Apple claims Motorola discriminated on tech licensing, charged 12 times going rate

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 53
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


    Remember when he claimed that Motorola's asking prices were "fair" based on what they were charging other companies? 



     


    You make up a lot of strawmen.  But that's expected from someone who hates facts.


     


    I said their starting asking rate was in line with other known SEP rates.  And then I backed that up with a chart of those rates.


     



     


    I also said that Motorola's asking price was lower than other rates that Apple pays, such as to Qualcomm.  And that's a fact, too.

  • Reply 22 of 53
    qamfqamf Posts: 87member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


     


    You make up a lot of strawmen.  But that's expected from someone who hates facts.


     


    I said their starting asking rate was in line with other known SEP rates.  And then I backed that up with a chart of those rates.


     



     


    I also said that Motorola's asking price was lower than other rates that Apple pays, such as to Qualcomm.  And that's a fact, too.



    Um, Qualcomm also is 350 patents, Motorola is 16.

    adding only the patents used and the % per them (ie take out everything that has no patents, or no %) you get: 923 @ 13.80%



    or, .0066% per patent.  Obviously, some are worth more (that is easy to tell) but I highly doubt that Motorola's are 2.25% 



    Although, unless Apple goes after Alacate-Lucent (or unless they have some crazy valuable patent) this should not go through.



    -QAMF

  • Reply 23 of 53
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    kdarling wrote: »
    <span style="line-height:1.231;">Remember when he claimed that Motorola's asking prices were "fair" based on what they were charging other companies? </span>

    You make up a lot of strawmen.  But that's expected from someone who hates facts.

    I said their starting asking rate was in line with other known SEP rates.  And then I backed that up with a chart of those rates.

    <img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="28917" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/28917/width/500/height/1000/flags/LL" style="; width: 400px; height: 960px">


    I also said that Motorola's asking price was lower than other rates that Apple pays, such as to Qualcomm.  <span style="line-height:1.231;">And that's a fact, too.</span>

    I don't believe this case involves LTE....
  • Reply 24 of 53

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post


     


    You make up a lot of strawmen.  But that's expected from someone who hates facts.


     


    I said their starting asking rate was in line with other known SEP rates.  And then I backed that up with a chart of those rates.


    I also said that Motorola's asking price was lower than other rates that Apple pays, such as to Qualcomm.  And that's a fact, too.



     


    Funny, I was talking about Motorola/MS which has nothing to do with LTE patents. Come back with your chart for the patents involved in the Motorola/MS case.


     


    I don't hate facts. What I hate are losers like you who selectively pick and choose their facts to paint a biased picture of what's actually going on.


     


    BTW, want to start a discussion on touchscreens, since you know, you're an expert in the field.

  • Reply 25 of 53
    sipsip Posts: 210member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by QAMF View Post


    It does, because FRAND patents are things phones general "need"



    "extra" stuff that a company makes they are free to set whatever they feel is a fair price.  To be honest, I am surprised Apple set the price so "low" considering their relationship with Samsung...



    There is no reason why Apple should not change such high prices for their own non-FRAND patents.  Absolutely no reason.



    I WISH they would not charge such a high price per use, and I wish that most patents for phones were free for everyone to use.  But I see nothing wrong with a Company exercising their rights.  Even if I do not believe the right(s) being exercised should exist.



    -QAMF



    Are the Motorola SEPs not mainly code embedded in chips, so is very much hardware-oriented and without that hardware, you just could not build a working phone?


     


    Whereas the rubber-band/bounce effect is very much software within the OS. My own take on this is that Apple quotes high prices for licensing patents in the knowledge that the potential-licensee would refuse thereby giving Apple some degree of exclusivity on certain functions and aesthetics within its OS.

  • Reply 26 of 53

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KDarling View Post



    And their value has diminished because of that, and because of being invalidated.


     


    More lies from the troll. Apple's patents were not invalidated. They were "preliminarily invalidated". There's a huge difference, and you're fully aware of this, yet you choose to make a comment that is basically a lie.


     


    Shows a lot about why you're really here.

  • Reply 27 of 53
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:



    Originally Posted by Wovel View Post



    I don't believe this case involves LTE....


     


    Sorry, I forget that many people don't recall the charts from before.  As pointed out previously, LTE rates are  the same or very similar to 3G rates.  As the source document authors put it:


     


    "In fact, the announced royalty rates for LTE (4G) are exactly within the range Goldstein and Kearsey observed in 2004 for UMTS/WCDMA (3G) technology where the authors commented that “individual patent owners usually charge between 0.5 and 4 percent on essential patents."


     


    Of course, the chart's number of patents are not correct for 3G.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post


    Apple's patents were not invalidated. They were "preliminarily invalidated". There's a huge difference, and you're fully aware of this, yet you choose to make a comment that is basically a lie.



     


    First, don't be so parochial.  Smartphones are sold worldwide, where some of those patents HAVE been invalidated.  E.g. Germany and the slide-to-unlock patent.


     


    Secondly, even in the USA important claim sections have been invalidated, with Apple forced to modify them :


     


    Key Claim In Apple's Rubber Banding Patent Still Found Invalid in Final (USPTO) Action - AppleInsider

  • Reply 28 of 53
    rcfarcfa Posts: 1,124member
    The ppl who think 2% would be fair forget that modern devices likely use dozens of standard essential patents: camera, media codecs, battery technology, screens, chip manufacturing, etc.
    If everyone tried license fees like Motorola/Google, Apple would end up paying more in license fees than the sale price of the phone.
  • Reply 29 of 53
    Yeah, most likely the manufacturer was charging Apple $140 or some odd dollars for the iPhone, so Motorola was getting the 2.25 percent of that, while Apple was turning around and selling the device for $650 or what not. So Motorola was actually getting screwed, as Apple was making extra money/profit on Motorola IP.

    Nowadays a lot of high end cars have ˆÂ
  • Reply 30 of 53
    Yeah, most likely the manufacturer was charging Apple $140 or some odd dollars for the iPhone, so Motorola was getting the 2.25 percent of that, while Apple was turning around and selling the device for $650 or what not. So Motorola was actually getting screwed, as Apple was making extra money/profit on Motorola IP.

    Nowadays most high-end cars have SIM cards, part of the in-car navigation system.

    Are you suggesting that Mercedes / Lexus / etc. should pay Motorola $2,250 license for a $100,000 car? Otherwise they'll be making extra money/profit on Motorola IP?

    Could you, please, clarify how a license related to communication stretches over components that have nothing to do with it? Those include the CPU, GPU, memory, battery, enclosure, display, touch sensors, gyroscope, accelerometer, etc. The iPhone price also includes the OS and the default applications included. Also, it covers for the iCloud expenses (for those using only the free services). Apple Maps being a free application is again paid for by slicing part of the iPhone/iPad income.

    So, Motorola should be taking 2.25% on all the components included (hardware, software and services)?
  • Reply 31 of 53
    ochymingochyming Posts: 474member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by quinney View Post





    I thought Motorola was threatening to file patent suits against other Android handset companies and Google wanted to prevent that.


     


     


    Strange how people often ignore this.

  • Reply 32 of 53
    smalmsmalm Posts: 675member


    Strange how people often ignore the 8 Billion tax loss carry-forward Motorola had.

  • Reply 33 of 53
    rickagrickag Posts: 1,626member
    It might have something to do with the fact that Qualcom has 350 patents and Motorola only has … er um. …. wait let me check again … yup ONLY 16.

    You do the math.
  • Reply 34 of 53
    rptrpt Posts: 175member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by smalM View Post


    Strange how people often ignore the 8 Billion tax loss carry-forward Motorola had.



    And when remembering this forget that at a marginal corporate income tax of 35% this is worth less than 3 B, not 8.

  • Reply 35 of 53
    Cars run without motorola patents, phones don't.
    /argument
  • Reply 36 of 53
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rickag View Post



    It might have something to do with the fact that Qualcom has 350 patents and Motorola only has … er um. …. wait let me check again … yup ONLY 16.  You do the math.


     


    As noted in a post a bit after that, even though the chart's rates also apply to 3G, the number of patents listed were LTE only.   I'll have to go look it up, but recall that Motorola basically invented cell phones, so their patents for earlier GSM phones were far more numerous.


     


    Not that it matters that much.  It's not the number of patents, it's what the contribution of the main ones are.  If rates were based on number of patents instead of importance, every contributor would dump stupid amounts of silly patents in.


     



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rcfa View Post



    The ppl who think 2% would be fair forget that modern devices likely use dozens of standard essential patents: camera, media codecs, battery technology, screens, chip manufacturing, etc.

    If everyone tried license fees like Motorola/Google, Apple would end up paying more in license fees than the sale price of the phone.


     


    Which is exactly why everyone else cross-licensed their patents and ended up paying way less than the starting ask rate.  For example, supposedly Nokia only pays 3% TOTAL royalties, because of all their cross-licensing deals since day one.


     


    Cross licensing was common before Apple came along and refused to play by the same unwritten rules everyone had used for decades.  By not wanting to cross-license, they have caused the rate structure to be re-examined.  Which many non-founders consider to be a good thing.



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by capasicum View Post



    Are you suggesting that Mercedes / Lexus / etc. should pay Motorola $2,250 license for a $100,000 car?


     


    No. They would only pay a license on the radio system, not the car / airplane / boat that holds the system.


     


    Quote:


    Could you, please, clarify how a license related to communication stretches over components that have nothing to do with it? ...



     


    Depends on the deal they make.  For example, Apple supposedly pays Qualcomm's 3% to 4% IP royalty based only on what the iPhone costs (~$240) coming out of Foxconn.


     


    (That's on top of what Apple pays Qualcomm for the chip, btw.  The physical device cost is a set price.  The price for the IP required for your particular usage and for the broadband software is variable.)

  • Reply 37 of 53
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    cash907 wrote: »
    Boo hoo. At least they are actually licensing the tech, unlike apple which would have patented it and sat on it refusing to share like a greedy toddler. 
    Moto licensed tech because they made the patents as SEP. Apple can patent tech for its own use and they aren't SEP. a lot of companies do that. Do you consider them toddlers? Perhaps you should change your thought diaper. It appears to be full.
  • Reply 38 of 53
    rcfarcfa Posts: 1,124member
    kdarling wrote: »
    Cross licensing was common before Apple came along and refused to play by the same unwritten rules everyone had used for decades.  By not wanting to cross-license, they have caused the rate structure to be re-examined.  Which many non-founders consider to be a good thing.

    Ah, horsepoop! Apple has cross-licensing agreements with a variety of companies, and Apple contributed plenty of patents to standard-essential patent pools, e.g. media codec and media file container related patents.

    However, no company in their right mind cross-licenses the crown jewels. For Apple, that's the GUI, user interface, software integration, etc. and none of these are standards-essential patents.

    The people who violate the unwritten rules are Google & Co. who try to leverage standard essential patents to get a grab on non-standard essential patents.
  • Reply 39 of 53
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,477member
    rcfa wrote: »

    The people who violate the unwritten rules are Google & Co. who try to leverage standard essential patents to get a grab on non-standard essential patents.

    Motorola Mobility is not interchangeable with Google (even tho FOSSPatents loves to do so.)

    Google has never asserted a standards-essential patent against anyone. Ever. Period. Until this year they hadn't asserted any patent of any kind against anyone. Ever. Period.

    If you're curious about the only patent infringement suit Google has ever filed do a search for Google sues British Telecom.

    The current infringement cases against Apple and Microsoft were started by Motorola well before Google showed any interest in purchasing them. Google's evilness? They didn't order MM to drop the lawsuits as soon as they purchased them last year, even tho Apple and Microsoft haven't indicated they'd be willing to do the same.

    MM wasn't absorbed by Google. They are operated as a separate company with it's own management, in-house legal counsel and board of directors which is hardly unusual for any subsidiary, much less one the size of Google.
    http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/07/01/scott-offer-leads-the-way-at-motorola-mobility
    http://mediacenter.motorola.com/content/default.aspx?NewsAreaID=1
  • Reply 40 of 53

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mrrodriguez View Post





    Yeah, most likely the manufacturer was charging Apple $140 or some odd dollars for the iPhone, so Motorola was getting the 2.25 percent of that, while Apple was turning around and selling the device for $650 or what not. So Motorola was actually getting screwed, as Apple was making extra money/profit on Motorola IP.


    The component manufacturer doesn't usually get to just make more because the company selling a product makes more. If you used a small FRAND device in a Mercedes -- do they suddenly get $120 for a tiny component?


     


    The point of FRAND is that a company gets a great deal being the established tech in exchange for keeping prices low and selling to EVERYONE. It's not like other tech could not replace Motorola's patent -- it's just important to have a STANDARD.


     


    If a company can arbitrarily choose to raise prices because someone is charging more, or because they don't have a special relationship -- you've defeated the purpose of FRAND licensing and creating a standard -- and you can't have a damn standard if everyone is forced to go with other IP. It's not about "Motorola's awesome tech" -- it's only about Motorola being lucky enough to be the standard, and the tech is fairly non-special to begin with.

Sign In or Register to comment.