You clearly don't understand basic logic. If a patent is required to implement a standard, the body may require FRAND terms for its licensing, but we're not talking about eminent domain of random patents into a pool.
Apple has FRAND licensed patents and offers a variety of FREE patents for certain uses, such as its gift of Canvas and the patents it uses to the worldwide web for use with HTML5.
Apple isn't seeking to gain its money from patent licensing. It makes its money selling real products. Motorola can't earn money selling smartphones, so it's resolved to become a patent troll.
How Motorola expects the world to let this fly is beyond belief. It's absurd. Motorola is demanding over $1 billion of Apple's iPhone revenues from last year, and a perpetual future royalty on products going forward. This is insane, particularly when comparing Apple's deal with Nokia.
It's pretty clear that Motorola has become a puppet of Google, and Google is desperately trying to make some money in the smartphone business given that it has made less than $1 in the last year from Android directly (more than half of its ad revenues estimated to reach $2.5 b were from iOS).
Look at the money, not the bs activation numbers. Google screwed the pooch and is desperately trying to remain relevant. Android is now an albatross given that Samsung (its only significant and successful licensee) is ready to strike out on its own. It's now a cash sink, the equivalent to Xbox in 2000, except it's not battling a feeble Sony but rather Apple and Microsoft.
don't speculate with zero evidence beyond circumstantial...it makes your entire argument seem weak and tin-foil-hat-like.
What you're missing is that in addition to Mueller's word, we also have examples that he's cited stating that typical FRAND fees are orders of magnitude lower than Moto's demand. Not to mention the simple analysis above that 2.25% would be absolutely impossible since the license fees would be far greater than the cost of the device.
I don't think I missed anything. Mr. Mueller isn't citing his example of another FRAND royalty rate as typical of the industry as a whole is he? He's simply stating the terms of one that he considered pertinent to what his argument was (the rate Moto wants from Microsoft is too high). I haven't found any evidence anywhere for what a typical rate should be, nor even a generally agreed on basis to determine one.
Now do I think that a 2.25% rate used throughout the industry would be sustainable? No I do not. Do I personally think it's a fair rate in this instance. Again, no I do not. But as I'v already written, neither my opinion of reasonable nor yours means squat when it comes to setting the rates for a FRAND patent. There are regulatory agencies like ETSI that could probably put some rules in place if they choose to. There's also the courts that can step in if regulators can't agree on a policy. For now, it's generally up to the patent holder to determine their royalty. All FRAND rules accomplish is assuring the patents will be licensed, and the rates are consistent. Even that allows for variation and/or allowances of value outside of cash such as receiving patent licenses in return (cross-licensing) from what I've gathered.
PS: Any guesses on how Moto patents got declared essential to h.264 without their being forced into the pool?
I believe it's Moto that is claiming the patent is essential to H.264, not MPEG-LA. Basically Moto is telling every company that uses H.264 that Moto may sue them at some point in the future.
Also, I don't think you can be forced into the pool. If you choose to enter, then you'll get some revenue, but nobody can force you to throw your patents in.
However, I do wonder whether MPEG-LA would license H.264 to a company that declares its patents essential to the standard, refuses to contribute to the pool, and is actively suing H.264 licensees. Common sense would say no, but I don't know if this has been tested yet.
Also, I don't think you can be forced into the pool. If you choose to enter, then you'll get some revenue, but nobody can force you to throw your patents in.
I'll mention this again, along with a link to the the source proving the claim, for those that may have missed it when originally posted:
The ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) policies state that if a standard cannot be established without violating someone's intellectual property, perhaps an Apple patent for instance, then those patents are automatically declared essential and therefor must be available for license under FRAND.
In Europe, technology deemed essential to mobile device specifications cannot be withheld from licensing.
I'll mention this again, along with a link to the the source proving the claim, for those that may have missed it when originally posted:
The ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) policies state that if a standard cannot be established without violating someone's intellectual property, perhaps an Apple patent for instance, then those patents are automatically declared essential and therefor must be available for license under FRAND.
In Europe, technology deemed essential to mobile device specifications cannot be withheld from licensing.
[ ...] Instead, Motorola has used its FRAND licensed standards patents to bring new suits against Apple and Microsoft that do nothing to "protect" Android, and instead only seek to profit from its technology that has already been committed to standards that have no direct relationship to the Android platform. [...]
LOL. I wonder if Larry Page knew this when he signed off on the deal.
$12.5 billion is roughly equal to 1.5 years of Google profits.
It's going to take a long time to recoup that, if ever.
I'm well aware of the difference [between FRAND and regular patents].
Yet, curiously, he posts as though there isn't any.
Typical Gatorguy FUD. He says a bunch of stuff to obfuscate the issue, then, pretends like he didn't say x, y or z when it's pointed out he's talking out of his ass.
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.
Not claiming you're wrong at all, but where do you get the 2.25% being traditional for the royalty on a chipset? FWIW. even Apple proposes the royalty be based on the price of the entire phone (altho not their iPhone) rather than a chipset price.
Not claiming you're wrong at all, but where do you get the 2.25% being traditional for the royalty on a chipset? FWIW. even Apple proposes the royalty be based on the price of the entire phone (altho not their iPhone) rather than a chipset price.
Well, since I do try to be accurate when I repeat claims, could you give us a link that shows/verifies Motorola was charging a royalty rate of 2.25% on the Infineon chipset that Apple uses?
I don't believe in this good or evil mantra in business. There are ethical and unethical and legal and illegal ways a company can act but being good or evil isn't one of them. Even Samsung who has blatantly and mercilessly copied from Apple isn't evil in their actions. They've taken calculated risks with their maneuvers and it appears to be paying off handsomely for them while their Android using counterparts are suffering. Whether I think personally it's right or wrong is irrelevant because objectively they are thriving from their actions.
Now the question of whether survival of the fittest is the best maneuver for the group as a whole is debatable. There are more than a few anthropological studies showing that the happiest communities are those where there is good balance among all parties. So one could argue that Apple's dominance in all arms of their business (PC, tablet, handset, and PMP) isn't good for the whole.
Trying to impress upon the public that all your competition is evil & you are a saint...well that is evil. Devaluing intellectual property just so you can use it without having to pay for it, that's evil. Google is shameless.
Trying to impress upon the public that all your competition is evil & you are a saint...well that is evil. Devaluing intellectual property just so you can use it without having to pay for it, that's evil. Google is shameless.
Comments
You clearly don't understand basic logic. If a patent is required to implement a standard, the body may require FRAND terms for its licensing, but we're not talking about eminent domain of random patents into a pool.
Apple has FRAND licensed patents and offers a variety of FREE patents for certain uses, such as its gift of Canvas and the patents it uses to the worldwide web for use with HTML5.
Apple isn't seeking to gain its money from patent licensing. It makes its money selling real products. Motorola can't earn money selling smartphones, so it's resolved to become a patent troll.
How Motorola expects the world to let this fly is beyond belief. It's absurd. Motorola is demanding over $1 billion of Apple's iPhone revenues from last year, and a perpetual future royalty on products going forward. This is insane, particularly when comparing Apple's deal with Nokia.
It's pretty clear that Motorola has become a puppet of Google, and Google is desperately trying to make some money in the smartphone business given that it has made less than $1 in the last year from Android directly (more than half of its ad revenues estimated to reach $2.5 b were from iOS).
Look at the money, not the bs activation numbers. Google screwed the pooch and is desperately trying to remain relevant. Android is now an albatross given that Samsung (its only significant and successful licensee) is ready to strike out on its own. It's now a cash sink, the equivalent to Xbox in 2000, except it's not battling a feeble Sony but rather Apple and Microsoft.
don't speculate with zero evidence beyond circumstantial...it makes your entire argument seem weak and tin-foil-hat-like.
What you're missing is that in addition to Mueller's word, we also have examples that he's cited stating that typical FRAND fees are orders of magnitude lower than Moto's demand. Not to mention the simple analysis above that 2.25% would be absolutely impossible since the license fees would be far greater than the cost of the device.
I don't think I missed anything. Mr. Mueller isn't citing his example of another FRAND royalty rate as typical of the industry as a whole is he? He's simply stating the terms of one that he considered pertinent to what his argument was (the rate Moto wants from Microsoft is too high). I haven't found any evidence anywhere for what a typical rate should be, nor even a generally agreed on basis to determine one.
Now do I think that a 2.25% rate used throughout the industry would be sustainable? No I do not. Do I personally think it's a fair rate in this instance. Again, no I do not. But as I'v already written, neither my opinion of reasonable nor yours means squat when it comes to setting the rates for a FRAND patent. There are regulatory agencies like ETSI that could probably put some rules in place if they choose to. There's also the courts that can step in if regulators can't agree on a policy. For now, it's generally up to the patent holder to determine their royalty. All FRAND rules accomplish is assuring the patents will be licensed, and the rates are consistent. Even that allows for variation and/or allowances of value outside of cash such as receiving patent licenses in return (cross-licensing) from what I've gathered.
PS: Any guesses on how Moto patents got declared essential to h.264 without their being forced into the pool?
I believe it's Moto that is claiming the patent is essential to H.264, not MPEG-LA. Basically Moto is telling every company that uses H.264 that Moto may sue them at some point in the future.
Also, I don't think you can be forced into the pool. If you choose to enter, then you'll get some revenue, but nobody can force you to throw your patents in.
However, I do wonder whether MPEG-LA would license H.264 to a company that declares its patents essential to the standard, refuses to contribute to the pool, and is actively suing H.264 licensees. Common sense would say no, but I don't know if this has been tested yet.
Also, I don't think you can be forced into the pool. If you choose to enter, then you'll get some revenue, but nobody can force you to throw your patents in.
I'll mention this again, along with a link to the the source proving the claim, for those that may have missed it when originally posted:
The ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) policies state that if a standard cannot be established without violating someone's intellectual property, perhaps an Apple patent for instance, then those patents are automatically declared essential and therefor must be available for license under FRAND.
In Europe, technology deemed essential to mobile device specifications cannot be withheld from licensing.
http://www.etsi.org/WebSite/AboutETS...olicy_FAQ.aspx
I'll mention this again, along with a link to the the source proving the claim, for those that may have missed it when originally posted:
The ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) policies state that if a standard cannot be established without violating someone's intellectual property, perhaps an Apple patent for instance, then those patents are automatically declared essential and therefor must be available for license under FRAND.
In Europe, technology deemed essential to mobile device specifications cannot be withheld from licensing.
http://www.etsi.org/WebSite/AboutETS...olicy_FAQ.aspx
Interesting. It doesn't directly apply to this situation (H.264), but it indicates that you can be forced to throw in your patents in some cases.
[ ...] Instead, Motorola has used its FRAND licensed standards patents to bring new suits against Apple and Microsoft that do nothing to "protect" Android, and instead only seek to profit from its technology that has already been committed to standards that have no direct relationship to the Android platform. [...]
LOL. I wonder if Larry Page knew this when he signed off on the deal.
$12.5 billion is roughly equal to 1.5 years of Google profits.
It's going to take a long time to recoup that, if ever.
I'm well aware of the difference [between FRAND and regular patents].
Yet, curiously, he posts as though there isn't any.
Typical Gatorguy FUD. He says a bunch of stuff to obfuscate the issue, then, pretends like he didn't say x, y or z when it's pointed out he's talking out of his ass.
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.
Not claiming you're wrong at all, but where do you get the 2.25% being traditional for the royalty on a chipset? FWIW. even Apple proposes the royalty be based on the price of the entire phone (altho not their iPhone
Not claiming you're wrong at all, but where do you get the 2.25% being traditional for the royalty on a chipset? FWIW. even Apple proposes the royalty be based on the price of the entire phone (altho not their iPhone
Motorola and their magical 2.25 number.
Motorola and their magical 2.25 number.
Well, since I do try to be accurate when I repeat claims, could you give us a link that shows/verifies Motorola was charging a royalty rate of 2.25% on the Infineon chipset that Apple uses?
I don't believe in this good or evil mantra in business. There are ethical and unethical and legal and illegal ways a company can act but being good or evil isn't one of them. Even Samsung who has blatantly and mercilessly copied from Apple isn't evil in their actions. They've taken calculated risks with their maneuvers and it appears to be paying off handsomely for them while their Android using counterparts are suffering. Whether I think personally it's right or wrong is irrelevant because objectively they are thriving from their actions.
Now the question of whether survival of the fittest is the best maneuver for the group as a whole is debatable. There are more than a few anthropological studies showing that the happiest communities are those where there is good balance among all parties. So one could argue that Apple's dominance in all arms of their business (PC, tablet, handset, and PMP) isn't good for the whole.
Trying to impress upon the public that all your competition is evil & you are a saint...well that is evil. Devaluing intellectual property just so you can use it without having to pay for it, that's evil. Google is shameless.
Trying to impress upon the public that all your competition is evil & you are a saint...well that is evil. Devaluing intellectual property just so you can use it without having to pay for it, that's evil. Google is shameless.
They also kidnap little kids and rape corpses.
Also they shot JFK.