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."
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.
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 ?
I'd prefer to see Google enter into "aggressive negotiations" with Apple.
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.
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?
I would love to see Google block Apple from their search results and all of their services, but we both know that's not going to happen.
Bow before me, for I am root.
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.
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.
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...
Let's see a reliable source. Everyone knows Florian Mueller is a laughable shill.
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>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
I would love to see Google block Apple from their search results and all of their services, but we both know that's not going to happen.
And give Bing a foot in the door with a couple of hundred million iOS devices? That'd be like trying to hurt someone by punching yourself in the face.
"The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
Given the way M$ are still battling out the browser case, I can only assume that you mean "immediately" in a tectonic time scale and "convicted" in a slap on the back of the wrists and asked politely not to do it again way...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
That's using one market where Google has dominance and using it to affect another market. Microsoft got into a lot of trouble because of that. Google isn't likely to do that.
I predict Google will let it get dragged out and will make it as painful as possible for Apple.
Meanwhile, Google will continue its assault on Carriers' Customer Expectations by offering great prices on non-subsidized, unlocked devices. Google is changing some games. They won't need to fight too hard to defeat Apple. They just need to wear them out... and they can. There is an Army of Android device makers just WAITING for the opportunity to make the next Google Nexus devices. As we just saw, ASUS was having some trouble until it made the Nexus 7. Will HTC who is on the brink of death receive the next breath of life from Google? Possibly.
The point is that "open" and "free" (as in freedom) devices will quickly win the people over. They KNOW they are being tethered to Apple's way. They will soon lose out.
Apple's a big powerful badass. But Google is like a giant zen buddhist statue. It ain't going anywhere.
You're linking hack propagandist Florian Mueller? Are you trying to discredit yourself?
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.
now now, apple has shown it's more than capable of doing business without Google.
Look at the wonderful maps they came up with!
dreaded scurrilous bit-twiddler from Oklahoma
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
Seriously?
You don't see the difference between Apple's abuse of the patent system by attempting to prove someone copied trivial things that already existed like rounded corners, and Google's FRAND patents that *every* manufacturer *including* Apple agrees are valid? Patents that actually cover meaningful technologies that "have to do with how every smartphone in existence connects to WiFi and cellular networks"?
Are you kidding me?
As for the doing or not doing evil, whatever, maybe. But to equate Apple and Google's patent activity is just absurdly wrong.
-Lod
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"?
The big difference is that MotoGoog is suing for hardware patents and not some worthless software UI patents that should have never existed in the first place. Hardware takes tens of millions of man hours and just as many dollars to develop over the course of many years. Software UI takes 1 guy about 1 day and doesn't even rise to the level of something that should be patented. The only reason software UI gets patents is because of very, very stupid patent clerks (where's Einstein when we need him!?). Furthermore, Apple brought this on themselves for trying to block their competition through the courts. If it was any other company I would say shame on Google. But because it's Apple I say beat them until the candy comes out.
Apropos Apples misuse of FRAND hardware started before Google acquired Motorola. Apple offered to trade its (now proven) worthless UI patents for licensing of the FRAND hardware and was turned down by Motorola, who wanted licensing fees. Of course they refused to give a dime to Motorola and used the patented hardware anyway. IMO Apple should be charged at the going rate for these FRAND patent licences but with a puinitive muliplier of *5-*10 retoroactivly for beliveing that they are above the law. Above the very law they attempted to use to squash their comitition in court. In this case, Google is "Do[ing] No Evil". It's more like The Hulk beating the shit out of Loki. Totally justified and righteous.
No! Google STOLE the smartphone concept! They must be destroyed!
Oh wait, St. Steve is dead. Never mind.
My Blackberry was pretty durned smart before the first iPhone development meeting ever occurred. Just sayin'
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.
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.
Actually, it's "Don't Be Evil", and it was never a marketing term. It was invented by some software guy in the early days, who claimed it was the only ethical or conduct rule that employees should have to remember.
That's pretty stupid, and (as you say) Google has had its share of ethical lapses. But this particular hassle over smartphone patents started out as one of Steve Jobs's famous hissy fits. Absent his vow to destroy Android, regardless of how much it cost Apple, this little patent war would have ended quietly long ago.
I didn't really see any fanboyism in the parent post. More like realism.
That's using one market where Google has dominance and using it to affect another market. Microsoft got into a lot of trouble because of that. Google isn't likely to do that.
There are already whispers that US anti-trust agencies are examing Google's present market behavior.
I predict Google will let it get dragged out and will make it as painful as possible for Apple.
I predict that Google is seeking to maximize its revenue opportunities here, same as any corporation would do.
Meanwhile, Google will continue its assault on Carriers' Customer Expectations by offering great prices on non-subsidized, unlocked devices. Google is changing some games. They won't need to fight too hard to defeat Apple. They just need to wear them out... and they can.
Most Android phones being sold now are using standard carrier plans and subsidizing.
There is an Army of Android device makers just WAITING for the opportunity to make the next Google Nexus devices. As we just saw, ASUS was having some trouble until it made the Nexus 7. Will HTC who is on the brink of death receive the next breath of life from Google? Possibly.
At some point, Google will need to justify that $8 billion spent on Motorola Mobility, especially as their revenue growth continues to slow.
The point is that "open" and "free" (as in freedom) devices will quickly win the people over. They KNOW they are being tethered to Apple's way. They will soon lose out.
I'm pretty confident that most people decide on a phone by comparing actual features and prices. But I'm no credentialed expert on the matter.
Apple's a big powerful badass. But Google is like a giant zen buddhist statue. It ain't going anywhere.
Funny, I thought the two of them were both Fortune 500 corporations.
I'm curious. How "rabid" do you think these Army of Android device makers would be now that Google is selling Nexus 4, 7 and 10 at or near cost?
In the world I live in, companies like LG and Samsung actually like having a profit margin on the devices they make, no matter how "rabid" or "fan bois" they may be towards a certain product/brand/thing.
When customers expect the product to be produced and sold at cost, it sorts of takes away the motivation for these Army of Android device makers to be rabid, I've noticed.
Moto's patents may be legit, but they're asking a very high price for them. If 50 companies each ask for 2.25% royalties, it doesn't leave much...
And Apple is free not to license those patents and come up with a new and unique way of doing it. Had they not paraded around like assholes claiming they basically invented the smartphone (hint.... they didn't) and using frivolous BS patents in abusive ways MotoGoogle might be willing to license them for less. They are Google's patents, they can charge whatever they want to whoever they want for them. Don't like it? Go burn down the USPTO.
Apple decided to play conqueror and they're about to get a taste of what happens when you go up against an evenly matched enemy who's tired of your shit.
I like Apple products (OSX is awesome) but I find myself hating the company itself quite a bit over the last couple years. Halting progress with asinine lawsuits to assure market dominance is wrong. That's what got us years of crappy Win32 OS's on everybody's desk.
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();
So? Do you think that if Google "defeated" Apple that Apple's now-former customers would stop using Google? Most of them would end up on Android phones, further cementing Google's lock-in. A few might end up on Windows8-powered devices, so that might send a few to Bing, but I doubt that it'd be a significant impact. (I'm discounting BB only because I'm guessing RIM won't survive much longer, but I don't think that changing that assumption would materially affect the outcome.)
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.
Yes, it was. But no, you really didn't.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. Apple is unwilling to pay fair or reasonable prices for access to this patent pool. Apple could just as easily end this dispute tomorrow. It's not all on Google/Motorola.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Perhaps Apple should have licensed, or at least made a good-faith effort at negotiation, *before* building the hardware to avoid punitive damages.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
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."
Well, Apple could always do what EVERY OTHER MANUFACTURER DOES and cross-license their patents in order to get a lower royalty rate.
:(){
You *NEED* FRAND patents to make a smart phone.
Then perhaps they are worth more than a dollar, to the maker of a $500+ phone that incorporates them and can't exist without them.
That's using one market where Google has dominance and using it to affect another market.
You mean like if someone had dominance in the smartphone/tablet market and affected other markets through bundling native applications and rejecting competing applications from entering their walled garden. Curious.
Bow before me, for I am root.
Funny, I thought the two of them were both Fortune 500 corporations.
That doesn't mean much. There are some corporations that are higher than both of them on the Fortune scale, which I'm sure you have never heard of.
Bow before me, for I am root.
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?
:(){
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
The problem is that other manufacturers don't pay cash, they cross-license patents valued at an equivalent amount. Apple is literally the only one that refuses to cross-license, so they're the only ones that need to pay the non-discriminatory fee of whatever Motorola wants to charge for their patent licenses.
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.
Google needs to keep any threat to Android down. They have an operating environment that has grown into a wildly popular platform. While it would have been happy to coexist with Apple, Apple has other ideas. Apple has been attacking phone makers and not so much Google. This makes makers wary. Oracle tried to sue Google and failed miserably. Apple, so far has sued all over the planet and has done an overall deceitful thing in representing and presenting evidence of all sorts.
Google stands to make lots of money through its Android OS. It has little choice but to defend it. But to sit back and only defend while Apple runs around on the offensive is too slow a means of draining their cauffers. And besides that, if Google didn't go on the offensive, not only would they lose device makers, the public would believe Google is in the wrong. Also, without bringing these cases to courts, they will never reach the supreme courts where some of the more important issues get truly addressed.
Call it fanboyism if you like. I favor what Google is doing... for now... in this particilar instance. I will take the good and opt out of what I don't want. And when Google leaves me no option to opt out whilte taking to good, then I will cut ties with Google. Just. Like. That.
The biggest problem for android phone makers is the carriers because they insist on screwing up good devices with bloatware and removed features.
1. They help the selected manufacturer of the devices in a huge way. Each maker of each Nexus device has profited nicely from it. And I get the feeling each quality maker will have a chance to put out a Google Nexus device.
2. By changing the market with their free[dom] and open devices, they are changing the market in ways that favor device makers over carriers.
There will always be room for variety out there. Just because IBM also made PCs didn't prevent PC compatible makers from making them at prices higher and lower than IBMs. The reason? Differentiation of features and style.
Why don't you write to Mr Cook and ask what he was apologising for? Perhaps he's a very polite and apologetic sort of chap.
BM3
My Blackberry was pretty durned smart before the first iPhone development meeting ever occurred. Just sayin'
As someone who just got rid of a Blackberry, your comment makes me cringe. Blackberry's are truly a dumb-phone. They won't talk to anything without a series of RIM-licensed servers. They won't talk to Exchange without both your network provider and your IT department hosting dedicated servers. And if you're unlucky (like I was) there will be a mismatch of available services (BIS vs BES) and IT-hosted software versions (5 vs 6) that completely prevent you from accessing EMail in any shape or form.
Blackberry technology sucks and RIM has earned their place swirling around the toilet bowl.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
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.
Partner with bing?
You see THIS is what I find fascinating about the whole thing, the fanbois not only rush to mod me down (as offtopic of all things, when we are talking about patents and I pointed out Google's patents are being used no differently than Apple or MSFT) but they truly see it as this "good VS evil" struggle, when its one uberrich megacorp VS another uberrich megacorp...who is the "good" guys here? Apple who wants a walled garden, or Google who wants to know what kind of TP we wipe our behinds with?
But I'm sorry, waste the modpoints and call me a dirty poo poo head all you want, its the EXACT SAME THING that Apple did! BOTH companies got a hold of some patents and BOTH companies are using the courts to gain advantage over their rivals..this isn't "robin hood" here, this is Coke VS Pepsi, both companies bought the patents to attack rivals and what do you know? that's what they did.
And THIS is what I find so fascinating Basil, you have 2 companies do the exact same damned thing, yet one will be labeled "evil" for doing it and when another does the same thing, its labeled "good". We saw the same thing here recently, with RMS and the FOSS crowd screaming about Win 8's walled garden...and? Where were you 7 years ago, when Apple made walled gardens hip? Too busy playing with your iPhone? Its the SAME DAMNED THING people!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.