or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple tells court it would pay no more than $1 per iPhone to license Motorola patents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple tells court it would pay no more than $1 per iPhone to license Motorola patents - Page 2

post #41 of 60

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 1/23/13 at 6:07am
post #42 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


You might want to educate yourself on a subject before making yourself look foolish.
The iPhone was released in 2007. Apple announced its transition to Intel in 2005. So how would they still be running on PPC if they had never released the iPhone? Furthermore, how would their holding off on releasing the iPhone have made IBM and Motorola magically fix the technical problems that they were never able to solve? Would IBM and Motorola have been able to magically cut the G5's power consumption to a low enough level to be used in laptops if Apple didn't release the iPhone 2 years later? How does that work?
Furthermore, even your basic premise is unfounded. It may well be that Apple's move to the iPod and iPhone and iPad are what has allowed them to thrive enough to continue to invest heavily in computers. Without the iOS devices, it is likely that Apple would have much lower share than they do today.
Adobe? You have things backwards. Adobe abandoned Apple in the 90s. They released products that were optimized for Windows and let the Mac versions languish. They even went so far as to offer free cross-grades for Mac users to switch to Windows. Adobe futzed around for what seemed like ages after the Intel transition before releasing even a half-hearted attempt at making an Intel version of their Mac software. And Adobe never took advantage of the features of iOS.
xServe? Completely irrelevant. Apple never had any significant server market share and has never been able to build a decent server business in spite of numerous attempts in the past. While it's unfortunate that the xServe was dropped, Apple made it clear that few people were buying them - so few people suffered from that change.

 

This part is not really accurate. Adobe did switch to optimizing for Intel's cpus in the 1990s, but the universal binary package came with their first major release after the intel debut. Creative Suite 2 was mid cycle at the time. They updated it with Creative Suite 3. If you examine other developers of similar size, many of them just dropped PowerPC entirely without even publishing universal binaries. I'm curious what you mean about iOS. As for the person you were responding to, he was posting nonsense. Phones have outpaced personal computers for Apple and the industry as a whole. Saying they should get out of a business (phones) that provides the majority of their current sales and the highest margins of any of their devices is just drifting into hyperbole.

post #43 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post

Who cares about all this stuff? Apple should get out of phones altogether and put their focus back into the industry that made them...the PERSONAL COMPUTER. Telephony is not a business Apple should be in, Apple has turned the telephone into a toy in my opinion. In their pony show with the iPhones, they have ignored their Pro customers and lost focus on what made the company great in the first place...The Mac Pro has been ignored, the 17" MacBook Pro has been dropped, XServe is no more, and Apple has burned bridges with Adobe (who used to be a strong industry partner of Apple's for many years). I don't like the direction Apple is headed these days, and everytime I read another one of these stories or discussion board about people milling over iPhone importance, it is like fingernails on a blackboard. Simply sick of this stuff. I'm ready for Apple to be Apple Computer, Inc. once again, not a consumer toy company.

 

 

 

1000

post #44 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsdofny View Post


Was that the price Google pay for Motorola initially?  You have to add in the loss it has quarter over quarter to come up with the real cost for Google.  Google should have fired their patent lawyers.

This last quarter MotoMo cost Google another half billion samolans.

"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 #45 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post

Who cares about all this stuff? Apple should get out of phones altogether and put their focus back into the industry that made them...the PERSONAL COMPUTER. Telephony is not a business Apple should be in, Apple has turned the telephone into a toy in my opinion. In their pony show with the iPhones, they have ignored their Pro customers and lost focus on what made the company great in the first place...The Mac Pro has been ignored, the 17" MacBook Pro has been dropped, XServe is no more, and Apple has burned bridges with Adobe (who used to be a strong industry partner of Apple's for many years). I don't like the direction Apple is headed these days, and everytime I read another one of these stories or discussion board about people milling over iPhone importance, it is like fingernails on a blackboard. Simply sick of this stuff. I'm ready for Apple to be Apple Computer, Inc. once again, not a consumer toy company.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post

Also, Motorola used to make the processor inside every Macintosh. The 68xxx chip was a Motorola chip, and the PowerPC was an Apple/IBM/Motorola alliance for design and manufacturing the chips. Motorola and Apple used have a great relationship, and Steve Jobs destroyed that when he wanted to produce a phone. That was when Apple computers started using intel processors, the TRUE main reason why Apple ditched PowerPC was over the iPhone and competition with Motorola.

 

The Macintosh would be better today, still running on PowerPC if it were not for the iPhone.

 

Did you just awake from a twenty-year coma??

"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 #46 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post

Who cares about all this stuff? Apple should get out of phones altogether and put their focus back into the industry that made them...the PERSONAL COMPUTER. Telephony is not a business Apple should be in, Apple has turned the telephone into a toy in my opinion. In their pony show with the iPhones, they have ignored their Pro customers and lost focus on what made the company great in the first place...The Mac Pro has been ignored, the 17" MacBook Pro has been dropped, XServe is no more, and Apple has burned bridges with Adobe (who used to be a strong industry partner of Apple's for many years). I don't like the direction Apple is headed these days, and everytime I read another one of these stories or discussion board about people milling over iPhone importance, it is like fingernails on a blackboard. Simply sick of this stuff. I'm ready for Apple to be Apple Computer, Inc. once again, not a consumer toy company.

Toy company??? Who cares about this stuff???

You missed the part where the iPhone business made more revenue for Apple than all of Microsoft's products for the last 35 years combined.

You missed the part where computing, wireless communications, and portability converged to create something the PC could never be: a take-anywhere, personal, always on, always plugged-in to the Internet computing device.

You missed the part where computing for work is vastly outnumbered by consumer computing, because not everyone works, but everyone is a consumer. In effect, the consumer interest in technology is now the tail that's wagging the IT dog.

Money talks, niche markets walk.

Nothing about your "I hate iPhone" post makes sense. You ding Apple for "burning bridges with Adobe"... over what? Flash? You're in favor of Flash over HTML5 on mobile platforms? Wow, who is that shortsighted? And what, exactly do you think was lost in "burning bridges"? The only thing I see lost was a potentially terrible Flash plug-in for Mobile Safari that never got written and the gaping security holes it would bring to the iPhone. Adobe still publishes Mac software.

You make it sound as if not licking Adobe's balls was the worst thing Apple ever did, but show me how it has had any net impact on Mac users, cause the last time I checked, Adobe is more than happy to take my goddamned upgrade money.
Nice post! Informed, well reasoned, not over the top. I knew I liked you for some reason. Thanks.

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #47 of 60

I think it could work out for google - Well as long as apple sells 12.5 billion iphones then there collect 12.5 billion in royalties...and im sure that will happen as soon as we can find a planet with enough Aliens to buy them.

post #48 of 60
Well, that was entertaining.

I'd like to thank everybody for coming to the WardC roasting...
post #49 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR View Post

Well, that was entertaining.
I'd like to thank everybody for coming to the WardC roasting...


I think we have been had. Surely no one still thinks that way.

post #50 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcasey View Post

I think it could work out for google - Well as long as apple sells 12.5 billion iphones then there collect 12.5 billion in royalties...and im sure that will happen as soon as we can find a planet with enough Aliens to buy them.


So clever.

post #51 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by WardC View Post

Also, Motorola used to make the processor inside every Macintosh. The 68xxx chip was a Motorola chip, and the PowerPC was an Apple/IBM/Motorola alliance for design and manufacturing the chips. Motorola and Apple used have a great relationship, and Steve Jobs destroyed that when he wanted to produce a phone. That was when Apple computers started using intel processors, the TRUE main reason why Apple ditched PowerPC was over the iPhone and competition with Motorola.

 

The Macintosh would be better today, still running on PowerPC if it were not for the iPhone.

Not every PPC Mac. If I recall, the G5 (PPC 970) was an IBM and Apple designed chip. Motorola and IBM had a disagreement on how to further advance the PPC after the G4 (PPC74xx)  and broke up the alliance. The G5 Macs were introduced around 2002. But the G4 remain in Apple laptops. Both chips (G4 and G5) hit a brick wall in term of increasing speed. But more importantly, in reducing heat and decreasing power consumption. Laptop was just beginning to out sell desktop so Apple went with Intel beginning around 2006. But that decision to switch was made probably made a couple of years before. 

 

So there's no way that the Motorola would be suppling any chips for Apple today. The G5 was not a Motorola chip, even if Apple stuck with it on it's desktops and there's no way that Motorola could design a G4 or (any PPC) that can compete with an Intel chip in laptops. 

post #52 of 60
I'm starting to dislike Apple for what they are doing.
Wireless patents are actually a crucial part in wireless industry. You cannot simply design a good phone and call it a cellphone when it does not have the wireless technology. It may be a hinderance to enter the wireless market, but I still believe Apple should start paying for using all the rights from other companies. Stop stealing stuff Apple!
post #53 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by sp520 View Post

I'm starting to dislike Apple for what they are doing.
Wireless patents are actually a crucial part in wireless industry. You cannot simply design a good phone and call it a cellphone when it does not have the wireless technology. It may be a hinderance to enter the wireless market, but I still believe Apple should start paying for using all the rights from other companies. Stop stealing stuff Apple!

...do you really want to play wackamole? 1oyvey.gif
post #54 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frac View Post

...do you really want to play wackatroll? 1oyvey.gif

Fixed that for you.
post #55 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger View Post

I think we have been had. Surely no one still thinks that way.

Could be a Poe. I don't think it's worth trying to talk sense to someone that didn't use any of the last six years to process the Intel transition when Intel Mac platform proved itself to be superior pretty quickly.

If changing the smart phone market from Blackberries to multitouch devices, and giving people a desire to upgrade from feature phones to smart phones is turning the phone market into "toys", then there's no point in a discussion.

Apple also made tablets a viable market segment. The first year of iPads outsold about a decade's worth of tablets, including one or two pushes for Windows Tablet Edition during that time frame, which failed. I liked Tablet Edition, but it really didn't make a good case for its existence.
post #56 of 60

According to at least one report this morning, Apple's demand for no more than $1 per device royalty may have been a mistake. The trial originally scheduled to begin Monday to set a recommended royalty rate may end up canceled. One high-profile patent blogger says "Apple may have overplayed its hand here with a "heads I win, tails you lose" approach."

 

"Judge Crabb is not willing to order Motorola to make Apple an offer if the sole purpose of that offer may be to provide Apple with a bargaining chip."

 

"Apple faces two challenges at this stage. It needs to address Judge Crabb's concerns at the legal level, but it also needs to avoid coming across as an arrogant litigant who is just trying to use the court system to its advantage, respecting only those decisions it totally agrees with."


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/3/12 at 8:38am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #57 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

According to at least one report this morning, Apple's demand for no more than $1 per device royalty may have been a mistake. The trial originally scheduled to begin Monday to set a recommended royalty rate may end up canceled. One high-profile patent blogger says "Apple may have overplayed its hand here with a "heads I win, tails you lose" approach."

"Judge Crabb is not willing to order Motorola to make Apple an offer if the sole purpose of that offer may be to provide Apple with a bargaining chip."

"Apple faces two challenges at this stage. It needs to address Judge Crabb's concerns at the legal level, but it also needs to avoid coming across as an arrogant litigant who is just trying to use the court system to its advantage, respecting only those decisions it totally agrees with."

Link? What is the name of this high profile patent blogger?
post #58 of 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Link? What is the name of this high profile patent blogger?

There's only one that would come to mind for AI readers isn't there? (Sorry, I meant to link the source with the first post as I normally would)

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/11/next-weeks-apple-google-frand-trial-may.html

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #59 of 60

From the Judge's order following Apple's declaration that they won't necessarily be held to the court's ruling anyway. (By the way the judge is a she. Figured I'd nip that in the bud)

 

 

"Apple’s response was not satisfactory and did not assuage my concerns about determining a FRAND rate that may be used solely as a negotiating tool between the parties...

 

...In light of these observations, I am prepared to conclude that the court will not “declare” a specific FRAND rate for Motorola’s standards-essential patents. This would mean that, with respect to Apple’s breach of contract claim arising from Motorola’s FRAND commitments, the trial would resolve only the issue whether Motorola’s 2.25% licensing offer and subsequent negotiations complied with its FRAND obligations. However, this leads to an obvious question: what purpose would be served by the court’s declaring that Motorola’s actions constituted a breach of its FRAND contracts? Such a declaration would lead to the same situation as a declaration of a particular FRAND rate; the parties would be sent back to the negotiation table to hammer out the details of a license. Further, although a declaration might be useful for Apple as a defense to a future patent infringement suit brought by Motorola, Apple has not shown at this point that future patent infringement suits are likely or that it would be appropriate to declare that Motorola breached its contracts simply to provide Apple a defense in hypothetical future infringement actions. This leads to the question whether any trial should be held on Apple’s breach of contract claim relating to the FRAND contracts.

 

Additionally, these observations lead to the question whether a trial should be held regarding Apple’s other claims."


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/4/12 at 5:41am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #60 of 60

Judge Crabb has now dismissed the entire case with prejudice (which means it can't be filed again with a different court), seeing no reason to continue considering Apple's stance. They aren't going to get the courts help with pressuring Motorola to license under Apple's terms.  In hindsight another error in judgement from Apple's legal team.


Edited by Gatorguy - 11/5/12 at 12:03pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Apple tells court it would pay no more than $1 per iPhone to license Motorola patents
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple tells court it would pay no more than $1 per iPhone to license Motorola patents