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.
Extorted my butt....moto offered the same rate they offer every company. you know, the non-discriminant part of FRAND... Apple did not even negotiate, but instead took moto to court.
In addition if all the SEP holders demanded 2.5% each, no vendor will make any money or the customers will be paying a higher cost.
As I've pointed out several times, it's a starting negotiation rate. (Below is a list of such rates for LTE, which includes 3G.) The usual method of knocking rates down to as low as zero, is to cross-license IP. This is partly why Apple spent billions buying Nortel patents... for the same price per patent as Google paid for Motorola's patents... and continue to buy other such patents.
It's also important that ETSI rates are a percentage. This is what allows very low priced devices to be made (such as the ultra low cost handsets for $20) so that billions around the world can enjoy cell phones... and yet the SEP holders can still get compensated for their huge investments, because there are also higher priced / higher profit models... like the iPhone that Apple stashes away billions in extra profit from.
(The whole idea was that high profit phones help finance almost zero profit phones, to spread cellular around the world. And it worked. Without the billions invested by everyone else in the cell infrastructure and parts, latecomer Apple would have no product to make their huge profits from.)
Interestingly, we don't see Apple publicly complaining about Qualcomm and its 3.x% royalty rate. (If they did, Qualcomm could just refuse to sell them chips, and an all-in-one iPhone would probably be much larger and costlier.)
Apple itself has wanted high rates for its own IP. Remember during the trial, Apple said they had offered to license Samsung some of their design IP in return for $30 per phone (or $40 per tablet).
That's 5% on a $600 wholesale phone, or 10% on a $300 phone or $400 tablet... for relatively minor IP that's not even necessary to make the phone or tablet work, unlike the required IP that Apple must license from others.
Incorrect. That's part of the misunderstanding. Qualcomm-equipped devices aren't part of the IP infringement case. The chipset that Applesaid in their defense should have come with a license was supplied by Infineon. Qualcomm collects their own royalties from Apple, perhaps 3.5% of the total device cost or about $8 per base iPhone, paying Moto's royalty themselves.
Simply because Apple implies (they don't outright state it AFAIK) they were singled out by Motorola when Infineon's chipset license to Moto's IP was pulled doesn't make it a fact. I don't even recall Apple bringing it up again as part of their defense so personally I'd consider the original mention as smoke, no different than claiming they aren't using supposedly infringed IP anyway.
Extorted my butt....moto offered the same rate they offer every company. you know, the non-discriminant part of FRAND... Apple did not even negotiate, but instead took moto to court.
Don't you mean component companies, where the cost of the patent is integrated and passed on.
Judges see sense, hence Motorola's demand from Microsoft was reduced to less than the legal costs.
So in your world when do we stop patent stacking?
At double the price, triple?
Enough to force new competitors out of markets, to enable a monopoly?
Google and Motorola's behaviour has been anticompetitive and disgusting.
Don't you mean component companies, where the cost of the patent is integrated and passed on.
Judges see sense, hence Motorola's demand from Microsoft was reduced to less than the legal costs.
So in your world when do we stop patent stacking?
At double the price, triple?
Enough to force new competitors out of markets, to enable a monopoly?
Google and Motorola's behaviour has been anticompetitive and disgusting.
Good timing on the mention of patent stacking and the related patent exhaustion. HTC (along with Google) brought up that pointt in a case filed by Nokia. Seems they accuse HTC of infringing on some FRAND-pledged IP and as part of their defense HTC and Google argue that Qualcomm, their chipset supplier, is already licensed and as such extends to HTC as well. The ITC judge disagrees that the component manufacturer handles the royalty collection, at least for Nokia. Their demand for an injunction against HTC based on SEP's continues.
So Google actually agreed with you, and you with them . Legal rulings unfortunately do not. Is Nokia's behavior anti-competitive and disgusting?
Extorted my butt....moto offered the same rate they offer every company. you know, the non-discriminant part of FRAND... Apple did not even negotiate, but instead took moto to court.
As I've pointed out several times, it's a starting negotiation rate. (Below is a list of such rates for LTE, which includes 3G.) The usual method of knocking rates down to as low as zero, is to cross-license IP. This is partly why Apple spent billions buying Nortel patents... for the same price per patent as Google paid for Motorola's patents... and continue to buy other such patents.
It's also important that ETSI rates are a percentage. This is what allows very low priced devices to be made (such as the ultra low cost handsets for $20) so that billions around the world can enjoy cell phones... and yet the SEP holders can still get compensated for their huge investments, because there are also higher priced / higher profit models... like the iPhone that Apple stashes away billions in extra profit from.
(The whole idea was that high profit phones help finance almost zero profit phones, to spread cellular around the world. And it worked. Without the billions invested by everyone else in the cell infrastructure and parts, latecomer Apple would have no product to make their huge profits from.)
<span style="line-height:1.231;">Interestingly, we don't see Apple publicly complaining about Qualcomm and its 3.x% royalty rate. (If they did, Qualcomm could just refuse to sell them chips, and an all-in-one iPhone would probably be much larger and costlier.)</span>
Apple itself has wanted high rates for its own IP. Remember during the trial, Apple said they had offered to license Samsung some of their design IP in return for $30 per phone (or $40 per tablet).
That's 5% on a $600 wholesale phone, or 10% on a $300 phone or $400 tablet... for relatively minor IP that's not even necessary to make the phone or tablet work, unlike the required IP that Apple must license from others.
Incorrect. That's part of the misunderstanding. Qualcomm-equipped devices aren't part of the IP infringement case. The chipset that Applesaid in their defense should have come with a license was supplied by Infineon. Qualcomm collects their own royalties from Apple, perhaps 3.5% of the total device cost or about $8 per base iPhone, paying Moto's royalty themselves.
Simply because Apple implies (they don't outright state it AFAIK) they were singled out by Motorola when Infineon's chipset license to Moto's IP was pulled doesn't make it a fact. I don't even recall Apple bringing it up again as part of their defense so personally I'd consider the original mention as smoke, no different than claiming they aren't using supposedly infringed IP anyway.
So are trying to deny that Motorola rescinded the licences of companies when they specifically sold products to Apple and Microsoft?
So are trying to deny that Motorola rescinded the licences of companies when they specifically sold products to Apple and Microsoft?
Disingenuous.
Well just bring on the evidence Hill60. You're the one claiming Apple was singled out (and now MS too??) and they were already licensed via Infineon.
By the way,"Is Nokia's behavior anti-competitive and disgusting?" Should I be surprised if you don't answer that question? Methinks you might have a different standard for Google than others. If so that's what's really disingenuous.
Well just bring on the evidence Hill60. You're the one claiming Apple was singled out (and now MS too??) and they were already licensed via Infineon.
By the way,"<span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:1.231;">Is Nokia's behavior anti-competitive and disgusting?" Should I be surprised if you don't answer that question? Methinks you might have a different standard for Google than others. If so [SIZE=14px]that's[/SIZE] what's really disingenuous. </span>
Throw in Ericsson too, "He who lives by the sword should die by the sword" Motorola and Samsung, by seeking injunctions over SEP's opened this whole can of worms.
Please provide one instance where Apple has sought an injunction against anyone, anywhere over standard essential patents.
Throw in Ericsson too, "He who lives by the sword should die by the sword" Motorola and Samsung, by seeking injunctions over SEP's opened this whole can of worms.
Please provide one instance where Apple has sought an injunction against anyone, anywhere over standard essential patents.
What would that have to do with your earlier claims? Apple isn't being accused. You say Google is being anticompetive in it's patent assertions. Please provide one instance where Google has sought an injunction against anyone, anywhere over SEP's. Yet Google's FRAND behavior is disgusting in your opinion, apparently based on . . . nothing at all? Heck, they just filed their first IP infringment case of any kind, the first in the 15 year history of the company, just a few weeks ago. Has any other big tech shown as much restraint? I can't think of one.
FWIW, Nokia opened that can of worms not Moto or Samsung, demanding an injunction on Apple products over standard-essential patents back in 2009. Anti-competitive and disgusting, right?
Personally I think seeking an injunction is counter productive and less beneficial. You'd think Motorola would want Apple to sell more devices because at the end of the day they're going to make money on every device sold.
Personally I think seeking an injunction is counter productive and less beneficial. You'd think Motorola would want Apple to sell more devices because at the end of the day they're going to make money on every device sold.
I'm not at all clear what Moto had hoped to accomplish with the original lawsuits. Was it simply a reaction to Apple and MS IP claims, or pressure on Moto's bottom-line to increase royalty revenues, or just Moto trying to prove they were still relevant? Dunno but whatever it was didn't result in much success..
I'm not at all clear what Moto had hoped to accomplish with the original lawsuits. Was it simply a reaction to Apple and MS IP claims, or pressure on Moto's bottom-line to increase royalty revenues, or just Moto trying to prove they were still relevant? Dunno but whatever it was didn't result in much success..
At $12.5 billion, even if Google bought just for Motorola's 24,500 patents, that's $510,000 per patent.
However, Moto didn't cost as much as some people continue to blindly repeat. It came with $3 billion in cash reserves, and the settop box part is being sold off for $2.5 billion... which knocks the price down to $7 billion. Plus Google gets billions in tax writeoffs... AND they got a phone maker with decades of knowledge.
On the other hand, Apple, Microsoft and RIM paid $4.5 billion for 6,000 Nortel patents. That's $750,000 per patent (many of which also come with FRAND restrictions), and that's all they got for their money.
At $12.5 billion, even if Google bought just for Motorola's 24,500 patents, that's $510,000 per patent.
<span style="line-height:1.231;">However, Moto didn't cost as much as some people continue to blindly repeat. </span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">It came with $3 billion in cash reserves, and the settop box part is being sold off for $2.5 billion... which knocks the price down to $7 billion. Plus Google gets billions in tax writeoffs... AND they got a phone maker with decades of knowledge.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">On the other hand, Apple, Microsoft and RIM paid $4.5 billion for 6,000 Nortel patents. That's $750,000 per patent (many of which also come with FRAND restrictions), and that's all they got for their money.</span>
Which deal looks better?
Well they did keep it out of Google's and patent trolls' hands...
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apple was paying for the patents, they were incorporated into the cost of the chips they were using
What chips were those Hill60?
I bieve they were the Qualcomm chipsets.
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.
Extorted my butt....moto offered the same rate they offer every company. you know, the non-discriminant part of FRAND... Apple did not even negotiate, but instead took moto to court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
In addition if all the SEP holders demanded 2.5% each, no vendor will make any money or the customers will be paying a higher cost.
As I've pointed out several times, it's a starting negotiation rate. (Below is a list of such rates for LTE, which includes 3G.) The usual method of knocking rates down to as low as zero, is to cross-license IP. This is partly why Apple spent billions buying Nortel patents... for the same price per patent as Google paid for Motorola's patents... and continue to buy other such patents.
It's also important that ETSI rates are a percentage. This is what allows very low priced devices to be made (such as the ultra low cost handsets for $20) so that billions around the world can enjoy cell phones... and yet the SEP holders can still get compensated for their huge investments, because there are also higher priced / higher profit models... like the iPhone that Apple stashes away billions in extra profit from.
(The whole idea was that high profit phones help finance almost zero profit phones, to spread cellular around the world. And it worked. Without the billions invested by everyone else in the cell infrastructure and parts, latecomer Apple would have no product to make their huge profits from.)
Interestingly, we don't see Apple publicly complaining about Qualcomm and its 3.x% royalty rate. (If they did, Qualcomm could just refuse to sell them chips, and an all-in-one iPhone would probably be much larger and costlier.)
Apple itself has wanted high rates for its own IP. Remember during the trial, Apple said they had offered to license Samsung some of their design IP in return for $30 per phone (or $40 per tablet).
That's 5% on a $600 wholesale phone, or 10% on a $300 phone or $400 tablet... for relatively minor IP that's not even necessary to make the phone or tablet work, unlike the required IP that Apple must license from others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
I bieve they were the Qualcomm chipsets.
Incorrect. That's part of the misunderstanding. Qualcomm-equipped devices aren't part of the IP infringement case. The chipset that Apple said in their defense should have come with a license was supplied by Infineon. Qualcomm collects their own royalties from Apple, perhaps 3.5% of the total device cost or about $8 per base iPhone, paying Moto's royalty themselves.
Simply because Apple implies (they don't outright state it AFAIK) they were singled out by Motorola when Infineon's chipset license to Moto's IP was pulled doesn't make it a fact. I don't even recall Apple bringing it up again as part of their defense so personally I'd consider the original mention as smoke, no different than claiming they aren't using supposedly infringed IP anyway.
Don't you mean component companies, where the cost of the patent is integrated and passed on.
Judges see sense, hence Motorola's demand from Microsoft was reduced to less than the legal costs.
So in your world when do we stop patent stacking?
At double the price, triple?
Enough to force new competitors out of markets, to enable a monopoly?
Google and Motorola's behaviour has been anticompetitive and disgusting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Don't you mean component companies, where the cost of the patent is integrated and passed on.
Judges see sense, hence Motorola's demand from Microsoft was reduced to less than the legal costs.
So in your world when do we stop patent stacking?
At double the price, triple?
Enough to force new competitors out of markets, to enable a monopoly?
Google and Motorola's behaviour has been anticompetitive and disgusting.
Good timing on the mention of patent stacking and the related patent exhaustion. HTC (along with Google) brought up that pointt in a case filed by Nokia. Seems they accuse HTC of infringing on some FRAND-pledged IP and as part of their defense HTC and Google argue that Qualcomm, their chipset supplier, is already licensed and as such extends to HTC as well. The ITC judge disagrees that the component manufacturer handles the royalty collection, at least for Nokia. Their demand for an injunction against HTC based on SEP's continues.
So Google actually agreed with you, and you with them
http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/05/itc-judge-throws-out-google-and-htcs.html
Motorola took Apple to court.
When did Apple make any demands or take legal action over SEP's?
Quit muddying the waters with your bullshit.
So are trying to deny that Motorola rescinded the licences of companies when they specifically sold products to Apple and Microsoft?
Disingenuous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So are trying to deny that Motorola rescinded the licences of companies when they specifically sold products to Apple and Microsoft?
Disingenuous.
Well just bring on the evidence Hill60. You're the one claiming Apple was singled out (and now MS too??) and they were already licensed via Infineon.
By the way,"Is Nokia's behavior anti-competitive and disgusting?" Should I be surprised if you don't answer that question? Methinks you might have a different standard for Google than others. If so that's what's really disingenuous.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/157367/eu-rules-googles-motorola-abused-patents-in-seeking-injunction-against-apple/40#post_2324055
Throw in Ericsson too, "He who lives by the sword should die by the sword" Motorola and Samsung, by seeking injunctions over SEP's opened this whole can of worms.
Please provide one instance where Apple has sought an injunction against anyone, anywhere over standard essential patents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Throw in Ericsson too, "He who lives by the sword should die by the sword" Motorola and Samsung, by seeking injunctions over SEP's opened this whole can of worms.
Please provide one instance where Apple has sought an injunction against anyone, anywhere over standard essential patents.
What would that have to do with your earlier claims? Apple isn't being accused. You say Google is being anticompetive in it's patent assertions. Please provide one instance where Google has sought an injunction against anyone, anywhere over SEP's. Yet Google's FRAND behavior is disgusting in your opinion, apparently based on . . . nothing at all? Heck, they just filed their first IP infringment case of any kind, the first in the 15 year history of the company, just a few weeks ago. Has any other big tech shown as much restraint? I can't think of one.
FWIW, Nokia opened that can of worms not Moto or Samsung, demanding an injunction on Apple products over standard-essential patents back in 2009. Anti-competitive and disgusting, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Personally I think seeking an injunction is counter productive and less beneficial. You'd think Motorola would want Apple to sell more devices because at the end of the day they're going to make money on every device sold.
I'm not at all clear what Moto had hoped to accomplish with the original lawsuits. Was it simply a reaction to Apple and MS IP claims, or pressure on Moto's bottom-line to increase royalty revenues, or just Moto trying to prove they were still relevant? Dunno but whatever it was didn't result in much success..
Apart from the price they obtained from Google.
They did very well for their shareholders.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Apart from the price they obtained from Google.
At $12.5 billion, even if Google bought just for Motorola's 24,500 patents, that's $510,000 per patent.
However, Moto didn't cost as much as some people continue to blindly repeat. It came with $3 billion in cash reserves, and the settop box part is being sold off for $2.5 billion... which knocks the price down to $7 billion. Plus Google gets billions in tax writeoffs... AND they got a phone maker with decades of knowledge.
On the other hand, Apple, Microsoft and RIM paid $4.5 billion for 6,000 Nortel patents. That's $750,000 per patent (many of which also come with FRAND restrictions), and that's all they got for their money.
Which deal looks better?
Well they did keep it out of Google's and patent trolls' hands...