That's it in a nutshell. FRAND makes it easy. Motorola merely has to show what they're getting from other licensees. If it's less than 2.25%, Moto's attorneys and negotiators messed up big time.
There are no major issues here that can't be resolved very simply.
Except it is more complex than that because Motorola has cross licensing agreements with many other manufacturers so they get a lower rate. How much is the cross licensing deal worth? Does Qualcomm even pay a fee to Motorola or is it cancelled out by the license fees Motorola would otherwise be paying?
Right, that is Apple's argument, that isn't Moto's argument. They say Apple still owes them 2.25% hence my original calculations. That's not my claim, that's my calculations based on Moto's claim.
There is a different chip in the iPhone4S compared with previous 3G iPhones and iPads. Remember the iPhone4S was not included in the temporary ban the other day. It is therefore quite possible the iPhone4S is therefore safe and Apple would only need to pay out on the older phones.
There is a different chip in the iPhone4S compared with previous 3G iPhones and iPads. Remember the iPhone4S was not included in the temporary ban the other day. It is therefore quite possible the iPhone4S is therefore safe and Apple would only need to pay out on the older phones.
Possibly. It's more possible that Apple and Wualcomm have already paid for the FRAND. What I don't understand is why my calculations that clearly state I'm including the 4S are being challanged. Show me where I stated this is what Apple owes Moto. I can't my "what-if" calculations more transparent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slapppy
This forthcoming win will be a significant blow for Apple!
And when Apple survives this desperate move you'll simply claim that Apple use their power to stifle any real competition by buying off politicians and judges.
Moto can only win this if they provide evidence that this is what they receive from other licensees. If they don't and if they receive a far lower figure then they will be in serious trouble as this will prove that they are trying to strong-arm/extort fees from Apple.
Of course, if they do receive fees of this amount from other licensees then they would be making a hell of a lot more money than they currently do.
Doesn't it seem inevitable that we are shortly to learn of the European investigation into Samsung's attempts to abuse FRAND licensing being expanded to include Motorola?
And if Motorola loses this lawsuit, it can only be because they did, in fact, abuse FRAND licensing, which means they have bigger problems beyond just not getting some money. They could face severe sanctions. And what does that do to Google's acquisition plans?
Apple loses: they have to pay more money than they want and see a competitor get a financial boost. Bummer, but not that damaging in the big scheme. Moto loses, it would seem that they would be pretty much fucked. Wonder if Google is pulling the strings, figuring that if everything goes south they can just walk away?
Quit whining about the 2.25% cut or go somewhere else!
There is a rule book for Apple and one for everyone else on this planet?
Motorola asked to have their tech as part of the standard, now they have to live within the terms of that agreement.
If Apple can prove Motorola is providing less expensive licenses of the standard technology to other Android makers, you add in Googles Moto purchase and you land in a pig steaming pile of anti-trust.
One more royalty payment by Apple to its competitors.
The figures add up.
Next time you purchase another iProduct, a part of your payment goes to your hated rivals of Apple.
How does that make you feel?
This is the difference between companies researching basic, ground breaking technology vs those companies who research its applications.
Application patents you can always get around, basic research patents you certainly can not.
Nothing in the FRAND law that states what is "reasonable".
Its all up to the owners discretion.
Each patent holder makes the shot.
If the licensee dont pay up, they get sued or be barred from using it.
3G was a minor evolution in wireless technology and was far less significant to the mobile phone market than the introduction of the iPhone. The iPhone was far more groundbreaking. You can point at all the silly Prada's or blackjacks you want, the iPhone was the most disruptive change in mobile phones since the phones moved from car based to person based.
It is amazing how many misinformed people who believe IE and even Software Engineering do not result in ground breaking technology and only EE does.
That's it in a nutshell. FRAND makes it easy. Motorola merely has to show what they're getting from other licensees. If it's less than 2.25%, Moto's attorneys and negotiators messed up big time.
From the article: "Motorola would likely respond by arguing that the others cross-licensed their own standard-essential wireless patents."
Seemingly the other companies offered licensed tech in exchange. Apple is not really a player in this sort of tech. Apple dies not license their tech.
Apple therefore was offered a money deal. 2.25% sounds pretty cheap for something that is essential. Apple pays more than that for the screen and for the RAM.
From the article: "Motorola would likely respond by arguing that the others cross-licensed their own standard-essential wireless patents."
Seemingly the other companies offered licensed tech in exchange. Apple is not really a player in this sort of tech. Apple dies not license their tech.
Apple therefore was offered a money deal. 2.25% sounds pretty cheap for something that is essential. Apple pays more than that for the screen and for the RAM.
That sounds like a greedy grasp from Moto. On the other hand, that's how these *negotiations* start - one side exaggerating the value of something, the other side dismissing it. I sincerely hope Apple and Moto work this out. A hornet's nest has been stirred here (and, let's face it, Apple is very much complicit in starting the stirring) and it is going to be a bloody mess if the courts are left to decide everything.
From the article: "Motorola would likely respond by arguing that the others cross-licensed their own standard-essential wireless patents."
Seemingly the other companies offered licensed tech in exchange. Apple is not really a player in this sort of tech. Apple dies not license their tech.
Apple therefore was offered a money deal. 2.25% sounds pretty cheap for something that is essential. Apple pays more than that for the screen and for the RAM.
2.25% is not cheap when you consider the price Apple gets for the iPhone. If I am not mistaken, Apple's deal with Nokia pays the latter ≤ $5 per device. These deals also serve provide the licensor with precise info about the sales of the licensee. So I can see why Apple is fighting it to the last court in the land.
The EU is as bent as a nine bob note. Don't be fooled.
Have you ever lived in the Continental EU? There are bent coppers and hacks in the UK, Tory peers and MPs have spent time in prison in the UK for fraud, perjury and more. When you say the EU is bent, in which sense do you mean? Do you have any examples - not of individual countries within the EU such as I've just described, but of the EU itself?
Do you use your mobile phone on holiday in the EU? If so, you need to thank the EU for reducing the cost of roaming fees substantially to what the UK regulator was happy with. It was the EU who spanked Microsoft's bum for abusing its monopoly and made it actually change its behaviour, the US courts were politically sabotaged after George Bush changed the trial judge in between judgement of guilt and sentencing for abuse of monopoly. It was the EU that put pressure on Apple to treat different EU countries more fairly with regard to iTunes pricing policies, neither the US nor the UK did.It's the EU that is holding the Intel to account for keeping prices high by use of a cartel with others, not the US courts.
As for another poster laughing at the UK measuring system, who on earth still uses fractions for financial valuations of bonds, stocks etc, and who uses Pounds for weight and Fahrenheit not Celsius?
From the article: "Motorola would likely respond by arguing that the others cross-licensed their own standard-essential wireless patents."
Seemingly the other companies offered licensed tech in exchange. Apple is not really a player in this sort of tech. Apple dies not license their tech.
If cross-licensing with other manufacturers involves standard essential patents, then those too would be subject to FRAND terms. If Apple doesn't have any tech that is subject to FRAND terms then they can't very well participate.
If, on the other hand, Moto is demanding that Apple license proprietary tech that contributes to the iPhone user experience, but which is not a standard nor essential, then that's a whole other ball game.
Quote:
Apple therefore was offered a money deal. 2.25% sounds pretty cheap for something that is essential. Apple pays more than that for the screen and for the RAM.
"Sounds pretty cheap"? Do you have any links to suggest that opinion is based on anything at all?
Do you use your mobile phone on holiday in the EU? If so, you need to thank the EU for reducing the cost of roaming fees substantially to what the UK regulator was happy with.
He's not kidding. It costs me about $0.16 to send a text message back to Czech Republic when traveling in other EU countries. But I went to Switzerland (not EU) for a conference in December and realized after the fact that I was getting charged over $0.60 per text message. Stinking highway robbery.
I found the UK to be more messed up with it came to measurements. They use imperial units and metrics, MPH and KPH for road speed, F and C for temp depending on which sounds more extreme, and still use stones as a valid unit of mass.
A little while ago my brother was building a cabinet with a glazed front. The store he bought the glass from measured it 16 inches by 24 inches by 6 millimetres.
We just muddle along in the time-honoured British fashion.
2.25% is not cheap when you consider the price Apple gets for the iPhone. If I am not mistaken, Apple's deal with Nokia pays the latter ≤ $5 per device. These deals also serve provide the licensor with precise info about the sales of the licensee. So I can see why Apple is fighting it to the last court in the land.
Some handset makers were reportedly paying M$ around $15 per infringing handset. AFAIK, none of those were FRAND, so they were presumably worth less than the critical patents in contention here. 12 or 13 bucks per device sounds like it is not out of the range that we've already seen for cross-licensing of smartphone patents.
Can you ever forgive me for adding an 's' to a word I only ever use in a manner that does get an 's' when pluralized. I guess I could point out that stone isn't capitalized mid-sentence but that would just be pedantic. This isn't German we're using.
Watch the telly the next time the weather spikes to 38° in parts of the UK. You'll see reports of 100°F because it sounds more dramatic.
I normally like reading your comments as they usually seem quite reasonable and well informed. I'm not sure why you felt the need to comment on the UK units branch to this thread but it is not showing you in the best light. Of course, the tone of the responses you have received is unreasonably hostile too. I'm sure you have some knowledge of the UK but it seems to be well out of date. We haven't used anything but Celsius on TV news and weather for decades. [Celsius does get capitalised mid sentence ]. Global warming may be having its impact around the globe but it will be a while before anyone could check on whether a news report on a temperature of 38°C would be reported as 100°F in any part of the UK I have lived in.
As for the rest, Since before the end of the last century the UK has used metric units to buy groceries, fuel etc. The unit of mass - stone - is almost exclusively used to describe human body weight and is becoming archaic. That is to say is is being replaced in medical use by the metric kg and, in time, will probably fade away.
Car speedometers are marked in MPH and KPH because speed signs are posted in MPH in the UK but KPH in the EU where a lot of us travel in our cars. Hope this helps to clear up some misconceptions.
Comments
That's it in a nutshell. FRAND makes it easy. Motorola merely has to show what they're getting from other licensees. If it's less than 2.25%, Moto's attorneys and negotiators messed up big time.
There are no major issues here that can't be resolved very simply.
Except it is more complex than that because Motorola has cross licensing agreements with many other manufacturers so they get a lower rate. How much is the cross licensing deal worth? Does Qualcomm even pay a fee to Motorola or is it cancelled out by the license fees Motorola would otherwise be paying?
Right, that is Apple's argument, that isn't Moto's argument. They say Apple still owes them 2.25% hence my original calculations. That's not my claim, that's my calculations based on Moto's claim.
There is a different chip in the iPhone4S compared with previous 3G iPhones and iPads. Remember the iPhone4S was not included in the temporary ban the other day. It is therefore quite possible the iPhone4S is therefore safe and Apple would only need to pay out on the older phones.
There is a different chip in the iPhone4S compared with previous 3G iPhones and iPads. Remember the iPhone4S was not included in the temporary ban the other day. It is therefore quite possible the iPhone4S is therefore safe and Apple would only need to pay out on the older phones.
Possibly. It's more possible that Apple and Wualcomm have already paid for the FRAND. What I don't understand is why my calculations that clearly state I'm including the 4S are being challanged. Show me where I stated this is what Apple owes Moto. I can't my "what-if" calculations more transparent.
This forthcoming win will be a significant blow for Apple!
And when Apple survives this desperate move you'll simply claim that Apple use their power to stifle any real competition by buying off politicians and judges.
Moto can only win this if they provide evidence that this is what they receive from other licensees. If they don't and if they receive a far lower figure then they will be in serious trouble as this will prove that they are trying to strong-arm/extort fees from Apple.
Of course, if they do receive fees of this amount from other licensees then they would be making a hell of a lot more money than they currently do.
Nailed it.
And if Motorola loses this lawsuit, it can only be because they did, in fact, abuse FRAND licensing, which means they have bigger problems beyond just not getting some money. They could face severe sanctions. And what does that do to Google's acquisition plans?
Apple loses: they have to pay more money than they want and see a competitor get a financial boost. Bummer, but not that damaging in the big scheme. Moto loses, it would seem that they would be pretty much fucked. Wonder if Google is pulling the strings, figuring that if everything goes south they can just walk away?
One more royalty payment by Apple to its competitors.
The figures add up.
Next time you purchase another iProduct, a part of your payment goes to your hated rivals of Apple.
How does that make you feel?
This is the difference between companies researching basic, ground breaking technology vs those companies who research its applications.
Application patents you can always get around, basic research patents you certainly can not.
Nothing in the FRAND law that states what is "reasonable".
Its all up to the owners discretion.
Nice try, but it's up to the antitrust court's discretion.
This is the way it works in a world with laws.
Like other Apple fans in this forum say:
Quit whining about the 2.25% cut or go somewhere else!
There is a rule book for Apple and one for everyone else on this planet?
Motorola asked to have their tech as part of the standard, now they have to live within the terms of that agreement.
If Apple can prove Motorola is providing less expensive licenses of the standard technology to other Android makers, you add in Googles Moto purchase and you land in a pig steaming pile of anti-trust.
One more royalty payment by Apple to its competitors.
The figures add up.
Next time you purchase another iProduct, a part of your payment goes to your hated rivals of Apple.
How does that make you feel?
This is the difference between companies researching basic, ground breaking technology vs those companies who research its applications.
Application patents you can always get around, basic research patents you certainly can not.
Nothing in the FRAND law that states what is "reasonable".
Its all up to the owners discretion.
Each patent holder makes the shot.
If the licensee dont pay up, they get sued or be barred from using it.
3G was a minor evolution in wireless technology and was far less significant to the mobile phone market than the introduction of the iPhone. The iPhone was far more groundbreaking. You can point at all the silly Prada's or blackjacks you want, the iPhone was the most disruptive change in mobile phones since the phones moved from car based to person based.
It is amazing how many misinformed people who believe IE and even Software Engineering do not result in ground breaking technology and only EE does.
That's it in a nutshell. FRAND makes it easy. Motorola merely has to show what they're getting from other licensees. If it's less than 2.25%, Moto's attorneys and negotiators messed up big time.
From the article: "Motorola would likely respond by arguing that the others cross-licensed their own standard-essential wireless patents."
Seemingly the other companies offered licensed tech in exchange. Apple is not really a player in this sort of tech. Apple dies not license their tech.
Apple therefore was offered a money deal. 2.25% sounds pretty cheap for something that is essential. Apple pays more than that for the screen and for the RAM.
Roughly 25% total depending on the report
From the article: "Motorola would likely respond by arguing that the others cross-licensed their own standard-essential wireless patents."
Seemingly the other companies offered licensed tech in exchange. Apple is not really a player in this sort of tech. Apple dies not license their tech.
Apple therefore was offered a money deal. 2.25% sounds pretty cheap for something that is essential. Apple pays more than that for the screen and for the RAM.
Apple does cross license. They did with Nokia.
From the article: "Motorola would likely respond by arguing that the others cross-licensed their own standard-essential wireless patents."
Seemingly the other companies offered licensed tech in exchange. Apple is not really a player in this sort of tech. Apple dies not license their tech.
Apple therefore was offered a money deal. 2.25% sounds pretty cheap for something that is essential. Apple pays more than that for the screen and for the RAM.
2.25% is not cheap when you consider the price Apple gets for the iPhone. If I am not mistaken, Apple's deal with Nokia pays the latter ≤ $5 per device. These deals also serve provide the licensor with precise info about the sales of the licensee. So I can see why Apple is fighting it to the last court in the land.
The EU is as bent as a nine bob note. Don't be fooled.
Have you ever lived in the Continental EU? There are bent coppers and hacks in the UK, Tory peers and MPs have spent time in prison in the UK for fraud, perjury and more. When you say the EU is bent, in which sense do you mean? Do you have any examples - not of individual countries within the EU such as I've just described, but of the EU itself?
Do you use your mobile phone on holiday in the EU? If so, you need to thank the EU for reducing the cost of roaming fees substantially to what the UK regulator was happy with. It was the EU who spanked Microsoft's bum for abusing its monopoly and made it actually change its behaviour, the US courts were politically sabotaged after George Bush changed the trial judge in between judgement of guilt and sentencing for abuse of monopoly. It was the EU that put pressure on Apple to treat different EU countries more fairly with regard to iTunes pricing policies, neither the US nor the UK did.It's the EU that is holding the Intel to account for keeping prices high by use of a cartel with others, not the US courts.
As for another poster laughing at the UK measuring system, who on earth still uses fractions for financial valuations of bonds, stocks etc, and who uses Pounds for weight and Fahrenheit not Celsius?
From the article: "Motorola would likely respond by arguing that the others cross-licensed their own standard-essential wireless patents."
Seemingly the other companies offered licensed tech in exchange. Apple is not really a player in this sort of tech. Apple dies not license their tech.
If cross-licensing with other manufacturers involves standard essential patents, then those too would be subject to FRAND terms. If Apple doesn't have any tech that is subject to FRAND terms then they can't very well participate.
If, on the other hand, Moto is demanding that Apple license proprietary tech that contributes to the iPhone user experience, but which is not a standard nor essential, then that's a whole other ball game.
Apple therefore was offered a money deal. 2.25% sounds pretty cheap for something that is essential. Apple pays more than that for the screen and for the RAM.
"Sounds pretty cheap"? Do you have any links to suggest that opinion is based on anything at all?
Do you use your mobile phone on holiday in the EU? If so, you need to thank the EU for reducing the cost of roaming fees substantially to what the UK regulator was happy with.
He's not kidding. It costs me about $0.16 to send a text message back to Czech Republic when traveling in other EU countries. But I went to Switzerland (not EU) for a conference in December and realized after the fact that I was getting charged over $0.60 per text message. Stinking highway robbery.
I found the UK to be more messed up with it came to measurements. They use imperial units and metrics, MPH and KPH for road speed, F and C for temp depending on which sounds more extreme, and still use stones as a valid unit of mass.
A little while ago my brother was building a cabinet with a glazed front. The store he bought the glass from measured it 16 inches by 24 inches by 6 millimetres.
We just muddle along in the time-honoured British fashion.
2.25% is not cheap when you consider the price Apple gets for the iPhone. If I am not mistaken, Apple's deal with Nokia pays the latter ≤ $5 per device. These deals also serve provide the licensor with precise info about the sales of the licensee. So I can see why Apple is fighting it to the last court in the land.
Some handset makers were reportedly paying M$ around $15 per infringing handset. AFAIK, none of those were FRAND, so they were presumably worth less than the critical patents in contention here. 12 or 13 bucks per device sounds like it is not out of the range that we've already seen for cross-licensing of smartphone patents.
Can you ever forgive me for adding an 's' to a word I only ever use in a manner that does get an 's' when pluralized. I guess I could point out that stone isn't capitalized mid-sentence but that would just be pedantic. This isn't German we're using.
Watch the telly the next time the weather spikes to 38° in parts of the UK. You'll see reports of 100°F because it sounds more dramatic.
I normally like reading your comments as they usually seem quite reasonable and well informed. I'm not sure why you felt the need to comment on the UK units branch to this thread but it is not showing you in the best light. Of course, the tone of the responses you have received is unreasonably hostile too. I'm sure you have some knowledge of the UK but it seems to be well out of date. We haven't used anything but Celsius on TV news and weather for decades. [Celsius does get capitalised mid sentence
As for the rest, Since before the end of the last century the UK has used metric units to buy groceries, fuel etc. The unit of mass - stone - is almost exclusively used to describe human body weight and is becoming archaic. That is to say is is being replaced in medical use by the metric kg and, in time, will probably fade away.
Car speedometers are marked in MPH and KPH because speed signs are posted in MPH in the UK but KPH in the EU where a lot of us travel in our cars. Hope this helps to clear up some misconceptions.