Slashdot Mirror
Apple Suit Against Motorola Over FRAND Licensing Rates Dismissed
chill writes "A suit by Apple claiming that Motorola Mobility, now owned by Google, is seeking unreasonably high license fees for the use of patents on wireless technology has been thrown out by a judge in Madison, Wisconsin. Last week, Apple told the court it would pay up to $1 per device for a license to Motorola patents covering cellular and Wi-Fi technologies. Motorola Mobility was arguing for a royalty payment of 2.25 percent on each device."
From the article: "'At the final pretrial conference, I asked Apple to explain why it believed the court should determine a FRAND rate even though the rate may not resolve the parties' licensing or infringement disputes,' Crabb wrote in an order on Friday. 'I questioned whether it was appropriate for a court to undertake the complex task of determining a FRAND rate if the end result would be simply a suggestion that could be used later as a bargaining chip between the parties.'"
Apple also said it would ignore the court's order if it chose more than $1/device.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I do not understand why the same company which sued others over some lousy rounded corners refuses to pay royalties over others' patents?
If I expect others to pay me over some lousy rounded corners I expect myself to play the same game - and will pay the royalty I owed to others when I use their patents.
At least, that was been taught to me by my elders.
Maybe Apple Inc has other kinds of "elders" - one who expect others to pay them while refusing to pay others.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Apple has the same understanding of property as a cat - once they pee on it, it's theirs. It doesn't matter where an idea came from, once they pee on it/put in a iThing, it's forever Apple's property. It's unreasonable to them to pay anyone for anything they own/peed on, so the only possible value that would constitute FRAND to them is free.
How many judges would have spotted that suit for the Trojan horse it is? This one did, and we are all grateful for it. No, she's not going to get famous for holding The Next Apple Trial, and that's great. For once, we have a judge who just wants to do her job. And she's a judge who knows that her job isn't to generate bargaining chips in commercial contracts negotiations.
Thank you Judge Barbara Crabb for telling Apple that asking Mommy for permission after Daddy already said no isn't going to work.
Last I checked, sales at Apple are still increasing, year-to-year.
I generally associate a company that is increasing its revenues with "success". Perhaps your standards differ.
Absolutely they differ. Lets start Apple is losing share in the smartphone market [23% to 14.9%] and the tablet market [50.4%]. Apple is growing but slower than the opposition, and more importantly less than the market. That is a worrying trend.
As for your measure of company being large revenues as a measure of success. Apple is incredibly successful but large revenues is only part of the reason why.
Apple have a real problem, but you don't understand the issues.
Well if Apple really only wants to pay $1.00 per phone, and Motorola says 2.25%, why not sell the phones for $44.44? Both companies would be happy, and so I suppose would the consumer.
That means Apple cannot re-file the case again.
It's disingenuous for them to say that they will do something without the court ordering it, when the entire reason the court is involved is that they refused to even make an initial offer, choosing instead to pick what they thought would be the best venue to sue in. Obviously, that didn't work out so well for them after the judge figured out what was going on.
And this people is why America is doomed. On a tech site, filled supposedly with nerds, someone actually claims that in a piece of high tech equipment, design is more important for usefulness then the tech inside that allows it to do what it is supposed to do. Yes, rounded corners are more important for a phone then the tech that makes it able to make phone calls...
Oh, I am fully willing to accept that siddesu is just a moron who doesn't know anything about the patents in question but still, this is supposed to be a tech site. Claiming $30 bucks for design vs $1 for vital tech... it is clearly insane. Only managers who spend more on advertising then on development think that. Don't worry if it works, we just sell it with more advertising. It is actually lethal and has been proven so before, the first rise of the Japanese car industry happened over Detroit just adding more fins rather then innovating.
People don't read the full specs...
Yeah because when you are buying a phone, being able to make phone calls with it, that is just details. It is the styling! You might not be able to use it but damn, does it look good!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.