Incorrect. I've listed proof otherwise numerous times that royalties based on the price of a finished ready-to-sell device is both common and considered fair by other industry players... even Qualcomm. You may have the mistaken belief that it's highly unusual, or worse Apple is being singled out, if you depend only on FOSSPatents or AI articles.
IMHO a percentage of the total product price is ludicrous and makes no sense what so ever.
There is nothing preventing companies from cross-licensing on bilateral basis. It just means that it will be a bit more cumbersome to work out licensing & some patents won't be available to much wider audience, like Apple.
Yeah, that seems likely...
Apple isn't some small company that can be ignored.
Also, what you're describing is basically a patent pool, which is REGULATED by different organizations.
What Moto/Google is trying to do is a scam. I would argue that if they're trying to collect from Apple, after already collecting from Qualcomm, then they might as well ask the judge to rule that every consumer using an iPhone should have to pay too. Why stop at triple dipping - make every retailer, distributor, etc pay too. It's only fair right?
No, that's still not confirmed numbers as to what people are actually paying. You've presented speculation and published terms, which are not necessarily reflective of the actual terms that are agreed upon.
Think about it logically: if, as people have used as an example, Ford purchased a Qualcomm chipset for use in the Focus, would they pay 2.25% of the RETAIL price of the car? If you think so, I'm going to laugh.
Logic says that since the iPhone has been out since 2007 and Apple currently has a good relationship with Qualcomm, they are likely paying Qualcomm money. Since Qualcomm uses tech from Motorola, etc. Qualcomm is paying Moto (as evidenced by Moto's request to terminate their license to sell to Apple). Thus, Apple is maybe paying a total of a couple percentage points of their retail price, but no more than that, given their gross margins.
I don't dispute that companies can reduce their out-of-pocket royalty payments by making concessions and trades during negotiations. Moto's standard SEP patent royalties are set at 2.25% of the finished device price and have been for years. That's not in dispute even by Florian Mueller. Qualcomm wants to start at 3.5% of a finshed consumer device (not a chipset). But that's also a starting position for negotiations.
The most common way to reduce those fees would be non-monetary, agreeing to cross-license their own IP. That's the way it works. Apple doesn't want to cross-license unless backed into a corner (Nokia for instance) . Why should they pay the likely-reduced rate that a company trading IP would get? Does that sound either fair or reasonable, even forgetting about non-discriminatory?
You've probably not ever read the actual Nokia complaint regarding Apple's supposed refusal to negotiate a license for Nokia (F)RAND-pledged IP. You should give it a go if you have any desire to understand the claims made in a similar IP suit over SEP's. Pay attention to details like cross-license requirements, and note that Apple did eventually settle with Nokia and even agree to Nokia demands for cross-licensing as a condition of receiving a license under (F)RAND terms.
If you don't want to understand due to inconvenient facts that's fine, but I've given you links if you wish to use them.
...and here, page 116, that lists the stated handset (not chipset) royalty rates for each contributing member as declared to ETSI, the body responsible for those standards.
I don't dispute that companies can reduce their out-of-pocket royalty payments by making concessions during negotiations. The most common would be non-monetary, agreeing to cross-license their own IP. That's the way it works, and is even stated in ETSI standards rules. Apple doesn't want to cross-license under backed into a corner (Nokia for instance) . Why should they pay the likely-reduced rate that a company trading IP would get? Does that sound either fair or reasonable, even forgetting about non-discriminatory.
You've probably not ever read the actual Nokia complaint regarding Apple's supposed refusal to negotiate a license for Nokia (F)RAND-pledged IP. You should give it a read, noting that Apple did eventually settle with Nokia, and did agree to Nokia demands for cross-licensing as a condition of receiving a SEP license. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/102209nokiapplecomplaint.pdf
Not my point. I'm saying irrespective of how a rate is paid (monetary or non-monetary), you are not privy to the actual rates agreed upon, as these often happen behind closed doors or in an undisclosed settlement, i.e. Nokia and Apple.
So other than speculation and some published documents detailing Qualcomm's asking price (which still isn't clear if that rate covers the licenses Qualcomm receives from Moto, or of Moto can double dip), you have no evidence of what is fair or reasonable.
Stop trying to act like you know any more than what other people are posting. None of us have all the facts. In the absence of facts, opinions have free reign, and most people here are of the opinion that if everybody who holds an SEP can "fairly" charge 2.25% of the final device price, no one would be making phones. Logic says there is something else going on.
Originally Posted by PendergastIn the absence of facts, opinions have free reign, and most people here are of the opinion that if everybody who holds an SEP can "fairly" charge 2.25% of the final device price, no one would be making phones. Logic says there is something else going on.
Do you know how many SEPs there are? And not every company has patents to be cross-licensed.
Further, Apply buys off-the-shelf radio parts for the most part, don't they? Don't these already include licenses? This is what I'm implying, that there is more to the story, likely that Moto was trying to double dip as a strategic move to harm a competitor (or rather not technically double dip as that would be patent exhaustion, but rescind the initial license to Qualcomm, forcing Apple to pay).
Not my point. I'm saying irrespective of how a rate is paid (monetary or non-monetary), you are not privy to the actual rates agreed upon, as these often happen behind closed doors or in an undisclosed settlement, i.e. Nokia and Apple.
So other than speculation and some published documents detailing Qualcomm's asking price (which still isn't clear if that rate covers the licenses Qualcomm receives from Moto, or of Moto can double dip), you have no evidence of what is fair or reasonable.
Stop trying to act like you know any more than what other people are posting. None of us have all the facts. In the absence of facts, opinions have free reign, and most people here are of the opinion that if everybody who holds an SEP can "fairly" charge 2.25% of the final device price, no one would be making phones. Logic says there is something else going on.
...and I gave you facts. Lots of 'em. Here"s another from Qualcomm claiming Nokia had been paying them 3%+ of handset prices for Qualcomm's CDMA SEP's. It's not speculation if it's stated by the licensor themselves is it? Who else would know better?
I'm not responsible if you don't like the facts. Perhaps you do know just as much about it as I do and just haven't had an opportunity to show it, linking your sources and listing your citations. I'll wait for your explanation of what that "something else must be going on" is. I already told you what I think it is. Think occam's razor. . .
As a licensee I probably wouldn't think it was reasonable. As a licensor who created the tech that allowed you to create the premium and highly profitable device and wants to share in the wealth, I might think it fair.
Apple thinks their IP is pretty valuable too, but is it fair for the royalties on an entry-level smartphone to be proportionately and significantly higher that those on a premium model? Both sides can be argued.
If those sets of 2.25% were 45x and 16x greater than what they usually charge people, then they usually charge as follows (when compared to the full retail price)
45x greater: .05%
16x greater: .140625%
I've lost you. Could you point to the section that says Moto doesn't usually ask for 2.25% of a finished device price? I'm aware that Moto made a concession to Microsoft in consideration of the way the IP was being used. That would make it unusual rather than the norm, correct?
Companies who invest in real R&D will hog their patents after these decision.
Watch as technological progress will take a hit of never meeting its full potential.
"Come on dude, lets share your patent with us so we can standardize this technology?"
"Sorry, I'm keeping it to myself. If anybody tries to use it, I'm gonna sue your ass".
Result?
Technology standardization never materializes and hinders progress.
No, I don't think that is what will happen.
If a company refuses to share their patent for the purposes of making a standard, the standards body will simply not use that technology/method and choose something else.
The company refusing to share will manage to gain higher royalties in the short term, but the volume will be much lower because other companies will be incentivised to innovate their way around the expensive technology. Or, other companies will simply not adopt their proprietary technology because it is not part of the standard.
I think it equally possible that this situation could foster greater innovation.
...and I gave you facts. Lots of 'em. Here"s another from Qualcomm claiming Nokia had been paying them 3%+ of handset prices for Qualcomm's CDMA SEP's. It's not speculation if it's stated by the licensor themselves is it? Who else would know better? http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/56757.html
I'm not responsible if you don't like the facts. Perhaps you do know just as much about it as I do and just haven't had an opportunity to show it, linking your sources and listing your citations. I'll wait for your explanation of what that "something else must be going on" is. I already told you what I think it is. Think occam's razor. . .
You're bringing up Qualcomm, who Apple buys chipsets from. I've said that it may well be that, since Qualcomm is not suing Apple, Applw is paying Qualcomm their fee and such license covers the relevant IP that Qualcomm licenses from Moto, etc. In the Moto case, Qualcomm alleged that Moto informed them they were terminating their license with respect to Apple. Clearly, that was a tactical decision that may not be legal.
Moto attempting to double dip (or discriminate against Applw by rescinding Qualcomm's ability to license the tech to Apple) is what I think may be going on.
Frankly, this was never really in question. I was amazed it even went to court. The summary judgement pretty much confirms this.
I suppose Apple has just been getting their ducks lined up in a row. I think we'll see a number of suits move along very quickly now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
A federal judge's ruling in Apple v. Motorola Mobility has strengthened the case that parties who provide patents to standards bodies must uphold their commitments to offer licensing under "Fair, Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory" terms.
It is not reasonable if you sell premium products. Their should be a cap. Also it may not be non-discriminatory if they are not charging the same for every other use of the FRAND patents. Also it may not be fair if they are part of a larger technology (3G) because if every FRAND patent licensee asks the same amount it may be more than the total cost of the actual device.
Simply put him on your block lists and move forward.
and I'm posing as. . .?
And geesh, by you blocking me it only leaves a couple hundred thousand eyeballs potentially reading my posts each day with no worries that you might challenge anything I say, thus helping validate my opinions and statements.
Comments
IMHO a percentage of the total product price is ludicrous and makes no sense what so ever.
Yeah, that seems likely...
Apple isn't some small company that can be ignored.
Also, what you're describing is basically a patent pool, which is REGULATED by different organizations.
What Moto/Google is trying to do is a scam. I would argue that if they're trying to collect from Apple, after already collecting from Qualcomm, then they might as well ask the judge to rule that every consumer using an iPhone should have to pay too. Why stop at triple dipping - make every retailer, distributor, etc pay too. It's only fair right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
No, that's still not confirmed numbers as to what people are actually paying. You've presented speculation and published terms, which are not necessarily reflective of the actual terms that are agreed upon.
Think about it logically: if, as people have used as an example, Ford purchased a Qualcomm chipset for use in the Focus, would they pay 2.25% of the RETAIL price of the car? If you think so, I'm going to laugh.
Logic says that since the iPhone has been out since 2007 and Apple currently has a good relationship with Qualcomm, they are likely paying Qualcomm money. Since Qualcomm uses tech from Motorola, etc. Qualcomm is paying Moto (as evidenced by Moto's request to terminate their license to sell to Apple). Thus, Apple is maybe paying a total of a couple percentage points of their retail price, but no more than that, given their gross margins.
I don't dispute that companies can reduce their out-of-pocket royalty payments by making concessions and trades during negotiations. Moto's standard SEP patent royalties are set at 2.25% of the finished device price and have been for years. That's not in dispute even by Florian Mueller. Qualcomm wants to start at 3.5% of a finshed consumer device (not a chipset). But that's also a starting position for negotiations.
The most common way to reduce those fees would be non-monetary, agreeing to cross-license their own IP. That's the way it works. Apple doesn't want to cross-license unless backed into a corner (Nokia for instance) . Why should they pay the likely-reduced rate that a company trading IP would get? Does that sound either fair or reasonable, even forgetting about non-discriminatory?
You've probably not ever read the actual Nokia complaint regarding Apple's supposed refusal to negotiate a license for Nokia (F)RAND-pledged IP. You should give it a go if you have any desire to understand the claims made in a similar IP suit over SEP's. Pay attention to details like cross-license requirements, and note that Apple did eventually settle with Nokia and even agree to Nokia demands for cross-licensing as a condition of receiving a license under (F)RAND terms.
If you don't want to understand due to inconvenient facts that's fine, but I've given you links if you wish to use them.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/102209nokiapplecomplaint.pdf
Nokia's press-release from Feb/2010 regarding their standard SEP royalty rates
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47158809
...and here, page 116, that lists the stated handset (not chipset) royalty rates for each contributing member as declared to ETSI, the body responsible for those standards.
http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/82827/files/LESI-Royalty-Rates.pdf
Not my point. I'm saying irrespective of how a rate is paid (monetary or non-monetary), you are not privy to the actual rates agreed upon, as these often happen behind closed doors or in an undisclosed settlement, i.e. Nokia and Apple.
So other than speculation and some published documents detailing Qualcomm's asking price (which still isn't clear if that rate covers the licenses Qualcomm receives from Moto, or of Moto can double dip), you have no evidence of what is fair or reasonable.
Stop trying to act like you know any more than what other people are posting. None of us have all the facts. In the absence of facts, opinions have free reign, and most people here are of the opinion that if everybody who holds an SEP can "fairly" charge 2.25% of the final device price, no one would be making phones. Logic says there is something else going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
...(cough) cross-licensing. . .
Do you know how many SEPs there are? And not every company has patents to be cross-licensed.
Further, Apply buys off-the-shelf radio parts for the most part, don't they? Don't these already include licenses? This is what I'm implying, that there is more to the story, likely that Moto was trying to double dip as a strategic move to harm a competitor (or rather not technically double dip as that would be patent exhaustion, but rescind the initial license to Qualcomm, forcing Apple to pay).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast
Not my point. I'm saying irrespective of how a rate is paid (monetary or non-monetary), you are not privy to the actual rates agreed upon, as these often happen behind closed doors or in an undisclosed settlement, i.e. Nokia and Apple.
So other than speculation and some published documents detailing Qualcomm's asking price (which still isn't clear if that rate covers the licenses Qualcomm receives from Moto, or of Moto can double dip), you have no evidence of what is fair or reasonable.
Stop trying to act like you know any more than what other people are posting. None of us have all the facts. In the absence of facts, opinions have free reign, and most people here are of the opinion that if everybody who holds an SEP can "fairly" charge 2.25% of the final device price, no one would be making phones. Logic says there is something else going on.
...and I gave you facts. Lots of 'em. Here"s another from Qualcomm claiming Nokia had been paying them 3%+ of handset prices for Qualcomm's CDMA SEP's. It's not speculation if it's stated by the licensor themselves is it? Who else would know better?
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/56757.html
I'm not responsible if you don't like the facts. Perhaps you do know just as much about it as I do and just haven't had an opportunity to show it, linking your sources and listing your citations. I'll wait for your explanation of what that "something else must be going on" is. I already told you what I think it is. Think occam's razor. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98
Just wonder, where it is written that 2.25% is NOT reasonable?
What is the definition of a "reasonable royalty"?
How is it reasonable to charge a percentage in the first place.
Say that the patents relate to 3G.
Just curious, does a 64GB iPad+3G use more "3G" than an iPhone 3GS?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Companies who invest in real R&D will hog their patents after these decision.
Watch as technological progress will take a hit of never meeting its full potential.
"Come on dude, lets share your patent with us so we can standardize this technology?"
"Sorry, I'm keeping it to myself. If anybody tries to use it, I'm gonna sue your ass".
Result?
Technology standardization never materializes and hinders progress.
Under your scenario wouldn't it actually push technological innovation as entrepreneurs would be forced to find workarounds?
After all, necessity is the mother of all invention.
As a licensee I probably wouldn't think it was reasonable. As a licensor who created the tech that allowed you to create the premium and highly profitable device and wants to share in the wealth, I might think it fair.
Apple thinks their IP is pretty valuable too, but is it fair for the royalties on an entry-level smartphone to be proportionately and significantly higher that those on a premium model? Both sides can be argued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98
Just wonder, where it is written that 2.25% is NOT reasonable?
What is the definition of a "reasonable royalty"?
It may not be the "reasonable" but the "non-discriminatory" that is at issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel
Top of page 7. It's from the MS vs Motorola lawsuit over 802.11 and H.264. http://www.scribd.com/doc/94512159/ITC-Xbox-ruling
If those sets of 2.25% were 45x and 16x greater than what they usually charge people, then they usually charge as follows (when compared to the full retail price)
45x greater: .05%
16x greater: .140625%
I've lost you. Could you point to the section that says Moto doesn't usually ask for 2.25% of a finished device price? I'm aware that Moto made a concession to Microsoft in consideration of the way the IP was being used. That would make it unusual rather than the norm, correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
Companies who invest in real R&D will hog their patents after these decision.
Watch as technological progress will take a hit of never meeting its full potential.
"Come on dude, lets share your patent with us so we can standardize this technology?"
"Sorry, I'm keeping it to myself. If anybody tries to use it, I'm gonna sue your ass".
Result?
Technology standardization never materializes and hinders progress.
No, I don't think that is what will happen.
If a company refuses to share their patent for the purposes of making a standard, the standards body will simply not use that technology/method and choose something else.
The company refusing to share will manage to gain higher royalties in the short term, but the volume will be much lower because other companies will be incentivised to innovate their way around the expensive technology. Or, other companies will simply not adopt their proprietary technology because it is not part of the standard.
I think it equally possible that this situation could foster greater innovation.
This is a very good development and, over time, this abuse will disappear.
You're bringing up Qualcomm, who Apple buys chipsets from. I've said that it may well be that, since Qualcomm is not suing Apple, Applw is paying Qualcomm their fee and such license covers the relevant IP that Qualcomm licenses from Moto, etc. In the Moto case, Qualcomm alleged that Moto informed them they were terminating their license with respect to Apple. Clearly, that was a tactical decision that may not be legal.
Moto attempting to double dip (or discriminate against Applw by rescinding Qualcomm's ability to license the tech to Apple) is what I think may be going on.
Frankly, this was never really in question. I was amazed it even went to court. The summary judgement pretty much confirms this.
I suppose Apple has just been getting their ducks lined up in a row. I think we'll see a number of suits move along very quickly now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
A federal judge's ruling in Apple v. Motorola Mobility has strengthened the case that parties who provide patents to standards bodies must uphold their commitments to offer licensing under "Fair, Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory" terms.
Oh and BTW, Gatorguy is clearly just a poseur.
Simply put him on your block lists and move forward.
It is not reasonable if you sell premium products. Their should be a cap. Also it may not be non-discriminatory if they are not charging the same for every other use of the FRAND patents. Also it may not be fair if they are part of a larger technology (3G) because if every FRAND patent licensee asks the same amount it may be more than the total cost of the actual device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN
Oh and BTW, Gatorguy is clearly just a poseur.
Simply put him on your block lists and move forward.
and I'm posing as. . .?
And geesh, by you blocking me it only leaves a couple hundred thousand eyeballs potentially reading my posts each day with no worries that you might challenge anything I say, thus helping validate my opinions and statements.
Good plan.