Slashdot Mirror
To Mollify Google on Moto Patents, Apple Proposes $1/Device Fee
An anonymous reader writes "Motorola feels that Apple is infringing on several FRAND patents that have to do with how every smartphone in existence connects to WiFi and cellular networks. Since Apple makes smartphones, and Google is looking to use their newly acquired Motorola as a weapon, the two companies are only a few days away from the courtroom. Apple has conceded that the Moto patents are valid by offering to pay Google/Moto $1 per device, but only going forward. Motorola wants 2.25% per device and for it to cover all Apple devices (back dated). If Motorola pursues the case and the court issues a per device rate that is higher than Apple's offer, Apple promises to pursue all possible appeals to avoid paying more than $1. Motorola could end this quickly, or watch as Apple drags this out for what could be years."
Now negotiations can begin. The negotiations will be short.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
By not negotiating in good faith Apple seems to be setting itself up to lose badly in court. Surely any court will look at Apple's demands as unreasonable, given that they back them up with the threat of a protracted legal process costing tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
If $2.25 is simimar to what they have licensed it to others for, then Apple will have a hard job arguing that it isn't FRAND, and therefore that Moto shouldn't be allowed to enforce the patents.
I'm also fairly sure that FRAND doesn't mean that you're free to infringe until you get caught.
Anyway, bad as patents seem to be I'd love to see Apple get absoloutely battered because of patent infringements, because they insist on doing it to others. Hoist on their own petard and all.
Perhaps it will convince them to divert their lobbying power to removing patents.
Just kidding!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Isn't this the same type of behavior that the Apple faithful hated about Microsoft in years past? Or was that just the Slashdot crowd in general?
This is surely simple; Apple is using Motorolas patents; if they will not accept the FRAND offered by Moto then a Judge will surely be willing to grant a injunction against sales and promotion of all infringing products. As apple themselves have shown, this need not take years.
Or do fanbois think that 'rounded corners' drawn by one of their case designers a few years back represents a more important piece of IP than the detailed algorithms controlling signalling in a congested radio band that took real scientists and engineers years of research and skill to develop?
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
Think about what could be made if, instead of burning all of this money for a Pyrrhic victory against each other, Google and Apple spent all of that money on development. That would be nice. That would be neighborly.
Apple, Google: Listen to Mr. Rogers's ghost. Why won't you be each other's neighbors?
I have no idea if Apple's $1 figure is fair. It's probably a lowball figure to negotiate from.
But I am sure Motorola's counter of a percentage based on device cost is NOT fair. After all, the only difference between a 64GB iPhone and a 32GB iPhone is the amount of RAM, yet Apple would have to pay Motorola more for a license from the more expensive phone! That is ridiculous.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
AFAIK Apple has always agreed the patents are valid, they have however refused to pay UNFAIR fees.
Put it another way,what Motorola is asking for is like a Tyre company charging for a tyre based on what your car is worth, or the exact same tyre.
Apple is asking to pay the same price as everyone else.
Love/Hate Apple as much as you like, but if it was you buying the tyre for your car would you think it is Fair, Reasonable to pay 10 times the price someone else does simply because your car costs more ?
At what $ value did Motorola license these patents to other companies?
Motorola could end this quickly, or watch as Apple drags this out for what could be years.
This implies that Motorola should bow gracefully to its Apple overlords, and accept the fact it is lucky to get table scraps. The patents are valid and Apple has been infringing. I would normally just say WTF? but then I saw it posted by Timothy :(
Let's get to the point where no one can make a phone anymore. That seems to be the only way we'll see the patent system get reformed.
Apple sure do have a pair of huge balls.
One day they'll stumble over 'em.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
How does this not get resolved by: "Sheesh, okay. Stop suing us, and we'll stop suing you. You can use our really dumb patents, we can use yours."
Oh, right. Lawyers are involved.
How about Google just asking Apple to not charge Samsung a billion dollars and call it even.
Greed, or logic?
its not like apple ( or google ) will lose a dime anyway, as the extra cost incurred just gets passed along to the consumer.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yes, this is a typical response, exactly what I expected. I'm glad to see that I'm not going to be disappointed in this thread!
Pray tell, doesn't this go against Google's pledge to "only use patents defensively" which I often hear quoted here? Is it OK to abandon another one of your principles (Don't Be Evil was clearly just something that you repeated to suckers) when it suits you?
Take $0 and a contract stating they will not sue any Android distributer in the future for patents.
Google has yet to bring a product to market that the market really wants.
If I may quote Monty Python's 'Life of Brian': "All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? "
Honestly, if you can't find anything that Google has brought to the table that the market "really wants" you just aren't paying attention.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
They deserve to be buried by Google/Motorola. $1000/device, final offer you bastards.
MOTO owns the fundamental patent they must share
SO...
GOOG is spoiling for a fight
AND
AAPL stands to rights recognizing its validity and fundamental offer requested to pay
SCOTUS
will decide restraint of trade on this one
Dear Apple, Samsung and other companies,
Patents are a tool to help the people of a society. If you continue to abuse this tool, we the people will ban all patents or take other steps necessary to see that they are used properly.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
companies are like children, and can't be trusted to play with sharp, pointy objects. actually, it's more like they were digging in the back yard and found a buried mine that happened to be a neutron bomb. they're poking at it with sticks now.
society created the whole concept of IP, and we need to clean it up now, before it causes more damage.
Apple chose to use the "nuclear option," and have no-one to blame but themselves. These things are typically settled reasonably ... compare patent stacks, few pennies go to the one with the taller stack. But no, Apple has shown they don't play nice. Everyone with any sense will be hostile toward Apple. Prisoner's Dilemma, basically, except everyone knows ahead of time that Apple defects.
Apple can't win this way in the long run. They may have a big pile of cash, but if everything they want to do suddenly gets nickel-and-dimed, they'll find that only goes so far.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
You mean attacking those who attack you is not defense?
Should they just take it?
Besides this is motorola pursuing a lawsuit that started before Google bought them.
Soon enough there will be cheap devices with LTE. Some of them may even be dumbphones as eventually VoLTE will replace the previous voice calling methods..
I personally don't believe in software patents at all, but you have to admit this is poetic justice. If I was Google, I'd aquire as many patents against apple as I could and everytime they sued someone for some stupid patent, I'd return the favor.
Apple really seems to have been going out of its way to piss off courts recently. First the event in Britain where they basically thumbed their nose at the Appeals Court and defied their order about posting the apology. Now they're pre-emptively threatening the court in Wisconsin, saying that if they don't get what they want, they are going to go all-out with appeals. While judges know their decisions are subject to appeal, they very much do not like being publicly threatened in such a manner by litigants, especially while the trial is still going on. I think they may have bought themselves a world of pain with this verdict when it finally comes. And appeals courts will be all the more likely to look at Apple's filings with a skeptical eye now that they've already told all the world they are doing it as part of a hardball business strategy.
Pray tell, doesn't this go against Google's pledge to "only use patents defensively" which I often hear quoted here?
While I don't particularly take Google's side (I see both companies as a plague at times), one could apply the adage: "The best defense is a good offense".
then a Judge will surely be willing to grant a injunction against sales and promotion of all infringing products.
Nope. Read this related review of Microsoft vs. Google (er, Motorola) on FRAND
Basically judges everywhere agree you cannot use FRAND as a tool to extort way more money from successful companies than from others. The only question at hand is how much money Apple (and Microsoft) will be paying - even if Apple appeals it simply means delaying when they are paying Motorola, but will not result in Apple devices being blocked from sale.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Two things:
First, I think that most people here feel that technical patents are somewhat more valid than design patents. While there are a number of people who think that patents as a whole are bad, but most people think that patents are okay, it's patents on things like "rounded corners" (aka design patents) that people dislike.
Secondly, if you attack someone who attacks you, are you being offensive or defensive? It's not immediately clear if retaliating after being attacked is a defensive action or an offensive one.
I think Apple knows this offer will not be taken, but they decided to make one to make their position in the eventual lawsuit stronger. One of Google/Motorola's arguments against Microsoft is that Microsoft will not negotiate, so Google/Motorola could not have violated their FRAND obligations.
"Sometimes it's hard to tell the dancer from the dance." --Corwin Of Amber in CoC
Hou seem to have misunderstood me.
First of all - cheap device with LTE??
I don't think this was about LTE. There have certainly been phones down at the $20 mark.
Secondly - How exactly would it block cheap devices? A fee of $1 would certainly not block cheap devices from existing.
Where did I claim that a $1 fee was too high? A fixed fee might not make them as much profit as they are entitled to under FRAND. A variable fee is the only one that can balance profits to Motorola with the availbility of cheap phones.
The only really fair way to approach fees for patents used in standards is a clear and unchanging fee charged per device, so that anyone contemplating using that technology in a device has an up-front understanding what it adds to the cost.
If it was a fixed percentage of the retail price, then they would also know how much it would cost up front. The problem with that of course is that it precludes barter: i.e. patent cross licensing. How would that be fair?
So you really think it's right for Motorola to get paid more because you decide to add more RAM, or USB ports, or a better screen to a device...
Sure, why not?
In that world you get devices that have lower quality components because it adds to the royalty fees you have to pay.
Well, no, in that world the high price, high margin products have slightly lower margins. But really cheap devices will exist because they're not priced out by a very high fixed fee.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Just that $1 a phone is cheaper than court. Apple seems to willing to pay to get rid of pests.
So when it's someone going after Apple, they're a "pest". What is it when Apple goes after someone?
Definitely drag it out, no question about that. Keep that willful infringement sword dangling over Apple's stock price. Apple might just get what it wished for.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Sure. After all, Android was nothing but a knockoff of the look n' feel of the early iPhones anyway. Why wouldn't Apple try to eliminate the clones? They have done this consistently with companies that knocked them off since the 1980s. Franklin, Microsoft, the Apple clones, you name it.
it says 'Apple’s offer makes it clear they accept Motorola’s patents are valid, so now it’s just a squabble over their value.'
Not really, maybe they just figured it was cheaper to pay $1 going forward than pay lawyers to get a fair agreement.
I wonder what the patent number is?
At this level of cooperate greed, the lawyers were already getting paid just to be there.
Then we could say ya, we downloaded your songs illegally, and from this day forward, if we do it, we'll pay you $1 per song.
Be seeing you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjgTBxHhYno
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
Let's see a reliable source. Everyone knows Florian Mueller is a laughable shill.
Haha you like to Florian. thats like conservatives linking to Fox News.
If Apple wasn't demanding $30-40 per device, negotiations might have gone a lot better. Apple behaves as if they honestly believe that others should pay for more it's patents and that they should pay nothing for patents belonging to others.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
The crucial thing to remember is that the other companies that are getting cheaper deals are entering into full reciprocal patent sharing deals with Motorola. Often even one sided (Motorola gets all their patents; they get cheap access to the RAND patents). This is worth plenty and so Apple is completely outrageous to even think they should get a similar price without making a similar offer.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
The board was Googlized, and Google now owns Motorola, so yes, Motorola is nothing more than the hardware arm of Google at this point.
Because so far, Apple has been perfecting willing to pay for FRAND related patent use, but not willing to pay way more than other companies who also licence the same technology which is what Motorola has been demanding.
By perfectly willing, you of course mean willing to make a lowball offer in an attempt to avoid being found guilty of willful infringement (or whichever the proper terming would be here). Of course, neither of us have actual numbers to compare either companies offer to, but this does show your eagerness to paint Apple in a favorable light.
The judge has ALREADY realized Motorola has possibly been trying to do exactly that.
Nice phrasing. Attempting to make it appear as if Motorola is already guilty while not technically saying anything incorrect. You should work in politics. Of course you are digging heavily into "maybes", as nothing has been decided in that case, outside of the Judge deciding to look into it.
I don't really feel that the virtues or values of patents can be argued any more. When you can secure a patent for doing something that somebody has done for 25 years, but "in a cell phone" you know that the technical patent system is just as screwed as anything.
Secondly, I personally support both Apple and Google's lawsuits. Hopefully they completely destroy one another. It is only when all companies have deadlocked each other in a patent death-grip, and none are able to do anything whatsoever, that they will force Congress to actually reform the broken system that allows this kind of bullshit to occur in the first place.
I suspect Motorola wants no money and instead just patent cross licensing. Seems FRAND to me.
The F part comes from cross licensing deals to make things fair. Apple has no standards-essential patents that are being requested, so there's no cross licensing for those items.
Apple's patents, since not FRAND-eligible, aren't being offered at reasonable rates. If I have a deal that I can use my neighbour's pool if they can use my trampoline, that's FRAND. But if you want to use my trampoline and tell me I'm not allowed to play in your tree fort because the FRAND deal is only applicable to ground constructs, then fuck you, pay me $10 to use my trampoline.
Keep on knockin'
https://robbiecrash.me
>>The courts will hopefully realize this isn't the first time Apple has been caught using a competitors patented technology
>And when was that exactly?
Remember the iPod? Remember the Creative nomad? Apple got caught copying a patented tech right there.
So Motorola is trying to charge Apple what they were charging Microsoft? How is that "way more than other companies who also license the same technology"?
Actually, apple is now screwed.
Their entire case on the west coast was predicated on "we were harmed by their unreasonable terms" Apple quite literally just gave the judge evidence of the exact opposite of their claims in court, by now making a FRand offer. House of cards -> fallen apart.
Google doesn't need to block apple, nor will they. They also don't have to accept this offer from Apple. This also won't resolve any of apple's past infringement, should that part of this process move forward. However, this shows one thing right away: apple is now fucked, and no longer the aggressor in the situation. Not that it's much of a surprise considering they're losing in every court on the planet.
But in the meantime I think your bias against this person is clouding your ability to understand simple facts.
Yeah, I don't know if that argument's going to work to well in defense of old Florian...
I don't think Google cares who makes the phones, as long as Google sells the ads and can use its spyware on them uninhibited.
They C&D'd that one fella for making a Droid ROM that blocked their spyware, remember.
Seems like he links to the actual court documents in the article. Everybody knows you can't read though.
I am rooting for google to fight apple and they are one of the handful companies, who can do that, financially speaking, without going bankrupt. Apple needs to get a dose of their own medicine IMHO. Let them eat back the workds of the iConMan Steve Jobs, going to thermonuclear war against the android.
I am so looking forward to this one.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
I was hoping for a car analogy. :(
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Thanks, that was a pretty informative read on the subject. I would indeed say then there is a risk for Apple (or Microsoft) that a sales injunction could be brought into play...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
LOL. While I am pro-android (have code in Linux and other OSS), I have always like OSX. And I used to tell older ppl, as well as total idiots, to use IOS (though I no longer do because they are having problems seeing those small screens).
BUT, it was Apple that started this patent battle. They have dragged all sorts of garbage in the courts and are looking to lose many of the patents that they do not deserve (which is a good thing) that they used to make their points. Now, Motorola has a NUMBER of patents that pretty much block Apple. Yet, apple does not want to X-patent. That is fine. But then you have to be ready to pay the price. Apple is simply object to a STANDARD amount of money. In addition, they do not want to pay for their past theft.
At this time, I would love to see Moto sue to have ALL apple phones and tablets blocked from the US. They set the precedence for this, and it makes sense for it to be applied back to them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Just so that you know in future, Florian has been fully discredited and some time later it turned out that he was taking money for a long time from the people he seems to support. He's also known to (have?) consult(ed?) for Microsoft.
There is plenty more where that came from.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Sure. Call Florian a shrill and therefore all the facts are suddenly wrong, right?
What do they call this kind of argument again...?
Do you understand the concept of "FRAND" patent? You might want to look it up. You are *NOT* allowed to charge one customer more than what you charge another customer, within reasonable bounds.
2.25% is clearly unreasonable.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. You think that it is OK for Apple to go on the offense and use a number of BS patents to try and stop competitors, BUT, when the competitors then sue Apple for their THEFT of HONEST patents, you think that it is wrong? Seriously?
Google is being defensive about this, not offensive. If they were offensive, they would go after MS as well.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And yet, Android was actually started BEFORE iphone. Just amazing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
No, I'm afraid that you don't understand this correctly. I never said Apple or Google are in the wrong for subjecting each other to expensive and time-consuming patent litigation. I think it's wonderful actually - the only way this broken system will be fixed is if enough large companies totally cripple each other in the legal system. Only then will they eventually bribe Congress into a patent reform.
The Franklin clones actually ripped off the Apple ROMs - are ROMs hardware or software?
Google saw an opportunity to steal the entire iPhone concept while they had a spy on the Apple board. If you don't accept this then please look at one of the many before and after the iPhone images available on Google that show how Android looked before the iPhone (hint: Android was shit inn'it) and eat some humble pie with a side serving of crow jelly.
Apple has aggressively defended its look and feel probably since before you were born.
Yes, and have you seen what Android looked like before Google's spy on Apple's board lifted their iPhone UI design whole cloth?
It was a fucking Blackberry clone, but only more half-assed. There wasn't any multitouch, hell there wasn't any touch at all! The thing had one of those awful little keyboards, one of those stupid trackballs (or a joystick, either way it was stupid) and it was just a massive pile of fail.
Hell, in this patent climate, I think anybody should do anything. Declining to pay the patent fees was a business decision, and Googlearola's decision to sue was also a business decision.
Apple has the patents on multi-touch phone and tablet UIs, so I would expect this to work out very, very badly for Google and gang if Apple decides to assert those patents. I would love to see such a suit, whatever way it ended up.
Also, if you think Android is "OSS" you're mistaken. It's a Linux distro with many proprietary and non-free blobs attached to it. Some effort has been made at replacing those with Free software, but they only work on a select few older phones. Google is about as serious about Open Source and Free Software as Apple is - perhaps Apple is even more serious.
Motoroogle is looking for some quick cash to float their ledgers, anyway, so it seems to me that they'll settle in the end. Remember, Google's financial books are a bit funny smelling as of late, and they certainly can't afford to just waste endless cash.
IIRC, 2.25% has been the ongoing rate. The only reason why other companies haven't paid as much is because they've cross-licensed their patents to Moto instead, and that is not exactly a free service. Apple is unwilling to cross-license (or rather they claim that their patents are worth a ridiculous amount that Moto disagrees with), and so Moto wants to charge them the baseline 2.25% fee. Seems perfectly fair to me.
..I'm guessing that 'The rise and fall of Apple' will make for a compelling Harvard Business Review case study.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
Trying to make sure I understand your logic. Company Y says they will only use patents defensively. Company X makes no such claim. When company X sues company Y first, it's ok, but if company Y countersues only company X after having been sued first, it's bad?
:(){
Your anonymous lies do not impress me. Yes, they had touch-based prototypes, but only AFTER Eric Shidt spied out Apple's plane.
Shit, even now, 5 years later, they are still struggling to catch up to Apple. See, when your only skill is copying, that's what you have to do to get by. The disadvantage of the copying tactic, though, is that you will never actually get ahead - you can simply shift down into neutral and wait to see what Apple does in its next rev of the iPhone, and then attempt to clone it before they release yet another iteration.
This is the same cycle that Microsoft has been stuck in for ages now - since the 80s.
Simple solution... Apple gets rights to motorola patents, Googorola gets all its partners and android device manufacturers rights to whatever patents apple thinks they are infringing on and keep suing everyone for. Everybody pays less court and licensing costs, scumbag lawyers lose their biggest clients, consumers get the devices they want, everybody wins.
Here's one:
If I have a nice new Maserati, and you want to drive it, you should offer to let me drive your custom off-road bog truck.
What Apple is doing is basically saying, "Let us drive your Maserati for a couple hours and we'll leave some change in the seat, and you can use the natural stream behind our house to fish for $10 a day."
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Nope, you have failed to understand. My logic says that the patent system is so fucked, that the more companies that get a death-grip on their competitors through the use of patents, the better, because only that will lead to reform of the system.
I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy that is displayed by Google fans, who have been claiming for a couple of years now that Google isn't "evil" and that they will use their patents "only defensively."
I guess if your rationale is that a good offense is the best defense, then you can claim that a pre-emptive defensive lawsuit is indeed consistent, but this is a sort of Jesuitical hair-splitting tactic that needs no further comment.
2.25% of what? An iPhone for example is first a phone. Then it's a photo camera. Then it's a film camera. Then it's a music player. Then it's a video player. Then it's an internet browser. And an email appliance. And a games console. And a dozen other things. Say 20 in total.
If you had twenty companies, each with an essential patent in one of these twenty areas that need FRAND licensing, should each get 2.25% of the total price? If Apple sold twenty separate products, one being a pure phone and nothing else, then one company would get 2.25% for a phone patent, and the other 19 get nothing. And if Apple sold a camera as well, someone would get 2.25% of the camera, and the other 19 would get nothing.
Ignorance on your part does not constitute a problem on ours.
/. during that case. He's also consistently wrong.
Florian Mueller is a well known paid shill. His antics during the SCO vs Novell case were very heavily discussed here on
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
But not willing to pay what other companies are paying. 2.25% is standard, this is only reduced when that company has patents of equal value offered in a cross (reciprocal) licensing deal. Apple is not being singled out here, it's the same deal offered to Microsoft (who like Apple, have no patents of value to hardware manufacturers). Google informed regulators it intended to charge no more than 2.25% for access to FRAND patents when they bought Motorola Mobility. Regulators agreed but Apple wants to squirm out of it. As groklaw put it:
It's a legal strategy in other words. Samsung and Motorola built the world that Apple and Microsoft now want to enter, and the early creators each have foundational patents that neither of the newcomers can build smartphones without infringing, so they want to pay less and they want to be immune from the threat of injunction, while being free to seek them on their own, non-standards-essential patents. It's a game, and that is all it is, despite the rhetoric.
So Apple and Microsoft want to stand on the shoulders of giants (Samsung and Motorola), thats fine. But the giant is simply asking for fair payment for carrying them.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Apart from Search, Gmail, Maps, Docs and Android. What has Google bought to the market that it really wants?
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
While I fully agree with with you wrote this time, the real issue is that in your initial post and most of the others, you appear to be blaming Google for responding back to Apple's insane attitude.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Odd. I see Apple begging Google to help them catch up. Apple's mapping sux. They only recently caught up to voice control by buying seri, but are going to lose out again. Android Catching up to IOS? Nope. In this case, it is a case of one upsmanship between the two. The difference is that Apple continues to do this over and over by themselves like Beta, while Google acts more like VHS.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
It's called ad hominem. The fact that it is Florian writing this does not necessarily make the facts wrong, but it makes it such that you must use a different source.
AccountKiller
A lot of people seem wrongheaded about FRAND patents and I think it is because they are trying to justify pre-existing beliefs born of like or dislike of one of the litigants involved in this case. So lets just talk about FRAND in general terms using current developments in the auto industry.
Electric cars, the next big thing and they need to be able to charge the batteries. So, having many different connectors is inefficient and a standard for plugs is needed if we're ever going to build out infrastructure. But wait there are many ways to do it and many companies that already have patents on lots of potential solutions. Should we:
Generally, because it is industry players, we go with the second option, but does that mean auto-makers that were not making electric cars at the time the standard was made and who don't have patents involved in the standard should be forever frozen out of the market? Does that mean no new car companies will ever be allowed into the market? Because to make a new charging standard there are likely hundreds of patents and even if each one only demands .5% of the sale price of a vehicle, that quickly adds up to 100% for all companies that don't have patents in the pool. Does anyone here think that is reasonable for a standard or in any way good for innovation or society as a whole?
Standards are supposed to be about collaboration and reducing just this kind of bullshit and FRAND licensing is a necessary part of that, which is why you aren't allowed to price things discriminatorily in the first place. Google/Motorola is free to license or not license any non-FRAND patents to Apple or anyone else and charge any rate they damn well please. Apple is likewise free to license or not license any non-FRAND patents they damn well please. People conflating the two issues are missing the point and are cheering on abuse of the standard creation process and the end of the ability of any upstart company to engage in using standards. It's cheering on forcing the industry into stagnation and preventing the competitive marketplace and consumers from determining what is the best device... but maybe that's secretly what some people want. They don't want competition to result in the best product. They just want their "team" to win so they feel better about their purchase. Shame.
Apple: Our iDevice is now FREE but requires an iCloud account. iCloud is $39 a month.
Motorola: Hey, where's our 2.25%?
Apple: Hahahahaha.
These are different patents in a different pool. The MPEG LA has caps on maximum amount payable per year - after a point, per device licenses become free. Also Microsoft are a contributor to the pool, so they may get a discounted rate. If Motorola believes that their patents are not covered by the pool, then with high enough volume, it is entirely reasonable that they might be asking for more than what Microsoft are paying for the pool patents.
It is only reasonable if Motorola is asking for the same or similar rates as they ask from other licensees. I cannot see anyone paying 2.25% for a small set of patents.
Apparently you don't understand what the fuck FRAND means.
Apple ditched Google, they weren't begging for anything. It makes sense, as the Google experience is custom-designed to sell Google ads on the Google phone OS.
In any event, I don't think that Google has even come close to catching up to Apple in smartphone market share. You can quote all the massaged numbers from IT consultancies, but the only ones that really matter (and the only ones are actually trustable, are the ones from Wikipedia's stat counter. They show Apple ahead by a clear margin, even after the cheap Droid phones have been dumped on the market for years now.
Read Steve Jobs biography, and Steve Ballmers chair throwing. Companies have no feelings, the people that run them do.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The mobile phone companies do a LOT of cross licensing, everyone contributes a bit, this bring the price down. Apple doesn't cross license, so it has to pay more.
And just take a look at what Apples partner in crime demands per android phone in license fees.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Such arrangements NEVER stand on their own and part of the whole FRAND deal involves cross-licensing. I got 1 patent, you got 2, we cross-license and since I only got 1 and you got pay I pay you some money as well to balance things out.
FRAND is not a shop that sells licenses to any buyer, it is far more complex. And Apple has no patents to cross-license. It also knowingly avoided paying for years and refuses to pay those years. It acted in bad faith. That means gentleman agreements are out the door.
Do some research and you find that prices do indeed vary for FRAND licensing depending on the parties involved. It is NOT one price for all.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
No, it is also reasonable if
(cost of cross licensed patents + fees from other licensees) = (fees asked from Apple)
I cannot see anyone paying 2.25% for a small set of patents
Which is why not every day a new mobile phone manufacturing company is born. One needs lots of one's own patents to do business in this patent ridden world.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Nuclear weapons are supposed to be deterrents as in the MAD principal. If you you engage them ... then the outcome might be assured. Apple it's not too late to not be a prick.
A company so arrogant that wanted to charge Samsung $30 - $40 per phone for infringing Apple's patents, yet will only offer $1 a phone when they infringe other people's patents. Apple has officially become the smuggest company ever and must be capable of chewing on their own smug farts at this point.
Anyways, Apple aside, the whole software/mobile industry needs to be slapped for both creating and continuing all this patent whoring. The whole point of a patent is to show the world your innovations, and thus encourage cooperation in innovation, not use it as a weapon against competition. What I don't understand is how the hell any company will release a product these days without doing some form of basic patent search.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
There it is again! The Tragedy of the Anti-Commons. This is the biggest problem with patents on standards, not just a big problem for technological innovation in general.
It would be nice if courts were to give more weight to the cost of patents in terms of lost downstream innovation space rather than to just assume that patents = innovation.
The diversity and expression of human opinion is essential to human survival.
Let's see a reliable source. Everyone knows Florian Mueller is a laughable shill.
While you are an unfunny shill. Because only a shill can still pretend that Googlerola isn't being investigated for systematic abuse of FRAND patents in both the US and the EU.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
All devices that use the 30 pin dock connector pay a licensing fee to Apple for the privilege. They also get to put a "Made for iPhone" (or whatever) sticker on the box.
The cost is rumored to be the greater of 10% or $10. (These prices are subject to NDA and probably change depending on deals made with the accessory manufacturer, so I wouldn't necessarily take the exact number as factual). I believe the cost of the connector component itself is extra.
So, a simple $80 iHome stereo system has $10 going to Apple. A $400 Bose system would be closer to $40. I can only hope that BMW made some sort of arrangement so that it's not 10% of the cost of a new car.
And Apple wants to pay $1 per phone for some very significant patent licenses. What hypocrites!
IIRC, 2.25% has been the ongoing rate. The only reason why other companies haven't paid as much is because they've cross-licensed their patents to Moto instead, and that is not exactly a free service. Apple is unwilling to cross-license (or rather they claim that their patents are worth a ridiculous amount that Moto disagrees with), and so Moto wants to charge them the baseline 2.25% fee. Seems perfectly fair to me.
2.25% of what exactly has been the rate for what? RAND patents don't require cross-licensing of anything not related to the standard covered. There are dozens of companies making phones who don't have any patents to cross-license, let alone standard relevant ones. Everyone sane knows that. Demanding it means your a crook - like Googlerola.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
The deal that would really make sense for Google to make would be a full cross-licensing agreement with Apple. That would, of course, end all the suits against Android so I don't expect to see Apple agree to one.
It's a camera - that uses the network to upload picture and video. It's a music/video player - that uses the network to stream or download media. etc. etc.
I'm not ignoring your point, just pointing out that even with multiple modalities of usage, the Moto patents apply to all. So in this particular case, the Moto patents don't work as an example of your argument.
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
But is Google really responding to Apple's anti-Samsung lawsuit here? To me it seems like another battle, not the same one, and in light of Google's promises not to be evil, not to use its patents except defensively, and the idea that Apple didn't sue "Android" but some corrupt gigantic Korean megacorp makes me feel that the Google supporters who condemned Apple's lawsuit then, but do not also condemn Google now, are hypocrites.
Why would wiki's stat counter be the only one that matters and not the massive number of android phones that have been sold?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
We know a lot of Android phones have been manufactured, but nobody will admit to how many are actually sold. Companies are hired by PR firms representing Google and Samsung to cook up numbers based upon statistics from very odd places, which they try to actually pass off as retail sales, but this is of course just a big giant trick.
Wikipedia's reliable because everybody uses it. These other "sales" figures count phones that are sitting in warehouses, destined to be sent back to whatever sweatshop they were built in and recycled.
Google/Motorola should counter offer 2.25% for all past sales (how can those be ignored because those were sold without a valid license?) and then $1/device for any new sales (legally licensed now). A judge would accept that and any delaying tactices would probably just add on more costs and drag down Apple's stock price.
Apple has lied about every lawsuit it has fought, especially the first one against the Beatle's Apple Records when it said it would never get into the music business (3 years before iTunes).
The only really fair way to approach fees for patents used in standards is a clear and unchanging fee charged per device
What if it is a mammoth device serving a city or a state, say a million people? Backbone switch? Real value is the number of people served multiplied by value add to those people's lives. To calculate this one would spend more than the patent is worth.
There is no "really fair", just what is easy to account for. Your Apple fanboyhood is your current determinant of "really fair".
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.