And since they're not FRAND, they have every right to charge whatever they want for them. FRAND patents are different. There are laws that prevents companies from using essential, required-to-use patents to extort money from their competitors.
That's a whole lot of meaningless BS devoted to suggesting "evil" isn't something that a company can be, which is rather stupid considering that it was Google that invented the phrase to describe its corporate philosophy.
As far as actual reality however, Google has proven itself to be intentionally dishonest, fraudulent and without scruples. Some obvious examples:
- Advertising illegal prescription drugs with ad space it knew to be illegal, yet continued to do with approval from the top.
- Ripping off Oracle (knowingly, with internal advice clearly stating that the company knew it needed to work out a licensing deal, i.e. Lindhold email) and then mounting a public defense that accused Oracle of mounting "bogus" IP claims.
- Blatantly ripping off Apple, and similarly accusing Apple of mounting 'bogus' claims and persecuting it's Android platform while it feeds Motorola with patent attacks aimed at doing the same thing it professed to the public to be unconsciously actions by its competitors.
- Stealing book content and then trying to work out a deal afterward.
- Stealing music streaming rights and then trying to work out a deal afterward.
Just goes on and on. If you've ever used AdSense, you'd know Google cheats everyone. So sure, if Google was another corporation you could write off they actions as the "we break the law until the law forces us not to" kind of activity that "every corp" does. But Google has gone out of its way to promote itself as a super righteous company that "does no evil," making its contempt for the law and everyone else's rights particularly reprehensible.
When you use terms like good and evil you sounds emotional which means you aren't being objective.
As for their slogan, it's a slogan, not a philosophy, manifesto or a way or doing business. Apple had a Think Different campaign yet during the Q&A session of WWDC in 1997 Jobs basically said that he has no problem with not thinking different. It's about thinking better. Do you really think Apple is "green" because it's good for the environment or because it's good for their bottom line? For profit companies aren't hear to set your morale compass, you set that yourself when you choose to buy or not buy a product.
And since they're not FRAND, they have every right to charge whatever they want for them. FRAND patents are different. There are laws that prevents companies from using essential, required-to-use patents to extort money from their competitors.
And. . .?
I still haven't seen anything that indicates Moto is expecting anything different from Apple than any of the other licensees. FRAND doesn't mean almost free. There's no set formula for determining royalties on (F)RAND-committed IP as far as I know. Do you have something you can point me to that shows that Moto's 2.25% royalty rate would be illegal if it's applied equally?
I am over Google. I switched all my default settings to Bing - web and iOS. I don't love Bing, but I have to say it gets the job done 85% of the time
I see three Legal silver bullets aimed at Google's heart,
1. Directly related to above, the EU finds Motorola (and Google) in abuse of FRAND licenses. The EU has already opened up an investigation on Samsung. It's only a matter of time they do the same with Motorola
2. Oracle's wins its lawsuit that Android stole code from Java. This has the potential for severe damage reward of one+ billion $ and large on-going licensing fees. It could effectively make the Android effort unprofitable for Google. It looks like this is finally heading to some type of resolution
3. Apple starts patent lawsuits over its Multi-Touch patents. This is the most visual of Apple's innovations and they have patented the crap out of it. I can't wait to see how Motorola/Google and Samsung try to respond to this.
I look forward to when Motorola results are included in the Google earning results. Investors are going to sh** in their pants
I still haven't seen anything that indicates Moto is expecting anything different from Apple than any of the other licensees. FRAND doesn't mean almost free. There's no set formula for determining royalties on (F)RAND-committed IP as far as I know. Do you have something you can point me to that shows that Moto's 2.25% royalty rate would be illegal if it's applied equally?
The FOSS article you cited above portrays it as unreasonable. That's enough for me for now, although I suspect we'll find out definitively in court soon enough. I don't think the Moto patents would have been included in the standard if their 2.25% rate had been known at the time.
I am over Google. I switched all my default settings to Bing - web and iOS. I don't love Bing, but I have to say it gets the job done 85% of the time
I see three Legal silver bullets aimed at Google's heart,
1. Directly related to above, the EU finds Motorola (and Google) in abuse of FRAND licenses. The EU has already opened up an investigation on Samsung. It's only a matter of time they do the same with Motorola
FWIW the EU has an active investigation concerning Apple underway on a different issue. An investigation doesn't indicate wrong-doing. They're often closed with no findings of anything illegal.
AND so is born another Patent Troll GOOGMOT. Google is pure evil and the addition of Motorola it will be a bigger drain on innovation.
Motorola has been and will always be a mediocre product company - sure they had some hits but mostly there were misses.
Motorola makes the most solid phone circuitry in the business. In that respect, Apple is mediocre. Apple's innovation was the dropped call.
If GOOGMOT is evil, then what does that make Apple? Remember, Apple is telling Samsung they can't make rectangular devices. I guess Apple thinks they have a patent on rectangular shaped mobile devices (even though those shaped devices pre-dated the iPhone).
You can't be calling Google and Moto evil while somehow thinking Apple is a saint. Apple started the fuss with useless patent lawsuits and with Motorola being the pioneer that Apple built its "phone" on, I'll bet Apple isn't going to be the one to end it. After all, Apple is the newbie of the cellular phone world. Motorola is just welcoming them to the party
Google, per se, is not evil. However, the people who make the decisions under the Google moniker are deceitful, cheaters, and law-breaking manipulators of the market. Their development and promotion of Android is a direct result of Schmidt's involvement on the Apple Board (I'll never understand why Steve Jobs thought it a good idea to include him in Apple's inner circle.) And ultimately, they are headed well down the same slimy path Microsoft blazed back in the 90's. Whether Google believes in karma or not, they ought to realize that "it's a bitch", ultimately biting the hand that feeds it.
Ummm. . . the same MS that supposedly wants upwards of $15 per Android device for patents that may not even be valid? It took lowly Barnes & Noble to challenge them and now MS is removing some of the patent claims rather than have them invalidated.
Gatorguy is such a pathetic Google shill. First he gets called on glossing over the whole fair and reasonable part of FRAND, then he brings non-FRAND patents to the argument as his example (attempting to sow confusion seems to be a favorite shill tactic) and also throws in an example of two different patents to show they aren't discriminating. We'll just ignore his mistaken tu quoque above since it's so ridiculously not to the point.
In his defense, it's hard work defending the indefensible.
The FOSS article you cited above portrays it as unreasonable. That's enough for me for now, although I suspect we'll find out definitively in court soon enough. I don't think the Moto patents would have been included in the standard if their 2.25% rate had been known at the time.
Another FOSSPatents article in early December made no such claims of unreasonable when IPCom claimed 2.5-3.5% was average for a single patent, even one considered a standard (FRAND),
"The appellate court explained that the key criterion for determining the value in dispute is IPCom's "[economic] interest" in the enforcement of its rights, which in this case is based on the "expected license fees". The court notes that IPCom argued that in this industry ("electronics or, respectively, telecommunications"), a royalty rate of 2.5 to 3.5 percent for a single patent is reasonable, and that this also applies to standards-essential patents.
So how did Mr. Mueller view this?
"While the court doesn't affirmatively support this particular royalty rate, the court would not have set such a high value in dispute if IPCom's claims had failed to pass a basic plausibility test.
HTC could try to object to this order, but I can't see how it could realistically convince the court that the value in dispute does not reach (easily, in fact) the legal maximum of 30 million euros."
Whaa?? You mean 3.5% wouldn't be unreasonable, in fact quite "plausible"? Motorola is only requesting 2.25%.
Methinks Mr. Mueller has different views of fair depending on who's involved.
Ummm. . . the same MS that supposedly wants upwards of $15 per Android device for patents that may not even be valid? It took lowly Barnes & Noble to challenge them and now MS is removing some of the patent claims rather than have them invalidated.
They remove patents from ITC cases in order to streamline the case and get a faster result in getting an injunction requiring products to be removed from sale.
Meanwhile the patents are very much alive in the "real" cases where damages are sought and which will take a lot longer to decide.
Please pull your head out of Apple's a(ss). Until Google actually acquires Motorola, all actions that Motorola takes are Motorola's actions, not Google. It's kind of that simple. Until the deal is done, talking about "Google's patent hypocrisy" is complete fabricated BS designed to feed the Apple fanatics and get site clicks, nothing less.
How is it discriminatory if Moto is asking the same 2.25% consistently, with even the articles source (FOSS Patents) noting that an industry exec with no connections to either Apple nor Microsoft says they've asked the same rate for years?
Mueller: "I have furthermore heard from an executive of a large company in this industry (who is not affiliated in any way with Apple or Microsoft) that Motorola also declared years ago that it deemed a 2.25% royalty appropriate for its patents related to 4G/LTE. Someone there appears to think that 2.25 is a lucky number."
Fair and reasonable? If others are paying it without going to court, that would be one indication it is IMO. If the report that they've asked 2.25% royalities for quite some time is incorrect, then that's another thing altogether. So far I haven't seen that claimed even by FOSSPatents.
Personally I'm no fan of all these IP suits, no matter who's asserting them. I feel they're a hindrance to the marketplace and by extension consumers. I know many would disagree with me.
Revoking a 2.25% license on a 50c chip based solely on that chip being sold to selected handset makers, then demanding the same on a completed handset is where the discriminatory and unfair part comes in.
They remove patents from ITC cases in order to streamline the case and get a faster result in getting an injunction requiring products to be removed from sale.
Meanwhile the patents are very much alive in the "real" cases where damages are sought and which will take a lot longer to decide.
Maybe you should learn how the law works.
Perhaps you didn't take the time to read the law article I linked and you referenced. That might be MS claim as to why they're removing patent assertions. Actual lawyers doubt that reason in this case.
I'll link it again if you care to read it before replying.
Ummm. . . the same MS that supposedly wants upwards of $15 per Android device for patents that may not even be valid? It took lowly Barnes & Noble to challenge them and now MS is removing some of the patent claims rather than have them invalidated.
As you've been told repeatedly, that's not a useful comparison since MS' patents were not FRAND-encumbered. Since they are not FRAND, they could ask for whatever they want - and the user is free to pay them or not use the technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Another FOSSPatents article in early December made no such claims of unreasonable when IPCom claimed 2.5-3.5% was average for a single patent, even one considered a standard (FRAND),
"The appellate court explained that the key criterion for determining the value in dispute is IPCom's "[economic] interest" in the enforcement of its rights, which in this case is based on the "expected license fees". The court notes that IPCom argued that in this industry ("electronics or, respectively, telecommunications"), a royalty rate of 2.5 to 3.5 percent for a single patent is reasonable, and that this also applies to standards-essential patents.
So how did Mr. Mueller view this?
"While the court doesn't affirmatively support this particular royalty rate, the court would not have set such a high value in dispute if IPCom's claims had failed to pass a basic plausibility test.
HTC could try to object to this order, but I can't see how it could realistically convince the court that the value in dispute does not reach (easily, in fact) the legal maximum of 30 million euros."
Whaa?? You mean 3.5% wouldn't be unreasonable, in fact quite "plausible"? Motorola is only requesting 2.25%.
Methinks Mr. Mueller has different views of fair depending on who's involved.
Or maybe Mr. Mueller is able to read for comprehension.
The citation you gave said that IPCom ARGUED that 2.5 to 3.5% was reasonable. It did not say that the court agreed.
Please use some common sense. A 3G phone will probably have 50-60 FRAND encumbered patents. If 2.5-3.5% per patent was reasonable, then someone like Apple (who does not own any offsetting FRAND patents) could be paying as much as 200% of the selling price just in royalties. Clearly, that's absurd.
Note as well that there was an example given of how much others charge for FRAND. Motorola's demand for H.264 licensing was 73 to 146 times as much as FRAND licensing for the entire rest of the patent portfolio. There were also examples of known FRAND license fees - which are orders of magnitude less than Motorola was asking.
Do yourself a favor - don't believe everything you read or every crazy claim that someone makes.
As you've been told repeatedly, that's not a useful comparison since MS' patents were not FRAND-encumbered. Since they are not FRAND, they could ask for whatever they want - and the user is free to pay them or not use the technology.
Or maybe Mr. Mueller is able to read for comprehension.
The citation you gave said that IPCom ARGUED that 2.5 to 3.5% was reasonable. It did not say that the court agreed.
Please use some common sense. A 3G phone will probably have 50-60 FRAND encumbered patents. Heck, Motorola alone was cited as having 17. If 2.5-3.5% per patent was reasonable, then someone like Apple (who does not own any offsetting FRAND patents) could be paying as much as 200% of the selling price just in royalties. Clearly, that's absurd.
Do yourself a favor - don't believe everything you read or every crazy claim that someone makes.
I don't, which is why Mr. Mueller claiming 2.25% is fair, unfair, the right thing to do or whatever isn't my sole reference. Do I consider it "fair"? Not really.
There's a lot of the IP stuff that I personally don't consider fair. Or reasonable. I might feel differently if I had a horse in the race, but I don't.
For this discussion tho I'm not doing anything more that pointing out that Moto's royalty request is reported to be consistent, thus non-discriminatory, and there's no indications other than Mr. Muellers' (and of course Apple and MS) that 2.25% is unreasonable, and even he doesn't suggest it's illegally high. IMO some of the opinion and claims in the AI article aren't supported by the facts as they're currently known. That could change as the case moves thru the courts. For now I don't see that Moto is expecting anything from Apple that they haven't expected from other licensees. Do you?
The assertion put forth by Mueller is they've asked for 2.25% fairly consistently, the same as they're now asking of Apple and Microsoft. Again, how is that discriminatory? Is anyone actually paying what Moto is requesting, and will Apple and/or MS be able to negotiate a lower percentage in royalties? Perhaps yes to both, but nothing I've read so far indicates Moto is expecting any more from Apple than any other licensee. Do you see something I haven't?
2.25% of the price of a chip is how most companies pay the fee when using the chip in a finished product, Motorola is revoking the license of chipmakers when the sell their chips to selected companies and demanding the same fee on completed products, which is unfair and discriminatory.
It's so laughable that all this is coming from the company which not so long ago promoted its corporate culture as being "Don't Be Evil"... and actually seemed to believe it.
Now they seem to be falling over themselves to Be Evil... not just this example of blatant hypocrisy, but so many other, for instance the story in the NYT yesterday about selling users' private search information for use by the very shady data aggregation industry. Not to mention Google's appalling skulduggery over net neutrality, and so much else.
Perhaps Eric the Mole's appointment of Tony Soprano as Ethics VP wasn't such a good choice after all...
Comments
Microsoft's patents aren't FRAND though, whether they're valid or not.
And. . .?
And. . .?
And since they're not FRAND, they have every right to charge whatever they want for them. FRAND patents are different. There are laws that prevents companies from using essential, required-to-use patents to extort money from their competitors.
That's a whole lot of meaningless BS devoted to suggesting "evil" isn't something that a company can be, which is rather stupid considering that it was Google that invented the phrase to describe its corporate philosophy.
As far as actual reality however, Google has proven itself to be intentionally dishonest, fraudulent and without scruples. Some obvious examples:
- Advertising illegal prescription drugs with ad space it knew to be illegal, yet continued to do with approval from the top.
- Ripping off Oracle (knowingly, with internal advice clearly stating that the company knew it needed to work out a licensing deal, i.e. Lindhold email) and then mounting a public defense that accused Oracle of mounting "bogus" IP claims.
- Blatantly ripping off Apple, and similarly accusing Apple of mounting 'bogus' claims and persecuting it's Android platform while it feeds Motorola with patent attacks aimed at doing the same thing it professed to the public to be unconsciously actions by its competitors.
- Stealing book content and then trying to work out a deal afterward.
- Stealing music streaming rights and then trying to work out a deal afterward.
Just goes on and on. If you've ever used AdSense, you'd know Google cheats everyone. So sure, if Google was another corporation you could write off they actions as the "we break the law until the law forces us not to" kind of activity that "every corp" does. But Google has gone out of its way to promote itself as a super righteous company that "does no evil," making its contempt for the law and everyone else's rights particularly reprehensible.
When you use terms like good and evil you sounds emotional which means you aren't being objective.
As for their slogan, it's a slogan, not a philosophy, manifesto or a way or doing business. Apple had a Think Different campaign yet during the Q&A session of WWDC in 1997 Jobs basically said that he has no problem with not thinking different. It's about thinking better. Do you really think Apple is "green" because it's good for the environment or because it's good for their bottom line? For profit companies aren't hear to set your morale compass, you set that yourself when you choose to buy or not buy a product.
And. . .?
And Microsoft has no commitment to be reasonable.
And since they're not FRAND, they have every right to charge whatever they want for them. FRAND patents are different. There are laws that prevents companies from using essential, required-to-use patents to extort money from their competitors.
And. . .?
I still haven't seen anything that indicates Moto is expecting anything different from Apple than any of the other licensees. FRAND doesn't mean almost free. There's no set formula for determining royalties on (F)RAND-committed IP as far as I know. Do you have something you can point me to that shows that Moto's 2.25% royalty rate would be illegal if it's applied equally?
I see three Legal silver bullets aimed at Google's heart,
1. Directly related to above, the EU finds Motorola (and Google) in abuse of FRAND licenses. The EU has already opened up an investigation on Samsung. It's only a matter of time they do the same with Motorola
2. Oracle's wins its lawsuit that Android stole code from Java. This has the potential for severe damage reward of one+ billion $ and large on-going licensing fees. It could effectively make the Android effort unprofitable for Google. It looks like this is finally heading to some type of resolution
3. Apple starts patent lawsuits over its Multi-Touch patents. This is the most visual of Apple's innovations and they have patented the crap out of it. I can't wait to see how Motorola/Google and Samsung try to respond to this.
I look forward to when Motorola results are included in the Google earning results. Investors are going to sh** in their pants
And. . .?
I still haven't seen anything that indicates Moto is expecting anything different from Apple than any of the other licensees. FRAND doesn't mean almost free. There's no set formula for determining royalties on (F)RAND-committed IP as far as I know. Do you have something you can point me to that shows that Moto's 2.25% royalty rate would be illegal if it's applied equally?
The FOSS article you cited above portrays it as unreasonable. That's enough for me for now, although I suspect we'll find out definitively in court soon enough. I don't think the Moto patents would have been included in the standard if their 2.25% rate had been known at the time.
I am over Google. I switched all my default settings to Bing - web and iOS. I don't love Bing, but I have to say it gets the job done 85% of the time
I see three Legal silver bullets aimed at Google's heart,
1. Directly related to above, the EU finds Motorola (and Google) in abuse of FRAND licenses. The EU has already opened up an investigation on Samsung. It's only a matter of time they do the same with Motorola
FWIW the EU has an active investigation concerning Apple underway on a different issue. An investigation doesn't indicate wrong-doing. They're often closed with no findings of anything illegal.
AND so is born another Patent Troll GOOGMOT.
Motorola has been and will always be a mediocre product company - sure they had some hits but mostly there were misses.
Motorola makes the most solid phone circuitry in the business. In that respect, Apple is mediocre. Apple's innovation was the dropped call.
If GOOGMOT is evil, then what does that make Apple? Remember, Apple is telling Samsung they can't make rectangular devices. I guess Apple thinks they have a patent on rectangular shaped mobile devices (even though those shaped devices pre-dated the iPhone).
You can't be calling Google and Moto evil while somehow thinking Apple is a saint. Apple started the fuss with useless patent lawsuits and with Motorola being the pioneer that Apple built its "phone" on, I'll bet Apple isn't going to be the one to end it. After all, Apple is the newbie of the cellular phone world. Motorola is just welcoming them to the party
Ummm. . . the same MS that supposedly wants upwards of $15 per Android device for patents that may not even be valid? It took lowly Barnes & Noble to challenge them and now MS is removing some of the patent claims rather than have them invalidated.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20207110012776
Pot meet kettle.
Gatorguy is such a pathetic Google shill. First he gets called on glossing over the whole fair and reasonable part of FRAND, then he brings non-FRAND patents to the argument as his example (attempting to sow confusion seems to be a favorite shill tactic) and also throws in an example of two different patents to show they aren't discriminating. We'll just ignore his mistaken tu quoque above since it's so ridiculously not to the point.
In his defense, it's hard work defending the indefensible.
The FOSS article you cited above portrays it as unreasonable. That's enough for me for now, although I suspect we'll find out definitively in court soon enough. I don't think the Moto patents would have been included in the standard if their 2.25% rate had been known at the time.
Another FOSSPatents article in early December made no such claims of unreasonable when IPCom claimed 2.5-3.5% was average for a single patent, even one considered a standard (FRAND),
"The appellate court explained that the key criterion for determining the value in dispute is IPCom's "[economic] interest" in the enforcement of its rights, which in this case is based on the "expected license fees". The court notes that IPCom argued that in this industry ("electronics or, respectively, telecommunications"), a royalty rate of 2.5 to 3.5 percent for a single patent is reasonable, and that this also applies to standards-essential patents.
So how did Mr. Mueller view this?
"While the court doesn't affirmatively support this particular royalty rate, the court would not have set such a high value in dispute if IPCom's claims had failed to pass a basic plausibility test.
HTC could try to object to this order, but I can't see how it could realistically convince the court that the value in dispute does not reach (easily, in fact) the legal maximum of 30 million euros."
Whaa?? You mean 3.5% wouldn't be unreasonable, in fact quite "plausible"? Motorola is only requesting 2.25%.
Methinks Mr. Mueller has different views of fair depending on who's involved.
Ummm. . . the same MS that supposedly wants upwards of $15 per Android device for patents that may not even be valid? It took lowly Barnes & Noble to challenge them and now MS is removing some of the patent claims rather than have them invalidated.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20207110012776
Pot meet kettle.
They remove patents from ITC cases in order to streamline the case and get a faster result in getting an injunction requiring products to be removed from sale.
Meanwhile the patents are very much alive in the "real" cases where damages are sought and which will take a lot longer to decide.
Maybe you should learn how the law works.
Please pull your head out of Apple's a(ss). Until Google actually acquires Motorola, all actions that Motorola takes are Motorola's actions, not Google. It's kind of that simple. Until the deal is done, talking about "Google's patent hypocrisy" is complete fabricated BS designed to feed the Apple fanatics and get site clicks, nothing less.
How is it discriminatory if Moto is asking the same 2.25% consistently, with even the articles source (FOSS Patents) noting that an industry exec with no connections to either Apple nor Microsoft says they've asked the same rate for years?
Mueller: "I have furthermore heard from an executive of a large company in this industry (who is not affiliated in any way with Apple or Microsoft) that Motorola also declared years ago that it deemed a 2.25% royalty appropriate for its patents related to 4G/LTE. Someone there appears to think that 2.25 is a lucky number."
Fair and reasonable? If others are paying it without going to court, that would be one indication it is IMO. If the report that they've asked 2.25% royalities for quite some time is incorrect, then that's another thing altogether. So far I haven't seen that claimed even by FOSSPatents.
Personally I'm no fan of all these IP suits, no matter who's asserting them. I feel they're a hindrance to the marketplace and by extension consumers. I know many would disagree with me.
Revoking a 2.25% license on a 50c chip based solely on that chip being sold to selected handset makers, then demanding the same on a completed handset is where the discriminatory and unfair part comes in.
They remove patents from ITC cases in order to streamline the case and get a faster result in getting an injunction requiring products to be removed from sale.
Meanwhile the patents are very much alive in the "real" cases where damages are sought and which will take a lot longer to decide.
Maybe you should learn how the law works.
Perhaps you didn't take the time to read the law article I linked and you referenced. That might be MS claim as to why they're removing patent assertions. Actual lawyers doubt that reason in this case.
I'll link it again if you care to read it before replying.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20207110012776
Ummm. . . the same MS that supposedly wants upwards of $15 per Android device for patents that may not even be valid? It took lowly Barnes & Noble to challenge them and now MS is removing some of the patent claims rather than have them invalidated.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20207110012776
Pot meet kettle.
As you've been told repeatedly, that's not a useful comparison since MS' patents were not FRAND-encumbered. Since they are not FRAND, they could ask for whatever they want - and the user is free to pay them or not use the technology.
Another FOSSPatents article in early December made no such claims of unreasonable when IPCom claimed 2.5-3.5% was average for a single patent, even one considered a standard (FRAND),
"The appellate court explained that the key criterion for determining the value in dispute is IPCom's "[economic] interest" in the enforcement of its rights, which in this case is based on the "expected license fees". The court notes that IPCom argued that in this industry ("electronics or, respectively, telecommunications"), a royalty rate of 2.5 to 3.5 percent for a single patent is reasonable, and that this also applies to standards-essential patents.
So how did Mr. Mueller view this?
"While the court doesn't affirmatively support this particular royalty rate, the court would not have set such a high value in dispute if IPCom's claims had failed to pass a basic plausibility test.
HTC could try to object to this order, but I can't see how it could realistically convince the court that the value in dispute does not reach (easily, in fact) the legal maximum of 30 million euros."
Whaa?? You mean 3.5% wouldn't be unreasonable, in fact quite "plausible"? Motorola is only requesting 2.25%.
Methinks Mr. Mueller has different views of fair depending on who's involved.
Or maybe Mr. Mueller is able to read for comprehension.
The citation you gave said that IPCom ARGUED that 2.5 to 3.5% was reasonable. It did not say that the court agreed.
Please use some common sense. A 3G phone will probably have 50-60 FRAND encumbered patents. If 2.5-3.5% per patent was reasonable, then someone like Apple (who does not own any offsetting FRAND patents) could be paying as much as 200% of the selling price just in royalties. Clearly, that's absurd.
Note as well that there was an example given of how much others charge for FRAND. Motorola's demand for H.264 licensing was 73 to 146 times as much as FRAND licensing for the entire rest of the patent portfolio. There were also examples of known FRAND license fees - which are orders of magnitude less than Motorola was asking.
Do yourself a favor - don't believe everything you read or every crazy claim that someone makes.
As you've been told repeatedly, that's not a useful comparison since MS' patents were not FRAND-encumbered. Since they are not FRAND, they could ask for whatever they want - and the user is free to pay them or not use the technology.
Or maybe Mr. Mueller is able to read for comprehension.
The citation you gave said that IPCom ARGUED that 2.5 to 3.5% was reasonable. It did not say that the court agreed.
Please use some common sense. A 3G phone will probably have 50-60 FRAND encumbered patents. Heck, Motorola alone was cited as having 17. If 2.5-3.5% per patent was reasonable, then someone like Apple (who does not own any offsetting FRAND patents) could be paying as much as 200% of the selling price just in royalties. Clearly, that's absurd.
Do yourself a favor - don't believe everything you read or every crazy claim that someone makes.
I don't, which is why Mr. Mueller claiming 2.25% is fair, unfair, the right thing to do or whatever isn't my sole reference. Do I consider it "fair"? Not really.
There's a lot of the IP stuff that I personally don't consider fair. Or reasonable. I might feel differently if I had a horse in the race, but I don't.
For this discussion tho I'm not doing anything more that pointing out that Moto's royalty request is reported to be consistent, thus non-discriminatory, and there's no indications other than Mr. Muellers' (and of course Apple and MS) that 2.25% is unreasonable, and even he doesn't suggest it's illegally high. IMO some of the opinion and claims in the AI article aren't supported by the facts as they're currently known. That could change as the case moves thru the courts. For now I don't see that Moto is expecting anything from Apple that they haven't expected from other licensees. Do you?
The assertion put forth by Mueller is they've asked for 2.25% fairly consistently, the same as they're now asking of Apple and Microsoft. Again, how is that discriminatory? Is anyone actually paying what Moto is requesting, and will Apple and/or MS be able to negotiate a lower percentage in royalties? Perhaps yes to both, but nothing I've read so far indicates Moto is expecting any more from Apple than any other licensee. Do you see something I haven't?
2.25% of the price of a chip is how most companies pay the fee when using the chip in a finished product, Motorola is revoking the license of chipmakers when the sell their chips to selected companies and demanding the same fee on completed products, which is unfair and discriminatory.
Now they seem to be falling over themselves to Be Evil... not just this example of blatant hypocrisy, but so many other, for instance the story in the NYT yesterday about selling users' private search information for use by the very shady data aggregation industry. Not to mention Google's appalling skulduggery over net neutrality, and so much else.
Perhaps Eric the Mole's appointment of Tony Soprano as Ethics VP wasn't such a good choice after all...