or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › EU rules Google's Motorola abused patents in seeking injunction against Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

EU rules Google's Motorola abused patents in seeking injunction against Apple - Page 2

post #41 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Okay, there is a lot of confusion going around.

The way I understand it, Google is behaving monopolistically in the same way that Microsoft behaved so in the 1990s. This makes sense, because although alternatives to their product exist, Google has a market presence that gives the capability of abuse.

A patent is a timed monopoly on an implementation of the execution of an idea. It is not a monopoly on said idea itself. A patent can be used to create a monopoly in a market (which is wholly different from the monopoly granted via the patent itself), but monopolies may arise in other ways.

That a government grants a patent that then leads to monopolistic behavior does not exempt the holder in question from punishment for said behavior, because said behavior is not an eventuality of the existence of a patent.

jragosta or someone else who actually knows what they're talking about firsthand, tell me where I'm wrong. lol.gif

The big difference being that Google is abusing a government given monopolistic power with the understanding that it would license fairly. They wanted to charge Apple what I call the "white boy price", which I jokingly tell my black friends whenever I feel I was overly charged for something in a minority neighborhood.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #42 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


The big difference being that Google is abusing a government given monopolistic power with the understanding that it would license fairly. They wanted to charge Apple what I call the "white boy price", which I jokingly tell my black friends whenever I feel I was overly charged for something in a minority neighborhood.

Google had nothing to do with the lawsuits in fact. It simply inherited some Motorola legal actions that are still moving towards resolutions.

 

Since Google is now the new owner and there's a chance for a new start it would be nice if all three, Apple, Microsoft and Google could find a way to do a reboot and drop their existing IP claims against one another but that ain't gonna happen. Google is tasked with cleaning up a mess that Moto got themselves into. It comes with the purchase. With that said Google themselves haven't sued Apple or Microsoft and thus could hardly be abusively wielding their IP with respect to those two. With any luck Google will continue to show restraint and avoid tit-for-tat IP infringement suits.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/6/13 at 6:44pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #43 of 80
^ Bull. Google released an official statement backing Motorola's actions and supporting their decisions. They could have settled this long ago if they wanted. There's no rule that says once a court case starts it needs to run its course, therefore your implication Google had nothing to do with Motorola's actions is wrong.

Google was happy to let Motorola sue "on their behalf" while watching fom the sidelines.

And we haven't even touched on the WebM angle. I doubt it's a coincidence Google wanted its codec to displace H.264 and Motorola was trying to make H.264 "less desirable" by making license fees expensive.

You can go on and on about Google not "directly" suing anyone, but it's all semantics. Google is just as guilty as Motorola in all these proceedings.
post #44 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

The big difference being that Google is abusing a government given monopolistic power with the understanding that it would license fairly. They wanted to charge Apple what I call the "white boy price", which I jokingly tell my black friends whenever I feel I was overly charged for something in a minority neighborhood.

 

Again, you might recall the US case last year when Motorola agreed to a judge deciding Apple's royalty rate, instead of the 2.25% that Moto usually started negotiations with.  Instead of agreeing to this incredibly fair offer, Apple refused to go along unless the rate was $1 or below.

 

So no, Motorola is not abusing rates since they were willing to accept whatever a judge came up with.

 

Apple, on the other hand, clearly demonstrated that they were not only unwilling to accept FRAND rates as determined by an unbiased judge, they were simply using the courts to try to negotiate a lower rate than anyone else.  Realizing that Apple's lawsuit claim of unfair rates was just a ruse, the judge dismissed Apple's case with prejudice.

 

Even Foss Patents wrote that it was a mistake;  that this judge was as fair a rate arbiter as Apple could ask for, and that Apple missed a golden opportunity.

post #45 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

EU to Google: don't be evil

It's kind of hard for them not to be.  It's their business model.  Selling ads, allowing people to toss up copyright infringement videos on YouTube, they don't even answer their phones. I tried to call YouTube and NO ONE answered.  Yeah, like they really care about customer service.


Never will I buy a product that Google sells. EVER.  I don't even use their software that much because they have horrible user interfaces.

post #46 of 80
"I think that companies should spend their time innovating and competing on the merits of the products they offer %u2014 not misusing their intellectual property rights to hold up competitors to the detriment of innovation and consumer choice," Joaquin Almunia, the E.U. competition commissioner, said in a statement on the matter on Monday.

And no apple fan sees the irony in this statement. It saves their butt in Europe, but they look the other way when their beloved company exploit this very tactic here in America. SMH

And the worst part about it is that not a single person even acknowledges that Apple was INDEED using Motorola's patents without licensing them, the very same thing they claim all android manufacturers have been doing to Apple for years. and now that the tables are turned, you all think Apple is in the right and Motorola is in the wrong. It REALLY makes me LMFAO
Edited by ukjb - 5/7/13 at 4:59am
post #47 of 80

deleted


Edited by MacRulez - 7/24/13 at 10:49am
post #48 of 80
Originally Posted by ukjb View Post
…and now that the tables are turned…

 

Why do you think anything you're saying makes sense?

 

And why so many acronyms? Just type it out.

post #49 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukjb View Post

"I think that companies should spend their time innovating and competing on the merits of the products they offer %u2014 not misusing their intellectual property rights to hold up competitors to the detriment of innovation and consumer choice," Joaquin Almunia, the E.U. competition commissioner, said in a statement on the matter on Monday.

And no apple fan sees the irony in this statement. It saves their butt in Europe, but they look the other way when their beloved company exploit this very tactic here in America. SMH

And the worst part about it is that not a single person even acknowledges that Apple was INDEED using Motorola's patents without licensing them, the very same thing they claim all android manufacturers have been doing to Apple for years. and now that the tables are turned, you all think Apple is in the right and Motorola is in the wrong. It REALLY makes me LMFAO

SEP are different than non-SEP. Apple has innovated hence its patents. It deserves the right to defend its property and prevent the blatant copying.
post #50 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Why do you think anything you're saying makes sense?

 

And why so many acronyms? Just type it out.

i used two acronyms... is that too many for you to count to or are you just against using acronyms altogether? i bet if you're tired of reading them and you'd like them to be translated, there's an app for that.

post #51 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


SEP are different than non-SEP. Apple has innovated hence its patents. It deserves the right to defend its property and prevent the blatant copying.

 

So you honestly think that Motorola who spent all the time and money into developing the technology that is now required to operate smartphones (part of the GPRS standard, which is in turn part of the rather important GSM cellular standard.) should not have the right to injunctive relief over Apple who has been using this technology for years without paying for it. And yet REFUSED to pay for it when confronted with an offer.

-BUT-

When Samsung et al. develops a smartphone with rectangles and rounded corners (a completely retarded patent) Apple automatically deserves the right to injunctive relief over something so trivial as that?

 

what about the slide to unlock patent that was recently preliminarily invalidated? do you think Apple deserves the damages from Samsung on a patent that will ultimately not exist anymore?

Their pinch to zoom patent? same boat... preliminarily invalidated but Apple is demanding damages on it before it is finalized at the USPTO

 

the "Steve Jobs" patent: “touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics.” .... you guessed it... same boat.  But for some reason... Apple thinks it is moral to go after Samsung for damages on all these patents that will eventually be invalidated. 

What i'm saying is Apple is not the great innovative company you think they are. They were awarded a bunch of absurd patents that are now being invalidated because the thermonuclear war has shown light onto how ridiculous some of their patents are.


Edited by ukjb - 5/7/13 at 7:53am
post #52 of 80
Originally Posted by ukjb View Post
…are you just against using acronyms altogether?

 

Primarily against Internet slang, myself.

post #53 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Primarily against Internet slang, myself.

then don't use the internet. or at least shy away from blogs... you're going to get there wherever you go

post #54 of 80
Originally Posted by ukjb View Post
then don't use the internet.

 

Hilarious! Do you work for Google, by chance? 


…or at least shy away from blogs… 

 

Dear heavens, do I ever.

post #55 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Hilarious! Do you work for Google, by chance? 

 

I wish... that'd be a sweet gig. Not sure how you came to that conclusion though... if i worked for Google, wouldn't i want you to stay on the internet and make my company more money?

post #56 of 80
Originally Posted by ukjb View Post
…if i worked for Google, wouldn't i want you to stay on the internet and make my company more money?


That's a very good point. You should probably tell the Anti-Apple Brigade to get their act together in that regard. lol.gif

 

I refer, of course, to the "well, just don't use that website" crowd who thinks not using the Internet at all is a valid response to Google's invasive and illegal advertisements and monitoring of computer use.

post #57 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

SEP are different than non-SEP. Apple has innovated hence its patents. It deserves the right to defend its property and prevent the blatant copying.

 

FRAND does not mean free.

 

SEP holders have also spent time and money innovating (and cooperating with others on a standard) and likewise have the right to prevent copying without licensing.  

 

FRAND patents are actually better long term strategically, since they've almost always stood up to court tests, and have a history of steady payments.  More importantly, since you cannot build a device for that standard without using them, it's very difficult to claim you are not using them.

 

Non-FRAND patents are often better used tactically, as a delaying tactic, since competitors can usually figure out a way around them.  Plus they're sometimes invalidated once challenged.   The holder could be smarter to try to get a small license fee.  Look at Microsoft:  by licensing ActiveSync instead of keeping it to themselves, they made it into a de facto standard with steady revenue.

post #58 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukjb View Post

So you honestly think that Motorola who spent all the time and money into developing the technology that is now required to operate smartphones (part of the GPRS standard
, which is in turn part of the rather important GSM cellular standard.) 
should not have the right to injunctive relief over Apple who has been using this technology for years without paying for it. And yet REFUSED to pay for it when confronted with an offer.

-BUT-
When Samsung et al. develops a smartphone with rectangles and rounded corners (a completely retarded patent) Apple automatically deserves the right to injunctive relief over something so trivial as that?

...

Apple didn't want to be extorted because they were more successful than Moto in the smartphone market. Apple has always been willing to pay a REASONABLE rate.

Btw: the rounded corner rectangle patent wasn't on trial. The iPhone trade dress was. Just like no one else can use the curvy coke bottle, no one else should be able to use the iPhone design. Why do Fandroids seem to forget this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

FRAND does not mean free.

SEP holders have also spent time and money innovating (and cooperating with others on a standard) and likewise have the right to prevent copying without licensing.  

FRAND patents are actually better long term strategically, since they've almost always stood up to court tests, and have a history of steady payments.  More importantly, since you cannot build a device for that standard without using them, it's very difficult to claim you are not using them.

Non-FRAND patents are often better used tactically, as a delaying tactic, since competitors can usually figure out a way around them.  Plus they're sometimes invalidated once challenged.   The holder could be smarter to try to get a small license fee.  Look at Microsoft:  by licensing ActiveSync instead of keeping it to themselves, they made it into a de facto standard with steady revenue.

Who said they were free in the first place? Moto offered them to be part of a standard tech and accept the fair and reasonable licensing terms. Moto is trying to extort a higher rate from Apple simply because Moto has fallen behind the iPhone.

Why should Apple license its non SEP? It's a competitive advantage that other companies shouldn't steal.
post #59 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Apple didn't want to be extorted because they were more successful than Moto in the smartphone market. Apple has always been willing to pay a REASONABLE rate.

 

Apple has only been willing to pay a fee that THEY consider reasonable.  

 

More to the point, Apple doesn't want to play by the same rules as everyone else.  They entered a field with its own rules and decided they didn't like them.

 

Instead, Apple wants special treatment.  Unlike everyone else who has licensed ETSI patents for decades, Apple wanted royalties based on a tiny part of the overall device, and for lower prices.

 

We can debate the fairness of that all we want, but Apple was not treated differently, and THAT is really why Apple was upset.  They want to be treated differently.

 

 

Quote:
Who said they were free in the first place? Moto offered them to be part of a standard tech and accept the fair and reasonable licensing terms. Moto is trying to extort a higher rate from Apple simply because Moto has fallen behind the iPhone.

 

Who said it was a higher rate for Apple?  Let me guess: Apple said it.  Motorola's starting rate of 2.25% has been known for years, and is comparable to other rates like Qualcomm's (~3.4%).

 

What Apple really is objecting to, is that they don't want to lower the rate by cross-licensing IP, as most everyone else does.   Again, they want special treatment.   The fact is, you want lower rates, you cross-license, just like Apple did with Nokia to settle their FRAND patent suit.  Others share IP and compete on price, features and build.  Apple doesn't want to do that.

 

Moreover, throughout the FRAND litigation, Apple has avoided letting either a jury or judge decide rates... as they know that using historical rates, they'll probably end up paying more.  Instead, they want to change the game rules in their favor.  Understandable, but they cannot claim to be a victim.

 

Quote:
Why should Apple license its non SEP? It's a competitive advantage that other companies shouldn't steal.

 

They don't have to, but as I said, their patents would be worth more in the long run if they did.

 

Imagine if they had licensed slide-to-unlock or scrolling to everyone for a dime.  They'd be making millions of dollars off those patents. Instead, they spent millions on litigation that has already ended up with such patents being invalidated around the world and probably soon in the US as well.   Now they have a rather large net loss instead of a net gain.  That's not smart finances.


Edited by KDarling - 5/7/13 at 2:46pm
post #60 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukjb View Post

So you honestly think that Motorola who spent all the time and money into developing the technology that is now required to operate smartphones (part of the GPRS standard
, which is in turn part of the rather important GSM cellular standard.) 
should not have the right to injunctive relief over Apple who has been using this technology for years without paying for it. And yet REFUSED to pay for it when confronted with an offer.

-BUT-
When Samsung et al. develops a smartphone with rectangles and rounded corners (a completely retarded patent) Apple automatically deserves the right to injunctive relief over something so trivial as that?

what about the slide to unlock patent that was recently preliminarily invalidated? do you think Apple deserves the damages from Samsung on a patent that will ultimately not exist anymore?


Their pinch to zoom patent? same boat... preliminarily invalidated but Apple is demanding damages on it before it is finalized at the USPTO

the "Steve Jobs" patent: “touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics.”
 .... you guessed it... same boat.  But for some reason... Apple thinks it is moral to go after Samsung for damages on all these patents that will eventually be invalidated. 


What i'm saying is Apple is not the great innovative company you think they are. They were awarded a bunch of absurd patents that are now being invalidated because the thermonuclear war has shown light onto how ridiculous some of their patents are.


Apple was paying for the patents, they were incorporated into the cost of the chips they were using.

Motorola rescinded the chipmakers license when chips were sold to Apple and Microsoft then launched their extortionate demands.

Don't give us this bullshit IWBY.
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 #61 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Apple has only been willing to pay a fee that THEY consider reasonable.  

More to the point, Apple doesn't want to play by the same rules as everyone else.  They entered a field with its own rules and decided they didn't like them.

Instead, Apple wants special treatment.  Unlike everyone else who has licensed ETSI patents for decades, Apple wanted royalties based on a tiny part of the overall device, and for lower prices.


We can debate the fairness of that all we want, but Apple was not treated differently, and THAT is really why Apple was upset.  They want to be treated differently.




What Apple really is objecting to, is that they don't want to lower the rate by cross-licensing IP, as most everyone else does.   Again, they want special treatment.   The fact is, you want lower rates, you cross-license, just like Apple did with Nokia to settle their FRAND patent suit.  Others share IP and compete on price, features and build.  Apple doesn't want to do that.

Moreover, throughout the FRAND litigation, Apple has avoided letting either a jury or judge decide rates... as they know that using historical rates, they'll probably end up paying more.  Instead, they want to change the game rules in their favor.  Understandable, but they cannot claim to be a victim.


They don't have to, but as I said, their patents would be worth more in the long run if they did.

Imagine if they had licensed slide-to-unlock or scrolling to everyone for a dime.  They'd be making millions of dollars off those patents. Instead, they spent millions on litigation that has already ended up with such patents being invalidated around the world and probably soon in the US as well.   Now they have a rather large net loss instead of a net gain.  That's not smart finances.

What a load of horseshit.

Motorola's 2.5% demand from Microsoft, which would have netted them $4 Billion a year, was reduced to less than one two thousandth of that when FRAND was decided by a judge.

Motorola resorted to extortion, Google swallowed the bait based on unrealistic future licensing revenue and were stiffed for twelve billion, mobile standards are returning to normal.

Apple has NEVER stooped so low as to resort to suing over SEP's.
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 #62 of 80
In addition if all the SEP holders demanded 2.5% each, no vendor will make any money or the customers will be paying a higher cost.
post #63 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


Apple was paying for the patents, they were incorporated into the cost of the chips they were using

What chips were those Hill60?

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #64 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What chips were those Hill60?

I bieve they were the Qualcomm chipsets.
post #65 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Apple didn't want to be extorted because they were more successful than Moto in the smartphone market. Apple has always been willing to pay a REASONABLE rate.

Extorted my butt....moto offered the same rate they offer every company. you know, the non-discriminant part of FRAND... Apple did not even negotiate, but instead took moto to court. 

post #66 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

In addition if all the SEP holders demanded 2.5% each, no vendor will make any money or the customers will be paying a higher cost.

 

As I've pointed out several times, it's a starting negotiation rate.  (Below is a list of such rates for LTE, which includes 3G.)  The usual method of knocking rates down to as low as zero, is to cross-license IP.  This is partly why Apple spent billions buying Nortel patents... for the same price per patent as Google paid for Motorola's patents... and continue to buy other such patents.

 

It's also important that ETSI rates are a percentage.  This is what allows very low priced devices to be made (such as the ultra low cost handsets for $20) so that billions around the world can enjoy cell phones... and yet the SEP holders can still get compensated for their huge investments, because there are also higher priced / higher profit models... like the iPhone that Apple stashes away billions in extra profit from.  

 

(The whole idea was that high profit phones help finance almost zero profit phones, to spread cellular around the world.  And it worked.  Without the billions invested by everyone else in the cell infrastructure and parts, latecomer Apple would have no product to make their huge profits from.)

 

Interestingly, we don't see Apple publicly complaining about Qualcomm and its 3.x% royalty rate.  (If they did, Qualcomm could just refuse to sell them chips, and an all-in-one iPhone would probably be much larger and costlier.)

 

 

 

 

Apple itself has wanted high rates for its own IP.  Remember during the trial, Apple said they had offered to license Samsung some of their design IP in return for $30 per phone (or $40 per tablet). 

 

That's 5% on a $600 wholesale phone, or 10% on a $300 phone or $400 tablet... for relatively minor IP that's not even necessary to make the phone or tablet work, unlike the required IP that Apple must license from others.

 

 


Edited by KDarling - 5/8/13 at 9:54am
post #67 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


I bieve they were the Qualcomm chipsets.

Incorrect. That's part of the misunderstanding. Qualcomm-equipped devices aren't part of the IP infringement case. The chipset that Apple said in their defense should have come with a license was supplied by Infineon. Qualcomm collects their own royalties from Apple, perhaps 3.5% of the total device cost or about $8 per base iPhone, paying Moto's royalty themselves.

 

Simply because Apple implies (they don't outright state it AFAIK) they were singled out by Motorola when Infineon's chipset license to Moto's IP was pulled doesn't make it a fact. I don't even recall Apple bringing it up again as part of their defense so personally I'd consider the original mention as smoke, no different than claiming they aren't using supposedly infringed IP anyway.


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/8/13 at 11:08am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #68 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukjb View Post

Extorted my butt....moto offered the same rate they offer every company. you know, the non-discriminant part of FRAND... Apple did not even negotiate, but instead took moto to court. 

Don't you mean component companies, where the cost of the patent is integrated and passed on.

Judges see sense, hence Motorola's demand from Microsoft was reduced to less than the legal costs.

So in your world when do we stop patent stacking?

At double the price, triple?

Enough to force new competitors out of markets, to enable a monopoly?

Google and Motorola's behaviour has been anticompetitive and disgusting.
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 #69 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


Don't you mean component companies, where the cost of the patent is integrated and passed on.

Judges see sense, hence Motorola's demand from Microsoft was reduced to less than the legal costs.

So in your world when do we stop patent stacking?

At double the price, triple?

Enough to force new competitors out of markets, to enable a monopoly?

Google and Motorola's behaviour has been anticompetitive and disgusting.

Good timing on the mention of patent stacking and the related patent exhaustion. HTC (along with Google) brought up that pointt in a case filed by Nokia. Seems they accuse HTC of infringing on some FRAND-pledged IP and as part of their defense HTC and Google argue that Qualcomm, their chipset supplier, is already licensed and as such extends to HTC as well. The ITC judge disagrees that the component manufacturer handles the royalty collection, at least for Nokia. Their demand for an injunction against HTC based on SEP's continues.

 

So Google actually agreed with you, and you with them 1eek.gif. Legal rulings unfortunately do not. Is Nokia's behavior anti-competitive and disgusting?

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/05/itc-judge-throws-out-google-and-htcs.html


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/8/13 at 3:19pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #70 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukjb View Post

Extorted my butt....moto offered the same rate they offer every company. you know, the non-discriminant part of FRAND... Apple did not even negotiate, but instead took moto to court. 

Motorola took Apple to court.
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 #71 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

As I've pointed out several times, it's a starting negotiation rate.  (Below is a list of such rates for LTE, which includes 3G.)  The usual method of knocking rates down to as low as zero, is to cross-license IP.  This is partly why Apple spent billions buying Nortel patents... for the same price per patent as Google paid for Motorola's patents... and continue to buy other such patents.

It's also important that ETSI rates are a percentage.  This is what allows very low priced devices to be made (such as the ultra low cost handsets for $20) so that billions around the world can enjoy cell phones... and yet the SEP holders can still get compensated for their huge investments, because there are also higher priced / higher profit models... like the iPhone that Apple stashes away billions in extra profit from.  

(The whole idea was that high profit phones help finance almost zero profit phones, to spread cellular around the world.  And it worked.  Without the billions invested by everyone else in the cell infrastructure and parts, latecomer Apple would have no product to make their huge profits from.)

Interestingly, we don't see Apple publicly complaining about Qualcomm and its 3.x% royalty rate.  (If they did, Qualcomm could just refuse to sell them chips, and an all-in-one iPhone would probably be much larger and costlier.)







Apple itself has wanted high rates for its own IP.  Remember during the trial, Apple said they had offered to license Samsung some of their design IP in return for $30 per phone (or $40 per tablet). 

That's 5% on a $600 wholesale phone, or 10% on a $300 phone or $400 tablet... for relatively minor IP that's not even necessary to make the phone or tablet work, unlike the required IP that Apple must license from others.
 





When did Apple make any demands or take legal action over SEP's?

Quit muddying the waters with your bullshit.
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 #72 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Incorrect. That's part of the misunderstanding. Qualcomm-equipped devices aren't part of the IP infringement case. The chipset that Apple said in their defense should have come with a license was supplied by Infineon. Qualcomm collects their own royalties from Apple, perhaps 3.5% of the total device cost or about $8 per base iPhone, paying Moto's royalty themselves.

Simply because Apple implies (they don't outright state it AFAIK) they were singled out by Motorola when Infineon's chipset license to Moto's IP was pulled doesn't make it a fact. I don't even recall Apple bringing it up again as part of their defense so personally I'd consider the original mention as smoke, no different than claiming they aren't using supposedly infringed IP anyway.

So are trying to deny that Motorola rescinded the licences of companies when they specifically sold products to Apple and Microsoft?

Disingenuous.
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 #73 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


So are trying to deny that Motorola rescinded the licences of companies when they specifically sold products to Apple and Microsoft?

Disingenuous.

Well just bring on the evidence Hill60. You're the one claiming Apple was singled out (and now MS too??) and they were already licensed via Infineon.

 

By the way,"Is Nokia's behavior anti-competitive and disgusting?" Should I be surprised if you don't answer that question? Methinks you might have a different standard for Google than others. If so that's what's really disingenuous. 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/157367/eu-rules-googles-motorola-abused-patents-in-seeking-injunction-against-apple/40#post_2324055


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/8/13 at 4:07pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Well just bring on the evidence Hill60. You're the one claiming Apple was singled out (and now MS too??) and they were already licensed via Infineon.

By the way,"Is Nokia's behavior anti-competitive and disgusting?" Should I be surprised if you don't answer that question? Methinks you might have a different standard for Google than others. If so that's what's really disingenuous. 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/157367/eu-rules-googles-motorola-abused-patents-in-seeking-injunction-against-apple/40#post_2324055

Throw in Ericsson too, "He who lives by the sword should die by the sword" Motorola and Samsung, by seeking injunctions over SEP's opened this whole can of worms.

Please provide one instance where Apple has sought an injunction against anyone, anywhere over standard essential patents.
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 #75 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


Throw in Ericsson too, "He who lives by the sword should die by the sword" Motorola and Samsung, by seeking injunctions over SEP's opened this whole can of worms.

Please provide one instance where Apple has sought an injunction against anyone, anywhere over standard essential patents.

What would that have to do with your earlier claims? Apple isn't being accused. You say Google is being anticompetive in it's patent assertions. Please provide one instance where Google has sought an injunction against anyone, anywhere over SEP's. Yet Google's FRAND behavior is disgusting in your opinion, apparently based on . . .  nothing at all? Heck, they just filed their first IP infringment case of any kind, the first in the 15 year history of the company, just a few weeks ago. Has any other big tech shown as much restraint? I can't think of one. 

 

FWIW, Nokia opened that can of worms not Moto or Samsung, demanding an injunction on Apple products over standard-essential patents back in 2009.  Anti-competitive and disgusting, right?


Edited by Gatorguy - 5/8/13 at 6:43pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #76 of 80
Personally I think seeking an injunction is counter productive and less beneficial. You'd think Motorola would want Apple to sell more devices because at the end of the day they're going to make money on every device sold.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #77 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Personally I think seeking an injunction is counter productive and less beneficial. You'd think Motorola would want Apple to sell more devices because at the end of the day they're going to make money on every device sold.

I'm not at all clear what Moto had hoped to accomplish with the original lawsuits. Was it simply a reaction to Apple and MS IP claims, or pressure on Moto's bottom-line to increase royalty revenues, or just Moto trying to prove they were still relevant? Dunno but whatever it was didn't result in much success..

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #78 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I'm not at all clear what Moto had hoped to accomplish with the original lawsuits. Was it simply a reaction to Apple and MS IP claims, or pressure on Moto's bottom-line to increase royalty revenues, or just Moto trying to prove they were still relevant? Dunno but whatever it was didn't result in much success..

Apart from the price they obtained from Google.

They did very well for their shareholders.
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 #79 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

Apart from the price they obtained from Google.

 

At $12.5 billion, even if Google bought just for Motorola's 24,500 patents, that's $510,000 per patent.

 

However, Moto didn't cost as much as some people continue to blindly repeat. It came with $3 billion in cash reserves, and the settop box part is being sold off for $2.5 billion... which knocks the price down to $7 billion.  Plus Google gets billions in tax writeoffs... AND they got a phone maker with decades of knowledge.

 

On the other hand, Apple, Microsoft and RIM paid $4.5 billion for 6,000 Nortel patents.  That's $750,000 per patent (many of which also come with FRAND restrictions), and that's all they got for their money.

 

Which deal looks better?

post #80 of 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

At $12.5 billion, even if Google bought just for Motorola's 24,500 patents, that's $510,000 per patent.

However, Moto didn't cost as much as some people continue to blindly repeat. 
It came with $3 billion in cash reserves, and the settop box part is being sold off for $2.5 billion... which knocks the price down to $7 billion.  Plus Google gets billions in tax writeoffs... AND they got a phone maker with decades of knowledge.


On the other hand, Apple, Microsoft and RIM paid $4.5 billion for 6,000 Nortel patents.  That's $750,000 per patent (many of which also come with FRAND restrictions), and that's all they got for their money.


Which deal looks better?

Well they did keep it out of Google's and patent trolls' hands...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › EU rules Google's Motorola abused patents in seeking injunction against Apple