorola feel that five years of Apple abusing their patent should have a certain cost and Apple think it should be a different cost means nothing.

Apple pushes their patents around, many of them really quite bulls**t like the design patents. Oddly enough when they do that, other companies also press the big red patent button and the only people who gain are lawyers.

Um, no. Motorola's patents are essential to some products that ALL of the handset makers sell hence them being FRAND incumbered. Clearly Motorola didn't plan on offering Apple fair terms since in court it is asking for over 2% of the revenue made from each handset sold so the disagreement between the two companies isn't exactly a surprise and certainly doesn't pain Apple in some bad, grifting light.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #47 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by stniuk View Post

I have found Googles strategy completely illogical. What do they have to gain from Android? They are an advertising company, do they actually think that all Android users use their search engine?

My take:

Google saw mobile platforms as the "Next Big Thing" and they were afraid that Apple (or whoever would dominate the space) could shut them out with their own proprietary advertising solution. So, Google spent some of their cash on putting together an open-ish OS for cellphones and released it into the wild. The manufacturers who picked it up largely didn't want to get in to advertising, so Google didn't get shut out of this new market.

Google also has the problem that they may a lot of money, but recognize they are currently a one-trick pony - the sell search ads and that makes the bulk of their revenue. They have a pretty high profit margin (about 25% of revenue), so they are using it to look around for new markets and to defend their current "turf". Developing Android probably didn't cost that much, so it was a reasonable hedge to ensure they had access to the mobile ad market.
post #48 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by afrodri View Post

My take:

Google saw mobile platforms as the "Next Big Thing" and they were afraid that Apple (or whoever would dominate the space) could shut them out with their own proprietary advertising solution. So, Google spent some of their cash on putting together an open-ish OS for cellphones and released it into the wild. The manufacturers who picked it up largely didn't want to get in to advertising, so Google didn't get shut out of this new market.

Google also has the problem that they may a lot of money, but recognize they are currently a one-trick pony - the sell search ads and that makes the bulk of their revenue. They have a pretty high profit margin (about 25% of revenue), so they are using it to look around for new markets and to defend their current "turf". Developing Android probably didn't cost that much, so it was a reasonable hedge to ensure they had access to the mobile ad market.

Not a bad take except I don't think they ever worried about Apple launching their own proprietary ad service. Apple had never shown any interest in doing that and has striven, on the desktop at least, to offer ad-free environments and products as one of the benefits of the Apple eco-system. But perhaps they viewed Apple as too powerful middle person between them and the search data that iOS users represented that they'd be better off trying to siphon some of those users off (?) Of course, Apple followed with iAd eventually, but its hasn't been much of a success and as for the search data of mobile Safari users, as we've seen, Google had a work around for Apples default cookie settings.

Sometimes, what seemed like a good hedge only serves to hasten the very outcome that you were afraid of occurring. Now that is happening for Google, but hey, they've got Android up and very widely disseminated. It remains to be seen if that is something that will be viewed as a Google success in the monetary sense five years from now.
post #49 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post

Not a bad take except I don't think they ever worried about Apple launching their own proprietary ad service. Apple had never shown any interest in doing that and has striven, on the desktop at least, to offer ad-free environments and products as one of the benefits of the Apple eco-system. But perhaps they viewed Apple as too powerful middle person between them and the search data that iOS users represented that they'd be better off trying to siphon some of those users off (?) Of course, Apple followed with iAd eventually, but its hasn't been much of a success and as for the search data of mobile Safari users, as we've seen, Google had a work around for Apples default cookie settings.

Sometimes, what seemed like a good hedge only serves to hasten the very outcome that you were afraid of occurring. Now that is happening for Google, but hey, they've got Android up and very widely disseminated. It remains to be seen if that is something that will be viewed as a Google success in the monetary sense five years from now.

I think that's right. Apple seemed perfectly content to let Google handle the advertising while Apple did the hardware and software - until Google kicked them in the teeth. Google probably created their own competition.

Similarly, Amazon looks like it's going to be competition for Android rather than the partner it could have been.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #50 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post

So would that only be relevant if you use iCloud/MobileMe email? Not a web mail or exchange service? As in not many people

Only the Germans among 100 million iCloud users.
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 #51 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I think that's right. Apple seemed perfectly content to let Google handle the advertising while Apple did the hardware and software - until Google kicked them in the teeth. Google probably created their own competition.

Similarly, Amazon looks like it's going to be competition for Android rather than the partner it could have been.

Gator and I debated this quite a few months ago. He stated (and I eventually conceded) that Google was more worried about Microsoft locking them out of the mobile space. I still think it was stupid for Google to release an OS with no clear business plan and basically throwing cash down a hole due to paranoia that it was going to miss out on mobile advertising.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #52 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

Nice long reply completely missing Zither's point which was merely asserting the fact that FRAND doesn't mean equivalent. However yes, if Motorola charge everybody else between (for example) 0.1% and 0.3%, the 2.25% is quite a leap.

Also, the case isn't over yet. Motorola will still be claiming that as Apple have shown bad faith in the past by not licensing the patent they should be able to charge more, i.e., the historical behaviour should affect the terms of the FRAND agreement. The judge thinks the finding will be that the historical behaviour and the ongoing licensing are different and thus licensing should not be an issue going on.

Motorola still have the case for past damages for Apple's refusal to pay for the patent in the past. But even if that was $20 per device you are only talking $1b-$2b, small change for Apple, they won't feel any pressure to license their patents in return.

I guess Motorola will take the PUSH email patent around Europe now.

Which is why the Qualcomm license agreement will be brought in, other companies pay Motorola's licence fee via Qualcomm charging based on the value of the chip they buy.

Motorola seeking to terminate that license and charge Apple based on the full value of their products is where unfair and discriminatory come in, it is also anticompetitive because these tactics were used to block Apple from the German market.
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 #53 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

[...] In fact, Apple's win on Monday was considered so significant by Mueller that he said it raises the question of whether Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility for $12.5 billion last August has "failed before the deal is even formally closed." [...]

Google needs to hire a Chief of Due Diligence. Somebody who will actually think things through before pulling the trigger on huge deals. All the way through. Somebody who will actually sweat the details.

But that would go against Google's deeply ingrained shoot-first-ask-questions-later corporate culture.
So it's never going to happen. Great news for Apple.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #54 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

It's nothing of the sort. It's a legal disagreement based around the fact that Apple refused to pay a license for patents that Motorola have that are essential to some products that Apple sell.

Because the two parties can't come to an agreement because Motorola feel that five years of Apple abusing their patent should have a certain cost and Apple think it should be a different cost means nothing.

Apple pushes their patents around, many of them really quite bulls**t like the design patents. Oddly enough when they do that, other companies also press the big red patent button and the only people who gain are lawyers.

No, Apple have not refused to pay a licence fee... in fact they have made several offers to Moto all of which have been rejected. That is very different than Apple "refusing to pay". In fact I think the ruling states very clearly that Moto should accept Apples current offer or be held to be in violation of EU anti-trust laws.

The second point you make is not clear... are you saying that Moto can demand whatever they like and Apple must pay up or be held to be abusing the patent? That seems a little unfair to licensees, don't you think?

As for Apples patents, they are designed to make it difficult for other companies to copy their designs, and if the court decides that a device infringes on said patents, then the offending device / software can be redesigned to deal with that. The point you seem to miss is that Apple cannot design around a standard patent in the same way... and this is precisely why Moto's behaviour is so egregious.
post #55 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post

Not a bad take except I don't think they ever worried about Apple launching their own proprietary ad service. Apple had never shown any interest in doing that and has striven, on the desktop at least, to offer ad-free environments and products as one of the benefits of the Apple eco-system. But perhaps they viewed Apple as too powerful middle person between them and the search data that iOS users represented that they'd be better off trying to siphon some of those users off (?) Of course, Apple followed with iAd eventually, but its hasn't been much of a success and as for the search data of mobile Safari users, as we've seen, Google had a work around for Apples default cookie settings.

Sometimes, what seemed like a good hedge only serves to hasten the very outcome that you were afraid of occurring. Now that is happening for Google, but hey, they've got Android up and very widely disseminated. It remains to be seen if that is something that will be viewed as a Google success in the monetary sense five years from now.

One thing I would add is that Siri is sending queries that might otherwise have gone to Google search to other services, Yelp for one. I think this is a big deal in the long term and a good reason for Google to fear a dominant Apple, and give them the incentive to do the work necessary to make Android ubiquitous.
post #56 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication View Post

Uh....
They still have iCloud, they just have to change the settings on mail to fetch instead of push, and this only effects mail and only on mobile devices.

Exactly .. The only thing not working for us in Germany is PUSH .. We still get e-mail via iCloud and the rest .. just wont get pushed .. its just another e-mail service now .. that u either check manually or via interval .. thats all ..
big deal .. !not
Oh Boy .. I did it again hihi ..

http://facebook.com/eastmanmusic
Reply
Oh Boy .. I did it again hihi ..

http://facebook.com/eastmanmusic
Reply
post #57 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbourable View Post

One thing I would add is that Siri is sending queries that might otherwise have gone to Google search to other services, Yelp for one. I think this is a big deal in the long term and a good reason for Google to fear a dominant Apple, and give them the incentive to do the work necessary to make Android ubiquitous.

The problem with that is no one knows if Apple would have gone the Siri route had Google not released Android. In fact, it is not impossible that Apple would have encouraged Google to develop a Siri-like engine for the iPhone since it worked closely with Google for the Maps app and other projects.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #58 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Which is why the Qualcomm license agreement will be brought in, other companies pay Motorola's licence fee via Qualcomm charging based on the value of the chip they buy.

Motorola seeking to terminate that license and charge Apple based on the full value of their products is where unfair and discriminatory come in, it is also anticompetitive because these tactics were used to block Apple from the German market.

What has Qualcomm got to do with previous iPhones, which used Infineon chips up until the most recent iPhone?
post #59 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbourable View Post

No, Apple have not refused to pay a licence fee... in fact they have made several offers to Moto all of which have been rejected. That is very different than Apple "refusing to pay". In fact I think the ruling states very clearly that Moto should accept Apples current offer or be held to be in violation of EU anti-trust laws.

That's their CURRENT offer.

Btw, I'm offering you $500 for your car and house.
post #60 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I love how the Android copyists can't even come up with an original name:
http://www.reghardware.com/2012/02/2...id_collection/

That's pretty sad. You know, honestly, as I recover mentally and physically, I am realising some people (and hence companies) are either not very smart or just desperate. It's not a snobby comment, it's just the way it is.
post #61 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Gator and I debated this quite a few months ago. He stated (and I eventually conceded) that Google was more worried about Microsoft locking them out of the mobile space. I still think it was stupid for Google to release an OS with no clear business plan and basically throwing cash down a hole due to paranoia that it was going to miss out on mobile advertising.

Yeah, I see Google as having Microsoft as a big motivation for doing what they're doing. But somewhere along the way, they got bolder and decided to go for broke. Same thing with Amazon... I think they saw some good partnerships with Google to compete with Apple, but now I think Amazon is going to go for broke by themselves, with or without Google's help and/or blessings.
post #62 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hattig View Post

What has Qualcomm got to do with previous iPhones, which used Infineon chips up until the most recent iPhone?

What was infineon's license agreement with Motorola?

They were also ordered by Motorola to revoke the licenses of chips sold to Apple.

Infineon was also caught up in Motorola's anti-competitive behaviour.
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 #63 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

What was infineon's license agreement with Motorola?

They were also ordered by Motorola to revoke the licenses of chips sold to Apple.

Infineon was also caught up in Motorola's anti-competitive behaviour.

Was the Infineon license change only applicable to Apple, or to the particular chipset no matter who was buying? I don't recall any citations that it applied only to Apple, just Apple's note (in a court filing) of the timing of the change in licensing terms to imply it was due to the iPhone. Do you have something that definitively says only Infineon sales to Apple were targeted? Your previous links to the claim don't say that IIRC.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #64 of 65
Can I get some people to RETRACT their accusation that I'm a "Mac idolator" because I CALLED IT this way?

I figured Google's acquisition of Motorola to be mostly a waste of money.

Apple would prevail in these Samsung and Motorola lawsuits.

MOST of the cases against Apple are breaking with FRAND, and Apple has a right to purchase access to licenses without giving up tech it has NOT submitted as a standard.

>> A company cannot make a standard, and then try to use it as an arbitrary club. Most of these lawsuits against the iPhone, would make any mobile phone impossible to create.
post #65 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbourable View Post

One thing I would add is that Siri is sending queries that might otherwise have gone to Google search to other services, Yelp for one. I think this is a big deal in the long term and a good reason for Google to fear a dominant Apple, and give them the incentive to do the work necessary to make Android ubiquitous.

Yeah, I agree. But you know a whole bunch of that was driven by Google drawing first blood. Once the first Android phone went from a Bb knockoff to an iPhone knockoff they burned their goodwill with Apple and it became -- "you understand it's not personal, it just business" -- in the most cold, clinical and dangerous sense of the phrase.

and ninja'ed by @freckledbruh
.
Reply
.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple's latest legal victory over Motorola in Germany declared 'huge'