or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › FTC: Motorola bid for Apple product injunction 'inappropriate'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

FTC: Motorola bid for Apple product injunction 'inappropriate'

post #1 of 43
Thread Starter 
In an amicus curiae brief filed on Wednesday in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission offered its take on the proper use of so-called standard-essential patents (SEPs) in litigation, saying that a previous district court decision to deny a Motorola injunction of certain Apple products was correct.

The amicus brief made special note that a court-ordered injunction is "ordinarily inappropriate" when a patent holder has already licensed the leveraged properties under fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms. In particular, the FTC's most recent brief pertains to the claims Motorola asserted against Apple's iPhone and iPad, which allegedly infringe on certain wireless patents.

From an FTC statement regarding the brief:

It concludes that a district court correctly applied the governing legal principles when it dismissed Motorola?s request for an injunction that could have blocked Apple from selling iPhones and iPads in the United States.

According to the body, companies can use the specter of an injunction to manipulate competition in a practice called "patent hold-up." Once a patent becomes an SEP, its owner can threaten legal action and sales bans to net unusually high royalty rates and licensing terms that would previously have been impossible if the IP was not considered essential.

FTC Logo


At issue is how companies take advantage of the standard setting process, which is overseen by organizations that most times require FRAND practices be instituted in return for receiving SEP status. The FTC concedes that some patent holders may not always find agreeable licensing terms, however instead of seeking an outright injunction, the Commission believes the correct way for a court to deal with such a snag is to allow only monetary damages.

"This is generally the proper approach, because allowing a patent holder to seek an injunction on a SEP can facilitate patent-holdup, which can raise prices to consumers, while undermining the standard-setting process," the FTC said.

Going further, if an injunction were to be instated, it would do more harm to the party accused than not winning an injunction would harm the plaintiff. Besides the obvious negative impact on consumers who would no longer be able to purchase devices like the iPhone, injunctions involving SEPs would be detrimental to standards setting, as well as industry growth from companies that innovate on a given standard.

Out of the five member of the Commission, four agreed with the amicus brief, with Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen being the lone holdout.

Google-owned Motorola has been the target of other FTC actions recently, including a staff recommendation to the organization's five-member Commission to sue the company over alleged SEP-related antitrust practices. It was also announced in June that the FTC was formally investigating whether the internet search giant was illegally using standard-essential patents acquired from its $12.5 billion takeover of Motorola against smartphone competitors.

post #2 of 43

The correct stance too. SEP's should not be susceptible to injunction demands except in the most extreme cases where a proven infringer simply refuses to pay for a license.

 

That should help Samsung as well with Ericsson also demanding an injunction for supposed Sammy infringement on their SEP's. It's only a matter of time before Nokia too will make the same injunction demands on another mobile device provider using FRAND-pledged IP, same as they did with Apple several months ago. They're only going to get more aggressive in their patent monetization.

 

It would be great to get an actual court ruling that SEP injunctions are generally disallowed except in very specific cases. FTC opinions don't cut it.


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/5/12 at 4:41pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #3 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The correct stance too. SEP's should not be susceptible to injunction demands except in the most extreme cases where a proven infringer simply refuses to pay for a license.

 

That should help Samsung as well with Ericsson also demanding an injunction for supposed Sammy infringement on their SEP's. It's only a matter of time before Nokia too will make the same injunction demands on another mobile device provider using FRAND-pledged IP, same as they did with Apple several months ago. They're only going to get more aggressive in their patent monetization.

 

It would be great to get an actual court ruling that SEP injunctions are generally disallowed except in very specific cases. FTC opinions don't cut it.

 

The Ericsson case is interesting, Samsung's lawyers will be arguing one view against Apple and the opposite view against Ericsson.

 

Samsung's refusal to renew Ericsson's previously existing licensing arrangements also puts them into a different class than Apple, whose existing licenses via chipmakers were rescinded by Samsung.

 

It came out in some of the Ericsson cases that Apple reached license agreement with them a long time ago.

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 #4 of 43
$12.5 billion. For Motorola and its FRAND-encumbered patents.
Maybe Google's executive team should look up "due diligence."
I'm sure it's right there in Wikipedia.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #5 of 43
As it should. Amen.
post #6 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

$12.5 billion. For Motorola and its FRAND-encumbered patents.
Maybe Google's executive team should look up "due diligence."
I'm sure it's right there in Wikipedia.

 

If Apple (and Microsoft) had agreed to Motorola's extortionate license demands without a fight, the $12.5 Billion would almost have been recouped by now.

 

Then Motorola was also threatening to sue other Android OEM's, Google was played like a small town hick visiting the city for the first time.

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 #7 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

The Ericsson case is interesting, Samsung's lawyers will be arguing one view against Apple and the opposite view against Ericsson.

 

Samsung's refusal to renew Ericsson's previously existing licensing arrangements also puts them into a different class than Apple, whose existing licenses via chipmakers were rescinded by Samsung.

 

It came out in some of the Ericsson cases that Apple reached license agreement with them a long time ago.

I wish Florian Mueller were more consistent on this point. In general he's giving Ericsson a pass, with short shrift given to discussing their SEP injunction demands. When it came to Nokia asking for an injunction on Apple products over FRAND patents it was barely mentioned. The fact that Microsoft's business partner Nokia went before the UN panel discussing FRAND policy and said injunctions were a proper remedy never even got mentioned by him. It appears he only considers injunction demands over standards-essential patents to be outrageous when the entity holds an Android license. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #8 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

$12.5 billion. For Motorola and its FRAND-encumbered patents.
Maybe Google's executive team should look up "due diligence."
I'm sure it's right there in Wikipedia.

Good call, but I think Schmidt's inability to understand Apple's legal tactics indicates that they just project their own preferences
onto everything around them. They wanted the Motorola patents to be able to harm Apple, so when they did their "due diligence",
they concluded they would.

In the meantime, I wish the news stories would refer to the plaintiff as Google, rather than the name of their cellphone division.
post #9 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

If Apple (and Microsoft) had agreed to Motorola's extortionate license demands without a fight, the $12.5 Billion would almost have been recouped by now.

 

FWIW Google only valued Motorola's IP at about $5B. Not that it matters really.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #10 of 43

 

700


Edited by GTR - 12/5/12 at 6:13pm
If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
Reply
If you want to make enemies, try to change something.
Reply
post #11 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

The correct stance too. SEP's should not be susceptible to injunction demands except in the most extreme cases where a proven infringer simply refuses to pay for a license.
What if a patent holder makes a ridiculous demand and the "infringer" refuses to pay that demand? Would that count as "extreme"? Should Samsung be able to ask for the moon knowing they won't get it and then seek an injunction?
post #12 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


What if a patent holder makes a ridiculous demand and the "infringer" refuses to pay that demand? Would that count as "extreme"? Should Samsung be able to ask for the moon knowing they won't get it and then seek an injunction?

I can't imagine a court would deem an injunction appropriate for a "ridiculous" demand. That's why the courts handle it.

 

Of course that doesn't mean that the infringer won't consider something as minimal as a dollar a device "ridiculous", potentially inviting an injunction if they refuse a court-determined license for such a tiny amount.1wink.gif On the other hand thinking $30 per device is a realistic licensing demand would plainly be ridiculous.


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/5/12 at 6:14pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I can't imagine a court would deem an injunction appropriate for a "ridiculous" demand. That's why the courts handle it.

Which gets you back to needing binding arbitration rather than injunctive relief, no?
post #14 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

What if a patent holder makes a ridiculous demand and the "infringer" refuses to pay that demand? Would that count as "extreme"? Should Samsung be able to ask for the moon knowing they won't get it and then seek an injunction?

IF the 'offending' party tried to get a license and was asked for something they felt was outside of FRAND, the FTC is saying that injunctions before the suit should not be allowed. After, if it turns out the terms were deemed okay, sure an injunction is merited if the fees aren't paid or some other deal reached

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 #15 of 43

"I will make it legal." -- Darth Sidious.

"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 #16 of 43
One bullet to kill, but now the bullet becomes mere a thorn.
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
Fun and relaxing way to prepare Japanese Language Proficiency Test (JLPT) test with Juku Apps
Reply
post #17 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

FWIW Google only valued Motorola's IP at about $5B. Not that it matters really.

 

If Apple and Microsoft conceded to Motorola's demands for 2.X% on gross sales of finished products payable at least twice for separate groups of standards essential patents encompassing cellular, wifi and H.264, Google would have made more than $5 Billion in the first year in license fees.

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 #18 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I can't imagine a court would deem an injunction appropriate for a "ridiculous" demand. That's why the courts handle it.

 

Of course that doesn't mean that the infringer won't consider something as minimal as a dollar a device "ridiculous", potentially inviting an injunction if they refuse a court-determined license for such a tiny amount.1wink.gif On the other hand thinking $30 per device is a realistic licensing demand would plainly be ridiculous.

 

For many standards essential patents $1 is ridiculously high, seeing as how they are usually factored in to the cost of the chip that actually makes use of them, not the total price of the finished device.

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 #19 of 43
Lol

So google question why apple isn't suing them directly for ripping them off.

Yet they sue apple directly (albeit in cowardice using their Motorola brand) for no reason at all.

Google's new motto. "be evil. Just wear white."
post #20 of 43

The scales and wings in the logo look like a face making a drôle expression, especially with the heavy lower lids glancing sideways and the curled mouth.

 

post #21 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


What if a patent holder makes a ridiculous demand and the "infringer" refuses to pay that demand? Would that count as "extreme"? Should Samsung be able to ask for the moon knowing they won't get it and then seek an injunction?

 

 

Oh that's easy. As Samsung has already done to Apple, with regarding the HTC agreement, force the demanding party to allow the court to review, in closed session, all previous agreements. 

 

That's the catch.. Now that the precident for allowing a court to see agreements (and the price set) has been set, the court could demand to see all and truly see if they are gouging. Now making those demands is dangerous, and likely not to hold up. No more of this BS.. kids caught with hands in the cookie jar! 

 

Good on the courts I say.

post #22 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

Google's new motto. "be evil. Just wear white."

 

Or pasty orange.

 

"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 #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

If Apple (and Microsoft) had agreed to Motorola's extortionate license demands without a fight, the $12.5 Billion would almost have been recouped by now.

 

FWIW Google only valued Motorola's IP at about $5B. Not that it matters really.

 

Google's estimates are not worth anything. They didn't buy just the IP and how is the rest worth $7.5B when they are loosing a ton of money despite any royalties they may be making already? 

post #24 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

$12.5 billion. For Motorola and its FRAND-encumbered patents.
Maybe Google's executive team should look up "due diligence."
I'm sure it's right there in Wikipedia.

 

Perhaps they should Google it...

post #25 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

For many standards essential patents $1 is ridiculously high, seeing as how they are usually factored in to the cost of the chip that actually makes use of them, not the total price of the finished device.

Example?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

If Apple and Microsoft conceded to Motorola's demands for 2.X% on gross sales of finished products payable at least twice for separate groups of standards essential patents encompassing cellular, wifi and H.264, Google would have made more than $5 Billion in the first year in license fees.

You've been reading too much Microsoft FUD served up by Mr. Mueller. Moto has been licensing those patents for quite awhile (as packages of patents applicable to specific standards) with no evidence of multi-billion profits, and courts submissions show there's a maximum royalty provision that kicks in. That's similar to some Microsoft patent-license requirements. I don't think FOSSPatents ever bothered to mention that, but it was reported by at least one other law blog. There was never a demand for billions in royalties from MS unless you have a link to one that proves otherwise. Microsoft's legal made that one up and Mueller was all too happy to publicize it.

 

Microsoft and Apple's aim is simply to neuter the value of any opposing IP as much as possible to maximize their own IP value in any license negotiations. That's where they feel the billions will be, and not floating in Moto's direction either.

 

They're counting on the courts to assist them rather than rely on traditional business-to-business negotiations. IMHO, to do so the attorneys (and one supporting blogger) need to portray the other side as completely unreasonable and their own clients as willing but abused licensees begging for the courts protection.


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/6/12 at 4:19am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #27 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

For many standards essential patents $1 is ridiculously high, seeing as how they are usually factored in to the cost of the chip that actually makes use of them, not the total price of the finished device.

The licensing is also factored into the cost of the chip so even one cent is too high because of patent exhaustion.

Which for things like 3G is probably as it should be. Qualcomm etc pay the licensing to build the chips that need the patent to work and exhaust the need to license for the buyers. It's fair, reasonable and since they don't know the end buyer they can discriminate.

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 #28 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


The licensing is also factored into the cost of the chip so even one cent is too high because of patent exhaustion.
Which for things like 3G is probably as it should be. Qualcomm etc pay the licensing to build the chips that need the patent to work and exhaust the need to license for the buyers. It's fair, reasonable and since they don't know the end buyer they can discriminate.

Have you ever read Qualcomm's licensing agreement? I've linked it a few times for the forum members.  I suggest it might be a good idea to read it to correct any mis-understanding on what they're basing the royalty payments on. It's not just pennies, nor based on the chip price alone, nor are all contributors to various standards included in the license.

 

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

 

Note too that Motorola's claims include the Infineon based products used previous to Qualcomm's in the latest Apple gear. There's no claim of patent exhaustion attached to those AFAIK.


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/6/12 at 6:35am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #29 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Example?

 

Qualcomm

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 #30 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Have you ever read Qualcomm's licensing agreement? I've linked it a few times for the forum members.  I suggest it might be a good idea to read it to correct any mis-understanding on what they're basing the royalty payments on. It's not just pennies, nor based on the chip price alone, nor are all contributors to various standards included in the license.

 

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

 

Note too that Motorola's claims include the Infineon based products used previous to Qualcomm's in the latest Apple gear. There's no claim of patent exhaustion attached to those AFAIK.

 

No because Motorola rescinded their license agreements specifically when the chips were sold to Apple.

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 #31 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

No because Motorola rescinded their license agreements specifically when the chips were sold to Apple.

I understood it was pulled for that chipset period, not just for Apple. I don't believe even Apple's counsel is claiming Apple was singled out. That's what I found when researching it. Again I think you're depending solely on FOSSPatents for your news. Do some independent looking. The only thing you're going to find at FP are details that reinforce his clients, or at least aren't at odds with them.

 

You've never wondered why you can't find a single article there with even the most minor criticism of Microsoft, or even one lone pro-Android or pro-Google (or at least not anti-Google) article in his many hundreds of blogs? The answer why should be pretty darn obvious, and it's not because Microsoft has never done any wrong or Google has never done any right.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I wish Florian Mueller were more consistent on this point. In general he's giving Ericsson a pass, with short shrift given to discussing their SEP injunction demands. When it came to Nokia asking for an injunction on Apple products over FRAND patents it was barely mentioned. The fact that Microsoft's business partner Nokia went before the UN panel discussing FRAND policy and said injunctions were a proper remedy never even got mentioned by him. It appears he only considers injunction demands over standards-essential patents to be outrageous when the entity holds an Android license. 

I think you missed some Fosspatents posts, bc he did call out Nokia for their stance at the ITU.

Also many of the documents between Nokia and Apple were never made public. They never went to trial so I assume Apple got a deal that they could live with, rather than drawn out litigation and uncertainty.

Samsung VS Ericsson. I didn't read it like Ericsson was getting a pass, more like Samsung was being a hypocrit, but he didn't support SEP injunctions for either. If Samsung wants to use SEP injunctions against Apple, then they can't complain about someone else using the same strategy against them.

Whether you like Florian or not, at least he tries to make rational arguements for his readers.

Groklaw has spiraled into a poor excuse for "Truth" ever since the Oracle VS Google trial. Most comments on the site lack any understanding of law, business, or critical thinking.
post #33 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post


I think you missed some Fosspatents posts, bc he did call out Nokia for their stance at the ITU.

Link please? Certainly possible I missed one. 

 

FWIW I agree that his views are well-supported by the facts he's uses, very rationally argued. Oddly he's never once had anything to criticize Microsoft for. 'Suppose it's possible they've not done anything wrong in years in his view. 1confused.gif Nor has Oracle for that matter.

 

I also agree with you that Groklaw is increasing anti-Microsoft, tho I wouldn't go so far as to say the most of the comments lack understanding. Florian doesn't even allow comments, nor respond positively to "inconvenient" questions. Add too that Groklaw is much more likely to print the actual documents with links and court-orders, with Mr. Mueller preferring to "explain it for you" in most cases. If you struggle to understand what the parties have said and written and the context of those, FOSSPatents 3T's approach is easier to digest and requires less thought.

 

Personally I use a lot of different sources, from the two you mentioned to blogs like PatentlyO, KluwerPatentBlog, and IPWatchdog

 

(Thanks to Dick Applebaum for the 3T's)


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/6/12 at 9:18am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 43

GG, ever the subtle troll asking questions nobody cares about.

 

You know why Florian doesn't allow comments? Because his blog would be filled with thousands upon thousands of garbage posts by trolls. A comment system would serve no useful purpose other than to give losers a place to spew more of their hatred and BS. Yet people are trying to spin it to make it seem like Florian doesn't want to have any criticism of his views and that's the reason there's no commenting.

 

You know why Groklaw isn't filled with troll posts? It's the same reason Android forums aren't. Because Apple fans can't be bothered to spend all their time posting junk in Android discussion forums. MacRumors, AI and many other Apple sites attract trolls like flies on.... But anyone who spends time in Android forums realizes trolls are far less common (though there will always be some). This is a simple fact that Android fans/Apple haters refuse to accept. Their party line is "when Apple users stop posting in our threads, we'll stop posting in Apple threads".

 

 

As to your claim that Motorola isn't really asking for billions from MS, where's your proof? You criticize Florian for his $4 billion figure, yet you offer NO PROOF WHATSOEVER to support your argument. Do you have Motorola license agreements from other companies that show how much they're getting? You claim there's a "maximum royalty provision" that kicks in, but can you tell anyone exactly what it entails? Did Moto ask for 2.25% with a maximum cap (like MPEG LA does)? What is this maximum royalty cap? How come Motorola hasn't mentioned the "cap" in their court case with MS? The only thing we know is Moto wants 2.25%, and with that bit of information Florian's $4 billion estimate is the most accurate until such time as more details emerge.

 

You accuse Florian of FUD, but you're the largest purveyer of FUD in these forums.

post #35 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

GG, ever the subtle troll asking questions nobody cares about.

 

...As to your claim that Motorola isn't really asking for billions from MS, where's your proof? You criticize Florian for his $4 billion figure, yet you offer NO PROOF WHATSOEVER to support your argument. Do you have Motorola license agreements from other companies that show how much they're getting? You claim there's a "maximum royalty provision" that kicks in, but can you tell anyone exactly what it entails? Did Moto ask for 2.25% with a maximum cap (like MPEG LA does)? What is this maximum royalty cap? How come Motorola hasn't mentioned the "cap" in their court case with MS? 

I'll rarely make posts that include potentially questionable points and/or "facts" without having backing for what I've said. 

 

Quoting Motorola's position, as filed in a joint Moto/MS pre-trial briefing with the court:
 
"The RAND royalty for a license to Motorola’s H.264 SEPs is 2.25% of the net 
selling price (“NSP”) of licensed products (e.g., Microsoft’s Xbox 360 or Windows OS software), 
based on a hypothetical negotiation between the parties considering the relevant evidence (e.g., 
Motorola’s past licenses, the strength and value of Motorola’s patents, and the use of Motorola’s 
patents by Microsoft). Based on that same evidence, an appropriate cap should apply to any net 
royalties payable to Motorola. The royalty due to Motorola would be offset by a RAND royalty for 
a license to Microsoft’s H.264 SEPs which also is 2.25% of the NSP of licensed products (e.g., 
Motorola’s smartphones and set-top boxes), based on a hypothetical negotiation between the 
parties considering the relevant evidence (e.g., the relative strength and value of Microsoft’s 
patents and the use of Microsoft’s patents by Microsoft). . . "
 
"...Based on the royalty rates discussed above for the parties’ H.264 portfolios and 
each party’s relative exposure, Microsoft would owe royalties as set forth in Motorola Proposed 
Finding of Fact 472(h). However, the parties would have agreed to a reasonable cap as set forth in 
Motorola Proposed Finding of Fact 472(i). Depending on the structure for payment, a running 
royalty for Windows would be as set forth in Motorola Proposed Finding of Fact 472(j)"
 
As for your question about the licensing rates paid by some other Motorola standards licensees the general answer is in the June 6th court ruling denying Microsoft motion for summary judgement. In it the trial judge acknowledges:
 
"Motorola has provided the court with a spreadsheet of more than 50 completed licenses that include one or more of the
patents in Motorola’s 802.11 and H.264 portfolios" and that "Motorola has presented the court with numerous licensing agreements suggesting that it has received comparable 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."
 
(emphasis mine)
 
 
By the way, you forgot to post your reasoned explanation for there not being even a single sentence criticism of Microsoft nor one single positive Google article in the hundreds he's written at FOSSPatents. That should lead any reasonable reader to conclude that Mr. Mueller may well be playing favorites, with the related likelihood that anything detrimental to Microsoft's position will go unreported given the first statement to be true.
 
You've never seemed to be an unintelligent person Eric, based on your numerous posts, so you certainly must have questioned what he's leaving out. Mueller offers some good info (I read him every day), but he's not always telling you the whole story nor is Groklaw for that matter. IMO he's serving it up in a way that casts his paid clients in the most positive light, and their opponents in the worst possible. 
 
 If you really want to get a clearer view of the big picture, look around a bit. There's quite often more of the story out there than what Mr. Mueller would prefer you know.

 

EDIT: I'll mention I was wrong about Florian Mueller not noting Motorola's offer of a royalty cap. He did comment on it, but dismissed it with comments that it might not be consistent with Moto's position from a couple years back. It certainly wouldn't be helpful to his client for him to portray Motos cap offer as reasonable and helpful, now would it?.


Edited by Gatorguy - 12/6/12 at 5:40pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post


Which gets you back to needing binding arbitration rather than injunctive relief, no?

Absolutely correct. That's the route Apple should have taken when offered in their SEP-licensing curtuffle with Moto IMHO. By rejecting the idea they've left the impression that a fair and reasonable royalty wan't what they really wanted to begin with.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Absolutely correct. That's the route Apple should have taken when offered in their SEP-licensing curtuffle with Moto IMHO. By rejecting the idea they've left the impression that a fair and reasonable royalty wan't what they really wanted to begin with.

 

That's a better way of solving such a matter anyway. It should be decided by neutral parties who actually understand the agreements and patents.

post #38 of 43

GG, none of what you posted contains any figures. Sure they mention a cap, but nowhere do they give a value of what the cap would be either in fixed dollars or number of units. Mentioning a cap without numbers is meaningless.

 

Likewise, where are the copies of the license agreements Motorola supplied to the court that supports their position? Your post implies that 2.25% is something Motorola charges every customer and is standard practice. If this was actually true, then Microsoft would have no case at all and this whole thing should have been thrown out. The very fact that MS is fighting so hard despite this overwhelming evidence that everyone pays 2.25% speaks volumes for what's actually contained in those agreements.

 

I did not forget about Florian's comments regarding MS. Where is it written that I must repsond to every single thing you or anyone else comments on?

 

Of course Florian has bias. All writers do to some extent. He's only once source (of many) I use when trying to keep track of what's going on in these cases.

post #39 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

 

Of course Florian has bias. All writers do to some extent. He's only once source (of many) I use when trying to keep track of what's going on in these cases.

Kudos then.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #40 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Link please? Certainly possible I missed one. 

FWIW I agree that his views are well-supported by the facts he's uses, very rationally argued. Oddly he's never once had anything to criticize Microsoft for. 'Suppose it's possible they've not done anything wrong in years in his view. 1confused.gif  Nor has Oracle for that matter.

I also agree with you that Groklaw is increasing anti-Microsoft, tho I wouldn't go so far as to say the most of the comments lack understanding. Florian doesn't even allow comments, nor respond positively to "inconvenient" questions. Add too that Groklaw is much more likely to print the actual documents with links and court-orders, with Mr. Mueller preferring to "explain it for you" in most cases. If you struggle to understand what the parties have said and written and the context of those, FOSSPatents 3T's approach is easier to digest and requires less thought.

Personally I use a lot of different sources, from the two you mentioned to blogs like PatentlyO, KluwerPatentBlog, and IPWatchdog

(Thanks to Dick Applebaum for the 3T's)

I prefer to read all sources too.

As for the FOSS link, it's an article somewhere on the blog where he criticizes Nokia. He mentions watching live internet streaming of the UN ITU open sessions and then rightfully complains that the ITU was holding a day or 2 of closed doors sessions. Those close door sessions favored private companies rather than the world population, which the UN ITU is supposed represent.

I'll post again on the Moto FRAND arguement but their first 2.4% offer is ridiculous. Will Moto ask Airbus or Boeing for $2.4 million for each $100 million aircraft that has an entertainment system that plays back interlaced h.264? Maybe an additional $2.4 for each $100 million aircraft that also includes wifi?

Does Moto deserve anywhere near $4.8 million for each of these $100 million aircraft.

If you subscribe to Groklaw and PJ's thinking, the answer is yes.

That's the fanboy world view I wand to avoid.

GG, I enjoy your thoughtful input, sometimes we agree, sometimes not, but good discussion.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › FTC: Motorola bid for Apple product injunction 'inappropriate'