or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Motorola demanded license for all Apple iPhone patents for access to 3G standard
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Motorola demanded license for all Apple iPhone patents for access to 3G standard - Page 2

post #41 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

That's how I read it.

What I don't understand is the two mutually exclusive situations we have here.

For one, we're being told that motorola is doing all these things that are patently anti-competitive with their FRAND patents WRT Apple. The other part is that you have to assume that no lawyer could be so dumb as to green light doing something so clearly illegal. I tend to believe we're (the Apple fan public) are not being told the whole story by those experts we tend to quote often. If everything they were saying is really right, these lawsuits over the FRAND patents would be settled in Apple's favor every time before they even went to the jury. I don't get it.

Again, you don't get it because you don't know how the law works. Lawyers don't get to decide whether to file the case or not. They can advise their clients, but there are times when it makes sense to proceed down a certain path even if your chances of winning are very slight.

In this case, even if Apple eventually wins all of its claims, Motorola/Samsung/Google will still get their FRAND royalties, but they will also have a couple of years of being able to sell products that infringe on Apple's patents. At that point, they will be so entrenched that Apple could be forced to license technologies to them.

Intellectual property litigation is not as simple as you're trying to make it out to be.
"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 #42 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Clearly what you're missing is an understanding of how court works.

Nothing gets literally laughed out of court. Both sides get an opportunity to present their side - no matter how weak the argument is. (There is an exception that one side can get summary judgment if there are absolutely no matters of fact to be decided, but that's nearly unheard of in an intellectual property case).

Really? Nothing gets literally laughed out of court?

THANKS!

What I'm talking about is summary judgement. If these cases are really as open and shut as we, the idiot public, are being led to believe, that's what should be happening here. That's what I'm saying. Clearly the information we're getting from Florian Mueller is not telling us the whole story.
post #43 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

Especially for something that is FRAND. Samsung is NOT operating in good faith

While I believe your statement is factually true, it is irrelevant to the article. This is about Motorola, not Samsung.
post #44 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

What I'm talking about is summary judgement. .

Summary judgments are pretty hard to actually come by in civil suits like this - court cases tend to drag on even if its obvious that somebody is going to loose. Take the Psystar case. Dragged on forever before Apple was granted a summary judgment and it was extremely obvious that Psystar was in the wrong and Apple had tons of evidence. And Psystar was not a big company.

Summary judgments are a big thing and it is less likely to occur in this case. And I doubt that FRAND violations are going to lead to a summary judgment at all. Even if MOTO was violating FRAND that doesnt mean Apple is not guilty or that the case can be dropped.
post #45 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I see now my question was flawed. I can see why Moto wants all of Apple's patents the question I should have asked is: How could they possibly think that is ever going to happen?

Nokia basically did the same thing and they won. No one knows for sure what they actually won, more than likely Apple came out ahead in that case... But it is extremely similar. I think Motorola is very desperate and is trying to force Apple into a settlement. With all these key multi-touch patents being granted, maybe they feel like Apple could sue them back to 2006 if they don't get themselves into a license agreement anyway possible.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #46 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Really? Nothing gets literally laughed out of court?

THANKS!

What I'm talking about is summary judgement. If these cases are really as open and shut as we, the idiot public, are being led to believe, that's what should be happening here. That's what I'm saying. Clearly the information we're getting from Florian Mueller is not telling us the whole story.

As I said, it is extremely rare for a summary judgment to be issued in an IP case. You can only get a summary judgment if the parties are in completely agreement about the facts (i.e., there are no material facts in question) and they merely need the court to apply the law to the admitted facts.

if there are ANY material facts in dispute, it has to go to trial. Clearly, in this case, there are facts in dispute so a summary judgment is not reasonable.

Again, you should really learn how the law works before you continue to comment on it.
"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 #47 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

As I said, it is extremely rare for a summary judgment to be issued in an IP case. You can only get a summary judgment if the parties are in completely agreement about the facts (i.e., there are no material facts in question) and they merely need the court to apply the law to the admitted facts.

if there are ANY material facts in dispute, it has to go to trial. Clearly, in this case, there are facts in dispute so a summary judgment is not reasonable.

Again, you should really learn how the law works before you continue to comment on it.

You're a p****.

And I'm a p****, so I'm definitely qualified to comment on it.

Did you get lost and think you ended up on the legal experts forum? And what law degree do you have Mr. I Have Time To Post 4000 Times?

J*******.
post #48 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

That's how I read it.

What I don't understand is the two mutually exclusive situations we have here.

For one, we're being told that motorola is doing all these things that are patently anti-competitive with their FRAND patents WRT Apple. The other part is that you have to assume that no lawyer could be so dumb as to green light doing something so clearly illegal. I tend to believe we're (the Apple fan public) are not being told the whole story by those experts we tend to quote often. If everything they were saying is really right, these lawsuits over the FRAND patents would be settled in Apple's favor every time before they even went to the jury. I don't get it.

Samsung found lawyers to do the same thing for them and they got slapped down. Why do you presume Motorola isn't going to be as well?
post #49 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJJameson View Post

Samsung found lawyers to do the same thing for them and they got slapped down. Why do you presume Motorola isn't going to be as well?

Because its not convenient enough for him?
post #50 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

That's how I read it.

What I don't understand is the two mutually exclusive situations we have here.

For one, we're being told that motorola is doing all these things that are patently anti-competitive with their FRAND patents WRT Apple. The other part is that you have to assume that no lawyer could be so dumb as to green light doing something so clearly illegal. I tend to believe we're (the Apple fan public) are not being told the whole story by those experts we tend to quote often. If everything they were saying is really right, these lawsuits over the FRAND patents would be settled in Apple's favor every time before they even went to the jury. I don't get it.

One really would hope that logic might apply, but history has shown other companies apparently making equally unwise decisions, and the legal system still enjoys (or profits from) taking its time to come to the inevitable judgement.
post #51 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmmx View Post

Why doesn't Apple just buy up some FRAND IP and do the same to Android phones? Hell they could buy up Qualcomm itself which I am sure has some IP in there too.

Because they would get a legal spanking for it. When a patent falls under FRAND you can't refuse to license it and you cant play games with different rules depending on your opponent. Apple knows this. Plus they respect the notion of IP, which is why they do things like ask before they create a music locker etc

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #52 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Because its not convenient enough for him?

LOL sorry! I didn't realize being an Apple fan and shareholder made me a troll.

I just don't see large corporations filing lawsuits they know they're going to lose, and not just lose, but these lawsuits will result in anticompetitive charges being brought against them if you believe the slanted news we're fed here.

Is being skeptical when what you're told doesn't match up with what you see with your own eyes unacceptable in the world of fanbois?
post #53 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

Because they would get a legal spanking for it. When a patent falls under FRAND you can't refuse to license it and you cant play games with different rules depending on your opponent. Apple knows this. Plus they respect the notion of IP, which is why they do things like ask before they create a music locker etc

So why doesn't MOT know this? Do they want to attract anti-competition lawsuits? If so, why?
post #54 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

I just don't see large corporations filing lawsuits they know they're going to lose, and not just lose, but these lawsuits will result in anticompetitive charges being brought against them if you believe the slanted news we're fed here.

Because at worse they just loose?

Even a partial victory can clog Apple up, even if it's reversed.

When you have absolutely no hope of being competitive, why not seek refuge in the courts?

Quote:
Is being skeptical when what you're told doesn't match up with what you see with your own eyes

You say skeptical, I say naive.

Quote:
unacceptable in the world of fanbois?

Thank you for invoking the Godwins Law of Apple threads
post #55 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Just give Motorola/Google all your patents, Apple. Cant we all play nice? Why is Apple always such a bully?

I sure hope that was a joke. \
post #56 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

You're a p****.

And I'm a p****, so I'm definitely qualified to comment on it.

Did you get lost and think you ended up on the legal experts forum? And what law degree do you have Mr. I Have Time To Post 4000 Times?

J*******.

Your lack of intelligent argument is noted.

What's the point of trolling a forum about a product that you don't like and don't use when you don't even have any intelligent arguments? You could get the same effect by sitting at home and hitting yourself over the head with a baseball bat.
"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 #57 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You could get the same effect by sitting at home and hitting yourself over the head with a baseball bat.

Would he still get the paycheck though?

Edit: and don't forget the adulation of his "fans"?
post #58 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

LOL looks like google really think they can just do whatever they like with their newly acquired FRAND patents.

If google did not own motorola at the time, how was it google that thought that they could do whatever htey wanted?
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #59 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

This is what I'm talking about, in the above post. If they were really this ridiculous, they WOULD get laughed out of court and fined to boot. But that's not happening. So what are we missing?

What you are missing is that the main hearings haven't occurred, there have been some injunctions sought in preliminary hearings but the main bouts are still to come.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #60 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

Because at worse they just loose?

Even a partial victory can clog Apple up, even if it's reversed.

When you have absolutely no hope of being competitive, why not seek refuge in the courts?

The worst outcome of filing anticompetitive lawsuits is losing the ability to enforce those patents that you're abusing. Actually the worst outcome is even worse than that, when the antitrust regulators get involved.

That's FAR worse than just being told you wasted everyone's time.
post #61 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Your lack of intelligent argument is noted.

What's the point of trolling a forum about a product that you don't like and don't use when you don't even have any intelligent arguments? You could get the same effect by sitting at home and hitting yourself over the head with a baseball bat.

What are you talking about? I do like Apple products, and I do use them. I'm also a shareholder. I just don't believe everything I read from fans of a product. The coverage here is too Apple-positive and doesn't match with reality. A smart shareholder wants to know if there's a risk that the outlook for his company is not as good as it seems to be. A dumb one shouts down those who ask questions. That's you.
post #62 of 80
Remember two weeks before the Google acquisition of Motorola Mobility was announced?
MMI loudly and publicly threatened to sue Google and its Android hardware partners using its thousands of patents.
Google ended up paying a sucker price. Something like 60% over market value for MMI. Pure extortion.

Maybe Google can sue Motorola Mobility for extortion and unfair use of their FRAND-encumbered patents.
Could save them $12.5 billion. Plus the cost of that "firewall" Rubin claimed they would build between MMI and themselves.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #63 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Just give Motorola/Google all your patents, Apple. Cant we all play nice? Why is Apple always such a bully?

I agree. Just give Motorola/Google all your lunch money, Apple. Why is Apple always such a bully?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #64 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

Remember two weeks before the Google acquisition of Motorola Mobility was announced?
MMI loudly and publicly threatened to sue Google and its Android hardware partners using its thousands of patents.
Google ended up paying a sucker price. Something like 60% over market value for MMI. Pure extortion.

Maybe Google can sue Motorola Mobility for extortion and unfair use of their FRAND-encumbered patents.
Could save them $12.5 billion. Plus the cost of that "firewall" Rubin claimed they would build between MMI and themselves.

The public statement was a ruse. Google had been in talks with MMI for a long time and already knew their portfolio when they made a bid.

There is no bite in a public bark without any paper work showing an intent to follow through on that bark.
post #65 of 80
MMI demands are essentially extortion.
post #66 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

LOL looks like google really think they can just do whatever they like with their newly acquired FRAND patents.

These articles really don't provide enough information for such an opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penchanted View Post

So Motorola is basically saying, "Samsung and HTC, you give me x per unit...Apple, you give me x per unit plus access to all your patents.

If that doesn't take the Non-Discriminatory out of FRAND, I don't know what does.

You're making this grossly oversimplified. We haven't seen the basis of calculating royalties on these other devices. I haven't seen information over whether it's percentage based or a flat amount. It could be a case of trying to force cross licensing as a leveraging factor in lieu of part or all of the licensing fee. Once again, these articles rarely ever give you a truly excellent depiction of the situation. They're meant as light reading.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post

Really! I pantent some thing. It then belongs to ME!! Why in the fuck should I share it with some one who is a cry baby because they cant be as creative as ME!! Really this is utterly stupid. Either lead follow or get out of the way. Or maybe get bought out. LOL.

If you are remotely intelligent, you can write a better response than this. There are patents that are part of a standard such as the case of FRAND. Apple's patents aren't encumbered by such standards, but one day it might happen if they develop something of that magnitude. Had some of Motorola's research never existed, you wouldn't see the iphone as it is today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Really? Nothing gets literally laughed out of court?

THANKS!

What I'm talking about is summary judgement. If these cases are really as open and shut as we, the idiot public, are being led to believe, that's what should be happening here. That's what I'm saying. Clearly the information we're getting from Florian Mueller is not telling us the whole story.

It's like I've already said in this response.... light reading. These things never provide enough information to form a completely objective opinion.
post #67 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Nokia basically did the same thing and they won. No one knows for sure what they actually won, more than likely Apple came out ahead in that case... But it is extremely similar. I think Motorola is very desperate and is trying to force Apple into a settlement. With all these key multi-touch patents being granted, maybe they feel like Apple could sue them back to 2006 if they don't get themselves into a license agreement anyway possible.

Nokia didn't "win" anything, Nokia and Apple came to an agreement and dropped all litigation, nothing was decided in a court of law..
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #68 of 80
In addition, they also asked to sleep with Steve's wife and, since their at it, Tim Cook's car keys.
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
I've accomplished my childhood's dream: My job consists mainly of playing with toys all day long.
Reply
post #69 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by diddy View Post

Take the Psystar case. Dragged on forever before Apple was granted a summary judgment and it was extremely obvious that Psystar was in the wrong and Apple had tons of evidence. And Psystar was not a big company.

Psystar was also clearly in the wrong from the get go, but it was pushed along to see if there were any holes in Apple's licence agreement. This is why there are 50 page EULA's on every software package you get and nobody reads. Apple does not have to license their software that is used exclusively on their hardware.

It's also a bit of a stretch to compare copyright with patents. Patents require that something be invented and non-obvious, where as copyright is simply "don't copy my performance." Back before the days of digital stuff, copyright infringement was mainly books, musical performances and art pieces. Patents also expire within 20 years. Copyright should too. Otherwise stuff just doesn't get archived and is eventually lost. It's so much more expensive today than it was 80 years ago to fight patents, because today you need an army of lawyers, trademarks registered and domains registered, in every country, before you open the barn door and show everyone what you invented. If you miss a step or can't afford all of them, someone definitely will rip you off.

There will become a point that you can't sell something without violating thousands of patents that all independently want some % of your item's price. So I believe some Patent reform that reduces the scope of what a patent applies to may eventually have to happen. Like in the case of Motorola, they gave a licence to Qualcomm to use the patent, Apple bought the chips from Qualcomm, so therefor Apple has every right to use those patents that apply to those chips. Otherwise Apple would just make it part of the SoC in the A5X CPU, and pay the 3G/LTE patent pool directly. Apple doesn't do this for the obvious reason that the radio isn't part of the iPod or iPad base model and it adds 160$ to the price of the unit.
post #70 of 80
Motorola has no future. Google is only interested because of patent portfolio. Without Google Moto dies out as a tech company and morphs into a patent troll. By attempting to illegally license its FRAND patents Moto is getting a taste of what life will be like as Google's troll. With the regulators on their tail Moto's trolling days are numbered and the geniuses at Google will be left fighting a protracted, expensive and loosing war against the government regulators ala Microsoft after the acquisition of Moto.

As a budding troll and a troll buddy both Moto and Google could disappear tomorrow and no one would notice.
post #71 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

The public statement was a ruse. Google had been in talks with MMI for a long time and already knew their portfolio when they made a bid.

There is no bite in a public bark without any paper work showing an intent to follow through on that bark.

So you're saying that while Motorola was in talks with Google they made public threats to sue Google's android partners as some sort of ruse? What was the ruse supposed to accomplish? Any links?
It seems to me Motorola made the threat to get Google to buy them at a premium
post #72 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post

In addition, they also asked to sleep with Steve's wife and, since their at it, Tim Cook's car keys.

They wanted to sleep with Tim Cook's car keys? I thought he was married to his job, not to his car?
post #73 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

What are you talking about? I do like Apple products, and I do use them. I'm also a shareholder. I just don't believe everything I read from fans of a product. The coverage here is too Apple-positive and doesn't match with reality. A smart shareholder wants to know if there's a risk that the outlook for his company is not as good as it seems to be. A dumb one shouts down those who ask questions. That's you.

dude!... too apple positive on a web site named APPLEINSIDER?... you gotta be kidding me!... . i'm not sorry of this ad hominem attack, but you forgot to take your meds!!.
post #74 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

dude!... too apple positive on a web site named APPLEINSIDER?... you gotta be kidding me!... . i'm not sorry of this ad hominem attack, but you forgot to take your meds!!.

Yeah, that's right. It doesn't say "AppleFanSite!" Is this a place where any opinion (as long as it's positive) of Apple is allowed to be discussed? Even by a fan of the company, a shareholder? That's pretty sad, and even more sad that you are defending it out loud. You should at least have the shame to see how intellectually bankrupt that is and not want to admit it.
post #75 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by cameronj View Post

Yeah, that's right. It doesn't say "AppleFanSite!" Is this a place where any opinion (as long as it's positive) of Apple is allowed to be discussed? Even by a fan of the company, a shareholder? That's pretty sad, and even more sad that you are defending it out loud. You should at least have the shame to see how intellectually bankrupt that is and not want to admit it.

Sure. People are allowed to discuss things. And when they present an inane, unsupportable viewpoint (like your comments above), they will be ridiculed.

The only intellectual bankruptcy is from people like you who insist on commenting on things you don't understand.
"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 #76 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Sure. People are allowed to discuss things. And when they present an inane, unsupportable viewpoint (like your comments above), they will be ridiculed.

The only intellectual bankruptcy is from people like you who insist on commenting on things you don't understand.

Still waiting to hear about your incredible credentials, solicitor. Until then, you're just an internet tough guy.
post #77 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Nokia basically did the same thing and they won. No one knows for sure what they actually won, more than likely Apple came out ahead in that case... But it is extremely similar. I think Motorola is very desperate and is trying to force Apple into a settlement. With all these key multi-touch patents being granted, maybe they feel like Apple could sue them back to 2006 if they don't get themselves into a license agreement anyway possible.

Nokia demanded but clearly didn't get a blanket license to Apple IP. Instead, they got a lump sum FRAND settlement covering Nokia's actual value of its SEP portfolio. Big difference.

The only difference here is that Motorola still thinks it can get what Nokia and Samsung didn't. All its really going to get is DoJ/EU scrutiny, and transfer all that to Google, giving Android another black eye. Google is realizing that Motorola's patents are worth a WHOLE LOT LESS than the $12.5 billion it paid for them.

And Google is clearly bummed that it is not going to be able to leverage Motorola's old pager era patents to simply extort away the iPhone patent portfolio so it can clone Apple's entire IP package and give it to the Chinese for efficient duplication.

That strategy isn't working very well at all.
post #78 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

Nokia demanded but clearly didn't get a blanket license to Apple IP. Instead, they got a lump sum FRAND settlement covering Nokia's actual value of its SEP portfolio...

AND a license to specific IP belonging to Apple including some patents for tech unique to the iPhone. Even Apple admitted to that. It just didn't include "the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique"
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #79 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

AND a license to specific IP belonging to Apple including some patents for tech unique to the iPhone. Even Apple admitted to that. It just didn't include "the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique"

At the time of the Nokia settlement, Nokia had already announced that they were going to become a Windows Phone shop. At that point, it was in Apple's interest to license IP to Nokia. If they did not use cross licensing to reduce their lump sum payments to Nokia, Apple would have likely faced a scenario where Nokia would have used all this technology ANYWAY - because they would have been shielded by Microsoft.

And there is really no way on earth Apple would want to take on Microsoft in a patent lawsuit. MS has much more non-encumbered patents than Apple has, and the fight would soon become a major hole in both wallets, without achieving anything.

This is quite evident from how the Nokia settlement likely gave a boost to Apple's earnings. It is more than likely that cross licensing this IP is what made the actual payments to Nokia less than what Apple was accruing.

So please do not compare the Nokia situation with Motorola/Samsung. Motorola/Samsung will get a license to use Apple IP ONLY if they commit to becoming Windows only shops. And even then, they will get a license only because it then reduces Apple's FRAND licensing payments to them. Neither Google/Motorola nor Samsung have the leverage to force Apple to license its IP. Whatever FRAND leverage these companies have can at best be used to get some money from Apple - nothing more.

Apple is way too strong financially, legally and in the marketplace to be bullied into doing things they don't want to do. Even in cases where Apple has lost in court (vs Motorola in Germany), it now looks like these losses could hurt Motorola more in anti-trust investigations, than hurt Apple in the market (because most of these judgements have anyway been suspended). iCloud push is possibly the only issue where Apple sees an impact in the market - but even that is relatively manageable, because there is a work around (yes - the fetch workaround is suboptimal, and degrades the user experience - but still it gets the job done for the most part).
post #80 of 80
Good post Macarena.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Motorola demanded license for all Apple iPhone patents for access to 3G standard
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Motorola demanded license for all Apple iPhone patents for access to 3G standard