European Commission investigating Motorola for suspected patent abuse

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 50
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    I wonder if Microsoft and others are now regretting pushing h264 over web-m.



    Why? Web-M hasn't exactly been cleared from being possibly patent encumbered. At least h264 has an actual organization behind it that can help with matters like this.
  • Reply 22 of 50
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    I think you are overreaching. This is most likely regarding Motorola trying to sue others with patents that they willingly allowed into a standard. Nothing more, nothing less. Investigating one aspect of a situation doesn't mean that the EU will review every, single detail of that situation.



    I disagree. If the EU is ready to tackle one specific part of the problem, they can't keep other flies from getting out of the jar at the same time. Is a standards organization's written bylaws requiring mandatory cross-licensing a fair request? How about the common inclusion of "defensive suspension" stipulations in a standards/FRAND agreement? Both of those particular items are most assuredly going to be mentioned as they're probably at the heart of the disagreement and common in standards licensing agreements no matter who the licensor is or what standard is involved.



    What about a company that joins a standards consortium but refuses to license IP that the consortium finds essential to it's standards implementation? Should they be required to cooperate as a condition of membership? There are some who feel it should be mandatory, another consideration that will likely make it to the conversations. I haven't even touched on how a fair royalty should be determined or the basis for them, nor under what circumstances (if any) a standards license could legitimately be denied. Going even further, should royalties even be permitted for essential IP? Again that's a discussion that many would answer in the negative. Nearly all these issues could be part of your "nothing more and nothing less" scenario.



    In essence there's nothing simple about investigating FRAND issues since even the basic ground rules aren't agreed on, much less what actually defines FRAND.
  • Reply 23 of 50
    orlandoorlando Posts: 601member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    Why? Web-M hasn't exactly been cleared from being possibly patent encumbered. At least h264 has an actual organization behind it that can help with matters like this.



    The idea behind Web-m was to create a video standard that was free from patent royalties. It was created specifically so that the companies wouldn't be able to do what Motorola is now doing. Web-m may not have been fully cleared of possible patents, but everyone knew that h264 required licenses and that they could go up. Despite this Microsoft backed h264 and as a direct result have now had to shutdown their software distribution center in Germany because of the risks involved with h264 patents.
  • Reply 24 of 50
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I disagree. If the EU is ready to tackle one specific part of the problem, they can't keep other flies from getting out of the jar at the same time. Is a standards organization's written bylaws requiring mandatory cross-licensing a fair request? .



    The difference which you keep ignoring is that Motorola voluntarily offered their patents under FRAND. Apple never did so in the case you cited.



    Equating the two situations is tantamount to arguing that the standards body should have the right to take any intellectual property they want - whether the owner agrees or not.
  • Reply 25 of 50
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I disagree. If the EU is ready to tackle one specific part of the problem, they can't keep other flies from getting out of the jar at the same time. Is a standards organization's written bylaws requiring mandatory cross-licensing a fair request? How about the common inclusion of "defensive suspension" stipulations in a standards/FRAND agreement? Both of those particular items are most assuredly going to be mentioned as they're probably at the heart of the disagreement and common in standards licensing agreements no matter who the licensor is or what standard is involved.



    You've posed great question but that doesn't mean that the EU will be addressing all (or really any) of them since the announcement is in regards to what MOTOROLA did with its FRAND patents and not FRAND in general hence me stating that I think you are overreaching. Also, as someone mentioned, this is a case where a company volunteered its patents into the standard. If the executives didn't understand what that meant for Moto's patents then they shouldn't be working there. That isn't Apple's, EU's or anyone else's fault.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Orlando View Post


    The idea behind Web-m was to create a video standard that was free from patent royalties. It was created specifically so that the companies wouldn't be able to do what Motorola is now doing. Web-m may not have been fully cleared of possible patents, but everyone knew that h264 required licenses and that they could go up. Despite this Microsoft backed h264 and as a direct result have now had to shutdown their software distribution center in Germany because of the risks involved with h264 patents.



    I know why Web-M was developed. My point is using Web-M would not have changed the scenario much at all or made it worse since Moto would not have offered its patent(s) as standard officially so could simply state that Web-M violates outright and charge whatever it feels like with no real means to defend against it except to invalidate.
  • Reply 26 of 50
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    The difference which you keep ignoring is that Motorola voluntarily offered their patents under FRAND. Apple never did so in the case you cited.



    Equating the two situations is tantamount to arguing that the standards body should have the right to take any intellectual property they want - whether the owner agrees or not.



    ...which Europe's ETSI claims they have the right to do in the extreme case that a patent is unable to be worked around (essential) and the patent holder refuses to negotiate a license.
  • Reply 27 of 50
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    You've posed great question but that doesn't mean that the EU will be addressing all (or really any) of them since the announcement is in regards to what MOTOROLA did with its FRAND patents and not FRAND in general hence me stating that I think you are overreaching. Also, as someone mentioned, this is a case where a company volunteered its patents into the standard. If the executives didn't understand what that meant for Moto's patents then they shouldn't be working there. That isn't Apple's, EU's or anyone else's fault.



    That's at the core. Motorola claims to perfectly understand what the standards organization required of them and feels they followed the bylaws. That's why at least some issues I mentioned will be raised since they are apparently a traditional part of the normal agreement.
  • Reply 28 of 50
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I disagree. If the EU is ready to tackle one specific part of the problem, they can't keep other flies from getting out of the jar at the same time. Is a standards organization's written bylaws requiring mandatory cross-licensing a fair request? How about the common inclusion of "defensive suspension" stipulations in a standards/FRAND agreement? Both of those particular items are most assuredly going to be mentioned as they're probably at the heart of the disagreement and common in standards licensing agreements no matter who the licensor is or what standard is involved.



    What about a company that joins a standards consortium but refuses to license IP that the consortium finds essential to it's standards implementation? Should they be required to cooperate as a condition of membership? There are some who feel it should be mandatory, another consideration that will likely make it to the conversations. I haven't even touched on how a fair royalty should be determined or the basis for them, nor under what circumstances (if any) a standards license could legitimately be denied. Going even further, should royalties even be permitted for essential IP? Again that's a discussion that many would answer in the negative. Nearly all these issues could be part of your "nothing more and nothing less" scenario.



    In essence there's nothing simple about investigating FRAND issues since even the basic ground rules aren't agreed on, much less what actually defines FRAND.



    And if and when any court takes that up I guess we can discuss it. As it is, upon being confronted with an article that might not be bad for Apple, you're obliged to spin a web of speculation so that you can make it so, that being your nature.



    Your "Apple probably joined the web standards consortium for nefarious purposes in the first place, just so they could derail standards" is particularly half-assed. Leaving aside the way that actually makes no sense, it's entirely a fantasy of your own making. As is typical for you, you pair rank speculation with a few facts, get a little long winded with some posts claiming to lay out a bunch of largely irrelevant "issues", and hope to derail the thread into "how this actually damages Apple" nonsense.



    Classic FUD, in other words, and your entire stock in trade. I wish you would stop it, but I know you won't, so, just to get back on track:



    Moto may have severely overreached with their FRAND saber rattling, and it may have consequences for Google-- whether as an impediment to consummating the acquisition or as mechanism by which Moto's patent portfolio is devalued we don't know. Attempting to hijack the FRAND process to serve as cudgel has vast consequences for the entire tech industry (far more consequential than obliging a standards body to seek a workaround for a standard in process because a member doesn't want to license a given patent) and is therefore likely to attract fairly severe reprisals. I'm actually very surprised that Moto (or Samsung for that matter) thought they had a winning strategy in this.



    A bunch of hand waving about Apple's relationship to the W3C doesn't change that all. Moto fucked up.
  • Reply 29 of 50
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    ...which Europe's ETSI claims they have the right to do in the extreme case that a patent is unable to be worked around (essential) and the patent holder refuses to negotiate a license.



    Still waiting for evidence that this applies to Apple. Your original citation says nothing of the sort.
  • Reply 30 of 50
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by quinney View Post


    I wonder if this investigation could scuttle the Google takeover or, preferably, just make

    Motorola Mobility even more of an albatross around Google's neck.



    I'd wager the latter, and that bird is already stinking.
  • Reply 31 of 50
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,167member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    And if and when any court takes that up I guess we can discuss it. As it is, upon being confronted with an article that might not be bad for Apple, you're obliged to spin a web of speculation so that you can make it so, that being your nature.



    Your "Apple probably joined the web standards consortium for nefarious purposes in the first place, just so they could derail standards" is particularly half-assed. Leaving aside the way that actually makes no sense, it's entirely a fantasy of your own making. As is typical for you, you pair rank speculation with a few facts, get a little long winded with some posts claiming to lay out a bunch of largely irrelevant "issues", and hope to derail the thread into "how this actually damages Apple" nonsense.



    Classic FUD, in other words, and your entire stock in trade. I wish you would stop it, but I know you won't, so, just to get back on track:



    Moto may have severely overreached with their FRAND saber rattling, and it may have consequences for Google-- whether as an impediment to consummating the acquisition or as mechanism by which Moto's patent portfolio is devalued we don't know. Attempting to hijack the FRAND process to serve as cudgel has vast consequences for the entire tech industry (far more consequential than obliging a standards body to seek a workaround for a standard in process because a member doesn't want to license a given patent) and is therefore likely to attract fairly severe reprisals. I'm actually very surprised that Moto (or Samsung for that matter) thought they had a winning strategy in this.



    A bunch of hand waving about Apple's relationship to the W3C doesn't change that all. Moto fucked up.



    Exactly. I don't know how they didn't see this coming. But I guess they were so desperate at that stage and nothing really matters. I guess Google stating that they will leave Motorola do whatever they want to do was to avoid any liability if Motorola gets in legal trouble.
  • Reply 32 of 50
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Still waiting for evidence that this applies to Apple. Your original citation says nothing of the sort.



    I don't know that applies specifically to Apple, nor was that claim made by me. You're not reading very carefully today, or at least not understanding what you read. What I did say is that Apple appears to be attempting to put a roadblocks up for the establishment of standards the W3C has been working on for at least a couple of years. Rather than cooperate and contribute, they joined to see the standard is at least delayed and hopefully abandoned altogether IMO, as well as the opinion of some intimately aware of the details.



    There's more than a simple definition of FRAND to be worked out if the EU is truly committed to tackling the issue of abuse.
  • Reply 33 of 50
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I don't know that applies specifically to Apple, nor was that claim made by me. You're not reading very carefully today, or at least not understanding what you read. What I did say is that Apple appears to be attempting to put a roadblocks up for the establishment of standards the W3C has been working on for at least a couple of years. Rather than cooperate and contribute, they joined to see the standard is at least delayed and hopefully abandoned altogether IMO, as well as the opinion of some intimately aware of the details.



    There's more than a simple definition of FRAND to be worked out if the EU is truly committed to tackling the issue of abuse.



    IOW, you're spewing FUD which has nothing to do with the matter at hand.



    The situation you are complaining about has absolutely nothing at all to do with the Motorola situation being discussed here.
  • Reply 34 of 50
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I don't know that applies specifically to Apple, nor was that claim made by me. You're not reading very carefully today, or at least not understanding what you read. What I did say is that Apple appears to be attempting to put a roadblocks up for the establishment of standards the W3C has been working on for at least a couple of years. Rather than cooperate and contribute, they joined to see the standard is at least delayed and hopefully abandoned altogether IMO, as well as the opinion of some intimately aware of the details.



    There's more than a simple definition of FRAND to be worked out if the EU is truly committed to tackling the issue of abuse.



    What you've just said ... is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
  • Reply 35 of 50
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by macarena View Post


    Google might have managed to wriggle out of the Oracle mess (at least for now)!



    Nope, they are very much still in it. Goes to court shortly
  • Reply 36 of 50
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I don't know that applies specifically to Apple, nor was that claim made by me. You're not reading very carefully today, or at least not understanding what you read. What I did say is that Apple appears to be attempting to put a roadblocks up for the establishment of standards the W3C has been working on for at least a couple of years. Rather than cooperate and contribute, they joined to see the standard is at least delayed and hopefully abandoned altogether IMO, as well as the opinion of some intimately aware of the details.



    There's more than a simple definition of FRAND to be worked out if the EU is truly committed to tackling the issue of abuse.



    If you want to discuss your theory that Apple wants to derail web standards, start a thread about it. This thread is about Motorola coming under European regulatory scrutiny because of their abuse of FRAND patents.
  • Reply 37 of 50
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I don't know that applies specifically to Apple, nor was that claim made by me. You're not reading very carefully today, or at least not understanding what you read. What I did say is that Apple appears to be attempting to put a roadblocks up for the establishment of standards the W3C has been working on for at least a couple of years. Rather than cooperate and contribute, they joined to see the standard is at least delayed and hopefully abandoned altogether IMO, as well as the opinion of some intimately aware of the details.



    There's more than a simple definition of FRAND to be worked out if the EU is truly committed to tackling the issue of abuse.



    I'll put aside the fact that you are overreaching in this case (Seriously, unless the EU states, "We need to take a closer look at this FRAND business." None of the questions and assertions you made are relevant. I will address this W3C thing. You are spinning it pretty fast and loose since you have no idea what Apple's intentions are/were for joining. Plus, Apple has been pretty consistent that it wants an open web (why? because it can sell more devices. Surely the memories of IE6 haven't vacated your mind already). Standards aren't created overnight so two years doesn't seem all that long to me. Maybe Apple would like to make sure the standard is done right and makes sense for future development.
  • Reply 38 of 50
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    And if and when any court takes that up I guess we can discuss it. As it is, upon being confronted with an article that might not be bad for Apple, you're obliged to spin a web of speculation so that you can make it so, that being your nature.



    Your "Apple probably joined the web standards consortium for nefarious purposes in the first place, just so they could derail standards" is particularly half-assed.



    Then you're another member who doesn't understand the reasons a company might join a standards consortium yet have no intention of contributing IP. I can give you a link if you're interested, just as I offered Jragosta.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Moto may have severely overreached with their FRAND saber rattling



    I agree, they might have. They also may be entirely in the right with regard to their obligations and license terms. Thus the EU is looking into it rather than saying Moto is in the wrong. Investigation does not equal guilt.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Attempting to hijack the FRAND process to serve as cudgel has vast consequences for the entire tech industry...



    Yes it does, which is why I applauded the investigation in my first post on the subject. Subverting the standards process to prevent agreement on essential IP is also a hijack.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Moto fucked up.



    Unless you know the terms that Motorola obligated themselves to and the contents of the standard contract, how would you know if they've fouled up? They might be following the requirements to the letter. Or perhaps not.
  • Reply 39 of 50
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    If you want to discuss your theory that Apple wants to derail web standards, start a thread about it. This thread is about Motorola coming under European regulatory scrutiny because Apple and Microsoft complained. The EU is going to investigate whether any abuse occurred.



    Fixed.
  • Reply 40 of 50
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post


    Apple has been pretty consistent that it wants an open web (why? because it can sell more devices. Surely the memories of IE6 haven't vacated your mind already). Standards aren't created overnight so two years doesn't seem all that long to me. Maybe Apple would like to make sure the standard is done right and makes sense for future development.



    I don't believe they are consistent in their approach to open standards. A standard on web widgets? Nope, Apple won't contribute their IP to W3C.

    http://www.itnewspost.com/apple/web-...idget-patents/



    How about a touch standard? No again, Apple's IP is more valuable as a bludgeon.

    http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/a...-wide-web.html



    Well what about the open books standard? Nope, again not in Apple's interest.

    http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/how-a...tal-books/4378



    Unless you meant consistently uncooperative lately. . .
Sign In or Register to comment.