Motorola demanded license for all Apple iPhone patents for access to 3G standard

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 80
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member
    Remember two weeks before the Google acquisition of Motorola Mobility was announced?

    MMI loudly and publicly threatened to sue Google and its Android hardware partners using its thousands of patents.

    Google ended up paying a sucker price. Something like 60% over market value for MMI. Pure extortion.



    Maybe Google can sue Motorola Mobility for extortion and unfair use of their FRAND-encumbered patents.

    Could save them $12.5 billion. Plus the cost of that "firewall" Rubin claimed they would build between MMI and themselves.
  • Reply 62 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post


    Just give Motorola/Google all your patents, Apple. Can?t we all play nice? Why is Apple always such a bully?



    I agree. Just give Motorola/Google all your lunch money, Apple. Why is Apple always such a bully?
  • Reply 63 of 80
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,322member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post


    Remember two weeks before the Google acquisition of Motorola Mobility was announced?

    MMI loudly and publicly threatened to sue Google and its Android hardware partners using its thousands of patents.

    Google ended up paying a sucker price. Something like 60% over market value for MMI. Pure extortion.



    Maybe Google can sue Motorola Mobility for extortion and unfair use of their FRAND-encumbered patents.

    Could save them $12.5 billion. Plus the cost of that "firewall" Rubin claimed they would build between MMI and themselves.



    The public statement was a ruse. Google had been in talks with MMI for a long time and already knew their portfolio when they made a bid.



    There is no bite in a public bark without any paper work showing an intent to follow through on that bark.
  • Reply 64 of 80
    jmmxjmmx Posts: 341member
    MMI demands are essentially extortion.
  • Reply 65 of 80
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ihxo View Post


    LOL looks like google really think they can just do whatever they like with their newly acquired FRAND patents.



    These articles really don't provide enough information for such an opinion.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by penchanted View Post


    So Motorola is basically saying, "Samsung and HTC, you give me x per unit...Apple, you give me x per unit plus access to all your patents.



    If that doesn't take the Non-Discriminatory out of FRAND, I don't know what does.



    You're making this grossly oversimplified. We haven't seen the basis of calculating royalties on these other devices. I haven't seen information over whether it's percentage based or a flat amount. It could be a case of trying to force cross licensing as a leveraging factor in lieu of part or all of the licensing fee. Once again, these articles rarely ever give you a truly excellent depiction of the situation. They're meant as light reading.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tylerk36 View Post


    Really! I pantent some thing. It then belongs to ME!! Why in the fuck should I share it with some one who is a cry baby because they cant be as creative as ME!! Really this is utterly stupid. Either lead follow or get out of the way. Or maybe get bought out. LOL.



    If you are remotely intelligent, you can write a better response than this. There are patents that are part of a standard such as the case of FRAND. Apple's patents aren't encumbered by such standards, but one day it might happen if they develop something of that magnitude. Had some of Motorola's research never existed, you wouldn't see the iphone as it is today.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    Really? Nothing gets literally laughed out of court?



    THANKS!



    What I'm talking about is summary judgement. If these cases are really as open and shut as we, the idiot public, are being led to believe, that's what should be happening here. That's what I'm saying. Clearly the information we're getting from Florian Mueller is not telling us the whole story.



    It's like I've already said in this response.... light reading. These things never provide enough information to form a completely objective opinion.
  • Reply 66 of 80
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


    Nokia basically did the same thing and they won. No one knows for sure what they actually won, more than likely Apple came out ahead in that case... But it is extremely similar. I think Motorola is very desperate and is trying to force Apple into a settlement. With all these key multi-touch patents being granted, maybe they feel like Apple could sue them back to 2006 if they don't get themselves into a license agreement anyway possible.



    Nokia didn't "win" anything, Nokia and Apple came to an agreement and dropped all litigation, nothing was decided in a court of law..
  • Reply 67 of 80
    In addition, they also asked to sleep with Steve's wife and, since their at it, Tim Cook's car keys.
  • Reply 68 of 80
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by diddy View Post


    Take the Psystar case. Dragged on forever before Apple was granted a summary judgment and it was extremely obvious that Psystar was in the wrong and Apple had tons of evidence. And Psystar was not a big company.



    Psystar was also clearly in the wrong from the get go, but it was pushed along to see if there were any holes in Apple's licence agreement. This is why there are 50 page EULA's on every software package you get and nobody reads. Apple does not have to license their software that is used exclusively on their hardware.



    It's also a bit of a stretch to compare copyright with patents. Patents require that something be invented and non-obvious, where as copyright is simply "don't copy my performance." Back before the days of digital stuff, copyright infringement was mainly books, musical performances and art pieces. Patents also expire within 20 years. Copyright should too. Otherwise stuff just doesn't get archived and is eventually lost. It's so much more expensive today than it was 80 years ago to fight patents, because today you need an army of lawyers, trademarks registered and domains registered, in every country, before you open the barn door and show everyone what you invented. If you miss a step or can't afford all of them, someone definitely will rip you off.



    There will become a point that you can't sell something without violating thousands of patents that all independently want some % of your item's price. So I believe some Patent reform that reduces the scope of what a patent applies to may eventually have to happen. Like in the case of Motorola, they gave a licence to Qualcomm to use the patent, Apple bought the chips from Qualcomm, so therefor Apple has every right to use those patents that apply to those chips. Otherwise Apple would just make it part of the SoC in the A5X CPU, and pay the 3G/LTE patent pool directly. Apple doesn't do this for the obvious reason that the radio isn't part of the iPod or iPad base model and it adds 160$ to the price of the unit.
  • Reply 69 of 80
    Motorola has no future. Google is only interested because of patent portfolio. Without Google Moto dies out as a tech company and morphs into a patent troll. By attempting to illegally license its FRAND patents Moto is getting a taste of what life will be like as Google's troll. With the regulators on their tail Moto's trolling days are numbered and the geniuses at Google will be left fighting a protracted, expensive and loosing war against the government regulators ala Microsoft after the acquisition of Moto.



    As a budding troll and a troll buddy both Moto and Google could disappear tomorrow and no one would notice.
  • Reply 70 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


    The public statement was a ruse. Google had been in talks with MMI for a long time and already knew their portfolio when they made a bid.



    There is no bite in a public bark without any paper work showing an intent to follow through on that bark.



    So you're saying that while Motorola was in talks with Google they made public threats to sue Google's android partners as some sort of ruse? What was the ruse supposed to accomplish? Any links?

    It seems to me Motorola made the threat to get Google to buy them at a premium
  • Reply 71 of 80
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post


    In addition, they also asked to sleep with Steve's wife and, since their at it, Tim Cook's car keys.



    They wanted to sleep with Tim Cook's car keys? I thought he was married to his job, not to his car?
  • Reply 72 of 80
    haarhaar Posts: 563member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    What are you talking about? I do like Apple products, and I do use them. I'm also a shareholder. I just don't believe everything I read from fans of a product. The coverage here is too Apple-positive and doesn't match with reality. A smart shareholder wants to know if there's a risk that the outlook for his company is not as good as it seems to be. A dumb one shouts down those who ask questions. That's you.



    dude!... too apple positive on a web site named APPLEINSIDER?... you gotta be kidding me!... . i'm not sorry of this ad hominem attack, but you forgot to take your meds!!.
  • Reply 73 of 80
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by haar View Post


    dude!... too apple positive on a web site named APPLEINSIDER?... you gotta be kidding me!... . i'm not sorry of this ad hominem attack, but you forgot to take your meds!!.



    Yeah, that's right. It doesn't say "AppleFanSite!" Is this a place where any opinion (as long as it's positive) of Apple is allowed to be discussed? Even by a fan of the company, a shareholder? That's pretty sad, and even more sad that you are defending it out loud. You should at least have the shame to see how intellectually bankrupt that is and not want to admit it.
  • Reply 74 of 80
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cameronj View Post


    Yeah, that's right. It doesn't say "AppleFanSite!" Is this a place where any opinion (as long as it's positive) of Apple is allowed to be discussed? Even by a fan of the company, a shareholder? That's pretty sad, and even more sad that you are defending it out loud. You should at least have the shame to see how intellectually bankrupt that is and not want to admit it.



    Sure. People are allowed to discuss things. And when they present an inane, unsupportable viewpoint (like your comments above), they will be ridiculed.



    The only intellectual bankruptcy is from people like you who insist on commenting on things you don't understand.
  • Reply 75 of 80
    cameronjcameronj Posts: 2,357member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Sure. People are allowed to discuss things. And when they present an inane, unsupportable viewpoint (like your comments above), they will be ridiculed.



    The only intellectual bankruptcy is from people like you who insist on commenting on things you don't understand.



    Still waiting to hear about your incredible credentials, solicitor. Until then, you're just an internet tough guy.
  • Reply 76 of 80
    correctionscorrections Posts: 1,415member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post


    Nokia basically did the same thing and they won. No one knows for sure what they actually won, more than likely Apple came out ahead in that case... But it is extremely similar. I think Motorola is very desperate and is trying to force Apple into a settlement. With all these key multi-touch patents being granted, maybe they feel like Apple could sue them back to 2006 if they don't get themselves into a license agreement anyway possible.



    Nokia demanded but clearly didn't get a blanket license to Apple IP. Instead, they got a lump sum FRAND settlement covering Nokia's actual value of its SEP portfolio. Big difference.



    The only difference here is that Motorola still thinks it can get what Nokia and Samsung didn't. All its really going to get is DoJ/EU scrutiny, and transfer all that to Google, giving Android another black eye. Google is realizing that Motorola's patents are worth a WHOLE LOT LESS than the $12.5 billion it paid for them.



    And Google is clearly bummed that it is not going to be able to leverage Motorola's old pager era patents to simply extort away the iPhone patent portfolio so it can clone Apple's entire IP package and give it to the Chinese for efficient duplication.



    That strategy isn't working very well at all.
  • Reply 77 of 80
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,289member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Corrections View Post


    Nokia demanded but clearly didn't get a blanket license to Apple IP. Instead, they got a lump sum FRAND settlement covering Nokia's actual value of its SEP portfolio...



    AND a license to specific IP belonging to Apple including some patents for tech unique to the iPhone. Even Apple admitted to that. It just didn't include "the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique"
  • Reply 78 of 80
    macarenamacarena Posts: 364member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    AND a license to specific IP belonging to Apple including some patents for tech unique to the iPhone. Even Apple admitted to that. It just didn't include "the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique"



    At the time of the Nokia settlement, Nokia had already announced that they were going to become a Windows Phone shop. At that point, it was in Apple's interest to license IP to Nokia. If they did not use cross licensing to reduce their lump sum payments to Nokia, Apple would have likely faced a scenario where Nokia would have used all this technology ANYWAY - because they would have been shielded by Microsoft.



    And there is really no way on earth Apple would want to take on Microsoft in a patent lawsuit. MS has much more non-encumbered patents than Apple has, and the fight would soon become a major hole in both wallets, without achieving anything.



    This is quite evident from how the Nokia settlement likely gave a boost to Apple's earnings. It is more than likely that cross licensing this IP is what made the actual payments to Nokia less than what Apple was accruing.



    So please do not compare the Nokia situation with Motorola/Samsung. Motorola/Samsung will get a license to use Apple IP ONLY if they commit to becoming Windows only shops. And even then, they will get a license only because it then reduces Apple's FRAND licensing payments to them. Neither Google/Motorola nor Samsung have the leverage to force Apple to license its IP. Whatever FRAND leverage these companies have can at best be used to get some money from Apple - nothing more.



    Apple is way too strong financially, legally and in the marketplace to be bullied into doing things they don't want to do. Even in cases where Apple has lost in court (vs Motorola in Germany), it now looks like these losses could hurt Motorola more in anti-trust investigations, than hurt Apple in the market (because most of these judgements have anyway been suspended). iCloud push is possibly the only issue where Apple sees an impact in the market - but even that is relatively manageable, because there is a work around (yes - the fetch workaround is suboptimal, and degrades the user experience - but still it gets the job done for the most part).
  • Reply 79 of 80
    Good post Macarena.
  • Reply 80 of 80
    majjomajjo Posts: 574member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Why does Moto needs Apple's entire patent portfolio?



    I doubt they do. I've always viewed these demands in the light of ongoing negotiations. In that sense, there's probably some key patents that motorola really wants, but they don't want to tip apple off on what patents they consider important. Doing so could potientally weaken their position at the negotiating table.



    Though demanding ALL patents is pretty excessive and unrealistic.
Sign In or Register to comment.