Exactly. The fact that Google didn't mention Apple doesn't mean that Apple isn't at least one of the targets.
More importantly, this memo shows more of Google's lies. Read the memo carefully and they admit that Apple was discussing license fees with them. In a separate filing, they claimed that Apple would not even discuss license fees with them.
Google clearly has a problem. Their engineers aren't smart enough to develop their own technologies, so they need to steal other company's. It's also more cost effective since they don't have to invest in R&D, and since they plan to give away the other company's IP for free, that's an important consideration for them. What this letter is about, regardless of who and what they mention, is that Google wants the law changed so that their theft of everyone else's ideas and IP is sanctioned by law. That's the bottom line, despite spin and rhetoric released by them to convince us of the contrary.
Remember when Google told us they were staunch supporters of network neutrality, then conspired with Verizon to destroy network neutrality? You can never take anything Google says publicly at face value. They have an agenda, and you always need to look at who they are and what they do, and read between the lines.
What this letter is about, regardless of who and what they mention, is that Google wants the law changed so that their theft of everyone else's ideas and IP is sanctioned by law.
This is absolutely incorrect, as anyone who actually reads the letter would know.
Google's letter talks only about licensed patents. See my post above.
Apple is the one trying to change the FRAND rules that every other company has played by for the past 20 years. This objective is repeated in their letter.
This is absolutely incorrect, as anyone who actually reads the letter would know.
Google's letter talks only about licensed patents. See my post above.
Apple is the one trying to change the FRAND rules that every other company has played by for the past 20 years. This objective is repeated in their letter.
Your last paragraph, is of course complete and utter nonsense or the type sometimes referred to as "bullshit".
And, I think we can assume that once Google were successful in establishing a principle of law related to "commercially essential" patents, they'd then move on to "compulsory licensing" of "commercially essential" patents. They've had people on these forums for a while floating that trial balloon.
As I pointed out, Google has historically talked out of both sides of its mouth, and it would be naive that all they are interested in here is making Microsoft license Active Directory to them because Microsoft licensed it to someone else, even though that principle is offensive in and of itself, even to someone like myself who is about as far to the left politically as one can be and not be a communist.
The People's Republic of Googlestan won't be happy until they have license to steal whatever they want from whomever they want, whenever they want. As Chairman Page has said, "All your technology are belong to us. Don't be evil. You will be assimilated. Peace out."
This is absolutely incorrect, as anyone who actually reads the letter would know.
Google's letter talks only about licensed patents. See my post above.
Apple is the one trying to change the FRAND rules that every other company has played by for the past 20 years. This objective is repeated in their letter.
Apple has stated many times that they would like at least the following major changes to the ETSI FRAND rules that have been in place for phone makers for a long time:
No injunctions allowed even if they don't pay up.
Price based on what the patent applies to, not the entire device.
So while Apple likes to ask for injunctions on others, they want to avoid that fate themselves. And even though Apple makes a far higher profit margin than any other maker, they want to pay lower FRAND rates than anyone else, but without cross-licensing IP like others do.
Apple has been writing letters to ETSI, filing appeals in court, and generally making noise about this for a while now. It's pretty common knowledge around most iPhone forums.
Here's one example short article on the topic. Google something like "apple frand rule change" for lots of others.
From what I've read, normal telecommunications (F)RAND royalty negotiations (for those that bear royalties. Some are free) begin with a starting rate, mitigated by whatever IP or "other considerations" the licensee brings to the table. Cross-licensing is the traditional way to reduce or even eliminate your out-of-pocket patent license fees.
It seems as tho Apple wants to get the advantage of those reduced royalties that some others pay, but keeping for themselves whatever IP they have instead of licensing it in return as others have. It puts more established telecommunications companies in an awkward position of offering their IP to Apple so that they can sell their iPhones and iPads, but being unable to negotiate for access to the the "new guys" improvements, resulting in potential market roadblocks. Nokia successfully pressured them into cross-licensing, but in general Apple looks to be making as much noise about "unfairness" as possible to avoid playing the game that the the more mature players have had in place for decades.
Personally I think the game does need to change, but fairly for all. One single player with more money and resources than any of the others (combined?) and a policy of applying for patent protection on any and all potential improvements and no incentive to license any of them and an aggressive legal strategy makes it a sticky issue.
Apple has stated many times that they would like at least the following major changes to the ETSI FRAND rules that have been in place for phone makers for a long time:
No injunctions allowed even if they don't pay up.
Price based on what the patent applies to, not the entire device.
So while Apple likes to ask for injunctions on others, they want to avoid that fate themselves. And even though Apple makes a far higher profit margin than any other maker, they want to pay lower FRAND rates than anyone else, but without cross-licensing IP like others do.
Apple has been writing letters to ETSI, filing appeals in court, and generally making noise about this for a while now. It's pretty common knowledge around most iPhone forums.
Here's one example short article on the topic. Google something like "apple frand rule change" for lots of others.
Cheers!
There's a huge difference between working for sanity in FRAND licensing, and forcing FRAND licensing on non-standards essential patents. There ought to be simple, straightforward terms for FRAND licenses (And they have never been on the "entire device" incorporating an already licensed component, that's just bullshit from you. You are essentially arguing that double dipping is and ought to be the norm.). But FRAND licensing is voluntary, and Google is essentially asking the government to confiscate property. To equate these is ridiculous.
Price based on what the patent applies to, not the entire device.
That's something that many posters here are misinformed about. By not telling the whole truth sources like FOSSPatents have IMHO intentionallymislead it's readers into believing that royalties based on a completed ready-to-sell consumer device are highly unusual and only demanded by Motorola and only of Apple. It's not rare at all and in fact it's quite common and accepted.
If anyone would like to learn what FRAND rates are REALLY based on for certain CDMA/3G/4G/ LTE standards and what percentage of a finished device price some of the industry contributors ask for Standard Essential Patent royalties, have a read here:
Mr Mueller is well-connected, experienced, and perfectly aware that companies from Qualcomm to Nokia to Ericsson and many others allbase their SEP royalties on the cost of a finished device, not just a chipset or specific component. It just doesn't play into his customer support efforts to mention it.
EDIT: I stumbled on a Nokia press release from a couple years ago that specifies their SEP policy. First time I'd run across this one:
"Given the current state of uncertainty about ownership of LTE standards-essential IPR, the best way to increase transparency and predictability is to disclose principles for future licensing of LTE standards-essential IPR...
...Currently, we expect Nokia’s rate for devices that deploy LTE as the only wireless communication standard to be in a range of 1.5 percent from the sales price of an end-user device.However. a significant use of LTE is expected to be in connection with other wireless communications standards, such as GSM, UMTS and/or CDMA.When multiple wireless standards are used in the same end product, Nokia will follow similar principles in setting the royalty rate for Nokia patents essential to other standards.To avoid unfavorable effects of royalty stacking, Nokia will not charge royalties higher than 2.0 percent from the sales price of an end-user device (not a chipset only. That's not an end-user device) for IPR that is essential to wireless communication standards irrespective of the number of wireless standards deployed in such a device.
But what about the licensee reducing that 2% royalty on the price of a finished end-user (consumer) device by offering a cross-license? Nokia says they've already taken that into account in the 2% figure. That's expected as a condition of receiving a Nokia license:
"The Nokia licensing policy takes into account customary volume discounts that allow manufacturers of devices to benefit from lower rates for higher volumes. The licensing policy is based on reciprocity which means it is conditional upon the licensee agreeing to use the same main principles in its licensing to Nokia products.
That would help explain where the estimates of approx.1-1.5% on-going royalty payments from Apple to Nokia are coming from, and why Apple had to agree to a cross-license of some Apple IP "that makes the iPhone unique" to settle the Nokia lawsuit. Standard Nokia policy for SEP's
That's something that many posters here are misinformed about. By not telling the whole truth sources like FOSSPatents have IMHO intentionallymislead it's readers into believing that royalties based on a completed ready-to-sell consumer device are highly unusual and only demanded by Motorola and only of Apple. It's not rare at all and in fact it's quite common and accepted.
If anyone would like to learn what FRAND rates are REALLY based on for certain CDMA/3G/4G/ LTE standards and what percentage of a finished device price some of the industry contributors ask for Standard Essential Patent royalties, have a read here:
Mr Mueller is well-connected, experienced, and perfectly aware that companies from Qualcomm to Nokia to Ericsson and many others allbase their SEP royalties on the cost of a finished device, not just a chipset or specific component. It just doesn't play into his customer support efforts to mention it.
As usual, your link doesn't support your assertions (funny how that always seems to be the case with you). It talks about cumulative royalties as a percentage of handset cost, but it does not say that royalties are being charged, "on the cost of a finished device, not just a chipset or specific component."
But, again, it's completely ridiculous to equate a company asking that "FRAND" actually be FRAND (wow, what a concept, Apple are really being underhanded in advocating that! yeesh, the things the shills and fandroids say.) and a company asking the government to confiscate other companies' property because the first company is intellectually bankrupt and can't compete honestly against the others. Basically, Google is asking the government to help it steal other companies work and Apple is asking that standards essential patents, voluntarily contributed to standards, be actually licensed under free, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (again, what a revolutionary concept!) without double dipping and you guys pretend it's the same thing. You've really become a pathetic joke, GG.
That's something that many posters here are misinformed about. By not telling the whole truth sources like FOSSPatents have IMHO intentionallymislead it's readers into believing that royalties based on a completed ready-to-sell consumer device are highly unusual and only demanded by Motorola and only of Apple. It's not rare at all and in fact it's quite common and accepted.
Indeed. I've been an phone company engineer for a couple of decades, and that's how ETSI has always worked. Most people also don't know that the ETSI IP Rules are very simple and do not address rates at all, except to specifically allow requiring cross-licensing, which almost every phone maker does to cut costs.
A primary purpose in using the entire phone price, is to promote lower prices on handsets in order to make phones more available to people all over the world in even poor economies, not just to an elite minority. And that has worked for years.
Now obviously Apple would like to change this pricing method, which makes sense considering that they only sell higher priced devices. They are not alone. Other companies without any wireless IP and/or IP that they are willing to cross-license, are in the same position. In fact, every few years some of the minor ETSI members try to get the rules changed, but have always failed so far. Perhaps Apple will have more luck.
Side note to Anonymouse: I don't know how young you are, but the first sign of someone not knowing what they're talking about, is when they resort to foul language or insults as you constantly have. It immediately voids all your arguments. None of this has anything to do with pro-Google or anti-Apple or any of the other strawmen you keep creating. It's simply the facts.
The People's Republic of Googlestan won't be happy until they have license to steal whatever they want from whomever they want, whenever they want. As Chairman Page has said, "All your technology are belong to us. Don't be evil. You will be assimilated. Peace out."
YES! All search engine technologies including Google search algorithms are also commercially essential and should be licensed under FRAND rules IMMEDIATELY as well.
YES! All search engine technologies including Google search algorithms are also commercially essential and should be licensed under FRAND rules IMMEDIATELY as well.
Bingo. And, like Google, since the search algorithms are FRAND by Google's arguments anyone can just STEAL Google's algorithms, like Google STEALS anything they think is FRAND.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This is why we need your input. Thanks for the well thought-out post.
Since when is damage control spin a well thought out post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Exactly. The fact that Google didn't mention Apple doesn't mean that Apple isn't at least one of the targets.
More importantly, this memo shows more of Google's lies. Read the memo carefully and they admit that Apple was discussing license fees with them. In a separate filing, they claimed that Apple would not even discuss license fees with them.
Google clearly has a problem. Their engineers aren't smart enough to develop their own technologies, so they need to steal other company's. It's also more cost effective since they don't have to invest in R&D, and since they plan to give away the other company's IP for free, that's an important consideration for them. What this letter is about, regardless of who and what they mention, is that Google wants the law changed so that their theft of everyone else's ideas and IP is sanctioned by law. That's the bottom line, despite spin and rhetoric released by them to convince us of the contrary.
Remember when Google told us they were staunch supporters of network neutrality, then conspired with Verizon to destroy network neutrality? You can never take anything Google says publicly at face value. They have an agenda, and you always need to look at who they are and what they do, and read between the lines.
Originally Posted by anonymouse
What this letter is about, regardless of who and what they mention, is that Google wants the law changed so that their theft of everyone else's ideas and IP is sanctioned by law.
This is absolutely incorrect, as anyone who actually reads the letter would know.
Google's letter talks only about licensed patents. See my post above.
Apple is the one trying to change the FRAND rules that every other company has played by for the past 20 years. This objective is repeated in their letter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
This is absolutely incorrect, as anyone who actually reads the letter would know.
Google's letter talks only about licensed patents. See my post above.
Apple is the one trying to change the FRAND rules that every other company has played by for the past 20 years. This objective is repeated in their letter.
Your last paragraph, is of course complete and utter nonsense or the type sometimes referred to as "bullshit".
And, I think we can assume that once Google were successful in establishing a principle of law related to "commercially essential" patents, they'd then move on to "compulsory licensing" of "commercially essential" patents. They've had people on these forums for a while floating that trial balloon.
As I pointed out, Google has historically talked out of both sides of its mouth, and it would be naive that all they are interested in here is making Microsoft license Active Directory to them because Microsoft licensed it to someone else, even though that principle is offensive in and of itself, even to someone like myself who is about as far to the left politically as one can be and not be a communist.
The People's Republic of Googlestan won't be happy until they have license to steal whatever they want from whomever they want, whenever they want. As Chairman Page has said, "All your technology are belong to us. Don't be evil. You will be assimilated. Peace out."
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
This is absolutely incorrect, as anyone who actually reads the letter would know.
Google's letter talks only about licensed patents. See my post above.
Apple is the one trying to change the FRAND rules that every other company has played by for the past 20 years. This objective is repeated in their letter.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }How is Apple trying to change the rules?
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
How is Apple trying to change the rules?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Apple has stated many times that they would like at least the following major changes to the ETSI FRAND rules that have been in place for phone makers for a long time:
No injunctions allowed even if they don't pay up.
Price based on what the patent applies to, not the entire device.
So while Apple likes to ask for injunctions on others, they want to avoid that fate themselves. And even though Apple makes a far higher profit margin than any other maker, they want to pay lower FRAND rates than anyone else, but without cross-licensing IP like others do.
Apple has been writing letters to ETSI, filing appeals in court, and generally making noise about this for a while now. It's pretty common knowledge around most iPhone forums.
Here's one example short article on the topic. Google something like "apple frand rule change" for lots of others.
Cheers!
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
How is Apple trying to change the rules?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
From what I've read, normal telecommunications (F)RAND royalty negotiations (for those that bear royalties. Some are free) begin with a starting rate, mitigated by whatever IP or "other considerations" the licensee brings to the table. Cross-licensing is the traditional way to reduce or even eliminate your out-of-pocket patent license fees.
It seems as tho Apple wants to get the advantage of those reduced royalties that some others pay, but keeping for themselves whatever IP they have instead of licensing it in return as others have. It puts more established telecommunications companies in an awkward position of offering their IP to Apple so that they can sell their iPhones and iPads, but being unable to negotiate for access to the the "new guys" improvements, resulting in potential market roadblocks. Nokia successfully pressured them into cross-licensing, but in general Apple looks to be making as much noise about "unfairness" as possible to avoid playing the game that the the more mature players have had in place for decades.
Personally I think the game does need to change, but fairly for all. One single player with more money and resources than any of the others (combined?) and a policy of applying for patent protection on any and all potential improvements and no incentive to license any of them and an aggressive legal strategy makes it a sticky issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Apple has stated many times that they would like at least the following major changes to the ETSI FRAND rules that have been in place for phone makers for a long time:
No injunctions allowed even if they don't pay up.
Price based on what the patent applies to, not the entire device.
So while Apple likes to ask for injunctions on others, they want to avoid that fate themselves. And even though Apple makes a far higher profit margin than any other maker, they want to pay lower FRAND rates than anyone else, but without cross-licensing IP like others do.
Apple has been writing letters to ETSI, filing appeals in court, and generally making noise about this for a while now. It's pretty common knowledge around most iPhone forums.
Here's one example short article on the topic. Google something like "apple frand rule change" for lots of others.
Cheers!
There's a huge difference between working for sanity in FRAND licensing, and forcing FRAND licensing on non-standards essential patents. There ought to be simple, straightforward terms for FRAND licenses (And they have never been on the "entire device" incorporating an already licensed component, that's just bullshit from you. You are essentially arguing that double dipping is and ought to be the norm.). But FRAND licensing is voluntary, and Google is essentially asking the government to confiscate property. To equate these is ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Price based on what the patent applies to, not the entire device.
That's something that many posters here are misinformed about. By not telling the whole truth sources like FOSSPatents have IMHO intentionally mislead it's readers into believing that royalties based on a completed ready-to-sell consumer device are highly unusual and only demanded by Motorola and only of Apple. It's not rare at all and in fact it's quite common and accepted.
If anyone would like to learn what FRAND rates are REALLY based on for certain CDMA/3G/4G/ LTE standards and what percentage of a finished device price some of the industry contributors ask for Standard Essential Patent royalties, have a read here:
http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/82827/files/LESI-Royalty-Rates.pdf
Mr Mueller is well-connected, experienced, and perfectly aware that companies from Qualcomm to Nokia to Ericsson and many others all base their SEP royalties on the cost of a finished device, not just a chipset or specific component. It just doesn't play into his customer support efforts to mention it.
EDIT: I stumbled on a Nokia press release from a couple years ago that specifies their SEP policy. First time I'd run across this one:
"Given the current state of uncertainty about ownership of LTE standards-essential IPR, the best way to increase transparency and predictability is to disclose principles for future licensing of LTE standards-essential IPR...
...Currently, we expect Nokia’s rate for devices that deploy LTE as the only wireless communication standard to be in a range of 1.5 percent from the sales price of an end-user device. However. a significant use of LTE is expected to be in connection with other wireless communications standards, such as GSM, UMTS and/or CDMA. When multiple wireless standards are used in the same end product, Nokia will follow similar principles in setting the royalty rate for Nokia patents essential to other standards. To avoid unfavorable effects of royalty stacking, Nokia will not charge royalties higher than 2.0 percent from the sales price of an end-user device (not a chipset only. That's not an end-user device) for IPR that is essential to wireless communication standards irrespective of the number of wireless standards deployed in such a device.
But what about the licensee reducing that 2% royalty on the price of a finished end-user (consumer) device by offering a cross-license? Nokia says they've already taken that into account in the 2% figure. That's expected as a condition of receiving a Nokia license:
"The Nokia licensing policy takes into account customary volume discounts that allow manufacturers of devices to benefit from lower rates for higher volumes. The licensing policy is based on reciprocity which means it is conditional upon the licensee agreeing to use the same main principles in its licensing to Nokia products.
That would help explain where the estimates of approx.1-1.5% on-going royalty payments from Apple to Nokia are coming from, and why Apple had to agree to a cross-license of some Apple IP "that makes the iPhone unique" to settle the Nokia lawsuit. Standard Nokia policy for SEP's
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47158809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
That's something that many posters here are misinformed about. By not telling the whole truth sources like FOSSPatents have IMHO intentionally mislead it's readers into believing that royalties based on a completed ready-to-sell consumer device are highly unusual and only demanded by Motorola and only of Apple. It's not rare at all and in fact it's quite common and accepted.
If anyone would like to learn what FRAND rates are REALLY based on for certain CDMA/3G/4G/ LTE standards and what percentage of a finished device price some of the industry contributors ask for Standard Essential Patent royalties, have a read here:
http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/82827/files/LESI-Royalty-Rates.pdf
Mr Mueller is well-connected, experienced, and perfectly aware that companies from Qualcomm to Nokia to Ericsson and many others all base their SEP royalties on the cost of a finished device, not just a chipset or specific component. It just doesn't play into his customer support efforts to mention it.
As usual, your link doesn't support your assertions (funny how that always seems to be the case with you). It talks about cumulative royalties as a percentage of handset cost, but it does not say that royalties are being charged, "on the cost of a finished device, not just a chipset or specific component."
But, again, it's completely ridiculous to equate a company asking that "FRAND" actually be FRAND (wow, what a concept, Apple are really being underhanded in advocating that! yeesh, the things the shills and fandroids say.) and a company asking the government to confiscate other companies' property because the first company is intellectually bankrupt and can't compete honestly against the others. Basically, Google is asking the government to help it steal other companies work and Apple is asking that standards essential patents, voluntarily contributed to standards, be actually licensed under free, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (again, what a revolutionary concept!) without double dipping and you guys pretend it's the same thing. You've really become a pathetic joke, GG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
That's something that many posters here are misinformed about. By not telling the whole truth sources like FOSSPatents have IMHO intentionally mislead it's readers into believing that royalties based on a completed ready-to-sell consumer device are highly unusual and only demanded by Motorola and only of Apple. It's not rare at all and in fact it's quite common and accepted.
Indeed. I've been an phone company engineer for a couple of decades, and that's how ETSI has always worked. Most people also don't know that the ETSI IP Rules are very simple and do not address rates at all, except to specifically allow requiring cross-licensing, which almost every phone maker does to cut costs.
A primary purpose in using the entire phone price, is to promote lower prices on handsets in order to make phones more available to people all over the world in even poor economies, not just to an elite minority. And that has worked for years.
Now obviously Apple would like to change this pricing method, which makes sense considering that they only sell higher priced devices. They are not alone. Other companies without any wireless IP and/or IP that they are willing to cross-license, are in the same position. In fact, every few years some of the minor ETSI members try to get the rules changed, but have always failed so far. Perhaps Apple will have more luck.
Side note to Anonymouse: I don't know how young you are, but the first sign of someone not knowing what they're talking about, is when they resort to foul language or insults as you constantly have. It immediately voids all your arguments. None of this has anything to do with pro-Google or anti-Apple or any of the other strawmen you keep creating. It's simply the facts.
Finally people are starting to get it.
YES! All search engine technologies including Google search algorithms are also commercially essential and should be licensed under FRAND rules IMMEDIATELY as well.
Bingo. And, like Google, since the search algorithms are FRAND by Google's arguments anyone can just STEAL Google's algorithms, like Google STEALS anything they think is FRAND.
This is very interesting. I'm looking forward to seeing the outcome and how it will impact the technology industry in general.