or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung to call Motorola's "one bullet to kill" witness to justify iPhone royalty demands
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung to call Motorola's "one bullet to kill" witness to justify iPhone royalty demands

post #1 of 41
Thread Starter 
After working to defend against for two weeks of Apple's copying claims, Samsung has gone on the defensive to claim that Apple owes it steep royalties for infringing its 3G standard essential patents, using the same witness called by Google's Motorola Mobility to bring standards essential patent claims against Microsoft.

According to a report by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, Samsung has listed two expert witnesses conversant in justifying high patent royalty rates for standard essential patent claims that are actually subject to "Fair, Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory" licensing terms.

One bullet to kill

One name on Samsung's witness disclosure list, David J. Teece, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, was recently used by Google's Motorola Mobility case against Microsoft related to H.264 patents.

Teece testified that a single standards essential patent claim could be worth as much or more than the large number of other patents contributing to a given industry standard because "it takes only one bullet to kill," an allusion to the fact that one wouldn't need a clip full of bullets to take down a opponent, so therefore one patent should similarly be enough to destroy the ability of another company to compete in the market.

In using that phrase, Teece was justifying the 2.25 percent royalty rate Motorola was demanding from Microsoft on sales of Windows 7, Xbox and other products that use the H.264 video standard portfolio, the same nightmare scenario Google used to vilify H.264 before acquiring Motorola and continuing its H.264 FRAND patent offensive.

Microsoft argued that Motorola's demands of $4 billion in annual royalties for the 50 standards essential patents it contributes to the H.264 standard were clearly out of line with its FRAND obligations, contrasting the $6.5 million it pays annually for the other 2,339 patents essential to H.264.



ITC Judge Shaw blocked Motorola's efforts to seek a US import injunction against Microsoft for refusing to pay Motorola's 2.25 percent demands, noting that, "the evidence shows that the royalty rate offered by Motorola of 2.25%, both as to its amount and the products covered, could not possibly have been accepted by Microsoft," and that "the evidence supports Microsoft's conclusion that Motorola was not interested in good faith negotiations and in extending a [F]RAND license to it."

Defending Android through unFRANDly patent claims

Motorola is, coincidentally, demanding the same 2.25 percent royalty from Apple's iOS devices related to standard essential patents it owns in the 3G standard patent pool.

In a Dutch case, Samsung similarly demanded a 2.4 percent royalty from Apple for each of several of its standard essential patents (albeit charged against the price price of a relevant chip, not the entire device).

However, even in that case Samsung's royalty claim rate and injunction efforts were thrown out because its royalty demands was deemed so unreasonable by the court that it determined Samsung had failed to honor its FRAND commitments and had not negotiated in good faith.

But with so little leverage in its case against Apple, where it has repeatedly stumbled with court procedures even as Apple pressed its case of willing, purposeful infringement of its design and technical patents, Samsung has stepped up the 2.4 percent royalty demands that it has asserted at least twice before in other cases worldwide.

"By far and away the worst expert witness I've seen"

In pushing its royalty claim offensive as its best defense, Samsung's use of Teece has necessitated what Mueller called "ridiculous claims," going so far to question whether "the credibility of those institutions [represented by expert witnesses, specifically UCB] may be affected by highly problematic or downright preposterous claims made by certain individuals."

With regard to FRAND, Mueller called Teece "by far and away the worst 'expert witness' I've seen." Mueller also noted Samsung has listed Swedish consultant Eric Stasik, of whom he said "we can expect more of the same."

Stasik was cited as making a similar "one bullet to kill" comment on the GSM standard, writing that "the relationship between the number of patents and the total royalty rate is not linear" and testifying that a single patent may be worth 2.5 percent royalty.

Apple sought to present testimony from an expert witness Samsung had earlier used in a UK case to defend itself from FRAND-pledged standards essential patent claims, noting that the company previously held a very different view on patent abuse when the shoe was on the other foot. However, Judge Koh ruled that the British case involved different parties, different patents and different standards, making it insufficiently relevant to the case at hand.
post #2 of 41

Seems to be Samsung attorneys are using a classic form of negotiation - when things aren't going your way, deflect attacks by changiing the subject.  I have a feeling the judge isn't going to like this very much as I'm not seeing how they can relate this back to the case at hand.

post #3 of 41

nuclear war with patent portfolios.

post #4 of 41

Mueller is a Microsoft and Oracle paid shill. He can't possibly be the only patent analyst on the planet. Does he really need to be quoted in every article? Honestly.

 

2.25 percent royalty rate is illogical and pretty absurd though. 


Edited by thataveragejoe - 8/15/12 at 11:01am
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 41
Should that have read ..."... gone on the offensive ..." ?
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 #6 of 41
Wouldn't that require another trial?
post #7 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

Mueller is a Microsoft and Oracle paid shill. He can't possibly be the only patent analyst on the planet. Does he really need to be quoted in every article? Honestly.

 

 

Actually this Mueller guy is indeed the only patent analyst on the web that would constantly report back the details of the trials. Yes he's pretty obviously biased (just check how mad he was after GOOG won the case against Oracle), but there's really not alternative. People simply have to remember he's biased and don't read the stuffs he posted based on face value and then that'd be fine.

post #8 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

Mueller is a Microsoft and Oracle paid shill. He can't possibly be the only patent analyst on the planet. Does he really need to be quoted in every article? Honestly.

Whoever is quoted in the article, be it a third party or a sworn-in expert in the case, they're all "paid schills" as they're on someone's payroll.

Don't take their words at face value; analyze the merits of their arguments instead.
post #9 of 41

Didn't know where else to post this and wanted to share my thoughts. In other news, Samsung launched its latest tablet today. This, from the Verge, has been consistent with most reviews. It proved why specs are completely irrelevant by themselves, and why the next person to claim a tablet/phone is superior because of some higher specs, or iProduct X is underpowered because of some numbers, should be kicked in the nuts real hard: 

 

 

Quote:

All of these additions makes the Note extremely slow, even though it has a ridiculously fast 1.4GHz quad-core Exynos processor and 2GB of RAM. On paper, that’s basically more powerful than any other mainstream mobile device, but the Note is quite laggy in day-to-day use. Just flipping between homescreens can result in some stuttering when you hit a widget-heavy layout, and I even noticed occasional slowdowns when simply swiping the lock screen to open the device. The Note is simply not as smooth or responsive as the Nexus 7, and it’s so far behind the iPad that the comparison doesn’t really seem fair. Add in all the bloop bloop sounds and the whole thing just feels chubby.

 

A 1.4 Ghz, quad core processor, 2GB of RAM, power just a FRACTION of the amount of pixels of the new iPad, can't even get through the lock screen without slowdown. This is the kind of shit that shows how much SAmsung REALLY cares about the user experience, contrary to the horse-shit they spew out. Their innovation is skinning the hell out of Android with their shitty skin, and managing to make incredibly hardware powerful choke simply by swiping around the OS. This is not some cheap, bottom bin tablet. This is a flagship product that costs the same as a new iPad. Not ONCE has my iPad stuttered, lagged, or even skipped a frame, all while pushing more pixels than almost any other device. When Samsung is willing to release a $500 product like this, at this time, it makes me wonder what aspect of the company people are so enamored with. It shows an utter lack of care and of respect to the consumer, and makes them out to be liars when they've been going on and on at the trial about how much they 'care'.  And it shows why with competition like this, the iPad deserves to dominate the field. This is the shit they release while attempting to reverse engineer the iPad and duplicating how it feels. Imagine what we'd be stuck with if the iPad/iPhone didn't exist. 

post #10 of 41

To this day, I do not see how in the world a patent royalty can be charged against a finished product.  It should be applied to whoever makes the actual chip that is bought and placed into a product.  Is someone just getting greedy?
 

post #11 of 41
The defense lawyers are all over the map. Their next witness: Chewbacca.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #12 of 41

"It takes only one bullet to kill."

 

So the head of Samsung is a Bond villain?

post #13 of 41

FRAND royalty rates must be applied evenly to everyone, or the patent holder risks losing their patent.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #14 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever View Post

 

Actually this Mueller guy is indeed the only patent analyst on the web that would constantly report back the details of the trials. Yes he's pretty obviously biased (just check how mad he was after GOOG won the case against Oracle), but there's really not alternative. People simply have to remember he's biased and don't read the stuffs he posted based on face value and then that'd be fine.

In some cases Groklaw will report a lot more details than Mr. Mueller, even going so far as to re-post the actual court transcripts. I find that very helpful as it puts the comments and questions from cases in context rather than relying on someone else's spin on the facts they want you or me to know. Of course most reader's don't want to bothered or don't have the time for that much iformation and prefer to rely on someone's synopsis of what's going on. The problem in that is there's always the real danger that you're only seeing what that source considers supporting "facts" for the view they want you to get. Me, I love court transcripts, with even live courtroom blogs sometimes much better in reporting details that FOSSPatents may have overlooked.

 

There's other times that a particular issue may reflect poorly on either Microsoft or Oracle and won't get a mention at FOSSPatents at all. Case in point the recent problem that Microsoft is having with the EU over breaking a previous settlement agreement, potentially costing them another billion or so. Oracle getting denied by the EU on a first-sale doctrine? Nope, nothing at FOSSPatents on that one either as it was generally considered unfair on the part of Oracle to begin with.

http://eutopialaw.com/2012/07/10/the-cjeu-copyright-and-the-first-sale-doctrine/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/technology/europe-reopens-antitrust-hostillities-with-microsoft.html?pagewanted=all

 

Mr. Mueller's blogs do offer great insight on patent issues, and he's one of my go-to sources. He's not the only one tho.


Edited by Gatorguy - 8/15/12 at 12:56pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In some cases Groklaw will report a lot more details than Mr. Mueller, even going so far as to re-post the actual court transcripts. I find that very helpful as it puts the comments and questions from cases in context rather than relying on someone else's spin on the facts they want you or me to know. Of course most reader's don't want to bothered or don't have the time for that much iformation and prefer to rely on someone's synopsis of what's going on. The problem in that is there's always the real danger that you're only seeing what that source considers supporting "facts" for the view they want you to get. Me, I love court transcripts, with even live courtroom blogs sometimes much better in reporting details that FOSSPatents may have overlooked.

 

There's other times that a particular issue may reflect poorly on either Microsoft or Oracle and won't get a mention at FOSSPatents at all. Case in point the recent problem that Microsoft is having with the EU over breaking a previous settlement agreement, potentially costing them another billion or so. 

 

Mr. Mueller's blogs do offer great insight on patent issues, and he's one of my go-to sources. He's not the only one tho.

 

I'd say that if you want to get the most clear picture, you have to read both Groklaw and Foss Patents.  Both have their biases (Groklaw is Pro-Google, Foss Patents is Pro Apple/Microsoft/Oracle) but together you get a pretty decent picture.

post #16 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

To this day, I do not see how in the world a patent royalty can be charged against a finished product.  It should be applied to whoever makes the actual chip that is bought and placed into a product.  Is someone just getting greedy?
 

I agree here. And i ain't no Apple defender, you can check my posts to see. 

 

If they get away with this, then Best buy must be infringing too, since they sell the ipad that has the chip that has the patent (OK, bad example, but so what). The line has to stop somewhere. 

 

EDIT: Just thought of better analogy!!!

 

Its like if someone selling custom made computers has to pay MPEG-LA for a license for video codecs even though they already paid for the copy of windows to put on the machine. BOOOM!!! I'm an analogy GENIUS!!!

post #17 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post
.... BOOOM!!! I'm an analogy GENIUS!!!

 

Calm down now.....  lol.gif

post #18 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

I agree here. And i ain't no Apple defender, you can check my posts to see. 

 

If they get away with this, then Best buy must be infringing too, since they sell the ipad that has the chip that has the patent (OK, bad example, but so what). The line has to stop somewhere. 

 

EDIT: Just thought of better analogy!!!

 

Its like if someone selling custom made computers has to pay MPEG-LA for a license for video codecs even though they already paid for the copy of windows to put on the machine. BOOOM!!! I'm an analogy GENIUS!!!


Intel can charge everyone for purchasing a PC or Laptop with an x86 chip in it.  

post #19 of 41
Quote:
A 1.4 Ghz, quad core processor, 2GB of RAM, power just a FRACTION of the amount of pixels of the new iPad, can't even get through the lock screen without slowdown. This is the kind of shit that shows how much SAmsung REALLY cares about the user experience, contrary to the horse-shit they spew out. Their innovation is skinning the hell out of Android with their shitty skin, and managing to make incredibly hardware powerful choke simply by swiping around the OS. This is not some cheap, bottom bin tablet. This is a flagship product that costs the same as a new iPad. Not ONCE has my iPad stuttered, lagged, or even skipped a frame, all while pushing more pixels than almost any other device. When Samsung is willing to release a $500 product like this, at this time, it makes me wonder what aspect of the company people are so enamored with. It shows an utter lack of care and of respect to the consumer, and makes them out to be liars when they've been going on and on at the trial about how much they 'care'.  And it shows why with competition like this, the iPad deserves to dominate the field. This is the shit they release while attempting to reverse engineer the iPad and duplicating how it feels. Imagine what we'd be stuck with if the iPad/iPhone didn't exist

Feeling better? I sure think such a rant is less expensive than a visit to the shrink
post #20 of 41

I am hoping someone can offer an explanation here...

 

I have been under the impression that FRAND is used to describe Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory licensing terms.  As mentioned above, the terms must be the same for everyone.

 

OK. With that in mind, I was also under the impression that technology had to be established in FRAND terms before it could become part of an approved technical standards.  This is basic economics.  I get to take a little from everyone, but since everyone is going to use it, I am going to get to make a bunch of money anyhow.

 

Wouldn't the pricing have to be set at that time?  Or do companies have the ability to go back and 're-adjust' the price after the fact?

post #21 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by UIGuy View Post

I am hoping someone can offer an explanation here...

I have been under the impression that FRAND is used to describe Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory licensing terms.  As mentioned above, the terms must be the same for everyone.

OK. With that in mind, I was also under the impression that technology had to be established in FRAND terms before it could become part of an approved technical standards.  This is basic economics.  I get to take a little from everyone, but since everyone is going to use it, I am going to get to make a bunch of money anyhow.

Wouldn't the pricing have to be set at that time?  Or do companies have the ability to go back and 're-adjust' the price after the fact?

Pricing does not have to be the same for all licensees - just 'fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory'. Essentially, if you charge two licensees very different amounts, you need to have a reasonable justification - volume, cross licensing, marketing value, etc. If you try to charge one licensee $0.10 and the other one $10.00, you probably won't get away with it.

This is, of course, one of the reasons why the proposed flat percentage of selling price is unreasonable. If Mercedes puts a device in their $100,000 car which uses Motorola's technology, a 2.25% license would be $2,250 - or a couple of orders of magnitude more than Motorola charges to license a cell phone.

The recent decision was very, very important in that regard. Motorola tried to get a court to issue an injunction preventing Apple from selling their products because they wouldn't agree to the proposed license terms. The court said that they would not do so. The reasoning is apparently that since the patent is FRAND, the licensor HAS to license it, the only question is the terms. And if the two parties are unable to agree on what's fair, the court will do so for them upon request. So it's not like the licensee will lose anything by denying the injunction.

A non-FRAND patent is different. The licensor (generally) has no obligation to license their technology, so an injunction can be appropriate. If the two parties can't agree on terms, then the 'licensee' has no rights and therefore can not sell the product.
"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 #22 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitz1 View Post


Feeling better? 

 

I'm sure he does. Because he's 100% correct. 

 

In fact, he makes an excellent case for avoiding horizontal business models altogether. Once an OS is whored to to every OEM under the sun, User Experience goes out the window. Anyone who licenses out the very heart and soul of a device (the OS) has a fundamental disrespect for their product, and consequently the user. 

 

There's a reason Apple controls the whole widget. It can be found in the Consumer Satisfaction reports year after year. 

post #23 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

I agree here. And i ain't no Apple defender, you can check my posts to see. 

 

If they get away with this, then Best buy must be infringing too, since they sell the ipad that has the chip that has the patent (OK, bad example, but so what). The line has to stop somewhere. 

 

EDIT: Just thought of better analogy!!!

 

Its like if someone selling custom made computers has to pay MPEG-LA for a license for video codecs even though they already paid for the copy of windows to put on the machine. BOOOM!!! I'm an analogy GENIUS!!!

 Or if your friend bought a computer with the patent royalties included in the price, and they you bought the computer second-hand off your friend then you'd have to pay the royalties to Samsung because you're using them now. They're already trying to do this with video games, why not patents?

When a company stops chasing profit and start chasing the betterment of their products, services, workforce, and customers, that will be the most valuable company in the world.
Reply
When a company stops chasing profit and start chasing the betterment of their products, services, workforce, and customers, that will be the most valuable company in the world.
Reply
post #24 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

To this day, I do not see how in the world a patent royalty can be charged against a finished product.  It should be applied to whoever makes the actual chip that is bought and placed into a product.  Is someone just getting greedy?
 

 

Exactly.  If Qualcomm pays a royalty to Samsung/Google/Motorola for FRAND patents needed to make their communications  chips comply with telecom standards, then why should Apple also have to pay a royalty.  Qualcomm would cover the costs in what they charge Apple for the chips.

 

In regards to the "one bullet to kill" argument - I bet there are a lot of "bullets" in the package of FRAND patents that if not included would make it impossible to implement the industry standard.  There are other companies with bullets too.  

 

The use of FRAND patents was not what this trial was about - it was about Apple claiming Samsung copied design elements and items Apple has patented related to the user experience and features in iOS.  Samsung seems to be attempting to blackmail Apple into giving in on non-FRAND patents by charging extreme rates for their "bullets".  

 

It would be interesting to know what Samsung charges other companies besides Apple and Microsoft for royalties on the FRAND patents.

post #25 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverpraxis View Post

 Or if your friend bought a computer with the patent royalties included in the price, and they you bought the computer second-hand off your friend then you'd have to pay the royalties to Samsung because you're using them now. They're already trying to do this with video games, why not patents?

According to patent articles, many of those FRAND patents are tied to the price (sometimes wholesale price, sometimes BOM, sometimes "other") of a finished consumer device. It's not a royalty charge to the end-user directly, so it matters not how often it gets resold.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 41

From the article:

 

"ITC Judge Shaw blocked Motorola's efforts to seek a US import injunction against Microsoft for refusing to pay Motorola's 2.25 percent demands, noting that, "the evidence shows that the royalty rate offered by Motorola of 2.25%, both as to its amount and the products covered, could not possibly have been accepted by Microsoft," and that "the evidence supports Microsoft's conclusion that Motorola was not interested in good faith negotiations and in extending a [F]RAND license to it.""

Gatorguy, was it you I was arguing about this with in another thread yesterday or someone else?  It looks like the 2.25% has been shot down somewhere else before.  That graphic w/the 4B vs the 60M was pretty great too

post #27 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

From the article:

 

"ITC Judge Shaw blocked Motorola's efforts to seek a US import injunction against Microsoft for refusing to pay Motorola's 2.25 percent demands, noting that, "the evidence shows that the royalty rate offered by Motorola of 2.25%, both as to its amount and the products covered, could not possibly have been accepted by Microsoft," and that "the evidence supports Microsoft's conclusion that Motorola was not interested in good faith negotiations and in extending a [F]RAND license to it.""

Gatorguy, was it you I was arguing about this with in another thread yesterday or someone else?  It looks like the 2.25% has been shot down somewhere else before.  That graphic w/the 4B vs the 60M was pretty great too

Yes that was me. Two different judge's in two different venues and for two different purposes seeking two different actions.This one was seeking an exclusion order ("import injunction") from the ITC. The post I made yesterday referenced the Federal case in a June 6th ruling, linked here:

 

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, line 21.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

Mueller is a Microsoft and Oracle paid shill. He can't possibly be the only patent analyst on the planet. Does he really need to be quoted in every article? Honestly.

 

2.25 percent royalty rate is illogical and pretty absurd though. 

 

Mueller now works for Google.

post #29 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

To this day, I do not see how in the world a patent royalty can be charged against a finished product.  It should be applied to whoever makes the actual chip that is bought and placed into a product.  Is someone just getting greedy?
 

The device can be argued as the thing that uses it. Let's say Qualcomm provides several parts to Apple for the iphone. These total to a specific amount per device, but one of the parts has an associated patent fee. They could shift a significant portion of what they would have charged for that component into one of the others, thus circumventing the licensing fee. Anyway many of these things are negotiated down by cross licensing patents. Regarding a percentage basis for the device as a whole, it helps prevent a high cost barrier for lower cost devices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UIGuy View Post

 

I have been under the impression that FRAND is used to describe Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory licensing terms.  As mentioned above, the terms must be the same for everyone.

The argument has been that the initial offer is calculated on the same basis, in this case a percentage rather than a dollar amount.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

 

I'm sure he does. Because he's 100% correct. 

 

In fact, he makes an excellent case for avoiding horizontal business models altogether. Once an OS is whored to to every OEM under the sun, User Experience goes out the window. Anyone who licenses out the very heart and soul of a device (the OS) has a fundamental disrespect for their product, and consequently the user. 

 

There's a reason Apple controls the whole widget. It can be found in the Consumer Satisfaction reports year after year. 

 

This is what annoys me with your posts at times. When presenting something as factual, you should avoid putting a spin on it. Saying something is "whored" automatically applies a negative connotation without improving upon the amount of information delivered.

post #30 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

The device can be argued as the thing that uses it. Let's say Qualcomm provides several parts to Apple for the iphone. These total to a specific amount per device, but one of the parts has an associated patent fee. They could shift a significant portion of what they would have charged for that component into one of the others, thus circumventing the licensing fee. Anyway many of these things are negotiated down by cross licensing patents. Regarding a percentage basis for the device as a whole, it helps prevent a high cost barrier for lower cost devices.

The argument has been that the initial offer is calculated on the same basis, in this case a percentage rather than a dollar amount.

 

This is what annoys me with your posts at times. When presenting something as factual, you should avoid putting a spin on it. Saying something is "whored" automatically applies a negative connotation without improving upon the amount of information delivered.

 

Would you prefer pimping, instead?

post #31 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

In some cases Groklaw will report a lot more details than Mr. Mueller, even going so far as to re-post the actual court transcripts. I find that very helpful as it puts the comments and questions from cases in context rather than relying on someone else's spin on the facts they want you or me to know. 

 

Such as the spin lawyers are paid to put on things and the "witnesses" they pay to help them?

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 #32 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

Such as the spin lawyers are paid to put on things and the "witnesses" they pay to help them?

You got at least part of it. $500-$1000 an hour for "expert witnesses" should get you something in return.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #33 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Yes that was me. Two different judge's in two different venues and for two different purposes seeking two different actions.This one was seeking an exclusion order ("import injunction") from the ITC. The post I made yesterday referenced the Federal case in a June 6th ruling, linked here:

 

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, line 21.

For those too busy to read, here's the part concerning the court's acceptance of Motorola's 2.25% royalty as a good-faith offer as well as being their standard rate.

 

 

"Here, Motorola has presented the court with numerous licensing agreements suggesting that it has received comparable (2.25%) royalty rates to those offered to Microsoft from other licensees for some, if not most, of its patents essential to the 802.11Standard and the H.264 Standard
 
...Additionally, at the summary judgment stage, the court finds unpersuasive Microsoft’s assertion that Motorola’s 802.11 and H.264 Standard essential patentportfolios cover only a minimal part of the technology involved in the 802.11 and H.264Standards. Microsoft has provided the court no evidence to support this assertion...
 
Microsoft has only offered testimony tending to show that Motorola understood the financial impact of its offers. This showing, on its own, however, does not establish that Motorola was acting dishonestly.. . Indeed, Motorola offered on its standard terms (of 2.25% of the device cost)."
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

These total to a specific amount per device, but one of the parts has an associated patent fee. They could shift a significant portion of what they would have charged for that component into one of the others, thus circumventing the licensing fee.

 

Wrong.

 

Qualcomm pays the license, then sell licensed chips to manufacturers who use them.

 

The manufacturer cannot "shift a significant portion" of the cost into other components as it is already paid.

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 #35 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by thataveragejoe View Post

2.25 percent royalty rate is illogical and pretty absurd though.

Perhaps not. If its off the value of the finished product sure, but if it is off the price of the chip that uses said patent that is reasonable and if the same rate on the same chip is charged to everyone that is non discriminatory. If it is the agreed upon most important patent in the pack then the rate could be fair.

But if it is off the value of the finished good and/or not the same rate for everyone then FRAND compliance may not be fulfilled. And I suspect that that is what Apple is arguing. That it is not fair for them to try to license off the value of the whole item or that they are asking for a way higher rate because it's Apple. Or even perhaps both

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

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

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

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

Reply
post #36 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

 

Saying something is "whored" automatically applies a negative connotation.


 

As intended.

post #37 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


Perhaps not. If its off the value of the finished product sure, but if it is off the price of the chip that uses said patent that is reasonable and if the same rate on the same chip is charged to everyone that is non discriminatory. If it is the agreed upon most important patent in the pack then the rate could be fair.
But if it is off the value of the finished good and/or not the same rate for everyone then FRAND compliance may not be fulfilled. And I suspect that that is what Apple is arguing. That it is not fair for them to try to license off the value of the whole item or that they are asking for a way higher rate because it's Apple. Or even perhaps both

 

Apple and Microsoft, Motorola's projected $4 Billion PA in income from each must have been quite enticing to the sucker they got to buy them for $12.5 Billion.

 

Motorola attempted to void the license agreements with the chipmakers which covered Apple and Microsoft, hence the breach of contract allegations.

 

Now Google has no choice but to become the lowest of the low patent trolls they were vehemently dismissing only a few short years ago.

 

Of course if they had any principles whatsoever they could get Motorola to withdraw.


Edited by hill60 - 8/15/12 at 8:12pm
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 #38 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

To this day, I do not see how in the world a patent royalty can be charged against a finished product.  It should be applied to whoever makes the actual chip that is bought and placed into a product.  Is someone just getting greedy?
 

The general principle in agreement with you here is called "The Exhaustion Doctrine" for patents,

akin to the First-Sale Doctrine for copyright.  See:

 

         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine

 

whereby collection for patent royalties is done at the most basic part level.   Hardware company

cross-licensing often eases the burden for the consumer, by not passing through possibly dozens, hundreds, or thousands of individual royalties to the end-user.  However, rogues/trolls routinely ignore this principle by referring to the shibboleth that thou shalt not "make, use, or sell" a patented "device" without

paying the toll, so they typically press their case against the deepest pocket.

 

I think Judge Richard Posner is right-on with how broken the patent system is for software.  

Older industries such as auto manufacturing long ago thought is was better to save the industry from rampant

legal costs by cross-licencing, which at least somewhat preserves high barriers-to-entry.  

Pharmaceutical companies also generally practice "honor among thieves".   The more nascent

purveyors of software (general-purpose or otherwise) need to be schooled by this fire.

post #39 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiarius View Post

The general principle in agreement with you here is called "The Exhaustion Doctrine" for patents,

akin to the First-Sale Doctrine for copyright.  See:

 

         http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine

 

whereby collection for patent royalties is done at the most basic part level.   Hardware company

cross-licensing often eases the burden for the consumer, by not passing through possibly dozens, hundreds, or thousands of individual royalties to the end-user.  However, rogues/trolls routinely ignore this principle by referring to the shibboleth that thou shalt not "make, use, or sell" a patented "device" without

paying the toll, so they typically press their case against the deepest pocket.

 

I think Judge Richard Posner is right-on with how broken the patent system is for software.  

Older industries such as auto manufacturing long ago thought is was better to save the industry from rampant

legal costs by cross-licencing, which at least somewhat preserves high barriers-to-entry.  

Pharmaceutical companies also generally practice "honor among thieves".   The more nascent

purveyors of software (general-purpose or otherwise) need to be schooled by this fire.

 

Yes, it appeared that Motorola wanted to move the royalty point from the chip with Qualcomm onto the end product itself thus greatly increasing the amount collected.

post #40 of 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3 View Post

 

Yes, it appeared that Motorola wanted to move the royalty point from the chip with Qualcomm onto the end product itself thus greatly increasing the amount collected.

The royalty was almost certain to have always been based on the completed device and not just a chipset. Qualcomm's royalty basis is also a finished end-user device according to their licensing statement.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Samsung to call Motorola's "one bullet to kill" witness to justify iPhone royalty demands
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Samsung to call Motorola's "one bullet to kill" witness to justify iPhone royalty demands