Apple lodged FRAND abuse complaint against Motorola with European Commission

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 130
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


    Even if true, which is debatable as they get slower and slower over time, you'd still be running a crap OS from the last century on a machine made of the cheapest junk with a terrible design. Ever thought the reason sales are plunging while Mac sales are soaring could be because Macs are way better., . But of course you already know all this and are just having fun on the blog



    That's easily explained, the PC market is saturated (hence slow sales), many exPC people getting a Mac (hence soaring sales), most if not all started with a iPod/iPhone as their first Apple product.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 82 of 130
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Apple is a consumer of Qualcomm chips.



    Okay.... then what does Apple do with those chips?



    You wanna play with words eh? Hard to admit that you were wrong?



    Your logic:



    Once Apple "consumes" the Qualcomm chips they use it just for themselves and dont sell it to others. Yup, all those millions of people with iPhones have no association with Apple are just ghosts.





    Perhaps the words "end user" seems more appropriate for you.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 83 of 130
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    Okay.... then what does Apple do with those chips?



    You wanna play with words eh? Hard to admit that you were wrong?



    Your logic:



    Once Apple "consumes" the Qualcomm chips they use it just for themselves and dont sell it to others. Yup, all those millions of people with iPhones have no association with Apple are just ghosts.





    Perhaps the words "end user" seems more appropriate for you.



    I agree that Apple is clearly not the consumer or end user, but I still think, as I posted earlier, that you may have misunderstood what is meant by "sub-license". Any thoughts on that?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 84 of 130
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    Okay.... then what does Apple do with those chips?



    You wanna play with words eh? Hard to admit that you were wrong?



    Your logic:



    Once Apple "consumes" the Qualcomm chips they use it just for themselves and dont sell it to others. Yup, all those millions of people with iPhones have no association with Apple are just ghosts.





    Perhaps the words "end user" seems more appropriate for you.



    By your logic, if I buy iPhones and resell them new or used on eBay, I should need to pay Moto a license fee?



    Lol, how many times do you think Moto should be paid?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 85 of 130
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    Okay.... then what does Apple do with those chips?



    You wanna play with words eh? Hard to admit that you were wrong?



    Your logic:



    Once Apple "consumes" the Qualcomm chips they use it just for themselves and dont sell it to others. Yup, all those millions of people with iPhones have no association with Apple are just ghosts.





    Perhaps the words "end user" seems more appropriate for you.



    Yep, just like all the other phone manufacturers that use Qualcomm chips, now as Motorola isn't exactly rolling in the money that you'd expect from a 2.25% royalty on almost every handset sold on earth, it's pretty obvious that how they are treating Apple is discriminatory and against the terms of F/RAND.



    What I don't get is why you choose to support such anti-competitive behaviour from Motorola.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 86 of 130
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    I agree that Apple is clearly not the consumer or end user, but I still think, as I posted earlier, that you may have misunderstood what is meant by "sub-license". Any thoughts on that?



    He completely misunderstood, perhaps intentionally, and it was fun to watch GG jump on the bandwagon.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 87 of 130
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    Okay.... then what does Apple do with those chips?



    You wanna play with words eh? Hard to admit that you were wrong?



    Your logic:



    Once Apple "consumes" the Qualcomm chips they use it just for themselves and dont sell it to others. Yup, all those millions of people with iPhones have no association with Apple are just ghosts.





    Perhaps the words "end user" seems more appropriate for you.



    Goodness, such belligerent language from someone who pretty clearly is indulging in completely uninformed "analysis" of language he's misconstruing in the hope that it somehow spells doom for Apple......



    Again, I believe it's been asked, how do you reckon that an army of lawyers have inadvertently overlooked a passage that, if we are to accept your idea, is fundamental to the nature of the FRAND terms Motorola is asking for and simply moots Apple's response? Qualcomm can't "sub-license" the Moto tech in their chips to Apple, therefor Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on when they argue that patent exhaustion is in play.



    Apple must have terrible legal council, but this case must also be being heard by the worst judge ever, since the prima facie facts would appear to make Apple's countersuit complete gibberish and subject to being laughed out of court. Hooray for internet sleuths, once again trumping everybody with their keen insights!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 88 of 130
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    He completely misunderstood, perhaps intentionally, and it was fun to watch GG jump on the bandwagon.



    I can see how one might come to that conclusion from reading the article that was being quoted, especially if one were hoping for such an interpretation.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 89 of 130
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macarena View Post


    All fine, but this will not be known for good till the dust is settled.



    If there is a proven infringement, there is a strong likelihood of an injunction. At that point it really does not matter if the damages figure is in millions or billions. And you know as well as anyone else, Oracle is not in this just for the money. They will insist that Google remove all the non-compliant features of Dalvik, and respect Java's Write Once Run Anywhere paradigm. Without that, there is no way Google can get a license for Java.



    Just wait till Google tries to comply with Java guidelines and see how crippled Android will be after that. In all likelihood, Google will decide to give up on Java/Dalvik and go with C or C++.



    Then see the impact.



    Yeah, I'm not sure Larry wants just damages or he would have settled long ago. He wants the court to uphold any piece of Java that will put the screws to Dalvik. He doesn't have to give Google a license, just take whatever damages he can get and then say to Google, change it or shut it down. The inconvenience to Google alone will probably be enough joy to get Larry through to the next America's Cup races.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 90 of 130
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    This is what the standard body OASIS uses as its RAND(FRAND) definition:







    Motorola and Samsung are attacking Apple because Qualcomm isnt allowed to use their FRAND patents. It is non-sublicensable meaning Apple is not off the hook just because they've bought it from a FRAND licensee Qualcomm. Apple has materially benefited (quite healthily might I add)from the use of their patents. Therefore, both of these companies are after their fair share of the deal. Other companies have paid these companies their shares. Apple, on the other hand, refused to do so relying on the above mentioned statements.



    Once this very important word gets out, the European body's investigation will come to a halt and will side with Motorola and Samsung in its decision. Apple's entire counter claim was based on this single word ( or lack of it as they say).



    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20213092754823



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I was wondering if anyone was going to bother pointing that out. I came across that a few days ago at one of the patent-blog sites.



    For all the talk of what was fair and Motorola's obligations under FRAND, it seems no one bothered to look at the standard agreement from the body who composed the applicable FRAND standards, and Motorola's obligations and rights under it.



    EDIT: I couldn't remember exactly where I had seen it (I originally thought PatentlyO), but here it is.

    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....20213092754823





    Qualcomm didn't sublicense the patent. Qualcomm used the patent to generate the piece of kit they licensed the patent for. When Apple bought a part which was created under patent license the patent holders rights (Moto's) were exhausted, because it isn't legally protected to charge twice for the same thing. Qualcomm even provided the license agreement between them and Moto restating the appropriate parts of that explicitly in the license agreement (if we can believe Apple's and Qualcomm's lawyers summary and it's not likely that gooned it that bad).



    So this will actually make it worse for Moto. Not only are they breaking their anti-trust requirements with regards to FRAND patents, but they are suing against those patents when they don't have the rights to do so.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 91 of 130
    hirohiro Posts: 2,663member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Do yourself a huge favor. Before you presume you understand this, and if you're really interested in being somewhat accurate and informative when replying to others on the subject, visit the link I provided in post 45. It should help with your understanding of how this whole "FRAND thing" works. It's written by real lawyers, yet written in layman's language for the most part.



    Maybe before you use big words like "presume" and "informative" and threats intellectual superiority via website links you should understand the WHOLE situation and ALL the rules. Not just some pair of paragraphs you cherry-picked off a website.



    While IANAL, YANAL either so give up on the "I found a magic bullet" charade, because there has been a long and distinguished series of folks who do know the law handling these cases, and the rulings and governmental harrumphs have been indicating anything but "Oh MY! How did we all miss that! OK case dismissed. Apple pay Moto another license fee on Qualcomms chips..."
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 92 of 130
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    That would be true if computers dropped in price more than 25% a year. You may be correct.



    With the weak US dollar the price of a new Mac internationally has dropped over the last few years.



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


    I once went shopping for a used laptop. I concluded that the best values were in SOTA new laptops. The used ones had pathetic specs compared to SOTA. The brand new, but just discontinued ones were similarly overpriced compared to the newest ones.



    A two year old Mac would likely be a C2D, they will be getting too slow for ML
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 93 of 130
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,772member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Maybe before you use big words like "presume" and "informative" and threats intellectual superiority via website links you should understand the WHOLE situation and ALL the rules. Not just some pair of paragraphs you cherry-picked off a website.



    While IANAL, YANAL either so give up on the "I found a magic bullet" charade, because there has been a long and distinguished series of folks who do know the law handling these cases, and the rulings and governmental harrumphs have been indicating anything but "Oh MY! How did we all miss that! OK case dismissed. Apple pay Moto another license fee on Qualcomms chips..."



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I'm not suggesting that the article I recommended proves anything about the Moto/Qualcom/Apple case, and especially not a definitive answer on sub-licensing rights.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    That was Galbi's bold posting, not mine. I don't think that hurts Apple at all.



    There's little doubt that if that passage carries any weight then Moto already mentioned it, and the court duely rejected it. There's a lot of smart lawyers involved and it's not reasonable to think the licensing agreement terms weren't noticed.



    I didn't cherry-pick any paragraphs. That was Galbi's clip. I figured it was a matter of time before someone pointed to the actual agreement terms that Motorola was operating under. I posted a link to the entire discussion of FRAND licensing which it appears you may not have bothered to read either. Its plain language explanation of FRAND licensing, who sets standards, what are the rules, if any, on royalties and lots more would help several posters in this thread see where they've misunderstood what FRAND requires. Few if any actually bothered to read the Oasis FRAND agreement Motorola obligated themselves to before being so certain they broke the agreement.



    I've given you the link to read it as well as comments on what the passages mean. Your choice if you want to know or not. It's not an in-depth study on the Moto/Apple issue in particular (tho it offers some comments on that specific case), but it's a fine start if you really have any interest in understanding FRAND obligations.



    In case a lazy reader doesn't feel like following the article links, here's the actual Oasis licensing terms and general requirements for joining the standards body.

    http://www.oasis-open.org/policies-g...#licensing_req



    If you can't imagine you can learn anything from reading it, then don't. There's no need for me to continue encouraging forum members to read it. It's there.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 94 of 130
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I didn't cherry-pick any paragraphs. That was Galbi's clip. I figured it was a matter of time before someone pointed to the actual agreement terms that Motorola was operating under. ...



    That sounds an awful lot like an admission by GG that he knew Galbi's argument was bullshit but, in the interest of perpetuating FUD, chose to not only remain silent, but actually to promote the bullshit. Now that it's all been shown to be a house of cards based on misinterpretation (willful or ignorant?) of "sub-licensing, he is, of course, doing his usual backpedaling, trying to distance himself from the notorious troll Galbi and save face.



    It's always amusing watching GG's little dances.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 95 of 130
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,772member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hiro View Post


    Yeah, I'm not sure Larry wants just damages or he would have settled long ago. He wants the court to uphold any piece of Java that will put the screws to Dalvik. He doesn't have to give Google a license, just take whatever damages he can get and then say to Google, change it or shut it down. The inconvenience to Google alone will probably be enough joy to get Larry through to the next America's Cup races.



    From 9to5's opinion piece, without further comment:

    ... the short is that Google has talented lawyers disassembling every one of Oracle?s claims bit by bit and proving there is little?if anything?legitimate.



    Even if Oracle somehow gets the $100 million that is left over, there is no longer any concern for the fate of the Android platform."
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 96 of 130
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    There's no harm in reading an article written by lawyers well-versed in patent law and FRAND, and the benefit is obvious.



    That would be true if the authors were writing from a neutral position. Neither Groklaw nor Florian (who's not a lawyer) are neutral. Groklaw is a cesspool.



    I find it humorous though that they tolerate or in some cases welcome these lawsuits against Apple given that FRAND is not open source friendly.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 97 of 130
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,772member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nht View Post


    That would be true if the authors were writing from a neutral position. Neither Groklaw nor Florian (who's not a lawyer) are neutral. Groklaw is a cesspool.



    I find it humorous though that they tolerate or in some cases welcome these lawsuits against Apple given that FRAND is not open source friendly.



    I don't think that whether they're pro-Apple, anti-Apple or somewhere in between really matters much with that particular article's overall comments on FRAND licensing, how it actually works, and who's responsible for FRAND standards. Did you read it thoroughly or tune it out since it was posted at Groklaw?



    EDIT: As an aside, I visit FOSSPatents almost daily. The more you educate yourself the easier it is to separate opinion from fact, as well as recognize when the whole story isn't being told. I find reading both Florian's blog and Groklaw gives me a much better understanding.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 98 of 130
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I don't think that whether they're pro-Apple, anti-Apple or somewhere in between really matters much with that particular article's overall comments on FRAND licensing, how it actually works, and who's responsible for FRAND standards. Did you read it thoroughly or tune it out since it was posted at Groklaw?



    EDIT: As an aside, I visit FOSSPatents almost daily. The more you educate yourself the easier it is to separate opinion from fact, as well as recognize when the whole story isn't being told. I find reading both Florian's blog and Groklaw gives me a much better understanding.



    Neither you nor Galbi responded on the question of the meaning of "sub-license" - did you not have an opinion on that?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 99 of 130
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,772member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post


    Neither you nor Galbi responded on the question of the meaning of "sub-license" - did you not have an opinion on that?



    Yes, I posted mine twice. I guess you missed them. See post#94 where I linked both of them again for another poster.



    In a nutshell I don't know for certain what Oasis means by the term, tho they may have a definition at their site. It doesn't matter in this particular case (at least IMO) since if it was pertinent to begin with the German judge is likely to have already dismissed that argument for the sake of that case. It would be hard to believe it wasn't mentioned if Moto or Oasis had an argument to make.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 100 of 130
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Yes, I posted mine twice. I guess you missed them. See post#94 where I linked both of them again for another poster.



    In a nutshell I don't know for certain what Oasis means by the term, tho they may have a definition at their site. It doesn't matter in this particular case (at least IMO) since if it was pertinent to begin with the German judge is likely to have already dismissed that argument for the sake of that case. It would be hard to believe it wasn't mentioned if Moto or Oasis had an argument to make.



    No, that's just the same OASIS language (and do you have some reason to believe that OASIS is the relevant standards body in this case?) that you keep linking to. The assumption made by you and Galbi is that this represents some kind of smoking gun that renders Apple's patent exhaustion argument moot. The response from multiple posters is that this is highly unlikely, since if such bald-faced terms were in effect it seems pretty much impossible that the various courts involved would have allowed any of this to proceed past an initial hearing.



    So are you insisting that "sub-licensing" means that every manufacturer in a chain has to pay royalties to the holder of FRAND patents?



    Let me guess: you have no real opinion on the matter, you just want everyone to "educate" themselves by reading up on on licensing body's terms, although they're not saying anything that we didn't already know. More generally you want us to study up on a Groklaw article that apparently must be taken as even handed and informative, but which outside of linking to the same terms you keep linking to seems to have a bit of an attitude re MS and Apple, as after rehashing the nature of FRAND draws conclusions that are anything but based in legal precedence-- i.e. "some people" thought Apple's licensing terms for Firewire were unfair (Apple charges a buck a port, peanuts to what Motorola is demanding); some people have made farfetched arguments about what Motorola's terms might imply (strawman); MS was mean to Linux (irrelevant); and that what "fair" exactly means is open to interpretation (duh).



    In other words, you seized on the "sub-licensing" terms as hopefully spelling doom for Apple; once you had some obvious considerations pointed out to you you backed off and started talking about everyone educating themselves by reading your links.



    But unfortunately for you even those are weak sauce-- terms from a standards body that I have yet to see linked to the case at hand, and an article at Groklaw that completely goes off the rails in typical freetard language and which clearly has an axe to grind.



    If you don't want people taking you to task for irrelevant hand-waving stop jumping on every bit of potentially bad for Apple news without a second thought and following it up with lame damage control when it turns out to be nothing.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.