or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › European Commission investigating Motorola for suspected patent abuse
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

European Commission investigating Motorola for suspected patent abuse

post #1 of 51
Thread Starter 
The European Commission announced on Tuesday that it has opened two formal investigations against Motorola Mobility, which were spurred by complaints from Apple and Microsoft.

Both Apple and Microsoft have accused Motorola, with complaints lodged in the European Union, of abusing its standard-essential patents. The complaints were enough to gain the attention of the European Commission, which will now formally investigate Motorola's licensing practices with FRAND patents.

In addition to reviewing potential unfair licensing practices, the commission said it will also investigate whether Motorola, by seeking injunctions against products like Apple's iPhone and iPad, has failed to honor the commitments it has made to standard setting organizations.

"In these commitments, Motorola engaged to license those standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms," the commission said in a statement. "The Commission will examine whether Motorola's behaviour amounts to an abuse of a dominant market position prohibited by Article 102 on the Treaty of the Functioning EU."

Analyzing the announcement by the commission, patent expert Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents said the investigation is a sign that European Commission Vice President Joaquin Almunia is willing to fight for FRAND licensing harder than any of his predecessors did.


European Commission headquarters in Brussels, via Wikipedia.


"The press release routinely states, to put it differently, MMI (Motorola) is innocent until proven guilty," Mueller added. "But the launch of formal investigations (as opposed to merely preliminary ones) is a key step that follows a reasonably thorough (even though only initial) assessment of the issues."

Signs that the commission was prepared to launch a formal investigation into Motorola first surfaced last week, when Almunia indicated it was part of a broad reaching plan to reduce abuse of standard-essential patents by telecoms. At a lecture in Washington D.C., he said he wanted to "help bring more clarity into this area of competition control."

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 51
post #3 of 51
Lol. The haha picture made me chortle.
post #4 of 51
Motorola must be regretting that bluster by their lawyer. This is the sort of statement that paints the company as a reckless aggressor, abusing Standard Essential Patents.

Google might have managed to wriggle out of the Oracle mess (at least for now), but this noose looks like a tight one. Motorola is going to see the value of its patents evaporate pretty soon. If a $15 chip from Qualcomm comes fully licensed to the entire 3G stack, how much money could Motorola realistically expect to make from Apple?

And for LTE, Apple has covered their bases quite well with the Nortel acquisition. In all likelihood, Apple might not have to pay too much to anyone for LTE - because it would be mostly offset by their own patents. That is the main reason Apple paid so much for the Nortel patents. Apple makes over 125M phones EVERY year. Their 2.5B share of the Nortel pool works out just $20 per iPhone made in a single year. Over 3-4 years, Apple would have recovered the money spent on the patents. And then it is just free money. Not a bad way to spend money that otherwise earned them just 2-3% return!
post #5 of 51
I wonder if this investigation could scuttle the Google takeover or, preferably, just make
Motorola Mobility even more of an albatross around Google's neck.
post #6 of 51
Kudos to the EU if they establish some boundaries and basic FRAND principles that apply to all standards-setting agencies and groups. As it is they each have their own policies. Some modicum of commonality would be a big assist to those seeking licenses to essential IP.

I suspect this exercise is intended more as a determination of what rules the various organizations have in place, how they're policed, and what terms should be considered acceptable or not generally permitted. I'd be surprised if punishment occurs. Assuming Motorola is following the policies set by the licensing agency it would be tough to explain. If they aren't following the established standards policies that's different and more could be at stake.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #7 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

I wonder if this investigation could scuttle the Google takeover or, preferably, just make
Motorola Mobility even more of an albatross around Google's neck.

Depends on how the acquisition is set up. If Google is simply buying assets, then any fines would go against Motorola Mobility and Google wouldn't have to pay them. The regulators would probably threaten to block the deal if Motorola (parent) doesn't pay them, but that simply makes it more imperative for Motorola to get their money from Google.
"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 #8 of 51
IMO if they loose the trials, they should be punished not (only) financially, but also by releasing the patents in question and related ones they own into public domain.
post #9 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by aucl View Post

IMO if they loose the trials, they should be punished not (only) financially, but also by releasing the patents in question and related ones they own into public domain.

Be careful what you ask for that could easily be turned around against Apple or any other company if such a thing was possible. Let's hope that the EU isn't practicing water boarding.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #10 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by aucl View Post

IMO if they loose the trials, they should be punished not (only) financially, but also by releasing the patents in question and related ones they own into public domain.

Yikes! My take is that's a bit too far. I good with posting a bond to cover business losses, paying legal fees of the winning side and handing down fines when abuses defined in law are found but taking IP would discourage others from rightfully defending.
post #11 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB View Post

Yikes! My take is that's a bit too far.

Agreed!
post #12 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Be careful what you ask for that could easily be turned around against Apple or any other company if such a thing was possible. Let's hope that the EU isn't practicing water boarding.

Which Standards Essential patents has Apple refused to license?
"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 #13 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Which Standards Essential patents has Apple refused to license?

That's another issue that the EU will probably have to settle if their goal is to define FRAND standards and how they're established and policed. It's not unusual for an entity to become a member of a standards board, but not with the intent to cooperate in contributing their IP. Instead it sometimes happens that IP goes undeclared, whether on purpose or by oversight and that IP is then used to assert a claim for royalties once the standards are set.

In some other cases they become a member to put up roadblocks to any standard they feel might negatively affect them. In either of these cases standards have the potential to be abused. That would be the claims the W3C is making with regard to Apple's membership in that group. Rather than cooperation they feel Apple's goal in joining is to stifle or at least severely delay the establishment of certain web standards.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #14 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

Be careful what you ask for that could easily be turned around against Apple or any other company if such a thing was possible. Let's hope that the EU isn't practicing water boarding.

for the majority it would still be the best to give abused patents to public domain. No matter who the previous owner was.
post #15 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In some other cases they become a member to put up roadblocks to any standard they feel might negatively affect them. In either of these cases standards have the potential to be abused. That would be the claims the W3C is making with regard to Apple's membership in that group. Rather than cooperation they feel Apple's goal in joining is to stifle or at least severely delay the establishment of certain web standards.

Link please? This is the first I am hearing of such a conspiracy theory!
post #16 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

That's another issue that the EU will probably have to settle if their goal is to define FRAND standards and how they're established and policed. It's not unusual for an entity to become a member of a standards board, but not with the intent to cooperate in contributing their IP. Instead it sometimes happens that IP goes undeclared, whether on purpose or by oversight and that IP is then used to assert a claim for royalties once the standards are set.

In some other cases they become a member to put up roadblocks to any standard they feel might negatively affect them. In either of these cases standards have the potential to be abused. That would be the claims the W3C is making with regard to Apple's membership in that group. Rather than cooperation they feel Apple's goal in joining is to stifle or at least severely delay the establishment of certain web standards.

A lot of FUD, but no evidence, I see. As usual for you.
"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 #17 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

A lot of FUD, but no evidence, I see. As usual for you.

I never post factual claims unless there's evidence to support them. You've been around long enough to know that, which disposes of your "as usual" mention.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/a...-wide-web.html
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #18 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I never post factual claims unless there's evidence to support them. You've been around long enough to know that, which disposes of your "as usual" mention.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/a...-wide-web.html

Of course, if you read the case, it says nothing at all like what you claim it says.

The consortium is trying to make a new standard and Apple said "wait a second - we have a patent that might affect your standard, so don't jump the gun". The consortium then went out of its way to try to get Apple's patent invalidated.

So where did Apple agree to license a technology and then refuse to do so?
"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 #19 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Of course, if you read the case, it says nothing at all like what you claim it says.

The consortium is trying to make a new standard and Apple said "wait a second - we have a patent that might affect your standard, so don't jump the gun". The consortium then went out of its way to try to get Apple's patent invalidated.

So where did Apple agree to license a technology and then refuse to do so?

They never agreed to, which is the point I made about why companies will sometimes join a consortium yet not contribute IP, and the reason for the EU to address the issue of putting up roadblocks to standards as long as they're investigating problems related to essential IP. Apple apparently didn't join the W3C standards consortium intending to be a cooperating and contributory partner IMO, but instead to keep a standard delayed as much as possible for their own reasons.

I don't think you understand the standards setting process or some of the less-than-helpful reasons a company might join a standards consortium. I'll give you a link that might help you understand it if you have any real interest.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 51
I wonder if Microsoft and others are now regretting pushing h264 over web-m.
post #21 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

They never agreed to, which is the point I made about why companies will sometimes join a consortium yet not contribute IP, and the reason for the EU to address the issue of putting up roadblocks to standards as long as they're investigating problems related to essential IP.

I don't think you understand the standards setting process or some of the less-than-helpful reasons a company might join a standards consortium. I'll give you a link that might help you understand it if you have any real interest.

I think you are overreaching. This is most likely regarding Motorola trying to sue others with patents that they willingly allowed into a standard. Nothing more, nothing less. Investigating one aspect of a situation doesn't mean that the EU will review every, single detail of that situation.
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 #22 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

I wonder if Microsoft and others are now regretting pushing h264 over web-m.

Why? Web-M hasn't exactly been cleared from being possibly patent encumbered. At least h264 has an actual organization behind it that can help with matters like this.
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 #23 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

I think you are overreaching. This is most likely regarding Motorola trying to sue others with patents that they willingly allowed into a standard. Nothing more, nothing less. Investigating one aspect of a situation doesn't mean that the EU will review every, single detail of that situation.

I disagree. If the EU is ready to tackle one specific part of the problem, they can't keep other flies from getting out of the jar at the same time. Is a standards organization's written bylaws requiring mandatory cross-licensing a fair request? How about the common inclusion of "defensive suspension" stipulations in a standards/FRAND agreement? Both of those particular items are most assuredly going to be mentioned as they're probably at the heart of the disagreement and common in standards licensing agreements no matter who the licensor is or what standard is involved.

What about a company that joins a standards consortium but refuses to license IP that the consortium finds essential to it's standards implementation? Should they be required to cooperate as a condition of membership? There are some who feel it should be mandatory, another consideration that will likely make it to the conversations. I haven't even touched on how a fair royalty should be determined or the basis for them, nor under what circumstances (if any) a standards license could legitimately be denied. Going even further, should royalties even be permitted for essential IP? Again that's a discussion that many would answer in the negative. Nearly all these issues could be part of your "nothing more and nothing less" scenario.

In essence there's nothing simple about investigating FRAND issues since even the basic ground rules aren't agreed on, much less what actually defines FRAND.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

Why? Web-M hasn't exactly been cleared from being possibly patent encumbered. At least h264 has an actual organization behind it that can help with matters like this.

The idea behind Web-m was to create a video standard that was free from patent royalties. It was created specifically so that the companies wouldn't be able to do what Motorola is now doing. Web-m may not have been fully cleared of possible patents, but everyone knew that h264 required licenses and that they could go up. Despite this Microsoft backed h264 and as a direct result have now had to shutdown their software distribution center in Germany because of the risks involved with h264 patents.
post #25 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I disagree. If the EU is ready to tackle one specific part of the problem, they can't keep other flies from getting out of the jar at the same time. Is a standards organization's written bylaws requiring mandatory cross-licensing a fair request? .

The difference which you keep ignoring is that Motorola voluntarily offered their patents under FRAND. Apple never did so in the case you cited.

Equating the two situations is tantamount to arguing that the standards body should have the right to take any intellectual property they want - whether the owner agrees or not.
"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 #26 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I disagree. If the EU is ready to tackle one specific part of the problem, they can't keep other flies from getting out of the jar at the same time. Is a standards organization's written bylaws requiring mandatory cross-licensing a fair request? How about the common inclusion of "defensive suspension" stipulations in a standards/FRAND agreement? Both of those particular items are most assuredly going to be mentioned as they're probably at the heart of the disagreement and common in standards licensing agreements no matter who the licensor is or what standard is involved.

You've posed great question but that doesn't mean that the EU will be addressing all (or really any) of them since the announcement is in regards to what MOTOROLA did with its FRAND patents and not FRAND in general hence me stating that I think you are overreaching. Also, as someone mentioned, this is a case where a company volunteered its patents into the standard. If the executives didn't understand what that meant for Moto's patents then they shouldn't be working there. That isn't Apple's, EU's or anyone else's fault.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

The idea behind Web-m was to create a video standard that was free from patent royalties. It was created specifically so that the companies wouldn't be able to do what Motorola is now doing. Web-m may not have been fully cleared of possible patents, but everyone knew that h264 required licenses and that they could go up. Despite this Microsoft backed h264 and as a direct result have now had to shutdown their software distribution center in Germany because of the risks involved with h264 patents.

I know why Web-M was developed. My point is using Web-M would not have changed the scenario much at all or made it worse since Moto would not have offered its patent(s) as standard officially so could simply state that Web-M violates outright and charge whatever it feels like with no real means to defend against it except to invalidate.
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 #27 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The difference which you keep ignoring is that Motorola voluntarily offered their patents under FRAND. Apple never did so in the case you cited.

Equating the two situations is tantamount to arguing that the standards body should have the right to take any intellectual property they want - whether the owner agrees or not.

...which Europe's ETSI claims they have the right to do in the extreme case that a patent is unable to be worked around (essential) and the patent holder refuses to negotiate a license.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

You've posed great question but that doesn't mean that the EU will be addressing all (or really any) of them since the announcement is in regards to what MOTOROLA did with its FRAND patents and not FRAND in general hence me stating that I think you are overreaching. Also, as someone mentioned, this is a case where a company volunteered its patents into the standard. If the executives didn't understand what that meant for Moto's patents then they shouldn't be working there. That isn't Apple's, EU's or anyone else's fault.

That's at the core. Motorola claims to perfectly understand what the standards organization required of them and feels they followed the bylaws. That's why at least some issues I mentioned will be raised since they are apparently a traditional part of the normal agreement.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #29 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I disagree. If the EU is ready to tackle one specific part of the problem, they can't keep other flies from getting out of the jar at the same time. Is a standards organization's written bylaws requiring mandatory cross-licensing a fair request? How about the common inclusion of "defensive suspension" stipulations in a standards/FRAND agreement? Both of those particular items are most assuredly going to be mentioned as they're probably at the heart of the disagreement and common in standards licensing agreements no matter who the licensor is or what standard is involved.

What about a company that joins a standards consortium but refuses to license IP that the consortium finds essential to it's standards implementation? Should they be required to cooperate as a condition of membership? There are some who feel it should be mandatory, another consideration that will likely make it to the conversations. I haven't even touched on how a fair royalty should be determined or the basis for them, nor under what circumstances (if any) a standards license could legitimately be denied. Going even further, should royalties even be permitted for essential IP? Again that's a discussion that many would answer in the negative. Nearly all these issues could be part of your "nothing more and nothing less" scenario.

In essence there's nothing simple about investigating FRAND issues since even the basic ground rules aren't agreed on, much less what actually defines FRAND.

And if and when any court takes that up I guess we can discuss it. As it is, upon being confronted with an article that might not be bad for Apple, you're obliged to spin a web of speculation so that you can make it so, that being your nature.

Your "Apple probably joined the web standards consortium for nefarious purposes in the first place, just so they could derail standards" is particularly half-assed. Leaving aside the way that actually makes no sense, it's entirely a fantasy of your own making. As is typical for you, you pair rank speculation with a few facts, get a little long winded with some posts claiming to lay out a bunch of largely irrelevant "issues", and hope to derail the thread into "how this actually damages Apple" nonsense.

Classic FUD, in other words, and your entire stock in trade. I wish you would stop it, but I know you won't, so, just to get back on track:

Moto may have severely overreached with their FRAND saber rattling, and it may have consequences for Google-- whether as an impediment to consummating the acquisition or as mechanism by which Moto's patent portfolio is devalued we don't know. Attempting to hijack the FRAND process to serve as cudgel has vast consequences for the entire tech industry (far more consequential than obliging a standards body to seek a workaround for a standard in process because a member doesn't want to license a given patent) and is therefore likely to attract fairly severe reprisals. I'm actually very surprised that Moto (or Samsung for that matter) thought they had a winning strategy in this.

A bunch of hand waving about Apple's relationship to the W3C doesn't change that all. Moto fucked up.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #30 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

...which Europe's ETSI claims they have the right to do in the extreme case that a patent is unable to be worked around (essential) and the patent holder refuses to negotiate a license.

Still waiting for evidence that this applies to Apple. Your original citation says nothing of the sort.
"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 #31 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

I wonder if this investigation could scuttle the Google takeover or, preferably, just make
Motorola Mobility even more of an albatross around Google's neck.

I'd wager the latter, and that bird is already stinking.
post #32 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

And if and when any court takes that up I guess we can discuss it. As it is, upon being confronted with an article that might not be bad for Apple, you're obliged to spin a web of speculation so that you can make it so, that being your nature.

Your "Apple probably joined the web standards consortium for nefarious purposes in the first place, just so they could derail standards" is particularly half-assed. Leaving aside the way that actually makes no sense, it's entirely a fantasy of your own making. As is typical for you, you pair rank speculation with a few facts, get a little long winded with some posts claiming to lay out a bunch of largely irrelevant "issues", and hope to derail the thread into "how this actually damages Apple" nonsense.

Classic FUD, in other words, and your entire stock in trade. I wish you would stop it, but I know you won't, so, just to get back on track:

Moto may have severely overreached with their FRAND saber rattling, and it may have consequences for Google-- whether as an impediment to consummating the acquisition or as mechanism by which Moto's patent portfolio is devalued we don't know. Attempting to hijack the FRAND process to serve as cudgel has vast consequences for the entire tech industry (far more consequential than obliging a standards body to seek a workaround for a standard in process because a member doesn't want to license a given patent) and is therefore likely to attract fairly severe reprisals. I'm actually very surprised that Moto (or Samsung for that matter) thought they had a winning strategy in this.

A bunch of hand waving about Apple's relationship to the W3C doesn't change that all. Moto fucked up.

Exactly. I don't know how they didn't see this coming. But I guess they were so desperate at that stage and nothing really matters. I guess Google stating that they will leave Motorola do whatever they want to do was to avoid any liability if Motorola gets in legal trouble.
post #33 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Still waiting for evidence that this applies to Apple. Your original citation says nothing of the sort.

I don't know that applies specifically to Apple, nor was that claim made by me. You're not reading very carefully today, or at least not understanding what you read. What I did say is that Apple appears to be attempting to put a roadblocks up for the establishment of standards the W3C has been working on for at least a couple of years. Rather than cooperate and contribute, they joined to see the standard is at least delayed and hopefully abandoned altogether IMO, as well as the opinion of some intimately aware of the details.

There's more than a simple definition of FRAND to be worked out if the EU is truly committed to tackling the issue of abuse.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't know that applies specifically to Apple, nor was that claim made by me. You're not reading very carefully today, or at least not understanding what you read. What I did say is that Apple appears to be attempting to put a roadblocks up for the establishment of standards the W3C has been working on for at least a couple of years. Rather than cooperate and contribute, they joined to see the standard is at least delayed and hopefully abandoned altogether IMO, as well as the opinion of some intimately aware of the details.

There's more than a simple definition of FRAND to be worked out if the EU is truly committed to tackling the issue of abuse.

IOW, you're spewing FUD which has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

The situation you are complaining about has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Motorola situation being discussed here.
"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 #35 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't know that applies specifically to Apple, nor was that claim made by me. You're not reading very carefully today, or at least not understanding what you read. What I did say is that Apple appears to be attempting to put a roadblocks up for the establishment of standards the W3C has been working on for at least a couple of years. Rather than cooperate and contribute, they joined to see the standard is at least delayed and hopefully abandoned altogether IMO, as well as the opinion of some intimately aware of the details.

There's more than a simple definition of FRAND to be worked out if the EU is truly committed to tackling the issue of abuse.

What you've just said ... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
iMac 2007, Macbook pro 2008, Mac Mini 2011
Reply
post #36 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

Google might have managed to wriggle out of the Oracle mess (at least for now)!

Nope, they are very much still in it. Goes to court shortly
post #37 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't know that applies specifically to Apple, nor was that claim made by me. You're not reading very carefully today, or at least not understanding what you read. What I did say is that Apple appears to be attempting to put a roadblocks up for the establishment of standards the W3C has been working on for at least a couple of years. Rather than cooperate and contribute, they joined to see the standard is at least delayed and hopefully abandoned altogether IMO, as well as the opinion of some intimately aware of the details.

There's more than a simple definition of FRAND to be worked out if the EU is truly committed to tackling the issue of abuse.

If you want to discuss your theory that Apple wants to derail web standards, start a thread about it. This thread is about Motorola coming under European regulatory scrutiny because of their abuse of FRAND patents.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #38 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't know that applies specifically to Apple, nor was that claim made by me. You're not reading very carefully today, or at least not understanding what you read. What I did say is that Apple appears to be attempting to put a roadblocks up for the establishment of standards the W3C has been working on for at least a couple of years. Rather than cooperate and contribute, they joined to see the standard is at least delayed and hopefully abandoned altogether IMO, as well as the opinion of some intimately aware of the details.

There's more than a simple definition of FRAND to be worked out if the EU is truly committed to tackling the issue of abuse.

I'll put aside the fact that you are overreaching in this case (Seriously, unless the EU states, "We need to take a closer look at this FRAND business." None of the questions and assertions you made are relevant. I will address this W3C thing. You are spinning it pretty fast and loose since you have no idea what Apple's intentions are/were for joining. Plus, Apple has been pretty consistent that it wants an open web (why? because it can sell more devices. Surely the memories of IE6 haven't vacated your mind already). Standards aren't created overnight so two years doesn't seem all that long to me. Maybe Apple would like to make sure the standard is done right and makes sense for future development.
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 #39 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

And if and when any court takes that up I guess we can discuss it. As it is, upon being confronted with an article that might not be bad for Apple, you're obliged to spin a web of speculation so that you can make it so, that being your nature.

Your "Apple probably joined the web standards consortium for nefarious purposes in the first place, just so they could derail standards" is particularly half-assed.

Then you're another member who doesn't understand the reasons a company might join a standards consortium yet have no intention of contributing IP. I can give you a link if you're interested, just as I offered Jragosta.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Moto may have severely overreached with their FRAND saber rattling

I agree, they might have. They also may be entirely in the right with regard to their obligations and license terms. Thus the EU is looking into it rather than saying Moto is in the wrong. Investigation does not equal guilt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Attempting to hijack the FRAND process to serve as cudgel has vast consequences for the entire tech industry...

Yes it does, which is why I applauded the investigation in my first post on the subject. Subverting the standards process to prevent agreement on essential IP is also a hijack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Moto fucked up.

Unless you know the terms that Motorola obligated themselves to and the contents of the standard contract, how would you know if they've fouled up? They might be following the requirements to the letter. Or perhaps not.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #40 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

If you want to discuss your theory that Apple wants to derail web standards, start a thread about it. This thread is about Motorola coming under European regulatory scrutiny because Apple and Microsoft complained. The EU is going to investigate whether any abuse occurred.

Fixed.
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 › European Commission investigating Motorola for suspected patent abuse