No, you're missing the point. Apple customers are into conspicuous consumption.
Again, you're generalising. I know several Apple users who are not "into conspicuous consumption" - myself included. I also know one or two Windows users who are.
I'm also not sure how hotel room booking is meant to be "conspicuous consumption". Do you invite strangers to come and look at the room that you booked?
Mac fanboys seem to drive either tiny eco-cars or huge blinged-out pickups, judging by where I see the Apple stickers.
In other words, as much as the haters would like to think, there isn't a single type of Apple user, just as not all Linux users live in their parents' basements, or that all Xbox Live users are 12 years old think that calling something "gay" is the most insulting thing on the planet.
Do you spend your most of your day on Slashdot waiting for someone to insult Apple so you can rush to their defense? Do you spend the rest of the time masturbating to your giant poster of Steve Jobs (or Tim Cook now since jerking off to a dead guy made you feel funny)?
No more time than any other regular poster who has access to the internet.
I spend the rest of the time masturbating to pictures of really aggressive old guys with snarling faces. Nothing else does it for me.
I'd put the likeliness of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster slightly ahead of an Apple fanboi who's able to objectively criticize Apple in any way.
You mean like this, this or this? Y'know, just in the past week or so, of course.
Here Nessie Nessie! No answer. I guess she doesn't exist after all.
Sorry, what were you saying again? I think you went enormously off topic for some reason. You also forgot to log in.
Yes, except the crucial difference is Apple is going with a standard for a change (unlike Google's original implementation).
And I know it's a tired old meme, but Apple rarely thinks of anything first. The reason that they're so successful is that they are very effective at judging what the consumer wants, and refining things that already exist but could be easier to use/more fun/more refined (all in one computer, portable music player, tablet computer, smartphone etc).
So in your mind a set of buttons arranged in a circle is "the same" as a rotating disc that is used to navigate a menu on a screen?
I can see your problem!
Of course, you left out the fact that the Diamond Rio also stole the idea from the automobile, which also has circular design features and buttons.
On a serious point, you're attributing "Apple fan hype" to a product that pretty much reignited Apple (along with the iMac). When the iPod came out no one cared about Apple or their small user and fan base. You're thinking about what they're like now and applying that to the era when the iPod came out - there was no "giant devoted fanbase" fawning over "the next insanely great thing" - there was just a small (admittedly devoted) fanbase who stuck with them through the dark years. It certainly wasn't those tiny minority who propelled the iPod into the stratosphere. It was a genuinely much better product to use (but not technically - there were other players with better sound quality) and it sold like hot cakes, especially when it was released in a Windows compatible format.
There weren't any "suckers" when the iPod came out - Apple's fanbase was almost non existent through years of circling the drain.
You can't do that even if you want to. Even if your details are saved into the phone, you absolutely *must* enter your password at least once to get it to update. If you update one app then there is a grace period where further updates are allowed without re-authenticating, but the original poster's pie in the sky "just wait for the phone to auto update without user input" is simply not on the cards.
The reality distortion field is what causes Apple fanboys to think that Apple invented the mouse.
No true Apple fan believes Apple invented the mouse. The story of Steve Jobs visiting PARC and exclaiming "you're sitting on a goldmine!" in exasperation when they said that they had no intention of commercialising it then rushing back to Apple and calling the hardware guy in and told him to drop all current projects because "*this* [the mouse] is what we've got to make".
I mean, if we're being truthful about what the RDF is.
It would be more accurate to say that it's the effect that gets people to cheer during the keynote when Jobs announced that they had updated iOS4 to enable the volume-up key to work as the shutter release in the camera app (and yes, that did happen. I eyerolled with amusement - I mean, it's a nice feature but it received a round of applause for goodness sake).
1) it's not. This was discussed in the slashdot article that the summary briefly mentions involving a similar experiment done using radio waves instead of light. It is a technique that is additional to polarising the antenna.
Polarisation is like, as the summary mentions, looking at the signal at different rotations on the axis - spin angular momentum. This adds the additional orbital angular momentum component (that axis orbiting something else in the case of the planet and sun analogy which is not perfect but gives a decent idea), which allows you to "reuse" the same SAM for different values of orbital angular momentum, thus increasing the bandwidth.
More like chemistry, actually when discussing the EM spectrum like this. Although the two sort of blur together when it comes to this sort of thing. The mathematicians would probably claim we were both just applied maths folks (a la xkcd comic).
I wasn't aware that I had to connect wires to my eyes to perceive that portion of the EM spectrum (which "wifi" is just a different part of, incidentally).
"It's not Apple Retail's issue since they were not conducting a transaction involving an export from the US. What happens to the iPad once it leaves the store isn't their concern."
Which is why the law doesn't apply here, and why it is simply ignorance and arrogance from Apple. What I find really shocking is the people here rushing to defend them with false claims. Stay at least a little classy, Mac users...
Who says I'm defending them? I'm not sure how you get that from my post. In fact, the section you quoted demonstrates that exactly: they're flat out wrong.
All I'm doing is answering the claims that the reason behind it was racism, when it simply isn't. What they did was incorrect, wrong, not right, the opposite of the proper thing, etc, but their reasoning was not motivated by racial discrimination. Just addressing those "rushing" to claim Apple is racist. How "shocking". Stay classy, Apple haters.
Refusing to sell a piece of electronics to Iranians because they might send it to Iran seems like racism to me, but I guess I must be some kind of insane political-correctness person. Yeah, that sounds about right... (read previous posts of mine if this doesn't sound enough like irony).
Take that up with the US government. There are laws in place about exporting what are (in a silly manner) "weapons or other military type material" that create a hassle for software and hardware - usually in the realm of crypto. Remember when the maximum allowed export strength for some encryption algorithms was 40 bit?
However, saying that, I'm not sure it is the retail store's call given that they are making the sale within the US - it should be down to customs at the border when whoever bought it (or received it as a gift as is the case in this story) either chooses to declare it or argues the point with them at the point of exit.
It's not Apple Retail's issue since they were not conducting a transaction involving an export from the US. What happens to the iPad once it leaves the store isn't their concern.
Your first point is the crux of the whole thing. Apple believes they had a licence to the patent (it was included as a vital component of the 3G pool they paid to use) - they've been using it for five years. Now all of a sudden we are told by Motorola that they aren't covered, and thus can be sued for it?
It's either incompetence on Motorola's part that they let it go for 5 years without noticing it (and thus, hardly Apple's fault to the point that they should pay punitive damages), or Moto simply decided to change what was covered. As a vital part of the 3G standard there's no way Apple simply missed it - for exactly this sort of reason. Nor, does it seem, that Motorola missed it with any of the other manufacturers using the 3G pool. They seem to have conveniently only missed it in Apple's case, and discovered the fact right at the same time that Apple were suing them.
If they really have been in negotiation for 5 years on the value of the patent then again, they can't claim Apple have been using it for all that time without willing to pay for it, since negotiations would be ongoing. You can't stall out the talks for years and then claim your opponent is not paying for your tech and sue them for bad sportsmanship and damages for the years they've been "infringing" because you're still trying to settle on the price.
If they had it licensed there could be no "FRAND abuse", Apple's lawyers would pull their license and tell them to go take a hike. Now unless you are implying that they are completely incompetent, please stop spreading rumors.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Either Motorola sat on this for 5 years or they were incompetent. Or they simply went grasping for straws after Apple sued them.
I find it almost impossible to believe Motorola would let this go for half a decade (in the face of Apple's huge rise in the mobile space) unless they either didn't know what they'd licensed or they changed their mind about what was covered, or they deliberately held it back but didn't tell Apple so they'd have an ace up their sleeve to countersue them with in the event of a lawsuit battle.
if Motorola had managed to successfully sue them using a FRAND patent that they had already paid for as part of a deal
Do you have any proof that Apple has already paid for any license for Motorola's FRAND patents? I was under the impression that Apple has not licensed any of Moto's FRAND patents.
Do you have any proof that Motorola was asking for "considerably more than anyone else"? I believe I've seen a figure somewhere that said Apple pays Nokia a royalty of 1.5%, which is actually less than the 1.125% "upper bound" that Moto was asking for.
Not direct proof, no; no one is privy to the actual deals except Apple and Motorola themselves, but it sure did take Motorola a long time to come along with this supposed "unlicensed" patent, and it arrived at a highly convenient time. Apple have been using the 3G patent pool since around 2008 (possibly earlier, depending on the specific radio chipsets they used in the original first gen iPhone) and they use a common radio platform. If they weren't all squared away with the licensing for 5 years then either Motorola were incompetent about keeping up with it, or they decided to turn one of their FRAND patents into a submarine patent because Apple decided to be difficult and sue them over something else.
The 3G pool is mature and well established, and used and licensed by an enormous number of manufacturers. To claim that *only Apple* was missing a license deal on a single patent, discovered after five years just doesn't really stand up. All sides have teams of lawyers that pore over the details of something as large as licensing a standard like 3G for the release of a product with such a serious investment going into it. Either Apple's lawyers believed that the patent in question was covered as part of their deal (there is no way they'd simply "let is slide" if they had any doubt at all over whether it was licensed properly) or Motorola sat on it for 5 years until they could use it strategically. Or Motorola simply decided recently to use it to sue Apple.
With the attention to detail that goes into these sorts of things from all sides I simply can't see it being simply overlooked by both sides for so long. The other alternative is that they've been negotiating the fee for five years with no success, but Apple did not mention anything like that in their defence - they believe that they were already covered.
Honestly, I have no idea who is at fault - it could be Apple, it could be Motorola, or it could be six of one and half a dozen of the other. What I do know is that the patent is in the FRAND pool by Motorola's own admission - it was key to their proof that Apple was infringing - and that demanding excessive royalties (in the words of the presiding judge) is simply not ok. It breaks the entire FRAND system if one of the pool owners can decide at any time to demand an "infringing" party pay over the odds for its use.
Even if we assume that Apple were infringing (and again, I have no idea but I suspect they believed they were not and had already paid the correct fee), then they need to licence it for the same rate as everyone else, and Motorola were clearly asking for far more than that.
I always wondered why none of the electric cars ever have a a solar panel on top of the car..
That's a big area. And what's your car doing most of the time. Outside... In the sun... In parking lots. In traffic. Sure it might not fill you up very quick. But it's more than zero... One panel in full sun puts out enough to add a couple more miles to your charge.
The hood, The roof, The trunklid. 3 medium/big panels just sitting in the sun all day long...
You already carry a charge controller and batteries on an electric car. Why not a panel or 3?
You're seriously underestimating the amount of power an electric car uses (or overestimating the output of solar panels). At the moment we simply don't have efficient (or cheap enough) panels to be able to do what you describe economically. The Nissan Leaf has an optional solar panel that mounts onto the roof, but it only runs the radio and other miscellaneous auxiliary electrics. It is nowhere near the output required to effectively charge the traction batteries.
Surely you can just rent one if you need to take a long trip. If you need to make long trips more frequently than renting would be feasible then an electric car is not currently for you.
The suggestions that he wasn't really sick, or that perhaps he should be willing to be tracked by his new employee GPS locating thing in a vague hint that he wasn't in the hospital reminds me of some of the more outlandish stuff about Steve Jobs in the last years of his life.
He's just a guy, and sometimes people get sick. It doesn't spell doom and gloom, or a sudden change in fortune or prophetic suggestion about the company's fortunes. It just means the local chemist will sell a few more Lemsip boxes near his house.
Apple have no radio patents to add to the FRAND pool to buy-in, therefore they have to pay the full monetary amount. Apple having been stealing other companies' tech for years, using "too expensive licensing" excuses, and not cough up. No patents and no money given, but still expect to be able to use decades of real R&D made by others. Hmmm. Get your facts right, you sound like a typical blind Apple zealot.
You should also get your "facts straight" (and also log in).
Apple are willing to pay the FRAND rates. They're just not willing to pay considerably more than anyone else because they are turning out to be a strong competitor to those who hold patents in the pool (you know, the entire design of the FRAND system).
What Motorola did was a dangerous thing for anyone else, even if you hate Apple with the passion of a thousand burning suns, if Motorola had managed to successfully sue them using a FRAND patent that they had already paid for as part of a deal, and get them to pay 2.5% (!!) of their revenue from "infringing" products then anyone who is licensing a FRAND patent on any technology would find themselves in a seriously vulnerable position; upset those who have patents in the pool and they'll simply ignore the legal contract that protects you from lawsuits and sue you.
Hate Apple as much as you like. Froth and wail and scream about boycotting them. Gnash your teeth about they're the worst thing to happen to the world since religion, but be careful what you wish for when one of their competitors attempts to "punish" them by abusing a FRAND patent because it could change the legal landscape for a company or organisation you *do* give a shit about.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you're missing the point. Apple customers are into conspicuous consumption.
Again, you're generalising. I know several Apple users who are not "into conspicuous consumption" - myself included. I also know one or two Windows users who are.
I'm also not sure how hotel room booking is meant to be "conspicuous consumption". Do you invite strangers to come and look at the room that you booked?
Mac fanboys seem to drive either tiny eco-cars or huge blinged-out pickups, judging by where I see the Apple stickers.
In other words, as much as the haters would like to think, there isn't a single type of Apple user, just as not all Linux users live in their parents' basements, or that all Xbox Live users are 12 years old think that calling something "gay" is the most insulting thing on the planet.
Funny, that.
That is interesting information to know. Like a man in orthopeadic shoes, I stand corrected.
Do you spend your most of your day on Slashdot waiting for someone to insult Apple so you can rush to their defense? Do you spend the rest of the time masturbating to your giant poster of Steve Jobs (or Tim Cook now since jerking off to a dead guy made you feel funny)?
No more time than any other regular poster who has access to the internet.
I spend the rest of the time masturbating to pictures of really aggressive old guys with snarling faces. Nothing else does it for me.
You forgot to log in.
I'd put the likeliness of the existence of the Loch Ness Monster slightly ahead of an Apple fanboi who's able to objectively criticize Apple in any way.
You mean like this, this or this? Y'know, just in the past week or so, of course.
Here Nessie Nessie! No answer. I guess she doesn't exist after all.
Sorry, what were you saying again? I think you went enormously off topic for some reason. You also forgot to log in.
Yes, except the crucial difference is Apple is going with a standard for a change (unlike Google's original implementation).
And I know it's a tired old meme, but Apple rarely thinks of anything first. The reason that they're so successful is that they are very effective at judging what the consumer wants, and refining things that already exist but could be easier to use/more fun/more refined (all in one computer, portable music player, tablet computer, smartphone etc).
So in your mind a set of buttons arranged in a circle is "the same" as a rotating disc that is used to navigate a menu on a screen?
I can see your problem!
Of course, you left out the fact that the Diamond Rio also stole the idea from the automobile, which also has circular design features and buttons.
On a serious point, you're attributing "Apple fan hype" to a product that pretty much reignited Apple (along with the iMac). When the iPod came out no one cared about Apple or their small user and fan base. You're thinking about what they're like now and applying that to the era when the iPod came out - there was no "giant devoted fanbase" fawning over "the next insanely great thing" - there was just a small (admittedly devoted) fanbase who stuck with them through the dark years. It certainly wasn't those tiny minority who propelled the iPod into the stratosphere. It was a genuinely much better product to use (but not technically - there were other players with better sound quality) and it sold like hot cakes, especially when it was released in a Windows compatible format.
There weren't any "suckers" when the iPod came out - Apple's fanbase was almost non existent through years of circling the drain.
You can't do that even if you want to. Even if your details are saved into the phone, you absolutely *must* enter your password at least once to get it to update. If you update one app then there is a grace period where further updates are allowed without re-authenticating, but the original poster's pie in the sky "just wait for the phone to auto update without user input" is simply not on the cards.
Solidified hydrogen at STP!
Goodness, I think the loch ness monster is more likely.
They drove a dump truck full of money up to his house. He's not made of stone.
*missing words. "The story of Steve Jobs visiting PARC is famous...."
The reality distortion field is what causes Apple fanboys to think that Apple invented the mouse.
No true Apple fan believes Apple invented the mouse. The story of Steve Jobs visiting PARC and exclaiming "you're sitting on a goldmine!" in exasperation when they said that they had no intention of commercialising it then rushing back to Apple and calling the hardware guy in and told him to drop all current projects because "*this* [the mouse] is what we've got to make".
I mean, if we're being truthful about what the RDF is.
It would be more accurate to say that it's the effect that gets people to cheer during the keynote when Jobs announced that they had updated iOS4 to enable the volume-up key to work as the shutter release in the camera app (and yes, that did happen. I eyerolled with amusement - I mean, it's a nice feature but it received a round of applause for goodness sake).
Whe air yuo clalling a retart, retart?
1) it's not. This was discussed in the slashdot article that the summary briefly mentions involving a similar experiment done using radio waves instead of light. It is a technique that is additional to polarising the antenna.
Polarisation is like, as the summary mentions, looking at the signal at different rotations on the axis - spin angular momentum. This adds the additional orbital angular momentum component (that axis orbiting something else in the case of the planet and sun analogy which is not perfect but gives a decent idea), which allows you to "reuse" the same SAM for different values of orbital angular momentum, thus increasing the bandwidth.
More like chemistry, actually when discussing the EM spectrum like this. Although the two sort of blur together when it comes to this sort of thing. The mathematicians would probably claim we were both just applied maths folks (a la xkcd comic).
I wasn't aware that I had to connect wires to my eyes to perceive that portion of the EM spectrum (which "wifi" is just a different part of, incidentally).
"It's not Apple Retail's issue since they were not conducting a transaction involving an export from the US. What happens to the iPad once it leaves the store isn't their concern."
Which is why the law doesn't apply here, and why it is simply ignorance and arrogance from Apple. What I find really shocking is the people here rushing to defend them with false claims. Stay at least a little classy, Mac users...
Who says I'm defending them? I'm not sure how you get that from my post. In fact, the section you quoted demonstrates that exactly: they're flat out wrong.
All I'm doing is answering the claims that the reason behind it was racism, when it simply isn't. What they did was incorrect, wrong, not right, the opposite of the proper thing, etc, but their reasoning was not motivated by racial discrimination. Just addressing those "rushing" to claim Apple is racist. How "shocking". Stay classy, Apple haters.
Refusing to sell a piece of electronics to Iranians because they might send it to Iran seems like racism to me, but I guess I must be some kind of insane political-correctness person. Yeah, that sounds about right... (read previous posts of mine if this doesn't sound enough like irony).
Take that up with the US government. There are laws in place about exporting what are (in a silly manner) "weapons or other military type material" that create a hassle for software and hardware - usually in the realm of crypto. Remember when the maximum allowed export strength for some encryption algorithms was 40 bit?
However, saying that, I'm not sure it is the retail store's call given that they are making the sale within the US - it should be down to customs at the border when whoever bought it (or received it as a gift as is the case in this story) either chooses to declare it or argues the point with them at the point of exit.
It's not Apple Retail's issue since they were not conducting a transaction involving an export from the US. What happens to the iPad once it leaves the store isn't their concern.
Your first point is the crux of the whole thing. Apple believes they had a licence to the patent (it was included as a vital component of the 3G pool they paid to use) - they've been using it for five years. Now all of a sudden we are told by Motorola that they aren't covered, and thus can be sued for it?
It's either incompetence on Motorola's part that they let it go for 5 years without noticing it (and thus, hardly Apple's fault to the point that they should pay punitive damages), or Moto simply decided to change what was covered. As a vital part of the 3G standard there's no way Apple simply missed it - for exactly this sort of reason. Nor, does it seem, that Motorola missed it with any of the other manufacturers using the 3G pool. They seem to have conveniently only missed it in Apple's case, and discovered the fact right at the same time that Apple were suing them.
If they really have been in negotiation for 5 years on the value of the patent then again, they can't claim Apple have been using it for all that time without willing to pay for it, since negotiations would be ongoing. You can't stall out the talks for years and then claim your opponent is not paying for your tech and sue them for bad sportsmanship and damages for the years they've been "infringing" because you're still trying to settle on the price.
If they had it licensed there could be no "FRAND abuse", Apple's lawyers would pull their license and tell them to go take a hike. Now unless you are implying that they are completely incompetent, please stop spreading rumors.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Either Motorola sat on this for 5 years or they were incompetent. Or they simply went grasping for straws after Apple sued them.
I find it almost impossible to believe Motorola would let this go for half a decade (in the face of Apple's huge rise in the mobile space) unless they either didn't know what they'd licensed or they changed their mind about what was covered, or they deliberately held it back but didn't tell Apple so they'd have an ace up their sleeve to countersue them with in the event of a lawsuit battle.
if Motorola had managed to successfully sue them using a FRAND patent that they had already paid for as part of a deal
Do you have any proof that Apple has already paid for any license for Motorola's FRAND patents? I was under the impression that Apple has not licensed any of Moto's FRAND patents.
Do you have any proof that Motorola was asking for "considerably more than anyone else"? I believe I've seen a figure somewhere that said Apple pays Nokia a royalty of 1.5%, which is actually less than the 1.125% "upper bound" that Moto was asking for.
Not direct proof, no; no one is privy to the actual deals except Apple and Motorola themselves, but it sure did take Motorola a long time to come along with this supposed "unlicensed" patent, and it arrived at a highly convenient time. Apple have been using the 3G patent pool since around 2008 (possibly earlier, depending on the specific radio chipsets they used in the original first gen iPhone) and they use a common radio platform. If they weren't all squared away with the licensing for 5 years then either Motorola were incompetent about keeping up with it, or they decided to turn one of their FRAND patents into a submarine patent because Apple decided to be difficult and sue them over something else.
The 3G pool is mature and well established, and used and licensed by an enormous number of manufacturers. To claim that *only Apple* was missing a license deal on a single patent, discovered after five years just doesn't really stand up. All sides have teams of lawyers that pore over the details of something as large as licensing a standard like 3G for the release of a product with such a serious investment going into it. Either Apple's lawyers believed that the patent in question was covered as part of their deal (there is no way they'd simply "let is slide" if they had any doubt at all over whether it was licensed properly) or Motorola sat on it for 5 years until they could use it strategically. Or Motorola simply decided recently to use it to sue Apple.
With the attention to detail that goes into these sorts of things from all sides I simply can't see it being simply overlooked by both sides for so long. The other alternative is that they've been negotiating the fee for five years with no success, but Apple did not mention anything like that in their defence - they believe that they were already covered.
Honestly, I have no idea who is at fault - it could be Apple, it could be Motorola, or it could be six of one and half a dozen of the other. What I do know is that the patent is in the FRAND pool by Motorola's own admission - it was key to their proof that Apple was infringing - and that demanding excessive royalties (in the words of the presiding judge) is simply not ok. It breaks the entire FRAND system if one of the pool owners can decide at any time to demand an "infringing" party pay over the odds for its use.
Even if we assume that Apple were infringing (and again, I have no idea but I suspect they believed they were not and had already paid the correct fee), then they need to licence it for the same rate as everyone else, and Motorola were clearly asking for far more than that.
I always wondered why none of the electric cars ever have a a solar panel on top of the car..
That's a big area. And what's your car doing most of the time. Outside... In the sun... In parking lots. In traffic. Sure it might not fill you up very quick. But it's more than zero... One panel in full sun puts out enough to add a couple more miles to your charge.
The hood, The roof, The trunklid. 3 medium/big panels just sitting in the sun all day long...
You already carry a charge controller and batteries on an electric car. Why not a panel or 3?
You're seriously underestimating the amount of power an electric car uses (or overestimating the output of solar panels). At the moment we simply don't have efficient (or cheap enough) panels to be able to do what you describe economically. The Nissan Leaf has an optional solar panel that mounts onto the roof, but it only runs the radio and other miscellaneous auxiliary electrics. It is nowhere near the output required to effectively charge the traction batteries.
Why do you need two cars?
Surely you can just rent one if you need to take a long trip. If you need to make long trips more frequently than renting would be feasible then an electric car is not currently for you.
The suggestions that he wasn't really sick, or that perhaps he should be willing to be tracked by his new employee GPS locating thing in a vague hint that he wasn't in the hospital reminds me of some of the more outlandish stuff about Steve Jobs in the last years of his life.
He's just a guy, and sometimes people get sick. It doesn't spell doom and gloom, or a sudden change in fortune or prophetic suggestion about the company's fortunes. It just means the local chemist will sell a few more Lemsip boxes near his house.
Apple have no radio patents to add to the FRAND pool to buy-in, therefore they have to pay the full monetary amount. Apple having been stealing other companies' tech for years, using "too expensive licensing" excuses, and not cough up. No patents and no money given, but still expect to be able to use decades of real R&D made by others. Hmmm. Get your facts right, you sound like a typical blind Apple zealot.
You should also get your "facts straight" (and also log in).
Apple are willing to pay the FRAND rates. They're just not willing to pay considerably more than anyone else because they are turning out to be a strong competitor to those who hold patents in the pool (you know, the entire design of the FRAND system).
What Motorola did was a dangerous thing for anyone else, even if you hate Apple with the passion of a thousand burning suns, if Motorola had managed to successfully sue them using a FRAND patent that they had already paid for as part of a deal, and get them to pay 2.5% (!!) of their revenue from "infringing" products then anyone who is licensing a FRAND patent on any technology would find themselves in a seriously vulnerable position; upset those who have patents in the pool and they'll simply ignore the legal contract that protects you from lawsuits and sue you.
Hate Apple as much as you like. Froth and wail and scream about boycotting them. Gnash your teeth about they're the worst thing to happen to the world since religion, but be careful what you wish for when one of their competitors attempts to "punish" them by abusing a FRAND patent because it could change the legal landscape for a company or organisation you *do* give a shit about.