Seems odd that Motorola can sue over a Wi-fi patents since Apple does not make its own Wi-fi chips as far as I know. They purchase chips from companies like Broadcom that Apple then integrates into their devices. These chips are similar to wi-fi chips used in other manufacturers devices.
To create and sell these chips companies like Broadcom would be required to pay the license fees (and pass the cost on to its customers). Many of these companies may also hold patents related to Wi-fi that also fall into the FRAND category - essential to the standard so the patent owners have agreed to include them in the standard for everyone to use in return for licensing fees. Holders of essential patents to standards will often form cross-licensibng agreements to counter each others contributions. So Broadcom might make a deal with Motorola allowing the use of their patents in return for Motorola letting Broadcom using theirs. It would seem like some fees or deal would have been made before the chips were
But unless Apple is designing and building its own wi-fi chips it seems likely that licensing was already covered by the makers of the wi-fi chips that Apple does use, just like every other company that uses those chips. So Motorola seems to be asking to get paid twice. But then Motorola does not want to negotiate according to Apple's filings.
Bottom line - if Motorola did win this case, every other wi-fi device not made by Motorola could also be banned from the market.
Seems odd that Motorola can sue over a Wi-fi patents since Apple does not make its own Wi-fi chips as far as I know. They purchase chips from companies like Broadcom that Apple then integrates into their devices. These chips are similar to wi-fi chips used in other manufacturers devices.
To create and sell these chips companies like Broadcom would be required to pay the license fees (and pass the cost on to its customers). Many of these companies may also hold patents related to Wi-fi that also fall into the FRAND category - essential to the standard so the patent owners have agreed to include them in the standard for everyone to use in return for licensing fees. Holders of essential patents to standards will often form cross-licensibng agreements to counter each others contributions. So Broadcom might make a deal with Motorola allowing the use of their patents in return for Motorola letting Broadcom using theirs. It would seem like some fees or deal would have been made before the chips were
...
Bottom line - if Motorola did win this case, every other wi-fi device not made by Motorola could also be banned from the market.
I don't think what's in question is the chip itself, but how the chip is implemented. It's very possible Apple implements their WiFi chips in a way that infringes on this patent, and another manufacturer does not. I'm no expert in electrical engineering, and this patent seems to be describing a very low-level access to the chip, so I suppose this type of method could be build directly onto the chip hardware, but it could be a function of manufacturer implementation, which I infer to be the case here, because the paten suit is ongoing.
Seems odd that Motorola can sue over a Wi-fi patents since Apple does not make its own Wi-fi chips as far as I know. They purchase chips from companies like Broadcom that Apple then integrates into their devices. These chips are similar to wi-fi chips used in other manufacturers devices.
To create and sell these chips companies like Broadcom would be required to pay the license fees (and pass the cost on to its customers). Many of these companies may also hold patents related to Wi-fi that also fall into the FRAND category - essential to the standard so the patent owners have agreed to include them in the standard for everyone to use in return for licensing fees. Holders of essential patents to standards will often form cross-licensibng agreements to counter each others contributions. So Broadcom might make a deal with Motorola allowing the use of their patents in return for Motorola letting Broadcom using theirs. It would seem like some fees or deal would have been made before the chips were
But unless Apple is designing and building its own wi-fi chips it seems likely that licensing was already covered by the makers of the wi-fi chips that Apple does use, just like every other company that uses those chips. So Motorola seems to be asking to get paid twice. But then Motorola does not want to negotiate according to Apple's filings.
Bottom line - if Motorola did win this case, every other wi-fi device not made by Motorola could also be banned from the market.
It's not that unlike some of the patents that Microsoft is bringing claims against Moto for. Apple also appears to infringe on some of the same ones (some may even be essential), but that doesn't require that MS sue them. Selective enforcement of your IP isn't uncommon.
Apple's all out 'thermonuclear' litigation strategy is really starting to bear fruit and if Apple doesn't win another stalemate here, it's really time for Mr. Sewell to walk the long plank.
That's why you don't want judges making the decisions about that sort of thing. Because the next case comes up to another judge and you get a totally different outcome. Lack of predictability in the justice system is a very bad thing.
You are joking right? That is how the entire legal system works. You have appellate courts to settle discrepancies in the district courts and the Supreme court to settle differences among the circuit courts.
You are joking right? That is how the entire legal system works. You have appellate courts to settle discrepancies in the district courts and the Supreme court to settle differences among the circuit courts.
Yeah, GWlaw, I'm serious. In case you haven't noticed the legal system isn't working so well recently when it comes to IP. Consider the possibility that you might have a vested interest, as someone who likely gets paid more the more the legal system is bogged down and the more lawyers are needed to decide who can do what. Eh?
I don't see any reason Apple wouldn't cross-license with Motorola just as they did with Nokia. Both cases involved FRAND-pledged IP, and both had threats of injunctions hanging over them. Apple and Moto, and Moto/MS are just jockeying for position now. I think the courts are catching on to that too.
But MotoMo wants to get their hands on Apple's family jewels of patents: Those that make iDevices operate so "Applee."
Comments
In my best Admiral Stockdale voice:
This sure makes copyleft look like a smart idea.
Right... Apple should unilaterally disarm.
Seems odd that Motorola can sue over a Wi-fi patents since Apple does not make its own Wi-fi chips as far as I know. They purchase chips from companies like Broadcom that Apple then integrates into their devices. These chips are similar to wi-fi chips used in other manufacturers devices.
To create and sell these chips companies like Broadcom would be required to pay the license fees (and pass the cost on to its customers). Many of these companies may also hold patents related to Wi-fi that also fall into the FRAND category - essential to the standard so the patent owners have agreed to include them in the standard for everyone to use in return for licensing fees. Holders of essential patents to standards will often form cross-licensibng agreements to counter each others contributions. So Broadcom might make a deal with Motorola allowing the use of their patents in return for Motorola letting Broadcom using theirs. It would seem like some fees or deal would have been made before the chips were
But unless Apple is designing and building its own wi-fi chips it seems likely that licensing was already covered by the makers of the wi-fi chips that Apple does use, just like every other company that uses those chips. So Motorola seems to be asking to get paid twice. But then Motorola does not want to negotiate according to Apple's filings.
Bottom line - if Motorola did win this case, every other wi-fi device not made by Motorola could also be banned from the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msimpson
Bottom line - if Motorola did win this case, every other wi-fi device not made by Motorola could also be banned from the market.
Even-more-bottom line: lull in Apple news/rumors between WWDC and the Mountain Lion release, gotta post *something*.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msimpson
Seems odd that Motorola can sue over a Wi-fi patents since Apple does not make its own Wi-fi chips as far as I know. They purchase chips from companies like Broadcom that Apple then integrates into their devices. These chips are similar to wi-fi chips used in other manufacturers devices.
To create and sell these chips companies like Broadcom would be required to pay the license fees (and pass the cost on to its customers). Many of these companies may also hold patents related to Wi-fi that also fall into the FRAND category - essential to the standard so the patent owners have agreed to include them in the standard for everyone to use in return for licensing fees. Holders of essential patents to standards will often form cross-licensibng agreements to counter each others contributions. So Broadcom might make a deal with Motorola allowing the use of their patents in return for Motorola letting Broadcom using theirs. It would seem like some fees or deal would have been made before the chips were
...
Bottom line - if Motorola did win this case, every other wi-fi device not made by Motorola could also be banned from the market.
I don't think what's in question is the chip itself, but how the chip is implemented. It's very possible Apple implements their WiFi chips in a way that infringes on this patent, and another manufacturer does not. I'm no expert in electrical engineering, and this patent seems to be describing a very low-level access to the chip, so I suppose this type of method could be build directly onto the chip hardware, but it could be a function of manufacturer implementation, which I infer to be the case here, because the paten suit is ongoing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msimpson
Seems odd that Motorola can sue over a Wi-fi patents since Apple does not make its own Wi-fi chips as far as I know. They purchase chips from companies like Broadcom that Apple then integrates into their devices. These chips are similar to wi-fi chips used in other manufacturers devices.
To create and sell these chips companies like Broadcom would be required to pay the license fees (and pass the cost on to its customers). Many of these companies may also hold patents related to Wi-fi that also fall into the FRAND category - essential to the standard so the patent owners have agreed to include them in the standard for everyone to use in return for licensing fees. Holders of essential patents to standards will often form cross-licensibng agreements to counter each others contributions. So Broadcom might make a deal with Motorola allowing the use of their patents in return for Motorola letting Broadcom using theirs. It would seem like some fees or deal would have been made before the chips were
But unless Apple is designing and building its own wi-fi chips it seems likely that licensing was already covered by the makers of the wi-fi chips that Apple does use, just like every other company that uses those chips. So Motorola seems to be asking to get paid twice. But then Motorola does not want to negotiate according to Apple's filings.
Bottom line - if Motorola did win this case, every other wi-fi device not made by Motorola could also be banned from the market.
It's not that unlike some of the patents that Microsoft is bringing claims against Moto for. Apple also appears to infringe on some of the same ones (some may even be essential), but that doesn't require that MS sue them. Selective enforcement of your IP isn't uncommon.
http://www.dailytech.com/Of+Lawsuits+and+Licensing+The+Full+Microsoft+v+Android+Story/article23088.htm
[URL=http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/169334/width/348/height/303][IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/image/id/169334/width/348/height/303[/IMG][/URL]
Speaking of banned....
You are joking right? That is how the entire legal system works. You have appellate courts to settle discrepancies in the district courts and the Supreme court to settle differences among the circuit courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
That's right, sucker.
You just take a big ol' juicy bite...
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwlaw99
You are joking right? That is how the entire legal system works. You have appellate courts to settle discrepancies in the district courts and the Supreme court to settle differences among the circuit courts.
Yeah, GWlaw, I'm serious. In case you haven't noticed the legal system isn't working so well recently when it comes to IP. Consider the possibility that you might have a vested interest, as someone who likely gets paid more the more the legal system is bogged down and the more lawyers are needed to decide who can do what. Eh?
Another demonstration of hypocrisy, brought to you by Google.
Perhaps a short import ban will teach Apple to stop protecting its intellectual property rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab
What professional basis is your claim made under?
When it comes to their own products, Apple's always got their legal ducks in a row . . . . "GalaxyTab" LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
When it comes to their own products, Apple's always got their legal ducks in a row . . . . "GalaxyTab" LOL
Now, Quadra 610, don't you sell him short... ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I don't see any reason Apple wouldn't cross-license with Motorola just as they did with Nokia. Both cases involved FRAND-pledged IP, and both had threats of injunctions hanging over them. Apple and Moto, and Moto/MS are just jockeying for position now. I think the courts are catching on to that too.
But MotoMo wants to get their hands on Apple's family jewels of patents: Those that make iDevices operate so "Applee."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
But MotoMo wants to get their hands on Apple's family jewels of patents: Those that make iDevices operate so "Applee."
And what are those patents?
Too early, first coffe, then comment
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
That's right, sucker.
You just take a big ol' juicy bite...
Ooooo! Can I play?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalaxyTab
What professional basis is your claim made under?
None I imagine