Google to continue Motorola's FRAND licensing that seeks to monopolize H.264, UMTS
Google's worst fears about greedy H.264 patent holders and "bogus patent" warfare involving Android are coming true, albeit at the hands of Motorola, a company it seeks to acquire. Google is now promising to continue this same behavior itself after it buys the increasingly unreasonable and (outside of patent claims) unprofitable Android licensee.
Google declared war on H.264 early last year, describing it as patent encumbered and an enemy of open video distribution. It subsequently began decrying "when patents attack" last year, a complaint that accused Apple, Oracle and Microsoft of using patents as "a weapon" to stop innovation.
According to a report by Bloomberg, Google is now seeking to assure EU regulators and standards bodies that it will continue to license Motorola's patents under the same fair reasonable and non discriminatory or "FRAND" terms Motorola has.
The problem is that Motorola is currently waging patent wars that make a mockery of FRAND licensing, recently demanding from both Apple and Microsoft a 2.25 percent royalty on their sales related to a single patent involved with 3G/UMTS wireless standards in the case of Apple, and a single H.264 video standard patent in the case of Microsoft.
Google's outrageous patent hypocrisy
Last August, Google's David Drummond, Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer took to the company's blog to complain that, in regard to Android patent infringement claims, "our competitors want to impose a 'tax' for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers."
And yet that's exactly the strategy Google's acquisition target Motorola has taken, demanding 2.25 percent royalties from Apple for all of the company's products using 3G data networks based on a patent Motorola holds in the open (but not free) industry specification involving UMTS.
Credit: Foss Patents
In a separate case profiled by Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents, Motorola is demanding the same royalty rate from Microsoft related to a single patent among 17 patents Motorola has contributed to the similarly open (but not free) H.264 patent pool.
In both cases, Motorola promised to license the patents under FRAND terms, yet in both cases, it is demanding a rate that is neither fair and reasonable nor nondiscriminatory. Instead, Motorola's expert report explained that the value of a FRAND licensed patent in a larger patent pool like UMTS or H.264 is worth at lest as much as the entire patent pool collectively, because, in his words forwarded by Motorola, "it only takes one bullet to kill."
FRAND licensing commitments are intended to give all the participants of a patent pool, such as the H.264 video standard, a proportional fair share of the relatively small, collective royalties that all licensees of the standard pay.
Motorola's argument, however, is that any standard that has incorporated a patent owned by the company should have unilateral bargaining value, the very issue Apple began complaining about when it called out Samsung and Motorola for their efforts to effectively monopolize the standards process leveraging patents the companies had already committed to FRAND licensing.
Mueller calculated that Motorola is demanding a rate from Microsoft for a single patent related to H.264 that is between 73 and 146 times greater than the entire H.264 licensing royalties sought by MPEG LA for use of the entire patent pool. Retaliatory attempts to extort such royalties as a bargaining chip in a patent dispute defy every letter of the FRAND acronym.
Google promises business as usual after Motorola acquisition
In the case of H.264, Google and its supporters originally insinuated that Apple and Microsoft were primary patent contributors of the video standard and were therefore pushing it upon the web in order to financially gain from its use. In reality, Apple is a minor contributor of H.264 patents, despite contributing the foundational package format from QuickTime (which it did royalty-free). Microsoft has stated that it pays in about as much as it gets from royalties.
Google is now in the process of finalizing its $12 billion acquisition of a profitless company that holds at least 17 H.264 patents, an acquisition that it expressly noted was done primarily to "protect the Android ecosystem," despite the fact that Motorola does not appear to have valuable defensive patents applicable to modern smartphones.
Instead, Motorola has used its FRAND licensed standards patents to bring new suits against Apple and Microsoft that do nothing to "protect" Android, and instead only seek to profit from its technology that has already been committed to standards that have no direct relationship to the Android platform.
To curry favor for its acquisition plan among EU regulators, Google reportedly "plans to send a letter to standards organizations reassuring them it will license Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. patents on a fair and reasonable basis," but it appears Google is already aware of Motorola's FRAND-centric legal strategy because it has been feeding the company with ammunition to use in its various patent cases.
Google is apparently aware, for example, that Motorola's FRAND patent against Apple, which demands a royalty of around $10 per iPhone, is nowhere near the typical FRAND rate for licensing industry standards. Mueller notes that Via Licensing's WiFi patent pool ranges from a nickel to 55 cents per device.
When Apple attempted to charge $1 per device for licensing FireWire, the industry recoiled in horror. And yet Google appears to be promising to continue Motorola's push to demand $10 per iPhone, for a single patent among the entire pool that Apple already pays for, and for which its component makers already pay to license collectively.
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
Comments
In both cases, Motorola promised to license the patents under FRAND terms, yet in both cases, it is demanding a rate that is neither fair and reasonable nor nondiscriminatory.
How is it discriminatory if Moto is asking the same 2.25% consistently, with even the articles source (FOSS Patents) noting that an industry exec with no connections to either Apple nor Microsoft says they've asked the same rate for years?
Mueller: "I have furthermore heard from an executive of a large company in this industry (who is not affiliated in any way with Apple or Microsoft) that Motorola also declared years ago that it deemed a 2.25% royalty appropriate for its patents related to 4G/LTE. Someone there appears to think that 2.25 is a lucky number."
Fair and reasonable? If others are paying it without going to court, that would be one indication it is IMO. If the report that they've asked 2.25% royalities for quite some time is incorrect, then that's another thing altogether. So far I haven't seen that claimed even by FOSSPatents.
Personally I'm no fan of all these IP suits, no matter who's asserting them. I feel they're a hindrance to the marketplace and by extension consumers. I know many would disagree with me.
Maybe Google decision to buy Moto Mo wasn't such a dumb move after all.
If they've completely abandoned the whole "don't be evil" thing, perhaps they can actually generate some real profits from smartphones now.
Google has sold its soul. Wonder how long it'll take for the Android/WebM/FOSS fans to realize they are now in the strange position of supporting the wholesale conversion of "open" into the opposite of that.
If they've completely abandoned the whole "don't be evil" thing...
I don't believe in this good or evil mantra in business. There are ethical and unethical and legal and illegal ways a company can act but being good or evil isn't one of them. Even Samsung who has blatantly and mercilessly copied from Apple isn't evil in their actions. They've taken calculated risks with their maneuvers and it appears to be paying off handsomely for them while their Android using counterparts are suffering. Whether I think personally it's right or wrong is irrelevant because objectively they are thriving from their actions.
Now the question of whether survival of the fittest is the best maneuver for the group as a whole is debatable. There are more than a few anthropological studies showing that the happiest communities are those where there is good balance among all parties. So one could argue that Apple's dominance in all arms of their business (PC, tablet, handset, and PMP) isn't good for the whole.
Google's worst fears about greedy H.264 patent holders and "bogus patent" warfare involving Android are coming true, albeit at the hands of Motorola, a company it seeks to acquire. Google is now promising to continue this same behavior itself after it buys the increasingly unreasonable and (outside of patent claims) unprofitable Android licensee.
When Apple attempted to charge $1 per device for licensing FireWire, the industry recoiled in horror. And yet Google appears to be promising to continue Motorola's push to demand $10 per iPhone, for a single patent among the entire pool that Apple already pays for, and for which its component makers already pay to license collectively.
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
AND so is born another Patent Troll GOOGMOT.
Motorola has been and will always be a mediocre product company - sure they had some hits but mostly there were misses.
AND so is born another Patent Troll GOOGMOT.
Motorola has been and will always be a mediocre product company - sure they had some hits but mostly there were misses.
I like MOOGGOT better
I like MOOGGOT better
i preferred the GOGGOMOBILE, at least it was fun
I like MOOGGOT better
+1 Winner
Some more information is needed to put this into context, such as the current and historical patent royalty rates for wireless standards; the importance of the Motorola patents in the base 3G standards compared with the whole standard; and whether such a royalty rate is reasonable for such a patent.
The article seems to be equating Motorola Mobility's allegedly outrageous behaviour with its H.264 patents demanding a 2.25% royalty, and then suggesting that a royalty rate of 2.25% for a 3G patent is equally outrageous. Without more information about the patents in these areas it is difficult to evaluate this argument.
AND so is born another Patent Troll GOOGMOT.
Motorola has been and will always be a mediocre product company - sure they had some hits but mostly there were misses.
Their build quality, especially lately, is second only to Apple, IMO. And as far as durability, they are second to none when it comes to smartphones. I mean, the Droid Razr is metal, gorilla glass, Kevlar, and a water resistant inner coating. That's pretty tough.
Although, having said that, they are a worthless software company, their Android skins are far and away the worst out there of the major players, and their user experience is horrible. I would love to see a Moto Nexus (or MOTONEXS, as they would probably call it) phone. I wouldn't buy it, but at least it would be legitimate competition to Apple on both the hardware and software level for once.
How is it discriminatory if Moto is asking the same 2.25% consistently, with even the articles source (FOSS Patents) noting that an industry exec with no connections to either Apple nor Microsoft says they've asked the same rate for years?
Mueller: "I have furthermore heard from an executive of a large company in this industry (who is not affiliated in any way with Apple or Microsoft) that Motorola also declared years ago that it deemed a 2.25% royalty appropriate for its patents related to 4G/LTE. Someone there appears to think that 2.25 is a lucky number."
Fair and reasonable? If others are paying it without going to court, that would be one indication it is IMO. If the report that they've asked 2.25% royalities for quite some time is incorrect, then that's another thing altogether. So far I haven't seen that claimed even by FOSSPatents.
Personally I'm no fan of all these IP suits, no matter who's asserting them. I feel they're a hindrance to the marketplace and by extension consumers. I know many would disagree with me.
Maybe not discriminatory, but is it reasonable?
From the article: "Mueller calculated that Motorola is demanding a rate from Microsoft for a single patent related to H.264 that is between 73 and 146 times greater than the entire H.264 licensing royalties sought by MPEG LA for use of the entire patent pool."
I wonder if Google is pulling strings to get their "open" video format back on track...
Maybe not discriminatory, but is it reasonable?
From the article: "Mueller calculated that Motorola is demanding a rate from Microsoft for a single patent related to H.264 that is between 73 and 146 times greater than the entire H.264 licensing royalties sought by MPEG LA for use of the entire patent pool."
I wonder if Google is pulling strings to get their "open" video format back on track...
Ummm. . . the same MS that supposedly wants upwards of $15 per Android device for patents that may not even be valid? It took lowly Barnes & Noble to challenge them and now MS is removing some of the patent claims rather than have them invalidated.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20207110012776
Pot meet kettle.
How is it discriminatory if Moto is asking the same 2.25% consistently, with even the articles source (FOSS Patents) noting that an industry exec with no connections to either Apple nor Microsoft says they've asked the same rate for years?
Mueller: "I have furthermore heard from an executive of a large company in this industry (who is not affiliated in any way with Apple or Microsoft) that Motorola also declared years ago that it deemed a 2.25% royalty appropriate for its patents related to 4G/LTE. Someone there appears to think that 2.25 is a lucky number."
There's no assertion that anybody is paying 2.25%. The FOSS Patents article only brings Mueller's statement to the table as it reflects the same number (2.25%) that Moto is demanding from both MS and Apple. In each case the patents are for unrelated technologies (one related to 3G, one to H264 and one to LTE) but the rates being brought to the table by Moto are identical.
I don't believe in this good or evil mantra in business. There are ethical and unethical and legal and illegal ways a company can act but being good or evil isn't one of them. Even Samsung who has blatantly and mercilessly copied from Apple isn't evil in their actions. They've taken calculated risks with their maneuvers and it appears to be paying off handsomely for them while their Android using counterparts are suffering. Whether I think personally it's right or wrong is irrelevant because objectively they are thriving from their actions.
Now the question of whether survival of the fittest is the best maneuver for the group as a whole is debatable. There are more than a few anthropological studies showing that the happiest communities are those where there is good balance among all parties. So one could argue that Apple's dominance in all arms of their business (PC, tablet, handset, and PMP) isn't good for the whole.
That's a whole lot of meaningless BS devoted to suggesting "evil" isn't something that a company can be, which is rather stupid considering that it was Google that invented the phrase to describe its corporate philosophy.
As far as actual reality however, Google has proven itself to be intentionally dishonest, fraudulent and without scruples. Some obvious examples:
- Advertising illegal prescription drugs with ad space it knew to be illegal, yet continued to do with approval from the top.
- Ripping off Oracle (knowingly, with internal advice clearly stating that the company knew it needed to work out a licensing deal, i.e. Lindhold email) and then mounting a public defense that accused Oracle of mounting "bogus" IP claims.
- Blatantly ripping off Apple, and similarly accusing Apple of mounting 'bogus' claims and persecuting it's Android platform while it feeds Motorola with patent attacks aimed at doing the same thing it professed to the public to be unconsciously actions by its competitors.
- Stealing book content and then trying to work out a deal afterward.
- Stealing music streaming rights and then trying to work out a deal afterward.
Just goes on and on. If you've ever used AdSense, you'd know Google cheats everyone. So sure, if Google was another corporation you could write off they actions as the "we break the law until the law forces us not to" kind of activity that "every corp" does. But Google has gone out of its way to promote itself as a super righteous company that "does no evil," making its contempt for the law and everyone else's rights particularly reprehensible.
Personally I'm no fan of all these IP suits, no matter who's asserting them. I feel they're a hindrance to the marketplace and by extension consumers. I know many would disagree with me.
For good reason they would disagree.
Anyway, Google/Motorola are creating a storm of trouble for themselves with the EC in the future. Google has money, the EU needs money. See how that works?
If they've completely abandoned the whole "don't be evil" thing, perhaps they can actually generate some real profits from smartphones now.
Google has sold its soul. Wonder how long it'll take for the Android/WebM/FOSS fans to realize they are now in the strange position of supporting the wholesale conversion of "open" into the opposite of that.
Thanks for say that. It is exactly what I see. After Page stepping as CEO it appears to me that Google is now all evil.
That's a whole lot of meaningless BS devoted to suggesting "evil" isn't something that a company can be, which is rather stupid considering that it was Google that invented the phrase to describe its corporate philosophy.
As far as actual reality however, Google has proven itself to be intentionally dishonest, fraudulent and without scruples. Some obvious examples:
- Advertising illegal prescription drugs with ad space it knew to be illegal, yet continued to do with approval from the top.
- Ripping off Oracle (knowingly, with internal advice clearly stating that the company knew it needed to work out a licensing deal, i.e. Lindhold email) and then mounting a public defense that accused Oracle of mounting "bogus" IP claims.
- Blatantly ripping off Apple, and similarly accusing Apple of mounting 'bogus' claims and persecuting it's Android platform while it feeds Motorola with patent attacks aimed at doing the same thing it professed to the public to be unconsciously actions by its competitors.
- Stealing book content and then trying to work out a deal afterward.
- Stealing music streaming rights and then trying to work out a deal afterward.
Just goes on and on. If you've ever used AdSense, you'd know Google cheats everyone. So sure, if Google was another corporation you could write off they actions as the "we break the law until the law forces us not to" kind of activity that "every corp" does. But Google has gone out of its way to promote itself as a super righteous company that "does no evil," making its contempt for the law and everyone else's rights particularly reprehensible.
I will frame your post and put on my wall! Perfect.
There's no assertion that anybody is paying 2.25%. The FOSS Patents article only brings Mueller's statement to the table as it reflects the same number (2.25%) that Moto is demanding from both MS and Apple. In each case the patents are for unrelated technologies (one related to 3G, one to H264 and one to LTE) but the rates being brought to the table by Moto are identical.
The assertion put forth by Mueller is they've asked for 2.25% fairly consistently, the same as they're now asking of Apple and Microsoft. Again, how is that discriminatory? Is anyone actually paying what Moto is requesting, and will Apple and/or MS be able to negotiate a lower percentage in royalties? Perhaps yes to both, but nothing I've read so far indicates Moto is expecting any more from Apple than any other licensee. Do you see something I haven't?
Ummm. . . the same MS that supposedly wants upwards of $15 per Android device for patents that may not even be valid? It took lowly Barnes & Noble to challenge them and now MS is removing some of the patent claims rather than have them invalidated.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20207110012776
Pot meet kettle.
Microsoft's patents aren't FRAND though, whether they're valid or not.