The big difference being that Google is abusing a government given monopolistic power with the understanding that it would license fairly. They wanted to charge Apple what I call the "white boy price", which I jokingly tell my black friends whenever I feel I was overly charged for something in a minority neighborhood.
Google had nothing to do with the lawsuits in fact. It simply inherited some Motorola legal actions that are still moving towards resolutions.
Since Google is now the new owner and there's a chance for a new start it would be nice if all three, Apple, Microsoft and Google could find a way to do a reboot and drop their existing IP claims against one another but that ain't gonna happen. Google is tasked with cleaning up a mess that Moto got themselves into. It comes with the purchase. With that said Google themselves haven't sued Apple or Microsoft and thus could hardly be abusively wielding their IP with respect to those two. With any luck Google will continue to show restraint and avoid tit-for-tat IP infringement suits.
^ Bull. Google released an official statement backing Motorola's actions and supporting their decisions. They could have settled this long ago if they wanted. There's no rule that says once a court case starts it needs to run its course, therefore your implication Google had nothing to do with Motorola's actions is wrong.
Google was happy to let Motorola sue "on their behalf" while watching fom the sidelines.
And we haven't even touched on the WebM angle. I doubt it's a coincidence Google wanted its codec to displace H.264 and Motorola was trying to make H.264 "less desirable" by making license fees expensive.
You can go on and on about Google not "directly" suing anyone, but it's all semantics. Google is just as guilty as Motorola in all these proceedings.
The big difference being that Google is abusing a government given monopolistic power with the understanding that it would license fairly. They wanted to charge Apple what I call the "white boy price", which I jokingly tell my black friends whenever I feel I was overly charged for something in a minority neighborhood.
Again, you might recall the US case last year when Motorola agreed to a judge deciding Apple's royalty rate, instead of the 2.25% that Moto usually started negotiations with. Instead of agreeing to this incredibly fair offer, Apple refused to go along unless the rate was $1 or below.
So no, Motorola is not abusing rates since they were willing to accept whatever a judge came up with.
Apple, on the other hand, clearly demonstrated that they were not only unwilling to accept FRAND rates as determined by an unbiased judge, they were simply using the courts to try to negotiate a lower rate than anyone else. Realizing that Apple's lawsuit claim of unfair rates was just a ruse, the judge dismissed Apple's case with prejudice.
Even Foss Patents wrote that it was a mistake; that this judge was as fair a rate arbiter as Apple could ask for, and that Apple missed a golden opportunity.
It's kind of hard for them not to be. It's their business model. Selling ads, allowing people to toss up copyright infringement videos on YouTube, they don't even answer their phones. I tried to call YouTube and NO ONE answered. Yeah, like they really care about customer service.
Never will I buy a product that Google sells. EVER. I don't even use their software that much because they have horrible user interfaces.
"I think that companies should spend their time innovating and competing on the merits of the products they offer %u2014 not misusing their intellectual property rights to hold up competitors to the detriment of innovation and consumer choice," Joaquin Almunia, the E.U. competition commissioner, said in a statement on the matter on Monday.
And no apple fan sees the irony in this statement. It saves their butt in Europe, but they look the other way when their beloved company exploit this very tactic here in America. SMH
And the worst part about it is that not a single person even acknowledges that Apple was INDEED using Motorola's patents without licensing them, the very same thing they claim all android manufacturers have been doing to Apple for years. and now that the tables are turned, you all think Apple is in the right and Motorola is in the wrong. It REALLY makes me LMFAO
"I think that companies should spend their time innovating and competing on the merits of the products they offer %u2014 not misusing their intellectual property rights to hold up competitors to the detriment of innovation and consumer choice," Joaquin Almunia, the E.U. competition commissioner, said in a statement on the matter on Monday.
And no apple fan sees the irony in this statement. It saves their butt in Europe, but they look the other way when their beloved company exploit this very tactic here in America. SMH
And the worst part about it is that not a single person even acknowledges that Apple was INDEED using Motorola's patents without licensing them, the very same thing they claim all android manufacturers have been doing to Apple for years. and now that the tables are turned, you all think Apple is in the right and Motorola is in the wrong. It REALLY makes me LMFAO
SEP are different than non-SEP. Apple has innovated hence its patents. It deserves the right to defend its property and prevent the blatant copying.
Why do you think anything you're saying makes sense?
And why so many acronyms? Just type it out.
i used two acronyms... is that too many for you to count to or are you just against using acronyms altogether? i bet if you're tired of reading them and you'd like them to be translated, there's an app for that.
SEP are different than non-SEP. Apple has innovated hence its patents. It deserves the right to defend its property and prevent the blatant copying.
So you honestly think that Motorola who spent all the time and money into developing the technology that is now required to operate smartphones (part of the GPRS standard, which is in turn part of the rather important GSM cellular standard.) should not have the right to injunctive relief over Apple who has been using this technology for years without paying for it. And yet REFUSED to pay for it when confronted with an offer.
-BUT-
When Samsung et al. develops a smartphone with rectangles and rounded corners (a completely retarded patent) Apple automatically deserves the right to injunctive relief over something so trivial as that?
what about the slide to unlock patent that was recently preliminarily invalidated? do you think Apple deserves the damages from Samsung on a patent that will ultimately not exist anymore?
Their pinch to zoom patent? same boat... preliminarily invalidated but Apple is demanding damages on it before it is finalized at the USPTO
the "Steve Jobs" patent: “touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics.”.... you guessed it... same boat. But for some reason... Apple thinks it is moral to go after Samsung for damages on all these patents that will eventually be invalidated.
What i'm saying is Apple is not the great innovative company you think they are. They were awarded a bunch of absurd patents that are now being invalidated because the thermonuclear war has shown light onto how ridiculous some of their patents are.
I wish... that'd be a sweet gig. Not sure how you came to that conclusion though... if i worked for Google, wouldn't i want you to stay on the internet and make my company more money?
…if i worked for Google, wouldn't i want you to stay on the internet and make my company more money?
That's a very good point. You should probably tell the Anti-Apple Brigade to get their act together in that regard.
I refer, of course, to the "well, just don't use that website" crowd who thinks not using the Internet at all is a valid response to Google's invasive and illegal advertisements and monitoring of computer use.
SEP are different than non-SEP. Apple has innovated hence its patents. It deserves the right to defend its property and prevent the blatant copying.
FRAND does not mean free.
SEP holders have also spent time and money innovating (and cooperating with others on a standard) and likewise have the right to prevent copying without licensing.
FRAND patents are actually better long term strategically, since they've almost always stood up to court tests, and have a history of steady payments. More importantly, since you cannot build a device for that standard without using them, it's very difficult to claim you are not using them.
Non-FRAND patents are often better used tactically, as a delaying tactic, since competitors can usually figure out a way around them. Plus they're sometimes invalidated once challenged. The holder could be smarter to try to get a small license fee. Look at Microsoft: by licensing ActiveSync instead of keeping it to themselves, they made it into a de facto standard with steady revenue.
So you honestly think that Motorola who spent all the time and money into developing the technology that is now required to operate smartphones (<span style="line-height:24px;">part of the GPRS standard</span>
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:24px;">, which is in turn part of the rather important GSM cellular standard.) </span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">should not have the right to injunctive relief over Apple who has been using this technology for years without paying for it. And yet REFUSED to pay for it when confronted with an offer.</span>
-BUT-
When Samsung et al. develops a smartphone with rectangles and rounded corners (a completely retarded patent) Apple automatically deserves the right to injunctive relief over something so trivial as that?
...
Apple didn't want to be extorted because they were more successful than Moto in the smartphone market. Apple has always been willing to pay a REASONABLE rate.
Btw: the rounded corner rectangle patent wasn't on trial. The iPhone trade dress was. Just like no one else can use the curvy coke bottle, no one else should be able to use the iPhone design. Why do Fandroids seem to forget this?
SEP holders have also spent time and money innovating (and cooperating with others on a standard) and likewise have the right to prevent copying without licensing.
FRAND patents are actually better long term strategically, since they've almost always stood up to court tests, and have a history of steady payments. More importantly, since you cannot build a device for that standard without using them, it's very difficult to claim you are not using them.
Non-FRAND patents are often better used tactically, as a delaying tactic, since competitors can usually figure out a way around them. Plus they're sometimes invalidated once challenged. The holder could be smarter to try to get a small license fee. Look at Microsoft: by licensing ActiveSync instead of keeping it to themselves, they made it into a de facto standard with steady revenue.
Who said they were free in the first place? Moto offered them to be part of a standard tech and accept the fair and reasonable licensing terms. Moto is trying to extort a higher rate from Apple simply because Moto has fallen behind the iPhone.
Why should Apple license its non SEP? It's a competitive advantage that other companies shouldn't steal.
Apple didn't want to be extorted because they were more successful than Moto in the smartphone market. Apple has always been willing to pay a REASONABLE rate.
Apple has only been willing to pay a fee that THEY consider reasonable.
More to the point, Apple doesn't want to play by the same rules as everyone else. They entered a field with its own rules and decided they didn't like them.
Instead, Apple wants special treatment. Unlike everyone else who has licensed ETSI patents for decades, Apple wanted royalties based on a tiny part of the overall device, and for lower prices.
We can debate the fairness of that all we want, but Apple was not treated differently, and THAT is really why Apple was upset. They want to be treated differently.
Quote:
Who said they were free in the first place? Moto offered them to be part of a standard tech and accept the fair and reasonable licensing terms. Moto is trying to extort a higher rate from Apple simply because Moto has fallen behind the iPhone.
Who said it was a higher rate for Apple? Let me guess: Apple said it. Motorola's starting rate of 2.25% has been known for years, and is comparable to other rates like Qualcomm's (~3.4%).
What Apple really is objecting to, is that they don't want to lower the rate by cross-licensing IP, as most everyone else does. Again, they want special treatment. The fact is, you want lower rates, you cross-license, just like Apple did with Nokia to settle their FRAND patent suit. Others share IP and compete on price, features and build. Apple doesn't want to do that.
Moreover, throughout the FRAND litigation, Apple has avoided letting either a jury or judge decide rates... as they know that using historical rates, they'll probably end up paying more. Instead, they want to change the game rules in their favor. Understandable, but they cannot claim to be a victim.
Quote:
Why should Apple license its non SEP? It's a competitive advantage that other companies shouldn't steal.
They don't have to, but as I said, their patents would be worth more in the long run if they did.
Imagine if they had licensed slide-to-unlock or scrolling to everyone for a dime. They'd be making millions of dollars off those patents. Instead, they spent millions on litigation that has already ended up with such patents being invalidated around the world and probably soon in the US as well. Now they have a rather large net loss instead of a net gain. That's not smart finances.
So you honestly think that Motorola who spent all the time and money into developing the technology that is now required to operate smartphones (<span style="line-height:24px;">part of the GPRS standard</span>
<span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:16px;line-height:24px;">, which is in turn part of the rather important GSM cellular standard.) </span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">should not have the right to injunctive relief over Apple who has been using this technology for years without paying for it. And yet REFUSED to pay for it when confronted with an offer.</span>
-BUT-
When Samsung et al. develops a smartphone with rectangles and rounded corners (a completely retarded patent) Apple automatically deserves the right to injunctive relief over something so trivial as that?
what about the slide to unlock patent that was recently preliminarily invalidated? do you think Apple deserves the damages from Samsung on a patent that will ultimately not exist anymore?
Their pinch to zoom patent? same boat... preliminarily invalidated but Apple is demanding damages on it before it is finalized at the USPTO
the "Steve Jobs" patent: <span style="font-size:12px;font-family:BentonSans, sans-serif;line-height:28.796875px;">“touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics.”</span>
<span style="font-family:BentonSans, sans-serif;line-height:28.796875px;font-size:12px;">.... you guessed it... same boat. But for some reason... Apple thinks it is moral to go after Samsung for damages on all these patents that will eventually be invalidated.
What i'm saying is Apple is not the great innovative company you think they are. They were awarded a bunch of absurd patents that are now being invalidated because the thermonuclear war has shown light onto how ridiculous some of their patents are.</span>
Apple was paying for the patents, they were incorporated into the cost of the chips they were using.
Motorola rescinded the chipmakers license when chips were sold to Apple and Microsoft then launched their extortionate demands.
Apple has only been willing to pay a fee that THEY consider reasonable.
More to the point, Apple doesn't want to play by the same rules as everyone else. They entered a field with its own rules and decided they didn't like them.
Instead, Apple wants special treatment. <span style="line-height:1.231;">Unlike everyone else who has licensed ETSI patents for decades, Apple wanted royalties based on a tiny part of the overall device, and for lower prices.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">We can debate the fairness of that all we want, but Apple was not treated differently, and THAT is really why Apple was upset. They want to be treated differently.</span>
What Apple really is objecting to, is that they don't want to lower the rate by cross-licensing IP, as most everyone else does. Again, they want special treatment. The fact is, you want lower rates, you cross-license, just like Apple did with Nokia to settle their FRAND patent suit. Others share IP and compete on price, features and build. Apple doesn't want to do that.
Moreover, throughout the FRAND litigation, Apple has avoided letting either a jury or judge decide rates... as they know that using historical rates, they'll probably end up paying more. Instead, they want to change the game rules in their favor. Understandable, but they cannot claim to be a victim.
They don't have to, but as I said, their patents would be worth more in the long run if they did.
Imagine if they had licensed slide-to-unlock or scrolling to everyone for a dime. They'd be making millions of dollars off those patents. Instead, they spent millions on litigation that has already ended up with such patents being invalidated around the world and probably soon in the US as well. Now they have a rather large net loss instead of a net gain. That's not smart finances.
What a load of horseshit.
Motorola's 2.5% demand from Microsoft, which would have netted them $4 Billion a year, was reduced to less than one two thousandth of that when FRAND was decided by a judge.
Motorola resorted to extortion, Google swallowed the bait based on unrealistic future licensing revenue and were stiffed for twelve billion, mobile standards are returning to normal.
Apple has NEVER stooped so low as to resort to suing over SEP's.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The big difference being that Google is abusing a government given monopolistic power with the understanding that it would license fairly. They wanted to charge Apple what I call the "white boy price", which I jokingly tell my black friends whenever I feel I was overly charged for something in a minority neighborhood.
Google had nothing to do with the lawsuits in fact. It simply inherited some Motorola legal actions that are still moving towards resolutions.
Since Google is now the new owner and there's a chance for a new start it would be nice if all three, Apple, Microsoft and Google could find a way to do a reboot and drop their existing IP claims against one another but that ain't gonna happen. Google is tasked with cleaning up a mess that Moto got themselves into. It comes with the purchase. With that said Google themselves haven't sued Apple or Microsoft and thus could hardly be abusively wielding their IP with respect to those two. With any luck Google will continue to show restraint and avoid tit-for-tat IP infringement suits.
Google was happy to let Motorola sue "on their behalf" while watching fom the sidelines.
And we haven't even touched on the WebM angle. I doubt it's a coincidence Google wanted its codec to displace H.264 and Motorola was trying to make H.264 "less desirable" by making license fees expensive.
You can go on and on about Google not "directly" suing anyone, but it's all semantics. Google is just as guilty as Motorola in all these proceedings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
The big difference being that Google is abusing a government given monopolistic power with the understanding that it would license fairly. They wanted to charge Apple what I call the "white boy price", which I jokingly tell my black friends whenever I feel I was overly charged for something in a minority neighborhood.
Again, you might recall the US case last year when Motorola agreed to a judge deciding Apple's royalty rate, instead of the 2.25% that Moto usually started negotiations with. Instead of agreeing to this incredibly fair offer, Apple refused to go along unless the rate was $1 or below.
So no, Motorola is not abusing rates since they were willing to accept whatever a judge came up with.
Apple, on the other hand, clearly demonstrated that they were not only unwilling to accept FRAND rates as determined by an unbiased judge, they were simply using the courts to try to negotiate a lower rate than anyone else. Realizing that Apple's lawsuit claim of unfair rates was just a ruse, the judge dismissed Apple's case with prejudice.
Even Foss Patents wrote that it was a mistake; that this judge was as fair a rate arbiter as Apple could ask for, and that Apple missed a golden opportunity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
EU to Google: don't be evil
It's kind of hard for them not to be. It's their business model. Selling ads, allowing people to toss up copyright infringement videos on YouTube, they don't even answer their phones. I tried to call YouTube and NO ONE answered. Yeah, like they really care about customer service.
Never will I buy a product that Google sells. EVER. I don't even use their software that much because they have horrible user interfaces.
And no apple fan sees the irony in this statement. It saves their butt in Europe, but they look the other way when their beloved company exploit this very tactic here in America. SMH
And the worst part about it is that not a single person even acknowledges that Apple was INDEED using Motorola's patents without licensing them, the very same thing they claim all android manufacturers have been doing to Apple for years. and now that the tables are turned, you all think Apple is in the right and Motorola is in the wrong. It REALLY makes me LMFAO
deleted
Originally Posted by ukjb
…and now that the tables are turned…
Why do you think anything you're saying makes sense?
And why so many acronyms? Just type it out.
SEP are different than non-SEP. Apple has innovated hence its patents. It deserves the right to defend its property and prevent the blatant copying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Why do you think anything you're saying makes sense?
And why so many acronyms? Just type it out.
i used two acronyms... is that too many for you to count to or are you just against using acronyms altogether? i bet if you're tired of reading them and you'd like them to be translated, there's an app for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
SEP are different than non-SEP. Apple has innovated hence its patents. It deserves the right to defend its property and prevent the blatant copying.
So you honestly think that Motorola who spent all the time and money into developing the technology that is now required to operate smartphones (part of the GPRS standard, which is in turn part of the rather important GSM cellular standard.) should not have the right to injunctive relief over Apple who has been using this technology for years without paying for it. And yet REFUSED to pay for it when confronted with an offer.
-BUT-
When Samsung et al. develops a smartphone with rectangles and rounded corners (a completely retarded patent) Apple automatically deserves the right to injunctive relief over something so trivial as that?
what about the slide to unlock patent that was recently preliminarily invalidated? do you think Apple deserves the damages from Samsung on a patent that will ultimately not exist anymore?
Their pinch to zoom patent? same boat... preliminarily invalidated but Apple is demanding damages on it before it is finalized at the USPTO
the "Steve Jobs" patent: “touch screen device, method, and graphical user interface for determining commands by applying heuristics.” .... you guessed it... same boat. But for some reason... Apple thinks it is moral to go after Samsung for damages on all these patents that will eventually be invalidated.
What i'm saying is Apple is not the great innovative company you think they are. They were awarded a bunch of absurd patents that are now being invalidated because the thermonuclear war has shown light onto how ridiculous some of their patents are.
Originally Posted by ukjb
…are you just against using acronyms altogether?
Primarily against Internet slang, myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Primarily against Internet slang, myself.
then don't use the internet. or at least shy away from blogs... you're going to get there wherever you go
Originally Posted by ukjb
then don't use the internet.
Hilarious! Do you work for Google, by chance?
…or at least shy away from blogs…
Dear heavens, do I ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Hilarious! Do you work for Google, by chance?
I wish... that'd be a sweet gig. Not sure how you came to that conclusion though... if i worked for Google, wouldn't i want you to stay on the internet and make my company more money?
Originally Posted by ukjb
…if i worked for Google, wouldn't i want you to stay on the internet and make my company more money?
That's a very good point. You should probably tell the Anti-Apple Brigade to get their act together in that regard.
I refer, of course, to the "well, just don't use that website" crowd who thinks not using the Internet at all is a valid response to Google's invasive and illegal advertisements and monitoring of computer use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
SEP are different than non-SEP. Apple has innovated hence its patents. It deserves the right to defend its property and prevent the blatant copying.
FRAND does not mean free.
SEP holders have also spent time and money innovating (and cooperating with others on a standard) and likewise have the right to prevent copying without licensing.
FRAND patents are actually better long term strategically, since they've almost always stood up to court tests, and have a history of steady payments. More importantly, since you cannot build a device for that standard without using them, it's very difficult to claim you are not using them.
Non-FRAND patents are often better used tactically, as a delaying tactic, since competitors can usually figure out a way around them. Plus they're sometimes invalidated once challenged. The holder could be smarter to try to get a small license fee. Look at Microsoft: by licensing ActiveSync instead of keeping it to themselves, they made it into a de facto standard with steady revenue.
Apple didn't want to be extorted because they were more successful than Moto in the smartphone market. Apple has always been willing to pay a REASONABLE rate.
Btw: the rounded corner rectangle patent wasn't on trial. The iPhone trade dress was. Just like no one else can use the curvy coke bottle, no one else should be able to use the iPhone design. Why do Fandroids seem to forget this?
Who said they were free in the first place? Moto offered them to be part of a standard tech and accept the fair and reasonable licensing terms. Moto is trying to extort a higher rate from Apple simply because Moto has fallen behind the iPhone.
Why should Apple license its non SEP? It's a competitive advantage that other companies shouldn't steal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Apple didn't want to be extorted because they were more successful than Moto in the smartphone market. Apple has always been willing to pay a REASONABLE rate.
Apple has only been willing to pay a fee that THEY consider reasonable.
More to the point, Apple doesn't want to play by the same rules as everyone else. They entered a field with its own rules and decided they didn't like them.
Instead, Apple wants special treatment. Unlike everyone else who has licensed ETSI patents for decades, Apple wanted royalties based on a tiny part of the overall device, and for lower prices.
We can debate the fairness of that all we want, but Apple was not treated differently, and THAT is really why Apple was upset. They want to be treated differently.
Quote:
Who said they were free in the first place? Moto offered them to be part of a standard tech and accept the fair and reasonable licensing terms. Moto is trying to extort a higher rate from Apple simply because Moto has fallen behind the iPhone.
Who said it was a higher rate for Apple? Let me guess: Apple said it. Motorola's starting rate of 2.25% has been known for years, and is comparable to other rates like Qualcomm's (~3.4%).
What Apple really is objecting to, is that they don't want to lower the rate by cross-licensing IP, as most everyone else does. Again, they want special treatment. The fact is, you want lower rates, you cross-license, just like Apple did with Nokia to settle their FRAND patent suit. Others share IP and compete on price, features and build. Apple doesn't want to do that.
Moreover, throughout the FRAND litigation, Apple has avoided letting either a jury or judge decide rates... as they know that using historical rates, they'll probably end up paying more. Instead, they want to change the game rules in their favor. Understandable, but they cannot claim to be a victim.
Quote:
Why should Apple license its non SEP? It's a competitive advantage that other companies shouldn't steal.
They don't have to, but as I said, their patents would be worth more in the long run if they did.
Imagine if they had licensed slide-to-unlock or scrolling to everyone for a dime. They'd be making millions of dollars off those patents. Instead, they spent millions on litigation that has already ended up with such patents being invalidated around the world and probably soon in the US as well. Now they have a rather large net loss instead of a net gain. That's not smart finances.
Apple was paying for the patents, they were incorporated into the cost of the chips they were using.
Motorola rescinded the chipmakers license when chips were sold to Apple and Microsoft then launched their extortionate demands.
Don't give us this bullshit IWBY.
What a load of horseshit.
Motorola's 2.5% demand from Microsoft, which would have netted them $4 Billion a year, was reduced to less than one two thousandth of that when FRAND was decided by a judge.
Motorola resorted to extortion, Google swallowed the bait based on unrealistic future licensing revenue and were stiffed for twelve billion, mobile standards are returning to normal.
Apple has NEVER stooped so low as to resort to suing over SEP's.