Your analogy is all wrong. Motorola is like a kid who gave up its property for all to use on fair and non discriminatory terms. Legally it has no right to take it's property back. The kid then got jealous of the popular new kid named Apple and wanted to discriminate against the pretty new kid by forcing it to pay a toll nobody else has to pay. So, since the kid chose to discriminate against Apple, Apple decided to keep using the property that it had a legal right to do. Just because the kid turned into a bully and didn't honor its commitments, doesn't mean Apple should have to suffer.
Instead, like when Apple had to deal with that bully Nokia, Apple is setting money aside that it is properly accounting for and that it intends to give to the kid when the kid decides to honor its original commitment to the community.
"Fair and non discriminatory"
Apple wanted something special. That is discriminatory.
Didn't that case end with M$ being vindicated, and Apple running away with its tail between its legs?
There was more then one lawsuit. So, did Apple lose round one (the copyright related lawsuit)? Yes. It is worth noting that was decided by a Judge after Jobs left the company. If Jobs had been running things, I think he would have settled the suit. It is also worth noting that although Apple lost the lawsuit, valuable case law was created concerning various "look and feel" arguments that Apple is using today. The judge in that case agreed Apple had a copyright in the look and feel of its OS, but decided Apple gave Microsoft a license to use the OS.
Did it lose the second round (the patents related lawsuits)? No, Apple gained a hundred million dollar investment from Microsoft, a five year commitment to develop Office for the Mac, the right to use Microsoft patents, which allowed for Apple to incorporate Exchange Server into Mail as well as other technology, an undisclosed amount in settlement dollars, and most importantly valuable time. Further, it sent a message that Microsoft was committed to the Mac. That was one of Jobs best negotiated deals. Apple wouldn't be where it was today without it.
Didn't that case end with M$ being vindicated, and Apple running away with its tail between its legs?
I think that may be the point though - that case, in the end, hinged on the court's decision that Apple had licensed the individual design elements to Microsoft previously, and that they could not claim that the overall look and feel was more than the sum of the parts. Apple probably learned a valuable lesson there.
Most people think that being a patent troll is sleazy. You are the exception. We know that already.
No, I think that it's slightly sleazy.
My point is that when fighting a sleazy war, it is acceptable to sometimes use sleazy tactics.
For example, Google stealing Oracle code is not sleazy, it's illegal and theft.
If Apple decides to hand off a few patents to a third party "patent troll" then that's not illegal at all. Some people might object to it, but so what? They haven't done anything wrong.
By "special", are you referring to retaining the right to challenge the patent validity?
That would be correct according to reports. They attempted to modify the contract terms beyond what was offered to the other licensees. In effect Apple wanted Motorola to discriminate against the others. Moto declined, as the judge ruled they had the right to do. FRAND terms would not then extend to the period that Apple chose to use the patented tech without a license. Some here might refer to that as an example of IP theft, using someone else's inventions without permission.
Personally I would view "theft" as an extreme description, just as I would when used to describe some uses of tech by others that is determined at some later date to be infringing.
That would be correct according to reports. They attempted to modify the contract terms beyond what was offered to the other licensees. In effect Apple wanted Motorola to discriminate against the others. Moto declined, as the judge ruled they had the right to do. FRAND terms would not then extend to the period that Apple chose to use the patented tech without a license. Some here might refer to that as an example of IP theft, using someone else's inventions without permission.
Personally I would view "theft" as an extreme description, just as I would when used to describe some uses of tech by others that is determined at some later date to be infringing.
Motorola, like Nokia, doesn't disclose the contracts of other licensees. So, Apple has to make an offer based on essentially what it thinks is fair and non discriminatory, not on what is actually the case. Moreover, it is also known some members of the FRAND licensing body don't pay any royalties at all. For instance, Samsung is using Motorola's patents, but Motorola's isn't getting a royalty.
Finally, some contractual terms are on their face invalid. For example, if I loaned you fifty dollars, I couldn't put in the contract that I'd have the right to burn your house down if you didn't pay. I could still put that in the contract, but it wouldn't be enforceable. Why would any company relinquish it's right to establish the patent it is paying royalties on is valid?
That would be correct according to reports. They attempted to modify the contract terms beyond what was offered to the other licensees. In effect Apple wanted Motorola to discriminate against the others. Moto declined, as the judge ruled they had the right to do. FRAND terms would not then extend to the period that Apple chose to use the patented tech without a license. Some here might refer to that as an example of IP theft, using someone else's inventions without permission.
Personally I would view "theft" as an extreme description, just as I would when used to describe some uses of tech by others that is determined at some later date to be infringing.
I can see how that can be argued as modifying the contract terms. The German view of the limitations of the FRAND defense seems quite restrictive. They appear to be trying to avoid the situation in which there is no downside to witholding licensing payments at a FRAND rate because you can pay them later if you don't manage to get the patents in question invalidated. However, if you pay them up front and then do get the patents invalidated, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to recover the licensing fees - that presumably is what Apple wants to avoid since they are challenging those patents in a separate action.
Unfortunately, that course of action does effectively give them a potentially more favorable situation than other companies which licensed - the special treatment that others have commented on above.
Why would any company relinquish it's right to establish the patent it is paying royalties on is valid?
That is a good question - but it appears that the German court believes that if you want to challenge the patent then you lose the right to a FRAND defense, at least for past use of the technology
Why didn't Google sue Apple directly instead of giving patents to HTC?
Google has never sued anyone for patent infringement and only uses them defensively. HTC is a core partner, and google is coming to its partner's defense.
Quote:
And why is Samsung trying to sue Apple using FRAND patents?
Uhh... because apple used Samsung's IP without paying?
Intellectual property doesn't really exist? Since when? Intellectual property most certainly does exist and can be bought and sold like other property. Try coming back when you learn something about intellectual property.
You're scenerios don't exist. They aren't examples that meaningless blanket statements. You'r ignoring my points by altering the context of my point which clearly indicate the opposite of what you suggest with my comments about owning a domain.
Quote:
It's an inflammatory, meaningless term and implies that they did something wrong.
If it's without meaning then how can be inflammatory? Again, as I've stated I see nothing wrong with Apple, Nokia, Samsung, MS, Sony et al. waiting under their patent bridge for someone to cross.
That is a good question - but it appears that the German court believes that if you want to challenge the patent then you lose the right to a FRAND defense, at least for past use of the technology
I agree that is what the German Court thinks, but Germany is not the rest of the world.
Comments
That is a matter of opinion. And being sleazy is not illegal.
Yes. This is a matter of opinion.
Most people think that being a patent troll is sleazy. You are the exception. We know that already.
Your analogy is all wrong. Motorola is like a kid who gave up its property for all to use on fair and non discriminatory terms. Legally it has no right to take it's property back. The kid then got jealous of the popular new kid named Apple and wanted to discriminate against the pretty new kid by forcing it to pay a toll nobody else has to pay. So, since the kid chose to discriminate against Apple, Apple decided to keep using the property that it had a legal right to do. Just because the kid turned into a bully and didn't honor its commitments, doesn't mean Apple should have to suffer.
Instead, like when Apple had to deal with that bully Nokia, Apple is setting money aside that it is properly accounting for and that it intends to give to the kid when the kid decides to honor its original commitment to the community.
"Fair and non discriminatory"
Apple wanted something special. That is discriminatory.
Didn't that case end with M$ being vindicated, and Apple running away with its tail between its legs?
There was more then one lawsuit. So, did Apple lose round one (the copyright related lawsuit)? Yes. It is worth noting that was decided by a Judge after Jobs left the company. If Jobs had been running things, I think he would have settled the suit. It is also worth noting that although Apple lost the lawsuit, valuable case law was created concerning various "look and feel" arguments that Apple is using today. The judge in that case agreed Apple had a copyright in the look and feel of its OS, but decided Apple gave Microsoft a license to use the OS.
Did it lose the second round (the patents related lawsuits)? No, Apple gained a hundred million dollar investment from Microsoft, a five year commitment to develop Office for the Mac, the right to use Microsoft patents, which allowed for Apple to incorporate Exchange Server into Mail as well as other technology, an undisclosed amount in settlement dollars, and most importantly valuable time. Further, it sent a message that Microsoft was committed to the Mac. That was one of Jobs best negotiated deals. Apple wouldn't be where it was today without it.
Yes. This is a matter of opinion.
Most people think that being a patent troll is sleazy. You are the exception. We know that already.
Being a patent troll was sleazy up until the posting of this news. All of a sudden being a patent troll was okay because Apple is associated with one.
Didn't that case end with M$ being vindicated, and Apple running away with its tail between its legs?
I think that may be the point though - that case, in the end, hinged on the court's decision that Apple had licensed the individual design elements to Microsoft previously, and that they could not claim that the overall look and feel was more than the sum of the parts. Apple probably learned a valuable lesson there.
"Fair and non discriminatory"
Apple wanted something special. That is discriminatory.
By "special", are you referring to retaining the right to challenge the patent validity?
"Fair and non discriminatory"
Apple wanted something special. That is discriminatory.
Yet, you neglect to tell us what is the something special Apple wanted. I didn't see that alleged in any of the legal pleadings.
Most people think that being a patent troll is sleazy. You are the exception. We know that already.
No, I think that it's slightly sleazy.
My point is that when fighting a sleazy war, it is acceptable to sometimes use sleazy tactics.
For example, Google stealing Oracle code is not sleazy, it's illegal and theft.
If Apple decides to hand off a few patents to a third party "patent troll" then that's not illegal at all. Some people might object to it, but so what? They haven't done anything wrong.
As a matter of fact, I sometimes prefer sleazy women over prudes.
LOL. I agree.
By "special", are you referring to retaining the right to challenge the patent validity?
That would be correct according to reports. They attempted to modify the contract terms beyond what was offered to the other licensees. In effect Apple wanted Motorola to discriminate against the others. Moto declined, as the judge ruled they had the right to do. FRAND terms would not then extend to the period that Apple chose to use the patented tech without a license. Some here might refer to that as an example of IP theft, using someone else's inventions without permission.
Personally I would view "theft" as an extreme description, just as I would when used to describe some uses of tech by others that is determined at some later date to be infringing.
That would be correct according to reports. They attempted to modify the contract terms beyond what was offered to the other licensees. In effect Apple wanted Motorola to discriminate against the others. Moto declined, as the judge ruled they had the right to do. FRAND terms would not then extend to the period that Apple chose to use the patented tech without a license. Some here might refer to that as an example of IP theft, using someone else's inventions without permission.
Personally I would view "theft" as an extreme description, just as I would when used to describe some uses of tech by others that is determined at some later date to be infringing.
Motorola, like Nokia, doesn't disclose the contracts of other licensees. So, Apple has to make an offer based on essentially what it thinks is fair and non discriminatory, not on what is actually the case. Moreover, it is also known some members of the FRAND licensing body don't pay any royalties at all. For instance, Samsung is using Motorola's patents, but Motorola's isn't getting a royalty.
Finally, some contractual terms are on their face invalid. For example, if I loaned you fifty dollars, I couldn't put in the contract that I'd have the right to burn your house down if you didn't pay. I could still put that in the contract, but it wouldn't be enforceable. Why would any company relinquish it's right to establish the patent it is paying royalties on is valid?
That would be correct according to reports. They attempted to modify the contract terms beyond what was offered to the other licensees. In effect Apple wanted Motorola to discriminate against the others. Moto declined, as the judge ruled they had the right to do. FRAND terms would not then extend to the period that Apple chose to use the patented tech without a license. Some here might refer to that as an example of IP theft, using someone else's inventions without permission.
Personally I would view "theft" as an extreme description, just as I would when used to describe some uses of tech by others that is determined at some later date to be infringing.
I can see how that can be argued as modifying the contract terms. The German view of the limitations of the FRAND defense seems quite restrictive. They appear to be trying to avoid the situation in which there is no downside to witholding licensing payments at a FRAND rate because you can pay them later if you don't manage to get the patents in question invalidated. However, if you pay them up front and then do get the patents invalidated, there doesn't seem to be a mechanism to recover the licensing fees - that presumably is what Apple wants to avoid since they are challenging those patents in a separate action.
Unfortunately, that course of action does effectively give them a potentially more favorable situation than other companies which licensed - the special treatment that others have commented on above.
Why would any company relinquish it's right to establish the patent it is paying royalties on is valid?
That is a good question - but it appears that the German court believes that if you want to challenge the patent then you lose the right to a FRAND defense, at least for past use of the technology
Why didn't Google sue Apple directly instead of giving patents to HTC?
Google has never sued anyone for patent infringement and only uses them defensively. HTC is a core partner, and google is coming to its partner's defense.
And why is Samsung trying to sue Apple using FRAND patents?
Uhh... because apple used Samsung's IP without paying?
Intellectual property doesn't really exist? Since when? Intellectual property most certainly does exist and can be bought and sold like other property. Try coming back when you learn something about intellectual property.
You're scenerios don't exist. They aren't examples that meaningless blanket statements. You'r ignoring my points by altering the context of my point which clearly indicate the opposite of what you suggest with my comments about owning a domain.
It's an inflammatory, meaningless term and implies that they did something wrong.
If it's without meaning then how can be inflammatory? Again, as I've stated I see nothing wrong with Apple, Nokia, Samsung, MS, Sony et al. waiting under their patent bridge for someone to cross.
Google has never sued anyone for patent infringement and only uses them defensively.
1) Didn't Google sue MS for snaking their search results?
2) Are you using defense as in "offense is the best defense"?
1) Didn't Google sue MS for snaking their search results?
2) Are you using defense as in "offense is the best defense"?
I'm sure he worded his response to avoid that situation.
His point stands...Google as of yet has never sued anyone for patent infringement.
1) Didn't Google sue MS for snaking their search results?
I don't believe Google has ever sued any other competitor for patent infringement.
That is a good question - but it appears that the German court believes that if you want to challenge the patent then you lose the right to a FRAND defense, at least for past use of the technology
I agree that is what the German Court thinks, but Germany is not the rest of the world.
I don't believe Google has ever sued any other competitor for patent infringement.
It is hard to do when you own very few patents. Even Google's search algorithm is licensed from Stanford.