or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple FRAND win over Motorola slashes Google's patent power
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple FRAND win over Motorola slashes Google's patent power

post #1 of 61
Thread Starter 
A federal judge's ruling in Apple v. Motorola Mobility has strengthened the case that parties who provide patents to standards bodies must uphold their commitments to offer licensing under "Fair, Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory" terms.

The series of summary judgement requests Apple was granted in the case by Judge Barbara B. Crabb means that Apple "is in pretty good shape with a view to the Wisconsin FRAND trial," notes Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents.

Motorola was seeking to collect a 2.25 percent royalty rate from Apple over any iOS devices that use industry standards such as wireless UMTS 3G which involve Motorola's patents. Apple argues that the royalty rate Motorola is demanding is inconsistent with the FRAND restrictions on such standard essential patents (SEP).

The ruling is a major blow to Google's strategy of montizing Motorola Mobility's largely "standards essential" patent portfolio, and comes just days after Google announced plans to layoff a fifth of the company it announced plans to acquire nearly a year ago. The $12.5 billion deal was finalized in May.

Government regulators in the US and elsewhere approved the acquisition only after noting reservations about Google's commitments to FRAND licensing.

This year, the European Commission and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission both began actively investigating Google and Motorola over suspected FRAND abuse.

SEP and FRAND

Unlike proprietary patents covering technical feature or design elements, SEPs are something vendors can usually not work around by avoiding a particular implementation, because they must use the SEP to make products compatible with various industry standards (such as WiFi or 3G).

That's why standards bodies require members to license their SEPs under FRAND terms. However, a number of companies have sought to force Apple to license its valuable design and technical patents by holding up licensing of SEPs in retaliation, ignoring the FRAND commitments those firms made.

"So far there's a clear trend across multiple federal districts that FRAND is anything but the empty word that certain notorious abusers would like it to be," Mueller observed.

Obey the FRAND

Mueller noted that Judge Crabb's findings include that:

? Motorola entered into binding contractual obligations with ETSI and IEEE [standards bodies] to license its declared essential patents on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms

? In submitting technical proposals to ETSI for inclusion of Motorola technology in ETSI standards, Motorola was obligated by ETSI policy to make a bona fide effort to identify essential intellectual property rights that might be required by the technical proposal before the adoption of the technical proposal into the standard.

? Motorola was obligated to make a bona fide effort to disclose the applications leading to the issuance of its United States patents 6,175,559, 6,359,898 and 6,246,697 [the '697 patent is the one that an ITC judge held Apple, on a preliminary basis, to infringe] to ETSI before the adoption of Motorola's technical proposals, even when those patent applications were unpublished.

??Motorola disclosed the patent applications issuing as the '898, '559 and '697 patents after the adoption of the standards to which Motorola contends those patents are essential.

Apple now has to demonstrate proof that Motorola's licensing demands are not compatible with its FRAND licensing terms, but Mueller notes "the issues have been narrowed considerably."

Mueller added that the decision means Google's ability to threaten to block U.S. imports of Apple's iOS devices (or Microsoft's Xbox, involved a separate lawsuit) using its newly acquired Motorola's FRAND-pledged standards essential patents is increasingly unlikely, calling the ruling "the latest event of many that call into question the patent strategy behind that $12.5 billion impulse buy."
post #2 of 61

I bet a lot of Fandroids are crying now.

 

That's 12.5 billion well spent, Google. haha

post #3 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


Mueller added that the decision means Google's ability to threaten to block U.S. imports of Apple's iOS devices (or Microsoft's Xbox, involved a separate lawsuit) using its newly acquired Motorola's FRAND-pledged standards essential patents is increasingly unlikely, calling the ruling "the latest event of many that call into question the patent strategy behind that $12.5 billion impulse buy."

 

$12.5 billion to purchase patents to be wielded against competitors at a later date (not very successfully), while letting Moto go to complete shit. Because 1) Google doesn't really have any meaningful patents of their own, and 2) because they're a bottom-feeding ad company that isn't above remedying 1 by behaving like 2.

post #4 of 61
Quote:
Motorola was seeking to collect a 2.25 percent royalty rate from Apple over any iOS devices that use industry standards such as wireless UMTS 3G which involve Motorola's patents. Apple argues that the royalty rate Motorola is demanding is inconsistent with the FRAND restrictions on such standard essential patents (SEP).

 

So do we know yet what everyone else is paying? Or are we still speculating a year later? 

I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
I'm not a pessimist. I'm an optimist, with experience.
Reply
post #5 of 61

I know it won't happen but Motorola should be fined for trying to pull that stunt.  Pay all the attorney fees and extra for being such a dumba$$.

However, it does bring me great joy that the judge pissed in the Fandroid's pool. :)

post #6 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Motorola was seeking to collect a 2.25 percent royalty rate from Apple over any iOS devices that use industry standards such as wireless UMTS 3G which involve Motorola's patents. 

 

Just wonder, where it is written that 2.25% is NOT reasonable?

What is the definition of a "reasonable royalty"?

post #7 of 61
Apple patiently getting its ducks in a row until it's time to go for Google's carotid arteries. The throat slashing, when it comes, will be spectacular.
post #8 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

 

So do we know yet what everyone else is paying? Or are we still speculating a year later? 

I think the 2.25% rate is common, however, 2.25% of WHAT became the issue. Apple buys communication chips with the patented circuitry built-in. The chip manufacturers have already paid MotoMo 2.25% of the cost to manufacture the chip. (pennies). However, MotoMo wanted Apple to pay 2.25% of the retail price of the finished device. (dollars)

 

Besides being unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory terms; the industry standard is to base the payment on the point where the patent enters the device. For example, using Motomo's way they wanted to charge Apple; if a car-maker wanted to add a we-fi card to their BMW, then they would need to pay Motomo 2.25% of the retail prices of the automobile.

 

 

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #9 of 61
Quote:

Just wonder, where it is written that 2.25% is NOT reasonable?

What is the definition of a "reasonable royalty"?

 

 

 

It is way out of line with what they charge other companies, if you are changing one company .25% you cannot by terms of the FRAND agreement charge another company 2.25% just because they have more products or are more successful, that's the point you get more overall from them because they are selling more units.

 

Read up a bit at least.
 

post #10 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post

 

Just wonder, where it is written that 2.25% is NOT reasonable?

What is the definition of a "reasonable royalty"?

 

2.25% of the chip that actually uses the patent, paid for by the chipmaker such as Qualcomm and passed on in the price of the chip, seems to be the industry norm, as shown by Motorola's attempts to rescind this agreement when chips are sold to Microsoft and Apple.

 

Imposing it on entire completed devices is many, many times this amount and is where the "unreasonable" part comes in.

 

Imagine if you bought a car which had a security system containing a SIM card, would 2.25% of the entire value of that car be "reasonable", given that the particular functionality given by the patent forms such a small part of the overall purpose of the car?

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 #11 of 61

Companies who invest in real R&D will hog their patents after these decision.

 

Watch as technological progress will take a hit of never meeting its full potential.
 

 

"Come on dude, lets share your patent with us so we can standardize this technology?"

 


"Sorry, I'm keeping it to myself. If anybody tries to use it, I'm gonna sue your ass".

 

Result?

 

Technology standardization never materializes and hinders progress.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #12 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamIIGS View Post

 

 

 

It is way out of line with what they charge other companies, if you are changing one company .25% you cannot by terms of the FRAND agreement charge another company 2.25% just because they have more products or are more successful, that's the point you get more overall from them because they are selling more units.

 

Read up a bit at least.
 

Do you have a link to what Moto is charging other licensees for it's (F)RAND patent set it's asserting Apple won't license in acccordance with standard terms? You should have one at the ready if you're going to try to mock another poster.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

2.25% of the chip that actually uses the patent, paid for by the chipmaker such as Qualcomm and passed on in the price of the chip, seems to be the industry norm, as shown by Motorola's attempts to rescind this agreement when chips are sold to Microsoft and Apple.

 

Imposing it on entire completed devices is many, many times this amount and is where the "unreasonable" part comes in.

 

Imagine if you bought a car which had a security system containing a SIM card, would 2.25% of the entire value of that car be "reasonable", given that the particular functionality given by the patent forms such a small part of the overall purpose of the car?

Incorrect. I've listed proof otherwise numerous times that royalties based on the price of a finished ready-to-sell device is both common and considered fair by other industry players... even Qualcomm. You may have the mistaken belief that it's highly unusual, or worse Apple is being singled out, if you depend only on FOSSPatents or AI articles.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #14 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Companies who invest in real R&D will hog their patents after these decision.

Watch as technological progress will take a hit of never meeting its full potential.

 

"Come on dude, lets share your patent with us so we can standardize this technology?"



"Sorry, I'm keeping it to myself. If anybody tries to use it, I'm gonna sue your ass".

Result?

Technology standardization never materializes and hinders progress.

Lol, but I bet you don't consider what Apple patents "real R&D", right?

Also, you completely misunderstand why companies decide to make a patent an SEP. It's not an altruistic thing. Some patents (I.e. patents like those involved in communications) are ONLY valuable if they become part of a standard. If it remained proprietary, who would want to use it? Communications depend on ubiquitous adoption.

And if EVERYONE uses it, you can collect a pretty penny. The judge did not rule that Moto can't collect licensing fees. It's just that they're bound to be fair and reasonable and non-discriminatory.
post #15 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Incorrect. I've listed proof otherwise numerous times that royalties based on the price of a finished ready-to-sell device is both common and considered fair by other industry players... even Qualcomm. You may have the mistaken belief that it's highly unusual, or worse Apple is being singled out, if you depend only on FOSSPatents or AI articles.

Incorrect. You've listed sources who are likewise speculating, as the final agreements between companies are not disclosed.

Common sense says that things don't cost as much as you seem to think they do.
post #16 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


Incorrect. You've listed sources who are likewise speculating, as the final agreements between companies are not disclosed.
Common sense says that things don't cost as much as you seem to think they do.

Wrong again. . .

Straight from the horses mouth, Qualcomm's royalty statement:

http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/ltewimax-patent-licensing-statement#node-10731

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #17 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamIIGS View Post

Read up a bit at least.

LOL. That's asking for a lot around these forums....

post #18 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Do you have a link to what Moto is charging other licensees for it's (F)RAND patent set it's asserting Apple won't license in acccordance with standard terms? You should have one at the ready if you're going to try to mock another poster.

 

Top of page 7.  It's from the MS vs Motorola lawsuit over 802.11 and H.264.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/94512159/ITC-Xbox-ruling

 

 

If those sets of 2.25% were 45x and 16x greater than what they usually charge people, then they usually charge as follows (when compared to the full retail price)

 

45x greater: .05%
16x greater: .140625%

post #19 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Wrong again. . .
Straight from the horses mouth, Qualcomm's royalty statement:
http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/ltewimax-patent-licensing-statement#node-10731

No, that's still not confirmed numbers as to what people are actually paying. You've presented speculation and published terms, which are not necessarily reflective of the actual terms that are agreed upon.

Think about it logically: if, as people have used as an example, Ford purchased a Qualcomm chipset for use in the Focus, would they pay 2.25% of the RETAIL price of the car? If you think so, I'm going to laugh.

Logic says that since the iPhone has been out since 2007 and Apple currently has a good relationship with Qualcomm, they are likely paying Qualcomm money. Since Qualcomm uses tech from Motorola, etc. Qualcomm is paying Moto (as evidenced by Moto's request to terminate their license to sell to Apple). Thus, Apple is maybe paying a total of a couple percentage points of their retail price, but no more than that, given their gross margins.
post #20 of 61

Apple has been though the courts before and I can see it's learned some lessons; Google is going to be screwed when Apple wins against samsung.

post #21 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


Lol, but I bet you don't consider what Apple patents "real R&D", right?
Also, you completely misunderstand why companies decide to make a patent an SEP. It's not an altruistic thing. Some patents (I.e. patents like those involved in communications) are ONLY valuable if they become part of a standard. If it remained proprietary, who would want to use it? Communications depend on ubiquitous adoption.
And if EVERYONE uses it, you can collect a pretty penny. The judge did not rule that Moto can't collect licensing fees. It's just that they're bound to be fair and reasonable and non-discriminatory.

 

There is nothing preventing companies from cross-licensing on bilateral basis. It just means that it will be a bit more cumbersome to work out licensing & some patents won't be available to much wider audience, like Apple. 

post #22 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Incorrect. I've listed proof otherwise numerous times that royalties based on the price of a finished ready-to-sell device is both common and considered fair by other industry players... even Qualcomm. You may have the mistaken belief that it's highly unusual, or worse Apple is being singled out, if you depend only on FOSSPatents or AI articles.

IMHO a percentage of the total product price is ludicrous and makes no sense what so ever.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #23 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk View Post

There is nothing preventing companies from cross-licensing on bilateral basis. It just means that it will be a bit more cumbersome to work out licensing & some patents won't be available to much wider audience, like Apple. 

Yeah, that seems likely...

Apple isn't some small company that can be ignored.

Also, what you're describing is basically a patent pool, which is REGULATED by different organizations.
post #24 of 61

What Moto/Google is trying to do is a scam.  I would argue that if they're trying to collect from Apple, after already collecting from Qualcomm, then they might as well ask the judge to rule that every consumer using an iPhone should have to pay too.  Why stop at triple dipping - make every retailer, distributor, etc pay too.  It's only fair right?

post #25 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


No, that's still not confirmed numbers as to what people are actually paying. You've presented speculation and published terms, which are not necessarily reflective of the actual terms that are agreed upon.
Think about it logically: if, as people have used as an example, Ford purchased a Qualcomm chipset for use in the Focus, would they pay 2.25% of the RETAIL price of the car? If you think so, I'm going to laugh.
Logic says that since the iPhone has been out since 2007 and Apple currently has a good relationship with Qualcomm, they are likely paying Qualcomm money. Since Qualcomm uses tech from Motorola, etc. Qualcomm is paying Moto (as evidenced by Moto's request to terminate their license to sell to Apple). Thus, Apple is maybe paying a total of a couple percentage points of their retail price, but no more than that, given their gross margins.

I don't dispute that companies can reduce their out-of-pocket royalty payments by making concessions and trades during negotiations. Moto's standard SEP patent royalties are set at 2.25% of the finished device price and have been for years. That's not in dispute even by Florian Mueller. Qualcomm wants to start at 3.5% of a finshed consumer device (not a chipset). But that's also a starting position for negotiations.

 

The most common way to reduce those fees would be non-monetary, agreeing to cross-license their own IP. That's the way it works. Apple doesn't want to cross-license unless backed into a corner (Nokia for instance) . Why should they pay the likely-reduced rate that a company trading IP would get? Does that sound either fair or reasonable, even forgetting about non-discriminatory?

 

You've probably not ever read the actual Nokia complaint regarding Apple's supposed refusal to negotiate a license for Nokia (F)RAND-pledged IP. You should give it a go if you have any desire to understand the claims made in a similar IP suit over SEP's. Pay attention to details like cross-license requirements, and note that Apple did eventually settle with Nokia and even agree to Nokia demands for cross-licensing as a condition of receiving a license under (F)RAND terms.

 

If you don't want to understand due to inconvenient facts that's fine, but I've given you links if you wish to use them.

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/102209nokiapplecomplaint.pdf

 

Nokia's press-release from Feb/2010 regarding their standard SEP royalty rates

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

 

...and here, page 116, that lists the stated handset (not chipset) royalty rates for each contributing member as declared to ETSI, the body responsible for those standards.

 

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


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/13/12 at 3:04pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't dispute that companies can reduce their out-of-pocket royalty payments by making concessions during negotiations. The most common would be non-monetary, agreeing to cross-license their own IP. That's the way it works, and is even stated in ETSI standards rules. Apple doesn't want to cross-license under backed into a corner (Nokia for instance) . Why should they pay the likely-reduced rate that a company trading IP would get? Does that sound either fair or reasonable, even forgetting about non-discriminatory.

You've probably not ever read the actual Nokia complaint regarding Apple's supposed refusal to negotiate a license for Nokia (F)RAND-pledged IP. You should give it a read, noting that Apple did eventually settle with Nokia, and did agree to Nokia demands for cross-licensing as a condition of receiving a SEP license.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/102209nokiapplecomplaint.pdf

Not my point. I'm saying irrespective of how a rate is paid (monetary or non-monetary), you are not privy to the actual rates agreed upon, as these often happen behind closed doors or in an undisclosed settlement, i.e. Nokia and Apple.

So other than speculation and some published documents detailing Qualcomm's asking price (which still isn't clear if that rate covers the licenses Qualcomm receives from Moto, or of Moto can double dip), you have no evidence of what is fair or reasonable.

Stop trying to act like you know any more than what other people are posting. None of us have all the facts. In the absence of facts, opinions have free reign, and most people here are of the opinion that if everybody who holds an SEP can "fairly" charge 2.25% of the final device price, no one would be making phones. Logic says there is something else going on.
post #27 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View PostIn the absence of facts, opinions have free reign, and most people here are of the opinion that if everybody who holds an SEP can "fairly" charge 2.25% of the final device price, no one would be making phones. Logic says there is something else going on.

...(cough) cross-licensing. . . 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

...(cough) cross-licensing. . . 

Do you know how many SEPs there are? And not every company has patents to be cross-licensed.

Further, Apply buys off-the-shelf radio parts for the most part, don't they? Don't these already include licenses? This is what I'm implying, that there is more to the story, likely that Moto was trying to double dip as a strategic move to harm a competitor (or rather not technically double dip as that would be patent exhaustion, but rescind the initial license to Qualcomm, forcing Apple to pay).
post #29 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


Not my point. I'm saying irrespective of how a rate is paid (monetary or non-monetary), you are not privy to the actual rates agreed upon, as these often happen behind closed doors or in an undisclosed settlement, i.e. Nokia and Apple.
So other than speculation and some published documents detailing Qualcomm's asking price (which still isn't clear if that rate covers the licenses Qualcomm receives from Moto, or of Moto can double dip), you have no evidence of what is fair or reasonable.
Stop trying to act like you know any more than what other people are posting. None of us have all the facts. In the absence of facts, opinions have free reign, and most people here are of the opinion that if everybody who holds an SEP can "fairly" charge 2.25% of the final device price, no one would be making phones. Logic says there is something else going on.

...and I gave you facts. Lots of 'em. Here"s another from Qualcomm claiming Nokia had been paying them 3%+ of handset prices for Qualcomm's CDMA SEP's. It's not speculation if it's stated by the licensor themselves is it? Who else would know better?

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/56757.html

 

I'm not responsible if you don't like the facts. Perhaps you do know just as much about it as I do and just haven't had an opportunity to show it, linking your sources and listing your citations. I'll wait for your explanation of what that "something else must be going on" is. I already told you what I think it is. Think occam's razor. . .

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #30 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post

 

Just wonder, where it is written that 2.25% is NOT reasonable?

What is the definition of a "reasonable royalty"?

How is it reasonable to charge a percentage in the first place.

Say that the patents relate to 3G.

 

Just curious, does a 64GB iPad+3G use more "3G" than an iPhone 3GS?

post #31 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Companies who invest in real R&D will hog their patents after these decision.

 

Watch as technological progress will take a hit of never meeting its full potential.
 

 

"Come on dude, lets share your patent with us so we can standardize this technology?"

 


"Sorry, I'm keeping it to myself. If anybody tries to use it, I'm gonna sue your ass".

 

Result?

 

Technology standardization never materializes and hinders progress.

 

Under your scenario wouldn't it actually push technological innovation as entrepreneurs would be forced to find workarounds?

After all, necessity is the mother of all invention.

post #32 of 61

As a licensee I probably wouldn't think it was reasonable. As a licensor who created the tech that allowed you to create the premium and highly profitable device and wants to share in the wealth, I might think it fair.

 

Apple thinks their IP is pretty valuable too, but is it fair for the royalties on an entry-level smartphone to be proportionately and significantly higher that those on a premium model? Both sides can be argued.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #33 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post

 

Just wonder, where it is written that 2.25% is NOT reasonable?

What is the definition of a "reasonable royalty"?

 

It may not be the "reasonable" but the "non-discriminatory" that is at issue. 

post #34 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

 

Top of page 7.  It's from the MS vs Motorola lawsuit over 802.11 and H.264.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/94512159/ITC-Xbox-ruling

 

 

If those sets of 2.25% were 45x and 16x greater than what they usually charge people, then they usually charge as follows (when compared to the full retail price)

 

45x greater: .05%
16x greater: .140625%

I've lost you. Could you point to the section that says Moto doesn't usually ask for 2.25% of a finished device price? I'm aware that Moto made a concession to Microsoft in consideration of the way the IP was being used. That would make it unusual rather than the norm, correct?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #35 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Companies who invest in real R&D will hog their patents after these decision.

 

Watch as technological progress will take a hit of never meeting its full potential.
 

 

"Come on dude, lets share your patent with us so we can standardize this technology?"

 


"Sorry, I'm keeping it to myself. If anybody tries to use it, I'm gonna sue your ass".

 

Result?

 

Technology standardization never materializes and hinders progress.

 

 

No, I don't think that is what will happen.

 

If a company refuses to share their patent for the purposes of making a standard,  the standards body will simply not use that technology/method and choose something else.

 

The company refusing to share will manage to gain higher royalties in the short term, but the volume will be much lower because other companies will be incentivised to innovate their way around the expensive technology.  Or, other companies will simply not adopt their proprietary technology because it is not part of the standard.

 

I think it equally possible that this situation could foster greater innovation.

post #36 of 61
The standards bodies such as IETF have paid attention to this type of abuse and some time ago changed their disclosure rules.

This is a very good development and, over time, this abuse will disappear.
post #37 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

...and I gave you facts. Lots of 'em. Here"s another from Qualcomm claiming Nokia had been paying them 3%+ of handset prices for Qualcomm's CDMA SEP's. It's not speculation if it's stated by the licensor themselves is it? Who else would know better?
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/56757.html

I'm not responsible if you don't like the facts. Perhaps you do know just as much about it as I do and just haven't had an opportunity to show it, linking your sources and listing your citations. I'll wait for your explanation of what that "something else must be going on" is. I already told you what I think it is. Think occam's razor. . .

You're bringing up Qualcomm, who Apple buys chipsets from. I've said that it may well be that, since Qualcomm is not suing Apple, Applw is paying Qualcomm their fee and such license covers the relevant IP that Qualcomm licenses from Moto, etc. In the Moto case, Qualcomm alleged that Moto informed them they were terminating their license with respect to Apple. Clearly, that was a tactical decision that may not be legal.

Moto attempting to double dip (or discriminate against Applw by rescinding Qualcomm's ability to license the tech to Apple) is what I think may be going on.
post #38 of 61

Frankly, this was never really in question. I was amazed it even went to court. The summary judgement pretty much confirms this.

I suppose Apple has just been getting their ducks lined up in a row. I think we'll see a number of suits move along very quickly now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A federal judge's ruling in Apple v. Motorola Mobility has strengthened the case that parties who provide patents to standards bodies must uphold their commitments to offer licensing under "Fair, Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory" terms.
post #39 of 61

It is not reasonable if you sell premium products. Their should be a cap. Also it may not be non-discriminatory if they are not charging the same for every other use of the FRAND patents. Also it may not be fair if they are part of a larger technology (3G) because if every FRAND patent licensee asks the same amount it may be more than the total cost of the actual device.

post #40 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi View Post

Companies who invest in real R&D will hog their patents after these decision.

Watch as technological progress will take a hit of never meeting its full potential.

 

"Come on dude, lets share your patent with us so we can standardize this technology?"



"Sorry, I'm keeping it to myself. If anybody tries to use it, I'm gonna sue your ass".

Result?

Technology standardization never materializes and hinders progress.

...which in turn reduces the value of said patent. Standards provide value to everybody. Predictable licensing costs for a standard adds value as well. But, patenting running an auction on the internet doesn't do quite as much for society.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple FRAND win over Motorola slashes Google's patent power