Apple in all probablity does know what several others are paying, and it's not the $1 they're offering or they would have committed to accept the court's determination IMO. They went thru a similar exercise with Nokia, and also hold several SEP's of their own that require licensing. They'd certainly be considered industry insiders.
But the issue you raised is absolutely valid with respect to us common folk. In the related Moto-Microsoft FRAND case both parties have filed motions to keep their contracts and terms secret. IBM and Nokia, both of whom were obligated to give that court documentation of their SEP contracts, also petitioned the court to keep them secret. It's not as tho the players don't know the basic terms. It's that they don't want anyone who's not already an insider, licensee or licensor to know the terms. Apple is in both the licensee and licensor group. They know.
Except they settled with Nokia for a cross licensing deal.
Also, why is that Apple simply says they would reserve the right to appeal if they felt the court determined royalty was too high and they sets the judge off, while at the same time if the rate was too low Motorola would obviously also appeal. Appeals are a basic, so why would acknowledging this upset the judge so much?
Except they settled with Nokia for a cross licensing deal.
Also, why is that Apple simply says they would reserve the right to appeal if they felt the court determined royalty was too high and they sets the judge off, while at the same time if the rate was too low Motorola would obviously also appeal. Appeals are a basic, so why would acknowledging this upset the judge so much?
It's not as simple as that. Motorola told the court they would commit to accepting whatever royalty the judge determined to be fair and reasonable. No qualifications. Apple on the other hand told the court they would not accept the judge's decree, would not license the patent package, and would make it as difficult and drawn out as possible if the finding was for more than $1 a unit.
Apple's arrogant posture as FOSSPatents put it and announced disregard for the court's findings if it wasn't totally in their favor led to Judge Crabb realizing Apple's intent was not to let the law determine a "FRAND" friendly royalty and abide by it. Instead the apparent intent was to use whatever the court could offer in their favor to disadvantage Motorola in negotiations outside of any court setting, pressuring them to accept Apple's offer or nothing at all.
In the end the court felt it was being used a a "bargaining chip" (their words) by Apple. Discovering and ruling on a royalty fair to both parties and in keeping with the spirit of Moto's FRAND pledges wasn't what they were after. Apple just wants what it wants, FRAND complaints is just a tool to help get there IMHO.
Not true. Several standards bodies make specific reference to cross-licensing as a condition. ETSI, the standards body under which Motorola pledges this particular IP package, is one of those who mentions "reciprocity" (cross-licensing) as a condition of SEP licensing.
Nokia (as they did with Apple's license negotiations) and Microsoft too require it at least in some and maybe all cases, and they're far from the "Android crowd".
You cherry pick again. That is a cross license of a contributed SEP patent to the same standard. Not cross license of ANY patent.
It is the Android crowd that is doing so in direct violation of the standards body terms. You have an interesting alternate reality going there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Not true. Several standards bodies make specific reference to cross-licensing as a condition. ETSI, the standards body under which Motorola pledges this particular IP package, is one of those who mentions "reciprocity" (cross-licensing) as a condition of SEP licensing.
Nokia (as they did with Apple's license negotiations) and Microsoft too require it at least in some and maybe all cases, and they're far from the "Android crowd".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
You cherry pick again. That is a cross license of a contributed SEP patent to the same standard. Not cross license of ANY patent.
Hiro, your statement was that requiring cross-licensing was a direct violation of standards body terms.
Based on the document I pointed you to you're plainly wrong are you not? ETSI does not even hint that cross-licensing is not permitted. To the contrary they dedicate a permissive statement to it without taking the opportunity to limit the practice if that was their intent.
Cherry-picking would be better described as you ignoring my "inconvenient" second comment to try and concentrate on only the first. Nokia required an Apple cross-license as a condition of receiving access to Nokia SEP's, and they're certainly not an Android vendor.
Hiro, your statement was that requiring cross-licensing was a direct violation of standards body terms.
Based on the document I pointed you to you're plainly wrong are you not? ETSI does not even hint that cross-licensing is not permitted. To the contrary they dedicate a permissive statement to it without taking the opportunity to limit the practice if that was their intent.
Cherry-picking would be better described as you ignoring my "inconvenient" second comment to try and concentrate on only the first. Nokia required an Apple cross-license as a condition of receiving access to Nokia SEP's, and they're certainly not an Android vendor.
When you understand how to converse without being intentionally antagonistic, come back. Until then you have nothing useful to add to the conversation.
Why? In what idiotic self imposed world would you or anyone else who is actually using their mantal facilities to more than 0.01% of their potential EVER think I would have meant it was forbidden to cross license the patents contributed to the standard? Oh wait, that'e the faux world you already live in. Oh! Sorry, I live in the real world where we get things done because we can communicate effectively. Not in your world where you try to ignore central and very important pieces of information and then that newfound self imposed adherence to an ersatz self delusion.
My gawd, the sheer audacity to reject the entire necessary context for an intelligent conversation is so on display here it rivals the sun for attention.
When you understand how to converse without being intentionally antagonistic, come back.
Accusing Mikeb85 of living in an "alternate reality" wasn't being "intentionally antagonistic"? No big deal and my apologies for upsetting you.
I'll ask very politely then. Where in ETSI's document does it indicate that a request for cross-licensing of any IP of any kind would be a "direct violation" of it's terms as you state?
No because the license agreements Motorola had in place with Infineon and Qualcomm said so.
Whoa!. Apparently Qualcomm is pretty darn mad at Apple, calling their willingness to negotiate SEP's licenses a sham! That came out of nowhere.
To quote a letter from Qualcomm:
"Of course, Apple's premise of 'a willing licensee with a good-faith disagreement who wants nothing other than for a disinterested party to determine what terms are FRAND' is itself a sham and a pretext".
"At the recent proceedings before Judge Crabb in the Western District of Wisconsin, Apple's 'willing licensee' mask fell off, when it absolutely refused--even at the cost of having its case dismissed--to commit to take a license to Motorola's SEP portfolio on whatever terms the court might determine to be FRAND. Having literally walked away, minutes before trial, from an opportunity for an adjudication as to whether Motorola had offered FRAND terms to Apple, Apple should be embarrassed--but apparently is not--to demand that the Commission divest itself of jurisdiction unless and until a 'U.S. Court has determined [the relevant license terms] to be FRAND'.
If Apple is not a willing licensee... what is the real agenda? It is to shelter the unwilling licensee--the infringer that, like Apple, has no interest at all in paying market-validated royalty rates. It is to ensure that SEP infringers can only be called to account under rules, and in fora, in which they may gain yardage, but can never lose."
Looks as tho they might have lost a licensing friend, if they ever were one to begin with.
Whoa!. Apparently Qualcomm is pretty darn mad at Apple, calling their willingness to negotiate SEP's licenses a sham! That came out of nowhere.
To quote a letter from Qualcomm:
"Of course, Apple's premise of 'a willing licensee with a good-faith disagreement who wants nothing other than for a disinterested party to determine what terms are FRAND' is itself a sham and a pretext".
"At the recent proceedings before Judge Crabb in the Western District of Wisconsin, Apple's 'willing licensee' mask fell off, when it absolutely refused--even at the cost of having its case dismissed--to commit to take a license to Motorola's SEP portfolio on whatever terms the court might determine to be FRAND. Having literally walked away, minutes before trial, from an opportunity for an adjudication as to whether Motorola had offered FRAND terms to Apple, Apple should be embarrassed--but apparently is not--to demand that the Commission divest itself of jurisdiction unless and until a 'U.S. Court has determined [the relevant license terms] to be FRAND'.
If Apple is not a willing licensee... what is the real agenda? It is to shelter the unwilling licensee--the infringer that, like Apple, has no interest at all in paying market-validated royalty rates. It is to ensure that SEP infringers can only be called to account under rules, and in fora, in which they may gain yardage, but can never lose."
Looks as tho they might have lost a licensing friend, if they ever were one to begin with.
And Qualcomm's followup to that letter:
Quote:
As a result of an inadvertent error, a submission was made in Qualcomm's name on December 10, 2012 that had not been appropriately authorized, and that Qualcomm would not wish the Commission to consider. Accordingly, Qualcomm withdraws that submission, requests that the Commission give it no consideration, and requests that it be treated as though it had never been made. Qualcomm relies solely on its previous submission in this matter of December 3, 2012.
in addition, Qualcomm respectfully requests that the December 10, 2012 submission be immediately and permanently removed from the public record, both because it inadvertenly threatens disclosure of confidential business information (CBI) relating to Qualcomm's business relationships, continuing disclosure of which will harm Qualcomm, and because it was filed without appropriate authorization.
Looks like Qualcomm's law firm just lost a client.
Looks like Qualcomm's law firm just lost a client.
According to reports, Qualcomm was made aware that they might be brought into the licensing disclosures. Best thing for them was to stay out of it. Disclosure is something that all the players from IBM to Nokia to Microsoft to Motorola are trying to avoid like the plague.
But how much does that rate come down to. One of Apple's common arguments is that applying the same percent on the surface seems FRAND but it isn't because the cost of the other devices is only 30-50% of Apple's meaning that the actual cash is much higher for Apple.
When Apple points this out to the patent holders, they say that the response is that the holder would be happen to cut the rate to make it more similar in actual cash value but only if Apple is willing to license some non SEP patent that they legally can't be forced to license particular during a SEP negotiation.
If that 2-3.5% for the other guys is roughly $1 then Apple isn't really making a crazy demand.
You'll find that Apple's costs are actually less than equivalent devices from HTC, Sony, Motorola, etc... Check out profit margins stated in various companies' quarterly reports....
At least a bit of good news for those that hate Google. Vringo won it's patent infringement suit against them today.
A couple weeks back FOSSPatents thought they might get as much as half a billion in just past royalty payments should they win. It ended up not quite that much, with Google owing around $16 million rather than $500M. AOL and IOC will also pay a few million each of the total $30M judgement.
On-going patent royalties to Vringo could be as much as $100M a year split between the three plus Target (yes, THAT Target) and Gannett (newspapers) until the patents expire a little over three years from now.
Updating this old post Vringo's patent trolling was decimated by Google recently when a three judge appeals court agreed with them and tossed the two asserted patents for obviousness. So Microsoft who paid 'em $1M+ when they came a'knockin and threw in a couple more patents as a bonus in return for 5% of whatever Vringo got from Google gets...
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Apple in all probablity does know what several others are paying, and it's not the $1 they're offering or they would have committed to accept the court's determination IMO. They went thru a similar exercise with Nokia, and also hold several SEP's of their own that require licensing. They'd certainly be considered industry insiders.
But the issue you raised is absolutely valid with respect to us common folk. In the related Moto-Microsoft FRAND case both parties have filed motions to keep their contracts and terms secret. IBM and Nokia, both of whom were obligated to give that court documentation of their SEP contracts, also petitioned the court to keep them secret. It's not as tho the players don't know the basic terms. It's that they don't want anyone who's not already an insider, licensee or licensor to know the terms. Apple is in both the licensee and licensor group. They know.
Except they settled with Nokia for a cross licensing deal.
Also, why is that Apple simply says they would reserve the right to appeal if they felt the court determined royalty was too high and they sets the judge off, while at the same time if the rate was too low Motorola would obviously also appeal. Appeals are a basic, so why would acknowledging this upset the judge so much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Except they settled with Nokia for a cross licensing deal.
Also, why is that Apple simply says they would reserve the right to appeal if they felt the court determined royalty was too high and they sets the judge off, while at the same time if the rate was too low Motorola would obviously also appeal. Appeals are a basic, so why would acknowledging this upset the judge so much?
It's not as simple as that. Motorola told the court they would commit to accepting whatever royalty the judge determined to be fair and reasonable. No qualifications. Apple on the other hand told the court they would not accept the judge's decree, would not license the patent package, and would make it as difficult and drawn out as possible if the finding was for more than $1 a unit.
Apple's arrogant posture as FOSSPatents put it and announced disregard for the court's findings if it wasn't totally in their favor led to Judge Crabb realizing Apple's intent was not to let the law determine a "FRAND" friendly royalty and abide by it. Instead the apparent intent was to use whatever the court could offer in their favor to disadvantage Motorola in negotiations outside of any court setting, pressuring them to accept Apple's offer or nothing at all.
In the end the court felt it was being used a a "bargaining chip" (their words) by Apple. Discovering and ruling on a royalty fair to both parties and in keeping with the spirit of Moto's FRAND pledges wasn't what they were after. Apple just wants what it wants, FRAND complaints is just a tool to help get there IMHO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Not true. Several standards bodies make specific reference to cross-licensing as a condition. ETSI, the standards body under which Motorola pledges this particular IP package, is one of those who mentions "reciprocity" (cross-licensing) as a condition of SEP licensing.
http://www.etsi.org/WebSite/document/Legal/ETSI_IPR-Policy.pdf
Nokia (as they did with Apple's license negotiations) and Microsoft too require it at least in some and maybe all cases, and they're far from the "Android crowd".
You cherry pick again. That is a cross license of a contributed SEP patent to the same standard. Not cross license of ANY patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
It is the Android crowd that is doing so in direct violation of the standards body terms. You have an interesting alternate reality going there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Not true. Several standards bodies make specific reference to cross-licensing as a condition. ETSI, the standards body under which Motorola pledges this particular IP package, is one of those who mentions "reciprocity" (cross-licensing) as a condition of SEP licensing.
http://www.etsi.org/WebSite/document/Legal/ETSI_IPR-Policy.pdf
Nokia (as they did with Apple's license negotiations) and Microsoft too require it at least in some and maybe all cases, and they're far from the "Android crowd".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
You cherry pick again. That is a cross license of a contributed SEP patent to the same standard. Not cross license of ANY patent.
Hiro, your statement was that requiring cross-licensing was a direct violation of standards body terms.
Based on the document I pointed you to you're plainly wrong are you not? ETSI does not even hint that cross-licensing is not permitted. To the contrary they dedicate a permissive statement to it without taking the opportunity to limit the practice if that was their intent.
Cherry-picking would be better described as you ignoring my "inconvenient" second comment to try and concentrate on only the first. Nokia required an Apple cross-license as a condition of receiving access to Nokia SEP's, and they're certainly not an Android vendor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Hiro, your statement was that requiring cross-licensing was a direct violation of standards body terms.
Based on the document I pointed you to you're plainly wrong are you not? ETSI does not even hint that cross-licensing is not permitted. To the contrary they dedicate a permissive statement to it without taking the opportunity to limit the practice if that was their intent.
Cherry-picking would be better described as you ignoring my "inconvenient" second comment to try and concentrate on only the first. Nokia required an Apple cross-license as a condition of receiving access to Nokia SEP's, and they're certainly not an Android vendor.
When you understand how to converse without being intentionally antagonistic, come back. Until then you have nothing useful to add to the conversation.
Why? In what idiotic self imposed world would you or anyone else who is actually using their mantal facilities to more than 0.01% of their potential EVER think I would have meant it was forbidden to cross license the patents contributed to the standard? Oh wait, that'e the faux world you already live in. Oh! Sorry, I live in the real world where we get things done because we can communicate effectively. Not in your world where you try to ignore central and very important pieces of information and then that newfound self imposed adherence to an ersatz self delusion.
My gawd, the sheer audacity to reject the entire necessary context for an intelligent conversation is so on display here it rivals the sun for attention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
When you understand how to converse without being intentionally antagonistic, come back.
Accusing Mikeb85 of living in an "alternate reality" wasn't being "intentionally antagonistic"? No big deal and my apologies for upsetting you.
I'll ask very politely then. Where in ETSI's document does it indicate that a request for cross-licensing of any IP of any kind would be a "direct violation" of it's terms as you state?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
No because the license agreements Motorola had in place with Infineon and Qualcomm said so.
Whoa!. Apparently Qualcomm is pretty darn mad at Apple, calling their willingness to negotiate SEP's licenses a sham! That came out of nowhere.
To quote a letter from Qualcomm:
"Of course, Apple's premise of 'a willing licensee with a good-faith disagreement who wants nothing other than for a disinterested party to determine what terms are FRAND' is itself a sham and a pretext".
"At the recent proceedings before Judge Crabb in the Western District of Wisconsin, Apple's 'willing licensee' mask fell off, when it absolutely refused--even at the cost of having its case dismissed--to commit to take a license to Motorola's SEP portfolio on whatever terms the court might determine to be FRAND. Having literally walked away, minutes before trial, from an opportunity for an adjudication as to whether Motorola had offered FRAND terms to Apple, Apple should be embarrassed--but apparently is not--to demand that the Commission divest itself of jurisdiction unless and until a 'U.S. Court has determined [the relevant license terms] to be FRAND'.
If Apple is not a willing licensee... what is the real agenda? It is to shelter the unwilling licensee--the infringer that, like Apple, has no interest at all in paying market-validated royalty rates. It is to ensure that SEP infringers can only be called to account under rules, and in fora, in which they may gain yardage, but can never lose."
Looks as tho they might have lost a licensing friend, if they ever were one to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Whoa!. Apparently Qualcomm is pretty darn mad at Apple, calling their willingness to negotiate SEP's licenses a sham! That came out of nowhere.
To quote a letter from Qualcomm:
"Of course, Apple's premise of 'a willing licensee with a good-faith disagreement who wants nothing other than for a disinterested party to determine what terms are FRAND' is itself a sham and a pretext".
"At the recent proceedings before Judge Crabb in the Western District of Wisconsin, Apple's 'willing licensee' mask fell off, when it absolutely refused--even at the cost of having its case dismissed--to commit to take a license to Motorola's SEP portfolio on whatever terms the court might determine to be FRAND. Having literally walked away, minutes before trial, from an opportunity for an adjudication as to whether Motorola had offered FRAND terms to Apple, Apple should be embarrassed--but apparently is not--to demand that the Commission divest itself of jurisdiction unless and until a 'U.S. Court has determined [the relevant license terms] to be FRAND'.
If Apple is not a willing licensee... what is the real agenda? It is to shelter the unwilling licensee--the infringer that, like Apple, has no interest at all in paying market-validated royalty rates. It is to ensure that SEP infringers can only be called to account under rules, and in fora, in which they may gain yardage, but can never lose."
Looks as tho they might have lost a licensing friend, if they ever were one to begin with.
And Qualcomm's followup to that letter:
Quote:
As a result of an inadvertent error, a submission was made in Qualcomm's name on December 10, 2012 that had not been appropriately authorized, and that Qualcomm would not wish the Commission to consider. Accordingly, Qualcomm withdraws that submission, requests that the Commission give it no consideration, and requests that it be treated as though it had never been made. Qualcomm relies solely on its previous submission in this matter of December 3, 2012.
in addition, Qualcomm respectfully requests that the December 10, 2012 submission be immediately and permanently removed from the public record, both because it inadvertenly threatens disclosure of confidential business information (CBI) relating to Qualcomm's business relationships, continuing disclosure of which will harm Qualcomm, and because it was filed without appropriate authorization.
Looks like Qualcomm's law firm just lost a client.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
And Qualcomm's followup to that letter:
Looks like Qualcomm's law firm just lost a client.
According to reports, Qualcomm was made aware that they might be brought into the licensing disclosures. Best thing for them was to stay out of it. Disclosure is something that all the players from IBM to Nokia to Microsoft to Motorola are trying to avoid like the plague.
You'll find that Apple's costs are actually less than equivalent devices from HTC, Sony, Motorola, etc... Check out profit margins stated in various companies' quarterly reports....
Nothing. Seems appropriate to me.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/after-years-of-hype-patent-troll-vringo-demolished-on-appeal/