Good to hear that you consider the proposition that 2.25 is to high to be based upon nothing but speculation.
My speculation is that if non-essential stuff is worth 10 or 15 bucks, essential stuff is worth far more. I've heard nothing but bald assertions otherwise (based seemingly, on the proposition that if a manufacturer does NOT need a patent, it is worth more).
You're upset that I speculated about something that clearly stated as speculative? I speculate that this isn't your first AI username.
You like to claim that the iPhone was the "break through" in mobile phones but your are wrong about that. All it did was change the PRIMARY user interface of interacting with the device from hard buttons to soft buttons. It was the first device to utilize a majority of its interface using soft "buttons". There were already ecosystems of applications running on proven OS's. That isnt such a "breakthrough" in my opinion. Stop drinking the kool aid. LG and many others was already headed in that direction before Apple did. A not-so-well-known company called Neonode even beat LG to that punch.
I've never bought an iPhone (mainly because I didn't need one), but I had all the major smart phones up to around 2005-2006, and the iPhone was a break through.
It may not have had the spec, but it had the UI. And that's what made it the break through phone that it was. Smart phones had gone stale in a bad way, no one was really investing in the proper UI and Symbian S60 was dreadful as a smart phone OS.
So whether you like it or not iPhone was a break through, and considering it has totally changed the market, destroyed the market leaders, etc, I'd say that you are a minority thinking it wasn't.
Good to hear that you consider the proposition that 2.25 is to high to be based upon nothing but speculation.
My speculation is that if non-essential stuff is worth 10 or 15 bucks, essential stuff is worth far more. I've heard nothing but bald assertions otherwise (based seemingly, on the proposition that if a manufacturer does NOT need a patent, it is worth more).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You're upset that I speculated about something that clearly stated as speculative? I speculate that this isn't your first AI username.
Gotta give the point to Solip here Zather. He's speculating. From bias sure but that's his prerogative.
All it did was change the PRIMARY user interface of interacting with the device from hard buttons to soft buttons. It was the first device to utilize a majority of its interface using soft "buttons".
Can't you ever make a decent argument? If you don't acknowledge how and why the iPhone changed everything then you either don't have the mental capacity or you're lying so there is no need for me to detail the various reasons. Instead I'll point out Exhibit A:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz
Gotta give the point to Solip here Zather. He's speculating. From bias sure but that's his prerogative.
It's a bias, sure, but probably not the one you assume. If Apple was asking for 2.25% off the top for a FRAND license I would call that extreme, too.
FRAND requires you to license a technology at reasonable rates - and essentially everyone gets the lowest rate. When you offer your technology to a standards body as FRAND, you generally offer a lower license rate in the expectation that you will make it up on volume. So FRAND license rates tend to be quite small.
Non-FRAND stuff, OTOH, is, by definition, something that the licensee can choose to use or not to use. You can charge whatever you want for it - and you need to remember the the volume will be much smaller, so per unit fees tend to be higher.
That's actually what's so unfair about the current laws. You developed something important, you've to charge very little and you're not allowed to use it as something to differential your product from others. But if you developed something not important, you can essentially use it to differentiate your product from others or use it to stop other products from selling unless they pay an extremely high rate, or, in Apple's case, they won't even license those tech out at all and just want to block your sale.
That's actually what's so unfair about the current laws. You developed something important, you've to charge very little and you're not allowed to use it as something to differential your product from others.
You seem to say that companies MUST submit certain patents to standards bodies, and that by doing so, they MUST charge very low fees.
Got any evidence for either point?
Everything I've seen indicates that submission is voluntary, and that upon submission, the company retains the right to charge reasonable fees.
That's actually what's so unfair about the current laws. You developed something important, you've to charge very little and you're not allowed to use it as something to differential your product from others. But if you developed something not important, you can essentially use it to differentiate your product from others or use it to stop other products from selling unless they pay an extremely high rate, or, in Apple's case, they won't even license those tech out at all and just want to block your sale.
That's not really the case. FRAND designation is optional - it only arises if you want to have your technology included as part of an industry standard. If you want to keep it to yourself, or simply license it as you see fit, then there is nothing to prevent that and FRAND will not apply.
No, your point seems to be that essential tech is worth LESS when it is subject to FRAND terms. That is not the case.
M$ sold non-essential stuff for ten or fifteen bucks. Apple wants to use essential stuff, and rejected a price that was smack inside that range.
ISTM that essential stuff is worth as much as non-essential stuff, and likely more. You think that because the patents are subject to FRAND, their worth plummets, but you have no basis for that assertion.
What do you posit is a "reasonable" price for a patent that is essential? Less than a non-essential patent? Why?
You seem to imply that FRAND patents must be licensed at unreasonably low fees. I'm not sure why. And seemingly, neither are you.
Part of the problem, at least as I understand it, is that there are no universally accepted rules for determining FRAND rates. However, there are a number of precedents, opinions and published guidelines, many of which do take into account the aggregate rate for FRAND income, and lead to the conclusion that FRAND does lead to lower rates for high-volume essential technology licensing. Of course in the absence of hard data on actual rates prevalent in the industry, it's hard to know if those guidelines are being followed.
I expect NOKIA will be subpoened on this extortion attempt on Motorola's part and the Justice will come down hard on Moto.
Apple has already requested agreements from Nokia, HTC and Ericsson with regards to Motorola. These were all filed within the last two weeks. Obviously, Apple wants to see Motorola's agreements with these companies to see what they're paying and if it's in line with what they want Apple to pay.
That's not really the case. FRAND designation is optional - it only arises if you want to have your technology included as part of an industry standard. If you want to keep it to yourself, or simply license it as you see fit, then there is nothing to prevent that and FRAND will not apply.
It is, however, a two edged sword. If you do NOT license your technology as FRAND, it will probably not be accepted by the standards body which will find some other way of accomplishing the objective - thus possibly making your patent worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drobforever
That's actually what's so unfair about the current laws. You developed something important, you've to charge very little and you're not allowed to use it as something to differential your product from others. But if you developed something not important, you can essentially use it to differentiate your product from others or use it to stop other products from selling unless they pay an extremely high rate, or, in Apple's case, they won't even license those tech out at all and just want to block your sale.
Absolutely wrong. If you invent something, you CAN use it to differentiate your product without licensing. Look at Apple. You can not, however, have your cake and eat it to. If you want it to be widely accepted as a standard, then you have to license it as FRAND - which means less money per handset, but possibly more money in the end because of volume. Either way, it's your choice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
Good to hear that you consider the proposition that 2.25 is to high to be based upon nothing but speculation.
No, it's based on experience and Florian Mueller's statements. Since has is involved with this type of licensing, he's in a far better position to know than you are. Can you prove him wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
My speculation is that if non-essential stuff is worth 10 or 15 bucks, essential stuff is worth far more. I've heard nothing but bald assertions otherwise (based seemingly, on the proposition that if a manufacturer does NOT need a patent, it is worth more).
No one really cares about your speculation. As an example, Mueller says that 2.25% is far too high for FRAND stuff. OTOH, we know that Microsoft is getting $10-15 for Android licensees for non-FRAND stuff. For a $500 handset, that's 2-3%.
That's not really the case. FRAND designation is optional - it only arises if you want to have your technology included as part of an industry standard. If you want to keep it to yourself, or simply license it as you see fit, then there is nothing to prevent that and FRAND will not apply.
Courts can force the patent holder's hand by declaring the patent essential to a market, and refusal to license creating an anti-trust issue, keeping competitors from entering that market. Might be tough to prove of course.
In Europe particularly, the ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) policies state that if a standard cannot be established without violating someone's intellectual property, perhaps an Apple patent for instance, then those patents are automatically declared essential and must be licensed.
It's not always the free choice of the patent holder whether FRAND (in the US they drop the "Fair" part, thus RAND) licensing applies to their patent(s).
BTW, there's some good background articles for any really interested in what (F)RAND is, and some of the larger issues it addresses or causes.
Got any evidence that 2.25% is an absurd rate for these patents? You seem to back up a statement of fact with a guess about the rate being too high. Got any evidence?
It is absurd. How can Motorola expect Apple to pay 2.25% of the full retail price of an iPhone (which would be close to $15) when the baseband chip inside that phone costs less than $15 in the first place? How many dollars per chip are companies like Qualcomm paying for a license (and then selling to a phone manufacturer who gets to use the license as well)?
Should it be 2.25% of the price of the chip or the price of the device it goes in? What about phones that sell for $300? Should they get away with paying half the price for the license simply because they are cheaper, even though they use the same baseband chip inside?
If LG makes a limited edition Prada phone that's diamond encrusted, then Motorola should get $100 per phone simply because it costs more?
It is absurd. How can Motorola expect Apple to pay 2.25% of the full retail price of an iPhone (which would be close to $15) when the baseband chip inside that phone costs less than $15 in the first place? How many dollars per chip are companies like Qualcomm paying for a license (and then selling to a phone manufacturer who gets to use the license as well)?
Should it be 2.25% of the price of the chip or the price of the device it goes in? What about phones that sell for $300? Should they get away with paying half the price for the license simply because they are cheaper, even though they use the same baseband chip inside?
If LG makes a limited edition Prada phone that's diamond encrusted, then Motorola should get $100 per phone simply because it costs more?
IIRC, that's the settlement Apple made with Nokia, agreeing to give a percentage of iPhone sales revenue to them in exchange for use of Nokia's IP.
It is absurd. How can Motorola expect Apple to pay 2.25% of the full retail price of an iPhone (which would be close to $15) when the baseband chip inside that phone costs less than $15 in the first place? How many dollars per chip are companies like Qualcomm paying for a license (and then selling to a phone manufacturer who gets to use the license as well)?
Should it be 2.25% of the price of the chip or the price of the device it goes in? What about phones that sell for $300? Should they get away with paying half the price for the license simply because they are cheaper, even though they use the same baseband chip inside?
If LG makes a limited edition Prada phone that's diamond encrusted, then Motorola should get $100 per phone simply because it costs more?
I think it would actually be less than full retail price because, as I recall, Apple has a system where Foxconn sells them the final product so Foxconn will pay the licensers thus making the license fee much lower. That could be part of the problem between Moto and Apple, too. Moto might be trying to get a higher percentage to account for this tricky accounting.
It is, however, a two edged sword. If you do NOT license your technology as FRAND, it will probably not be accepted by the standards body which will find some other way of accomplishing the objective - thus possibly making your patent worthless.
Agreed - but my point was that you do get to choose which you think will benefit you more. Subject to...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Courts can force the patent holder's hand by declaring the patent essential to a market, and refusal to license creating an anti-trust issue, keeping competitors from entering that market. Might be tough to prove of course.
In Europe particularly, the ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) policies state that if a standard cannot be established without violating someone's intellectual property, perhaps an Apple patent for instance, then those patents are automatically declared essential and must be licensed.
It's not always the free choice of the patent holder whether FRAND (in the US they drop the "Fair" part, thus RAND) licensing applies to their patent(s).
I was not aware of this. Are there any good examples of a company being forced to license under FRAND?
Agreed - but my point was that you do get to choose which you think will benefit you more. Subject to...
I was not aware of this. Are there any good examples of a company being forced to license under FRAND?
I didn't research that far. I only know that, at least in Europe, IP can be deemed essential and thus subject to licensing whether the holder agrees or not. I don't know if they've had to do so.
Comments
Good to hear that you consider the proposition that 2.25 is to high to be based upon nothing but speculation.
My speculation is that if non-essential stuff is worth 10 or 15 bucks, essential stuff is worth far more. I've heard nothing but bald assertions otherwise (based seemingly, on the proposition that if a manufacturer does NOT need a patent, it is worth more).
You're upset that I speculated about something that clearly stated as speculative? I speculate that this isn't your first AI username.
You like to claim that the iPhone was the "break through" in mobile phones but your are wrong about that. All it did was change the PRIMARY user interface of interacting with the device from hard buttons to soft buttons. It was the first device to utilize a majority of its interface using soft "buttons". There were already ecosystems of applications running on proven OS's. That isnt such a "breakthrough" in my opinion. Stop drinking the kool aid. LG and many others was already headed in that direction before Apple did. A not-so-well-known company called Neonode even beat LG to that punch.
I've never bought an iPhone (mainly because I didn't need one), but I had all the major smart phones up to around 2005-2006, and the iPhone was a break through.
It may not have had the spec, but it had the UI. And that's what made it the break through phone that it was. Smart phones had gone stale in a bad way, no one was really investing in the proper UI and Symbian S60 was dreadful as a smart phone OS.
So whether you like it or not iPhone was a break through, and considering it has totally changed the market, destroyed the market leaders, etc, I'd say that you are a minority thinking it wasn't.
Good to hear that you consider the proposition that 2.25 is to high to be based upon nothing but speculation.
My speculation is that if non-essential stuff is worth 10 or 15 bucks, essential stuff is worth far more. I've heard nothing but bald assertions otherwise (based seemingly, on the proposition that if a manufacturer does NOT need a patent, it is worth more).
You're upset that I speculated about something that clearly stated as speculative? I speculate that this isn't your first AI username.
Gotta give the point to Solip here Zather. He's speculating. From bias sure but that's his prerogative.
All it did was change the PRIMARY user interface of interacting with the device from hard buttons to soft buttons. It was the first device to utilize a majority of its interface using soft "buttons".
Can't you ever make a decent argument? If you don't acknowledge how and why the iPhone changed everything then you either don't have the mental capacity or you're lying so there is no need for me to detail the various reasons. Instead I'll point out Exhibit A:
Gotta give the point to Solip here Zather. He's speculating. From bias sure but that's his prerogative.
It's a bias, sure, but probably not the one you assume. If Apple was asking for 2.25% off the top for a FRAND license I would call that extreme, too.
Actually, it often is.
FRAND requires you to license a technology at reasonable rates - and essentially everyone gets the lowest rate. When you offer your technology to a standards body as FRAND, you generally offer a lower license rate in the expectation that you will make it up on volume. So FRAND license rates tend to be quite small.
Non-FRAND stuff, OTOH, is, by definition, something that the licensee can choose to use or not to use. You can charge whatever you want for it - and you need to remember the the volume will be much smaller, so per unit fees tend to be higher.
That's actually what's so unfair about the current laws. You developed something important, you've to charge very little and you're not allowed to use it as something to differential your product from others. But if you developed something not important, you can essentially use it to differentiate your product from others or use it to stop other products from selling unless they pay an extremely high rate, or, in Apple's case, they won't even license those tech out at all and just want to block your sale.
You're upset that I speculated about something that clearly stated as speculative? I speculate that this isn't your first AI username.
Not upset. Indeed, I congratulated you on admitting that it is a speculation.
Gotta give the point to Solip here Zather. He's speculating. From bias sure but that's his prerogative.
I prefer that speculations be honestly admitted. I congratulate him for doing so.
More posters in this thread should just admit that they have no facts, and are relying on guesses.
That's actually what's so unfair about the current laws. You developed something important, you've to charge very little and you're not allowed to use it as something to differential your product from others.
You seem to say that companies MUST submit certain patents to standards bodies, and that by doing so, they MUST charge very low fees.
Got any evidence for either point?
Everything I've seen indicates that submission is voluntary, and that upon submission, the company retains the right to charge reasonable fees.
That's actually what's so unfair about the current laws. You developed something important, you've to charge very little and you're not allowed to use it as something to differential your product from others. But if you developed something not important, you can essentially use it to differentiate your product from others or use it to stop other products from selling unless they pay an extremely high rate, or, in Apple's case, they won't even license those tech out at all and just want to block your sale.
That's not really the case. FRAND designation is optional - it only arises if you want to have your technology included as part of an industry standard. If you want to keep it to yourself, or simply license it as you see fit, then there is nothing to prevent that and FRAND will not apply.
No, your point seems to be that essential tech is worth LESS when it is subject to FRAND terms. That is not the case.
M$ sold non-essential stuff for ten or fifteen bucks. Apple wants to use essential stuff, and rejected a price that was smack inside that range.
ISTM that essential stuff is worth as much as non-essential stuff, and likely more. You think that because the patents are subject to FRAND, their worth plummets, but you have no basis for that assertion.
What do you posit is a "reasonable" price for a patent that is essential? Less than a non-essential patent? Why?
You seem to imply that FRAND patents must be licensed at unreasonably low fees. I'm not sure why. And seemingly, neither are you.
Part of the problem, at least as I understand it, is that there are no universally accepted rules for determining FRAND rates. However, there are a number of precedents, opinions and published guidelines, many of which do take into account the aggregate rate for FRAND income, and lead to the conclusion that FRAND does lead to lower rates for high-volume essential technology licensing. Of course in the absence of hard data on actual rates prevalent in the industry, it's hard to know if those guidelines are being followed.
I expect NOKIA will be subpoened on this extortion attempt on Motorola's part and the Justice will come down hard on Moto.
Apple has already requested agreements from Nokia, HTC and Ericsson with regards to Motorola. These were all filed within the last two weeks. Obviously, Apple wants to see Motorola's agreements with these companies to see what they're paying and if it's in line with what they want Apple to pay.
That's not really the case. FRAND designation is optional - it only arises if you want to have your technology included as part of an industry standard. If you want to keep it to yourself, or simply license it as you see fit, then there is nothing to prevent that and FRAND will not apply.
It is, however, a two edged sword. If you do NOT license your technology as FRAND, it will probably not be accepted by the standards body which will find some other way of accomplishing the objective - thus possibly making your patent worthless.
That's actually what's so unfair about the current laws. You developed something important, you've to charge very little and you're not allowed to use it as something to differential your product from others. But if you developed something not important, you can essentially use it to differentiate your product from others or use it to stop other products from selling unless they pay an extremely high rate, or, in Apple's case, they won't even license those tech out at all and just want to block your sale.
Absolutely wrong. If you invent something, you CAN use it to differentiate your product without licensing. Look at Apple. You can not, however, have your cake and eat it to. If you want it to be widely accepted as a standard, then you have to license it as FRAND - which means less money per handset, but possibly more money in the end because of volume. Either way, it's your choice.
Good to hear that you consider the proposition that 2.25 is to high to be based upon nothing but speculation.
No, it's based on experience and Florian Mueller's statements. Since has is involved with this type of licensing, he's in a far better position to know than you are. Can you prove him wrong?
My speculation is that if non-essential stuff is worth 10 or 15 bucks, essential stuff is worth far more. I've heard nothing but bald assertions otherwise (based seemingly, on the proposition that if a manufacturer does NOT need a patent, it is worth more).
No one really cares about your speculation. As an example, Mueller says that 2.25% is far too high for FRAND stuff. OTOH, we know that Microsoft is getting $10-15 for Android licensees for non-FRAND stuff. For a $500 handset, that's 2-3%.
Case closed.
That's not really the case. FRAND designation is optional - it only arises if you want to have your technology included as part of an industry standard. If you want to keep it to yourself, or simply license it as you see fit, then there is nothing to prevent that and FRAND will not apply.
Courts can force the patent holder's hand by declaring the patent essential to a market, and refusal to license creating an anti-trust issue, keeping competitors from entering that market. Might be tough to prove of course.
In Europe particularly, the ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) policies state that if a standard cannot be established without violating someone's intellectual property, perhaps an Apple patent for instance, then those patents are automatically declared essential and must be licensed.
It's not always the free choice of the patent holder whether FRAND (in the US they drop the "Fair" part, thus RAND) licensing applies to their patent(s).
BTW, there's some good background articles for any really interested in what (F)RAND is, and some of the larger issues it addresses or causes.
http://www.iam-magazine.com/issues/A...a-122caa87da21
http://www.etsi.org/WebSite/AboutETS...olicy_FAQ.aspx
EDIT: This link has a PDF where IP value and licensing costs, including (F)RAND, are discussed in depth.
http://ipfinance.blogspot.com/2011/1...s-and-lte.html
Got any evidence that 2.25% is an absurd rate for these patents? You seem to back up a statement of fact with a guess about the rate being too high. Got any evidence?
It is absurd. How can Motorola expect Apple to pay 2.25% of the full retail price of an iPhone (which would be close to $15) when the baseband chip inside that phone costs less than $15 in the first place? How many dollars per chip are companies like Qualcomm paying for a license (and then selling to a phone manufacturer who gets to use the license as well)?
Should it be 2.25% of the price of the chip or the price of the device it goes in? What about phones that sell for $300? Should they get away with paying half the price for the license simply because they are cheaper, even though they use the same baseband chip inside?
If LG makes a limited edition Prada phone that's diamond encrusted, then Motorola should get $100 per phone simply because it costs more?
It is absurd. How can Motorola expect Apple to pay 2.25% of the full retail price of an iPhone (which would be close to $15) when the baseband chip inside that phone costs less than $15 in the first place? How many dollars per chip are companies like Qualcomm paying for a license (and then selling to a phone manufacturer who gets to use the license as well)?
Should it be 2.25% of the price of the chip or the price of the device it goes in? What about phones that sell for $300? Should they get away with paying half the price for the license simply because they are cheaper, even though they use the same baseband chip inside?
If LG makes a limited edition Prada phone that's diamond encrusted, then Motorola should get $100 per phone simply because it costs more?
IIRC, that's the settlement Apple made with Nokia, agreeing to give a percentage of iPhone sales revenue to them in exchange for use of Nokia's IP.
No, it's based on ...Florian Mueller's statements.
As an example, Mueller says that 2.25% is far too high for FRAND stuff.
Case closed.
Appeals to authority are not a good way to prove a point. They are based, in essence, on faith, rather than on fact.
I might believe Muller if he cites facts for his opinion. But unless he does, you trust that he is correct.
Maybe he is. But I have less than full faith.
It is absurd. How can Motorola expect Apple to pay 2.25% of the full retail price of an iPhone (which would be close to $15) when the baseband chip inside that phone costs less than $15 in the first place? How many dollars per chip are companies like Qualcomm paying for a license (and then selling to a phone manufacturer who gets to use the license as well)?
Should it be 2.25% of the price of the chip or the price of the device it goes in? What about phones that sell for $300? Should they get away with paying half the price for the license simply because they are cheaper, even though they use the same baseband chip inside?
If LG makes a limited edition Prada phone that's diamond encrusted, then Motorola should get $100 per phone simply because it costs more?
I think it would actually be less than full retail price because, as I recall, Apple has a system where Foxconn sells them the final product so Foxconn will pay the licensers thus making the license fee much lower. That could be part of the problem between Moto and Apple, too. Moto might be trying to get a higher percentage to account for this tricky accounting.
It is, however, a two edged sword. If you do NOT license your technology as FRAND, it will probably not be accepted by the standards body which will find some other way of accomplishing the objective - thus possibly making your patent worthless.
Agreed - but my point was that you do get to choose which you think will benefit you more. Subject to...
Courts can force the patent holder's hand by declaring the patent essential to a market, and refusal to license creating an anti-trust issue, keeping competitors from entering that market. Might be tough to prove of course.
In Europe particularly, the ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) policies state that if a standard cannot be established without violating someone's intellectual property, perhaps an Apple patent for instance, then those patents are automatically declared essential and must be licensed.
It's not always the free choice of the patent holder whether FRAND (in the US they drop the "Fair" part, thus RAND) licensing applies to their patent(s).
I was not aware of this. Are there any good examples of a company being forced to license under FRAND?
Agreed - but my point was that you do get to choose which you think will benefit you more. Subject to...
I was not aware of this. Are there any good examples of a company being forced to license under FRAND?
I didn't research that far. I only know that, at least in Europe, IP can be deemed essential and thus subject to licensing whether the holder agrees or not. I don't know if they've had to do so.
Will be announced at the Super Bowl with an ad. expect weeping.
The rumor was for an Apple TV announcement but this latest leak makes more sense
Ohh...
I like that... Why 2012 won't be like any other year -- it will be the year of the...