Is $1.00 per device not the reasonable FRAND rate that Apple's competitors are being charged? Why would Apple agree to allow a judge to charge them whatever she felt like. That would be insane. Apple is required to pay no more than their competitors and that was the message Apple conveyed. Good on them for doing so.
<p> Is $1.00 per device not the reasonable FRAND rate that Apple's competitors are being charged? Why would Apple agree to allow a judge to charge them whatever she felt like. That would be insane. Apple is required to pay no more than their competitors and that was the message Apple conveyed. Good on them for doing so.</p>
I understand that Apple did not have anything to offer Moto to cross licence (correct if I am wrong). If that is the case, Apple should not expect the same rate their competitors, like HTC, Samsung or Nokia, were paying. Apple is being unreasonable here.
I understand that Apple did not have anything to offer Moto to cross licence (correct if I am wrong). If that is the case, Apple should not expect the same rate their competitors, like HTC, Samsung or Nokia, were paying. Apple is being unreasonable here.
So are Motorola using any of Apple's LTE patents?
Then there are Apple's H.264 patents licensed by MPEG-LA.
Samsung and Google's disregard for existing licences with chip makers and complete mockery of the standards process are the only things that are unreasonable.
Then there are Apple's H.264 patents licensed by MPEG-LA.
Samsung and Google's disregard for existing licences with chip makers and complete mockery of the standards process are the only things that are unreasonable.
"A federal judge on Monday tossed Apple's suit against Motorola, which claimed the Google-owned company was participating in unfair licensing practices regarding declared standards-essential patents"
Look! did Apple own any of those patents back in March 2011?
Then there are Apple's H.264 patents licensed by MPEG-LA.
Samsung and Google's disregard for existing licences with chip makers and complete mockery of the standards process are the only things that are unreasonable.
Most of Apple's LTE patents are from Nortel - and I'm pretty sure all the existing licensing agreements between Moto & Nortel are still binding.
If I understand correctly, Apple has only ONE SEP H.264 patent in the pool - most H.264 SEP patents are held by Microsoft, Sony, Samsung, LG, Motorola (6+%), and other real tech companies. I don't hear Apple whining about the H.264 royalty rates, so I'm guessing Samsung & Moto are being more than generous here.
It's Apple who initiated the lawsuit against Moto and asked the court to set a FRAND rate. Also note, Samsung had never demanded Apple to license their communication patents until Apple went berserk with their thermonuclear war.
Is $1.00 per device not the reasonable FRAND rate that Apple's competitors are being charged? Why would Apple agree to allow a judge to charge them whatever she felt like. That would be insane. Apple is required to pay no more than their competitors and that was the message Apple conveyed. Good on them for doing so.
Can you then explain why Apple asked the court to set a FRAND rate in the first place? Yes, precisely, that's why judge Crabb tossed the lawsuit.
Apple is required to pay what everyone else pays? why? because you said so? ROLF!!
...Apple states that it will not commit to be bound by any FRAND rate determined by the court and will not agree to accept any license from Motorola unless the court sets a rate of $1 or less for each Apple phone....
In other words, if Apple is unsatisfied with the rate chosen by the court, it “reserves the right to refuse and proceed to further infringement litigation.” ... Despite its position, Apple maintains that it is entitled to specific performance in the form of the court determining what a FRAND rate is for Motorola’s patents. At the final pretrial conference, I asked Apple to explain why it believed the court should determine a FRAND rate even though the rate may not resolve the parties’ licensing or infringement disputes. I questioned whether it was appropriate for a court to undertake the complex task of determining a FRAND rate if the end result would be simply a suggestion that could be used later as a bargaining chip between the parties. Apple responded that the rate would resolve the dispute in this particular case, namely, whether Motorola’s license offer was FRAND and if not, what the rate should have been.
Apple’s response was not satisfactory and did not assuage my concerns about determining a FRAND rate that may be used solely as a negotiating tool between the parties. After further consideration, I believe it would be inappropriate to grant Apple’s clarified request for specific performance.
As I explained at the final pretrial conference, courts are not in the best position to determine a FRAND rate for a portfolio consisting of hundreds of patents that would be used later in licensing negotiations between two highly sophisticated parties. Both parties in this case employ licensing experts whose job it is to negotiate these types of licenses and who are in a much better position than the court to determine a FRAND rate. Apple’s request that the court determine the FRAND rate places an enormous and possibly unjustifiable burden on the judiciary’s resources. In light of this reality, it would not be in the public interest for the court to spend such enormous resources to determine a FRAND rate that may ultimatelylead only to additional litigation and would set a troubling precedent for future cases involving FRAND commitments.
Apple basically said that they no desire to commit to the court's rate if it isn't what they want. So the judge said, hey, then why waste the court's time? FU Apple.
Wow. The old "detonate a bomb in your own underpants" legal strategy. Haven't seen that used in while.
"A federal judge on Monday tossed Apple's suit against Motorola, which claimed the Google-owned company was participating in unfair licensing practices regarding declared standards-essential patents"
Look! did Apple own any of those patents back in March 2011?
Did Apple pay license fees to Infineon and Qualcomm regarding these Motorola patents?
I guess we'll just have to wait for the appeal, oh yeah and the upcoming case in California where the patent exhaustion issues are to be addressed.
In other words, nothing much will happen before 2014.
It's Apple who initiated the lawsuit against Moto and asked the court to set a FRAND rate. Also note, Samsung had never demanded Apple to license their communication patents until Apple went berserk with their thermonuclear war.
Wrong.
Motorola initiated legal action against Apple, actions that Google has shown a keen interest in continuing despite the total disregard for upholding the standards setting process.
Google's use of Nortel's patents can be cancelled at any time, well if Apple stooped as low as Motorola showed themselves to be, by reneging on their license agreements with Infineon and Qualcomm.
Motorola initiated legal action against Apple, actions that Google has shown a keen interest in continuing despite the total disregard for upholding the standards setting process.
Google's use of Nortel's patents can be cancelled at any time, well if Apple stooped as low as Motorola showed themselves to be, by reneging on their license agreements with Infineon and Qualcomm.
Fortunately Apple has more respect for standards.
There are several lawsuits going on between Moto (Google) & Apple. Do you understand the difference between the plaintiff and the defendant?
Case No. 11-CV-178-bbc
Hon. Barbara B. Crabb
APPLE INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.
Defendant.
(hint: it's' almost always the plaintiffs who initiate lawsuits).
ROFL!! Of course, that must be why Apple is gaming the US patent system. Duh! Apple'd better have respect for standards - after all, Apple is a very successful marketing / product design company, but it has little or no technology of its own (I wasn't kidding about Apple contributing ONE measly patent in the H.264 pool). Apple's survival very much depends on copying and tweaking its competitors' technology.
The license fee was paid, it formed part of the cost Apple paid in buying the chips that use Motorola's patents.
That is called patent exhaustion, which is the subject of another case in California, Motorola's breach of contract.
Then there is the upcoming appeal based on Posner's ruling.
Also there are a number of antitrust cases pending, looking into the abuse of standards essential patents to restrict competition.
In this lawsuit, Apple's argument is not based on "patent exhaustion." Apple is not denying Moto's rights to collect patent royalties. What Apple is asking the court to do is to set a low licensing rate for Moto's FRAND patents.
I understand that Moto is being investigated by the FTC for possible anti-trust violation, but that's a completely different matter.
Because it's FRAND — and non-discriminatory means just what it says.
Oh yeah ROFL…Because when trolls appear here, that is what their arguments always amount to.
Non-discriminatory means Moto can't discriminate who can access their patents - and must be open to all willing to negotiate/pay. It says nothing about the rate at which Moto licenses their FRAND patents. Further, "fair" and "reasonable" don't mean that all customers enjoy the same low royalty rate.
Motorola initiated legal action against Apple, actions that Google has shown a keen interest in continuing despite the total disregard for upholding the standards setting process.
Right. Apple initiated this suit.
It was cancelled after Motorola agreed to a court stipulation that they would be bound by whatever rate the judge determined to be appropriate, but Apple would not. They of course took a different tack, telling the court it would not accept it's determination if it was for more than $1 per device. In effect, to hell with you if it's not in our favor, we ain't taking a license. Judge Crabb saw no sense in having the trial if Apple's intent really wasn't to settle the license issues once and for all, which it plainly wasn't in the judges view.
As your personally favored patent blogger put it Hill60:
"It (Apple) needs to address Judge Crabb's concerns at the legal level, but it also needs to avoid coming across as an arrogant litigant who is just trying to use the court system to its advantage, respecting only those decisions it totally agrees with."
Also this case would not have included hearing the patent exhaustion issue you mentioned with regard to Apple devices that use Qualcomm chipsets. Patent exhaustion will be addressed in a different Apple lawsuit set for late next year, potentially removing current Apple models like the 4S and iPhone5 from royalty claims. Older models would still have fallen under whatever royalty rate the court would have set.
Apple had a golden opportunity to take care of this in a fair, impartial and legally binding setting that Motorola had no choice but to accept even if the royalty was a penny a unit. Wasn't good enough for Apple. They only have themselves to blame for the dismissal.
It was cancelled after Motorola agreed to a court stipulation that they would be bound by whatever rate the judge determined to be appropriate. Apple of course took a different tack, telling the court it would not accept it's determination if it was for more than $1 per device. In effect, to hell with you if it's not in our favor, we ain't taking a license. Judge Crabb saw no sense in having the trial if Apple's intent really wasn't to settle the license issues once and for all, which it plainly wasn't in the judges view.
As your personally favored patent blogger put it Hill60:
"It (Apple) needs to address Judge Crabb's concerns at the legal level, but it also needs to avoid coming across as an arrogant litigant who is just trying to use the court system to its advantage, respecting only those decisions it totally agrees with."
Apple basically said that they no desire to commit to the court's rate if it isn't what they want. So the judge said, hey, then why waste the court's time? FU Apple.
Probably because they have no legal power to set a rate that isn't, you know, the same as the rate paid by anyone else licensing the patent. That's what FRAND means.
The court is supposed to be there to force Motorola to offer Apple the same rate, not to force Apple to pay whatever Motorola wants. The judge has forgotten the purpose of the job.
Comments
Is $1.00 per device not the reasonable FRAND rate that Apple's competitors are being charged? Why would Apple agree to allow a judge to charge them whatever she felt like. That would be insane. Apple is required to pay no more than their competitors and that was the message Apple conveyed. Good on them for doing so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko
She didn't have to be so crabby about it...
That's what comes of constantly taking sideways steps ;~)
I understand that Apple did not have anything to offer Moto to cross licence (correct if I am wrong). If that is the case, Apple should not expect the same rate their competitors, like HTC, Samsung or Nokia, were paying. Apple is being unreasonable here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb
I understand that Apple did not have anything to offer Moto to cross licence (correct if I am wrong). If that is the case, Apple should not expect the same rate their competitors, like HTC, Samsung or Nokia, were paying. Apple is being unreasonable here.
So are Motorola using any of Apple's LTE patents?
Then there are Apple's H.264 patents licensed by MPEG-LA.
Samsung and Google's disregard for existing licences with chip makers and complete mockery of the standards process are the only things that are unreasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So are Motorola using any of Apple's LTE patents?
Then there are Apple's H.264 patents licensed by MPEG-LA.
Samsung and Google's disregard for existing licences with chip makers and complete mockery of the standards process are the only things that are unreasonable.
"A federal judge on Monday tossed Apple's suit against Motorola, which claimed the Google-owned company was participating in unfair licensing practices regarding declared standards-essential patents"
Look! did Apple own any of those patents back in March 2011?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
So are Motorola using any of Apple's LTE patents?
Then there are Apple's H.264 patents licensed by MPEG-LA.
Samsung and Google's disregard for existing licences with chip makers and complete mockery of the standards process are the only things that are unreasonable.
Most of Apple's LTE patents are from Nortel - and I'm pretty sure all the existing licensing agreements between Moto & Nortel are still binding.
If I understand correctly, Apple has only ONE SEP H.264 patent in the pool - most H.264 SEP patents are held by Microsoft, Sony, Samsung, LG, Motorola (6+%), and other real tech companies. I don't hear Apple whining about the H.264 royalty rates, so I'm guessing Samsung & Moto are being more than generous here.
It's Apple who initiated the lawsuit against Moto and asked the court to set a FRAND rate. Also note, Samsung had never demanded Apple to license their communication patents until Apple went berserk with their thermonuclear war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluard
Is $1.00 per device not the reasonable FRAND rate that Apple's competitors are being charged? Why would Apple agree to allow a judge to charge them whatever she felt like. That would be insane. Apple is required to pay no more than their competitors and that was the message Apple conveyed. Good on them for doing so.
Can you then explain why Apple asked the court to set a FRAND rate in the first place? Yes, precisely, that's why judge Crabb tossed the lawsuit.
Apple is required to pay what everyone else pays? why? because you said so? ROLF!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012110322254380
From the judge's order:
Apple basically said that they no desire to commit to the court's rate if it isn't what they want. So the judge said, hey, then why waste the court's time? FU Apple.
Wow. The old "detonate a bomb in your own underpants" legal strategy. Haven't seen that used in while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb
"A federal judge on Monday tossed Apple's suit against Motorola, which claimed the Google-owned company was participating in unfair licensing practices regarding declared standards-essential patents"
Look! did Apple own any of those patents back in March 2011?
Did Apple pay license fees to Infineon and Qualcomm regarding these Motorola patents?
I guess we'll just have to wait for the appeal, oh yeah and the upcoming case in California where the patent exhaustion issues are to be addressed.
In other words, nothing much will happen before 2014.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
It's Apple who initiated the lawsuit against Moto and asked the court to set a FRAND rate. Also note, Samsung had never demanded Apple to license their communication patents until Apple went berserk with their thermonuclear war.
Wrong.
Motorola initiated legal action against Apple, actions that Google has shown a keen interest in continuing despite the total disregard for upholding the standards setting process.
Google's use of Nortel's patents can be cancelled at any time, well if Apple stooped as low as Motorola showed themselves to be, by reneging on their license agreements with Infineon and Qualcomm.
Fortunately Apple has more respect for standards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
Can you then explain why Apple asked the court to set a FRAND rate in the first place? Yes, precisely, that's why judge Crabb tossed the lawsuit.
Apple is required to pay what everyone else pays? why? because you said so? ROLF!!
No because the license agreements Motorola had in place with Infineon and Qualcomm said so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Wrong.
Motorola initiated legal action against Apple, actions that Google has shown a keen interest in continuing despite the total disregard for upholding the standards setting process.
Google's use of Nortel's patents can be cancelled at any time, well if Apple stooped as low as Motorola showed themselves to be, by reneging on their license agreements with Infineon and Qualcomm.
Fortunately Apple has more respect for standards.
There are several lawsuits going on between Moto (Google) & Apple. Do you understand the difference between the plaintiff and the defendant?
Case No. 11-CV-178-bbc
Hon. Barbara B. Crabb
APPLE INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC.
Defendant.
(hint: it's' almost always the plaintiffs who initiate lawsuits).
ROFL!! Of course, that must be why Apple is gaming the US patent system. Duh! Apple'd better have respect for standards - after all, Apple is a very successful marketing / product design company, but it has little or no technology of its own (I wasn't kidding about Apple contributing ONE measly patent in the H.264 pool). Apple's survival very much depends on copying and tweaking its competitors' technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
No because the license agreements Motorola had in place with Infineon and Qualcomm said so.
No, Infineon or Qualcomm can't dictate how much Motorola charges its own customers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
No, Infineon or Qualcomm can't dictate how much Motorola charges its own customers.
The license fee was paid, it formed part of the cost Apple paid in buying the chips that use Motorola's patents.
That is called patent exhaustion, which is the subject of another case in California, Motorola's breach of contract.
Then there is the upcoming appeal based on Posner's ruling.
Also there are a number of antitrust cases pending, looking into the abuse of standards essential patents to restrict competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
Apple is required to pay what everyone else pays? why? because you said so? ROLF!!
Because it's FRAND — and non-discriminatory means just what it says.
Oh yeah ROFL…Because when trolls appear here, that is what their arguments always amount to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
The license fee was paid, it formed part of the cost Apple paid in buying the chips that use Motorola's patents.
That is called patent exhaustion, which is the subject of another case in California, Motorola's breach of contract.
Then there is the upcoming appeal based on Posner's ruling.
Also there are a number of antitrust cases pending, looking into the abuse of standards essential patents to restrict competition.
In this lawsuit, Apple's argument is not based on "patent exhaustion." Apple is not denying Moto's rights to collect patent royalties. What Apple is asking the court to do is to set a low licensing rate for Moto's FRAND patents.
I understand that Moto is being investigated by the FTC for possible anti-trust violation, but that's a completely different matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluard
Because it's FRAND — and non-discriminatory means just what it says.
Oh yeah ROFL…Because when trolls appear here, that is what their arguments always amount to.
Non-discriminatory means Moto can't discriminate who can access their patents - and must be open to all willing to negotiate/pay. It says nothing about the rate at which Moto licenses their FRAND patents. Further, "fair" and "reasonable" don't mean that all customers enjoy the same low royalty rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Wrong.
Motorola initiated legal action against Apple, actions that Google has shown a keen interest in continuing despite the total disregard for upholding the standards setting process.
Right. Apple initiated this suit.
It was cancelled after Motorola agreed to a court stipulation that they would be bound by whatever rate the judge determined to be appropriate, but Apple would not. They of course took a different tack, telling the court it would not accept it's determination if it was for more than $1 per device. In effect, to hell with you if it's not in our favor, we ain't taking a license. Judge Crabb saw no sense in having the trial if Apple's intent really wasn't to settle the license issues once and for all, which it plainly wasn't in the judges view.
As your personally favored patent blogger put it Hill60:
"It (Apple) needs to address Judge Crabb's concerns at the legal level, but it also needs to avoid coming across as an arrogant litigant who is just trying to use the court system to its advantage, respecting only those decisions it totally agrees with."
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/11/next-weeks-apple-google-frand-trial-may.html
Also this case would not have included hearing the patent exhaustion issue you mentioned with regard to Apple devices that use Qualcomm chipsets. Patent exhaustion will be addressed in a different Apple lawsuit set for late next year, potentially removing current Apple models like the 4S and iPhone5 from royalty claims. Older models would still have fallen under whatever royalty rate the court would have set.
Apple had a golden opportunity to take care of this in a fair, impartial and legally binding setting that Motorola had no choice but to accept even if the royalty was a penny a unit. Wasn't good enough for Apple. They only have themselves to blame for the dismissal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Right. Apple initiated this suit.
It was cancelled after Motorola agreed to a court stipulation that they would be bound by whatever rate the judge determined to be appropriate. Apple of course took a different tack, telling the court it would not accept it's determination if it was for more than $1 per device. In effect, to hell with you if it's not in our favor, we ain't taking a license. Judge Crabb saw no sense in having the trial if Apple's intent really wasn't to settle the license issues once and for all, which it plainly wasn't in the judges view.
As your personally favored patent blogger put it Hill60:
"It (Apple) needs to address Judge Crabb's concerns at the legal level, but it also needs to avoid coming across as an arrogant litigant who is just trying to use the court system to its advantage, respecting only those decisions it totally agrees with."
http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/11/next-weeks-apple-google-frand-trial-may.html
This was a defensive move on Apple's part seeing as ho Motorola sued them first.
Originally Posted by tooltalk
Apple basically said that they no desire to commit to the court's rate if it isn't what they want. So the judge said, hey, then why waste the court's time? FU Apple.
Probably because they have no legal power to set a rate that isn't, you know, the same as the rate paid by anyone else licensing the patent. That's what FRAND means.
The court is supposed to be there to force Motorola to offer Apple the same rate, not to force Apple to pay whatever Motorola wants. The judge has forgotten the purpose of the job.