Apple Overturns Motorola's German iPad and iPhone Sales Bans

And that's how it is supposed to work. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-04 11:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

You use something someone created, you pay them for it. Then why is it when the situation is reversed, Apple says: "F*ck you! I'm going to ban it.". Just makes them seem like hypocrites and frankly, douches.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by ninetyninebottles · 2012-02-04 11:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

You use something someone created, you pay them for it. Then why is it when the situation is reversed, Apple says: "F*ck you! I'm going to ban it.". Just makes them seem like hypocrites and frankly, douches.
Do you have any references to Apple refusing to license patents they included in a standard with FRAND promises or trying to charge a competitor a higher rate than other companies?
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-02-04 12:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

Just makes them seem like hypocrites and frankly, douches.
More properly, unmasks them. Apple has always been like this since my earliest dealings with them (1984, how apropo). For some unfathomable reason, Apple's true corporate culture has only recently become widely known and properly called out.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-02-04 12:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Do as I say, not as I do. It's a standard mantra amongst religious folk....
You may be unaware of this, but if you bring up religious zealotry at times that have absolutely nothing to do with religious zealotry, you're going to bring religious zealotry in to defend it. Understand?
Cut it out. If you want to discuss religious silliness, you need go no further than the smartphone OS wars.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-02-04 12:08 · Score: 1, Interesting

And a message to Apple spin control in advance: sending in PR drones to Slashdot really just sums up what you have become.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by pavon · 2012-02-04 15:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Do have any references that Motorola refused to license their FRAND patents under FRAND terms? Because they didn't.
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by jo_ham · 2012-02-04 16:05 · Score: 1

What do you think the case is about?! Apple have been trying to licence the patents from the beginning (as in, they legally have to - the patents in question are part of the 3G specification covered under RAND terms, they know that they must licence them), but exactly what they are worth is the crux.
Moto has been attempting to do away with that pesky RAND stuff and charge what it likes, which it simply cannot do. Apple is willing to pay what everyone else pays.
This would be so much easier if it was done in cash.
If it's in the 3G spec (as these patents are) then Apple have been trying to square that away from the start - it's not the first time they've faced challenges on patents supposedly in the standard spec that mysteriously are "not covered" when their design patent lawsuits started flying around.
If motorola were playing fair, it would not be at trial. (And if Apple had not been involved in a general lawsuit fight, perhaps no one would be in this mess)
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by jo_ham · 2012-02-04 16:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Slashdot really has fallen so far in the many years I've been here. Back in the old days, accusing someone who holds a different opinion to you of being a shill was something that occasionally came up in jest. Now it's used as a legitimate arguing tool on pretty much every story, regardless of topic.
I'm not even sure where it began, or why? Does it somehow "validate" the slashdot community as important enough in global political policy and technology news that there are shills from Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Facebook, the oil industry, the "global warming is real green scam lobby", the republican party, the democrat party, big pharma... all fighting over the supposed "must-win" battleground of slashdot comments?
The fact that you're anticipating a paid PR shill response in advance is just hilarious.
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by hairyfeet · 2012-02-04 16:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ya know, that is the part I have always found frankly mystifying when it comes to Apple. you talk to Applelites or whatever you want to call them and the way they talk you'd think it was SJ and a bunch of hippies sitting around with no shoes in bean bag chairs somewhere in Cupertino. Whether you like their devices or hate them SJ was NEVER like that, he was always frankly an asshole, see how he screwed his supposedly good friend Woz out of half the profits of their game sale to Atari. The one thing ALL those companies had in common, Apple, MSFT, Oracle, etc is at least 1 type A super asshole with a cutthroat take no prisoners attitude that had no problem backstabbing their way to the top.
So i just never understood this complete disconnect between reality and mythology when it comes to Apple. Frankly i'm surprised that SJ's douchebag behavior is finally coming out now that he's gone, frankly i figured they'd make him into a saint if past treatment of him and Apple was any indication. If you like their products? hey i'm glad you found something that works for you, really wish you nothing but happiness. but don't pretend that Apple is ANY different than IBM or any other megacorp because they aren't. These companies are NOT your friends, they do NOT care about you, and if Apple could see their profits rise 15% this quarter by throwing you in a cage with a horny silverback you'd be getting some gorilla loving before the day is out. Maybe a few applelites ought to read this book and do some introspection.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by maxwell+demon · 2012-02-04 20:20 · Score: 1

at times that have absolutely nothing to do with religious zealotry,
I thought it was Apple we are talking about.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-04 21:10 · Score: 1

I'm not even sure where it began, or why?
It began when it was discovered that certain high tech companies have retained certain unscrupulous PR firms to go astroturfing on community sites for the purpose of spin control.
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-04 21:47 · Score: 1

What do you think the case is about?! Apple have been trying to licence the patents from the beginning (as in, they legally have to - the patents in question are part of the 3G specification covered under RAND terms, they know that they must licence them), but exactly what they are worth is the crux.
Moto has been attempting to do away with that pesky RAND stuff and charge what it likes, which it simply cannot do. Apple is willing to pay what everyone else pays.
There's no evidence of any of that, other than Apple press releases. The German court in fact have ruled that this is exactly what Apple didn't do, hence the court case and the blocking of their sales.
Motorola have no legal obligation to charge their FRAND license amount for the time that Apple were not paying up. As several people on this article have pointed out, FRAND only applies if you license the patent in a timely fashion rather than bitching and procrastinating like Apple have.
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by Kartu · 2012-02-04 22:32 · Score: 1

This case is about German court agreeing that FRAND applies to future use, but not for the PAST infringement and that Motorola is right in asking for MORE money for the time when Apple used their stuff without paying them.
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-05 03:00 · Score: 1

"or trying to charge a competitor a higher rate than other companies?"
This is bullshit, but I see it a lot.
They were offered a higher fee, because Apple objected to conditions that other companies (that paid the lower fee) accepted.
Apple were then offered an alternative fee which dropped the conditions they objected to. Yes this made the dollar value higher, to subsidise the loss of the non-dollar value.
It is completely unfair to characterise this as Apple being picked on. It was entirely the result of Apple wanting special treatment.
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by jo_ham · 2012-02-05 05:39 · Score: 1

But Apple is equally claiming (and has a case) that this "past use without paying" is not their fault and they should not be penalised for it.
The patent is in the 3G spec, so they had to use it. They bought licences for the 3G spec patents (there are thousands), either directly or via their chip supplier (who also pays for the use of the patents). Now Motorola is claiming Apple didn;t pay for one particular patent and continually refused. Out of hundreds and hundreds? Come on!
The argument is about how much Apple should be paying (and they know that they have to pay to use the patent - anyone claiming this is about "dodging" payment is just naive), since the patent is RAND covered. Moto is trying to get exceptions due to non payment and get "back pay" at rates not covered under RAND terms - essentially trying to end run around their own agreements about having their patent in the spec (ie, impossible not to use it) so they can hit Apple up for a huge payday.
If Apple *had* been repeatedly refusing to pay, despite many offers from Moto then I'm sure the verdict would have gone the other way. More likely it has been a long back and forth (and this case has been going a while) over the value of the patents and and cross licencing deals on the table. Moto is now trying to claim that all that time during negotiation of payment counts against Apple as "non payment of licencing".
Disclaimer: I'm sure neither side is totally rosy here - business negotiation seldom is, but it's not cut and dried like everyone seems to think.
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by pavon · 2012-02-05 06:15 · Score: 1

The details of the negotiations between Apple and Motorolla have not been disclosed, however, we do know that Motorolla approached Apple as soon as the iPhone was launched, and offered them terms that they considered to be FRAND. Apple rejected those terms (whatever they were), and offered their own, which Motorolla rejected. Judges in Germany and the ITC apparently both agree that Motorolla's offer was FRAND, otherwise they wouldn't have ruled the way they did. Furthermore, we know these courts are not pushovers on this matter considering how quickly they slapped down Samsung for it's actual abuse of FRAND patents.
When and if more details come out, they may tell a different story, but all the signs so far point to Apple being in the wrong here.
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by noh8rz2 · 2012-02-05 13:50 · Score: 1

look up FRAND patents, and get back to me with your revised comment.
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-02-06 23:33 · Score: 1

The fact that you're anticipating a paid PR shill response in advance is just hilarious.
And lo, look there it is, right on schedule.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by jo_ham · 2012-02-07 02:21 · Score: 1

So wait, are you accusing me of being a paid shill for Apple? I just want to be clear here.
You are accusing me of being paid by Apple to post positive things about them on slashdot, yes?
Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-02-07 15:38 · Score: 1

So wait, are you accusing me of being a paid shill for Apple?
Oh no, the opposite. Notice, my original post got a downmod after a few days. Somebody really had to be out there scouring to find it even.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?

Just desserts. by DurendalMac · 2012-02-04 11:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Apple flings lawsuits like mad. Then it bites them in the butt. Can we all just agree that the patent system is idiotic and far too overbearing already?

Re:Just desserts. by kangsterizer · 2012-02-04 11:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

the "cool" stuff about patents and all the lawsuits
the only losers are always us, the consumers. no one else.
Re:Just desserts. by Crewdawg · 2012-02-04 12:09 · Score: 1

Undoing accidental mod
Re:Just desserts. by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-02-04 12:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

Can we all just agree that the patent system is idiotic and far too overbearing already?
How would we know? When patents are discussed around here they're assumed to be six words long, mainly because not one person here has ever actually read any of the patents in question. If we can't do that, then no, we cannot agree the patent system is idiotic We actually have to understand it, first.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just desserts. by dogmatixpsych · 2012-02-04 12:59 · Score: 2

Motorola sued Apple about this issue (maybe not in Germany but certainly here in the U.S.) before Apple really started going after other companies. I'm not defending Apple, I'm just pointing out that this didn't happen to Apple because of them "flinging around lawsuits", Motorola went after Apple before that happened.
Re:Just desserts. by Daniel+Phillips · 2012-02-04 13:12 · Score: 1

When patents are discussed around here they're assumed to be six words long, mainly because not one person here has ever actually read any of the patents in question.
You don't know that.

--
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Re:Just desserts. by LordLucless · 2012-02-04 13:14 · Score: 2

If the patented subjects were simple enough to have been implemented many times independently by engineers versed in the art, solving the same problem, then they were obvious, and shouldn't have qualified for patent protection in the first place.
And you can be pretty sure they weren't developed from the patent filings, as most companies prohibit engineers from looking at patents, as you get more leniency if you accidentally violate a patent than if you do it knowingly, which is another telling fact against patents (it shouldn't be possible to violate them accidentally).

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:Just desserts. by Anthony+Mouse · 2012-02-04 13:30 · Score: 2

How would we know? When patents are discussed around here they're assumed to be six words long, mainly because not one person here has ever actually read any of the patents in question. If we can't do that, then no, we cannot agree the patent system is idiotic We actually have to understand it, first.
I don't think reading the patents is the problem. If you look at individual patents then you will undoubtedly find some that are reasonable and have narrow claims (though generally nobody infringes those) and others that take the form "{thing the Post Office has done for 200 years} but on the internet" or "{thing secretaries have done for 500 years} but on a phone."
The thing is, the individual patents have never been the problem. The problem is that each major company has thousands of patents on thousands of possible features, and each product has thousands of features. Some overlap in the two sets is inevitable, so you have a situation where everybody is infringing everything. Which means that whenever a company starts to fail in the marketplace, or just feels like being a dick, they can bog down the entire industry in a series of multimillion dollar lawsuits and there is no cost-effective precaution that anyone can take to inoculate themselves against it. Or if a company fails entirely and gets liquidated, its patents can end up in the hands of trolls who use them to extort money from the people who actually make stuff.
Even when things are working "well," the result is merely that everyone cross-licenses one another and all the money spent on patent prosecution and license negotiations for thousands of patents only goes to cancel out the money wasted by the other guy on the same thing. It's a complete waste of resources at best and a full employment program for patent litigation lawyers if the slightest thing goes wrong.
Re:Just desserts. by Dhalka226 · 2012-02-04 13:30 · Score: 1

If we can't [read the patents], then no, we cannot agree the patent system is idiotic
I disagree. We may not be able to discuss or agree that the specific patents in question are idiotic without reading the claims, but we can still discuss the patent system as a whole.
If the system promotes a world where two companies can have legal pissing matches all around the world, taking turns having each others' products yanked off the market (and then reinstated!) then I would call that a pretty retarded system, regardless of the merits of the particular patents. That Apple's patents are design patents makes it more clear.
Re:Just desserts. by PopeRatzo · 2012-02-04 13:45 · Score: 1

Apple flings lawsuits like mad. Then it bites them in the butt. Can we all just agree that the patent system is idiotic and far too overbearing already?
In this story, "overbearing" can be used to describe more than just the patent system. I'm thinking of a five-letter word that rhymes with "zapple".

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Just desserts. by Dr+Max · 2012-02-04 15:01 · Score: 1

What we need to do is separate patents from ideas. Patents are a good thing, they are the reason big companies spent millions of dollars on R&D pushing the bounds of science. Where the system gets abused however is the use of other peoples inventions. Like apple owning the patent for fuel cells in computers when they didn't invent either tech. Not saying ideas like this aren't valuable but they aren't even in the same league as inventing the actual computer. So what if we start an idea register where the application fee is small, less legal work, and maybe a computer system to look for previous work; but the idea can only be owned by a small group of people, and a payout for use of the idea is mandatory, unbiased, and a fraction of what can be charged today for patents. It means many more people will have access to the system (I've looked into registering patents and even if you can do all the legal work your self, it still cost a small fortune), which will boost the amount of brains on the problems, and big companies won't be able to abuse simple ideas.

--
Rocket Surgeon.
Re:Just desserts. by jo_ham · 2012-02-04 16:16 · Score: 1

Yes we do, given that any time the Apple design patent question comes up, there are 20 comments on how it's a patent on rounded rectangles.
If anyone had actually *read* the patents we might actually get somewhere with the discussion. But that's a lot to expect. I've seen several comments recently that failed to even read the summary, let alone the article or any links in it.
Re:Just desserts. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-04 18:39 · Score: 1

It's a synecdoche (I don't say a justified one) -- the design patent covers a shape whose most conspicuous element is the rrect shape (in plan view). Someone choosing to refer to it as "a patent on rrects" certainly does not mean they haven't read it.
Re:Just desserts. by evilviper · 2012-02-05 13:23 · Score: 1

And you can be pretty sure they weren't developed from the patent filings, as most companies prohibit engineers from looking at patents
That's a HELL OF A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS there.
How the hell do we know that Apple isn't trollling patent filings for good ideas? We should just assume they are infallible corporate citizens? How do we know they didn't hire a bunch of ex-Motorolla engineers, who re-implemented the sme stuff they'd done (or heard about) at Moto? How do we know these guys didn't use Motorolla cell phones, see the feature (therefore learning that it was viable, and gaining some knowledge of how it was implemented by it's behavior) and copy it? With something like the Wright Brother's patents, conclusively knowing that something CAN be done may be the most valuable part.
Now, if you can prove that Apple's entire staff grew up in a vacuum, had never seen nor heard of anything Motorolla did, and yet came up with the same ideas, and implemented it in the same way that ran afoul of the patent, THEN I would accept your premise that the patent MUST be too obvious, but that's a vastly higher bar than you set of just completely assuming every company goes to great lenghts to avoid infringing patents.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Just desserts. by kangsterizer · 2012-02-05 14:37 · Score: 1

im not that guy.
Re:Just desserts. by LordLucless · 2012-02-05 18:15 · Score: 1

How the hell do we know that Apple isn't trollling patent filings for good ideas? We should just assume they are infallible corporate citizens?
You don't. But I, and the grandparent, were speaking in generalities. When you get down to specific cases then you start needing evidence - one way or another.

How do we know these guys didn't use Motorolla cell phones, see the feature (therefore learning that it was viable, and gaining some knowledge of how it was implemented by it's behavior) and copy it
Patents don't protect "knowledge that it's viable". They protect the implementation. If you're able to reverse engineer a feature from looking at its interface, then it is, almost by definition, obvious. Remember, what they do isn't protected. What's protected is how they do it. If you look at a UI, and come up with the same method of accomplishing it without looking at their code, or a description of the algorithm or some such, then how they do it is fairly obviously obvious.

With something like the Wright Brother's patents, conclusively knowing that something CAN be done may be the most valuable part.
Just because it's valuable doesn't mean it's patentable. The Wright brothers demonstrated that artificial heavier-than-air flight was possible. And yet they didn't get a patent on artificial heavier-than-air flight, they got a patent on their specific implementation.

Now, if you can prove that Apple's entire staff grew up in a vacuum, had never seen nor heard of anything Motorolla did, and yet came up with the same ideas, and implemented it in the same way that ran afoul of the patent, THEN I would accept your premise that the patent MUST be too obvious
Fortunately, I don't care what you accept. I could demand that you prove each patent was entirely original, with the inventor deriving a complete modern understanding of mathematics and computational systems from first principles before acceding that his patent was novel, but then I'd just be being as ridiculous as you, and just as relevant.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:Just desserts. by evilviper · 2012-02-05 19:02 · Score: 1

If you look at a UI, and come up with the same method of accomplishing it without looking at their code, or a description of the algorithm or some such, then how they do it is fairly obviously obvious.
I can look at a typewriter and figure out every detail that was patented. That doesn't mean typewriters were obvious and shouldn't have been patentable.

--
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Re:Just desserts. by LordLucless · 2012-02-05 19:45 · Score: 1

Firstly, no, if the typewriter were invented now, it should not be patentable, as pretty much everything about it is trivial.
However, assuming all you had access to was 1850s tech, and without looking at the mechanism (that was sorta the point of "without looking at their code".) would you make the same claim? All you'd have to work with is "I push buttons and words come out on the paper". Plenty of inventors worked on the same problem before a commercially successful typewriter came about.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face

Hmmm.... by butilikethecookie · 2012-02-04 11:18 · Score: 1

2.25% is not a ton of money.....Why don't they just pay it. I wonder if they infringed them on purpose (with knowledge they are using Motorola's stuff) or was it just an accident....

Re:Hmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-04 11:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Simple. If every one of the (estimated) eighteen companies that own essential GSM patents demanded a separate license at 2.2% instead of the few pennies per unit that they almost certainly charge to everyone else, it would add up to almost half the cost of the device.
Besides, there's debate over whether Apple's purchase of off-the-shelf GSM silicon (rather than designing it themselves) means that they already paid for the license, in which case Motorola is double dipping....
Re:Hmmm.... by beelsebob · 2012-02-04 11:50 · Score: 4, Informative

2.25% is an enormous sum of money, when you consider that a device might use patented techs from hundreds of companies. If each of these hundreds of companies asked for 2.25%, you're gonna be in trouble.
Re:Hmmm.... by whisper_jeff · 2012-02-04 12:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

If every company with a FRAND-related patent charged 2.25% nobody would be able to create a product. That you think it's not a ton of money shows how short-sighted you are being and how you're failing to look at the bigger picture.

Not to mention that FRAND stands for "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" and 2.25% is most certainly _NOT_ Fair nor Reasonable.
Re:Hmmm.... by inpher · 2012-02-04 12:30 · Score: 1

2.25% is an enormous sum of money, when you consider that a device might use patented techs from hundreds of companies. If each of these hundreds of companies asked for 2.25%, you're gonna be in trouble.
It would be impossible at even 0.1% since there are 2987 patents in 1729 families. 2.25% will never fly, especially for a single patent (probably a patent family actually). An average licensing cost of 0.01% per family would be 17.29% of the cost of the device. There is no way 2.25% can be considered FRAND.
Re:Hmmm.... by cheekyboy · 2012-02-04 12:37 · Score: 2

exactly
like wise, the opposite is impossible, since it would be illegal to SELL a chip without paying for a licence.
So if you buy a chip, its assumed, its already paid for.
Else... the chip maker is breaking the law and must pay the licence as they are selling it first point of call.
Its not like apple sells hardware to retail chains patents unpaid, and the retail chain has to pay patents.

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Re:Hmmm.... by Amouth · 2012-02-04 12:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

for initial negotiated fees i agree.. but for fees applied to a product made by a company that knowingly attempted to doge the fee..it isn't.
i'm not taking any side on this.. as i don't know the details.. but it only makes since that the fee applied after you are caught doing wrong be high enough to prevent you from doing it again. if it was the same cost as just licensing it to begin with then there would be zero incentive to license it ahead of time but rather you would produce and hope you didn't get caught an did then it's a know cost that you had already accounted for.

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:Hmmm.... by inpher · 2012-02-04 12:46 · Score: 3, Informative

for initial negotiated fees i agree.. but for fees applied to a product made by a company that knowingly attempted to doge the fee..it isn't.
Me neither, but this link (found in other comments on this article) claims Motorola repeatedly declined payment from Apple.
Re:Hmmm.... by Amouth · 2012-02-04 13:21 · Score: 1

but the question is did they decline payment from Apple before or after they filled the injunction?
If it was during the development period prior to first sale then Moto is in the wrong. If it was after Apple started selling and "got caught" doing wrong then Moto is within their rights to refuse to license it at that point, at least until the law suite is completed.

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:Hmmm.... by jo_ham · 2012-02-04 16:21 · Score: 2

The patents are in the 3G standard, therefore Apple didn't infringe them "on purpose" - by implementing 3G they were obliged to use the patent, whether they wanted to or not.
Where it gets sticky is that the patents are RAND covered, so Moto must charge everyone the same. Of course, everyone cross licences, and makes other payment deals etc, but ultimately everyone pays the same. It gets more tricky when you have to decide what your cross licenced patents are worth, or how much a certain percentage of sales will be if you have forecast numbers etc.
They've (Apple and Moto) have been butting heads on this for a long time - much like the Nokia vs Apple suit. Neither side can agree on payment. Given that the patent in question is in the 3G standard, it has never been about one side *not* wanting to pay - paying the correct value is what this is about.
Re:Hmmm.... by jo_ham · 2012-02-04 16:26 · Score: 1

There's no way Apple is going to start selling hardware that bakes in patented standards like GSM/3G/Wifi/etc without getting its licencing ducks in a row - they have whole departments for that sort of thing (as does any large company).
There's absolutely zero chance that they decided to try and "dodge" paying for one of the patents that they are *guaranteed* to be using (since they are in the standards). Risking their product line (and ultimately, profit and healthiness of business) on something that braindead is just not going to fly.
By all accounts, this has been ongoing for a long time. It's never been about anyone trying to avoid paying for use of patents. Just how much needed to be paid.
Re:Hmmm.... by theycallmeB · 2012-02-04 16:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

As that very article points out, Motorola has declined various settlement offers from Apple for PAST infringement of Motorola's patents. Motorola has licensed these very patents to Apple on FRAND terms for use in newly developed products which is why the iPhone 4S was not affected by the sales injunction, only the older models.

Since Apple did not license the patent on FRAND terms before pushing out the older iPhones, Motorola does not have any obligation to be fair, reasonable or non-discriminatory in negotiating the deal for those products now.
Re:Hmmm.... by Amouth · 2012-02-04 16:41 · Score: 1

ever forget to pay a bill? i know many large companies that do..
I'm sure they have their ducks in a row... or at least they though they did.. I do have to wonder if they didn't though - else how could Moto have gotten the successful injunction to begin with?
From what i can tell so far Apple assumed it paid the fees when it bought chips from Qualcomm (ak Qualcomm paid Moto the fees).. but that doesn't seem to be true.. Question is if the agreement between Apple and Qualcomm outlined the related fees - if it does then Apple should be able to pay the fine/rate and bill Qualcomm for the problem.. if not then Apple will be standing there realizing they for got to dot their I's and cross there T's..
I'm sure that all the answers will come out during the fight in court.. so we can all just sit back and watch and see who bet right.. i doubt this will drag on for too long.

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:Hmmm.... by Psicopatico · 2012-02-04 19:55 · Score: 1

If each of these hundreds of companies asked for 2.25%, you're gonna be in trouble.
Not an issue:

1) sell your stuff for, say, -5$ a piece
2) ???
3) profit!

--
Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
Re:Hmmm.... by dkf · 2012-02-04 20:50 · Score: 1

Not to mention that FRAND stands for "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" and 2.25% is most certainly _NOT_ Fair nor Reasonable.
Gouging everyone for the same amount (proportionately) is both fair and non-discriminatory. Whether it is reasonable is something you can debate if you wish.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:Hmmm.... by beelsebob · 2012-02-04 22:24 · Score: 2, Informative

The company didn't knowingly try to dodge the fee – they tried to license the patent, and when FRAND terms weren't offered said "fuck you, we'll fight it out in court when the device is out".
Re:Hmmm.... by Kartu · 2012-02-04 22:38 · Score: 1

Mod parent up.

But some expert said Moto's patents were weak... by bogaboga · 2012-02-04 11:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

This same patent expert insinuated that Google Motorola buy was a bad idea!

Now, we hear that push email may be gone from iDevices. This is to the expert... ...What you say...?

Re:Numbers by Macthorpe · 2012-02-04 11:48 · Score: 1

FRAND doesn't apply to payments that have been missed.

--
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien

Re:Numbers by Vapula · 2012-02-04 11:50 · Score: 4, Informative

Except that with the other manufacturers, it probably has been a patent cross licensing, something that Apple has refused to do from the start.

And Apple built his iUniverse around infringing products, as it refused to license the technologies (waiting for some court to come to help)... IANAL but there is clearly a damage to the other players as Apple may not have been able to enter the market like he did should he have paid for the licences from the start... At that time, it was far from "some little money out of a big warchest"...

Re:Numbers by ninetyninebottles · 2012-02-04 11:51 · Score: 1

FRAND doesn't apply to payments that have been missed.

FRAND applies to licensing costs. Apple claims to have a license for the patents in question through their suppliers, so if anything it then becomes an issue for the courts to decide liability and, potentially, damages, not for a company to retroactively license under terms that contradict their legal and contractual obligations to standards bodies and the EU government.

Re:Numbers by Macthorpe · 2012-02-04 11:52 · Score: 4, Informative

Source.

Frand-type patents involve technologies that are deemed to be part of an industry standard. In this case Motorola's innovation is deemed crucial to the GPRS data transmission standard used by GSM cellular networks across the world.

Companies must offer Frand-type patents for a reasonable fee to anyone willing to pay.

Apple had previously said it would be willing to pay the fee going forward, but the two firms dispute how much Apple should pay for failing to license the technology up until now. Missed payments are not covered by the "reasonable" rule, and Motorola is able to demand a more expensive price.

--
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien

Re:Numbers by ninetyninebottles · 2012-02-04 11:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Except that with the other manufacturers, it probably has been a patent cross licensing, something that Apple has refused to do from the start.

Apple does cross license their FRAND patents which are included in the standards. They don't cross license their other patents such as UI and proprietary hardware. That's the whole point, Motorola seems to be trying to use their FRAND patents (which were included in standards only because of their promises) to leverage against Apple to get licensing to patents that aren't part of any standard. It is exactly why there are rules in the first place about how you can use patents once you agree they are to be used in a standard.

FRAND by whisper_jeff · 2012-02-04 11:57 · Score: 1

2.25%? Yeah. That's Fair and Reasonable.

Not.

Re:FRAND by Macthorpe · 2012-02-04 12:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

As mentioned above, the 'reasonable' part doesn't apply if you don't pay when you should.
Source for the second (and hopefully last) time :)

--
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
Re:FRAND by inpher · 2012-02-04 12:11 · Score: 2

As mentioned above, the 'reasonable' part doesn't apply if you don't pay when you should.
Source for the second (and hopefully last) time :)
Well... It's sometimes hard to pay what one should when:

[...] Motorola repeatedly refuses to license this patent to Apple [...]
source
Re:FRAND by Amouth · 2012-02-04 12:47 · Score: 2

well that was because apple was willing to only pay the fee as if they had done it from the start.. and completely ignore the fact that hey had not licensed it prior to selling products using it.

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:FRAND by inpher · 2012-02-04 12:57 · Score: 1

well that was because apple was willing to only pay the fee as if they had done it from the start.. and completely ignore the fact that hey had not licensed it prior to selling products using it.
I agree that that would have been a problem for Apple, however, due to exhaustion because Qualcomm paid Motorola for the chips used by Apple the license was already paid. Then Motorola re-negotiated their bilateral license with Qualcomm and now Motorola wants money from Apple for the time that Qualcomm had already paid, thus trying to get money twice plus some extra.
Re:FRAND by whisper_jeff · 2012-02-04 15:35 · Score: 4, Informative

You mean like paying when you buy the chips from Qualcomm who had already paid a licensing fee to Motorola for the patents in question?

Yeah.

Motorola is attempting to double-dip. They want money from Qualcomm _and_ Apple for the same chip.

Actually, that last part isn't true - what Motorola actually wants is access to Apple's non-FRAND patents and they're attempting to leverage their own FRAND patents against them in the hopes of forcing a cross-licensing agreement (*). For chips made by Qualcomm who already paid to license the patents. So the double-dipping part is true...

* And I remain baffled that the Slashdot crowd considers this business practice to be acceptable, regardless of who does it or against whom it is done. It goes against the very heart of everything that FRAND stands for and, if successful, will have chilling effects on, well, pretty much any and every industry that makes use of FRAND patents to establish industry standards. In my opinion, _ANY_ company that abuses a FRAND patent should be viewed in a negative light. Then again, I must be new here...
Re:FRAND by Tharsman · 2012-02-04 17:43 · Score: 1

Unless Apple turns things around and says "OK", I'll give you 2.25%... of the cost of the chip that violates the patents.
Re:FRAND by Tharsman · 2012-02-04 17:46 · Score: 1

I was under the impression they were only in position to claim money for phones with non-Qualcomm devices, since Qualcomm had that agreement already in place. Think the deal is about the chip that was used before they switched to Qualcomm.
Re:FRAND by Kalriath · 2012-02-04 21:37 · Score: 1

The iPhone 4 and earlier did not use Qualcomm chipsets. The iPhone 4 and earlier used a Skyworks chipset, I can't find anything confirming that Skyworks actually has a patent license (with the sole exception of the resolution of a patent lawsuit between them and Qualcomm).

--
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Re:FRAND by Xest · 2012-02-05 23:37 · Score: 1

"And I remain baffled that the Slashdot crowd considers this business practice to be acceptable, regardless of who does it or against whom it is done. It goes against the very heart of everything that FRAND stands for and, if successful, will have chilling effects on, well, pretty much any and every industry that makes use of FRAND patents to establish industry standards. In my opinion, _ANY_ company that abuses a FRAND patent should be viewed in a negative light."
I don't really see the problem, I understand that FRAND applies to formally recognised standards, but to say companies shouldn't have to license things like push e-mail because they're not a formally recognised standard is stupid.
The whole FRAND/non-FRAND distinction is dumb, because there are a number of technologies and features that are so common nowadays that they are a defacto standard, and something users expect in their product as much as they expect it to support 3G or whatever FRAND covered technology you're talking about.
So personally I don't see it as disgusting, if companies like Motorola are being prevented using defacto standards than I don't see that as any worse than Apple being blocked from using official standards. The net effect is the same - users lose out on important features in their devices, and arguably the worst part is that it's not as if FRAND covered tech requires less R&D expenditure than non-FRAND - on the contrary, much of the FRAND stuff is more complicated, and IMO, more validly patentable.
Really, without complete reform of the patent system the next best thing would be that ALL software patents are FRAND covered, and probably all hardware patents too. If that's not to happen and it's to stay as is then I have no sympathy for companies crying FRAND over actual standards, whilst suing for non-FRAND patents that are still defacto standards.
It's all down to the shitty patent system in the first place, but I'm not convinced the FRAND vs. non-FRAND argument holds much weight. On modern smart phones, multi-touch for example is pretty much as standard an expectation as 3G. It's hard to justify that suing over multi-touch is any less bad than suing over 3G regardless of the fact one is covered by FRAND, the other isn't.

Re:Numbers by inpher · 2012-02-04 12:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'll take some number from my butt (definitions of my butt may vary, but in this context it is random site on internet).

1.186 billion mobile broadband subscribers.
Let's say that half of these are on a 3G chip that somehow requires the Motorola 3G license: 593 million.
If these devices sell for an average of $20 we would have 11,86 billion in sales for these devices.
If Motorola wants 2.25% of the sales of these devices that would mean $297 million, a very significant number considering it is a single patent of a large portfolio of 1729 patents (yes, one thousand seven hundred and twenty nine).

Imagine if each of these patents would warrant an average licensing cost of 0.1% rather than the 2.25% that Motorola wants, then we would look at a licensing cost of more than the sales price to license 3G technology for the device. 2.25% does not smell FRAND to me, but I am no patent lawyer, I only pretend I know stuff on the internet.

Re:Numbers by inpher · 2012-02-04 12:08 · Score: 1

I failed at copying and pasting a link, the second link that I got the number 1729 is: http://final.dime-eu.org/files/Bekkers_Martinelli_D6.pdf

Re:But some expert said Moto's patents were weak.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-04 12:38 · Score: 1

Most of them are weak in that they're FRAND. The actual infringement is done by Qualcomm (or whoever built the chip) and they've already licensed the appropriate patents (something Samsung found only figured out after the judge told laughed them out of court). Motorola tried to renegotiate their license with the Qualcomm so that license wouldn't apply if the chips were sold to Apple. Motorola and Samsung are currently being investigated by the EU over their abuse of FRAND patents.

So, Motorola has a money-losing phone division and some patents, most of which can't be used in a patent war. They're worth something, but not $12 billion.

Re:Numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-04 12:58 · Score: 1

Apple's "payment" was in the form of worthless UI patents, not actual money. Motorola, rightfully, demanded something that wasn't worthless.

Amusing by guttentag · 2012-02-04 13:00 · Score: 1

I always thought it was amusing that the German court system would ban the sale of iPads after much of the Bundestag (the German parliament) bought them for themselves and claimed them as a work expense. They're ubiquitous now in the Bundestag... you see them in photos, one member had to pause during the speech he was reading from his iPad when it crashed, they have officially approved the device for use in reading speeches, and they made the Polish parliament (Sejm) so jealous they followed suit! They're Apple's best advertising agency in Europe.

I know, I know... classic case of left hand doing one thing and the right hand doing another... that's part of what makes it so funny.

Re:Numbers by SpiralSpirit · 2012-02-04 13:11 · Score: 1

apple didn't want a biolerplate frand agreement. They wanted their own agreement (which covered previous unlicensed use), and thats what allowed Motorola to dictate whatever terms they want. There is big money involved because if Motorola is correct apple has been infringing on their patent for multiple product generations. The money isn't just licensing for next year, but licensing/damages for the patent being used unlicensed for years and producing big profit.

Re:Numbers by gnasher719 · 2012-02-04 13:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

apple didn't want a biolerplate frand agreement. They wanted their own agreement (which covered previous unlicensed use), and thats what allowed Motorola to dictate whatever terms they want. There is big money involved because if Motorola is correct apple has been infringing on their patent for multiple product generations. The money isn't just licensing for next year, but licensing/damages for the patent being used unlicensed for years and producing big profit.

The other way round, actually. What Apple wanted is a license under FRAND terms: You give me the license, I pay you cash. Now many companies in that business don't want these terms, they prefer: You give me a license to your patents, I'll give you a license to mine, because it is cheaper. And that's the kind of license that Motorola wanted to offer and that Apple didn't want.

And there can't be damages for any time where Motorola didn't offer a license under FRAND terms, otherwise the requirement for FRAND terms would be a joke. If I have a patent that I'm required to license to you for X dollars, I could just ask for 10 X dollars, delay an agreement for as long as possible, and then ask for X dollars in license fees and 3X dollars in damages for the time of the delay. (Obviously asking for X dollars for that time is fine).

Apple prop bet by PopeRatzo · 2012-02-04 14:17 · Score: 1

I'm setting the over/under on the year Apple launches a military strike on a sovereign nation at 2018.

I had set it at 2019, but so much money came in on the under that I had to move the line.

I'm giving 20 to 1 that the strike is a HAARP-style weather modification attack, 12 to 1 that it's a death ray fired from a satellite and 5 to 1 that it's via an airborne flu virus modified to make the male population of the target country gay.

A straightforward predator attack with very shiny drones carved out of single pieces of aluminum is going off at even money. If you call the Pope Ratzo All-Winners Guaranteed Absolutely Free In The Money Hotline right now you can get my 100% FREE money-back guaranteed lock of the century and I'll throw in the 2003 Irish Sweepstakes Winning Numbers - IT'S GUARANTEED!!. I'm 24 and 2 against the spread and the Vegas pros call me "Mr Perfect"! Don't leave money on the table! CALL TODAY! (Not available in Virginia, Wisconsin or Rhode Island. You must be over 18. Have a gambling problem? Call 1-888-IMA-LOSR. )

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

laugh by koan · 2012-02-04 15:10 · Score: 1

How do you like them apples..

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

Ban everything! by reve_etrange · 2012-02-04 15:35 · Score: 1

Damn, I was really hoping Germany was going to let all parties prevail in all the lawsuits - by banning all Apple, Samsung and Motorola products at once. That would have been great.

--
.: Semper Absurda :.

ahhh slashdot by smash · 2012-02-04 15:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

... where software patents are bad, evil, etc. unless they're being used against apple.

--
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.

Re:ahhh slashdot by itsdapead · 2012-02-04 23:21 · Score: 1

When you kill a murderer, it's an execution. That's good.
The laws of UK, most of Europe and AFAIK even some US states would disagree with you there. Even in the US I do believe that there's a certain amount of due process to go through - you know, proving the case and so on.
If Motorola are trying to double dip and/or charge Apple more than the going rate (the ND in FRAND stands for "non-discriminatory") then they're in the wrong. If the 2.5% figure is correct, that's completely usurious for one component in a complex device. Motorola lost the right to license their IP on a "take it or leave it" basis when they agreed to let it be incorporated into an international standard.
When Apple is not involved, the groupthink is that standards should be entirely patent-free (quite right too - but not the way the world works).

--
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.

Except Apple didn't get bit in the butt by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-04 16:22 · Score: 1

Seems to be a one-way thing. When Apple files law suits against Apple competitors, other companies are not allowed to sell products that compete with Apple. There is no option to post a bond, or whatever.

But when other companies sue Apple. Apple still gets to sell Apple products.

Apple gets special treatment, that Apple competitors do not get. That is hardly a case of Apple being bit in the butt.

Yes, the patent system is broken. But Apple chose to file those bogus law suits, the broken patent system did not force Apple to file the bogus suits.

Re:Numbers by jo_ham · 2012-02-04 16:28 · Score: 1

Ha. Nice try.

Apple *wishes* they could just pay cash. This would have been settled a *loooooong* time ago.

Also, you forgot to log in.

Re:Numbers by Tharsman · 2012-02-04 17:41 · Score: 1

Here is my question on this: the infringement to the patent in question, from what has been reported, only applies to iPhones up to the 4, do not include the 4S because it uses a Qualcom chip instead of the previous brand Apple used. Qualcom is making chips that cellphone makers use to make phones. Since Qualcom licenses these patents from Motorola, the phone becomes immune.

This tells me that the issue should not be Apple, but the chip manufacturer. It is that chip maker that failed at licensing the patents, and then used them to make chips it then sold to Apple. Should this case not be directed at that chip manufacturer instead? It's very likely that manufacturer has other clients that are also using this unlicensed chips, so Apple cant be the only target without Motorola suddenly setting themselves up for unfair practices.

I don't get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-04 18:42 · Score: 1

Why is the word "overturn" used in the subject?

It gives me (and a lot of people) the impression that they're "turning over or upsetting" the ban. They're not. They're only paying money to COMPLY with the court order, just like how Motorola wanted and how patents SHOULD work.

It makes it sound like the patents were invalidated; they're not.

Nokia. by drolli · 2012-02-04 23:40 · Score: 1

Now, the question is: will Apple, Samsung and Motorla fight long enough to allow for a comeback of Nokia on the smartphone market?

Slashdot Mirror

Apple Overturns Motorola's German iPad and iPhone Sales Bans

88 of 120 comments (clear)