FTC: Motorola bid for Apple product injunction 'inappropriate' - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacepower 


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.

I know exactly what article you're referring to, having read it when he first put it up. I don't believe he ever named Nokia, tho it was plain to me they were one of the companies he was "disappointed with" having already read their position statement (among others) filed in advance of the meetings.

EDIT: I believe this is the article you refer to. Reading thru it I see him loudly call out Motorola. He complains about Google policy at length. Of course he goes on about Android (which has nothing to do with the proceedings in any way). Strangely Nokia, Qualcomm. Ericsson, General Electric, Proctor&Gamble and others submitting the same general opinion to the UN on SEP's and injunctions aren't named at all, even tho he's aware of them and refers to them anonymously as just "companies".

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/10/un-agencys-roundtable-on-wireless.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by SockRolid 

$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.

IIRC, Google paid the same exact price per patent buying Motorola, as Apple did going in on buying those Nortel patents.

The difference is, Motorola came with $3 billion in cash reserves AND a handheld company AND a settop box company, all of which are assets that can be used or sold to offset the patent price.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hill60 

 

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.

Not true for ETSI related patents.

For example, Qualcomm charges 3.4% of a device's price for their radio patents.  Motorola's starting 2.25% seems a deal in comparison.

Charging by device price is the way it's always been done by ETSI members.  The reason purportedly was to help stimulate the adoption of cell phones by encouraging makers to create lower priced units.  And that part worked really well.  The world adopted cell phones and built towers and billions of customers.  Without all the Samsungs and others making inexpensive phones for the world, Apple would not have such a huge installed base market to sell to.

Now, we can argue that it seems unfair (it's actually fair to those making lower priced phones that sometimes only have a profit margin of a handful of dollars), but nobody can claim that Apple isn't being treated exactly the same as everyone else.   Apple just (understandably) doesn't want to be like everyone else and share their patents to get the royalties down.

FWIW Google will likely drop injunction requests attached to subsidiary Motorola's SEP lawsuits within the next couple of weeks according to rumors. Probably about the same time the FTC will say they agree that injunctions might be an appropriate remedy but only in the case of a company being unwilling to negotiate a FRAND license under any conditions, period.

IMO, that's the way it should be.