If that were true then how would you explain why Apple approached Motorola for a license to begin with? Going by your argument they never needed one anyway. Do you have any source indicating that Apple needed no license agreement?
Perhaps it was because MOTOROLA (AND SAMSUNG) TERMINATED THE LICENSES OF THE CHIPS APPLE USED, leaving Apple unlicensed UNLIKE OTHER COMPANIES WHICH BUY THE SAME CHIPS.
Are you really so obtuse?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
...and set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
troll 1
(trl)
v. trolled, troll·ing, trolls
v.tr.
1.
a. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.
b. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass.
Perhaps it was because MOTOROLA (AND SAMSUNG) TERMINATED THE LICENSES OF THE CHIPS APPLE USED, leaving Apple unlicensed UNLIKE OTHER COMPANIES WHICH BUY THE SAME CHIPS.
Are you really so obtuse?
troll 1
(trl)
v. trolled, troll·ing, trolls
v.tr.
1.
a. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.
b. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass.
Why are you searching out every opportunity to toss an insult my way?
No, but apparently you're guessing at "how it works", with no source as reference. I believe the chip license was pulled AFTER Apple and Motorola could not come to an agreement. This started back in 2007.
EDIT: If you're going to rely on FOSSPatents for your understanding of the case you should probably take the time to re-read what he wrote:
"The ruling explains in detail what kind of offer Apple made to Motorola. That offer is one relating to all of Motorola's FRAND-pledged patents including the one at issue in the case that was heard a week ago.
Motorola overcame Apple's FRAND defense because Apple reserved the right to contest the validity of the patent-in-suit "when, insofar and for as long as" Motorola would seek damages for past infringement -- which in Motorola's opinion goes back to the year 2007 -- above a FRAND rate.
The logic presented by Motorola's counsel convinced the court: someone using a patented invention should have to pay a price for being found to have infringed. While competition law requires the patent holder to extend a license on FRAND terms going forward, past infringement is a different matter. If, in the alternative, damages for past infringement were limited to a FRAND royalty rate, Motorola and Judge Voß argue, an infringer might ultimately get to use the patent on more favorable terms than someone procuring a license at the outset. They say that favorable terms would result from a scenario in which payments for using the patent in the past can be avoided by proving the patent invalid"
Also pay close attention to the last section detailing the arguments that Motorola could have made, but didn't need to yet.
In essence, because Apple wasn't willing to accept the same terms as others and wanted the inclusion of terms whereby they get a refund of their licensing fees if the patents are eventually found invalid, Motorola was under no obligation to offer a license under (F)RAND. Florian Mueller was quite clear about this point. Had they accepted the license terms as presented by Motorola they would have been able to mount a FRAND defense. Instead they rolled the dice and decided to take their chances if it went to court. You win some and lose some, that's business.
I took time to review several other recent cases in Europe that involved Apple and patent claims. From the French case involving Samsung and Apple I see where you get the idea of patent exhaustion. I agree things can appear confused, especially with so many cases taking place concurrently.
I see no attempt by Apple to raise that defense in the German injunction trial with Motorola. Apparently it either holds no weight with the German courts, or the licensing situation was decidedly different than Samsung/Apple in France. Even Florian isn't suggesting that Apple had a case with that defense in Germany. Mr. Mueller was pretty clear on why Apple lost that particular German injunction challenge.
In any event we've strayed far from the subject of this particular thread. Why is Apple partnering with what many refer to as a "Patent Troll"? Why did the Digitude site suddenly get taken down if they're an above board and legitimate business simply trying to monetize underused IP? And why the timing for the move out of the limelight? Prior to Apple being revealed as a partner they were actively recruiting IP and partners via their website. Did Apple have it removed, trying to avoid a public association, and why so if it's an innocent business deal. A public statement would go a long ways towards dismissing rumors that Apple was afraid to use those patents against competitors for fear of reprisals and tried to attack anonymously instead. Very un-Apple like in any case, creating another PR headache.
EDIT: After the DigitudeInnovations site disappeared around Dec. 4th, it's now back up as of today.
Why are you searching out every opportunity to toss an insult my way?
No, but apparently you're guessing at "how it works", with no source as reference. I believe the chip license was pulled AFTER Apple and Motorola could not come to an agreement. This started back in 2007.
EDIT: If you're going to rely on FOSSPatents for your understanding of the case you should probably take the time to re-read what he wrote:
"The ruling explains in detail what kind of offer Apple made to Motorola. That offer is one relating to all of Motorola's FRAND-pledged patents including the one at issue in the case that was heard a week ago.
Motorola overcame Apple's FRAND defense because Apple reserved the right to contest the validity of the patent-in-suit "when, insofar and for as long as" Motorola would seek damages for past infringement -- which in Motorola's opinion goes back to the year 2007 -- above a FRAND rate.
The logic presented by Motorola's counsel convinced the court: someone using a patented invention should have to pay a price for being found to have infringed. While competition law requires the patent holder to extend a license on FRAND terms going forward, past infringement is a different matter. If, in the alternative, damages for past infringement were limited to a FRAND royalty rate, Motorola and Judge Voß argue, an infringer might ultimately get to use the patent on more favorable terms than someone procuring a license at the outset. They say that favorable terms would result from a scenario in which payments for using the patent in the past can be avoided by proving the patent invalid"
Also pay close attention to the last section detailing the arguments that Motorola could have made, but didn't need to yet.
In essence, because Apple wasn't willing to accept the same terms as others and wanted the inclusion of terms whereby they get a refund of their licensing fees if the patents are eventually found invalid, Motorola was under no obligation to offer a license under (F)RAND. Florian Mueller was quite clear about this point. Had they accepted the license terms as presented by Motorola they would have been able to mount a FRAND defense. Instead they rolled the dice and decided to take their chances if it went to court. You win some and lose some, that's business.
Ever heard of the saying "Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves"?
EU, anticompetitive.
Why would Apple even have to discuss these license agreements given that the chips they bought were covered, unless they weren't, at Motorola's instigation?
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.
Oh please.
Lack of patentability or protectionism does not prevent a return on invesment any more than ability to patent guarantees return on investment.
Since it's another day, of course there's yet another lawsuit for patent infringement. I wouldn't be shocked to find it's predicated by Apple's recent partnering with a "patent troll", but no direct evidence that it was.
Apple's now being sued over the CallerID function on their smartphones. Unlike some others that want a license agreement to be negotiated, these guys appear to just want it gone from the iPhone altogether. At some point I hope all these tech players realize the absolute mess they're creating. Apple can end up being hurt just as much as helped with all these IP suits. It's time for a truce IMO, but I certainly expect things to get worse before it happens.
Yeah, it's not like any of them are currently suing Apple.
I think non is suing Apple who wasn't already sued by Apple. I think that is very important. One cannot just say, say, "in 1945 Germany was defending their fatherland from Soviet and American invasion". While that is technically correct, one should never forget that Germany ultimately started something that ended with invasion of Germany in 1945... so the blame was on Germany, even if technically they can be perceived as victims in '45 developments.
Likewise, Apple.
Quote:
Well you're the one who has GalaxyTab in their name, so I don't see how you can criticize Apple for defending itself when it is Google and Samsung that is using dirty tricks.
While on the other side, you with Apple in your name can comfortably criticize everyone else. See the irony?
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.
Because those you are listing actually failed to copy good ideas, keeping to their traditional values, mostly based on isolationism.
Those who have recently started accepting and implementing "methodology of copy" are showing great potential. Like China.
Those who did copy - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan - did more than well.
People keep talking about competition nonsense. There is a big difference between competition and being a lowlife thief.
There's a little BUT here... it is up to legal system, judges and courts, to decide if any of them is thief or competition... and so far, based on recent judging, it seems that they are much more competition than thief, regardless what Apple would like us to believe.
One can still choose to believe slim, black and rectangular are something that should be patented and defensible in court... likewise, that it really is IP-worthy to envision touch-screen device without physical buttons... but then, one can still choose to believe Santa is real, and Rudolph's nose really is glowing red...
Comments
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 set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
If that were true then how would you explain why Apple approached Motorola for a license to begin with? Going by your argument they never needed one anyway. Do you have any source indicating that Apple needed no license agreement?
Perhaps it was because MOTOROLA (AND SAMSUNG) TERMINATED THE LICENSES OF THE CHIPS APPLE USED, leaving Apple unlicensed UNLIKE OTHER COMPANIES WHICH BUY THE SAME CHIPS.
Are you really so obtuse?
...and set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
troll 1
(trl)
v. trolled, troll·ing, trolls
v.tr.
1.
a. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.
b. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass.
c. To trail (a baited line) in fishing.
Source
Perhaps it was because MOTOROLA (AND SAMSUNG) TERMINATED THE LICENSES OF THE CHIPS APPLE USED, leaving Apple unlicensed UNLIKE OTHER COMPANIES WHICH BUY THE SAME CHIPS.
Are you really so obtuse?
troll 1
(trl)
v. trolled, troll·ing, trolls
v.tr.
1.
a. To fish for by trailing a baited line from behind a slowly moving boat.
b. To fish in by trailing a baited line: troll the lake for bass.
c. To trail (a baited line) in fishing.
Source
Why are you searching out every opportunity to toss an insult my way?
No, but apparently you're guessing at "how it works", with no source as reference. I believe the chip license was pulled AFTER Apple and Motorola could not come to an agreement. This started back in 2007.
EDIT: If you're going to rely on FOSSPatents for your understanding of the case you should probably take the time to re-read what he wrote:
"The ruling explains in detail what kind of offer Apple made to Motorola. That offer is one relating to all of Motorola's FRAND-pledged patents including the one at issue in the case that was heard a week ago.
Motorola overcame Apple's FRAND defense because Apple reserved the right to contest the validity of the patent-in-suit "when, insofar and for as long as" Motorola would seek damages for past infringement -- which in Motorola's opinion goes back to the year 2007 -- above a FRAND rate.
The logic presented by Motorola's counsel convinced the court: someone using a patented invention should have to pay a price for being found to have infringed. While competition law requires the patent holder to extend a license on FRAND terms going forward, past infringement is a different matter. If, in the alternative, damages for past infringement were limited to a FRAND royalty rate, Motorola and Judge Voß argue, an infringer might ultimately get to use the patent on more favorable terms than someone procuring a license at the outset. They say that favorable terms would result from a scenario in which payments for using the patent in the past can be avoided by proving the patent invalid"
Full text here.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...an-patent.html
Also pay close attention to the last section detailing the arguments that Motorola could have made, but didn't need to yet.
In essence, because Apple wasn't willing to accept the same terms as others and wanted the inclusion of terms whereby they get a refund of their licensing fees if the patents are eventually found invalid, Motorola was under no obligation to offer a license under (F)RAND. Florian Mueller was quite clear about this point. Had they accepted the license terms as presented by Motorola they would have been able to mount a FRAND defense. Instead they rolled the dice and decided to take their chances if it went to court. You win some and lose some, that's business.
I see no attempt by Apple to raise that defense in the German injunction trial with Motorola. Apparently it either holds no weight with the German courts, or the licensing situation was decidedly different than Samsung/Apple in France. Even Florian isn't suggesting that Apple had a case with that defense in Germany. Mr. Mueller was pretty clear on why Apple lost that particular German injunction challenge.
In any event we've strayed far from the subject of this particular thread. Why is Apple partnering with what many refer to as a "Patent Troll"? Why did the Digitude site suddenly get taken down if they're an above board and legitimate business simply trying to monetize underused IP? And why the timing for the move out of the limelight? Prior to Apple being revealed as a partner they were actively recruiting IP and partners via their website. Did Apple have it removed, trying to avoid a public association, and why so if it's an innocent business deal. A public statement would go a long ways towards dismissing rumors that Apple was afraid to use those patents against competitors for fear of reprisals and tried to attack anonymously instead. Very un-Apple like in any case, creating another PR headache.
EDIT: After the DigitudeInnovations site disappeared around Dec. 4th, it's now back up as of today.
http://www.digitudeinnovations.com/news.html
Why are you searching out every opportunity to toss an insult my way?
No, but apparently you're guessing at "how it works", with no source as reference. I believe the chip license was pulled AFTER Apple and Motorola could not come to an agreement. This started back in 2007.
EDIT: If you're going to rely on FOSSPatents for your understanding of the case you should probably take the time to re-read what he wrote:
"The ruling explains in detail what kind of offer Apple made to Motorola. That offer is one relating to all of Motorola's FRAND-pledged patents including the one at issue in the case that was heard a week ago.
Motorola overcame Apple's FRAND defense because Apple reserved the right to contest the validity of the patent-in-suit "when, insofar and for as long as" Motorola would seek damages for past infringement -- which in Motorola's opinion goes back to the year 2007 -- above a FRAND rate.
The logic presented by Motorola's counsel convinced the court: someone using a patented invention should have to pay a price for being found to have infringed. While competition law requires the patent holder to extend a license on FRAND terms going forward, past infringement is a different matter. If, in the alternative, damages for past infringement were limited to a FRAND royalty rate, Motorola and Judge Voß argue, an infringer might ultimately get to use the patent on more favorable terms than someone procuring a license at the outset. They say that favorable terms would result from a scenario in which payments for using the patent in the past can be avoided by proving the patent invalid"
Full text here.
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...an-patent.html
Also pay close attention to the last section detailing the arguments that Motorola could have made, but didn't need to yet.
In essence, because Apple wasn't willing to accept the same terms as others and wanted the inclusion of terms whereby they get a refund of their licensing fees if the patents are eventually found invalid, Motorola was under no obligation to offer a license under (F)RAND. Florian Mueller was quite clear about this point. Had they accepted the license terms as presented by Motorola they would have been able to mount a FRAND defense. Instead they rolled the dice and decided to take their chances if it went to court. You win some and lose some, that's business.
Ever heard of the saying "Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves"?
EU, anticompetitive.
Why would Apple even have to discuss these license agreements given that the chips they bought were covered, unless they weren't, at Motorola's instigation?
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.
Oh please.
Lack of patentability or protectionism does not prevent a return on invesment any more than ability to patent guarantees return on investment.
Apple's now being sued over the CallerID function on their smartphones. Unlike some others that want a license agreement to be negotiated, these guys appear to just want it gone from the iPhone altogether. At some point I hope all these tech players realize the absolute mess they're creating. Apple can end up being hurt just as much as helped with all these IP suits. It's time for a truce IMO, but I certainly expect things to get worse before it happens.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...invention.html
http://9to5mac.com/2011/12/13/apple-...droid-vendors/
Yeah, it's not like any of them are currently suing Apple.
I think non is suing Apple who wasn't already sued by Apple. I think that is very important. One cannot just say, say, "in 1945 Germany was defending their fatherland from Soviet and American invasion". While that is technically correct, one should never forget that Germany ultimately started something that ended with invasion of Germany in 1945... so the blame was on Germany, even if technically they can be perceived as victims in '45 developments.
Likewise, Apple.
Well you're the one who has GalaxyTab in their name, so I don't see how you can criticize Apple for defending itself when it is Google and Samsung that is using dirty tricks.
While on the other side, you with Apple in your name can comfortably criticize everyone else. See the irony?
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.
Because those you are listing actually failed to copy good ideas, keeping to their traditional values, mostly based on isolationism.
Those who have recently started accepting and implementing "methodology of copy" are showing great potential. Like China.
Those who did copy - Japan, South Korea, Taiwan - did more than well.
Exactly. I can't wait to see how that turns out.
People keep talking about competition nonsense. There is a big difference between competition and being a lowlife thief.
There's a little BUT here... it is up to legal system, judges and courts, to decide if any of them is thief or competition... and so far, based on recent judging, it seems that they are much more competition than thief, regardless what Apple would like us to believe.
One can still choose to believe slim, black and rectangular are something that should be patented and defensible in court... likewise, that it really is IP-worthy to envision touch-screen device without physical buttons... but then, one can still choose to believe Santa is real, and Rudolph's nose really is glowing red...
I think that you are really heavily biased here.