And, if Apple has been violating these Motorola patens, it is my opinion that that's wrong and reflects poorly on Apple, even if the patents are FRAND and Motorola should have been licensing them in the first place. If they're found to be infringing, Apple should probably pay some damages to Motorola… at least until the patents are found to be FRAND, in which case, payment should be made from Motorola TO Apple, minus the cost of the damages from Apple's infringement.
I think it's fairly clear that the Motorola patent is this case really is FRAND. The murky point is the question of who made the first mistake.
Even if the patent is found to be valid and FRAND, then damages could still easily flow either from Motorola to Apple, or from Apple to Motorola, depending on other circumstances of the case.
Did Motorola offer terms which Apple rejected?
Did Apple make a counter-offer which Motorola rejected?
Was Motorola's original offer contrary to the principles of FRAND patents?
Was Apple's counter-offer contrary to the principles of FRAND patents?
The answers to these questions would all come into play when determining whether or not Motorola would owe Apple damages for lost sales due to the current injunction, and whether or not Apple owes Motorola damages for the period where Apple may have been wilfully infringing.
So all Apple has to do is show that they played by the rules and Motorola didn't and the products will be back in the store and that bond will go to Apple.
Apple cannot show that, because that is not the way it went down.
Had Apple been able to show that, they would not be in this mess in the first place. The decision seems to be that Apple did NOT play by the rules, and Motorola DID play by the rules.
Apple wins suit: The patent existed and was valid. It has yet to be challenged. For all the talk you trolls spout about "patenting a rectangle", why hasn't that patent been challenged? They've had plenty of time to do it. And if it's as generic as you claim, it will obviously be overturned. It hasn't. If Apple had tried to "patent a rectangle" as you all claim, I'd be on your side. Attempting to patent a simple shape is ludicrous. But they haven't. And no one has challenged the patent.
Apple loses suit: The patent is FRAND and is valid. It is in the running to be challenged, as I already mentioned. If it is challenged, then it's challenged. If Motorola is forced to license it, they're forced to license it. If they're forced to then pay damages to Apple for lost sales during this down time, they're forced to pay sales. Nowhere did I say they WILL or SHOULD pay Apple for the downtime. I said specifically that it's possible, not guaranteed.
If you want my personal opinion, I wish that Apple's tablet patent was just a little more specific. Then there'd be no question as to the infringement of Samsung crap. And, if Apple has been violating these Motorola patens, it is my opinion that that's wrong and reflects poorly on Apple, even if the patents are FRAND and Motorola should have been licensing them in the first place. If they're found to be infringing, Apple should probably pay some damages to Motorola? at least until the patents are found to be FRAND, in which case, payment should be made from Motorola TO Apple, minus the cost of the damages from Apple's infringement.
Forced to license isn't the same as being forced to bend over and take it up the ash. Motorola gave terms and Apple said no. So no license was granted. You guys applaud whenever Apple takes such a stance but God forbid anyone rejects terms that Apple wants.
Forced to license isn't the same as being forced to bend over and take it up the ash. Motorola gave terms and Apple said no. So no license was granted.
Except it's FRAND and you can't do that. FRAND have to be licensed.
Except it's FRAND and you can't do that. FRAND have to be licensed.
Not that simple. If an offer is made for a FRAND patent that is unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory, then a patent owner does have the right to reject the offer.
Motorola has to offer initial terms.
Apple can accept them, or else they can come back with a counter-offer.
Motorola can consider Apple's counter-offer, and determine whether that counter-offer really is Fair (not forcing either party to purchase bundled licenses for unreleated technologies they don't need, not forcing either party to sub-license other tech, etc), Reasonable (not charging Apple disproportionately more or less than any of the other existing licensees), And Non-Discriminatory (not singling out Apple to have different terms and conditions than would have applied to other licensees).
If Apple's counter-offer didn't meet these requirements, then Apple's counter-offer wouldn't qualify as FRAND, and Motorola would be completely within its rights to reject the counter-offer. And then they could start seeking injunctions.
Then, Apple's options would include, (but not necessarily limited to):
1) Seek legal relief to invalidate the patent,
2) Find a way to work-around the patent (or exhaust it by some other means),
3) Come back to the table with terms that are FRAND (which Motorola would be compelled to accept, or else
4) Stop violating by removing the violating products from the market.
Temporarily lifted, until an appeal can be heard. The fact is, lifting the ban was probably for the best.
Apple wasn't even in court for the original trial, so they haven't taken the opportunity to defend themselves yet - we've only heard one side of the story (Motorola's) in the official record.
Referring back to my post immediately above this, this appeal will allow Apple to establish their version of events, for the official record, of exactly what offer Motorola initially offered, and exactly what counter-offer Apple made in response. This will help the court to determine whether or not Apple really was offering Motorola non-FRAND terms as Motorola had previously argued.
The timing of Apples "compliance" with the injunctions is interesting.
. I think Apple feels that Moto will get the same EU investigation as Samsung and be found guilty. Thus Apple will in by default and Moto will have to pay the bond to them
It's not the timing but the lack of appeal that is of note. As you say the EU has started looking into Samsung's possible FRAND abuse. I think Apple feels that Moto will get the same, and be found guilty. Thus Apple will in by default and Moto will have to pay the bond to them
The appeal has been filed, and the ban has already been lifted pending the outcome of the appeal. The net effect on sales for this overnight ban will be negligible -- nowhere near the 100 million euro bond Motorola would have had to have posted.
No big deal. 4S makes up most of the sales anyway. For the iPad, just buy a hot spot and wifi iPad.
Apple could trump GOO order for MMI with one quarters cash flow. GGO PX is about 7.5 Million net of MMI cash. On the other hand, MMI cell business could be gone in 3 years anyway. Don't think GOOG will carry the looses beyond a year or two.
If this was a football team, the fans would be calling for resignations!
If Apple was a football team, they'd be the back-to-back-to-back-to-etc Super Bowl winners, having had consecutive perfect seasons (to the horror of Mercury Morris), and be worshipped by Timmy Tebow.
BUT! They had a penalty flag thrown at them! Oh the humanity!
I don't think anyone would be calling for resignations.
"U.S. government, military to get secure Android phones"
That wouldn't be Android any more than Amazon is Android, at least from Google's perspective. It's a modified version of "android" that would be devoid of the tracking that Google relies on.
"U.S. government, military to get secure Android phones"
Having a first hand insight on this, Apple was approached first but the US Gov needed full access to the iOS source code so they could customize it to fit their need, Apple refused. Android came next. It literally was that simple.
Edit: Just read the article through and it says the same thing. I will go back to sleep now.
Comments
And, if Apple has been violating these Motorola patens, it is my opinion that that's wrong and reflects poorly on Apple, even if the patents are FRAND and Motorola should have been licensing them in the first place. If they're found to be infringing, Apple should probably pay some damages to Motorola… at least until the patents are found to be FRAND, in which case, payment should be made from Motorola TO Apple, minus the cost of the damages from Apple's infringement.
I think it's fairly clear that the Motorola patent is this case really is FRAND. The murky point is the question of who made the first mistake.
Even if the patent is found to be valid and FRAND, then damages could still easily flow either from Motorola to Apple, or from Apple to Motorola, depending on other circumstances of the case.
Did Motorola offer terms which Apple rejected?
Did Apple make a counter-offer which Motorola rejected?
Was Motorola's original offer contrary to the principles of FRAND patents?
Was Apple's counter-offer contrary to the principles of FRAND patents?
The answers to these questions would all come into play when determining whether or not Motorola would owe Apple damages for lost sales due to the current injunction, and whether or not Apple owes Motorola damages for the period where Apple may have been wilfully infringing.
So all Apple has to do is show that they played by the rules and Motorola didn't and the products will be back in the store and that bond will go to Apple.
Apple cannot show that, because that is not the way it went down.
Had Apple been able to show that, they would not be in this mess in the first place. The decision seems to be that Apple did NOT play by the rules, and Motorola DID play by the rules.
http://9to5mac.com/2012/02/03/that-w...us-of-patents/
Oh, that's so rich. Hilarious.
Yes.
Apple wins suit: The patent existed and was valid. It has yet to be challenged. For all the talk you trolls spout about "patenting a rectangle", why hasn't that patent been challenged? They've had plenty of time to do it. And if it's as generic as you claim, it will obviously be overturned. It hasn't. If Apple had tried to "patent a rectangle" as you all claim, I'd be on your side. Attempting to patent a simple shape is ludicrous. But they haven't. And no one has challenged the patent.
Apple loses suit: The patent is FRAND and is valid. It is in the running to be challenged, as I already mentioned. If it is challenged, then it's challenged. If Motorola is forced to license it, they're forced to license it. If they're forced to then pay damages to Apple for lost sales during this down time, they're forced to pay sales. Nowhere did I say they WILL or SHOULD pay Apple for the downtime. I said specifically that it's possible, not guaranteed.
If you want my personal opinion, I wish that Apple's tablet patent was just a little more specific. Then there'd be no question as to the infringement of Samsung crap. And, if Apple has been violating these Motorola patens, it is my opinion that that's wrong and reflects poorly on Apple, even if the patents are FRAND and Motorola should have been licensing them in the first place. If they're found to be infringing, Apple should probably pay some damages to Motorola? at least until the patents are found to be FRAND, in which case, payment should be made from Motorola TO Apple, minus the cost of the damages from Apple's infringement.
Forced to license isn't the same as being forced to bend over and take it up the ash. Motorola gave terms and Apple said no. So no license was granted. You guys applaud whenever Apple takes such a stance but God forbid anyone rejects terms that Apple wants.
Whoever decided to go down this route wasn't the smartest one in the room at the time!
That would be Steve.
Forced to license isn't the same as being forced to bend over and take it up the ash. Motorola gave terms and Apple said no. So no license was granted.
Except it's FRAND and you can't do that. FRAND have to be licensed.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/m...nes/index.html
"U.S. government, military to get secure Android phones"
The hits continue to come. First Germany, now the US Government. Android will be deployed.
So what say you now? The ban has been lifted.
like this isn't a site for Apple enthusiasts is it? /sarcasm
Dont confuse enthusiasts for apologists.
Ahhhh little padawan, I see you've been paying attention.
I'm slow, but I get there eventually.
Dont confuse enthusiasts for apologists.
Apology accepted.
The hits continue to come. First Germany, now the US Government. Android will be deployed.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/m...nes/index.html
"U.S. government, military to get secure Android phones"
I say, welcome to the club. You're a few years late, Android. iPhones are already issued.
Except it's FRAND and you can't do that. FRAND have to be licensed.
Not that simple. If an offer is made for a FRAND patent that is unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory, then a patent owner does have the right to reject the offer.
Motorola has to offer initial terms.
Apple can accept them, or else they can come back with a counter-offer.
Motorola can consider Apple's counter-offer, and determine whether that counter-offer really is Fair (not forcing either party to purchase bundled licenses for unreleated technologies they don't need, not forcing either party to sub-license other tech, etc), Reasonable (not charging Apple disproportionately more or less than any of the other existing licensees), And Non-Discriminatory (not singling out Apple to have different terms and conditions than would have applied to other licensees).
If Apple's counter-offer didn't meet these requirements, then Apple's counter-offer wouldn't qualify as FRAND, and Motorola would be completely within its rights to reject the counter-offer. And then they could start seeking injunctions.
Then, Apple's options would include, (but not necessarily limited to):
1) Seek legal relief to invalidate the patent,
2) Find a way to work-around the patent (or exhaust it by some other means),
3) Come back to the table with terms that are FRAND (which Motorola would be compelled to accept, or else
4) Stop violating by removing the violating products from the market.
So what say you now? The ban has been lifted.
Temporarily lifted, until an appeal can be heard. The fact is, lifting the ban was probably for the best.
Apple wasn't even in court for the original trial, so they haven't taken the opportunity to defend themselves yet - we've only heard one side of the story (Motorola's) in the official record.
Referring back to my post immediately above this, this appeal will allow Apple to establish their version of events, for the official record, of exactly what offer Motorola initially offered, and exactly what counter-offer Apple made in response. This will help the court to determine whether or not Apple really was offering Motorola non-FRAND terms as Motorola had previously argued.
The timing of Apples "compliance" with the injunctions is interesting.
. I think Apple feels that Moto will get the same EU investigation as Samsung and be found guilty. Thus Apple will in by default and Moto will have to pay the bond to them
It's not the timing but the lack of appeal that is of note. As you say the EU has started looking into Samsung's possible FRAND abuse. I think Apple feels that Moto will get the same, and be found guilty. Thus Apple will in by default and Moto will have to pay the bond to them
The appeal has been filed, and the ban has already been lifted pending the outcome of the appeal. The net effect on sales for this overnight ban will be negligible -- nowhere near the 100 million euro bond Motorola would have had to have posted.
There's no reason to bring religion/magic into it.
That's one approach to this curious post by kresh, but given his location and signature, it's unlikely to get through to him.
I'd like to see him comment on Jobs's stated purpose of Apple's patent litigation, back when they first filed against HTC:
"We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it ..."
So kresh, you want to be Mr. Goodkarma, what about it?
You because you can't spell 'losing'.
No big deal. 4S makes up most of the sales anyway. For the iPad, just buy a hot spot and wifi iPad.
Apple could trump GOO order for MMI with one quarters cash flow. GGO PX is about 7.5 Million net of MMI cash. On the other hand, MMI cell business could be gone in 3 years anyway. Don't think GOOG will carry the looses beyond a year or two.
If this was a football team, the fans would be calling for resignations!
If Apple was a football team, they'd be the back-to-back-to-back-to-etc Super Bowl winners, having had consecutive perfect seasons (to the horror of Mercury Morris), and be worshipped by Timmy Tebow.
BUT! They had a penalty flag thrown at them! Oh the humanity!
I don't think anyone would be calling for resignations.
The hits continue to come. First Germany, now the US Government. Android will be deployed.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/m...nes/index.html
"U.S. government, military to get secure Android phones"
That wouldn't be Android any more than Amazon is Android, at least from Google's perspective. It's a modified version of "android" that would be devoid of the tracking that Google relies on.
The hits continue to come. First Germany, now the US Government. Android will be deployed.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/03/tech/m...nes/index.html
"U.S. government, military to get secure Android phones"
Having a first hand insight on this, Apple was approached first but the US Gov needed full access to the iOS source code so they could customize it to fit their need, Apple refused. Android came next. It literally was that simple.
Edit: Just read the article through and it says the same thing. I will go back to sleep now.