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.
That isn't special treatment as intended under FRAND terms (at least in any country other than Germany). Special treatment specifically refers to the amount paid. If Apple agrees to pay the license, does pay the license, and then later the patent is found invalid, Apple wasn't receiving special treatment. Moreover, it isn't Apple's fault if other licensees don't want to challenge the patent. It is absurd to predicate the acceptance of a license payment for a standard based patent on a company not seeking to verify the patent's validity.
Again, what holds true in Germany doesn't hold true else place. Take the US. The judge in Apple's case against Samsung essentially said Samsung is likely infringing a non essential Apple patent, but an injunction wasn't necessary. In Germany, Samsung would be out of luck.
I personally think Apple is sacrificing a pawn. It probably flooded the German market with product, so it will have enough to sell for months (the injunction only effects imports). It is then hoping the European Union's investigation into the matter plays out favorably for it or it hopes its contemporaneous case against Motorola in another Court goes its way. Handing out injunctions is a two way street. Motorola just got lucky and filed in a faster Court.
As regards to Samsung and HTC, you seem to assume cloning is bad and your _american_ way of thinking is the only acceptable one. I expect you'll then propose to nuke Iran, aggress Irak (ah, already done), invade Afghanistan (ah, already done), steal oil from poor countries (ah, already done), bully countries into voting your way or remove american participation into population-support programs necessary due to american behavior (ah, already done, ask Yemen or even UNESCO their opinion about that), double american-made world air pollution when everyone else is diminishing theirs (ah, already done)...
My point is, asian cultures consider copying good ideas a legitimate method to advance technology and culture. The fact america considers it a bad thing doesn't make it the only way to think.
Open your mind to that fact: others may think differently.
Think different.
And don't get me wrong: America has lots of great things, however self-righteousness is not one of them.
How about stop wasting money, lay off workers and cut university courses because there is no guarantee on a return on your investment in R&D if it can just be stolen and copied.
They own quite a few in truth. Well in access of 2000, not including anything from Moto (their 17K still pending))
Most of those have been recently acquired to try and defend Android. Google owns very few search related patents. That is odd, since that is it's bread and butter. You can't count the Motorola patents, as Google doesn't own them yet.
How about stop wasting money, lay off workers and cut university courses because there is no guarantee on a return on your investment in R&D if it can just be stolen and copied.
Then we can let off a few nukes and annihilate the human race since life isn't worth living.
I missed that one. Have you got a link to the statement? Not at all saying it wasn't claimed, just curious about the context and what was actually said since I wasn't familiar with it.
Are you really incompetent enough to be unable to use Google?
May I suggest Bing, less paid for search results obscuring what you are really after
That isn't special treatment as intended under FRAND terms (at least in any country other than Germany). Special treatment specifically refers to the amount paid.
Where do you get that from?.
Even in the US the determination of "non-discriminatory" in a RAND (or FRAND) agreement applies to both the terms and the rates. Each licensee is required to be treated equally. If the contract requires them to acknowledge the patents as valid, either specifically or by inference, and Apple wants a "special" contract term that allows the validity to be challenged and money to be refunded then they are not being treated equally. The basic licensing agreement conditions must be the same no matter who the license is being granted to. Without the same basic terms and rates then the RAND obligations meant to ensure a level playing field wouldn't be met. Correct?
If you have some source proving that only the rates are considered and not specific terms, please post them. I willing to admit I've misstated the facts if you can show it.
Are you really incompetent enough to be unable to use Google?
May I suggest Bing, less paid for search results obscuring what you are really after
TBell was already courteous enough to supply a link. You're a few hours late, but thanks anyway.
BTW, smartaleck replies only work when you bother to take the time to check your own link before posting. It doesn't mention the Apple licensed patents at all, which was the question I posed.
Most of those have been recently acquired to try and defend Android. Google owns very few search related patents. That is odd, since that is it's bread and butter. You can't count the Motorola patents, as Google doesn't own them yet.
Various mentions here and there over the years have shown a laxness on Google's part concerning patents. They just didn't make them a priority. I think that attitude has now changed.
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 terminates the license agreements of chipmakers, specifically based on them selling the chips to Apple.
Are Apple getting a discount on these chips equivalent to the parts of the FRAND licensing fees paid on them attributable to Motorola?
How does this work are Motorola giving a rebate to Qualcomm and others?
This is highly discriminatory, anticompetitive and against the spirit of standards based patents.
Apple itself seems to be its greatest enemy these days. Then again, I'll repeat myself: Steve Jobs admired the old HP. Great companies fall from grace and it sometimes is very fast. Let's hope Apple doesn't go this way too soon.
Yes, Apple are huge enemies with themselves. Everytime Cook looks at their current account and see $80bn, he must think "dayam, we're enemies of ourselves".
HP are a very good example of why Apple needs to protect itself. HP makes average computers, for next to no money because they have no Unique Selling Point. They jumped on the PC bandwagon and there is nothing USP that they can add - apart from maybe a piano finish to this years laptops.
There is nothing that HP builds that I can't buy somewhere else which is just as good, whether it's a printer, server, PC, laptop, tablet (lol), nothing.
My point is, asian cultures consider copying good ideas a legitimate method to advance technology and culture. The fact america considers it a bad thing doesn't make it the only way to think.
Asian culture is going no where fast anytime soon. If copying good ideas are a legitimate method to advance anything, then Asia wouldn't be in the 19th century right now. The West did it's industrial revolution 200 years ago, whilst Asia (bar Japan) has only really just got started.
Asia does the jobs that the west doesn't want right now, and the only reason things are built in China is because an American/European worker wants $8ph+benefits.
Seriously, Asia, whether it's China, Indochina, Indian Subcontinent, is so far behind it's unreal. If it's methodology to copy everything is so good - why is it so far behind?
Asia (China especially) had a good fireworks show 1,000 years ago and promptly gave up.
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.
Uhh... because apple used Samsung's IP without paying?
The manufacturers of the chips Apple uses were paying license fees.
Why did Samsung (and Motorola) refuse to accept payment by terminating licenses, specifically based on selling chips to Apple?
I don't mind helping out Internet newbies with tips and advice, such as how to use search engines.
Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him how to fish he eats for a lifetime.
And give a man a proper link before acting smartalecky in the same post.
Your link didn't answer my question concerning the Nokia patents granted to Apple at all. Bing fail apparently, followed by a failure to read before supplying the link.
Still no matter as a Google search by TBell found it for me.
That isn't special treatment as intended under FRAND terms (at least in any country other than Germany). Special treatment specifically refers to the amount paid. If Apple agrees to pay the license, does pay the license, and then later the patent is found invalid, Apple wasn't receiving special treatment. Moreover, it isn't Apple's fault if other licensees don't want to challenge the patent. It is absurd to predicate the acceptance of a license payment for a standard based patent on a company not seeking to verify the patent's validity.
Again, what holds true in Germany doesn't hold true else place. Take the US. The judge in Apple's case against Samsung essentially said Samsung is likely infringing a non essential Apple patent, but an injunction wasn't necessary. In Germany, Samsung would be out of luck.
I personally think Apple is sacrificing a pawn. It probably flooded the German market with product, so it will have enough to sell for months (the injunction only effects imports). It is then hoping the European Union's investigation into the matter plays out favorably for it or it hopes its contemporaneous case against Motorola in another Court goes its way. Handing out injunctions is a two way street. Motorola just got lucky and filed in a faster Court.
Have I understood this correctly:
Apple offered to pay FRAND rates, but reserved the right to challenge (presumably a challenge would be invalidated if they paid without reserving that right?), at which point Motorola declined to accept FRAND rates. Apple used the technology anyway, on the basis that they had offered and would pay whenever the offer was accepted.
Now Motorola wants non-FRAND rates for the period of use to date and the German court has agreed that they can demand more than FRAND because they believe that Apple lost the right to FRAND when they declared their intention to challenge the patents.
If that is correct, then part of the problem seems to be that there is no standard definition of a FRAND agreement, so individual courts, anywhere, are free to interpret it how they see fit and according to local precedent, if such exists. I could argue this either way. It is clearly a technical loss for Apple. Maybe Motorola are using it as leverage to get Apple to withdraw their patent challenge, at which point they might accept FRAND rates retrospectively. In this jurisdiction, it looks as if Apple need to decide if they want to gamble on saving paying FRAND rates with a potential for a rather larger bill if they lose.
Apple offered to pay FRAND rates, but reserved the right to challenge (presumably a challenge would be invalidated if they paid without reserving that right?), at which point Motorola declined to accept FRAND rates. Apple used the technology anyway, on the basis that they had offered and would pay whenever the offer was accepted.
Now Motorola wants non-FRAND rates for the period of use to date and the German court has agreed that they can demand more than FRAND because they believe that Apple lost the right to FRAND when they declared their intention to challenge the patents.
If that is correct, then part of the problem seems to be that there is no standard definition of a FRAND agreement, so individual courts, anywhere, are free to interpret it how they see fit and according to local precedent, if such exists. I could argue this either way. It is clearly a technical loss for Apple. Maybe Motorola are using it as leverage to get Apple to withdraw their patent challenge, at which point they might accept FRAND rates retrospectively. In this jurisdiction, it looks as if Apple need to decide if they want to gamble on saving paying FRAND rates with a potential for a rather larger bill if they lose.
It is not just a loss for Apple but for the whole FRAND pooled patents that standards systems are based on.
Hence, expect the EU to step in based on the anti-competitive nature of this behaviour, i.e. preventing competitors from complying with standards.
Comments
It is hard to do when you own very few patents. Even Google's search algorithm is licensed from Stanford.
They own quite a few in truth. Well in access of 2000, not including anything from Moto (their 17K still pending)
EDIT: If you're at all curious about Google patent filings, there's an easy to navigate list here, with the most recent listed first.
http://www.latestpatents.com/category/google/
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.
That isn't special treatment as intended under FRAND terms (at least in any country other than Germany). Special treatment specifically refers to the amount paid. If Apple agrees to pay the license, does pay the license, and then later the patent is found invalid, Apple wasn't receiving special treatment. Moreover, it isn't Apple's fault if other licensees don't want to challenge the patent. It is absurd to predicate the acceptance of a license payment for a standard based patent on a company not seeking to verify the patent's validity.
Again, what holds true in Germany doesn't hold true else place. Take the US. The judge in Apple's case against Samsung essentially said Samsung is likely infringing a non essential Apple patent, but an injunction wasn't necessary. In Germany, Samsung would be out of luck.
I personally think Apple is sacrificing a pawn. It probably flooded the German market with product, so it will have enough to sell for months (the injunction only effects imports). It is then hoping the European Union's investigation into the matter plays out favorably for it or it hopes its contemporaneous case against Motorola in another Court goes its way. Handing out injunctions is a two way street. Motorola just got lucky and filed in a faster Court.
As regards to Samsung and HTC, you seem to assume cloning is bad and your _american_ way of thinking is the only acceptable one. I expect you'll then propose to nuke Iran, aggress Irak (ah, already done), invade Afghanistan (ah, already done), steal oil from poor countries (ah, already done), bully countries into voting your way or remove american participation into population-support programs necessary due to american behavior (ah, already done, ask Yemen or even UNESCO their opinion about that), double american-made world air pollution when everyone else is diminishing theirs (ah, already done)...
My point is, asian cultures consider copying good ideas a legitimate method to advance technology and culture. The fact america considers it a bad thing doesn't make it the only way to think.
Open your mind to that fact: others may think differently.
Think different.
And don't get me wrong: America has lots of great things, however self-righteousness is not one of them.
How about stop wasting money, lay off workers and cut university courses because there is no guarantee on a return on your investment in R&D if it can just be stolen and copied.
They own quite a few in truth. Well in access of 2000, not including anything from Moto (their 17K still pending))
Most of those have been recently acquired to try and defend Android. Google owns very few search related patents. That is odd, since that is it's bread and butter. You can't count the Motorola patents, as Google doesn't own them yet.
How about stop wasting money, lay off workers and cut university courses because there is no guarantee on a return on your investment in R&D if it can just be stolen and copied.
Then we can let off a few nukes and annihilate the human race since life isn't worth living.
I missed that one. Have you got a link to the statement? Not at all saying it wasn't claimed, just curious about the context and what was actually said since I wasn't familiar with it.
Are you really incompetent enough to be unable to use Google?
May I suggest Bing, less paid for search results obscuring what you are really after
You lost me at Google it.
Siri it, f**k Google!
That isn't special treatment as intended under FRAND terms (at least in any country other than Germany). Special treatment specifically refers to the amount paid.
Where do you get that from?.
Even in the US the determination of "non-discriminatory" in a RAND (or FRAND) agreement applies to both the terms and the rates. Each licensee is required to be treated equally. If the contract requires them to acknowledge the patents as valid, either specifically or by inference, and Apple wants a "special" contract term that allows the validity to be challenged and money to be refunded then they are not being treated equally. The basic licensing agreement conditions must be the same no matter who the license is being granted to. Without the same basic terms and rates then the RAND obligations meant to ensure a level playing field wouldn't be met. Correct?
If you have some source proving that only the rates are considered and not specific terms, please post them. I willing to admit I've misstated the facts if you can show it.
Are you really incompetent enough to be unable to use Google?
May I suggest Bing, less paid for search results obscuring what you are really after
TBell was already courteous enough to supply a link. You're a few hours late, but thanks anyway.
BTW, smartaleck replies only work when you bother to take the time to check your own link before posting. It doesn't mention the Apple licensed patents at all, which was the question I posed.
Most of those have been recently acquired to try and defend Android. Google owns very few search related patents. That is odd, since that is it's bread and butter. You can't count the Motorola patents, as Google doesn't own them yet.
Various mentions here and there over the years have shown a laxness on Google's part concerning patents. They just didn't make them a priority. I think that attitude has now changed.
This is a day for all True Apple Fans to hang their heads in shame.
Why? Apple are a business. They are there to make money and most people have absolutely no problem with that.
If the patents aren't worth their value, then it'll be contested in court, if they are, they'll do an agreement. That's business.
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 terminates the license agreements of chipmakers, specifically based on them selling the chips to Apple.
Are Apple getting a discount on these chips equivalent to the parts of the FRAND licensing fees paid on them attributable to Motorola?
How does this work are Motorola giving a rebate to Qualcomm and others?
This is highly discriminatory, anticompetitive and against the spirit of standards based patents.
Apple itself seems to be its greatest enemy these days. Then again, I'll repeat myself: Steve Jobs admired the old HP. Great companies fall from grace and it sometimes is very fast. Let's hope Apple doesn't go this way too soon.
Yes, Apple are huge enemies with themselves. Everytime Cook looks at their current account and see $80bn, he must think "dayam, we're enemies of ourselves".
HP are a very good example of why Apple needs to protect itself. HP makes average computers, for next to no money because they have no Unique Selling Point. They jumped on the PC bandwagon and there is nothing USP that they can add - apart from maybe a piano finish to this years laptops.
There is nothing that HP builds that I can't buy somewhere else which is just as good, whether it's a printer, server, PC, laptop, tablet (lol), nothing.
TBell was already courteous enough to supply a link. You're a few hours late, but thanks anyway.
I don't mind helping out Internet newbies with tips and advice, such as how to use search engines.
Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him how to fish he eats for a lifetime.
Motorola terminates the license agreements of chipmakers, specifically based on them selling the chips to Apple.
Are Apple getting a discount on these chips equivalent to the parts of the FRAND licensing fees paid on them attributable to Motorola?
How does this work are Motorola giving a rebate to Qualcomm and others?
This is highly discriminatory, anticompetitive and against the spirit of standards based patents.
Was that the claim in the German court?
My point is, asian cultures consider copying good ideas a legitimate method to advance technology and culture. The fact america considers it a bad thing doesn't make it the only way to think.
Asian culture is going no where fast anytime soon. If copying good ideas are a legitimate method to advance anything, then Asia wouldn't be in the 19th century right now. The West did it's industrial revolution 200 years ago, whilst Asia (bar Japan) has only really just got started.
Asia does the jobs that the west doesn't want right now, and the only reason things are built in China is because an American/European worker wants $8ph+benefits.
Seriously, Asia, whether it's China, Indochina, Indian Subcontinent, is so far behind it's unreal. If it's methodology to copy everything is so good - why is it so far behind?
Asia (China especially) had a good fireworks show 1,000 years ago and promptly gave up.
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.
Uhh... because apple used Samsung's IP without paying?
The manufacturers of the chips Apple uses were paying license fees.
Why did Samsung (and Motorola) refuse to accept payment by terminating licenses, specifically based on selling chips to Apple?
I don't mind helping out Internet newbies with tips and advice, such as how to use search engines.
Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach him how to fish he eats for a lifetime.
And give a man a proper link before acting smartalecky in the same post.
Your link didn't answer my question concerning the Nokia patents granted to Apple at all. Bing fail apparently, followed by a failure to read before supplying the link.
Still no matter as a Google search by TBell found it for me.
That isn't special treatment as intended under FRAND terms (at least in any country other than Germany). Special treatment specifically refers to the amount paid. If Apple agrees to pay the license, does pay the license, and then later the patent is found invalid, Apple wasn't receiving special treatment. Moreover, it isn't Apple's fault if other licensees don't want to challenge the patent. It is absurd to predicate the acceptance of a license payment for a standard based patent on a company not seeking to verify the patent's validity.
Again, what holds true in Germany doesn't hold true else place. Take the US. The judge in Apple's case against Samsung essentially said Samsung is likely infringing a non essential Apple patent, but an injunction wasn't necessary. In Germany, Samsung would be out of luck.
I personally think Apple is sacrificing a pawn. It probably flooded the German market with product, so it will have enough to sell for months (the injunction only effects imports). It is then hoping the European Union's investigation into the matter plays out favorably for it or it hopes its contemporaneous case against Motorola in another Court goes its way. Handing out injunctions is a two way street. Motorola just got lucky and filed in a faster Court.
Have I understood this correctly: If that is correct, then part of the problem seems to be that there is no standard definition of a FRAND agreement, so individual courts, anywhere, are free to interpret it how they see fit and according to local precedent, if such exists. I could argue this either way. It is clearly a technical loss for Apple. Maybe Motorola are using it as leverage to get Apple to withdraw their patent challenge, at which point they might accept FRAND rates retrospectively. In this jurisdiction, it looks as if Apple need to decide if they want to gamble on saving paying FRAND rates with a potential for a rather larger bill if they lose.
Have I understood this correctly: If that is correct, then part of the problem seems to be that there is no standard definition of a FRAND agreement, so individual courts, anywhere, are free to interpret it how they see fit and according to local precedent, if such exists. I could argue this either way. It is clearly a technical loss for Apple. Maybe Motorola are using it as leverage to get Apple to withdraw their patent challenge, at which point they might accept FRAND rates retrospectively. In this jurisdiction, it looks as if Apple need to decide if they want to gamble on saving paying FRAND rates with a potential for a rather larger bill if they lose.
It is not just a loss for Apple but for the whole FRAND pooled patents that standards systems are based on.
Hence, expect the EU to step in based on the anti-competitive nature of this behaviour, i.e. preventing competitors from complying with standards.