Motorola seeking 2.25% of Apple's sales for standard-essential patent license

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 139
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post








    "Sounds pretty cheap"? Do you have any links to suggest that opinion is based on anything at all?





    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ensing-dispute

    http://www.webmasterworld.com/pda_mo...ng/4368299.htm

    geektech.in/archives/5134

    http://www.pearltrees.com/fredericl/...9-28/id3407480



    "Samsung will have to pay Microsoft a small fee – likely between $10 and $15 – for each Android smartphone or tablet computer it sells. "



    " ... a small fee..." is how the article describes 10 or 15 bucks. Apple's average ASP puts Motorola's requested royalty smack in the middle of the "Small Fee" range.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 62 of 139
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,521member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    O

    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.



    Ummm, the ND part of FRAND stands for "non-disciminatory", which means that Motorola can't demand more from one licensee than another just because that new licensee has deeper pockets.



    Thompson
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 63 of 139
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    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.



    That is the difference between FRAND based patents that form a standard and those patents that do not form a standard but can be just as hard to design around.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 64 of 139
    It seems odd that they could use a percentage of sales as the basis for fair pricing at all.



    It means for devices with more technology and more expensive technology from other manufacturers, MOTO's cut would get progressively bigger. With a percentage deal they'd effectively be making money off of everyone else's technology on top of their own.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 65 of 139
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    Except it is more complex than that because Motorola has cross licensing agreements with many other manufacturers so they get a lower rate. How much is the cross licensing deal worth? Does Qualcomm even pay a fee to Motorola or is it cancelled out by the license fees Motorola would otherwise be paying?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    From the article: "Motorola would likely respond by arguing that the others cross-licensed their own standard-essential wireless patents."





    Seemingly the other companies offered licensed tech in exchange. Apple is not really a player in this sort of tech. Apple dies not license their tech.



    It doesn't work that way. FRAND means that for any given technology that is essential to the use of the phone, they have to charge everyone the same amount. They can offset it with other payments, but the license fee can not change.



    Simplest example. Company A has a Frand technology that they license for $1.00. Company B has a technology that they license for $0.50. Company C uses Company A's technology, but not company B's.



    Now, Company A can not simply reduce its fee to B and call it $0.50. First, that would not be non-discriminatory since Company C has to pay the full $1.00. Furthermore, that would only work if both Company A and Company B sold exactly the same number of phones every year.



    The way it works is that each technology has a fee attached to it and then you add up all that is owed by each player to each other player.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    Apple therefore was offered a money deal. 2.25% sounds pretty cheap for something that is essential. Apple pays more than that for the screen and for the RAM.



    Irrelevant. FRAND means that no one can charge some companies more than others - regardless of whether the amount is large or small.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 66 of 139
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ensing-dispute

    http://www.webmasterworld.com/pda_mo...ng/4368299.htm

    geektech.in/archives/5134

    http://www.pearltrees.com/fredericl/...9-28/id3407480



    "Samsung will have to pay Microsoft a small fee ? likely between $10 and $15 ? for each Android smartphone or tablet computer it sells. "



    " ... a small fee..." is how the article describes 10 or 15 bucks. Apple's average ASP puts Motorola's requested royalty smack in the middle of the "Small Fee" range.



    Right, those are settlements involving patent infringements over tech that presumably MS could have simply refused to license.



    In other words, not FRAND encumbered tech. Just because the article refers to it as a "small fee" doesn't have any bearing on what a court might find to be reasonable FRAND licensing terms. One would have to assume that the very nature of FRAND means that the licensing fees would be far less than what a successful litigant could extract out of the losing party.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 67 of 139
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Some handset makers were reportedly paying M$ around $15 per infringing handset. AFAIK, none of those were FRAND, so they were presumably worth less than the critical patents in contention here. 12 or 13 bucks per device sounds like it is not out of the range that we've already seen for cross-licensing of smartphone patents.



    $15 per phone to MSFT? Pure conjecture and no real evidence. How is it that we mock certain rumours and yet use others if they support our arguments?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 68 of 139
    pokepoke Posts: 506member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post


    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.



    Maybe that's the scam. They get 2.25% revenue from Google too, which works out as $0.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 69 of 139
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Right, those are settlements involving patent infringements over tech that presumably MS could have simply refused to license.



    In other words, not FRAND encumbered tech. Just because the article refers to it as a "small fee" doesn't have any bearing on what a court might find to be reasonable FRAND licensing terms. One would have to assume that the very nature of FRAND means that the licensing fees would be far less than what a successful litigant could extract out of the losing party.



    "FRAND means that the licensing fees would be far less"? Do you have any links to suggest that assumption is based on anything at all?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 70 of 139
    Deleted
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 71 of 139
    brendonbrendon Posts: 642member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    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.



    Ding-to the-Ding!!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 72 of 139
    I see everyone ignores the fact that Motorola do have a case here because Apple never paid in the first place.



    Quote:

    Companies must offer Frand-type patents for a reasonable fee to anyone willing to pay.



    Apple had previously said it would be willing to pay the fee going forward, but the two firms dispute how much Apple should pay for failing to license the technology up until now. Missed payments are not covered by the "reasonable" rule, and Motorola is able to demand a more expensive price.



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 73 of 139
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    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 have a good friend here in the U.S. that has an ancient father in the U.K. that back during the conversion to a decimal form of currency would often ask her, "How much is that in Christian money?"



    On the whole, it seems to me that Europe, including the U.K. is more focused on protecting the consumer from corporate abuses then the U.S. does it's consumers. There is probably a good balance somewhere between extremes, but I have no opinion on where that may be.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 74 of 139
    iqatedoiqatedo Posts: 1,846member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by master811 View Post


    I see everyone ignores the fact that Motorola do have a case here because Apple never paid in the first place.



    That is not necessarily true.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 75 of 139
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by master811 View Post


    I see everyone ignores the fact that Motorola do have a case here because Apple never paid in the first place.



    Because that's not a fact.



    If Motorola demands unreasonable fees on a FRAND license, Apple doesn't have to pay. They can wait for the court to order them to pay what Motorola charges everyone else.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 76 of 139
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Right, those are settlements involving patent infringements over tech that presumably MS could have simply refused to license.



    While I'm not sure what patents MS is licensing to Android phone makers and Apple, The number most often quoted is $10 to $15 per handset. Some of these patents, I'm sure MS could refuse to grant a license for, but does so to keep certain MS standards in place with enterprise customers. For example, Apple licenses MS Exchange Server patent from MS, and I heard that license was a great boon to Apple, while keeping the Exchange server protocol central to email messaging.



    Quote:

    In other words, not FRAND encumbered tech. Just because the article refers to it as a "small fee" doesn't have any bearing on what a court might find to be reasonable FRAND licensing terms. One would have to assume that the very nature of FRAND means that the licensing fees would be far less than what a successful litigant could extract out of the losing party.



    I agree, and FRAND also keeps the playing field even for all companies wanting to use the patent technology.



    It seems to me that the Moto patent relating to the iCloud should fall under the FRAND rules which would reduce the license to somethng much more reasonable.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 77 of 139
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    "FRAND means that the licensing fees would be far less"? Do you have any links to suggest that assumption is based on anything at all?



    Common sense. FRAND terms are, by there very nature, designed to lower the barriers for entry when it comes to technology that has been incorporated as part of a standard. The idea is that the originators of such technology deserve to make some money from licensing their tech, but they shouldn't be allowed to gouge licensees once such tech becomes necessary for a given market. Hence, you know, "Fair and reasonable."



    Contrast that with the kind of payments MS is getting, wherein they have been able to extract moneys out of Android manufactures because Android was infringing on MS patents. There isn't any reason for MS to be particularly generous, in this case, beyond being careful not to price themselves out of the market and setting terms so burdensome it would be worth Google's time to make modifications to the Android code.



    Neither of are privy to the specifics of Motorola's demands or Apple's offers, but my scenario at least has the benefit of conforming to what we know about prevailing conditions, whereas you just seem to want Apple to be wrong.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 78 of 139
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Common sense. FRAND terms are, by there very nature, designed to lower the barriers for entry when it comes to technology that has been incorporated as part of a standard. The idea is that the originators of such technology deserve to make some money from licensing their tech, but they shouldn't be allowed to gouge licensees once such tech becomes necessary for a given market. Hence, you know, "Fair and reasonable."



    Contrast that with the kind of payments MS is getting, wherein they have been able to extract moneys out of Android manufactures because Android was infringing on MS patents. There isn't any reason for MS to be particularly generous, in this case, beyond being careful not to price themselves out of the market and setting terms so burdensome it would be worth Google's time to make modifications to the Android code.



    Neither of are privy to the specifics of Motorola's demands or Apple's offers, but my scenario at least has the benefit of conforming to what we know about prevailing conditions, whereas you just seem to want Apple to be wrong.





    So you have no real support for your assumptions, other than more unsupported assumptions?



    My assumption is that unless Apple can bring some essential patents to the table like the other companies did, they will have to pay cash instead. And essential patents seem to me to be worth much more than the non-essential stuff that Microsoft was peddling.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 79 of 139
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,228member
    Will be announced at the Super Bowl with an ad. expect weeping.



    The rumor was for an Apple TV announcement but this latest leak makes more sense
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 80 of 139
    Apple can just use its cash hoard and buy Germany.



    Then the judges would be working for them.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.