Jasmine. I just agree... Adam`s postlng is impossible, on sunday I bought a new Volkswagen Golf GTI from bringing in $5589 this past five weeks and-a little over, 10/k this past month. it's realy the most financially rewarding I have ever had. I began this eight months/ago and pretty much immediately startad earning over $81.. per hour. I use this website, cloud68.c om
If Apple (and Microsoft) had agreed to Motorola's extortionate license demands without a fight, the $12.5 Billion would almost have been recouped by now.
FWIW Google only valued Motorola's IP at about $5B. Not that it matters really.
Google's estimates are not worth anything. They didn't buy just the IP and how is the rest worth $7.5B when they are loosing a ton of money despite any royalties they may be making already?
For many standards essential patents $1 is ridiculously high, seeing as how they are usually factored in to the cost of the chip that actually makes use of them, not the total price of the finished device.
If Apple and Microsoft conceded to Motorola's demands for 2.X% on gross sales of finished products payable at least twice for separate groups of standards essential patents encompassing cellular, wifi and H.264, Google would have made more than $5 Billion in the first year in license fees.
You've been reading too much Microsoft FUD served up by Mr. Mueller. Moto has been licensing those patents for quite awhile (as packages of patents applicable to specific standards) with no evidence of multi-billion profits, and courts submissions show there's a maximum royalty provision that kicks in. That's similar to some Microsoft patent-license requirements. I don't think FOSSPatents ever bothered to mention that, but it was reported by at least one other law blog. There was never a demand for billions in royalties from MS unless you have a link to one that proves otherwise. Microsoft's legal made that one up and Mueller was all too happy to publicize it.
Microsoft and Apple's aim is simply to neuter the value of any opposing IP as much as possible to maximize their own IP value in any license negotiations. That's where they feel the billions will be, and not floating in Moto's direction either.
They're counting on the courts to assist them rather than rely on traditional business-to-business negotiations. IMHO, to do so the attorneys (and one supporting blogger) need to portray the other side as completely unreasonable and their own clients as willing but abused licensees begging for the courts protection.
For many standards essential patents $1 is ridiculously high, seeing as how they are usually factored in to the cost of the chip that actually makes use of them, not the total price of the finished device.
The licensing is also factored into the cost of the chip so even one cent is too high because of patent exhaustion.
Which for things like 3G is probably as it should be. Qualcomm etc pay the licensing to build the chips that need the patent to work and exhaust the need to license for the buyers. It's fair, reasonable and since they don't know the end buyer they can discriminate.
The licensing is also factored into the cost of the chip so even one cent is too high because of patent exhaustion.
Which for things like 3G is probably as it should be. Qualcomm etc pay the licensing to build the chips that need the patent to work and exhaust the need to license for the buyers. It's fair, reasonable and since they don't know the end buyer they can discriminate.
Have you ever read Qualcomm's licensing agreement? I've linked it a few times for the forum members. I suggest it might be a good idea to read it to correct any mis-understanding on what they're basing the royalty payments on. It's not just pennies, nor based on the chip price alone, nor are all contributors to various standards included in the license.
Note too that Motorola's claims include the Infineon based products used previous to Qualcomm's in the latest Apple gear. There's no claim of patent exhaustion attached to those AFAIK.
Have you ever read Qualcomm's licensing agreement? I've linked it a few times for the forum members. I suggest it might be a good idea to read it to correct any mis-understanding on what they're basing the royalty payments on. It's not just pennies, nor based on the chip price alone, nor are all contributors to various standards included in the license.
Note too that Motorola's claims include the Infineon based products used previous to Qualcomm's in the latest Apple gear. There's no claim of patent exhaustion attached to those AFAIK.
No because Motorola rescinded their license agreements specifically when the chips were sold to Apple.
No because Motorola rescinded their license agreements specifically when the chips were sold to Apple.
I understood it was pulled for that chipset period, not just for Apple. I don't believe even Apple's counsel is claiming Apple was singled out. That's what I found when researching it. Again I think you're depending solely on FOSSPatents for your news. Do some independent looking. The only thing you're going to find at FP are details that reinforce his clients, or at least aren't at odds with them.
You've never wondered why you can't find a single article there with even the most minor criticism of Microsoft, or even one lone pro-Android or pro-Google (or at least not anti-Google) article in his many hundreds of blogs? The answer why should be pretty darn obvious, and it's not because Microsoft has never done any wrong or Google has never done any right.
I wish Florian Mueller were more consistent on this point. In general he's giving Ericsson a pass, with short shrift given to discussing their SEP injunction demands. When it came to Nokia asking for an injunction on Apple products over FRAND patents it was barely mentioned. The fact that Microsoft's business partner Nokia went before the UN panel discussing FRAND policy and said injunctions were a proper remedy never even got mentioned by him. It appears he only considers injunction demands over standards-essential patents to be outrageous when the entity holds an Android license.
I think you missed some Fosspatents posts, bc he did call out Nokia for their stance at the ITU.
Also many of the documents between Nokia and Apple were never made public. They never went to trial so I assume Apple got a deal that they could live with, rather than drawn out litigation and uncertainty.
Samsung VS Ericsson. I didn't read it like Ericsson was getting a pass, more like Samsung was being a hypocrit, but he didn't support SEP injunctions for either. If Samsung wants to use SEP injunctions against Apple, then they can't complain about someone else using the same strategy against them.
Whether you like Florian or not, at least he tries to make rational arguements for his readers.
Groklaw has spiraled into a poor excuse for "Truth" ever since the Oracle VS Google trial. Most comments on the site lack any understanding of law, business, or critical thinking.
I think you missed some Fosspatents posts, bc he did call out Nokia for their stance at the ITU.
Link please? Certainly possible I missed one.
FWIW I agree that his views are well-supported by the facts he's uses, very rationally argued. Oddly he's never once had anything to criticize Microsoft for. 'Suppose it's possible they've not done anything wrong in years in his view. Nor has Oracle for that matter.
I also agree with you that Groklaw is increasing anti-Microsoft, tho I wouldn't go so far as to say the most of the comments lack understanding. Florian doesn't even allow comments, nor respond positively to "inconvenient" questions. Add too that Groklaw is much more likely to print the actual documents with links and court-orders, with Mr. Mueller preferring to "explain it for you" in most cases. If you struggle to understand what the parties have said and written and the context of those, FOSSPatents 3T's approach is easier to digest and requires less thought.
Personally I use a lot of different sources, from the two you mentioned to blogs like PatentlyO, KluwerPatentBlog, and IPWatchdog
GG, ever the subtle troll asking questions nobody cares about.
You know why Florian doesn't allow comments? Because his blog would be filled with thousands upon thousands of garbage posts by trolls. A comment system would serve no useful purpose other than to give losers a place to spew more of their hatred and BS. Yet people are trying to spin it to make it seem like Florian doesn't want to have any criticism of his views and that's the reason there's no commenting.
You know why Groklaw isn't filled with troll posts? It's the same reason Android forums aren't. Because Apple fans can't be bothered to spend all their time posting junk in Android discussion forums. MacRumors, AI and many other Apple sites attract trolls like flies on.... But anyone who spends time in Android forums realizes trolls are far less common (though there will always be some). This is a simple fact that Android fans/Apple haters refuse to accept. Their party line is "when Apple users stop posting in our threads, we'll stop posting in Apple threads".
As to your claim that Motorola isn't really asking for billions from MS, where's your proof? You criticize Florian for his $4 billion figure, yet you offer NO PROOF WHATSOEVER to support your argument. Do you have Motorola license agreements from other companies that show how much they're getting? You claim there's a "maximum royalty provision" that kicks in, but can you tell anyone exactly what it entails? Did Moto ask for 2.25% with a maximum cap (like MPEG LA does)? What is this maximum royalty cap? How come Motorola hasn't mentioned the "cap" in their court case with MS? The only thing we know is Moto wants 2.25%, and with that bit of information Florian's $4 billion estimate is the most accurate until such time as more details emerge.
You accuse Florian of FUD, but you're the largest purveyer of FUD in these forums.
GG, ever the subtle troll asking questions nobody cares about.
...As to your claim that Motorola isn't really asking for billions from MS, where's your proof? You criticize Florian for his $4 billion figure, yet you offer NO PROOF WHATSOEVER to support your argument. Do you have Motorola license agreements from other companies that show how much they're getting? You claim there's a "maximum royalty provision" that kicks in, but can you tell anyone exactly what it entails? Did Moto ask for 2.25% with a maximum cap (like MPEG LA does)? What is this maximum royalty cap? How come Motorola hasn't mentioned the "cap" in their court case with MS?
I'll rarely make posts that include potentially questionable points and/or "facts" without having backing for what I've said.
Quoting Motorola's position, as filed in a joint Moto/MS pre-trial briefing with the court:
"The RAND royalty for a license to Motorola’s H.264 SEPs is 2.25% of the net
selling price (“NSP”) of licensed products (e.g., Microsoft’s Xbox 360 or Windows OS software),
based on a hypothetical negotiation between the parties considering the relevant evidence (e.g.,
Motorola’s past licenses, the strength and value of Motorola’s patents, and the use of Motorola’s
patents by Microsoft). Based on that same evidence, an appropriate cap should apply to any net
royalties payable to Motorola.The royalty due to Motorola would be offset by a RAND royalty for
a license to Microsoft’s H.264 SEPs which also is 2.25% of the NSP of licensed products (e.g.,
Motorola’s smartphones and set-top boxes), based on a hypothetical negotiation between the
parties considering the relevant evidence (e.g., the relative strength and value of Microsoft’s
patents and the use of Microsoft’s patents by Microsoft). . . "
"...Based on the royalty rates discussed above for the parties’ H.264 portfolios and
each party’s relative exposure, Microsoft would owe royalties as set forth in Motorola Proposed
Finding of Fact 472(h). However, the parties would have agreed to a reasonable cap as set forth in
Motorola Proposed Finding of Fact 472(i). Depending on the structure for payment, a running
royalty for Windows would be as set forth in Motorola Proposed Finding of Fact 472(j)"
As for your question about the licensing rates paid by some other Motorola standards licensees the general answer is in the June 6th court ruling denying Microsoft motion for summary judgement. In it the trial judge acknowledges:
"Motorola has provided the court with a spreadsheet of more than 50 completed licenses that include one or more of the
patents in Motorola’s 802.11 and H.264 portfolios" and that "Motorola has presented the court with numerous licensing agreements suggesting that it has received comparable royalty rates to those offered to Microsoft from other licensees for some, if not most, of its patents essential to the 802.11Standard and the H.264 Standard."
By the way, you forgot to post your reasoned explanation for there not being even a single sentence criticism of Microsoft nor one single positive Google article in the hundreds he's written at FOSSPatents. That should lead any reasonable reader to conclude that Mr. Mueller may well be playing favorites, with the related likelihood that anything detrimental to Microsoft's position will go unreported given the first statement to be true.
You've never seemed to be an unintelligent person Eric, based on your numerous posts, so you certainly must have questioned what he's leaving out. Mueller offers some good info (I read him every day), but he's not always telling you the whole story nor is Groklaw for that matter. IMO he's serving it up in a way that casts his paid clients in the most positive light, and their opponents in the worst possible.
If you really want to get a clearer view of the big picture, look around a bit. There's quite often more of the story out there than what Mr. Mueller would prefer you know.
EDIT: I'll mention I was wrong about Florian Mueller not noting Motorola's offer of a royalty cap. He did comment on it, but dismissed it with comments that it might not be consistent with Moto's position from a couple years back. It certainly wouldn't be helpful to his client for him to portray Motos cap offer as reasonable and helpful, now would it?.
Which gets you back to needing binding arbitration rather than injunctive relief, no?
Absolutely correct. That's the route Apple should have taken when offered in their SEP-licensing curtuffle with Moto IMHO. By rejecting the idea they've left the impression that a fair and reasonable royalty wan't what they really wanted to begin with.
Absolutely correct. That's the route Apple should have taken when offered in their SEP-licensing curtuffle with Moto IMHO. By rejecting the idea they've left the impression that a fair and reasonable royalty wan't what they really wanted to begin with.
That's a better way of solving such a matter anyway. It should be decided by neutral parties who actually understand the agreements and patents.
GG, none of what you posted contains any figures. Sure they mention a cap, but nowhere do they give a value of what the cap would be either in fixed dollars or number of units. Mentioning a cap without numbers is meaningless.
Likewise, where are the copies of the license agreements Motorola supplied to the court that supports their position? Your post implies that 2.25% is something Motorola charges every customer and is standard practice. If this was actually true, then Microsoft would have no case at all and this whole thing should have been thrown out. The very fact that MS is fighting so hard despite this overwhelming evidence that everyone pays 2.25% speaks volumes for what's actually contained in those agreements.
I did not forget about Florian's comments regarding MS. Where is it written that I must repsond to every single thing you or anyone else comments on?
Of course Florian has bias. All writers do to some extent. He's only once source (of many) I use when trying to keep track of what's going on in these cases.
Of course Florian has bias. All writers do to some extent. He's only once source (of many) I use when trying to keep track of what's going on in these cases.
FWIW I agree that his views are well-supported by the facts he's uses, very rationally argued. Oddly he's never once had anything to criticize Microsoft for. 'Suppose it's possible they've not done anything wrong in years in his view. :???: Nor has Oracle for that matter.
I also agree with you that Groklaw is increasing anti-Microsoft, tho I wouldn't go so far as to say the most of the comments lack understanding. Florian doesn't even allow comments, nor respond positively to "inconvenient" questions. Add too that Groklaw is much more likely to print the actual documents with links and court-orders, with Mr. Mueller preferring to "explain it for you" in most cases. If you struggle to understand what the parties have said and written and the context of those, FOSSPatents 3T's approach is easier to digest and requires less thought.
Personally I use a lot of different sources, from the two you mentioned to blogs like PatentlyO, KluwerPatentBlog, and IPWatchdog
(Thanks to Dick Applebaum for the 3T's)
I prefer to read all sources too.
As for the FOSS link, it's an article somewhere on the blog where he criticizes Nokia. He mentions watching live internet streaming of the UN ITU open sessions and then rightfully complains that the ITU was holding a day or 2 of closed doors sessions. Those close door sessions favored private companies rather than the world population, which the UN ITU is supposed represent.
I'll post again on the Moto FRAND arguement but their first 2.4% offer is ridiculous. Will Moto ask Airbus or Boeing for $2.4 million for each $100 million aircraft that has an entertainment system that plays back interlaced h.264? Maybe an additional $2.4 for each $100 million aircraft that also includes wifi?
Does Moto deserve anywhere near $4.8 million for each of these $100 million aircraft.
If you subscribe to Groklaw and PJ's thinking, the answer is yes.
That's the fanboy world view I wand to avoid.
GG, I enjoy your thoughtful input, sometimes we agree, sometimes not, but good discussion.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko
Google's new motto. "be evil. Just wear white."
Or pasty orange.
Jasmine. I just agree... Adam`s postlng is impossible, on sunday I bought a new Volkswagen Golf GTI from bringing in $5589 this past five weeks and-a little over, 10/k this past month. it's realy the most financially rewarding I have ever had. I began this eight months/ago and pretty much immediately startad earning over $81.. per hour. I use this website, cloud68.c om
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
If Apple (and Microsoft) had agreed to Motorola's extortionate license demands without a fight, the $12.5 Billion would almost have been recouped by now.
FWIW Google only valued Motorola's IP at about $5B. Not that it matters really.
Google's estimates are not worth anything. They didn't buy just the IP and how is the rest worth $7.5B when they are loosing a ton of money despite any royalties they may be making already?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
$12.5 billion. For Motorola and its FRAND-encumbered patents.
Maybe Google's executive team should look up "due diligence."
I'm sure it's right there in Wikipedia.
Perhaps they should Google it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
For many standards essential patents $1 is ridiculously high, seeing as how they are usually factored in to the cost of the chip that actually makes use of them, not the total price of the finished device.
Example?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
If Apple and Microsoft conceded to Motorola's demands for 2.X% on gross sales of finished products payable at least twice for separate groups of standards essential patents encompassing cellular, wifi and H.264, Google would have made more than $5 Billion in the first year in license fees.
You've been reading too much Microsoft FUD served up by Mr. Mueller. Moto has been licensing those patents for quite awhile (as packages of patents applicable to specific standards) with no evidence of multi-billion profits, and courts submissions show there's a maximum royalty provision that kicks in. That's similar to some Microsoft patent-license requirements. I don't think FOSSPatents ever bothered to mention that, but it was reported by at least one other law blog. There was never a demand for billions in royalties from MS unless you have a link to one that proves otherwise. Microsoft's legal made that one up and Mueller was all too happy to publicize it.
Microsoft and Apple's aim is simply to neuter the value of any opposing IP as much as possible to maximize their own IP value in any license negotiations. That's where they feel the billions will be, and not floating in Moto's direction either.
They're counting on the courts to assist them rather than rely on traditional business-to-business negotiations. IMHO, to do so the attorneys (and one supporting blogger) need to portray the other side as completely unreasonable and their own clients as willing but abused licensees begging for the courts protection.
The licensing is also factored into the cost of the chip so even one cent is too high because of patent exhaustion.
Which for things like 3G is probably as it should be. Qualcomm etc pay the licensing to build the chips that need the patent to work and exhaust the need to license for the buyers. It's fair, reasonable and since they don't know the end buyer they can discriminate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
The licensing is also factored into the cost of the chip so even one cent is too high because of patent exhaustion.
Which for things like 3G is probably as it should be. Qualcomm etc pay the licensing to build the chips that need the patent to work and exhaust the need to license for the buyers. It's fair, reasonable and since they don't know the end buyer they can discriminate.
Have you ever read Qualcomm's licensing agreement? I've linked it a few times for the forum members. I suggest it might be a good idea to read it to correct any mis-understanding on what they're basing the royalty payments on. It's not just pennies, nor based on the chip price alone, nor are all contributors to various standards included in the license.
http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/ltewimax-patent-licensing-statement#node-10731
Note too that Motorola's claims include the Infineon based products used previous to Qualcomm's in the latest Apple gear. There's no claim of patent exhaustion attached to those AFAIK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Example?
Qualcomm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Have you ever read Qualcomm's licensing agreement? I've linked it a few times for the forum members. I suggest it might be a good idea to read it to correct any mis-understanding on what they're basing the royalty payments on. It's not just pennies, nor based on the chip price alone, nor are all contributors to various standards included in the license.
http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/ltewimax-patent-licensing-statement#node-10731
Note too that Motorola's claims include the Infineon based products used previous to Qualcomm's in the latest Apple gear. There's no claim of patent exhaustion attached to those AFAIK.
No because Motorola rescinded their license agreements specifically when the chips were sold to Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
No because Motorola rescinded their license agreements specifically when the chips were sold to Apple.
I understood it was pulled for that chipset period, not just for Apple. I don't believe even Apple's counsel is claiming Apple was singled out. That's what I found when researching it. Again I think you're depending solely on FOSSPatents for your news. Do some independent looking. The only thing you're going to find at FP are details that reinforce his clients, or at least aren't at odds with them.
You've never wondered why you can't find a single article there with even the most minor criticism of Microsoft, or even one lone pro-Android or pro-Google (or at least not anti-Google) article in his many hundreds of blogs? The answer why should be pretty darn obvious, and it's not because Microsoft has never done any wrong or Google has never done any right.
I think you missed some Fosspatents posts, bc he did call out Nokia for their stance at the ITU.
Also many of the documents between Nokia and Apple were never made public. They never went to trial so I assume Apple got a deal that they could live with, rather than drawn out litigation and uncertainty.
Samsung VS Ericsson. I didn't read it like Ericsson was getting a pass, more like Samsung was being a hypocrit, but he didn't support SEP injunctions for either. If Samsung wants to use SEP injunctions against Apple, then they can't complain about someone else using the same strategy against them.
Whether you like Florian or not, at least he tries to make rational arguements for his readers.
Groklaw has spiraled into a poor excuse for "Truth" ever since the Oracle VS Google trial. Most comments on the site lack any understanding of law, business, or critical thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower
I think you missed some Fosspatents posts, bc he did call out Nokia for their stance at the ITU.
Link please? Certainly possible I missed one.
FWIW I agree that his views are well-supported by the facts he's uses, very rationally argued. Oddly he's never once had anything to criticize Microsoft for. 'Suppose it's possible they've not done anything wrong in years in his view.
I also agree with you that Groklaw is increasing anti-Microsoft, tho I wouldn't go so far as to say the most of the comments lack understanding. Florian doesn't even allow comments, nor respond positively to "inconvenient" questions. Add too that Groklaw is much more likely to print the actual documents with links and court-orders, with Mr. Mueller preferring to "explain it for you" in most cases. If you struggle to understand what the parties have said and written and the context of those, FOSSPatents 3T's approach is easier to digest and requires less thought.
Personally I use a lot of different sources, from the two you mentioned to blogs like PatentlyO, KluwerPatentBlog, and IPWatchdog
(Thanks to Dick Applebaum for the 3T's)
GG, ever the subtle troll asking questions nobody cares about.
You know why Florian doesn't allow comments? Because his blog would be filled with thousands upon thousands of garbage posts by trolls. A comment system would serve no useful purpose other than to give losers a place to spew more of their hatred and BS. Yet people are trying to spin it to make it seem like Florian doesn't want to have any criticism of his views and that's the reason there's no commenting.
You know why Groklaw isn't filled with troll posts? It's the same reason Android forums aren't. Because Apple fans can't be bothered to spend all their time posting junk in Android discussion forums. MacRumors, AI and many other Apple sites attract trolls like flies on.... But anyone who spends time in Android forums realizes trolls are far less common (though there will always be some). This is a simple fact that Android fans/Apple haters refuse to accept. Their party line is "when Apple users stop posting in our threads, we'll stop posting in Apple threads".
As to your claim that Motorola isn't really asking for billions from MS, where's your proof? You criticize Florian for his $4 billion figure, yet you offer NO PROOF WHATSOEVER to support your argument. Do you have Motorola license agreements from other companies that show how much they're getting? You claim there's a "maximum royalty provision" that kicks in, but can you tell anyone exactly what it entails? Did Moto ask for 2.25% with a maximum cap (like MPEG LA does)? What is this maximum royalty cap? How come Motorola hasn't mentioned the "cap" in their court case with MS? The only thing we know is Moto wants 2.25%, and with that bit of information Florian's $4 billion estimate is the most accurate until such time as more details emerge.
You accuse Florian of FUD, but you're the largest purveyer of FUD in these forums.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
GG, ever the subtle troll asking questions nobody cares about.
...As to your claim that Motorola isn't really asking for billions from MS, where's your proof? You criticize Florian for his $4 billion figure, yet you offer NO PROOF WHATSOEVER to support your argument. Do you have Motorola license agreements from other companies that show how much they're getting? You claim there's a "maximum royalty provision" that kicks in, but can you tell anyone exactly what it entails? Did Moto ask for 2.25% with a maximum cap (like MPEG LA does)? What is this maximum royalty cap? How come Motorola hasn't mentioned the "cap" in their court case with MS?
I'll rarely make posts that include potentially questionable points and/or "facts" without having backing for what I've said.
Quoting Motorola's position, as filed in a joint Moto/MS pre-trial briefing with the court:
"The RAND royalty for a license to Motorola’s H.264 SEPs is 2.25% of the net
selling price (“NSP”) of licensed products (e.g., Microsoft’s Xbox 360 or Windows OS software),
based on a hypothetical negotiation between the parties considering the relevant evidence (e.g.,
Motorola’s past licenses, the strength and value of Motorola’s patents, and the use of Motorola’s
patents by Microsoft). Based on that same evidence, an appropriate cap should apply to any net
royalties payable to Motorola. The royalty due to Motorola would be offset by a RAND royalty for
a license to Microsoft’s H.264 SEPs which also is 2.25% of the NSP of licensed products (e.g.,
Motorola’s smartphones and set-top boxes), based on a hypothetical negotiation between the
parties considering the relevant evidence (e.g., the relative strength and value of Microsoft’s
patents and the use of Microsoft’s patents by Microsoft). . . "
"...Based on the royalty rates discussed above for the parties’ H.264 portfolios and
each party’s relative exposure, Microsoft would owe royalties as set forth in Motorola Proposed
Finding of Fact 472(h). However, the parties would have agreed to a reasonable cap as set forth in
Motorola Proposed Finding of Fact 472(i). Depending on the structure for payment, a running
royalty for Windows would be as set forth in Motorola Proposed Finding of Fact 472(j)"
As for your question about the licensing rates paid by some other Motorola standards licensees the general answer is in the June 6th court ruling denying Microsoft motion for summary judgement. In it the trial judge acknowledges:
"Motorola has provided the court with a spreadsheet of more than 50 completed licenses that include one or more of the
patents in Motorola’s 802.11 and H.264 portfolios" and that "Motorola has presented the court with numerous licensing agreements suggesting that it has received comparable royalty rates to those offered to Microsoft from other licensees for some, if not most, of its patents essential to the 802.11Standard and the H.264 Standard."
(emphasis mine)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96228673/Microsoft-Motorola-Xbox-6-6-12
By the way, you forgot to post your reasoned explanation for there not being even a single sentence criticism of Microsoft nor one single positive Google article in the hundreds he's written at FOSSPatents. That should lead any reasonable reader to conclude that Mr. Mueller may well be playing favorites, with the related likelihood that anything detrimental to Microsoft's position will go unreported given the first statement to be true.
You've never seemed to be an unintelligent person Eric, based on your numerous posts, so you certainly must have questioned what he's leaving out. Mueller offers some good info (I read him every day), but he's not always telling you the whole story nor is Groklaw for that matter. IMO he's serving it up in a way that casts his paid clients in the most positive light, and their opponents in the worst possible.
If you really want to get a clearer view of the big picture, look around a bit. There's quite often more of the story out there than what Mr. Mueller would prefer you know.
EDIT: I'll mention I was wrong about Florian Mueller not noting Motorola's offer of a royalty cap. He did comment on it, but dismissed it with comments that it might not be consistent with Moto's position from a couple years back. It certainly wouldn't be helpful to his client for him to portray Motos cap offer as reasonable and helpful, now would it?.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
Which gets you back to needing binding arbitration rather than injunctive relief, no?
Absolutely correct. That's the route Apple should have taken when offered in their SEP-licensing curtuffle with Moto IMHO. By rejecting the idea they've left the impression that a fair and reasonable royalty wan't what they really wanted to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Absolutely correct. That's the route Apple should have taken when offered in their SEP-licensing curtuffle with Moto IMHO. By rejecting the idea they've left the impression that a fair and reasonable royalty wan't what they really wanted to begin with.
That's a better way of solving such a matter anyway. It should be decided by neutral parties who actually understand the agreements and patents.
GG, none of what you posted contains any figures. Sure they mention a cap, but nowhere do they give a value of what the cap would be either in fixed dollars or number of units. Mentioning a cap without numbers is meaningless.
Likewise, where are the copies of the license agreements Motorola supplied to the court that supports their position? Your post implies that 2.25% is something Motorola charges every customer and is standard practice. If this was actually true, then Microsoft would have no case at all and this whole thing should have been thrown out. The very fact that MS is fighting so hard despite this overwhelming evidence that everyone pays 2.25% speaks volumes for what's actually contained in those agreements.
I did not forget about Florian's comments regarding MS. Where is it written that I must repsond to every single thing you or anyone else comments on?
Of course Florian has bias. All writers do to some extent. He's only once source (of many) I use when trying to keep track of what's going on in these cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
Of course Florian has bias. All writers do to some extent. He's only once source (of many) I use when trying to keep track of what's going on in these cases.
Kudos then.
I prefer to read all sources too.
As for the FOSS link, it's an article somewhere on the blog where he criticizes Nokia. He mentions watching live internet streaming of the UN ITU open sessions and then rightfully complains that the ITU was holding a day or 2 of closed doors sessions. Those close door sessions favored private companies rather than the world population, which the UN ITU is supposed represent.
I'll post again on the Moto FRAND arguement but their first 2.4% offer is ridiculous. Will Moto ask Airbus or Boeing for $2.4 million for each $100 million aircraft that has an entertainment system that plays back interlaced h.264? Maybe an additional $2.4 for each $100 million aircraft that also includes wifi?
Does Moto deserve anywhere near $4.8 million for each of these $100 million aircraft.
If you subscribe to Groklaw and PJ's thinking, the answer is yes.
That's the fanboy world view I wand to avoid.
GG, I enjoy your thoughtful input, sometimes we agree, sometimes not, but good discussion.