Google argues popular Apple patents are de facto standards essential - Page 7

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton 


Except that's not what this is about. There's nothing de facto about slide to unlock or multi touch. 

I have to disagree a little. in their most basic form I would say that they should be standards. But only in the most basic form of the idea. In other words, that you could use a gesture to unlock a device should be an open standard. That you could include tech that can tell how many points on a screen are being tapped etc should be an open standard. 

HOW you achieve these things however is not open and I think shouldn't be. And yet it seems like Google wants Apple to license their way of doing it rather than coming up with a unique one. Which I disagree with completely

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton 


Except that's not what this is about. There's nothing de facto about slide to unlock or multi touch. These a not essential to the operation of a mobile phone, as evidenced by the fact that once upon a time, there were successful mobile phones that did not have these features. These things are only "essential" if you want to copy the look and feel of an Apple device.
Apple defending itself against copycats is only "frivolous" if you believe that Google and others have the "right" to copy that look and feel with impunity. As mentioned in my previous post, I'm glad that's all out in the open and that we're debating the real issue: Google arguing that it is entitled to copy Apple's look and feel, against Apple's wishes. That's what it is: entitlement. Pure and simple.

I'm not one to support all out look and feel theft.  I didn't support Samsung when they did it.  And I thought they deserved to get sued.  But when Apple starts arguing against the ICS lockscreen for example, that in my opinion is starting to approach patent troll levels.  They maybe in right in the letter of the law (thanks to an overly broad patent), but certainly not in the spirit of it.  And if the patent that they are pushing is really that broad, then I'd argue that companies like Google are right to suggest that the government look into declaring these as FRAND.  Come on.  Apple has basically argued that any lockscreen violates their patent because any connection of point A to point B is a pre-defined path.  As is a zero-length connection (icon press).  If the patent office is going to issue patents that say Apple has a patent to virtually any lockscreen on a mobile device, then it's time for lawmakers to discuss if such patents should be FRAND.

And it's an entirely legitimate discussion.  There are many places, where such patents would not be granted to begin with.   So if they are going to be granted, lawmakers should be peridoically reviewing (as part of the whole patent system) whether the right balance is being struck being promoting innovation and stifling it.  This is essentially the starting discussion of patent reform that people keep saying they want to have.

I'm using Apple as an example here.  But really, I take issue with this kind of crap from any company.  MS is even worse.  They don't disclose patents.  Threaten to sue unless companies sign licensing agreements sight unseen (on which patents they would enforce).  Somehow, I don't think the patent system was intended to make that kind of abuse of IP tolerable or even a routine practice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


The fact is that the patent system was created for the purpose of encouraging innovation by allowing inventors to benefit from their inventions as you've stated. So why should Google have the right to steal Apple's inventions? Why should a senile judge who admits that he's not an expert have the right to deny Apple's legislatively granted rights?
 

Deleted the more asinine portions of your comment as they don't deserve a response...

Now where did I state my position as defending Google or attacking Apple? My stance is that Apple is 100% right because their patents (with the rare exception) are valid and based on true innovations that they created or acquired and integrated into real shipping products. These patents benefit their millions of loyal customers and other companies who thrive within their ecosystem, not to mention returning handsome profits for the company and its shareholders. Furthermore because these are not, and have never been, agreed upon as standard-essential patents Apple is under no obligation to license them as such to clueless and lazy competitors.

Contrast this with my criticism of the broken side of the patent system as exemplified by patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures who create nothing of value and who benefit no one but themselves and lawyers. No benefit to consumers, nor the state of the industry, nor the state of technology. And they do this via their collection of obscure patents that they never created, never brought to market, and never intended to bring to market. This misuse of the patent system is parasitic and enormously harmful to innovation, to consumers, and to the market as a whole.

Therefore the patent laws need to be revised to continue to encourage companies like Apple (and yes also Google and Microsoft and others) to innovate while cutting off parasitic leeches like Intellectual Ventures.

Now do you get it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


Well plenty of people think they were and that multi touch devices were inevitable, I guess never mind that Eric Schmidt in a Charlie Rose interview said that Apple invented the smartphone revolution and they should get credit for it.

Apple didn't patent "multi-touch" interfaces. These have been around for some time, albeit poorly implemented. They patented a long list of innovations, some of which might involve multi-touch. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz 


Does Apple have a notification center without Android?
And yes...you can steal open source...

But there are rules concerning monetization of products created using open source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

 

Because intellectual property is different. Intellectual Vultures is a patent troll, gaming the system with unimplemented patents. They are the poster boy for patent reform and mucking up what is a good thing for those who actually play by the spirit, not just the letter, of the rules. They contribute absolutely nothing to society in exchange for the grant of property, given for the purpose of advancing society. They are leaches, sucking the life blood out of innovation.

I'm pretty sure we're wasting our time. jragosta seems to come from the extreme Libertarian school of thought that places the needs of the individual far above the needs of everyone else. He doesn't care whether a law, as implemented, benefits society or not, so long as someone can make a buck from it. He is unsympathetic to the notion that laws are created to benefit society as a whole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by macarena 


Totally irrelevant reply. If you steal my car, I can't use it anymore. If Google uses Apple's IP and is willing to compensate Apple for it, Apple can still use it's IP.

The point is simply this - the whole point of the patent system is to encourage people to share their knowledge, so that further knowledge gains can be made. If not for this goal, everything could just be a trade secret and no one can build on top of others work. While it is legal to deny licensing, I believe that denying licensing is not a sensible strategy.
Jobs said something to the effect of - I don't want your money, even if you offer $5B. Just stop copying my ideas. That is clearly denying licensing at any rate. Nothing wrong with it per se. But this is one of the reasons for the current mess.

Read my post fully. What I said is that while Apple SHOULD license, the rate at which they license should also be entirely upto Apple. And if Apple chooses to license only at rates that are deterrent, then Apple runs the risk that people will go ahead anyway, in the hope that the outcome of the legal case would not be as damaging as Apple's fees. This is classic game theory.

Congratulations on completely misconstruing the purpose of patents. There is nothing in patent law that states that patents must be licensed to competitors. NOTHING. There is no precedent for this concept, and nobody (aside from Googlerola) is pushing for this idea.

Companies within industries sometimes come together and AGREE in advance to share what they consider to be standards-essential patents in order to create, you know, STANDARDS. They form a consensual, mutually beneficial agreement to create this standard and license the patents without bias and at reasonable prices.

Apple has contributed many standards-essential patents to help create standards. So did Motorola years ago. But now Motorola, and by extension Google, wants to completely renegotiate the terms of those original agreements - after the fact. They are trying to charge ridiculous fees for the standards-essential patents in order to extort companies like Apple into licensing their NON-STANDARDS-ESSENTIAL patents, which was never part of the deal.

Please go purchase a clue somewhere before wasting everyone's time with your uninformed opinions.

Careful you two. I might expect you to have my back when the "regular responders" take aim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


Exactly. The fact that Google didn't mention Apple doesn't mean that Apple isn't at least one of the targets.

It doesn't mean Apple is one of the targets for de-facto standards arguments either, contrary to the AI story's premise. AlThingsD and AI did their jobs well tho, leading you and others to think that claim came directly from the Google letter. I don't think too many members bothered to read it before chiming in. If they had they would have come away with an entirely different understanding and avoided over 200 comments on a created storyline.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gctwnl 

The interesting consequence of Google's argument is that if something patented is quickly copied by everybody else, it becomes a de facto 'essential' standard and thus looses its protection.

Not at all.  As pointed out, the All Things D reporter made up nearly his whole article.  Once you actually read Google's letter yourself, it becomes clear what they meant:

Google was NOT talking about just "anybody's patents" or ideas that "become popular".

Google was talking ONLY about patents that companies had licensed to everyone with the implied promise that they would always be available at a fair price.  E.g.  MS Exchange, Phillips CD standards, MS FAT file system.

Those are patents that were not submitted through a standards organization, but which many companies and consumers had become dependent upon as de facto standards. 

Google's suggestion was that such single-company standards should be subject to the same FRAND protection that multi-company standards have through standards organizations.

In other words, MS should not be able to hold the world hostage for higher royalties for FAT systems on USB memory sticks, for example, by using multiple shell companies each with their own rate.

Since Apple doesn't license its patents, they're not even a tiny part of Google's argument.

We were all fooled by the article, which was clearly click bait of the worst kind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


This is why we need your input. Thanks for the well thought-out post.

Since when is damage control spin a well thought out post?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


Exactly. The fact that Google didn't mention Apple doesn't mean that Apple isn't at least one of the targets.
More importantly, this memo shows more of Google's lies. Read the memo carefully and they admit that Apple was discussing license fees with them. In a separate filing, they claimed that Apple would not even discuss license fees with them.

Google clearly has a problem. Their engineers aren't smart enough to develop their own technologies, so they need to steal other company's. It's also more cost effective since they don't have to invest in R&D, and since they plan to give away the other company's IP for free, that's an important consideration for them. What this letter is about, regardless of who and what they mention, is that Google wants the law changed so that their theft of everyone else's ideas and IP is sanctioned by law. That's the bottom line, despite spin and rhetoric released by them to convince us of the contrary.

Remember when Google told us they were staunch supporters of network neutrality, then conspired with Verizon to destroy network neutrality? You can never take anything Google says publicly at face value. They have an agenda, and you always need to look at who they are and what they do, and read between the lines.

Originally Posted by anonymouse 

This is absolutely incorrect, as anyone who actually reads the letter would know. 

Google's letter talks only about licensed patents.  See my post above.

Apple is the one trying to change the FRAND rules that every other company has played by for the past 20 years.  This objective is repeated in their letter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

This is absolutely incorrect, as anyone who actually reads the letter would know. 

 

Google's letter talks only about licensed patents.  See my post above.

 

Apple is the one trying to change the FRAND rules that every other company has played by for the past 20 years.  This objective is repeated in their letter.

Your last paragraph, is of course complete and utter nonsense or the type sometimes referred to as "bullshit".

And, I think we can assume that once Google were successful in establishing a principle of law related to "commercially essential" patents, they'd then move on to "compulsory licensing" of "commercially essential" patents. They've had people on these forums for a while floating that trial balloon.

As I pointed out, Google has historically talked out of both sides of its mouth, and it would be naive that all they are interested in here is making Microsoft license Active Directory to them because Microsoft licensed it to someone else, even though that principle is offensive in and of itself, even to someone like myself who is about as far to the left politically as one can be and not be a communist.

The People's Republic of Googlestan won't be happy until they have license to steal whatever they want from whomever they want, whenever they want. As Chairman Page has said, "All your technology are belong to us. Don't be evil. You will be assimilated. Peace out."

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

This is absolutely incorrect, as anyone who actually reads the letter would know. 

 

Google's letter talks only about licensed patents.  See my post above.

 

Apple is the one trying to change the FRAND rules that every other company has played by for the past 20 years.  This objective is repeated in their letter.

How is Apple trying to change the rules?

Quote:

Originally Posted by freediverx 

How is Apple trying to change the rules?

 

Apple has stated many times that they would like at least the following major changes to the ETSI FRAND rules that have been in place for phone makers for a long time:

• No injunctions allowed even if they don't pay up.
• Price based on what the patent applies to, not the entire device.

So while Apple likes to ask for injunctions on others, they want to avoid that fate themselves.  And even though Apple makes a far higher profit margin than any other maker, they want to pay lower FRAND rates than anyone else, but without cross-licensing IP like others do.

Apple has been writing letters to ETSI, filing appeals in court, and generally making noise about this for a while now.  It's pretty common knowledge around most iPhone forums.

Here's one example short article on the topic.  Google something like "apple frand rule change" for lots of others.

Cheers!

Quote:

Originally Posted by freediverx 

 

How is Apple trying to change the rules?

 

From what I've read, normal telecommunications (F)RAND royalty negotiations (for those that bear royalties. Some are free) begin with a starting rate, mitigated by whatever IP or "other considerations" the licensee brings to the table. Cross-licensing is the traditional way to reduce or even eliminate your out-of-pocket patent license fees.

It seems as tho Apple wants to get the advantage of those reduced royalties that some others pay, but keeping for themselves whatever IP they have instead of licensing it in return as others have. It puts more established telecommunications companies in an awkward position of offering their IP to Apple so that they can sell their iPhones and iPads, but being unable to negotiate for access to the the "new guys" improvements, resulting in potential market roadblocks. Nokia successfully pressured them into cross-licensing, but in general Apple looks to be making as much noise about "unfairness" as possible to avoid playing the game that the the more mature players have had in place for decades. 

Personally I think the game does need to change, but fairly for all. One single player with more money and resources than any of the others (combined?) and a policy of applying for patent protection on any and all potential improvements and no incentive to license any of them and an aggressive legal strategy makes it a sticky issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

 

Apple has stated many times that they would like at least the following major changes to the ETSI FRAND rules that have been in place for phone makers for a long time:

 

• No injunctions allowed even if they don't pay up.
• Price based on what the patent applies to, not the entire device.

 

So while Apple likes to ask for injunctions on others, they want to avoid that fate themselves.  And even though Apple makes a far higher profit margin than any other maker, they want to pay lower FRAND rates than anyone else, but without cross-licensing IP like others do.

 

Apple has been writing letters to ETSI, filing appeals in court, and generally making noise about this for a while now.  It's pretty common knowledge around most iPhone forums.

 

Here's one example short article on the topic.  Google something like "apple frand rule change" for lots of others.

 

Cheers!

There's a huge difference between working for sanity in FRAND licensing, and forcing FRAND licensing on non-standards essential patents. There ought to be simple, straightforward terms for FRAND licenses (And they have never been on the "entire device" incorporating an already licensed component, that's just bullshit from you. You are essentially arguing that double dipping is and ought to be the norm.). But FRAND licensing is voluntary, and Google is essentially asking the government to confiscate property. To equate these is ridiculous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KDarling 

• Price based on what the patent applies to, not the entire device.

That's something that many posters here are misinformed about. By not telling the whole truth sources like FOSSPatents have IMHO intentionally mislead it's readers into believing that royalties based on a completed ready-to-sell consumer device are highly unusual and only demanded by Motorola and only of Apple. It's not rare at all and in fact it's quite common and accepted.

If anyone would like to learn what FRAND rates are REALLY based on for certain CDMA/3G/4G/ LTE standards and what percentage of a finished device price some of the industry contributors ask for Standard Essential Patent royalties, have a read here:

http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/82827/files/LESI-Royalty-Rates.pdf

Mr Mueller is well-connected, experienced, and perfectly aware that companies from Qualcomm to Nokia to Ericsson and many others all base their SEP royalties on the cost of a finished device, not just a chipset or specific component. It just doesn't play into his customer support efforts to mention it. 

EDIT: I stumbled on a Nokia press release from a couple years ago that specifies their SEP policy. First time I'd run across this one:

"Given the current state of uncertainty about ownership of LTE standards-essential IPR, the best way to increase transparency and predictability is to disclose principles for future licensing of LTE standards-essential IPR...

...Currently, we expect Nokia’s rate for devices that deploy LTE as the only wireless communication standard to be in a range of 1.5 percent from the sales price of an end-user device. However. a significant use of LTE is expected to be in connection with other wireless communications standards, such as GSM, UMTS and/or CDMA. When multiple wireless standards are used in the same end product, Nokia will follow similar principles in setting the royalty rate for Nokia patents essential to other standards. To avoid unfavorable effects of royalty stacking, Nokia will not charge royalties higher than 2.0 percent from the sales price of an end-user device (not a chipset only. That's not an end-user device) for IPR that is essential to wireless communication standards irrespective of the number of wireless standards deployed in such a device. 

But what about the licensee reducing that 2% royalty on the price of a finished end-user (consumer) device by offering a cross-license? Nokia says they've already taken that into account in the 2% figure. That's expected as a condition of receiving a Nokia license:

"The Nokia licensing policy takes into account customary volume discounts that allow manufacturers of devices to benefit from lower rates for higher volumes. The licensing policy is based on reciprocity which means it is conditional upon the licensee agreeing to use the same main principles in its licensing to Nokia products.

That would help explain where the estimates of approx.1-1.5% on-going royalty payments from Apple to Nokia are coming from, and why Apple had to agree to a cross-license of some Apple IP "that makes the iPhone unique" to settle the Nokia lawsuit. Standard Nokia policy for SEP's

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47158809

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

That's something that many posters here are misinformed about. By not telling the whole truth sources like FOSSPatents have IMHO intentionally mislead it's readers into believing that royalties based on a completed ready-to-sell consumer device are highly unusual and only demanded by Motorola and only of Apple. It's not rare at all and in fact it's quite common and accepted.

 

If anyone would like to learn what FRAND rates are REALLY based on for certain CDMA/3G/4G/ LTE standards and what percentage of a finished device price some of the industry contributors ask for Standard Essential Patent royalties, have a read here:

http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/82827/files/LESI-Royalty-Rates.pdf

 

Mr Mueller is well-connected, experienced, and perfectly aware that companies from Qualcomm to Nokia to Ericsson and many others all base their SEP royalties on the cost of a finished device, not just a chipset or specific component. It just doesn't play into his customer support efforts to mention it. 

As usual, your link doesn't support your assertions (funny how that always seems to be the case with you). It talks about cumulative royalties as a percentage of handset cost, but it does not say that royalties are being charged, "on the cost of a finished device, not just a chipset or specific component."

But, again, it's completely ridiculous to equate a company asking that "FRAND" actually be FRAND (wow, what a concept, Apple are really being underhanded in advocating that! yeesh, the things the shills and fandroids say.) and a company asking the government to confiscate other companies' property because the first company is intellectually bankrupt and can't compete honestly against the others. Basically, Google is asking the government to help it steal other companies work and Apple is asking that standards essential patents, voluntarily contributed to standards, be actually licensed under free, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (again, what a revolutionary concept!) without double dipping and you guys pretend it's the same thing. You've really become a pathetic joke, GG.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

That's something that many posters here are misinformed about. By not telling the whole truth sources like FOSSPatents have IMHO intentionally mislead it's readers into believing that royalties based on a completed ready-to-sell consumer device are highly unusual and only demanded by Motorola and only of Apple. It's not rare at all and in fact it's quite common and accepted.

 

Indeed. I've been an phone company engineer for a couple of decades, and that's how ETSI has always worked.  Most people also don't know that the ETSI IP Rules are very simple and do not address rates at all, except to specifically allow requiring cross-licensing, which almost every phone maker does to cut costs.

A primary purpose in using the entire phone price, is to promote lower prices on handsets in order to make phones more available to people all over the world in even poor economies, not just to an elite minority.  And that has worked for years.

Now obviously Apple would like to change this pricing method, which makes sense considering that they only sell higher priced devices.   They are not alone.  Other companies without any wireless IP and/or IP that they are willing to cross-license, are in the same position.  In fact, every few years some of the minor ETSI members try to get the rules changed, but have always failed so far.  Perhaps Apple will have more luck.

Side note to Anonymouse:  I don't know how young you are, but the first sign of someone not knowing what they're talking about, is when they resort to foul language or insults as you constantly have.  It immediately voids all your arguments.  None of this has anything to do with pro-Google or anti-Apple or any of the other strawmen you keep creating.  It's simply the facts.

YES! All search engine technologies including Google search algorithms are also commercially essential and should be licensed under FRAND rules IMMEDIATELY as well.