Would not the hyperlink text search fall under FRAND as well???
It's not essential, and Apple never declared that process as such. You don't have to have recognizable strings of information automatically turned into clickable links for cellular 3G communication. It's much like intermittent wipers: a wonderful feature, not essential, but a great bit of forward thinking by Apple.
I do see a pattern in how Apple and Motorola/Google/Samsung use the patent system:
- Apple comes from the position that it must defend its in-house developed inventions and trade dress that help define its brand. None of the patents, trade dress or IP (inertial scrolling, swipe to unlock, unique industrial design, packaging etc) are essential for the competition to make the own products in the same space. Apple by law must defend its patents or they will losing them.
- Motorola/Google/Samsung come from a reactionary position. They do not want to give in to Apple's lawsuits because their business model includes copying Apple IP and trade dress. So their lawsuits typically involve searching their patent portfolio for something that Apple may infringe upon as a form of counter attack. The problem with this strategy is that many of Motorola/Google/Samsung's patents are technical specifications that are now industry standards, and therefor suing the competition is monopolistic and illegal.
So it comes down to this:
- Apple invents game changing, industry re-defining tech. It then protects these inventions.
- The competition is free to invent their own original responses to Apple's innovation.
- The competition instead copies Apple's IP/trade dress.
- Apple rightfully sues.
- The competition responds by digging into their patent portfolio to counter sue.
- The competition's counter suits often involve essential technology that is monopolistic.
The question is: Why doesn't Motorola/Google/Samsung just come up with their own original ideas. If they do, Apple will not sue. It's as simple as that.
The answer is: Motorola/Google/Samsung don't seem to possess the skill to innovate the way Apple does. So they copy Apple. Then they get sued; and rightfully so.
Excellent analysis, MeniThing!
You say: "Motorola/Google/Samsung don't seem to possess the skill to innovate the way Apple does. So they copy Apple. Then they get sued; and rightfully so"
I thinks its worse than that. It appears that Google is guilty of "wilful infringement" i.e. they knew full well that they were using other people's IP but decided to go ahead anyway. There are two examples of this:-
In the Oracle case there are incriminating email(s), which Google have tried unsuccessfully time and time again to suppress and not be allowed into evidence, but the judge has ruled repeatedly that the emails are valid evidence. In these emails senior Google/Android executives discuss Oracle's IP, acknowledge that they are infringing but decide to go ahead anyway.
The second is Apple's patent '263, which is in both their cases against the HTC and Motorola. The judge in the Motorola case has ruled that HTC 's defence definition of "realtime" is wrong i.e. he has ruled that Apple's definition is correct. This means that HTC's defence on this patent appears to be in tatters. The significance of this patent '263 (quite apart from the fact that it will be a very difficult if not impossible for Android to work around it and therefore Android user experience will be severely degraded) is that Andy Rubin (head honcho of Android) was actually an engineer at Apple working on this very patent! It seems that Rubin will have a very difficult task in trying to persuade a jury that he was not aware of this Apple's '263 patent and therefore he was not guilty of wilful infringement!
The point about wilful infringement is very serious for Google, because Courts come down heavily against it, imposing triple damages. They are also are much more likely to grant an injunction. Google therefore may be facing triple damages both to Oracle and Apple on every Android phone ever produced.
Also wilful infringement will not play well in EU and US investigations into Google's monopolistic, antitrust practices!
It's not essential, and Apple never declared that process as such. You don't have to have recognizable strings of information automatically turned into clickable links for cellular 3G communication. It's much like intermittent wipers: a wonderful feature, not essential, but a great bit of forward thinking by Apple.
I guess that makes some sense...( admittedly Patoneese make little sense to me )
The thing I still get stuck on is how to define Fair and reasonable?
Should Apple Pay Motorola $0.01,$0.05,$1, $2, $5, $10, $50 per phone to use Motorola's technology?
Apple is always whining about someone stealing it's intellectual property, so how much should they have to pay for stealing Motorola's intellectual property (FRAN or not) ?
Is it based on other cross licenses deals that other manufactures pay Motorola?
I guess that makes some sense...( admittedly Patoneese make little sense to me )
The thing I still get stuck on is how to define Fair and reasonable?
Should Apple Pay Motorola $0.01,$0.05,$1, $2, $5, $10, $50 per phone to use Motorola's technology?
Apple is always whining about someone stealing it's intellectual property, so how much should they have to pay for stealing Motorola's intellectual property (FRAN or not) ?
Is it based on other cross licenses deals that other manufactures pay Motorola?
That is, basically, my understanding. That would certainly be "fair and reasonable".
I guess that makes some sense...( admittedly Patoneese make little sense to me )
The thing I still get stuck on is how to define Fair and reasonable?
Should Apple Pay Motorola $0.01,$0.05,$1, $2, $5, $10, $50 per phone to use Motorola's technology?
Apple is always whining about someone stealing it's intellectual property, so how much should they have to pay for stealing Motorola's intellectual property (FRAN or not) ?
Is it based on other cross licenses deals that other manufactures pay Motorola?
They have to pay a Fair, Reasonable and Non Discriminatory amount. To me, that seems to state that it would be the same amount that any other phone maker pays. Otherwise it is Discriminatory.... Right?
They have to pay a Fair, Reasonable and Non Discriminatory amount. To me, that seems to state that it would be the same amount that any other phone maker pays. Otherwise it is Discriminatory.... Right?
As this plays out it will be interesting to see how much Motorola demanded and how much Apple was willing to pay....
Obviously this have been going on for about three years now...
I am willing to bet that BOTH side were acting like two year old's over this....
Apple is always whining about someone stealing it's intellectual property, so how much should they have to pay for stealing Motorola's intellectual property (FRAN or not) ?
I could be wrong here but I have never heard of Apple having FRAND patents. Without FRAND classification, the technology they're 'whining' about someone 'stealing' is Apple's to protect.
If you invented a process that could make you quite wealthy, wouldn't you want to prevent others from copying it and taking some of the money you could be making? That's what Apple is doing by protecting their non-licensed patents through the proper channels: the court systems.
As this plays out it will be interesting to see how much Motorola demanded and how much Apple was willing to pay....
Obviously this have been going on for about three years now...
I am willing to bet that BOTH side were acting like two year old's over this....
While that is possible, it remains to be seen if it is the case. I doubt that Apple would win any cases if this could be proven. If it could it most likely would have been proven in court already.
Do you honestly think that these lawyers are that stupid enough to not know of the consequences of filing FRAND related patents without the potential for scrutiny from the government body?
They do get paid the big bucks and have an army of lawyers by their side, remember that.
I could be wrong here but I have never heard of Apple having FRAND patents. Without FRAND classification, the technology they're 'whining' about someone 'stealing' is Apple's to protect.
If you invented a process that could make you quite wealthy, wouldn't you want to prevent others from copying it and taking some of the money you could be making? That's what Apple is doing by protecting their non-licensed patents through the proper channels: the court systems.
What Apple is doing is being greedy that is what.
All these companies who freely gave up their patents on 3G technology in order to facilitate the adoption of mobile phones around the world.
Apple, on the other hand, kept their design "patents" to themselves because it was greedy and wanted the "tablet" market all to themselves ( which inevitably smells monopolistic by nature).
Apple has not given up its rights to the design "patents" to help facilitate the adoption of the tablets by the masses. Instead, it wanted to hog everything to itself.
That is the difference between a cooperative company and that of a none cooperative, greedy company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Apple's patents aren't industry standard patents. There's no law that says you have to license your patents to another company.
Unless they are FRAND encumbered industry standard patents.
How is the design of a rectangular surface with round corners on a generally flat touch enabled medium not a standard in the tablet market?
Since there is an "industry standard technology" patent, there should also be an "industry standard design" patent if the two want to be on equal footing/significance.
I guess that makes some sense...( admittedly Patoneese make little sense to me )
The thing I still get stuck on is how to define Fair and reasonable?
Should Apple Pay Motorola $0.01,$0.05,$1, $2, $5, $10, $50 per phone to use Motorola's technology?
Apple is always whining about someone stealing it's intellectual property, so how much should they have to pay for stealing Motorola's intellectual property (FRAN or not) ?
Is it based on other cross licenses deals that other manufactures pay Motorola?
You seem to misunderstand the difference between a FRAND and an ordinary patent.
A FRAND patent is an open invitation to everybody to use the patent. Because a FRAND patent is part of an adopted standard there can be many, many FRAND patents included within an adopted standard, therefore the licence fee is normally very small.
With an ordinary patent, the patent holder owns the patent and it is in the patent owner's sole discretion whether or not to grant a licence. i.e. the patent holder is perfectly entitled not to grant a licence, whereas a FRAND patent holder is required to grant a licence.
What Apple is alleging is that Google, Motorola, Samesung, HTC and others are unlawfully copying and using their IP in their patents (which a non-FRAND). Apple are not interested in licensing but wants these copyists to cease and desist. Of course they will also seek damages and compensation for past infringements, but going forward the copyists will have to write their own software or make their own original designs, working around Apple's patents, if they can. This is likely to result in a considerable degradation of Android software and hardware over time.
The Mannheim Regional Court seems to have an idiosyncratic approach to FRAND patents in that they require defendants (i.e. potential licensees) to make a firm offer to licence the FRAND patent, failing which the Court will impose an injunction on the defendant as having breached the patent.
In most other jurisdictions a defendant subject of a FRAND patent claim can say to the Court "we don't think we are infringing on this FRAND patent for such and such reason, but if we are please adjudicate how much fair and non-discrimnatory licence fee we are required to pay under FRAND."
An injunction would then only be granted if the defendant then refused to pay what the Court decided is fair and reasonable.
I expect Mannheim Regional Court's idiosyncratic approach my be challenged in due course in higher courts, culminating in the European Court, as Mannheim's interpretation appears to be unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory in favour of the claimant FRAND patent holder and totally at odds with the spirit and intention of FRAND.
All these companies who freely gave up their patents on 3G technology in order to facilitate the adoption of mobile phones around the world.
Apple, on the other hand, kept their design "patents" to themselves because it was greedy and wanted the "tablet" market all to themselves ( which inevitably smells monopolistic by nature).
Apple has not given up its rights to the design "patents" to help facilitate the adoption of the tablets by the mass media. Instead, it wanted to hog everything to itself.
That is the difference between a cooperative company and that of a none cooperative, greedy company.
Comparing 'design' technology to 'communications' technology isn't a reasonable argument. Design is what differentiates the products from each manufacturer. Most design patents don't fit the idea of an 'industry standard', there by necessitating 'FRAND' status. Communications patents are shared so that interoperability between different devices is easily facilitated. You do want calls and data transferred between different manufacturers devices to work correctly, don't you?
To question your 'design patent' logic, must all tablets look like an iPad to properly function? Of course not.
You seem to misunderstand the difference between a FRAND and an ordinary patent.
A FRAND patent is an open invitation to everybody to use the patent. Because a FRAND patent is part of an adopted standard there can be many, many FRAND patents included within an adopted standard, therefore the licence fee is normally very small.
With an ordinary patent, the patent holder owns the patent and it is in the patent owner's sole discretion whether or not to grant a licence. i.e. the patent holder is perfectly entitled not to grant a licence, whereas a FRAND patent holder is required to grant a licence.
What Apple is alleging is that Google, Motorola, Samesung, HTC and others are unlawfully copying and using their IP in their patents (which a non-FRAND). Apple are not interested in licensing but wants these copyists to cease and desist. Of course they will also seek damages and compensation for past infringements, but going forward the copyists will have to write their own software or make their own original designs, working around Apple's patents, if they can. This is likely to result in a considerable degradation of Android software and hardware over time.
The Mannheim Regional Court seems to have an idiosyncratic approach to FRAND patents in that they require defendants (i.e. potential licensees) to make a firm offer to licence the FRAND patent, failing which the Court will impose an injunction on the defendant as having breached the patent.
In most other jurisdictions a defendant subject of a FRAND patent claim can say to the Court "we don't think we are infringing on this FRAND patent for such and such reason, but if we are please adjudicate how much fair and non-discrimnatory licence fee we are required to pay under FRAND."
An injunction would then only be granted if the defendant then refused to pay what the Court decided is fair and reasonable.
I expect Mannheim Regional Court's idiosyncratic approach my be challenged in due course in higher courts, culminating in the European Court, as Mannheim's interpretation appears to be unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory in favour of the claimant FRAND patent holder and totally at odds with the spirit and intention of FRAND.
So basically Apple is stealing Motorola's intellectual property because it claims that Motorola is being unreasonable and Motorola is claiming that Apple is being unreasonable by refusing it's FRAND licensing offer (Assuming one way made in 2007)....
Sorry, but I am back to this sounding like two year old's arguing over a toy....
I guess that makes some sense...( admittedly Patoneese make little sense to me )
The thing I still get stuck on is how to define Fair and reasonable?
Should Apple Pay Motorola $0.01,$0.05,$1, $2, $5, $10, $50 per phone to use Motorola's technology?
Apple is always whining about someone stealing it's intellectual property, so how much should they have to pay for stealing Motorola's intellectual property (FRAN or not) ?
Is it based on other cross licenses deals that other manufactures pay Motorola?
Fair, reasonable and NON-DISCRIMINATORY would NOT be revoking the licenses of chipmakers as soon as they sell a chip to Apple, unlike letting them stand for other phone manufacturers.
So basically Apple is stealing Motorola's intellectual property because it claims that Motorola is being unreasonable and Motorola is claiming that Apple is being unreasonable by refusing it's FRAND licensing offer (Assuming one way made in 2007)....
Sorry, but I am back to this sounding like two year old's arguing over a toy....
If by "toy" you mean billions of dollars in cold, hard cash, then yes.
Comments
Would not the hyperlink text search fall under FRAND as well???
It's not essential, and Apple never declared that process as such. You don't have to have recognizable strings of information automatically turned into clickable links for cellular 3G communication. It's much like intermittent wipers: a wonderful feature, not essential, but a great bit of forward thinking by Apple.
I do see a pattern in how Apple and Motorola/Google/Samsung use the patent system:
- Apple comes from the position that it must defend its in-house developed inventions and trade dress that help define its brand. None of the patents, trade dress or IP (inertial scrolling, swipe to unlock, unique industrial design, packaging etc) are essential for the competition to make the own products in the same space. Apple by law must defend its patents or they will losing them.
- Motorola/Google/Samsung come from a reactionary position. They do not want to give in to Apple's lawsuits because their business model includes copying Apple IP and trade dress. So their lawsuits typically involve searching their patent portfolio for something that Apple may infringe upon as a form of counter attack. The problem with this strategy is that many of Motorola/Google/Samsung's patents are technical specifications that are now industry standards, and therefor suing the competition is monopolistic and illegal.
So it comes down to this:
- Apple invents game changing, industry re-defining tech. It then protects these inventions.
- The competition is free to invent their own original responses to Apple's innovation.
- The competition instead copies Apple's IP/trade dress.
- Apple rightfully sues.
- The competition responds by digging into their patent portfolio to counter sue.
- The competition's counter suits often involve essential technology that is monopolistic.
The question is: Why doesn't Motorola/Google/Samsung just come up with their own original ideas. If they do, Apple will not sue. It's as simple as that.
The answer is: Motorola/Google/Samsung don't seem to possess the skill to innovate the way Apple does. So they copy Apple. Then they get sued; and rightfully so.
Excellent analysis, MeniThing!
You say: "Motorola/Google/Samsung don't seem to possess the skill to innovate the way Apple does. So they copy Apple. Then they get sued; and rightfully so"
I thinks its worse than that. It appears that Google is guilty of "wilful infringement" i.e. they knew full well that they were using other people's IP but decided to go ahead anyway. There are two examples of this:-
In the Oracle case there are incriminating email(s), which Google have tried unsuccessfully time and time again to suppress and not be allowed into evidence, but the judge has ruled repeatedly that the emails are valid evidence. In these emails senior Google/Android executives discuss Oracle's IP, acknowledge that they are infringing but decide to go ahead anyway.
The second is Apple's patent '263, which is in both their cases against the HTC and Motorola. The judge in the Motorola case has ruled that HTC 's defence definition of "realtime" is wrong i.e. he has ruled that Apple's definition is correct. This means that HTC's defence on this patent appears to be in tatters. The significance of this patent '263 (quite apart from the fact that it will be a very difficult if not impossible for Android to work around it and therefore Android user experience will be severely degraded) is that Andy Rubin (head honcho of Android) was actually an engineer at Apple working on this very patent! It seems that Rubin will have a very difficult task in trying to persuade a jury that he was not aware of this Apple's '263 patent and therefore he was not guilty of wilful infringement!
The point about wilful infringement is very serious for Google, because Courts come down heavily against it, imposing triple damages. They are also are much more likely to grant an injunction. Google therefore may be facing triple damages both to Oracle and Apple on every Android phone ever produced.
Also wilful infringement will not play well in EU and US investigations into Google's monopolistic, antitrust practices!
It's not essential, and Apple never declared that process as such. You don't have to have recognizable strings of information automatically turned into clickable links for cellular 3G communication. It's much like intermittent wipers: a wonderful feature, not essential, but a great bit of forward thinking by Apple.
I guess that makes some sense...( admittedly Patoneese make little sense to me )
The thing I still get stuck on is how to define Fair and reasonable?
Should Apple Pay Motorola $0.01,$0.05,$1, $2, $5, $10, $50 per phone to use Motorola's technology?
Apple is always whining about someone stealing it's intellectual property, so how much should they have to pay for stealing Motorola's intellectual property (FRAN or not) ?
Is it based on other cross licenses deals that other manufactures pay Motorola?
I guess that makes some sense...( admittedly Patoneese make little sense to me )
The thing I still get stuck on is how to define Fair and reasonable?
Should Apple Pay Motorola $0.01,$0.05,$1, $2, $5, $10, $50 per phone to use Motorola's technology?
Apple is always whining about someone stealing it's intellectual property, so how much should they have to pay for stealing Motorola's intellectual property (FRAN or not) ?
Is it based on other cross licenses deals that other manufactures pay Motorola?
That is, basically, my understanding. That would certainly be "fair and reasonable".
I guess that makes some sense...( admittedly Patoneese make little sense to me )
The thing I still get stuck on is how to define Fair and reasonable?
Should Apple Pay Motorola $0.01,$0.05,$1, $2, $5, $10, $50 per phone to use Motorola's technology?
Apple is always whining about someone stealing it's intellectual property, so how much should they have to pay for stealing Motorola's intellectual property (FRAN or not) ?
Is it based on other cross licenses deals that other manufactures pay Motorola?
They have to pay a Fair, Reasonable and Non Discriminatory amount. To me, that seems to state that it would be the same amount that any other phone maker pays. Otherwise it is Discriminatory.... Right?
They have to pay a Fair, Reasonable and Non Discriminatory amount. To me, that seems to state that it would be the same amount that any other phone maker pays. Otherwise it is Discriminatory.... Right?
As this plays out it will be interesting to see how much Motorola demanded and how much Apple was willing to pay....
Obviously this have been going on for about three years now...
I am willing to bet that BOTH side were acting like two year old's over this....
Apple is always whining about someone stealing it's intellectual property, so how much should they have to pay for stealing Motorola's intellectual property (FRAN or not) ?
I could be wrong here but I have never heard of Apple having FRAND patents. Without FRAND classification, the technology they're 'whining' about someone 'stealing' is Apple's to protect.
If you invented a process that could make you quite wealthy, wouldn't you want to prevent others from copying it and taking some of the money you could be making? That's what Apple is doing by protecting their non-licensed patents through the proper channels: the court systems.
As this plays out it will be interesting to see how much Motorola demanded and how much Apple was willing to pay....
Obviously this have been going on for about three years now...
I am willing to bet that BOTH side were acting like two year old's over this....
While that is possible, it remains to be seen if it is the case. I doubt that Apple would win any cases if this could be proven. If it could it most likely would have been proven in court already.
They do get paid the big bucks and have an army of lawyers by their side, remember that.
I could be wrong here but I have never heard of Apple having FRAND patents. Without FRAND classification, the technology they're 'whining' about someone 'stealing' is Apple's to protect.
If you invented a process that could make you quite wealthy, wouldn't you want to prevent others from copying it and taking some of the money you could be making? That's what Apple is doing by protecting their non-licensed patents through the proper channels: the court systems.
What Apple is doing is being greedy that is what.
All these companies who freely gave up their patents on 3G technology in order to facilitate the adoption of mobile phones around the world.
Apple, on the other hand, kept their design "patents" to themselves because it was greedy and wanted the "tablet" market all to themselves ( which inevitably smells monopolistic by nature).
Apple has not given up its rights to the design "patents" to help facilitate the adoption of the tablets by the masses. Instead, it wanted to hog everything to itself.
That is the difference between a cooperative company and that of a none cooperative, greedy company.
Apple's patents aren't industry standard patents. There's no law that says you have to license your patents to another company.
Unless they are FRAND encumbered industry standard patents.
How is the design of a rectangular surface with round corners on a generally flat touch enabled medium not a standard in the tablet market?
Since there is an "industry standard technology" patent, there should also be an "industry standard design" patent if the two want to be on equal footing/significance.
I guess that makes some sense...( admittedly Patoneese make little sense to me )
The thing I still get stuck on is how to define Fair and reasonable?
Should Apple Pay Motorola $0.01,$0.05,$1, $2, $5, $10, $50 per phone to use Motorola's technology?
Apple is always whining about someone stealing it's intellectual property, so how much should they have to pay for stealing Motorola's intellectual property (FRAN or not) ?
Is it based on other cross licenses deals that other manufactures pay Motorola?
You seem to misunderstand the difference between a FRAND and an ordinary patent.
A FRAND patent is an open invitation to everybody to use the patent. Because a FRAND patent is part of an adopted standard there can be many, many FRAND patents included within an adopted standard, therefore the licence fee is normally very small.
With an ordinary patent, the patent holder owns the patent and it is in the patent owner's sole discretion whether or not to grant a licence. i.e. the patent holder is perfectly entitled not to grant a licence, whereas a FRAND patent holder is required to grant a licence.
What Apple is alleging is that Google, Motorola, Samesung, HTC and others are unlawfully copying and using their IP in their patents (which a non-FRAND). Apple are not interested in licensing but wants these copyists to cease and desist. Of course they will also seek damages and compensation for past infringements, but going forward the copyists will have to write their own software or make their own original designs, working around Apple's patents, if they can. This is likely to result in a considerable degradation of Android software and hardware over time.
The Mannheim Regional Court seems to have an idiosyncratic approach to FRAND patents in that they require defendants (i.e. potential licensees) to make a firm offer to licence the FRAND patent, failing which the Court will impose an injunction on the defendant as having breached the patent.
In most other jurisdictions a defendant subject of a FRAND patent claim can say to the Court "we don't think we are infringing on this FRAND patent for such and such reason, but if we are please adjudicate how much fair and non-discrimnatory licence fee we are required to pay under FRAND."
An injunction would then only be granted if the defendant then refused to pay what the Court decided is fair and reasonable.
I expect Mannheim Regional Court's idiosyncratic approach my be challenged in due course in higher courts, culminating in the European Court, as Mannheim's interpretation appears to be unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory in favour of the claimant FRAND patent holder and totally at odds with the spirit and intention of FRAND.
What Apple is doing is being greedy that is what.
All these companies who freely gave up their patents on 3G technology in order to facilitate the adoption of mobile phones around the world.
Apple, on the other hand, kept their design "patents" to themselves because it was greedy and wanted the "tablet" market all to themselves ( which inevitably smells monopolistic by nature).
Apple has not given up its rights to the design "patents" to help facilitate the adoption of the tablets by the mass media. Instead, it wanted to hog everything to itself.
That is the difference between a cooperative company and that of a none cooperative, greedy company.
Comparing 'design' technology to 'communications' technology isn't a reasonable argument. Design is what differentiates the products from each manufacturer. Most design patents don't fit the idea of an 'industry standard', there by necessitating 'FRAND' status. Communications patents are shared so that interoperability between different devices is easily facilitated. You do want calls and data transferred between different manufacturers devices to work correctly, don't you?
To question your 'design patent' logic, must all tablets look like an iPad to properly function? Of course not.
You seem to misunderstand the difference between a FRAND and an ordinary patent.
A FRAND patent is an open invitation to everybody to use the patent. Because a FRAND patent is part of an adopted standard there can be many, many FRAND patents included within an adopted standard, therefore the licence fee is normally very small.
With an ordinary patent, the patent holder owns the patent and it is in the patent owner's sole discretion whether or not to grant a licence. i.e. the patent holder is perfectly entitled not to grant a licence, whereas a FRAND patent holder is required to grant a licence.
What Apple is alleging is that Google, Motorola, Samesung, HTC and others are unlawfully copying and using their IP in their patents (which a non-FRAND). Apple are not interested in licensing but wants these copyists to cease and desist. Of course they will also seek damages and compensation for past infringements, but going forward the copyists will have to write their own software or make their own original designs, working around Apple's patents, if they can. This is likely to result in a considerable degradation of Android software and hardware over time.
The Mannheim Regional Court seems to have an idiosyncratic approach to FRAND patents in that they require defendants (i.e. potential licensees) to make a firm offer to licence the FRAND patent, failing which the Court will impose an injunction on the defendant as having breached the patent.
In most other jurisdictions a defendant subject of a FRAND patent claim can say to the Court "we don't think we are infringing on this FRAND patent for such and such reason, but if we are please adjudicate how much fair and non-discrimnatory licence fee we are required to pay under FRAND."
An injunction would then only be granted if the defendant then refused to pay what the Court decided is fair and reasonable.
I expect Mannheim Regional Court's idiosyncratic approach my be challenged in due course in higher courts, culminating in the European Court, as Mannheim's interpretation appears to be unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory in favour of the claimant FRAND patent holder and totally at odds with the spirit and intention of FRAND.
So basically Apple is stealing Motorola's intellectual property because it claims that Motorola is being unreasonable and Motorola is claiming that Apple is being unreasonable by refusing it's FRAND licensing offer (Assuming one way made in 2007)....
Sorry, but I am back to this sounding like two year old's arguing over a toy....
I guess that makes some sense...( admittedly Patoneese make little sense to me )
The thing I still get stuck on is how to define Fair and reasonable?
Should Apple Pay Motorola $0.01,$0.05,$1, $2, $5, $10, $50 per phone to use Motorola's technology?
Apple is always whining about someone stealing it's intellectual property, so how much should they have to pay for stealing Motorola's intellectual property (FRAN or not) ?
Is it based on other cross licenses deals that other manufactures pay Motorola?
Fair, reasonable and NON-DISCRIMINATORY would NOT be revoking the licenses of chipmakers as soon as they sell a chip to Apple, unlike letting them stand for other phone manufacturers.
So basically Apple is stealing Motorola's intellectual property because it claims that Motorola is being unreasonable and Motorola is claiming that Apple is being unreasonable by refusing it's FRAND licensing offer (Assuming one way made in 2007)....
Sorry, but I am back to this sounding like two year old's arguing over a toy....
If by "toy" you mean billions of dollars in cold, hard cash, then yes.