Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Cellphones Communications Google Handhelds Patents Wireless Networking Hardware Apple

To Mollify Google on Moto Patents, Apple Proposes $1/Device Fee 582

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

To Mollify Google on Moto Patents, Apple Proposes $1/Device Fee

Comments Filter:
  • Bad faith (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * <> on Thursday November 01, 2012 @02:39PM (#41844813) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Re:At last an offer. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 01, 2012 @02:48PM (#41844911)

    I'd prefer to see Google enter into "aggressive negotiations" with Apple.

  • Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jo_ham ( 604554 ) <> on Thursday November 01, 2012 @02:53PM (#41844987)

    it's 2.25% not $2.25. If the device cost 100 dollars then it would be $2.25 but since Apple seems to think it needs to charge $300-$500 for anything with rounded edges and a shiny cover it's likely to cost much more than that. I personally find it hilarious that they are hoping to rig some kind of sweetheart deal when they are gonna be on the ass end of a legal ass fucking.

    Does Samsung "think it needs to charge" $300-500 for anything with rounded edges and a shiny cover too?

    Maybe they charge that because that's what it costs to make (plus profit).

    I'm not sure how the argument that Apple's phones are somehow overpriced holds much water when they are very similar in price to Android handsets of similar quality like the Galaxy line.

  • by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @02:56PM (#41845037)

    The question is whether or not FRAND terms have been offered. Apple claims that the terms they received from Motorola were not in accordance with FRAND principles, and it will seek to demonstrate that is the case in court. If that occurs, Motorola stands to not only lose the licensing fees that Apple would have been paying it, they also stand to get investigated for acting in that way, which could hurt them a whole lot more.

  • by firex726 ( 1188453 ) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @03:01PM (#41845113)

    Mostly everyone was cool, they would sue each other then cross license it all as a settlement.

    It was in part to create a barrier to entry, a newcomer could neither afford the licenses nor have enough clout in their own portfolio to represent a threat.

    Apple basically walked in and launched the nukes by not going along with the established deal. For better or worse, I'm not making a judgment.

  • by Qwavel ( 733416 ) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @03:08PM (#41845209)

    We're a large part of the way there: there are very few companies in the world with sufficient patent arsenal to make a phone.

    Here is a recent NPR podcast: []

    It mentions the ridiculous number of patents required to make a smartphone (can't remember the number) and the legal impossibility of making arrangement for all those patents.

  • Re:Bad faith (Score:4, Interesting)

    by michrech ( 468134 ) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @03:15PM (#41845299)

    Realizing that apple is offering quite a bit less then even half a pecent, and while recognizing that the patents are valid they refuse to be responsible for the past, it doesn't take much sanity to see Apple is trying to leverage the threat of a long drawn out lawsuit to avoid paying for their past infringement. It's exactly the kind of behavior that Googlerola should be putting them to the screws for, and seeing that they both have disposable lawyers sitting around, it's not unlikely either.

    Apple needs to realize it's not dealing with just any company here. Google may not have as much cash on hand as Apple currently does, but it is certainly wealthy enough to drag Apple through the courts just as long as Apple wants. The courts will hopefully realize this isn't the first time Apple has been caught using a competitors patented technology, offered a laughably small amount for their unlawful/unlicensed use of said competitors technology (they pulled pretty well the same crap with Samsung in Australia, if I recall correctly) while demanding HUGE sums from those they're suing for use of their technology, and smack their asses into next week for it.

  • In ten years time.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rexdude ( 747457 ) on Thursday November 01, 2012 @06:42PM (#41847739)

    ..I'm guessing that 'The rise and fall of Apple' will make for a compelling Harvard Business Review case study.

Nondeterminism means never having to say you are wrong.