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."
At last an offer. (Score:2, Flamebait)
not at all (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:At last an offer. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:At last an offer. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:At last an offer. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 n
Re: (Score:3)
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.
T
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:At last an offer. (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't really see any fanboyism in the parent post. More like realism.
Re: (Score:3)
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.)
Re: (Score:3)
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 lot
Re:At last an offer. (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:At last an offer. (Score:5, Funny)
now now, apple has shown it's more than capable of doing business without Google.
Look at the wonderful maps they came up with!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Partner with bing?
Re: (Score:3)
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'
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Blackb
Re:At last an offer. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:At last an offer. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re:At last an offer. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:At last an offer. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:At last an offer. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, Apple could always do what EVERY OTHER MANUFACTURER DOES and cross-license their patents in order to get a lower royalty rate.
Re: (Score:3)
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 end
Bad faith (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Bad faith (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple do seem to believe lately that their Reality Distortion Field affects judges as well as fanboys.
Re: (Score:3)
There is some empirical evidence supporting that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These are in line with typical licensing fees for other FRAND patents. Remember, in order to get its patent approved as standard essential (an thus gain monopoly access to a captive market) a company commits to license that patent at a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rate."
Re:Bad faith (Score:5, Informative)
Who says they're unreasonable? Maybe Moto's demands are...
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.
Re:Bad faith (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Apple was not "caught" doing anything (Score:5, Informative)
Let's see a reliable source. Everyone knows Florian Mueller is a laughable shill.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Apple was not "caught" doing anything (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 e
Re:Apple was not "caught" doing anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apple was not "caught" doing anything (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [fosspatents.com].
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.
Re:Apple was not "caught" doing anything (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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."
Re:Apple was not "caught" doing anything (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bad faith (Score:5, Insightful)
Who says they're unreasonable? Maybe Moto's demands are...
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.
But they're not recognizing that the patents are valid... I'm sure they're even saying "we believe the patents are invalid but will pay you $1 per device to go away." In fact, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, settlement offers can't be used as evidence of liability, precisely because they want to encourage this sort of non-liability admitting settlements that make suits go away.
Re: (Score:3)
But they're not recognizing that the patents are valid... I'm sure they're even saying "we believe the patents are invalid but will pay you $1 per device to go away." In fact, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, settlement offers can't be used as evidence of liability, precisely because they want to encourage this sort of non-liability admitting settlements that make suits go away.
I was operating under statements made in the article, but I do see your point sir.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's hardly unreasonable.
They are devices that have used the patented technology, thus it's only fair Apple should pay for all the devices. And as for the %, it's not that much even on a $500 phone when you consider the obscene margins they are sold at.
Re:Bad faith (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe in this case, most of the rooting for Google/Motorola seems to be around the other classic slashdot principle: Maligned sense of unequivical justice. In this case, it's hard not to smile when you hear that the bully got their comeuppance.
Re: (Score:3)
Which part's not burdensome to apple?
The part where they sued google in half a dozen countries?
The part where they claimed google was unreasonable for wanting 2.25% per device when apple wanted $25?
Please, please tell me where it's apple that is the victim, Bonch/$apple/oracle/ms troll.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it's very reasonable and not burdensome to apple. $13.50 per device, 100 million iphones sold to date, is more than a billion in damages. No problem, apple should afford that no problem, right? why not just pay now and let's put this whole messy business behind us?
But - aren't some cell phone makers already paying MS $10-$15 per device? http://linux.slashdot.org/story/11/07/06/1721227/microsoft-wants-15-per-android-smartphone [slashdot.org]
How is $13.50 unreasonable - looks like it is almost right down the middle.
Re: (Score:3)
Those are Motorola's demands. The parent was asking what are Apple's demands, which is clear if you read the GP. Apple is also demanding license fees for patents it claims Android is infringing. Those fees are not mentioned in the article, yet alone the summary. But they can be found here [groklaw.net].
To answer the question, Apple thinks $30 per unit is reasonable to cover some questionable, non-essential, utility patents.
Why post a snarky answe
Is $2.25 FRAND? (Score:3, Informative)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (Score:4, Informative)
My understanding is that most other companies who use these patents opted to do some sort of cross-licensing agreement rather than paying cash on the barrelhead. Since Apple refuses to do that, it could make it tricky to figure out exactly what they should owe, even if the patents are found to be covered by FRAND principles.
Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (Score:5, Insightful)
Two words: Cross-licensing.
Apple refuses to do it. Everyone else does. That's why we're here discussing this at all.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (Score:5, Informative)
Hahaha!
Apple want $40 per device! That's about 1/6 of the final retail cost of a mid range Android phone like the ACE. No wonder Samsung told them to fuck off.
Also, Microsoft almost certainly has enough bullshit software patents that any attempt to sue by Apple would surely be MAD. The only option was to cross license.
Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (Score:5, Informative)
You assume that the royalty percentages are cumulative. They are not. If there are two companies with standards essential patents who manufacture and sell the devices, which is typically but not exclusively the case, then Company A could pay Company B 2.25% per device, and Company B could pay Company A 2.25% per device, or Company A and Company B could cross-license. When Company A manufactures a devices per year and Company B manufactures b devices per year, net patent revenue (or expense) for each is:
For A, (b-a)*0.0225
For B, (a-b)*0.0225
If the number of devices manufactured is comparable to equal, these figures trend to 0, not to (b)*0.045 and (a)*0.045 as you suggest.
Why is Company A compelled to charge an extra 4.5% per device? It could, but then again it has little reason to. Supply and demand and other cost factors will principally drive the price, and chopping that price into royalties versus other factors is like debating how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. What matters is your net patent expense, just like your supplier expense, labor expense, etc.
The royalty rate is a cost of entry if you have nothing other than cash to trade. Companies holding standards essential patents are not being altruistic -- they are trading amongst themselves, and a cross-license is in some ways simpler than paying cash.
Apple does not have anything that it wishes to trade, but wants the cost of entry (i.e., the royalty rate) to be really, really low. Yet the cost of entry is based upon obtaining the benefit of each standard-essential patent owner's R&D efforts and IP, which Apple claims, at least with respect to its own efforts and IP, to be worth a very great deal (as reflected in the price premium that consumers pay and Apple's efforts to keep its IP completely proprietary).
A court (or expert) looking to establish a reasonably royalty rate is not merely going to evaluate a percentage per device -- that is the end result. That court is going to have to consider the royalties paid by other companies which have sought royalty-only license agreements (are there any?) and the gross value of what has been traded between standards-essential patent holders in pure cross-licensing or hybrid cross-licensing + royalty deals.
In Apple's case, iSuppli figures suggest that materials + labor represent about 1/3rd the price of their devices. That means Roughly 66% is IP + goodwill. That may "seem rather high," but that is what the market thinks that those properties are worth.
Re: (Score:3)
As Apple would be the one licensing the patent, it would be 2.25% of the price Apple charges. And following the principle of patent exhaustion, whoever buys it from Apple can resell it without needing to re-license the patents. And to jump further ahead, reselling to yourself may be fine if judges were computers, but they aren't, so they tend to see through that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, given that they are FRAND patents, Apple should pay (by the rules stipulated in the FRAND terms) the same rate that everyone else paid for those patents. No more, no less.
Whatever that figure is, that is what Apple should pay.
Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone else goes into a cross-liscence instead of paying actual money per device, Apple has already refused to do this.
What I find interesting is Apple feels that paying 1 dollar per device MOVING FORWARD is somehow a fair price. I could see an argument that 2.25% of the total value of a phone is too high, but clearly what Apple offers is absurdly low. They then threaten to drag out legal procedings if it goes to court if they are to pay anything more than what they've already demanded.
Even if it was a huge loss to the company, i'd want to nail them to a tree for that alone, you let one company push you around like that suddenly everyone else can now opt for the same. I dont really see the point, all Apple is doing is forcing this to go to court, and any court with an ounce of brainpower will find Apple is not being fair, regardless of what the other side is offering at this point.
The fact that I dont understand the play they're making makes me worry we're not being told something, whatever that is Apple feels its in their favor. That, or they're just a bunch of idiots, which can never be ruled out, for either side.
Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (Score:5, Insightful)
As is their right. They have no obligation to cross licence, merely to pay what everyone else paid as a dollar amount, or in chickens or barrels of grain to the same value, or anything else you can barter with.
Says who? FRAND means everyone is entitled to the same terms. If the terms include cross-licensing, why shouldn't Apple be held to the same rules as everyone else?
And Apple is asking for even more of a break than that. Not only do they want to get a free pass on all past devices (and only have to pay going forward), but they want to pay a very low cash rate AND no cross-licensing. Even if we accept your premise that Motorola should have to accept a cash equivalent for cross-licensing, that's going to come to something much closer to Motorola's proposed 2.25% than to Apple's $1 per device. Bottom line is that Apple thinks they're special and that the rules shouldn't apply to them.
Re: (Score:3)
Because the courts can't force you to cross license, they can only force you to pay cash.
Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (Score:5, Informative)
That would be the 2.5% that Google wants.
Most companies actually just do a patent licensing exchange with each other for FRAND patents. Apple doesn't have any valuable tech patents that Google wants, and it's design patents are either worthless or they are unwilling to allow anyone else to use them anyway.
So, Apple has to pay cash. 2.5% of the sale price of every product. On a $500 iPhone that would be $12.50, rather more than they want to pay.
Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (Score:5, Informative)
I can't believe people actually think this garbage.
I can't believe people in glass houses use a stone throwing gattling gun with such abandon.
http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/samsung-vs.-apple-e1313955567548.jpg
And there you go like a true fanboi using that widely debunked graphic which only shows a small selection of Samsung phones.
If you were hones, you would have shown this one:
http://www.osnews.com/img/26230/s-comp.PNG [osnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Your graphic doesn't show the phones turned on, which makes quite a difference.
Neither do the images in the famous iPad patent. So, your point?
Oh and by the way, when switched on, the iPhone looks startlingly similar to a shinier broadband phone, developed by AT&T in the late 90's.
So, again, your point?
Re: (Score:3)
Your graphic doesn't show the phones turned on, which makes quite a difference.
Neither do the images in the famous iPad patent. So, your point?
Oh and by the way, when switched on, the iPhone looks startlingly similar to a shinier broadband phone, developed by AT&T in the late 90's.
So, again, your point?
And, if you do any research at all, you would know that the Galaxy Tab was found to not infringe on the iPad trade dress patents.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the point was that Samsung had plenty of phones that "look like iPhone" before iPhone came out, as much as Samsung Galaxy looks like an iPhone. You can't hand-pick a few of their older phone that look very different and then make a point that they changed their designed after iPhone came out.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't see very well in the graphic because the text is hard to read, but it looks like most (if not all) of the pre-iPhone touchscreen phones were mockups and demos. Seems unfair to compare prototypes to production models.
Why do you think that's unfair?
The question is whether Apple was the first one to think of this design.
If others had mockups and demos that where similar, Apple was obviously not the first one.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Judge will not block sales (Score:5, Insightful)
You're linking hack propagandist Florian Mueller? Are you trying to discredit yourself?
Think about What Could Be... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Think about What Could Be... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Apple's Fault (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org], 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.
Re:Think about What Could Be... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps I've missed some unneighborliness on Google's part, but from what I've seen they've just been defending themselves against a childish vendetta [networkworld.com]. Now that Apple is motivated by honest commercialism instead of Jobsian tantrums, we'll see fewer monetary conflagrations.
Re:Think about What Could Be... (Score:5, Informative)
How is a percentage of a device cost fair? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:How is a percentage of a device cost fair? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I am sure Motorola's counter of a percentage based on device cost is NOT fair.
Why is it not fair? If anything it's fairer than a fixed fee.
A fixed fee would block out cheap devices, like dumb phones and cheap cellular attached random bits of kit. If anything having a percentage is fairer since it allows the patent holder to make some money while not forcing the market exclusively into high cost devices.
Lets hope common sense wins (Score:4, Insightful)
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 ?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Lets hope common sense wins (Score:5, Informative)
No, Apple is NOT asking to pay the same price as everyone else. Everyone else is cross-licensing, which Apple refuses to do. So if Samsung (for example) is giving Motorola licenses which would add up to 2.25% of the device if they were paid for in cash, then it is entirely fair and reasonable to expect Apple to cough up 2.25% in cash.
I want to see the world burn! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I want to see the world burn! (Score:4, Interesting)
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:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/23/163480928/episode-412-how-to-fix-the-patent-mess [npr.org]
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: (Score:3)
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.
Everyone can make phones just fine. But if you're not contributing technology back to the industry (and, thus, have IP to cross license), you don't get to use it for free.
Apple's not playing by the "rules" -- "rules", wrt patent thickets, that have been the standard operating procedure since the origin of the industrial revolution. We're a country of more than farmers and people supporting farmers precisely because of these IP laws.
If Apple develops real, valuable, useful technology, then there's nothing to
Huge balls (Score:4, Funny)
Apple sure do have a pair of huge balls.
One day they'll stumble over 'em.
children playing with knives (Score:3)
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: Contempt of Court (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
if this worked for illegal filesharing... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
In ten years time.. (Score:5, Interesting)
..I'm guessing that 'The rise and fall of Apple' will make for a compelling Harvard Business Review case study.
Car Analogy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Not that patents are valid (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hey Google fanbois, is it time to start the hat (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Google is being defensive about this, not offensive. If they were offensive, they would go after MS as well.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Apple basically said they dont want to do that. They've come out and said, as of whatever date, we'll pay you 1 dollar per phone sold/built instead. The patent company came back with 2.25% of the value of the phone. Honestly I think Apple's is too low, and Motorola is too high, which is why it confuses me Apple wants