What's most interesting is the extremely foul pretense of righteousness Google so publicly announced when it realized it needed to pay $12 billion for Motorola lest it lose the only exclusive Android licensee to Microsoft: saying Android was "under frivolous patent attack" and that Motorola would defend the platform.
Instead, Google's new acquisition has been fueled with the most phony, patent trolling desperate cash grab strategy imaginable. After stealing everything about the iPhone from Apple apart from its profitability, Google is now trying to steal Apple's earnings through extremely shady attempts to subvert the open standards process into a way to patent troll worthless old pager patents.
Very nice observations.
What will be ironic is - and we will see this a couple of years from now, since it will take at least that long to play out - while Google is wasting its cash, time, and attention chasing Android and its possibilities (essentially a zero-profit opportunity at best), it is going to get its buttoxes kicked in its core search and advertising revenue business by a $100B gorilla that is coming into existence.
I hope someone in that company is paying attention.
There is no way that Apple would announce either of the two most rumored protects in current tech in a 30 second ad.
imo they are still going to have keynotes afterward even if there is an ad at the super bowl. And it could be a 60 secs ad, its not like they can't afford it.
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.
OK, so I guess I touched a nerve by suggesting you were indulging in baseless speculation, since you're hitting the "I know you are but what am I" button pretty hard. Kinda tiresome.
I freely admit that I, too, am speculating, but at least I'm not pulling nonsense out of my ass. You really don't seem to be getting the whole FRAND deal. "Essential technology" isn't worth more when it's subject to FRAND terms, that's the whole point. Jesus.
Anywho, bored now. This kind of bullshit never goes anywhere, and the ignore list is handy.
You seem to be confusing Apple's terms for participants in the App Store market it created...
... with Motorola promising to give a patent FRAND licensing terms to build an open industry standard and then turning around and demanding half a billion dollars a quarter from Apple because it uses chips that already licensed the technology.
One is a reasonable, supporting cost of benefitting from market Apple created and maintains, where the terms were clear from the start and for a service (retail) that more typically takes a 50% cut...
and the other is a mix of fraudulent backtracking on promises, attempted monopolization of a market Motorola did not create, and double charging over a flimsy patent claim.
What's most interesting is the extremely foul pretense of righteousness Google so publicly announced when it realized it needed to pay $12 billion for Motorola lest it lose the only exclusive Android licensee to Microsoft: saying Android was "under frivolous patent attack" and that Motorola would defend the platform.
Instead, Google's new acquisition has been fueled with the most phony, patent trolling desperate cash grab strategy imaginable. After stealing everything about the iPhone from Apple apart from its profitability, Google is now trying to steal Apple's earnings through extremely shady attempts to subvert the open standards process into a way to patent troll worthless old pager patents.
Well, Google may get its own retributions in near future... Samsung and probably a few others will just use the same tactics against Google.
When that day comes, I am sure I will pop a champagne and celebrate...
If these patents really are so vital that you can't do anything without them, they should license to everyone for the same rate.
And apparently that's Motorola's argument. Seven years ago when Apple tried to license them, they (Apple) tried to add an extra clause or something in the agreement and Motorola turned them down because of it.
The only information I have about that is what the anti-Apple brigade tells me, though. However, they're probably not entirely wrong about it.
3G was a minor evolution in wireless technology and was far less significant to the mobile phone market than the introduction of the iPhone. The iPhone was far more groundbreaking. You can point at all the silly Prada's or blackjacks you want, the iPhone was the most disruptive change in mobile phones since the phones moved from car based to person based.
It is amazing how many misinformed people who believe IE and even Software Engineering do not result in ground breaking technology and only EE does.
What the heck are you smoking?
Phone was "car based and now person based"? LOL
Mobile phones WAS from the get go a "person" focused device. Hence, the words MOBILE phones.
Dont try to diverge your story and avoid talking about the foundational patents of 3G in general. Without the basic technology of 3G, none of the smartphones will ever befeasible. It's like having multiple super computers on each nodes all connected to a 56k dial up connection. You think people will be streaming videos on those types of lines?
The faster wireless data networks is what impacted people the most. Before, you couldnt stream videos, do online businesses, send heavy files, video conference, telecommute, read streaming stock quotes and many others on a slow 2G or even 1G networks. You can have the fastest mobile phones but without the bandwidth the phone is nothing. Without the network, the mobile phone is just a fancy brick.
You like to claim that the iPhone was the "break through" in mobile phones but your are wrong about that. All it did was change the PRIMARY user interface of interacting with the device from hard buttons to soft buttons. It was the first device to utilize a majority of its interface using soft "buttons". There were already ecosystems of applications running on proven OS's. That isnt such a "breakthrough" in my opinion. Stop drinking the kool aid. LG and many others was already headed in that direction before Apple did. A not-so-well-known company called Neonode even beat LG to that punch.
One thing is clear however: Apple needs the patents from Motorola and others who have invested in the basic technologies of telecommunication tech called 3G. I'm sure they are paying royalties to the inventors of 4G technologies as well, namely LG, owning 25% of the patents related to 4G.
3G was a minor evolution in wireless technology and was far less significant to the mobile phone market than the introduction of the iPhone.
Whta? Now you HAVE to explain a bit further to state that WCDMA and it's HSPA extensions was a "minor" evolution in Wireless tech. I think many are going to love his one since it just increased data bandwidth by 300x and brought delays down to 1/40th of GPRS.
I'm not claiming iPhone wasn't a big innovation, but it's impact would be FAR FAR smaller hadn't WCDMA and HSPA been developed. Also there's a lot of EE that the other's have done to make things lik reception, battery life better, simultaneous voice and data and mobility that works (as compared to WLANs for example) etc. than it would be with just SW engineering.
I'd wager a bet that iPhone would not have taken off without 3G tech since so much of the iPhone's goodness comes from the internet access which is just way too slow on GPRS (2G).
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.
I expect NOKIA will be subpoened on this extortion attempt on Motorola's part and the Justice will come down hard on Moto.
More importantly, it will be likely that the Justice Department will put a freeze on the merger of Moto Mobile and Google.
I expect NOKIA will be subpoened on this extortion attempt on Motorola's part and the Justice will come down hard on Moto.
More importantly, it will be likely that the Justice Department will put a freeze on the merger of Moto Mobile and Google.
Yeah, this seems like an insanely self-destructive act by MM/Google, especially with anti-trust investigators in the EU already looking into Samsung for the same thing.
I freely admit that I, too, am speculating, but at least I'm not pulling nonsense out of my ass. You really don't seem to be getting the whole FRAND deal. "Essential technology" isn't worth more when it's subject to FRAND terms, that's the whole point. Jesus.
No, your point seems to be that essential tech is worth LESS when it is subject to FRAND terms. That is not the case.
M$ sold non-essential stuff for ten or fifteen bucks. Apple wants to use essential stuff, and rejected a price that was smack inside that range.
ISTM that essential stuff is worth as much as non-essential stuff, and likely more. You think that because the patents are subject to FRAND, their worth plummets, but you have no basis for that assertion.
What do you posit is a "reasonable" price for a patent that is essential? Less than a non-essential patent? Why?
You seem to imply that FRAND patents must be licensed at unreasonably low fees. I'm not sure why. And seemingly, neither are you.
No, your point seems to be that essential tech is worth LESS when it is subject to FRAND terms. That is not the case.
Actually, it often is.
FRAND requires you to license a technology at reasonable rates - and essentially everyone gets the lowest rate. When you offer your technology to a standards body as FRAND, you generally offer a lower license rate in the expectation that you will make it up on volume. So FRAND license rates tend to be quite small.
Non-FRAND stuff, OTOH, is, by definition, something that the licensee can choose to use or not to use. You can charge whatever you want for it - and you need to remember the the volume will be much smaller, so per unit fees tend to be higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And apparently that's Motorola's argument. Seven years ago when Apple tried to license them, they (Apple) tried to add an extra clause or something in the agreement and Motorola turned them down because of it.
The only information I have about that is what the anti-Apple brigade tells me, though. However, they're probably not entirely wrong about it.
I don't believe much of anything without evidence. If Motorola had tried to license to Apple at FRAND rates, you don't think they would have submitted that evidence to the judge?
Instead, we have a document from Motorola which specifically states that they want 2.25% (and it's not clear, but that might even be just for a single patent), which is clearly an absurd rate for FRAND stuff. So, the only available evidence says that moto is in the wrong here, not Apple.
Of course, the anti-Apple crowd is free to provide evidence to back their assertions.
When you offer your technology to a standards body as FRAND, you generally offer a lower license rate... So FRAND license rates tend to be quite small.
Got any evidence for these assertions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
2.25% ... is clearly an absurd rate for FRAND stuff.
Got any evidence that 2.25% is an absurd rate for these patents? You seem to back up a statement of fact with a guess about the rate being too high. Got any evidence?
Got any evidence that 2.25% is an absurd rate for these patents? You seem to back up a statement of fact with a guess about the rate being too high. Got any evidence?
Not evidence or there wouldn't be the issue of a case, but speculatively speaking FRAND tends to be lower and 2.25% of the revenue being cut off the top is high. Remember that net profit is considerably lower than the gross profits for HW sales.
Not evidence or there wouldn't be the issue of a case, but speculatively speaking FRAND tends to be lower and 2.25% of the revenue being cut off the top is high. Remember that net profit is considerably lower than the gross profits for HW sales.
Good to hear that you consider the proposition that 2.25 is to high to be based upon nothing but speculation.
My speculation is that if non-essential stuff is worth 10 or 15 bucks, essential stuff is worth far more. I've heard nothing but bald assertions otherwise (based seemingly, on the proposition that if a manufacturer does NOT need a patent, it is worth more).
Comments
Like other Apple fans in this forum say:
Quit whining about the 2.25% cut or go somewhere else!
There is a rule book for Apple and one for everyone else on this planet?
1. They can't. This is an essential patent, which is why FRAND aplplies
2. It is Moto that apparently wants one set of rules for Apple and another for everyone else. And that violates FRAND.
I see everyone ignores the fact that Motorola do have a case here because Apple never paid in the first place.
Apple didn't pay because, according to them, it was covered by the Moto/QC agreement. If that is true then no Moto doesn't have a case.
Will be announced at the Super Bowl with an ad.
There is no way that Apple would announce either of the two most rumored protects in current tech in a 30 second ad.
What's most interesting is the extremely foul pretense of righteousness Google so publicly announced when it realized it needed to pay $12 billion for Motorola lest it lose the only exclusive Android licensee to Microsoft: saying Android was "under frivolous patent attack" and that Motorola would defend the platform.
Instead, Google's new acquisition has been fueled with the most phony, patent trolling desperate cash grab strategy imaginable. After stealing everything about the iPhone from Apple apart from its profitability, Google is now trying to steal Apple's earnings through extremely shady attempts to subvert the open standards process into a way to patent troll worthless old pager patents.
Very nice observations.
What will be ironic is - and we will see this a couple of years from now, since it will take at least that long to play out - while Google is wasting its cash, time, and attention chasing Android and its possibilities (essentially a zero-profit opportunity at best), it is going to get its buttoxes kicked in its core search and advertising revenue business by a $100B gorilla that is coming into existence.
I hope someone in that company is paying attention.
There is no way that Apple would announce either of the two most rumored protects in current tech in a 30 second ad.
imo they are still going to have keynotes afterward even if there is an ad at the super bowl. And it could be a 60 secs ad, its not like they can't afford it.
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.
OK, so I guess I touched a nerve by suggesting you were indulging in baseless speculation, since you're hitting the "I know you are but what am I" button pretty hard. Kinda tiresome.
I freely admit that I, too, am speculating, but at least I'm not pulling nonsense out of my ass. You really don't seem to be getting the whole FRAND deal. "Essential technology" isn't worth more when it's subject to FRAND terms, that's the whole point. Jesus.
Anywho, bored now. This kind of bullshit never goes anywhere, and the ignore list is handy.
You seem to be confusing Apple's terms for participants in the App Store market it created...
... with Motorola promising to give a patent FRAND licensing terms to build an open industry standard and then turning around and demanding half a billion dollars a quarter from Apple because it uses chips that already licensed the technology.
One is a reasonable, supporting cost of benefitting from market Apple created and maintains, where the terms were clear from the start and for a service (retail) that more typically takes a 50% cut...
and the other is a mix of fraudulent backtracking on promises, attempted monopolization of a market Motorola did not create, and double charging over a flimsy patent claim.
What's most interesting is the extremely foul pretense of righteousness Google so publicly announced when it realized it needed to pay $12 billion for Motorola lest it lose the only exclusive Android licensee to Microsoft: saying Android was "under frivolous patent attack" and that Motorola would defend the platform.
Instead, Google's new acquisition has been fueled with the most phony, patent trolling desperate cash grab strategy imaginable. After stealing everything about the iPhone from Apple apart from its profitability, Google is now trying to steal Apple's earnings through extremely shady attempts to subvert the open standards process into a way to patent troll worthless old pager patents.
Well, Google may get its own retributions in near future... Samsung and probably a few others will just use the same tactics against Google.
When that day comes, I am sure I will pop a champagne and celebrate...
If these patents really are so vital that you can't do anything without them, they should license to everyone for the same rate.
And apparently that's Motorola's argument. Seven years ago when Apple tried to license them, they (Apple) tried to add an extra clause or something in the agreement and Motorola turned them down because of it.
The only information I have about that is what the anti-Apple brigade tells me, though. However, they're probably not entirely wrong about it.
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
Only rabbid apple fans who had a shrine of Steve Jobs before 2007 (the ones built after belong to posers lol) will weep.
3G was a minor evolution in wireless technology and was far less significant to the mobile phone market than the introduction of the iPhone. The iPhone was far more groundbreaking. You can point at all the silly Prada's or blackjacks you want, the iPhone was the most disruptive change in mobile phones since the phones moved from car based to person based.
It is amazing how many misinformed people who believe IE and even Software Engineering do not result in ground breaking technology and only EE does.
What the heck are you smoking?
Phone was "car based and now person based"? LOL
Mobile phones WAS from the get go a "person" focused device. Hence, the words MOBILE phones.
Dont try to diverge your story and avoid talking about the foundational patents of 3G in general. Without the basic technology of 3G, none of the smartphones will ever befeasible. It's like having multiple super computers on each nodes all connected to a 56k dial up connection. You think people will be streaming videos on those types of lines?
The faster wireless data networks is what impacted people the most. Before, you couldnt stream videos, do online businesses, send heavy files, video conference, telecommute, read streaming stock quotes and many others on a slow 2G or even 1G networks. You can have the fastest mobile phones but without the bandwidth the phone is nothing. Without the network, the mobile phone is just a fancy brick.
You like to claim that the iPhone was the "break through" in mobile phones but your are wrong about that. All it did was change the PRIMARY user interface of interacting with the device from hard buttons to soft buttons. It was the first device to utilize a majority of its interface using soft "buttons". There were already ecosystems of applications running on proven OS's. That isnt such a "breakthrough" in my opinion. Stop drinking the kool aid. LG and many others was already headed in that direction before Apple did. A not-so-well-known company called Neonode even beat LG to that punch.
One thing is clear however: Apple needs the patents from Motorola and others who have invested in the basic technologies of telecommunication tech called 3G. I'm sure they are paying royalties to the inventors of 4G technologies as well, namely LG, owning 25% of the patents related to 4G.
3G was a minor evolution in wireless technology and was far less significant to the mobile phone market than the introduction of the iPhone.
Whta? Now you HAVE to explain a bit further to state that WCDMA and it's HSPA extensions was a "minor" evolution in Wireless tech. I think many are going to love his one since it just increased data bandwidth by 300x and brought delays down to 1/40th of GPRS.
I'm not claiming iPhone wasn't a big innovation, but it's impact would be FAR FAR smaller hadn't WCDMA and HSPA been developed. Also there's a lot of EE that the other's have done to make things lik reception, battery life better, simultaneous voice and data and mobility that works (as compared to WLANs for example) etc. than it would be with just SW engineering.
I'd wager a bet that iPhone would not have taken off without 3G tech since so much of the iPhone's goodness comes from the internet access which is just way too slow on GPRS (2G).
Regs, Jarkko
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.
I expect NOKIA will be subpoened on this extortion attempt on Motorola's part and the Justice will come down hard on Moto.
More importantly, it will be likely that the Justice Department will put a freeze on the merger of Moto Mobile and Google.
I expect NOKIA will be subpoened on this extortion attempt on Motorola's part and the Justice will come down hard on Moto.
More importantly, it will be likely that the Justice Department will put a freeze on the merger of Moto Mobile and Google.
Yeah, this seems like an insanely self-destructive act by MM/Google, especially with anti-trust investigators in the EU already looking into Samsung for the same thing.
I freely admit that I, too, am speculating, but at least I'm not pulling nonsense out of my ass. You really don't seem to be getting the whole FRAND deal. "Essential technology" isn't worth more when it's subject to FRAND terms, that's the whole point. Jesus.
No, your point seems to be that essential tech is worth LESS when it is subject to FRAND terms. That is not the case.
M$ sold non-essential stuff for ten or fifteen bucks. Apple wants to use essential stuff, and rejected a price that was smack inside that range.
ISTM that essential stuff is worth as much as non-essential stuff, and likely more. You think that because the patents are subject to FRAND, their worth plummets, but you have no basis for that assertion.
What do you posit is a "reasonable" price for a patent that is essential? Less than a non-essential patent? Why?
You seem to imply that FRAND patents must be licensed at unreasonably low fees. I'm not sure why. And seemingly, neither are you.
No, your point seems to be that essential tech is worth LESS when it is subject to FRAND terms. That is not the case.
Actually, it often is.
FRAND requires you to license a technology at reasonable rates - and essentially everyone gets the lowest rate. When you offer your technology to a standards body as FRAND, you generally offer a lower license rate in the expectation that you will make it up on volume. So FRAND license rates tend to be quite small.
Non-FRAND stuff, OTOH, is, by definition, something that the licensee can choose to use or not to use. You can charge whatever you want for it - and you need to remember the the volume will be much smaller, so per unit fees tend to be higher.
And apparently that's Motorola's argument. Seven years ago when Apple tried to license them, they (Apple) tried to add an extra clause or something in the agreement and Motorola turned them down because of it.
The only information I have about that is what the anti-Apple brigade tells me, though. However, they're probably not entirely wrong about it.
I don't believe much of anything without evidence. If Motorola had tried to license to Apple at FRAND rates, you don't think they would have submitted that evidence to the judge?
Instead, we have a document from Motorola which specifically states that they want 2.25% (and it's not clear, but that might even be just for a single patent), which is clearly an absurd rate for FRAND stuff. So, the only available evidence says that moto is in the wrong here, not Apple.
Of course, the anti-Apple crowd is free to provide evidence to back their assertions.
When you offer your technology to a standards body as FRAND, you generally offer a lower license rate... So FRAND license rates tend to be quite small.
Got any evidence for these assertions?
2.25% ... is clearly an absurd rate for FRAND stuff.
Got any evidence that 2.25% is an absurd rate for these patents? You seem to back up a statement of fact with a guess about the rate being too high. Got any evidence?
Got any evidence for these assertions?
Got any evidence that 2.25% is an absurd rate for these patents? You seem to back up a statement of fact with a guess about the rate being too high. Got any evidence?
Not evidence or there wouldn't be the issue of a case, but speculatively speaking FRAND tends to be lower and 2.25% of the revenue being cut off the top is high. Remember that net profit is considerably lower than the gross profits for HW sales.
Not evidence or there wouldn't be the issue of a case, but speculatively speaking FRAND tends to be lower and 2.25% of the revenue being cut off the top is high. Remember that net profit is considerably lower than the gross profits for HW sales.
Good to hear that you consider the proposition that 2.25 is to high to be based upon nothing but speculation.
My speculation is that if non-essential stuff is worth 10 or 15 bucks, essential stuff is worth far more. I've heard nothing but bald assertions otherwise (based seemingly, on the proposition that if a manufacturer does NOT need a patent, it is worth more).