Motorola originally approached Apple in 2007 and offered to license the patent on FRAND terms.
Apple refused.
Apple then drew up a different offer to license the patent under FRAND rates going forward, but included a clause that allowed them to contest the validity of the patent in court.
Motorola then claimed that the clause amounted to special treatment, and thus was not FRAND. They also claimed that because Apple refused to license the FRAND license prior, the time period they were in violation is not subject to FRAND terms.
The German courts agreed with Motorola.
Presumably, had Apple agreed to the FRAND terms in the first place, and paid those rates for all applicable periods when they used the technology, they would still have been able to challenge the patents' validity in court. I'm concluding that from the fact that their validity challenge does not appear to have excluded them from FRAND licensing going forwards.
If that is true then it seems they took an unnecessary risk in refusing the retrospective FRAND offer.
[/QUOTE]Also I believe Apple and MS cross license patents. Remember Microsoft has even more patents than Apple (Only IBM has more software patents). A patent battle with MS would be very expensive.[/QUOTE]
As an iPad2 user and a WP7 owner, the differences in the OS are huge. But I haven't seen anything in the news regarding lawsuits between Apple and Microsoft over WP7.
As an iPad2 user and a WP7 owner, the differences in the OS are huge. But I haven't seen anything in the news regarding lawsuits between Apple and Microsoft over WP7.
You are just looking at the surface layer. Yes the tiles in WP7 look very different to iOS, but underneath there is plenty tech that probably uses Apple patents. The inverse is also true. MS has been making mobile OSes for a very long time and has a huge number of patents. It is highly unlike that iOS doesn't include Microsoft patented tech.
This isn't like Apple v Android. With Apple v Microsoft both sides have a massive arsenal of patents. The only sensible option is to cross license which I believe they do.
You therefore won't see any patent battles between them.
Presumably, had Apple agreed to the FRAND terms in the first place, and paid those rates for all applicable periods when they used the technology, they would still have been able to challenge the patents' validity in court. I'm concluding that from the fact that their validity challenge does not appear to have excluded them from FRAND licensing going forwards.
If that is true then it seems they took an unnecessary risk in refusing the retrospective FRAND offer.
Perhaps, but I think Apple was afraid that agreeing to the FRAND license would been seen by the courts as accepting that the patent was valid and thus weaken their position should they contest it.
IIRC there is another lawsuit going on somewhere where Apple is contesting the validity, if that is successful then this case could be rendered irrelevant.
You really do not have a clue as to what happened do you? it is amzing (sic) just how stupid people that comment on things really are.
Motorola originally approached Apple in 2007 and offered to license the patent on FRAND terms.
Apple refused.
Apple then drew up a different offer to license the patent under FRAND rates going forward, but included a clause that allowed them to contest the validity of the patent in court.
Motorola then claimed that the clause amounted to special treatment, and thus was not FRAND. They also claimed that because Apple refused to license the FRAND license prior, the time period they were in violation is not subject to FRAND terms.
The German courts agreed with Motorola.
So the fact that its an essential patent not the issue in this case. Apple refused the FRAND offer and wanted a special clause inserted in their license (i.e. NOT fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory). DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? Therefore, they cannot claim a FRAND defense. get some education before commenting!
Why should Apple pay a licence that was already paid by the chipmaker of the chips they were using?
Would you like to have to pay additional licence fees, after you buy a product because companies that own standards based FRAND patents are allowed to double dip?
Why should Apple pay a licence that was already paid by the chipmaker of the chips they were using?
Apple does design plenty of their own chips so they could very well be the chipmaker. I think they licensed with Synaptic.
Even if Apple isn't the initial inventor of trackpads they surely have their own patents on it and have revolutionized the way we use trackpads from the iPod's touch-senstive click wheel to the large Mac trackpads to iOS-based device touch screens no one else has done it better.
If they weren't first to have multitouch trackpads they were certainly the first to make it usable. Synaptic was years behind Apple to the consumer market but still struggled due to Windows and OEMs issues that made it poor. I'm not sure what was wrong with the HP Envy's trackpad but it didn't work as it should.
At CES Synaptic introduced a reduction of trackpad chips from 8 to 1. I have a feeling Apple did this a long time ago.
If they weren't first to have multitouch trackpads they were certainly the first to make it usable.
One of the issues I have with patents is frequently the company who makes it usable, brings it to market and probably independently invented the idea (none of which is cheap) is not the company that has the patent. It is often some company that just sits on patents doing nothing with them.
Imagine a castle under siege: military tacticians might suggest careful placement of weapons to be used only when the target is in range and when each hit will confer valuable benefit. In contrast, Apple are just aimlessly throwing stones over the wall like panicking children.
Comments
Motorola originally approached Apple in 2007 and offered to license the patent on FRAND terms.
Apple refused.
Apple then drew up a different offer to license the patent under FRAND rates going forward, but included a clause that allowed them to contest the validity of the patent in court.
Motorola then claimed that the clause amounted to special treatment, and thus was not FRAND. They also claimed that because Apple refused to license the FRAND license prior, the time period they were in violation is not subject to FRAND terms.
The German courts agreed with Motorola.
Presumably, had Apple agreed to the FRAND terms in the first place, and paid those rates for all applicable periods when they used the technology, they would still have been able to challenge the patents' validity in court. I'm concluding that from the fact that their validity challenge does not appear to have excluded them from FRAND licensing going forwards.
If that is true then it seems they took an unnecessary risk in refusing the retrospective FRAND offer.
There aren't enough WP7 devices to make it worth while going after MS. :-)
That might change when this hits the market..
Lumia 900
[/QUOTE]Also I believe Apple and MS cross license patents. Remember Microsoft has even more patents than Apple (Only IBM has more software patents). A patent battle with MS would be very expensive.[/QUOTE]
As an iPad2 user and a WP7 owner, the differences in the OS are huge. But I haven't seen anything in the news regarding lawsuits between Apple and Microsoft over WP7.
That might change when this hits the market..
Lumia 900
Yeah, it looks like a stretched iPod nano, but there aren't really any patent problems.
As an iPad2 user and a WP7 owner, the differences in the OS are huge. But I haven't seen anything in the news regarding lawsuits between Apple and Microsoft over WP7.
You are just looking at the surface layer. Yes the tiles in WP7 look very different to iOS, but underneath there is plenty tech that probably uses Apple patents. The inverse is also true. MS has been making mobile OSes for a very long time and has a huge number of patents. It is highly unlike that iOS doesn't include Microsoft patented tech.
This isn't like Apple v Android. With Apple v Microsoft both sides have a massive arsenal of patents. The only sensible option is to cross license which I believe they do.
You therefore won't see any patent battles between them.
Presumably, had Apple agreed to the FRAND terms in the first place, and paid those rates for all applicable periods when they used the technology, they would still have been able to challenge the patents' validity in court. I'm concluding that from the fact that their validity challenge does not appear to have excluded them from FRAND licensing going forwards.
If that is true then it seems they took an unnecessary risk in refusing the retrospective FRAND offer.
Perhaps, but I think Apple was afraid that agreeing to the FRAND license would been seen by the courts as accepting that the patent was valid and thus weaken their position should they contest it.
IIRC there is another lawsuit going on somewhere where Apple is contesting the validity, if that is successful then this case could be rendered irrelevant.
You really do not have a clue as to what happened do you? it is amzing (sic) just how stupid people that comment on things really are.
Motorola originally approached Apple in 2007 and offered to license the patent on FRAND terms.
Apple refused.
Apple then drew up a different offer to license the patent under FRAND rates going forward, but included a clause that allowed them to contest the validity of the patent in court.
Motorola then claimed that the clause amounted to special treatment, and thus was not FRAND. They also claimed that because Apple refused to license the FRAND license prior, the time period they were in violation is not subject to FRAND terms.
The German courts agreed with Motorola.
So the fact that its an essential patent not the issue in this case. Apple refused the FRAND offer and wanted a special clause inserted in their license (i.e. NOT fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory). DO YOU UNDERSTAND??? Therefore, they cannot claim a FRAND defense. get some education before commenting!
Why should Apple pay a licence that was already paid by the chipmaker of the chips they were using?
Would you like to have to pay additional licence fees, after you buy a product because companies that own standards based FRAND patents are allowed to double dip?
Why should Apple pay a licence that was already paid by the chipmaker of the chips they were using?
Apple does design plenty of their own chips so they could very well be the chipmaker. I think they licensed with Synaptic.
Even if Apple isn't the initial inventor of trackpads they surely have their own patents on it and have revolutionized the way we use trackpads from the iPod's touch-senstive click wheel to the large Mac trackpads to iOS-based device touch screens no one else has done it better.
If they weren't first to have multitouch trackpads they were certainly the first to make it usable. Synaptic was years behind Apple to the consumer market but still struggled due to Windows and OEMs issues that made it poor. I'm not sure what was wrong with the HP Envy's trackpad but it didn't work as it should.
At CES Synaptic introduced a reduction of trackpad chips from 8 to 1. I have a feeling Apple did this a long time ago.
If they weren't first to have multitouch trackpads they were certainly the first to make it usable.
One of the issues I have with patents is frequently the company who makes it usable, brings it to market and probably independently invented the idea (none of which is cheap) is not the company that has the patent. It is often some company that just sits on patents doing nothing with them.
You will also have to agree to disagree with the ITC and the experts that have far more information and facts about the case than any of us do..
Yutter rubbish, remember Apple won one case against Kodak and latter it was reversed.