Moto can only win this if they provide evidence that this is what they receive from other licensees. If they don't and if they receive a far lower figure then they will be in serious trouble as this will prove that they are trying to strong-arm/extort fees from Apple.
Of course, if they do receive fees of this amount from other licensees then they would be making a hell of a lot more money than they currently do.
One more royalty payment by Apple to its competitors.
The figures add up.
Next time you purchase another iProduct, a part of your payment goes to your hated rivals of Apple.
How does that make you feel?
This is the difference between companies researching basic, ground breaking technology vs those companies who research its applications.
Application patents you can always get around, basic research patents you certainly can not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
How do they justify charging a percentage of revenue? Shouldn't it be a fixed amount per device? Are they saying that a device with many other features not related to their patent (and higher in price) gets more value from using the patent? That does not seem fair and reasonable to me.
Nothing in the FRAND law that states what is "reasonable".
Its all up to the owners discretion.
Each patent holder makes the shot.
If the licensee dont pay up, they get sued or be barred from using it.
Except the patent in question doesn't apply to the iPhone 4S (because it uses a Qualcomm chip instead) so the amont going forward Apple would have to pay is considerably less than what you are predicting.
I'm basing Moto's take on their assumption that Apple is not covered under Qualcomm's licensing agreement.
IIRC Qualcomm chips do carry the license...but this isn't about Qualcomm chips.
"[Apple] argued that its devices could potentially be covered by extension under its own license for baseband chips from Qualcomm."
Hence my original comment.
If you and Orlando are claiming that because Qualcomm makes the chip in the 4S and that it somehow automatically covers all patents that Moto is suing for despite the 4S using a world mode chip with 4 GSM bands and 5 UMTS bands then you need to show that is the case.
"[Apple] argued that its devices could potentially be covered by extension under its own license for baseband chips from Qualcomm."
Hence my original comment.
If you and Orlando are claiming that because Qualcomm makes the chip in the 4S and that it somehow automatically covers all patents that Moto is suing for despite the 4S using a world mode chip with 4 GSM bands and 5 UMTS bands then you need to show that is the case.
No I'm saying I believe the 4S is untouchable because it uses a Qualcomm chip.
I love how it's the European Union that's really taking the ball forward here.
It's like they are hardly bothering with the US legal system at all. It's nice to see some legal standards set in the world and for the EU to show how corrupt and toothless the US legal system is.
The EU is as bent as a nine bob note. Don't be fooled.
No I'm saying I believe the 4S is untouchable because it uses a Qualcomm chip.
Then defend that position because Qualcomm manufacturing a chip doesn't mean that it automatically gets all patent rights to the technologies in that chip. You need to remember that Qualcomm has patens with wireless standards but that it uses technologies it doesn't own in order to manufacture their chips, especially in the non-CDMA related technologies.
Again, defend this position that Qualcomm being the manufacture somehow nullifies all other cellular technology patents.
1) Wireless devices is missleading. It's only cellular networks, excluding WiFi, Bluetooth, et al. That means it's just the iPhone and 3G iPads.
2) Looking at just the iPhone, last quarter sold 37.04 million and had an average sale price of $650(?) which comes out to $24,076,000,000 in revenue. For Moto to take 2.25% is $541,710,000 in profit for a single quarter. You can probably add at least another $100 million for the iPad. As SDW2001 says, "Good luck with that, Moto."
Moto/Google are insane.
Apple pays for example Nokia 1 dollar per 3G device.
Moto/Google may have right for the same amount. Still many many millions.
Then defend that position because Qualcomm manufacturing a chip doesn't mean that it automatically gets all patent rights to the technologies in that chip. You need to remember that Qualcomm has patens with wireless standards but that it uses technologies it doesn't own in order to manufacture their chips, especially in the non-CDMA related technologies.
Are we arguing? I literally was forcibly woken up from a much needed nap to make last minute changes on 3 projects...I'm only semi awake so I'm not sure if I'm debating something or not.
Cause I'm either losing an argument I didn't know I was in or I'm being informed of things I didn't know...possibly both.
Are we arguing? I literally was forcibly woken up from a much needed nap to make last minute changes on 3 projects...I'm only semi awake so I'm not sure if I'm debating something or not.
Cause I'm either losing an argument I didn't know I was in or I'm being informed of things I didn't know...possibly both.
Arguing as in "give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view" not the more colloquial and sensationalist "exchange or expressing of diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way."
I found the UK to be more messed up with it came to measurements. They use imperial units and metrics, MPH and KPH for road speed, F and C for temp depending on which sounds more extreme, and still use stones as a valid unit of mass.
Dunno which bit of the UK you went to.
Weights are both imperial and metric, as are volumes (petrol/milk/alcohol).
Temperature has been for a very long time Celsius.
Distances and speeds are imperial. Try telling a Policeman that you were doing 100km/h in a 60mph zone for instance.
I found the UK to be more messed up with it came to measurements. They use imperial units and metrics, MPH and KPH for road speed, F and C for temp depending on which sounds more extreme, and still use stones as a valid unit of mass.
I lived in the UK for the past few years, and I don't know where you saw roadsigns with kph? And the only time sky, top gear or bbc mentioned F for weather was when dealing with some US based topic. And it is Stone for weight, not stones. Do you know how much a Stone is?
Makes me think you spent a weekend in the UK and now seem to think you know the country.
Moto can only win this if they provide evidence that this is what they receive from other licensees. If they don't and if they receive a far lower figure then they will be in serious trouble as this will prove that they are trying to strong-arm/extort fees from Apple.
Of course, if they do receive fees of this amount from other licensees then they would be making a hell of a lot more money than they currently do.
That's it in a nutshell. FRAND makes it easy. Motorola merely has to show what they're getting from other licensees. If it's less than 2.25%, Moto's attorneys and negotiators messed up big time.
The only other issue is whether the baseband chip supplier already had a license that covers Motorola's patents and whether that license is transferred to Apple. Again, this should be very easy to determine - pull out the license agreement and see what it says.
There are no major issues here that can't be resolved very simply.
I lived in the UK for the past few years, and I don't know where you saw roadsigns with kph? And the only time sky, top gear or bbc mentioned F for weather was when dealing with some US based topic. And it is Stone for weight, not stones. Do you know how much a Stone is?
Makes me think you spent a weekend in the UK and now seem to think you know the country.
Can you ever forgive me for adding an 's' to a word I only ever use in a manner that does get an 's' when pluralized. I guess I could point out that stone isn't capitalized mid-sentence but that would just be pedantic. This isn't German we're using.
Watch the telly the next time the weather spikes to 38° in parts of the UK. You'll see reports of 100°F because it sounds more dramatic.
Arguing as in "give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view" not the more colloquial and sensationalist "exchange or expressing of diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way."
I wasn't making a claim. I was stating what I recalled.
That's it in a nutshell. FRAND makes it easy. Motorola merely has to show what they're getting from other licensees. If it's less than 2.25%, Moto's attorneys and negotiators messed up big time.
The only other issue is whether the baseband chip supplier already had a license that covers Motorola's patents and whether that license is transferred to Apple. Again, this should be very easy to determine - pull out the license agreement and see what it says.
There are no major issues here that can't be resolved very simply.
I think Moto is grasping at straws here. I don't see how they can possibly have a case. The number of companies that have would have to mess up in a major way for Moto to have a case would be staggering.
Then defend that position because Qualcomm manufacturing a chip doesn't mean that it automatically gets all patent rights to the technologies in that chip. You need to remember that Qualcomm has patens with wireless standards but that it uses technologies it doesn't own in order to manufacture their chips, especially in the non-CDMA related technologies.
Again, defend this position that Qualcomm being the manufacture somehow nullifies all other cellular technology patents.
The arguement is you don't get to charge the licensing fee twice. So if Qualcomm has already paid the licensing fee on each chip it sells to Apple) then Apple should not need to pay the fee a second time.
The arguement is you don't get to charge the licensing fee twice. So if Qualcomm has already paid the licensing fee on each chip it sells to Apple) then Apple should not need to pay the fee a second time.
Right, that is Apple's argument, that isn't Moto's argument. They say Apple still owes them 2.25% hence my original calculations. That's not my claim, that's my calculations based on Moto's claim.
Comments
Of course, if they do receive fees of this amount from other licensees then they would be making a hell of a lot more money than they currently do.
The figures add up.
Next time you purchase another iProduct, a part of your payment goes to your hated rivals of Apple.
How does that make you feel?
This is the difference between companies researching basic, ground breaking technology vs those companies who research its applications.
Application patents you can always get around, basic research patents you certainly can not.
How do they justify charging a percentage of revenue? Shouldn't it be a fixed amount per device? Are they saying that a device with many other features not related to their patent (and higher in price) gets more value from using the patent? That does not seem fair and reasonable to me.
Nothing in the FRAND law that states what is "reasonable".
Its all up to the owners discretion.
Each patent holder makes the shot.
If the licensee dont pay up, they get sued or be barred from using it.
Except the patent in question doesn't apply to the iPhone 4S (because it uses a Qualcomm chip instead) so the amont going forward Apple would have to pay is considerably less than what you are predicting.
I'm basing Moto's take on their assumption that Apple is not covered under Qualcomm's licensing agreement.
I'm basing Moto's take on their assumption that Apple is not covered under Qualcomm's licensing agreement.
IIRC Qualcomm chips do carry the license...but this isn't about Qualcomm chips.
IIRC Qualcomm chips do carry the license...but this isn't about Qualcomm chips.
"[Apple] argued that its devices could potentially be covered by extension under its own license for baseband chips from Qualcomm."
Hence my original comment.
If you and Orlando are claiming that because Qualcomm makes the chip in the 4S and that it somehow automatically covers all patents that Moto is suing for despite the 4S using a world mode chip with 4 GSM bands and 5 UMTS bands then you need to show that is the case.
"[Apple] argued that its devices could potentially be covered by extension under its own license for baseband chips from Qualcomm."
Hence my original comment.
Damnit now I have to reread what I thought I knew...lol. Every other article I've read was sure to specify that these chips are not Qualcomm's...
"[Apple] argued that its devices could potentially be covered by extension under its own license for baseband chips from Qualcomm."
Hence my original comment.
If you and Orlando are claiming that because Qualcomm makes the chip in the 4S and that it somehow automatically covers all patents that Moto is suing for despite the 4S using a world mode chip with 4 GSM bands and 5 UMTS bands then you need to show that is the case.
No I'm saying I believe the 4S is untouchable because it uses a Qualcomm chip.
edit: I'm lost actually...
I love how it's the European Union that's really taking the ball forward here.
It's like they are hardly bothering with the US legal system at all. It's nice to see some legal standards set in the world and for the EU to show how corrupt and toothless the US legal system is.
The EU is as bent as a nine bob note. Don't be fooled.
No I'm saying I believe the 4S is untouchable because it uses a Qualcomm chip.
Then defend that position because Qualcomm manufacturing a chip doesn't mean that it automatically gets all patent rights to the technologies in that chip. You need to remember that Qualcomm has patens with wireless standards but that it uses technologies it doesn't own in order to manufacture their chips, especially in the non-CDMA related technologies.
Again, defend this position that Qualcomm being the manufacture somehow nullifies all other cellular technology patents.
1) Wireless devices is missleading. It's only cellular networks, excluding WiFi, Bluetooth, et al. That means it's just the iPhone and 3G iPads.
2) Looking at just the iPhone, last quarter sold 37.04 million and had an average sale price of $650(?) which comes out to $24,076,000,000 in revenue. For Moto to take 2.25% is $541,710,000 in profit for a single quarter. You can probably add at least another $100 million for the iPad. As SDW2001 says, "Good luck with that, Moto."
Moto/Google are insane.
Apple pays for example Nokia 1 dollar per 3G device.
Moto/Google may have right for the same amount. Still many many millions.
Then defend that position because Qualcomm manufacturing a chip doesn't mean that it automatically gets all patent rights to the technologies in that chip. You need to remember that Qualcomm has patens with wireless standards but that it uses technologies it doesn't own in order to manufacture their chips, especially in the non-CDMA related technologies.
Are we arguing? I literally was forcibly woken up from a much needed nap to make last minute changes on 3 projects...I'm only semi awake so I'm not sure if I'm debating something or not.
Cause I'm either losing an argument I didn't know I was in or I'm being informed of things I didn't know...possibly both.
Are we arguing? I literally was forcibly woken up from a much needed nap to make last minute changes on 3 projects...I'm only semi awake so I'm not sure if I'm debating something or not.
Cause I'm either losing an argument I didn't know I was in or I'm being informed of things I didn't know...possibly both.
Arguing as in "give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view" not the more colloquial and sensationalist "exchange or expressing of diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way."
I found the UK to be more messed up with it came to measurements. They use imperial units and metrics, MPH and KPH for road speed, F and C for temp depending on which sounds more extreme, and still use stones as a valid unit of mass.
Dunno which bit of the UK you went to.
Weights are both imperial and metric, as are volumes (petrol/milk/alcohol).
Temperature has been for a very long time Celsius.
Distances and speeds are imperial. Try telling a Policeman that you were doing 100km/h in a 60mph zone for instance.
I found the UK to be more messed up with it came to measurements. They use imperial units and metrics, MPH and KPH for road speed, F and C for temp depending on which sounds more extreme, and still use stones as a valid unit of mass.
I lived in the UK for the past few years, and I don't know where you saw roadsigns with kph? And the only time sky, top gear or bbc mentioned F for weather was when dealing with some US based topic. And it is Stone for weight, not stones. Do you know how much a Stone is?
Makes me think you spent a weekend in the UK and now seem to think you know the country.
Moto can only win this if they provide evidence that this is what they receive from other licensees. If they don't and if they receive a far lower figure then they will be in serious trouble as this will prove that they are trying to strong-arm/extort fees from Apple.
Of course, if they do receive fees of this amount from other licensees then they would be making a hell of a lot more money than they currently do.
That's it in a nutshell. FRAND makes it easy. Motorola merely has to show what they're getting from other licensees. If it's less than 2.25%, Moto's attorneys and negotiators messed up big time.
The only other issue is whether the baseband chip supplier already had a license that covers Motorola's patents and whether that license is transferred to Apple. Again, this should be very easy to determine - pull out the license agreement and see what it says.
There are no major issues here that can't be resolved very simply.
I lived in the UK for the past few years, and I don't know where you saw roadsigns with kph? And the only time sky, top gear or bbc mentioned F for weather was when dealing with some US based topic. And it is Stone for weight, not stones. Do you know how much a Stone is?
Makes me think you spent a weekend in the UK and now seem to think you know the country.
Can you ever forgive me for adding an 's' to a word I only ever use in a manner that does get an 's' when pluralized. I guess I could point out that stone isn't capitalized mid-sentence but that would just be pedantic. This isn't German we're using.
Watch the telly the next time the weather spikes to 38° in parts of the UK. You'll see reports of 100°F because it sounds more dramatic.
Arguing as in "give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view" not the more colloquial and sensationalist "exchange or expressing of diverging or opposite views, typically in a heated or angry way."
I wasn't making a claim. I was stating what I recalled.
That's it in a nutshell. FRAND makes it easy. Motorola merely has to show what they're getting from other licensees. If it's less than 2.25%, Moto's attorneys and negotiators messed up big time.
The only other issue is whether the baseband chip supplier already had a license that covers Motorola's patents and whether that license is transferred to Apple. Again, this should be very easy to determine - pull out the license agreement and see what it says.
There are no major issues here that can't be resolved very simply.
I think Moto is grasping at straws here. I don't see how they can possibly have a case. The number of companies that have would have to mess up in a major way for Moto to have a case would be staggering.
Then defend that position because Qualcomm manufacturing a chip doesn't mean that it automatically gets all patent rights to the technologies in that chip. You need to remember that Qualcomm has patens with wireless standards but that it uses technologies it doesn't own in order to manufacture their chips, especially in the non-CDMA related technologies.
Again, defend this position that Qualcomm being the manufacture somehow nullifies all other cellular technology patents.
The arguement is you don't get to charge the licensing fee twice. So if Qualcomm has already paid the licensing fee on each chip it sells to Apple) then Apple should not need to pay the fee a second time.
The arguement is you don't get to charge the licensing fee twice. So if Qualcomm has already paid the licensing fee on each chip it sells to Apple) then Apple should not need to pay the fee a second time.
Right, that is Apple's argument, that isn't Moto's argument. They say Apple still owes them 2.25% hence my original calculations. That's not my claim, that's my calculations based on Moto's claim.