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 - Page 2

post #41 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


...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.

What a great screen name. Appropriate. I assume that like me, "aaarrrgggh" is often the initial primitive thought you have on reading a post that ultimately stimulates a written response from you.  :-)

post #42 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"?

 

 

In law reasonable is determined by what most people under the same circumstance would deem be reasonable. However, you miss the fair and discriminatory language. Apple's biggest grievance is likely the discriminatory part. That is easy to show. That is judged simply by what Motorola charges others. If Motorola's fee is normally covered by the underlying chip license, than Motorola can't ask Apple for anything. Considering there are thousands of patents at issue in an iPhone,all of which need to be licensed,  I can promise you Motorola's demand of 2.5 % of the retail price is not reasonable. 

post #43 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.

 

You got it exactly right. Moreover, it costs a lot more to try and develop competing underlying technologies because you then are fighting to sell your technology other technologies. 

post #44 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. . .

 

 

I read the article and I didn't take it to mean what you suggest. It says Nokia had been paying a 3% royalty on WCDMA equipped handsets. But that doesn't say the 3% is on the retail price of the phone as opposed to the price of the Qualcomm chip in the phone. Based on the shear number of licensed patents in the product, I can guarantee it is on the price of the Qualcomm chip. 

post #45 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

In law reasonable is determined by what most people under the same circumstance would deem be reasonable. However, you miss the fair and discriminatory language. Apple's biggest grievance is likely the discriminatory part. That is easy to show. That is judged simply by what Motorola charges others. If Motorola's fee is normally covered by the underlying chip license, than Motorola can't ask Apple for anything. Considering there are thousands of patents at issue in an iPhone,all of which need to be licensed,  I can promise you Motorola's demand of 2.5 % of the retail price is not reasonable. 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/96228673/Microsoft-Motorola-Xbox-6-6-12

In the Motorola Microsoft lawsuit over licensing of standards-essential patents, Motorola submitted a spreadsheet with 50 licensees listed paying that 2.25% royalty or thereabouts based on the cost of a completed end-user device. 

 

See page 22, line 19 thru page 23, line 4 and especially page 26, beginning line 7 thru page 27, line21.

 

The court accepted that Motorola had proved that  2.25% was their standard royalty rate. That's going to make it difficult for Apple to claim 2.25% as unreasonable if their court views the evidence Moto submitted the same way as this court did.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #46 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

I read the article and I didn't take it to mean what you suggest. It says Nokia had been paying a 3% royalty on WCDMA equipped handsets. But that doesn't say the 3% is on the retail price of the phone as opposed to the price of the Qualcomm chip in the phone. Based on the shear number of licensed patents in the product, I can guarantee it is on the price of the Qualcomm chip. 

Based on what, your "gut feeling"? Wouldn't it be more reliable and appropriate to go by what Qualcomm themselves state very clearly in their Patent Licensing Statement:

 

"Consistent with the industry-accepted principles of FRAND described above and the 
value of Qualcomm’s standards essential LTE and WiMax patent portfolios established 
through bilateral, arms-length negotiations culminating in Qualcomm’s existing 
LTE/WiMax license agreements, Qualcomm expects that it will charge royalties for a 
license under its standards essential LTE patents and/or standards essential WiMax 
patents for complete, end user subscriber devices that implement LTE and/or WiMax 
standards, but do not implement any 3G CDMA standards, of approximately 3.25% of 
the wholesale selling price of each such device, subject to reciprocity and other standard 
terms and conditions"
 
I don't think anyone would consider a chipset to be a "complete, end-user subscriber device".
 
Now is it possible Motorola unfairly or even illegally singled out Apple as not license-able thru an agreement with Qualcomm, forcing them to negotiate with Moto directly? Yes it is. So far all we've seen is an Apple claim that might be what occurred. Once the case plays out then the facts will be more clear. That assumes the parties don't settle before then as the Nokia case did.
 
EDIT: I meant to mention that I thought Qualcomm's valuation of end-user devices is based on the complete Bill of Materials (BOM) rather than a wholesale selling price. So in Apple's case they might be paying $8 (3.25% of $245) on a 64GB iPhone 4S. If they're truly going by the wholesale price they might be getting $20 in royalties on that 4S. Motorola would only be asking for about $13 on the same basis, but Qualcomm would likely still want licensing fees for the remainder of the SEP package, making it probably much more expensive for Apple overall.

Edited by Gatorguy - 8/13/12 at 7:23pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #47 of 61

Except that in the case of h.264/AVC, there is a patent pool in place managed by the MPEG-LA that sets a standard rate for encoders and decoders.  You can see the rates at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf , but a quick reading shows that the rate is capped at 20 cents per unit and goes down to 10 cents per unit after hitting 5 million units in a year. Since Moto's patents are licensed through the MPEG-LA under FRAND terms, that means they can't come back and ask for 2.25% of the retail price of the device just because that's their standard royalty rate.  They gave up the right to ask for more once they made the patents available under FRAND terms (something that the MPEG-LA required as a condition of allowing their patents to become a part of the AVC standard).

 

I don't know the details of the 802.11 standard, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out there was a similar licensing pool in place. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

http://www.scribd.com/doc/96228673/Microsoft-Motorola-Xbox-6-6-12

In the Motorola Microsoft lawsuit over licensing of standards-essential patents, Motorola submitted a spreadsheet with 50 licensees listed paying that 2.25% royalty or thereabouts based on the cost of a completed end-user device. 

 

See page 22, line 19 thru page 23, line 4 and especially page 26, beginning line 7 thru page 27, line21.

 

The court accepted that Motorola had proved that  2.25% was their standard royalty rate. That's going to make it difficult for Apple to claim 2.25% as unreasonable if their court views the evidence Moto submitted the same way as this court did.

post #48 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by SmileyDude View Post

Except that in the case of h.264/AVC, there is a patent pool in place managed by the MPEG-LA that sets a standard rate for encoders and decoders.  You can see the rates at http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf , but a quick reading shows that the rate is capped at 20 cents per unit and goes down to 10 cents per unit after hitting 5 million units in a year. Since Moto's patents are licensed through the MPEG-LA under FRAND terms, that means they can't come back and ask for 2.25% of the retail price of the device just because that's their standard royalty rate.  They gave up the right to ask for more once they made the patents available under FRAND terms (something that the MPEG-LA required as a condition of allowing their patents to become a part of the AVC standard).

 

I don't know the details of the 802.11 standard, but it wouldn't surprise me to find out there was a similar licensing pool in place. 

 

I don't know why the court accepted 2.25% as Motorola's standard rate, even acknowledging a list of approx 50 licensees paying that for those two SEP sets. Things may not be as you assumed they are, or perhaps the court simply erred in supporting Moto's stance. All there is to go by factually is the court's findings in dismissing Microsoft's request for summary judgment.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #49 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't know why the court accepted 2.25% as Motorola's standard rate, even acknowledging a list of approx 50 licensees paying that for those two SEP sets. Things may not be as you assumed they are, or perhaps the court simply erred in supporting Moto's stance. All there is to go by factually is the court's findings in dismissing Microsoft's request for summary judgment.

I don't know why you keep fretting over this issue, unless it's because you're trying to distract everyone from Google and Samsung's wholesale theft of IP.

Apple will have to pay FRAND rates. That has never been in question. However, Motorola and Google will not be able to blackmail Apple by getting an injunction on sale of their products and can not extort more than FRAND amounts from Apple. So what's the big deal?

Meanwhile, in the other courtroom, the wholesale theft of Apple's IP without any agreement or permission by a grossly criminal enterprise is being soundly exposed.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #50 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I don't know why you keep fretting over this issue, unless it's because you're trying to distract everyone from Google and Samsung's wholesale theft of IP.
Apple will have to pay FRAND rates. That has never been in question. However, Motorola and Google will not be able to blackmail Apple by getting an injunction on sale of their products and can not extort more than FRAND amounts from Apple. So what's the big deal?
Meanwhile, in the other courtroom, the wholesale theft of Apple's IP without any agreement or permission by a grossly criminal enterprise is being soundly exposed.

Not at all "fretting". I'm confident some readers don't wish to continue being misinformed. You might not be one of them and perfectly fine with FUD, in which case you can simply ignore the way things more than likely are based on facts rather than guesses. Others might appreciate misunderstandings being explained whether you do or not.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #51 of 61

nevermind


Edited by SSquirrel - 8/14/12 at 8:26am
post #52 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

 

That page shows MS saying that the 2.25% rate is 45x and 16x greater than what is usually charged for those sort of patents.  How is that not clearly discriminatorily charging MS more than other customers?

I'll grant you that MS says the rate is too high, which doesn't make it true. Even the court didn't buy it.  But assume for a moment that it really is exorbitant. That has nothing to do with proving your claim that Motorola is trying to charge Apple or MS or anyone else more than they usually ask. According to their court filings, Moto is starting with the same "exorbitant" 2.25% royalty rate for everyone, then discounting for traded IP or other considerations.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #53 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.

 

 

The problem is that rather than look for information to establish precedence, you state how you feel it should work. The other problem here is if it's based off the price one company charges Apple for a chip, they could mark down the price of that chip while marking up other components they provide to Apple, thus lowering the total cost of licensing by circumventing it on paper. There is most likely something that would prevent this. The problem I have is with all of the assessments by people who believe they have enough information to pass a valid judgement based on an article that is clearly designed as light reading.

post #54 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Not at all "fretting". I'm confident some readers don't wish to continue being misinformed. You might not be one of them and perfectly fine with FUD, in which case you can simply ignore the way things more than likely are based on facts rather than guesses. Others might appreciate misunderstandings being explained whether you do or not.

And, yet, you're OK with all the FUD defending Samsung's outright theft of Apple's IP and completely ignore the fact that document after document establishes their pattern of intentional IP theft.

Hypocrisy, thy name is googleguy.
"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 #55 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


And, yet, you're OK with all the FUD defending Samsung's outright theft of Apple's IP and completely ignore the fact that document after document establishes their pattern of intentional IP theft.
Hypocrisy, thy name is googleguy.

I'm not OK with it at all. I believe Samsung is guilty of infringing on Apple's trade dress and have from the beginning. You just don't pay attention (or do, but it's not convenient to your argument).

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #56 of 61

Motorola want 2.25% of the value of the end product. So if Boing have a single smart phone in one of their planes Motorola want 2.25% of the cost of the plane. It's not the % that is unreasonable, it's Motorolas demand. Also logicaly they should get 2.25% of every sale, so if you buy an iPhone Motorola get 2.25% but if you then sell it Motorola get paid again. Motorola are simply demanding a sales tax.

post #57 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm not OK with it at all. I believe Samsung is guilty of infringing on Apple's trade dress and have from the beginning. You just don't pay attention (or do, but it's not convenient to your argument).

It's funny that you really expect anyone to believe that. Virtually everything you ever post is anti-Apple FUD and praising Google and Samsung to high heavens.
"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 #58 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


It's funny that you really expect anyone to believe that. Virtually everything you ever post is anti-Apple FUD and praising Google and Samsung to high heavens.

...and yet when asked you're never able to link examples of that anti-Apple FUD which is "virtually everything I ever post". I wonder why that is?

 

A piece of advice if you want your claims proven honest and truthful: Try connecting them with evidence. It's more convincing.


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/15/12 at 6:10am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #59 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

...and yet when asked you're never able to link examples of that anti-Apple FUD which is "virtually everything I ever post". I wonder why that is?

A piece of advice if you want your claims proven honest and truthful: Try connecting them with evidence. It's more convincing.

I don't need evidence that the sky is blue today. Your anti-Apple FUD is obvious to everyone except your fellow trolls.
"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 #60 of 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I don't need evidence that the sky is blue today. Your anti-Apple FUD is obvious to everyone except your fellow trolls.

Thank you for proving exactly what I wrote.

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

Thank you for proving exactly what I wrote.

Thank you for proving that you're incapable of rational thought.
"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
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