Which is why the Qualcomm license agreement will be brought in, other companies pay Motorola's licence fee via Qualcomm charging based on the value of the chip they buy.
Motorola seeking to terminate that license and charge Apple based on the full value of their products is where unfair and discriminatory come in, it is also anticompetitive because these tactics were used to block Apple from the German market.
What has Qualcomm got to do with previous iPhones, which used Infineon chips up until the most recent iPhone?
No, Apple have not refused to pay a licence fee... in fact they have made several offers to Moto all of which have been rejected. That is very different than Apple "refusing to pay". In fact I think the ruling states very clearly that Moto should accept Apples current offer or be held to be in violation of EU anti-trust laws.
That's their CURRENT offer.
Btw, I'm offering you $500 for your car and house.
That's pretty sad. You know, honestly, as I recover mentally and physically, I am realising some people (and hence companies) are either not very smart or just desperate. It's not a snobby comment, it's just the way it is.
Gator and I debated this quite a few months ago. He stated (and I eventually conceded) that Google was more worried about Microsoft locking them out of the mobile space. I still think it was stupid for Google to release an OS with no clear business plan and basically throwing cash down a hole due to paranoia that it was going to miss out on mobile advertising.
Yeah, I see Google as having Microsoft as a big motivation for doing what they're doing. But somewhere along the way, they got bolder and decided to go for broke. Same thing with Amazon... I think they saw some good partnerships with Google to compete with Apple, but now I think Amazon is going to go for broke by themselves, with or without Google's help and/or blessings.
What was infineon's license agreement with Motorola?
They were also ordered by Motorola to revoke the licenses of chips sold to Apple.
Infineon was also caught up in Motorola's anti-competitive behaviour.
Was the Infineon license change only applicable to Apple, or to the particular chipset no matter who was buying? I don't recall any citations that it applied only to Apple, just Apple's note (in a court filing) of the timing of the change in licensing terms to imply it was due to the iPhone. Do you have something that definitively says only Infineon sales to Apple were targeted? Your previous links to the claim don't say that IIRC.
Can I get some people to RETRACT their accusation that I'm a "Mac idolator" because I CALLED IT this way?
I figured Google's acquisition of Motorola to be mostly a waste of money.
Apple would prevail in these Samsung and Motorola lawsuits.
MOST of the cases against Apple are breaking with FRAND, and Apple has a right to purchase access to licenses without giving up tech it has NOT submitted as a standard.
>> A company cannot make a standard, and then try to use it as an arbitrary club. Most of these lawsuits against the iPhone, would make any mobile phone impossible to create.
One thing I would add is that Siri is sending queries that might otherwise have gone to Google search to other services, Yelp for one. I think this is a big deal in the long term and a good reason for Google to fear a dominant Apple, and give them the incentive to do the work necessary to make Android ubiquitous.
Yeah, I agree. But you know a whole bunch of that was driven by Google drawing first blood. Once the first Android phone went from a Bb knockoff to an iPhone knockoff they burned their goodwill with Apple and it became -- "you understand it's not personal, it just business" -- in the most cold, clinical and dangerous sense of the phrase.
Comments
Which is why the Qualcomm license agreement will be brought in, other companies pay Motorola's licence fee via Qualcomm charging based on the value of the chip they buy.
Motorola seeking to terminate that license and charge Apple based on the full value of their products is where unfair and discriminatory come in, it is also anticompetitive because these tactics were used to block Apple from the German market.
What has Qualcomm got to do with previous iPhones, which used Infineon chips up until the most recent iPhone?
No, Apple have not refused to pay a licence fee... in fact they have made several offers to Moto all of which have been rejected. That is very different than Apple "refusing to pay". In fact I think the ruling states very clearly that Moto should accept Apples current offer or be held to be in violation of EU anti-trust laws.
That's their CURRENT offer.
Btw, I'm offering you $500 for your car and house.
I love how the Android copyists can't even come up with an original name:
http://www.reghardware.com/2012/02/2...id_collection/
That's pretty sad. You know, honestly, as I recover mentally and physically, I am realising some people (and hence companies) are either not very smart or just desperate. It's not a snobby comment, it's just the way it is.
Gator and I debated this quite a few months ago. He stated (and I eventually conceded) that Google was more worried about Microsoft locking them out of the mobile space. I still think it was stupid for Google to release an OS with no clear business plan and basically throwing cash down a hole due to paranoia that it was going to miss out on mobile advertising.
Yeah, I see Google as having Microsoft as a big motivation for doing what they're doing. But somewhere along the way, they got bolder and decided to go for broke. Same thing with Amazon... I think they saw some good partnerships with Google to compete with Apple, but now I think Amazon is going to go for broke by themselves, with or without Google's help and/or blessings.
What has Qualcomm got to do with previous iPhones, which used Infineon chips up until the most recent iPhone?
What was infineon's license agreement with Motorola?
They were also ordered by Motorola to revoke the licenses of chips sold to Apple.
Infineon was also caught up in Motorola's anti-competitive behaviour.
What was infineon's license agreement with Motorola?
They were also ordered by Motorola to revoke the licenses of chips sold to Apple.
Infineon was also caught up in Motorola's anti-competitive behaviour.
Was the Infineon license change only applicable to Apple, or to the particular chipset no matter who was buying? I don't recall any citations that it applied only to Apple, just Apple's note (in a court filing) of the timing of the change in licensing terms to imply it was due to the iPhone. Do you have something that definitively says only Infineon sales to Apple were targeted? Your previous links to the claim don't say that IIRC.
I figured Google's acquisition of Motorola to be mostly a waste of money.
Apple would prevail in these Samsung and Motorola lawsuits.
MOST of the cases against Apple are breaking with FRAND, and Apple has a right to purchase access to licenses without giving up tech it has NOT submitted as a standard.
>> A company cannot make a standard, and then try to use it as an arbitrary club. Most of these lawsuits against the iPhone, would make any mobile phone impossible to create.
One thing I would add is that Siri is sending queries that might otherwise have gone to Google search to other services, Yelp for one. I think this is a big deal in the long term and a good reason for Google to fear a dominant Apple, and give them the incentive to do the work necessary to make Android ubiquitous.
Yeah, I agree. But you know a whole bunch of that was driven by Google drawing first blood. Once the first Android phone went from a Bb knockoff to an iPhone knockoff they burned their goodwill with Apple and it became -- "you understand it's not personal, it just business" -- in the most cold, clinical and dangerous sense of the phrase.
and ninja'ed by @freckledbruh