or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › German court tosses Samsung's 3G patent suit, Apple's slide-to-unlock complaint
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

German court tosses Samsung's 3G patent suit, Apple's slide-to-unlock complaint - Page 2

post #41 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Sort of. The gross amount has to be the same to be fair to all parties.

That is incorrect. Wikipedia has a decent layman's explication.
post #42 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Claim #1. - Incorrect. The royalty is based on the wholesale selling price of the finished product, ie iPhone, not just a chip.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10985...on-iphone.html

Claim#2: Incorrect again. The 2.25% royalty rate is for all patents that Moto has contributed to the standard.

I'll go even further for you. Let's talk one of the newer standards, 4G/LTE. A lot of companies have contributed IP to the standard and they all wish to be paid for their inventiveness. They also want it based on a percentage of the devices selling price, a completed phone or tablet utilizing LTE as an example. So how much does everyone want?

Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%

Total: 13.8% of the device's total selling price, not just a chip price.

The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.

Wow. Bullshirt much? The quoted reverence is from an article by SCOTT MORITZ, for Xmas' sake! Moritz is a hack of the first water. I literally stopped posting on his articles because I didn't want to support his swill in any way. And it says not a word about the percentage being based on the "wholesale price of the finished product".

I also note that your second assertion is just that; an assertion, with no proof to back it up.

Looks like anonymouse may be right. You may be a Big S.H.I.T. (Big Smelly Hairy Incentivized Troll) after all....
post #43 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No, I don't call it fair. It's also not atypical for royalties to be based on the product sales price.

You might read the PDF I linked above for a better understanding of formulas for determining a fair recompense for FRAND-pledged IP.

The product is the Quaalcom chip. Not the iPhone. That is the point. The Point is not how the royalty is priced.

But, let's accept your argument. And, in the process, also admit Samsung is charging Apple (only) an additional royalty on top of that paid thru Quaalcom and that it is based on retail and not wholesale price of the end product. That is, by definition, discriminatory and, in most countries, illegal. But, if you think that is right and appropriate, I would recommend that every patent holder for patents of products you purchase charge you and only you an additional royalty, based on suggested retail price for each and every product you buy. it's only fair, after all.
post #44 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

Wow. Bullshirt much? The quoted reverence is from an article by SCOTT MORITZ, for Xmas' sake! Moritz is a hack of the first water. I literally stopped posting on his articles because I didn't want to support his swill in any way. And it says not a word about the percentage being based on the "wholesale price of the finished product".

I also note that your second assertion is just that; an assertion, with no proof to back it up.

Looks like anonymouse may be right. You may be a Big S.H.I.T. (Big Smelly Hairy Incentivized Troll) after all....

Finally, even if it were true that the percentage is based on the wholesale price, my read is that that's the price for the whole chip, hardware, cumulative rights, and all. That's hugely different from charging that amount for a single FRAND-encumbered patent.
post #45 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

Wow. Bullshirt much? The quoted reverence is from an article by SCOTT MORITZ, for Xmas' sake! Moritz is a hack of the first water. I literally stopped posting on his articles because I didn't want to support his swill in any way. And it says not a word about the percentage being based on the "wholesale price of the finished product".

I also note that your second assertion is just that; an assertion, with no proof to back it up.

Looks like Anonymouse may be right. You may be a Big S.H.I.T. (Big Smelly Hairy Incentivized Troll) after all....

You didn't actually read Qualcomm's document on what their royalty rate is based on did you? The silly name-calling becomes even more comical when you you don't bother to read fully. Take a look at the document linked in post 22, page 2 specifically, and then comment again if you'd like to.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #46 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.

Takes one to know one?
post #47 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post

The product is the Quaalcom chip. Not the iPhone. That is the point. The Point is not how the royalty is priced.

It is not. Please show a link/citation showing Qualcomm bases it's royalty on just the chip price as evidence for your claim. I've given you a link in post 22, with the same royalty rate being repeated in LESI link in post 34, which proves my assertions.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #48 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Takes one to know one?

It could probably help in recognizing one. But IANAJ. IANAL either.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #49 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Claim #1. - Incorrect. The royalty is based on the wholesale selling price of the finished product, ie iPhone, not just a chip.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10985...on-iphone.html

Claim#2: Incorrect again. The 2.25% royalty rate is for all patents that Moto has contributed to the standard.

I'll go even further for you. Let's talk one of the newer standards, 4G/LTE. A lot of companies have contributed IP to the standard and they all wish to be paid for their inventiveness. They also want it based on a percentage of the devices selling price, a completed phone or tablet utilizing LTE as an example. So how much does everyone want?

Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%

Total: 13.8% of the device's total selling price, not just a chip price.

The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.

Aside from the fact that you're making things up.....

1. Motorola and Google have made it clear that 2.25% was the price PER patent.

2. Motorola and Google are the only ones charging that amount on the final product price.

3. If we accept your figures, then Apple would be paying $100 per iPhone in license fees or many of billions of dollars last year. Why is it that these massive fees never show up on Apple's financials or the financials of the licensors?

Clearly, your wild assertion is wrong.
"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 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Aside from the fact that you're making things up.....

1. Motorola and Google have made it clear that 2.25% was the price PER patent.

2. Motorola and Google are the only ones charging that amount on the final product price.

3. If we accept your figures, then Apple would be paying $100 per iPhone in license fees or many of billions of dollars last year. Why is it that these massive fees never show up on Apple's financials or the financials of the licensors?

Clearly, your wild assertion is wrong.

What did I make up? Any specifics? When did Google or Motorola contend the 2.25% royalties applied to each individual patent they contribute to a standard? How much is Apple paying in licensing fees? Just who is making stuff up? Surely you have links to show it isn't you.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #51 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

You didn't actually read Qualcomm's document on what their royalty rate is based on did you? The silly name-calling becomes even more comical when you you don't bother to read fully. Take a look at the document linked in post 22, page 2 specifically, and then comment again if you'd like to.

That's not the link you quoted, which was to a Scott Moritz article. However, I did check out the article, and it appears, as I said, to be talking about the wholesale price of the chipset, not the smartphone.

"Consistent with the industry-accepted principles of FRAND described above and the value of Qualcomm’s standards essential LTE and WiMax patent portfolios established through bilateral, arms-length negotiations culminating in Qualcomm’s existing LTE/WiMax license agreements, Qualcomm expects that it will charge royalties for a license under its standards essential LTE patents and/or standards essential WiMax patents for complete, end user subscriber devices that implement LTE and/or WiMax standards, but do not implement any 3G CDMA standards, of approximately 3.25% of the wholesale selling price of each such device, subject to reciprocity and other standard terms and conditions. Qualcomm’s expectation is based upon its understanding of the current LTE and WiMax standards under development and its existing patent portfolio. Qualcomm’s current expectation may change in the future based on, among other things, changes to the LTE and/or WiMax standards and/or changes to Qualcomm’s patent portfolio (e.g., acquisition of additional applicable patents)."

Note that this technology goes into the products of other chipmakers as well as Qualcomm's chipsets. It seems pretty obvious to me that they're referring to 3.25% of the wholesale chipset cost, not the cost of the device the chipset resides in.
post #52 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It is not. Please show a link/citation showing Qualcomm bases it's royalty on just the chip price as evidence for your claim. I've given you a link in post 22, with the same royalty rate being repeated in LESI link in post 34, which proves my assertions.

Yes. Your link supports your point. I wonder what royalty amount they collect on cars with built in telephony? Must be a sweet number, don't you think?

And, unlike Samsung, that is as you note the wholesale and not the retail price. Big difference.

In the end, it does not matter how the amount is calculated. What does matter is that Apple (or any company really) is treated fairly with respect to pricing applied to other manufacturers using chips with that same patent set. Obviously, in this case, it has not been. All other arguments, including how royalties are priced are immaterial to that central question.
post #53 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by UMadBrah? View Post

Good. I mean, srsly: slide to unlock? Total bogus that such a thing can be patented. I get why a company like Apple would file it: all giant companies file ridiculous patents, but they do so for defensive reasons.

The fact that Apple tried to use this patent in an offensive way is just ridiculous.


the Samsung patent on the other hand is about actual tech that required R&D and actual talent.
Yeah, it's under the FRAND flag, but if Apple isn't paying the requested fair fees, they are in the wrong.

Oh give me a break.
But it does seem to me that this court is trying to get a truce on all sides.
post #54 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

That's not the link you quoted, which was to a Scott Moritz article. However, I did check out the article, and it appears, as I said, to be talking about the wholesale price of the chipset, not the smartphone.

"Consistent with the industry-accepted principles of FRAND described above and the value of Qualcomm’s standards essential LTE and WiMax patent portfolios established through bilateral, arms-length negotiations culminating in Qualcomm’s existing LTE/WiMax license agreements, Qualcomm expects that it will charge royalties for a license under its standards essential LTE patents and/or standards essential WiMax patents for complete, end user subscriber devices that implement LTE and/or WiMax standards, but do not implement any 3G CDMA standards, of approximately 3.25% of the wholesale selling price of each such device, subject to reciprocity and other standard terms and conditions. Qualcomm’s expectation is based upon its understanding of the current LTE and WiMax standards under development and its existing patent portfolio. Qualcomm’s current expectation may change in the future based on, among other things, changes to the LTE and/or WiMax standards and/or changes to Qualcomm’s patent portfolio (e.g., acquisition of additional applicable patents)."

Note that this technology goes into the products of other chipmakers as well as Qualcomm's chipsets. It seems pretty obvious to me that they're referring to 3.25% of the wholesale chipset cost, not the cost of the device the chipset resides in.

I might also add that charging a percentage on a smartphone and a dumbphone, if it's by overall price, is hugely punitive for the smartphone. In effect, Qualcomm would be getting paid for the inclusion of a camera, memory, etcetera. I'd challenge that in court in a heartbeat!
post #55 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

That's not the link you quoted, which was to a Scott Moritz article. However, I did check out the article, and it appears, as I said, to be talking about the wholesale price of the chipset, not the smartphone.

"Consistent with the industry-accepted principles of FRAND described above and the value of Qualcomms standards essential LTE and WiMax patent portfolios established through bilateral, arms-length negotiations culminating in Qualcomms existing LTE/WiMax license agreements, Qualcomm expects that it will charge royalties for a license under its standards essential LTE patents and/or standards essential WiMax patents for complete, end user subscriber devices that implement LTE and/or WiMax standards, but do not implement any 3G CDMA standards, of approximately 3.25% of the wholesale selling price of each such device, subject to reciprocity and other standard terms and conditions. Qualcomms expectation is based upon its understanding of the current LTE and WiMax standards under development and its existing patent portfolio. Qualcomms current expectation may change in the future based on, among other things, changes to the LTE and/or WiMax standards and/or changes to Qualcomms patent portfolio (e.g., acquisition of additional applicable patents)."

Note that this technology goes into the products of other chipmakers as well as Qualcomm's chipsets. It seems pretty obvious to me that they're referring to 3.25% of the wholesale chipset cost, not the cost of the device the chipset resides in.

So you really believe that when Qualcomm says the royalty applies to a "complete, end user subscriber device" they mean a chipset? Plainly not as a chipset would not be a subscriber device.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #56 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So you really believe that when Qualcomm says the royalty applies to a "complete, end user subscriber device" they mean a chipset? Plainly not as a chipset would not be a subscriber device.

I think that's going to be hotly contested (they get 3.25% of the profit on the camera, the memory, etcetera?), but I concede your point. You are apparantly not a Big S.H.I.T. after all (although quoting from Scott Moritz doesn't add points in your favor...).

However, the fact that Qualcomm has a lock on 3G tech and to a lesser degree on 4G tech does not mean that they're not including FRAND payments to many, many others out of that 3.25%.
post #57 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by curmudgeon View Post

please define troll. Anybody that disagrees with you? Anybody that isn't salivating pavlov-style over everything apple? If they say anything critical at all, then they should be ignored or criticized?

Please don't feed the troll haters. Oh, dang. That's me.

this!

"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 #58 of 115
V
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Claim #1. - Incorrect. The royalty is based on the wholesale selling price of the finished product, ie iPhone, not just a chip.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10985...on-iphone.html

Claim#2: Incorrect again. The 2.25% royalty rate is for all patents that Moto has contributed to the standard.

I'll go even further for you. Let's talk one of the newer standards, 4G/LTE. A lot of companies have contributed IP to the standard and they all wish to be paid for their inventiveness. They also want it based on a percentage of the devices selling price, a completed phone or tablet utilizing LTE as an example. So how much does everyone want?

Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%

Total: 13.8% of the device's total selling price, not just a chip price.

The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.

Well said.

He does have conflict of interest.

"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 #59 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

I think that's going to be hotly contested (they get 3.25% of the profit on the camera, the memory, etcetera?), but I concede your point. You are apparantly not a Big S.H.I.T. after all (although quoting from Scott Moritz doesn't add points in your favor...).

However, the fact that Qualcomm has a lock on 3G tech and to a lesser degree on 4G tech does not mean that they're not including FRAND payments to many, many others out of that 3.25%.

I'm sure there are and Qualcomm themselves tell you how to do it: If you've got some patents of your own you'd like to share, we'll take that into consideration and adjust the rate accordingly.

BTW, thanks for keeping an open mind.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #60 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

V

Well said.

He does have conflict of interest.

Not well said. Motorola wants 2.25% for a single patent that's FRAND-encumbered. Qualcomm gets 3.25% for a collection of FRAND patents. Big difference.
post #61 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It is not. Please show a link/citation showing Qualcomm bases it's royalty on just the chip price as evidence for your claim. I've given you a link in post 22, with the same royalty rate being repeated in LESI link in post 34, which proves my assertions.

Your link doesn't prove anything of the sort. It simply says 3.25% of the device. From Qualcomm's perspective, the device is the chip.

See Sacto Joe's link.

Or:
http://www.sramanamitra.com/2007/10/...e-3g-goldmine/
Quote:
Royalty rates are calculated based on 2006 QualComm revenues,

Qualcomm revenues would be for the chip only - not the entire consumer product.
"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 #62 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm sure there are and Qualcomm themselves tell you how to do it: If you've got some patents of your own you'd like to share, we'll take that into consideration and adjust the rate accordingly.

BTW, thanks for keeping an open mind.

I'm always open to intellectual persuasion. It'd be nice if everyone else was as well....
post #63 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Did you just make that number up out of thin air?

Or do you have a cite?


The number there was used for the sake of calculations and discussion. However it does not mean that it was from thin air!

For instance look at the WIFI standard patents and have a look at the letters of assurance. There are 262 patents for this pool:
http://standards.ieee.org/about/sasb...pat802_11.html

You can also try 3GPP and other similar standard or industry websites for more information on the number of patents.
post #64 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Your link doesn't prove anything of the sort. It simply says 3.25% of the device. From Qualcomm's perspective, the device is the chip.

See Sacto Joe's link.

Sorry, you're wrong. Simply read the section of the license agreement that SactoJoe clipped. A chipset would not be a "complete end-user subscription device" described by Qualcomm as the royalty basis.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #65 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

Not well said. Motorola wants 2.25% for a single patent that's FRAND-encumbered. Qualcomm gets 3.25% for a collection of FRAND patents. Big difference.

Motorola has more than one patent they contributed to the essential standard. The reason you think the 2.25% applies to only a single patent is because there's only been one particular one mentioned in the case. The license would include all applicable patents in the pool of IP that Motorola contributed to the 3G standard, not just one. If not then Moto would simply go after another one later, then another, and perhaps another. That's not the way FRAND licensing works. You buy a package. It wouldn't make sense otherwise, not that it necessarily makes sense now.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 115
AI needs to make a Samsung v Apple litigation infograph so we can see who has won what.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #67 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You're ignoring two important factors:

1. Qualcomm only charges the royalty on the cost of the chip, not the finished device. A Qualcomm chip in an iPhone is just a few dollars, so the royalty is a few cents. Motorola wants the royalty assessed on the final product price - which would be more like $15 for an iPhone or $6,000 for a Mercedes A-class.

2. Qualcomm's license fee covers ALL Qualcomm patents (hundreds of them). Motorola wants 2.25% PER PATENT.

Nice try, though.

I wanted to point out a similar viewpoint but was at a loss for words, you basically did it very well here.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
Reply
post #68 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

AI needs to make a Samsung v Apple litigation infograph so we can see who has won what.

I'm sure it's on the "To-Do" list at FOSSPatents.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #69 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Motorola has more than one patent they contributed to the essential standard. The reason you think the 2.25% applies to only a single patent is because there's only been one particular one mentioned in the case. The license would include all applicable patents in the pool of IP that Motorola contributed to the 3G standard, not just one. If not then Moto would simply go after another one later, then another, and perhaps another. That's not the way FRAND licensing works. You buy a package. It wouldn't make sense otherwise, not that it necessarily makes sense now.

Fine, but what percentage of the pool does Moto represent, and why is it "double-dipping"? Or is it going to apply that percentage to all who license?
post #70 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Motorola has more than one patent they contributed to the essential standard. The reason you think the 2.25% applies to only a single patent is because there's only been one particular one mentioned in the case. The license would include all applicable patents in the pool of IP that Motorola contributed to the 3G standard, not just one. If not then Moto would simply go after another one later, then another, and perhaps another. That's not the way FRAND licensing works. You buy a package. It wouldn't make sense otherwise, not that it necessarily makes sense now.

No, the reason I think it's 2.25% PER PATENT is because that's what Motorola and Google both said.

Please try to keep up.
"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 #71 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

[...] Friday's rulings wrap up what Mueller declared to be a "phenomenal" week for Apple in Germany. [...]

When Steve Jobs announced the first iPhone, he said that Apple had applied for dozens of patents related to it. Plenty more where the "slide to unlock" suit came from.

3G patents: basic technology that everyone is forced to use.

Apple patents: look-and-feel that everyone else wants to copy.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #72 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

No, the reason I think it's 2.25% PER PATENT is because that's what Motorola and Google both said.

Please try to keep up.

Please provide the citation where either one said another 2.25% royalty applies to each individual patent in the standards pool. I say they didn't. Now you get to prove me wrong.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #73 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

Fine, but what percentage of the pool does Moto represent, and why is it "double-dipping"? Or is it going to apply that percentage to all who license?

GG is trying to bend words and create a parallax here that does not exist and is wasting our Friday afternoon.

The reason it is double dipping is that the patent in dispute, is used in a chipset fabricated by Qualcomm. When you or Apple or anyone else buys that chipset, a subset of the money is transferred to Motorola as royalty.

What Motorola wants is another 2.5% of the total value of an iPhone for using these patents which are in the chipset that qualcomm makes which it is receiving royalties for already!

This is FRAND abuse and you may have noticed with all the noise in the background, Moto has not been able to win given the FRAND nature of the patents in dispute. Samsung also is now being investigated by the EU for FRAND abuse because they tried obtaining injunctions against Apple based on FRAND patents. I would not be surprised that the same happens to Moto at some point.

I hope this helps!
post #74 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Sorry, you're wrong. Simply read the section of the license agreement that SactoJoe clipped. A chipset would not be a "complete end-user subscription device" described by Qualcomm as the royalty basis.

Um, sorry to piss on your chips guys, but is anyone using LTE and not CDMA in their chipsets? (ie. incurring the hotly-debated ~3% of final device cost, instead of the regular CDMA costs)

Apple certainly won't be. Can't think of any reason why anyone would be.

Seems like Qualcomm are placing a premium on LTE-only, encouraging people to buy their multifunction GSM/CDMA/LTE chips (like Apple do 4S) instead.
post #75 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

Fine, but what percentage of the pool does Moto represent, and why is it "double-dipping"? Or is it going to apply that percentage to all who license?

I haven't seen any claim on what portion of the pool came from Motorola.

As for "double-dipping", Qualcomm claims they had a license to Motorola's patents in the pool, and they extended that license to Apple per a contract agreement. Motorola disagrees with that, but the court has signaled that they'll probably (not definitely) side with Apple on this one. That's why no injunction will be on the table until the court comes to a final conclusion. No particular outcome is yet guaranteed, but as of now it looks like it's probably going to go Apple's way. Add Apple's recent offer to license anyway, (letting the court determine an appropriate royalty?) and Moto is between a rock and a hard place. If I were them I look at this one as a done deal and move on.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #76 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I haven't seen any claim on what portion of the pool came from Motorola.

As for "double-dipping", Qualcomm claims they had a license to Motorola's patents in the pool, and they extended that license to Apple per a contract agreement. Motorola disagrees with that, but the court has signaled that they'll probably (not definitely) side with Apple on this one. That's why no injunction will be on the table until the court comes to a final conclusion. No particular outcome is yet guaranteed, but as of now it looks like it's probably going to go Apple's way. Add Apple's recent offer to license anyway, (letting the court determine an appropriate royalty?) and Moto is between a rock and a hard place. If I were them I look at this one as a done deal and move on.

That seems right to me, and seems to be in keeping with the point of view of Mr. Mueller. So what's he getting wrong?
post #77 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFreeman View Post

GG is trying to bend words and create a parallax here that does not exist and is wasting our Friday afternoon.

The reason it is double dipping is that the patent in dispute, is used in a chipset fabricated by Qualcomm. When you or Apple or anyone else buys that chipset, a subset of the money is transferred to Motorola as royalty.

What Motorola wants is another 2.5% of the total value of an iPhone for using these patents which are in the chipset that qualcomm makes which it is receiving royalties for already!

This is FRAND abuse and you may have noticed with all the noise in the background, Moto has not been able to win given the FRAND nature of the patents in dispute. Samsung also is now being investigated by the EU for FRAND abuse because they tried obtaining injunctions against Apple based on FRAND patents. I would not be surprised that the same happens to Moto at some point.

I hope this helps!

And yet, he appears to be agreeing with you (and Mr. Mueller) in his last post to me.
post #78 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I haven't seen any claim on what portion of the pool came from Motorola.

As for "double-dipping", Qualcomm claims they had a license to Motorola's patents in the pool, and they extended that license to Apple per a contract agreement. Motorola disagrees with that, but the court has signaled that they'll probably (not definitely) side with Apple on this one. That's why no injunction will be on the table until the court comes to a final conclusion. No particular outcome is yet guaranteed, but as of now it looks like it's probably going to go Apple's way. Add Apple's recent offer to license anyway, (letting the court determine an appropriate royalty?) and Moto is between a rock and a hard place. If I were them I look at this one as a done deal and move on.

Half of your comment is sensible and the other half is not (to an extent) based on the information on the net. You either have access to information that no one else has or you are mixing a few things!

Based on the information from FossPatents:
Qualcomm did not extend any patents to anyone. They had license to fabricate chips and sell them off. What happens next is that Moto contacted them and asked them (revoking license to sell to Apple) not to sell to Apple only! The dodgy part is that there is no license to revoke! The license does not state that you cannot sell to competitor and alike given it is FRAND!

This is something that beggars belief! Qualcomm obviously refused and we are now here. FOSSPatents published some of the emails between Qualcomm-Apple-Moto!
post #79 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

And yet, he appears to be agreeing with you (and Mr. Mueller) in his last post to me.

He is kind of agreeing for the wrong reasons and I intend to make him agree with me for the right reasons!
post #80 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFreeman View Post

He is kind of agreeing for the wrong reasons and I intend to make him agree with me for the right reasons!

In your view what are the right reasons?
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 › German court tosses Samsung's 3G patent suit, Apple's slide-to-unlock complaint