Apple lodged FRAND abuse complaint against Motorola with European Commission

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 130
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sibod View Post








    However, if I spec that system with a iMac 27" like spec including an ups display of similar quality, things go slightly wobbly and the Mac actually works out cheaper!




    Do you attribute that to the efficiencies of Apple's AIO design?
  • Reply 42 of 130
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tinman0 View Post




    The average computer user is an idiot.





    If true, then around half of them don't even rise to the level of idiot.



    Like I said, Apple has a bright future.
  • Reply 43 of 130
    galbigalbi Posts: 968member
    This is what the standard body OASIS uses as its RAND(FRAND) definition:



    Quote:

    RAND - [An Obligated Party] will grant to any OASIS Party or third party: a nonexclusive, worldwide, non-sublicensable, perpetual patent license (or an equivalent non-assertion covenant) under its Essential Claims covered by its Contribution Obligations or Participation Obligations on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms to make, have made, use, market, import, offer to sell, and sell, and to otherwise directly or indirectly distribute (a) Licensed Products that implement such OASIS Standards Final Deliverable, and (b) Licensed Products that implement any Final Maintenance Deliverable with respect to that OASIS Standards Final Deliverable.



    RF-RAND or FRAND
    - [An Obligated Party] will grant to any OASIS Party or third party: a nonexclusive, worldwide, non-sublicensable, perpetual patent license (or an equivalent non-assertion covenant) under its Essential Claims covered by its Contribution Obligations or Participation Obligations without payment of royalties or fees, and subject to the applicable Section 10.2.2 or 10.2.3, to make, have made, use, market, import, offer to sell, and sell, and to otherwise directly or indirectly distribute (a) Licensed Products that implement such OASIS Standards Final Deliverable, and (b) Licensed Products that implement any Final Maintenance Deliverable with respect to that OASIS Standards Final Deliverable. .... [and with] license terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ...



    Motorola and Samsung are attacking Apple because Qualcomm isnt allowed to use their FRAND patents. It is non-sublicensable meaning Apple is not off the hook just because they've bought it from a FRAND licensee Qualcomm. Apple has materially benefited (quite healthily might I add)from the use of their patents. Therefore, both of these companies are after their fair share of the deal. Other companies have paid these companies their shares. Apple, on the other hand, refused to do so relying on the above mentioned statements.



    Once this very important word gets out, the European body's investigation will come to a halt and will side with Motorola and Samsung in its decision. Apple's entire counter claim was based on this single word ( or lack of it as they say).



    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20213092754823
  • Reply 44 of 130
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,374member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    This is what the standard body OASIS uses as its RAND(FRAND) definition:







    Motorola and Samsung are attacking Apple because Qualcomm isnt allowed to use their FRAND patents. It is non-sublicensable meaning Apple is not off the hook just because they've bought it from a FRAND licensee Qualcomm.



    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20213092754823



    I was wondering if anyone was going to bother pointing that out. I came across that a few days ago at one of the patent-blog sites.



    For all the talk of what was fair and Motorola's obligations under FRAND, it seems no one bothered to look at the standard agreement from the body who composed the applicable FRAND standards, and Motorola's obligations and rights under it.



    EDIT: I couldn't remember exactly where I had seen it (I originally thought PatentlyO), but here it is.

    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....20213092754823
  • Reply 45 of 130
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post


    If you build with quality you will never have any issues.



    This statement is so utterly untrue that it's funny!



    Make your own hardware, do you?



    Writing your own software and drivers?



    Unfortunately, 'building a PC with quality' involves far too many third parties trying to make compromises for this to occur as you have claimed.
  • Reply 46 of 130
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


    This statement is so utterly untrue that it's funny!



    Make your own hardware, do you?



    Writing your own software and drivers?



    Unfortunately, 'building a PC with quality' involves far too many third parties trying to make compromises for this to occur as you have claimed.



    I wonder what examples people who believe that can make?
  • Reply 47 of 130
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    This is what the standard body OASIS uses as its RAND(FRAND) definition:







    Motorola and Samsung are attacking Apple because Qualcomm isnt allowed to use their FRAND patents. It is non-sublicensable meaning Apple is not off the hook just because they've bought it from a FRAND licensee Qualcomm. Apple has materially benefited (quite healthily might I add)from the use of their patents. Therefore, both of these companies are after their fair share of the deal. Other companies have paid these companies their shares. Apple, on the other hand, refused to do so relying on the above mentioned statements.



    Once this very important word gets out, the European body's investigation will come to a halt and will side with Motorola and Samsung in its decision. Apple's entire counter claim was based on this single word ( or lack of it as they say).



    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20213092754823



    So when you buy a phone YOU should pay license fees because according to your contention, the company you bought the phone from is SUB-LICENSING FRAND patents to you?



    See how you are wrong.
  • Reply 48 of 130
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    I was wondering if anyone was going to bother pointing that out. I came across that a few days ago at one of the patent-blog sites.



    For all the talk of what was fair and Motorola's obligations under FRAND, it seems no one bothered to look at the standard agreement from the body who composed the applicable FRAND standards, and Motorola's obligations and rights under it.



    EDIT: I couldn't remember exactly where I had seen it (I originally thought PatentlyO), but here it is.

    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....20213092754823



    According to that argument you would have no problem with having to pay extra at the checkout whenever you buy any product with FRAND patents, because apparently the licenses being paid by the manufacturer don't count and should be paid for by the end user.



    The whole FRAND based standards system is based on preventing this from happening as it leads to anti-competitive behaviour.
  • Reply 49 of 130
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,374member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    So when you buy a phone YOU should pay license fees because according to your contention, the company you bought the phone from is SUB-LICENSING FRAND patents to you?



    See how you are wrong.



    Did you even read the Oasis FRAND standards statement he posted or just wing it as you wrote?



    "to make, have made, use, market, import, offer to sell, and sell, and to otherwise directly or indirectly distribute (a) Licensed Products that implement such OASIS Standards Final Deliverable, and (b) Licensed Products that implement any Final Maintenance Deliverable with respect to that OASIS Standards Final Deliverable.
  • Reply 50 of 130
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,374member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    According to that argument you would have no problem with having to pay extra at the checkout whenever you buy any product with FRAND patents, because apparently the licenses being paid by the manufacturer don't count and should be paid for by the end user.



    The whole FRAND based standards system is based on preventing this from happening as it leads to anti-competitive behaviour.



    Do yourself a huge favor. Before you presume you understand this, and if you're really interested in being somewhat accurate and informative when replying to others on the subject, visit the link I provided in post 45. It should help with your understanding of how this whole "FRAND thing" works. It's written by real lawyers, yet written in layman's language for the most part.
  • Reply 51 of 130
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Did you even read the Oasis FRAND standards statement he posted or just wing it as you wrote?



    "to make, have made, use, market, import, offer to sell, and sell, and to otherwise directly or indirectly distribute (a) Licensed Products that implement such OASIS Standards Final Deliverable, and (b) Licensed Products that implement any Final Maintenance Deliverable with respect to that OASIS Standards Final Deliverable.



    Yep, Apple buying a licensed chip off Qualcomm IS NOT SUB-LICENSING, it's buying a licensed chip.



    Quote:

    RAND - [An Obligated Party] will grant to any OASIS Party or third party: a nonexclusive, worldwide, non-sublicensable, perpetual patent license (or an equivalent non-assertion covenant) under its Essential Claims covered by its Contribution Obligations or Participation Obligations on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms to make, have made, use, market, import, offer to sell, and sell, and to otherwise directly or indirectly distribute (a) Licensed Products that implement such OASIS Standards Final Deliverable, and (b) Licensed Products that implement any Final Maintenance Deliverable with respect to that OASIS Standards Final Deliverable.



    RF-RAND or FRAND - [An Obligated Party] will grant to any OASIS Party or third party: a nonexclusive, worldwide, non-sublicensable, perpetual patent license (or an equivalent non-assertion covenant) under its Essential Claims covered by its Contribution Obligations or Participation Obligations without payment of royalties or fees, and subject to the applicable Section 10.2.2 or 10.2.3, to make, have made, use, market, import, offer to sell, and sell, and to otherwise directly or indirectly distribute (a) Licensed Products that implement such OASIS Standards Final Deliverable, and (b) Licensed Products that implement any Final Maintenance Deliverable with respect to that OASIS Standards Final Deliverable. .... [and with] license terms that are fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ...





    I suggest you take it up with Galbi, he's the one who seems to think it's important as shown in the formatting of his post, which, as you came in citing the same link, you seem to agree.
  • Reply 52 of 130
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,374member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    Yep, Apple buying a licensed chip off Qualcomm IS NOT SUB-LICENSING, it's buying a licensed chip.









    I suggest you take it up with Galbi, he's the one who seems to think it's important as shown in the formatting of his post, which, as you came in citing the same link, you seem to agree.



    You're not going to read the article on this that I linked and recommended, are you? You aren't understanding and don't realize it.



    In case anyone else would like to help to understand the FRAND issue, here's the link again.



    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic....20213092754823
  • Reply 53 of 130
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    This is what the standard body OASIS uses as its RAND(FRAND) definition:







    Motorola and Samsung are attacking Apple because Qualcomm isnt allowed to use their FRAND patents. It is non-sublicensable meaning Apple is not off the hook just because they've bought it from a FRAND licensee Qualcomm. Apple has materially benefited (quite healthily might I add)from the use of their patents. Therefore, both of these companies are after their fair share of the deal. Other companies have paid these companies their shares. Apple, on the other hand, refused to do so relying on the above mentioned statements.



    Once this very important word gets out, the European body's investigation will come to a halt and will side with Motorola and Samsung in its decision. Apple's entire counter claim was based on this single word ( or lack of it as they say).



    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20213092754823



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Do yourself a huge favor. Before you presume you understand this, and if you're really interested in being somewhat accurate and informative when replying to others on the subject, visit the link I provided in post 45. It should help with your understanding of how this whole "FRAND thing" works. It's written by real lawyers, yet written in layman's language for the most part.



    1 Qualcomm pays a license fee for Motorola's patent to be used in the chip they make.



    2 Phone manufacturer buys licensed chip from Qualcomm and uses in device.



    There, that's Fair/Reasonable Non-Discriminatory and is how it has worked since the system was introduced to bring to heel a cabal of European phone manufacturers along with Motorola who were using standards essential patents in the nineties to keep Japanese companies out of the European market.



    Motorola dictating to Qualcomm how they should not sell chips to Apple on the same terms as they sell to everyone else is discriminatory and hearkens back to the bad old, anticompetitive days which prompted the adoption of FRAND in the first place.



    I don't need a law degree or the biased view of Groklaw to tell me how the world works.
  • Reply 54 of 130
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,374member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    I don't need a law degree or the biased view of Groklaw to tell me how the world works.



    You apparently don't. I would imagine you have little use for doctors or teachers either.
  • Reply 55 of 130
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    You apparently don't. I would imagine you have little use for doctors or teachers either.



    Not for knowing that what Motorola (and Samsung) are doing is wrong, no.
  • Reply 56 of 130
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post


    It's funny how Windows users never consider selling their computer when they're done with its useful life because it really has no value at that point. Reselling my Mac (or any Apple product) levels the playing field as far as price goes and allows me to upgrade more often.



    So no Windows user ever sells their old computers? None of them? Then why are auction sites etc full of second hand Windows PCs?



    And the resale value of a Mac has dropped massively over the last few years with Apple decreasing the price of new Macs, you would have to be very silly to purchase a second hand Mac at a high figure, especially with Apple dropping support so fast.



    I still have a Toshiba laptop and a Mac Mini that were both purchased in 2005, both still work, but the Mac Mini is so slow it isn't usable.
  • Reply 57 of 130
    xsuxsu Posts: 401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple v. Samsung View Post


    I built this rig at the end of 2010. At the time the cost was around 1200, So Far other then the bad ram I had when I purchased with it(Swapped out for free). I have not had any cost with this thing other then the 600+ that I sunk to the steam store. If you build with quality you will never have any issues. I may however at the end of the year either swap out video cards or Swap the motherboard, cpu and gpu but that is the cost of ownership that comes with a gaming rig.



    In two years, what value do you think you can get for your rig in open market? I can safely assume a $1200 Mac I bought today will probably sell for around half of that in two years. So in essence, my $1200 Mac really only cost me $600. Your rig on the other hand, really did cost you $1200.
  • Reply 58 of 130
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


    Then they cost more because the TCO on a PC is significantly higher than a Mac.



    In case you didn't get it, it was crappy grammar and I was being an ass pointing it out…

    Like this in the next post after yours…

    Quote:

    So Far other then the bad ram I had when I purchased with...



    I have not had any cost with this thing other then the 600+ that I sunk to the steam store.



  • Reply 59 of 130
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Oracle's latest damages report says they deserve several million for both the copyright and patent claims (of which another has been tossed from the case). No, not billions that Oracle supposedly wanted from Google that was used for splash articles.



    Oracle's damages expert, Dr. Cockburn "comes up with a proposed number that is nothing near the multiple billions that made headlines when this case was first announced, the expert now valuing the patents at $57.1 million as the highest proposed figure. He values the copyrights at the highest end at between $52.4 million and $169 million, which is ridiculous anyway, but remember the headlines when Oracle first announced this litigation? That Google could lose up to $6.1 billion if it lost this case? That was never realistic."



    Oracle's case appears to have been heavily overstated from the beginning.

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20218041255197







    Keep in mind, the Judge has put enormous pressure on both parties to settle. The judge essentially wasn't going to allow a trial if Oracle didn't adjust the damages downward. With that said, if Google is found to intentionally have infringed (which based on incriminating emails is likely), whatever the damages are found to be will be tripled. Moreover, unlike patent law where the Judge issuing an injunction is discretionary, Google will face an injunction if Oracle wins on the copyright grounds. Just ask Psystar how the judge ruled in its copyright battle with Apple.



    If Oracle wins, the damage award also doesn't cover future licensing. With the pressure of an injunction over Google head, Oracle stands to gain a decent licensing fee. That is what Oracle is really after. The past damage award would be just the icing on the cake.

    .
  • Reply 60 of 130
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Galbi View Post


    This is what the standard body OASIS uses as its RAND(FRAND) definition:







    Motorola and Samsung are attacking Apple because Qualcomm isnt allowed to use their FRAND patents. It is non-sublicensable meaning Apple is not off the hook just because they've bought it from a FRAND licensee Qualcomm. Apple has materially benefited (quite healthily might I add)from the use of their patents. Therefore, both of these companies are after their fair share of the deal. Other companies have paid these companies their shares. Apple, on the other hand, refused to do so relying on the above mentioned statements.



    Once this very important word gets out, the European body's investigation will come to a halt and will side with Motorola and Samsung in its decision. Apple's entire counter claim was based on this single word ( or lack of it as they say).



    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?s...20213092754823



    Yes, none of these highly-paid lawyers or educated judges ever cared to consider this point, huh?



    Explain to me then, if it's not possible to "sub-license" said FRAND patents (assuming your understanding of the term is correct), then why does Qualcomm pay a licensing fee? Why did Motorolla have to specifically target Apple when it cancelled the license? Apparently, no one should be granted a license, including all the other OEMs who use Qualcomm chips. So why is Qualcomm paying a license?



    No matter how a contract is worded, the legal principle of patent exhaustion remains in affect.
Sign In or Register to comment.