Google says it won't support fair licensing in open standards as Apple, Microsoft, Cisco have

12467

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GoodGrief View Post


    So, is this everyone else's interpretation of the letter (by paragraph):



    1) We are teh Google. All your Motorola IP are belong to us!...



    Hilarious.

    (the whole thing)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 62 of 131
    Has any of the standards bodies stated what is FAIR? Is a maximum of 2.25% fair? Until that is settled then how can any of us say that ISN'T fair? Then again that's a negotiations starting point I'm sure.



    I also don't think it's UNFAIR to use your FRAND patents to help you negotiate with your competitor ESPECIALLY if that competitor is suing you for all these near inconsequential NON-ESSENTIAL patents. Apple has admitted that their goal is to go thermonuclear against android handset makers and hasn't shown any indication of their willingness to negotiate and resolve in GOOD FAITH.



    I've read in the news that HTC, SAMSUNG want to negotiate. I know MICROSOFT loves to negotiate. Why can't Apple do the same as MICROSOFT?



    Instead their intent is to kill their competitors. Just think of it personally. If you own a company and your competitor wants to KILL your company then wouldn't you use everything within your arsenal to fire back?



    And if you're saying that those patents are FRAND then I refer you to my first paragraph.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 63 of 131
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,524moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    That baseband chip is not a "communications device capable of both voice and data communication" as Apple suggests.



    The letter is just a broad description of what they want. A wifi iPad is capable of voice and data communication but not subject to 3G patents.



    They are advocating fair licensing terms for devices that use cellular components.



    - The percentage rate would be determined by assessing the patent value compared to everyone else's patents. (not feasible really)

    - The base to which the rate is applied would be judged on the industry average for a basic device e.g average the selling prices of every 3G phone in the world (not just iPhones) and the amount to pay is the rate applied to that average. (not feasible)

    - Nobody can ban products from sale that violate FRAND patents. (If the patent holders comply with fair licensing terms and a manufacturer doesn't follow the licensing, I don't see why they can't ban products from sale. I agree it shouldn't be allowed as a first step)



    If someone sells a 3G USB stick, it uses cellular patent tech but should they pay a license rate based on an average selling price that includes mobile phones?



    Their suggestions do make sense in some ways though because it would be cheaper for a manufacturer to sell you a 3G USB stick for $30 than bundle the same functionality in a 3G-capable $2000 computer.



    The fairest way to me seems to be to charge against the components and not the products. The patent holders can easily increase the rate to reflect this.



    - percentage rate would be determined based on the average selling price of the core components. (feasible as there are far fewer component price variations than products)

    - The base rate would be the component cost

    - It wouldn't matter about injunctions because the patent fee is applied to the components, not the products



    This obviously only works for patents that apply to components though and not ones that apply to functionality obtained through the sum of various components that can only be determined after a product is made. Apple's suggestion applies to any patent but I don't think it would be feasible to implement - how would you even begin to assess the relative worth of a patent?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 64 of 131
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Evilution View Post


    I really wish Apple would make a search engine and some decent maps so I could vote with my feet and not use Google's products.



    All they really need to do is make Yahoo, or Bing the default search engine in Safari and Mobile Safari, and maybe pull Google completely out as an option. This would probably hurt Google a lot more than Apple creating a new search engine.



    Although I do believe Apple will switch to their own mapping system soon.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 65 of 131
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,697member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OneVoice View Post


    Has any of the standards bodies stated what is FAIR? Is a maximum of 2.25% fair? Until that is settled then how can any of us say that ISN'T fair? Then again that's a negotiations starting point I'm sure.



    I also don't think it's UNFAIR to use your FRAND patents to help you negotiate with your competitor ESPECIALLY if that competitor is suing you for all these near inconsequential NON-ESSENTIAL patents. Apple has admitted that their goal is to go thermonuclear against android handset makers and hasn't shown any indication of their willingness to negotiate and resolve in GOOD FAITH.



    I've read in the news that HTC, SAMSUNG want to negotiate. I know MICROSOFT loves to negotiate. Why can't Apple do the same as MICROSOFT?



    Instead their intent is to kill their competitors. Just think of it personally. If you own a company and your competitor wants to KILL your company then wouldn't you use everything within your arsenal to fire back?



    And if you're saying that those patents are FRAND then I refer you to my first paragraph.



    First Apple is not trying to kill their competitors. They are trying to force their competitors to actually COMPETE rather than steal and copy. There is a huge difference. Microsoft is willing to negotiate and allow others to continue to use its IP, because that is Microsoft's business model; they license software. Apple does not. They sell hardware and write software that allows their products to differentiate themselves from competitors. Therefor they are less willing to allow a competitor to utilize Apple's IP to make their products look and act like Apple's products.



    Second, IT IS unfair for a company to submit its IP to a standards body and promise that you will not use that IP to coerce another company in an unfair manner that you have licensed that same IP to another company. The standards body accepts and includes your IP in the industry standard based on that. That's exactly the point of FRAND encumbered patents and IP; that if want us to use your IP as part of an international standard, you have to be fair in licensing.



    Third, if you think it is fair for Motorola to charge 2.25% for a single patent, then what happens when other companies begin charging the same thing for the hundreds of other patents that are included as part of the industry standard? The entire system collapses. It would be impossible for a company to make and sell any device. How is any company supposed to pay a total of 300% in licensing fees to produce a product? And you might think I'm being ridiculous, but that's exactly the precedent Motorola is setting.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 66 of 131
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,680member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


    First Apple is not trying to kill their competitors. They are trying to force their competitors to actually COMPETE rather than steal and copy. There is a huge difference. Microsoft is willing to negotiate and allow others to continue to use its IP, because that is Microsoft's business model; they license software. Apple does not. They sell hardware and write software that allows their products to differentiate themselves from competitors. Therefor they are less willing to allow a competitor to utilize Apple's IP to make their products look and act like Apple's products.



    Third, if you think it is fair for Motorola to charge 2.25% for a single patent, then what happens when other companies begin charging the same thing for the hundreds of other patents that are included as part of the industry standard? The entire system collapses. It would be impossible for a company to make and sell any device. How is any company supposed to pay a total of 300% in licensing fees to produce a product? And you might think I'm being ridiculous, but that's exactly the precedent Motorola is setting.



    Understand that this has nothing to do with royalties and everything to do with attempting to put an end to the largest part of the smartphone IP wars. Once the cross-licensing is out of the way, and it will be at some point IMO, you'll see the same or even better level of innovation but much less in legal distractions.



    The things being argued now, even by Apple and MS, are the basic elements of smartphones and who should get revenue for them. I believe that eventually a set of smartphone standards will be put together and bundled as FRAND-encumbered, but that point hasn't been reached yet.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 67 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


    Third, if you think it is fair for Motorola to charge 2.25% for a single patent, then what happens when other companies begin charging the same thing for the hundreds of other patents that are included as part of the industry standard? The entire system collapses. It would be impossible for a company to make and sell any device. How is any company supposed to pay a total of 300% in licensing fees to produce a product? And you might think I'm being ridiculous, but that's exactly the precedent Motorola is setting.



    ISTM that different patents are worth different amounts. 2.25% may be high for some patents and low for others.



    Think about, for example, a new type of memory card. One company might contribute a patent for the basic new memory type, and another might have a patent for innovative packaging. Both might be revolutionary, new and better. In combo, there might be potential to change the entire memory card market.



    A third company might have some nifty software stuff to contribute. Stuff that should be part of the standard, but at the same time, stuff that any competent software company could have written, had they been working alongside the first two companies.



    ISTM that while all 3 would be essential to companies licensing the tech and making memory cards, the first two patents might be worth vastly more than the third.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 68 of 131
    So if this chipset is built in to a car as part of an integrated communications system, the royalty fee would be 2.25% of the value of the car ... have I got that right?



    I wish I had the e-mail address for this Mr. Gordon Day at the IEEE. I'll write a letter but might not get there before this decision had been made ... but still gotta chime in on this ...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 69 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post


    So if this chipset is built in to a car as part of an integrated communications system, the royalty fee would be 2.25% of the value of the car ... have I got that right?



    I wish I had the e-mail address for this Mr. Gordon Day at the IEEE. I'll write a letter but might not get there before this decision had been made ... but still gotta chime in on this ...



    a maximum of 2.25%
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 70 of 131
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,680member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post


    So if this chipset is built in to a car as part of an integrated communications system, the royalty fee would be 2.25% of the value of the car ... have I got that right?



    I wish I had the e-mail address for this Mr. Gordon Day at the IEEE. I'll write a letter but might not get there before this decision had been made ... but still gotta chime in on this ...



    You have the email address for Apple don't you? Write and let them know their suggestion to use a completed device price as the royalty base is stupid. Apple could always modify their advice to the IEEE.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 71 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    You have the email address for Apple don't you? Write and let them know their suggestion to use a completed device price as the royalty base is stupid. Apple could always modify their advice to the IEEE.



    I'm a little late to the party here and haven't read through all the comments ... I'm referring to the line in paragraph 3 of the Google letter which is cited in the body of the article. Not aware that Apple ever made a similar suggestion ... can't imagine them doing that.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 72 of 131
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,680member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post


    . . .Not aware that Apple ever made a similar suggestion ... can't imagine them doing that.



    See post #52 for a link to Apple's letter.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 73 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


    Um, could we at least get the basic fact that Google isn't doing ANYTHING with FRAND patents currently. It's Motorola that's potentially misusing FRAND patents. Until the Google acquisition of Motorola is final, they are still 2 separate companies carrying out their own separate business activities.



    Don't be phony. Google put up $12 billion to buy Motorola, and this is part of their strategy for secretly wooing the government to allow it to go through. Google is feeding Motorola patents. To say that they are completely separate entities is childishly naive, particularly then THIS LETTER is about Google PROMISING to keep doing everything Motorola has been, IN DETAIL!



    Quote:

    And really, this is the 3rd freaking article this week about this Google letter. And despite the fact that the contents of the letter haven't changed, the tone of the articles mysteriously keeps getting more negative toward Google. Weird how facts apparently change.



    Wrong again, the contents of the letter was posted for the first time. Maybe if you read the facts that are being presented, rather than working to invent a way to spin things in a comforting way to the audience as you suggest that nothing "negative" be spoken about what Google is actually doing (rather than falsely promising), you'd have a credible position you could edify us with.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 74 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OneVoice View Post


    Has any of the standards bodies stated what is FAIR? Is a maximum of 2.25% fair? Until that is settled then how can any of us say that ISN'T fair? Then again that's a negotiations starting point I'm sure.



    I also don't think it's UNFAIR to use your FRAND patents to help you negotiate with your competitor ESPECIALLY if that competitor is suing you for all these near inconsequential NON-ESSENTIAL patents. Apple has admitted that their goal is to go thermonuclear against android handset makers and hasn't shown any indication of their willingness to negotiate and resolve in GOOD FAITH.



    I've read in the news that HTC, SAMSUNG want to negotiate. I know MICROSOFT loves to negotiate. Why can't Apple do the same as MICROSOFT?



    Instead their intent is to kill their competitors. Just think of it personally. If you own a company and your competitor wants to KILL your company then wouldn't you use everything within your arsenal to fire back?



    And if you're saying that those patents are FRAND then I refer you to my first paragraph.



    Everyone has the rights to sue over their IP. Apple has been the #1 target for the last decade of iPods, and now Apple came out with the popular iPhone and the iPad, which everyone wants to copy. Apple has only sued companies that egregiously steal its technologies.



    Microsoft's WM business completely died with the iPhone came out. They tried to resurrect it with WP7, but that's gone nowhere. So MS' main business model is to sell "patent rights" to android Licensees, which it hopes will make Android expensive enough to make WP7 licensing a reasonable alternative.



    Samsung and Motorola (and formerly Nokia) all want to get Apple's patent rights for free, but all they have are patents committed to standards and therefore agreed to FRAND licensing. But rather than trying to negotiate fair contracts, they're publicly announcing that "Apple infringes our patents!!!" which is dishonest, because they're simply asking for more than FRAND allows and there fore trying to fraud Apple out of its rights (not money, really).



    It's like if you went to buy some music in a store and the shopkeeper insisted that you were "apparently currently stealing music" in a loud voice while quietly demanding you buy all his full CDs of crap and agree to a long term record of the month club, rather than just selling you the single you want to listen to and were prepared to buy for a reasonable price.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 75 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    See post #52 for a link to Apple's letter.



    Just read it ... didn't see any mention of Apple FRAND licensing being based on the cost of the final product though. Its a letter about Apples commitment to more 'consistent and more transparent application of FRAND licensing ...'. Good common sense stuff, as long as all parties reciprocate.



    Googles letter couldn't be more clear that they intend to try to extort onerous terms as a cudgel against competitors. Not exactly the spirit of FRAND.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 76 of 131
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,680member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post


    Just read it ... didn't see any mention of Apple FRAND licensing being based on the cost of the final product though.



    Then you didn't read it all.

    Look for the paragraph titled "Common Royalty Base". It's five paragraphs down.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 77 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Then you didn't read it all.

    Look for the paragraph titled "Common Royalty Base". It's five paragraphs down.



    I do see them referring to basing the fee on an 'industry average sales price for a basic (voice/data) communications device' ...



    This is not quite what you are saying, this is an 'industry average' based on something 'basic' ... but perhaps is referencing that as the industry average price of the completed device that utilizes the chipset in question. So you have a point, but there seems to be a big difference. Anyway, I'll leave it to the lawyers now.



    And I did get that letter to Gordon Day in the mail already ... I don't get that motivated very often.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 78 of 131
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    I'm especially disgusted by Google's hypocrisy.



    Last year, when the issue was whether Google and/or Android licensees would have to pay royalties, Google said:

    Quote:

    A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a "tax" for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation.



    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/...y-iphone-sale/



    Now, when there is the potential for Google to use patents (largely via the Moto acquisition) to extort money and/or block competitors, patents are a good thing.



    Just one more reason no one in their right mind should ever trust Google.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 79 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jcsegenmd View Post


    [now is the time for apple] to get into the search business; google may find that they can't assume the gravy train will last forever.



    Steve was willing to go to nuclear war with them; with $100bn in the bank, what does apple have to lose?



    They're already doing that, it's called Siri. Apple has (Correctly) identified natural-language queries as one of the forthcoming evolutions of search (The other is social discovery, which Google is focusing on with Google+, but they're too late to that party because Facebook's already eaten their lunch there and the remains are being covered by Twitter and Apps like Ness).



    iCloud (Which will grow to include other services like Apple Mapping) + Siri is Apple turning the guns on Google. It's the result of Google's biggest ever mistake - turning on Apple. Google chose to go down the Microsoft route of playing pals with Apple until they saw an opportunity to stab them in the back.



    Unfortunately for Mountain View, Apple isn't the kind of company to lay down and get dicked over the same way twice, so Google's great error? They basically invited Apple to help destroy them. Think fighting Facebook's ascension is going to be hard, Google? Pissing off Apple and Microsoft at the same time really was not smart.



    If I was a Google shareholder, I would be mad as hell.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 80 of 131
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post


    show of hands...who read the letter?



    I did. And before I post, I always read all other posts, in order to avoid dupes. Unlike some - and I don't mean you specifically. Just responding to your post.



    Cheers
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.