So that again brings up the question of the amount of royalties that others will need to give up in order to use the new size card that Apple is proposing.
No, it doesn't. Apple is clear on the royalties for most situations.
If the licensee doesn't have any relevant patents, they can license the tech for free.
If the licensee has relevant patents and agrees to license them on the same terms as Apple, it's also free.
Only if the licensee has relevant patents and refuses to license them on the same terms as Apple would royalty rates come into the picture. And we can cross that bridge if we come to it.
The FRAND patent policies of all the major standardization bodies already imposes such expectations on their signatories, and they have done so since long before this most recent spat of smartphone patent lawsuits.
...because they can't come to an agreement on royalty rates.\ It's something that's traditionally negotiated.
My guess is that Apple doesn't want to cross-license their own applicable IP made possible by the licensed-standards (cross-licensing would be the norm) nor wants to pay the stated rate if no IP is licensed back. There's also the issue of past infringement to be settled from what I've read at FOSSPatents.
...because they can't come to an agreement on royalty rates.\ It's something that's traditionally negotiated.
My guess is that Apple doesn't want to cross-license their own applicable IP made possible by the licensed-standards (cross-licensing would be the norm) nor wants to pay the stated rate if no IP is licensed back. There's also the issue of past infringement to be settled from what I've read at FOSSPatents.
Perhaps I'm off in the weeds here, but my understanding is that Moto wants to license their FRAND patents against some of Apple's non-FRAND patents. Something that isn't traditionally negotiated.
Only if the licensee has relevant patents and refuses to license them on the same terms as Apple would royalty rates come into the picture. And we can cross that bridge if we come to it.
Right. You are starting to catch on.
I presume that SIM cards have many patents attached to them, and I guess that at least some of them are valuable.
The "same terms as Apple" means that these currently valuable patents would have to be given away for free if Apple's size is adopted? Right?
so some companies who currently pay royalties start getting a windfall, while others who currently get royalties will lose that revenue? Right?
If I'm wrong in this reasoning, let me know.
If I'm right, who would get the windfall, and who would get screwed?
Perhaps I'm off in the weeds here, but my understanding is that Moto wants to license their FRAND patents against some of Apple's non-FRAND patents. Something that isn't traditionally negotiated.
Yes it is, and at least partially for the reason I mentioned earlier. I'll restate it.
Assume you have a great idea that may change a market altogether, but to be a player at all you need IP that belongs to the industry pioneers. Without it you can't sell your product at all. Would it be FAIR for them to grant you a license without you reciprocating? If you deny them the improvements that wouldn't have been possible in the first place without their standards IP, you'd conceivably lock those companies who made your business possible out of their own market that they created in the first place. If you don't want them to have a chance to continue in their market, it's only FAIR they be compensated for their potential loss. Thus the FAIR in FRAND.
...because they can't come to an agreement on royalty rates.\ It's something that's traditionally negotiated.
My guess is that Apple doesn't want to cross-license their own applicable IP made possible by the licensed-standards (cross-licensing would be the norm) nor wants to pay the stated rate if no IP is licensed back. There's also the issue of past infringement to be settled from what I've read at FOSSPatents.
Are you assuming that Apple has "applicable IP made possible by the licensed-standards" in addition to guessing that they are unwilling to use it in negotiations? Your guess seems to be based on another guess.
Yes it is, and at least partially for the reason I mentioned earlier. I'll restate it.
Assume you have a great idea that may change a market altogether, but to be a player at all you need IP that belongs to the industry pioneers. Without it you can't sell your product at all. Would it be FAIR for them to grant you a license without you reciprocating? If you deny them the improvements that wouldn't have been possible in the first place without their standards IP, you'd conceivably lock those companies who made your business possible out of their own market that they created in the first place. If you don't want them to have a chance to continue in their market, it's only FAIR they be compensated for their potential loss. Thus the FAIR in FRAND.
Why are you so eager to prove that you don't have any concept of what FRAND means?
If the patent is an essential patent which was submitted to the standards committee, it's FRAND. The 'industry pioneers' long ago agreed that they would license under FRAND terms to facilitate the market.
If your patent is essential, then it may be necessary to license it under FRAND terms. But if it's not essential (like the ones that Motorola tried to demand from Apple), there's no obligation to license under FRAND.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Right. You are starting to catch on.
I presume that SIM cards have many patents attached to them, and I guess that at least some of them are valuable.
The "same terms as Apple" means that these currently valuable patents would have to be given away for free if Apple's size is adopted? Right?
so some companies who currently pay royalties start getting a windfall, while others who currently get royalties will lose that revenue? Right?
If I'm wrong in this reasoning, let me know.
If I'm right, who would get the windfall, and who would get screwed?
Of course you're wrong in the reasoning. First, you don't know if there are any patents attached to Apple's micro-SIM card. Second, you don't know if anyone makes any money from them. Third, even if someone is making a trillion dollars from their micro-SIM patents, they simply don't have to agree to reciprocate with Apple's terms and would then have to negotiate a separate license.
Are you assuming that Apple has "applicable IP made possible by the licensed-standards" in addition to guessing that they are unwilling to use it in negotiations? Your guess seems to be based on another guess.
Other than Apple and Moto not agreeing on appropriate recompense, of course my opinions are guesses. With no mention of an offer to cross-license IP despite in-depth reporting of the case details at FOSSPatents, I'd go so far as to say it's an educated guess.
Yes it is, and at least partially for the reason I mentioned earlier. I'll restate it.
Assume you have a great idea that may change a market altogether, but to be a player at all you need IP that belongs to the industry pioneers. Without it you can't sell your product at all. Would it be FAIR for them to grant you a license without you reciprocating? If you deny them the improvements that wouldn't have been possible in the first place without their standards IP, you'd conceivably lock those companies who made your business possible out of their own market that they created in the first place. Thus the FAIR in FRAND.
FRAND patents should have a reasonable price. Thus, the REASONABLE in FRAND.
No company should have to license their non-FRAND patents (i.e. non-standards essential patents) in order to acquire licenses for a FRAND patent. Thus, the NON-DISCRIMINATORY in FRAND.
Why are you so eager to prove that you don't have any concept of what FRAND means?
If the patent is an essential patent which was submitted to the standards committee, it's FRAND. The 'industry pioneers' long ago agreed that they would license under FRAND terms to facilitate the market.
If your patent is essential, then it may be necessary to license it under FRAND terms. But if it's not essential (like the ones that Motorola tried to demand from Apple), there's no obligation to license under FRAND.
Where did I say it was an obligation to cross-license? One of your favorite tactics in use apparently. Create a misstatement if one doesn't exist.
Since you're serving as the forum's legal expert, just what does FRAND require? What royalty basis does it specify? What is the range of royalties that are acceptable? Is trading IP to reduce out-of-pocket expenses permissable? Is it expected? Does every licensee have to pay the exact same fee? Are FRAND licensing terms the same from standard to standard? Who has defined just what FRAND specifically requires? Does FAIR apply only to the licensee? Please educate me.
FRAND patents should have a reasonable price. Thus, the REASONABLE in FRAND.
No company should have to license their non-FRAND patents (i.e. non-standards essential patents) in order to acquire licenses for a FRAND patent. Thus, the NON-DISCRIMINATORY in FRAND.
When you find the definition of "reasonable" in any FRAND commitment, let us know.
When you find the definition of "reasonable" in any FRAND commitment, let us know.
Ditto for the definition of "fair". Which is why I said that I expect this type of language:
Quote:
"an unequivocal commitment to grant royalty-free licenses to any Apple patents essential to nano-SIM, provided that Apple's proposal is adopted as a standard and that all other patent holders accept the same terms in accordance with the principle of reciprocity."
... will become de rigueur in all future FRAND licensing agreements.
Remember, nobody has to submit their patents to FRAND licensing terms, but the standards bodies will probably not include that technology if you don't.
Ditto for the definition of "fair". Which is why I said that I expect this type of language:
... will become de rigueur in all future FRAND licensing agreements.
Remember, nobody has to submit their patents to FRAND licensing ters, but the standards bodies will probably not include that technology if you don't.
I'll make the whole thing easy. . .
There is no definition of the standard terms for a FRAND commitment. Essentially the only thing that FRAND means is that the patents must be made available for licensing for all would-be licensees according to whatever agreement is made with specific licensing bodies. So what do the various words in FRAND mean?. They're not strictly defined by any all-encompassing authority and thus issues sometimes arise. There is no such thing as a standard FRAND agreement.
Other than Apple and Moto not agreeing on appropriate recompense, of course my opinions are guesses. With no mention of an offer to cross-license IP despite in-depth reporting of the case details at FOSSPatents, I'd go so far as to say it's an educated guess.
Apple and Moto not agreeing on terms for frand licensing doesn't support your guess. Maybe you could explain that better.
Your guess is based on your assuming Apple has "applicable IP made possible by the licensed-standards" I see no reason to assume that.
Your making a guess based on another guess with no evidence to back it up.
Where did I say it was an obligation to cross-license?
Then what the heck are you complaining about?
Apple offers one set of terms that licensees can use. The licensees are free to reject those terms and negotiate a license if they wish. So what's the basis of your accusations that Apple is being unfair (other than your relentless need to attack anything Apple does, of course).
Apple offers one set of terms that licensees can use. The licensees are free to reject those terms and negotiate a license if they wish. So what's the basis of your accusations that Apple is being unfair (other than your relentless need to attack anything Apple does, of course).
Again with the imagined arguments. Where did I say Apple was being unfair? Where did I say anyone was being unfair? Where was I even complaining? You were the one that said I didn't understand FRAND at all and implying you did. So enlighten me.
I recall an episode of the British TOP GEAR automobile show where Jeremy Clarkson equated a SIM tray in the dash of one of the latest super cars as turning it into the world's most expensive cell phone. People are thinking the wrong way with SIMs. Not only can you transfer your phone to another network, you can pull the SIM from one device (your phone0 and put it into another (your car, for true hands-free calling while driving and keeping your cell number). Bluetooth schmootooth. The only catch is remembering to take it with you.
Comments
So that again brings up the question of the amount of royalties that others will need to give up in order to use the new size card that Apple is proposing.
No, it doesn't. Apple is clear on the royalties for most situations.
If the licensee doesn't have any relevant patents, they can license the tech for free.
If the licensee has relevant patents and agrees to license them on the same terms as Apple, it's also free.
Only if the licensee has relevant patents and refuses to license them on the same terms as Apple would royalty rates come into the picture. And we can cross that bridge if we come to it.
The FRAND patent policies of all the major standardization bodies already imposes such expectations on their signatories, and they have done so since long before this most recent spat of smartphone patent lawsuits.
And yet, Moto sued Apple over a FRAND patent...
And yet, Moto sued Apple over a FRAND patent...
...because they can't come to an agreement on royalty rates.
My guess is that Apple doesn't want to cross-license their own applicable IP made possible by the licensed-standards (cross-licensing would be the norm) nor wants to pay the stated rate if no IP is licensed back. There's also the issue of past infringement to be settled from what I've read at FOSSPatents.
...because they can't come to an agreement on royalty rates.
My guess is that Apple doesn't want to cross-license their own applicable IP made possible by the licensed-standards (cross-licensing would be the norm) nor wants to pay the stated rate if no IP is licensed back. There's also the issue of past infringement to be settled from what I've read at FOSSPatents.
Perhaps I'm off in the weeds here, but my understanding is that Moto wants to license their FRAND patents against some of Apple's non-FRAND patents. Something that isn't traditionally negotiated.
Only if the licensee has relevant patents and refuses to license them on the same terms as Apple would royalty rates come into the picture. And we can cross that bridge if we come to it.
Right. You are starting to catch on.
I presume that SIM cards have many patents attached to them, and I guess that at least some of them are valuable.
The "same terms as Apple" means that these currently valuable patents would have to be given away for free if Apple's size is adopted? Right?
so some companies who currently pay royalties start getting a windfall, while others who currently get royalties will lose that revenue? Right?
If I'm wrong in this reasoning, let me know.
If I'm right, who would get the windfall, and who would get screwed?
Perhaps I'm off in the weeds here, but my understanding is that Moto wants to license their FRAND patents against some of Apple's non-FRAND patents. Something that isn't traditionally negotiated.
Yes it is, and at least partially for the reason I mentioned earlier. I'll restate it.
Assume you have a great idea that may change a market altogether, but to be a player at all you need IP that belongs to the industry pioneers. Without it you can't sell your product at all. Would it be FAIR for them to grant you a license without you reciprocating? If you deny them the improvements that wouldn't have been possible in the first place without their standards IP, you'd conceivably lock those companies who made your business possible out of their own market that they created in the first place. If you don't want them to have a chance to continue in their market, it's only FAIR they be compensated for their potential loss. Thus the FAIR in FRAND.
...because they can't come to an agreement on royalty rates.
My guess is that Apple doesn't want to cross-license their own applicable IP made possible by the licensed-standards (cross-licensing would be the norm) nor wants to pay the stated rate if no IP is licensed back. There's also the issue of past infringement to be settled from what I've read at FOSSPatents.
Are you assuming that Apple has "applicable IP made possible by the licensed-standards" in addition to guessing that they are unwilling to use it in negotiations? Your guess seems to be based on another guess.
Yes it is, and at least partially for the reason I mentioned earlier. I'll restate it.
Assume you have a great idea that may change a market altogether, but to be a player at all you need IP that belongs to the industry pioneers. Without it you can't sell your product at all. Would it be FAIR for them to grant you a license without you reciprocating? If you deny them the improvements that wouldn't have been possible in the first place without their standards IP, you'd conceivably lock those companies who made your business possible out of their own market that they created in the first place. If you don't want them to have a chance to continue in their market, it's only FAIR they be compensated for their potential loss. Thus the FAIR in FRAND.
Why are you so eager to prove that you don't have any concept of what FRAND means?
If the patent is an essential patent which was submitted to the standards committee, it's FRAND. The 'industry pioneers' long ago agreed that they would license under FRAND terms to facilitate the market.
If your patent is essential, then it may be necessary to license it under FRAND terms. But if it's not essential (like the ones that Motorola tried to demand from Apple), there's no obligation to license under FRAND.
Right. You are starting to catch on.
I presume that SIM cards have many patents attached to them, and I guess that at least some of them are valuable.
The "same terms as Apple" means that these currently valuable patents would have to be given away for free if Apple's size is adopted? Right?
so some companies who currently pay royalties start getting a windfall, while others who currently get royalties will lose that revenue? Right?
If I'm wrong in this reasoning, let me know.
If I'm right, who would get the windfall, and who would get screwed?
Of course you're wrong in the reasoning. First, you don't know if there are any patents attached to Apple's micro-SIM card. Second, you don't know if anyone makes any money from them. Third, even if someone is making a trillion dollars from their micro-SIM patents, they simply don't have to agree to reciprocate with Apple's terms and would then have to negotiate a separate license.
Are you assuming that Apple has "applicable IP made possible by the licensed-standards" in addition to guessing that they are unwilling to use it in negotiations? Your guess seems to be based on another guess.
Other than Apple and Moto not agreeing on appropriate recompense, of course my opinions are guesses. With no mention of an offer to cross-license IP despite in-depth reporting of the case details at FOSSPatents, I'd go so far as to say it's an educated guess.
Yes it is, and at least partially for the reason I mentioned earlier. I'll restate it.
Assume you have a great idea that may change a market altogether, but to be a player at all you need IP that belongs to the industry pioneers. Without it you can't sell your product at all. Would it be FAIR for them to grant you a license without you reciprocating? If you deny them the improvements that wouldn't have been possible in the first place without their standards IP, you'd conceivably lock those companies who made your business possible out of their own market that they created in the first place. Thus the FAIR in FRAND.
FRAND patents should have a reasonable price. Thus, the REASONABLE in FRAND.
No company should have to license their non-FRAND patents (i.e. non-standards essential patents) in order to acquire licenses for a FRAND patent. Thus, the NON-DISCRIMINATORY in FRAND.
Why are you so eager to prove that you don't have any concept of what FRAND means?
If the patent is an essential patent which was submitted to the standards committee, it's FRAND. The 'industry pioneers' long ago agreed that they would license under FRAND terms to facilitate the market.
If your patent is essential, then it may be necessary to license it under FRAND terms. But if it's not essential (like the ones that Motorola tried to demand from Apple), there's no obligation to license under FRAND.
Where did I say it was an obligation to cross-license? One of your favorite tactics in use apparently. Create a misstatement if one doesn't exist.
Since you're serving as the forum's legal expert, just what does FRAND require? What royalty basis does it specify? What is the range of royalties that are acceptable? Is trading IP to reduce out-of-pocket expenses permissable? Is it expected? Does every licensee have to pay the exact same fee? Are FRAND licensing terms the same from standard to standard? Who has defined just what FRAND specifically requires? Does FAIR apply only to the licensee? Please educate me.
FRAND patents should have a reasonable price. Thus, the REASONABLE in FRAND.
No company should have to license their non-FRAND patents (i.e. non-standards essential patents) in order to acquire licenses for a FRAND patent. Thus, the NON-DISCRIMINATORY in FRAND.
When you find the definition of "reasonable" in any FRAND commitment, let us know.
My guess is that Apple will be getting more than it gives.
Of course it is!
When you find the definition of "reasonable" in any FRAND commitment, let us know.
Ditto for the definition of "fair". Which is why I said that I expect this type of language:
"an unequivocal commitment to grant royalty-free licenses to any Apple patents essential to nano-SIM, provided that Apple's proposal is adopted as a standard and that all other patent holders accept the same terms in accordance with the principle of reciprocity."
... will become de rigueur in all future FRAND licensing agreements.
Remember, nobody has to submit their patents to FRAND licensing terms, but the standards bodies will probably not include that technology if you don't.
Ditto for the definition of "fair". Which is why I said that I expect this type of language:
... will become de rigueur in all future FRAND licensing agreements.
Remember, nobody has to submit their patents to FRAND licensing ters, but the standards bodies will probably not include that technology if you don't.
I'll make the whole thing easy. . .
There is no definition of the standard terms for a FRAND commitment. Essentially the only thing that FRAND means is that the patents must be made available for licensing for all would-be licensees according to whatever agreement is made with specific licensing bodies. So what do the various words in FRAND mean?. They're not strictly defined by any all-encompassing authority and thus issues sometimes arise. There is no such thing as a standard FRAND agreement.
Other than Apple and Moto not agreeing on appropriate recompense, of course my opinions are guesses. With no mention of an offer to cross-license IP despite in-depth reporting of the case details at FOSSPatents, I'd go so far as to say it's an educated guess.
Apple and Moto not agreeing on terms for frand licensing doesn't support your guess. Maybe you could explain that better.
Your guess is based on your assuming Apple has "applicable IP made possible by the licensed-standards" I see no reason to assume that.
Your making a guess based on another guess with no evidence to back it up.
Where did I say it was an obligation to cross-license?
Then what the heck are you complaining about?
Apple offers one set of terms that licensees can use. The licensees are free to reject those terms and negotiate a license if they wish. So what's the basis of your accusations that Apple is being unfair (other than your relentless need to attack anything Apple does, of course).
Then what the heck are you complaining about?
Apple offers one set of terms that licensees can use. The licensees are free to reject those terms and negotiate a license if they wish. So what's the basis of your accusations that Apple is being unfair (other than your relentless need to attack anything Apple does, of course).
Again with the imagined arguments. Where did I say Apple was being unfair? Where did I say anyone was being unfair? Where was I even complaining?
Apple and Moto not agreeing on terms for frand licensing doesn't support your guess. Maybe you could explain that better.
Your guess is based on your assuming Apple has "applicable IP made possible by the licensed-standards" I see no reason to assume that.
Your making a guess based on another guess with no evidence to back it up.
Isn't that what a guess is? If I had proof it wouldn't be just a guess would it?
FWIW, are all the Nortel 4G patents that Apple purchased a few months back FRAND-pledged?
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/03/...te-4g-patents/