Linked by bowkota on Tue 7th May 2013 21:44 UTC
Legal "The European Commission has accused Motorola Mobility of abusing its standard-essential patents against Apple in Germany. The Commission has sent a Statement of Objections to the company over a misuse of its GPRS patents, which has seen Motorola pursue injunctions against Apple products instead of properly licensing the technology."
Order by: Score:
Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Tue 7th May 2013 22:08 UTC
shmerl
Member since:
2010-06-08

Did the commission warn Apple about their patent abuses as well?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Tue 7th May 2013 22:12 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Apple is not abusing patents in accordance with the law. Motorola is. The US and the EU have come to the same conclusion.

Its almost depressing to watch your distorted reality come apart at the seams in real time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by arb1 on Tue 7th May 2013 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
arb1 Member since:
2011-08-19

How is Motorola trying to protect their patents that APPLE is using without paying for them abuse? so what they are FRAND patents don't mean apple gets a free pass to use them without paying for them. If apple is not willing to pay what they should be paying Motorola has the right to request a sales ban.

Edited 2013-05-07 22:49 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Tony Swash on Tue 7th May 2013 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

How is Motorola trying to protect their patents that APPLE is using without paying for them abuse? so what they are FRAND patents don't mean apple gets a free pass to use them without paying for them. If apple is not willing to pay what they should be paying Motorola has the right to request a sales ban.


The issue is that FRAND patents, in order to comply with the FRAND framework have to be Fair and Non-discrimanatory. Apple have to be offered exactly the same sort of deal that anyone else is offered otherwise it's discriminatory. When a company offers a patent as a FRAND patent it is making a deal, the deal is it guarantees that nobody will be discriminated against and thus everyone feels safe about adopting the technology covered in the patent and making it standard.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by wibbit on Wed 8th May 2013 08:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
wibbit Member since:
2006-03-22

"How is Motorola trying to protect their patents that APPLE is using without paying for them abuse? so what they are FRAND patents don't mean apple gets a free pass to use them without paying for them. If apple is not willing to pay what they should be paying Motorola has the right to request a sales ban.


The issue is that FRAND patents, in order to comply with the FRAND framework have to be Fair and Non-discrimanatory. Apple have to be offered exactly the same sort of deal that anyone else is offered otherwise it's discriminatory. When a company offers a patent as a FRAND patent it is making a deal, the deal is it guarantees that nobody will be discriminated against and thus everyone feels safe about adopting the technology covered in the patent and making it standard.
"

I may be wrong, but the impression I've been given is that Apple went ahead and used the FRAND patents, without an agreement, and had been using them for quite some time.

As far as I can tell FRAND does not mean "Any one can take and uses these patents without any form of formal agreement".

It appears that this is what apple did, they did not sign an agreement, they did not licence them, they certainly did not pay Motorola any of the due fee's.

Once they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they appear to have responded like a petulant child stating, well you have to give them to us any way, ner ner ner.

I really struggle to see how that is considered appropriate.

Motorola are now looking for punitive damages, I have no issues with that.

Reply Score: 8

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th May 2013 09:21 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I may be wrong, but the impression I've been given is that Apple went ahead and used the FRAND patents, without an agreement, and had been using them for quite some time.

As far as I can tell FRAND does not mean "Any one can take and uses these patents without any form of formal agreement".


Bingo.

This is what pro-patent people - who almost always are pro-Microsoft and Pro-Apple people, funny enough - forget. Apple/Microsoft stole (their words, not mine) Motorola's technology without permission, without an agreement, without paying for them, earned boatloads of money with them - and are continuing to do so.

It's actually much worse than infringing on crappy, insipid and evil software patents, since Apple and Microsoft were fully aware of these FRAND patents (they are part of the standard after all), but yet still went full steam ahead, infringing them without paying for them.

If you were to adhere to Microsoft/Apple's world view, Apple and Microsoft would be huge criminals.

Reply Score: 7

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Wed 8th May 2013 10:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Apple is asking for the court to negotiate a FRAND rate, given that Motorola's rates are unreasonable. They've shown in the past the desire to extract huge royalties for their SEPs.

Motorola claimed that Microsoft's offer still made them an unwilling licensee, despite it being 10x higher than the MPEG-LA rate. So I'd do a lot less listening to Motorola's saber rattling in court and a lot more observing of the actual facts at hand.

Apple has stated that it is willing to accept a court determined rate. Motorola has gone ahead and attempted to enforce an injunction anyway. That is what got them in hot water.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th May 2013 10:04 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You're STILL skipping over the part where Apple/Microsoft willingly stole Motorola's technology without a license. Just because the licensing talks aren't concluded yet doesn't mean you can just steal the technology!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Wed 8th May 2013 03:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

So Apple's patent racket is OK, and Google's defense against Apple is not? There is obviously something wrong with your laws.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Wed 8th May 2013 03:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

No. They're not my laws, or your laws. They're the law. Your personal opinion on the subject matter is irrelevant -- Apple was not found by the court to be abusing their patents.

And it is absolutely consistent to criticize Motorola and not criticize Apple in this case.

Apple isn't reneging on a promise they made to the standards setting organizations. Motorola is. Motorola baited people into implementing a standard by making a FRAND commitment. What the EU is saying is that they can't do this, then turn around and not license their patents at reasonable terms.

I really don't understand why you need to be walked through this every single thread.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by darknexus on Wed 8th May 2013 08:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I really don't understand why you need to be walked through this every single thread.

That's an easy one: because this poster will not, or perhaps cannot, see beyond their own opinions and because you are willing to indulge them by feeding them more fuel for their misdirected fire. If they don't get it yet, they never will and you should save your energy for something else other than rehashing what intelligent people should already understand: personal opinions should not be relevant in legal cases. If you are not a party involved in such cases you have no power to affect it and, given what I've seen of some of the zealots around here, that's all for the best.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by tylerdurden on Wed 8th May 2013 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

... but enough projecting about yourself.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by shmerl
by majipoor on Tue 7th May 2013 22:19 UTC in reply to "Comment by shmerl"
majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

Too bad so many commenters are clueless and don't even understand what FRAND patents are all about and why abusing them is far worse for the consumer than anything Apple did with their (non-FRAND) patents.

Edited 2013-05-07 22:23 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Tue 7th May 2013 22:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Agreed. People let their Microsoft/Apple hate crowd out their common sense some times.

The abuse of FRAND patents is the single most destructive thing that could happen to software. It will blow the entire thing up. You'd make every standard which falls under a FRAND promise unsafe if Motorola were allowed to set precedent and seek injunctions over FRAND patents.

I don't think you want Motorola, or Samsung, or anyone else for that matter being able to sue anyone into oblivion over a WiFi, or an LTE patent or something.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Wed 8th May 2013 03:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

The abuse of FRAND patents is the single most destructive thing that could happen to software.


You got it wrong. The abuse of patents is the most destructive thing that could happen to software. Whether they are FRAND or not doesn't really matter for those against whom these patents are abused.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Wed 8th May 2013 03:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

No. I just stated why there is a difference. Re-read my comment.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Wed 8th May 2013 04:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Reread mine as well. The thing is already blown up - tons of junk patents and costly defense against patent trolling. FRAND just adds more to the existing mess.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Wed 8th May 2013 05:28 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I don't really think the system has gone haywire yet, historically, these periods of intense litigation have existed in sectors of rapid innovation. That's completely aside from the issue of destroying the very concept of IPR declarations and contributions to SSOs.

If you give a damn about this patent mess at all, you'd be screaming at the top of your lungs for Motorola to quit doing what they're doing.

Instead what you do is draw a false equivalency between Apple's and Motorola's actions.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by tonny on Thu 9th May 2013 01:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
tonny Member since:
2011-12-22

..And err patent for 'regtangle' too. What kind of patent we call that one? :p

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by majipoor on Thu 9th May 2013 01:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

It is not a patent per se, it is a design patent or a trade dress which is a completely different matter.

And for your information and assuming that you care about the truth, Apple did not protect the rounded rectangle shape: the design is a lot more detailed and protect the overall look of a product.

You also have to understand something: all patents or design patents Apple use to sue competitors are easily avoidable: it is easy to build a smartphone or a tablet which does not violate those patents and it would not even imply that the product is not as good as any Apple product.

The problem with SEP patents is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to build a smartphone which do not use the patents. It is the reason why SEP require a FRAND license.

But I know that you and Thom don't care: Apple is evil and whatever the facts, you will always interpret them to fit your agenda.

Edited 2013-05-09 01:55 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Wed 8th May 2013 03:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Where did Google abuse FRAND patents against anyone besides Apple? I'm not fond of Google retaining Motorola patent litigation, but I'm OK with Google doing it against Apple who is the notorious aggressor. If there is some case when Google pushes these patents on others (not in defense against aggression), then I'd agree that it is much worse.

Edited 2013-05-08 03:24 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Wed 8th May 2013 03:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Uh, Google tried to extract unbelievable amounts of money from Microsoft in Germany and in the USA using FRAND patents which landed them in hot water in the US.

Its not specifically about Google or Apple or Microsoft, its about the precedent it'd set for all holders of FRAND patents. It'd make their commitments worthless and open the door to increased litigation around vital standards.

You'd be giving the likes of the MPEG-LA unbelievable power at the expense of spiting Apple. You've gone off the deep end.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Wed 8th May 2013 04:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Uh, Google tried to extract unbelievable amounts of money from Microsoft in Germany and in the USA


Bad example, this can be considered a defense against Microsoft constant racket of Android vendors. Any other examples which actually can picture Google as aggressor?

Precedent concerns I can understand, but I doubt patent racketeers wait for any encouragement from Google to do their trolling.

Edited 2013-05-08 04:58 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Wed 8th May 2013 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Microsoft facilitates the licensing of intellectual property not offered on FRAND terms, Motorola actively seeks injunctive relief over standard essential patents.
Often the terms that Microsoft licenses its IP on are very amicable, especially if you have existing business with Microsoft.

This is the equivalent of killing a person's whole family because someone punched you in the face. The reaction is so disproportionate and dangerous that it should give you pause, way more than just a passing concern for precedent.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by shmerl on Wed 8th May 2013 05:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

Microsoft facilitates the licensing of intellectual property not offered on FRAND terms, Motorola actively seeks injunctive relief over standard essential patents.


Let's translate that to normal human terms: Microsoft comes up with non FRAND patents to extort money from Android vendors using protection racket approach (i.e. like B&N described, if they refute one set of patents, MS will present another, since their point is not to protect their "innovations", but to extort money). Google naturally seeing this as an aggression, fights back with FRAND patents (which I agree aren't suitable for that really). All Google can be accused for is using the wrong tool to fight the aggressor. But not for the fact of fighting back.

This is the equivalent of killing a person's whole family because someone punched you in the face.


Inappropriate comparison. This is more like threatening the racketeer and parasite which blissfully sucks money from others after finding a hole in the law which turns blind eye on such racket. I.e. Google has full moral right to fight back. But I can agree that FRAND by definition denotes a "demilitarized" patent, and this looks weird.

Edited 2013-05-08 05:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by leos on Wed 8th May 2013 06:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by shmerl"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

Google naturally seeing this as an aggression, fights back with FRAND patents (which I agree aren't suitable for that really).


And that's exactly what the EU is saying. Trying to use FRAND patents for this is abusing the whole purpose of FRAND and undermining a key support for healthy competition.

All Google can be accused for is using the wrong tool to fight the aggressor.


In other words, EXACTLY what the EU is telling them.

But not for the fact of fighting back.


You seem to be trying to apply some sort of morality to the actions of these companies. This is just business between mega-corps. The idea that it matters whether something is fair is pretty naive. I always think it's funny that people actually fall for Google's marketing message that they're somehow different and more ethical than any other publicly traded company.

Edited 2013-05-08 06:09 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Motorola
by Nelson on Tue 7th May 2013 22:16 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

Its becoming more and more obvious that Apple and Microsoft scared Google out of $12 billion.

Motorola's patent arsenal is either widely licensed or FRAND and effectively useless. I wonder who's head will roll over this disaster of a purchase.

I guess it happens to most companies, Microsoft did almost pay $60 billion for Yahoo.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Motorola
by woegjiub on Wed 8th May 2013 08:23 UTC in reply to "Motorola"
woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

Bing/Yahoo have a reasonable marketshare now, though. They're the only alternative to google for people who aren't chinese. DDG etc. use them as a back-end.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Motorola
by Deviate_X on Wed 8th May 2013 18:17 UTC in reply to "Motorola"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

Google purchasing motorola was a disaster, not only because the patents then thought they were buying were rather weak as defensive tool.

http://bgr.com/2013/05/07/apple-samsung-smartphone-profit-q1-2013/

Give that only Samsung is actually pulling a profit from the android-handset business one has to wonder what the future holds..

Reply Score: 2

This is so wrong
by nej_simon on Wed 8th May 2013 10:04 UTC
nej_simon
Member since:
2011-02-11

This pretty much mean that Apple can go to the court and claim that they own rounded corners on smartphones etc. while companies like Motorola, who actully invented and developed the technologies used in smartphones, can't defend themselves.

Reply Score: 2

RE: This is so wrong
by Nelson on Wed 8th May 2013 11:51 UTC in reply to "This is so wrong"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Motorola volunteered those patents to be included in the standard under a stipulation they very well understood at the time. In exchange for being licensed ubiquitously, they must offer licensing on FRAND rates.

This isn't hard, or mean, or anything, this is what Motorola themselves consented to during the formation of the relevant standard.

They don't get to promise to not sue implementors of the standard only to turn around and seek injunctive relief.

Reply Score: 2

what law??
by TechGeek on Wed 8th May 2013 19:31 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

Lets get something right: There is NO LAW that dictates FRAND licensing. Its a contract drawn up by the standards body and agreed to by the members. No where in the agreement does it say that members can not file for injunctive relief. No where in the contract does it dictate what a reasonable rate is. It is left open ended because you are suppose to have to negotiate. There has been way too little of that on Apple's side and way too much bemoaning the big bad hardware company to the courts.

One thing missing from this article is that when Motorola and Apple were before a Wisconsin court, Apple refused court remediation. What also came to light in that case is that Apple was not yet entitled to FRAND license terms because the contract with the standards body dictates that Apple has to offer to license their patents to Motorola. As Apple hadn't, Motorola was completely in the clear.

It doesn't really matter how you feel about these companies. This is an orchestrated attack by two companies with mostly software patents in an area of technology trying to gain leverage on companies with hardware patents that typically fall into FRAND pools.

Reply Score: 3

RE: what law??
by jared_wilkes on Wed 8th May 2013 19:45 UTC in reply to "what law??"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

And when neither party can agree on whether or not a rate is actually fair, because the Standards bodies left it open-ended, that leaves one body capable of determining what is or is not FRAND -- the Courts.

There is no requirement that Apple licenses its patents to Motorola -- you just made this up.

What makes Moto's 3G patents more hardware related than Apple's or Microsoft's? What makes Moto's h.264 patents more hardware related than Apple's or Microsoft's? It must take a lot of effort to be this self-delusional.

Edited 2013-05-08 19:48 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: what law??
by TechGeek on Thu 9th May 2013 17:15 UTC in reply to "RE: what law??"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

And when neither party can agree on whether or not a rate is actually fair, because the Standards bodies left it open-ended, that leaves one body capable of determining what is or is not FRAND -- the Courts.

There is no requirement that Apple licenses its patents to Motorola -- you just made this up.

What makes Moto's 3G patents more hardware related than Apple's or Microsoft's? What makes Moto's h.264 patents more hardware related than Apple's or Microsoft's? It must take a lot of effort to be this self-delusional.


You need to learn how to read! For instance, on page 22 of the October 29 order from Apple v Motorola in Wisconsin:

"All that being said, Motorola raises an issue in its response to Apple’s motion in limine to which neither party has given much attention in this case. Motorola points out that under ETSI’s Intellectual Property Rights policies, it was entitled to condition its license offer to Apple on receiving a reciprocal license for Apple’s standards-essential patents. The provision at issue states that members’ commitments to license standards-essential patents on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms “may be made subject to the condition that those who seek licenses agree to reciprocate.” Dkt. #288-3, Annex 6: ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy § 6.1."

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: what law??
by jared_wilkes on Thu 9th May 2013 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: what law??"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You need the reading comprehension classes:

"for Apple’s STANDARD-ESSENTIAL PATENTS..." The patents Motorola is seeking licenses to are not Standard-Essential patents.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: what law??
by TechGeek on Fri 10th May 2013 14:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: what law??"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

You need the reading comprehension classes:

"for Apple’s STANDARD-ESSENTIAL PATENTS..." The patents Motorola is seeking licenses to are not Standard-Essential patents.


No, but Apple still has to offer the license, which they didn't do. It doesn't say that Motorola has to license them, or even want them. It just says that Apple has to make the offer to Motorola. Only Motorola would know if they are using any of Apple's SEPs in any of their products.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: what law??
by jared_wilkes on Fri 10th May 2013 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: what law??"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

There is absolutely zero evidence and Motorola has never even attempted to argue that Apple is denying Motorola the opportunity to license SEPs held by Apple.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: what law??
by TechGeek on Thu 9th May 2013 17:41 UTC in reply to "RE: what law??"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

What makes Moto's 3G patents more hardware related than Apple's or Microsoft's? What makes Moto's h.264 patents more hardware related than Apple's or Microsoft's? It must take a lot of effort to be this self-delusional.


Are you just not paying attention or what? The patents Motorola are asserting are cell phone patents. The patents Apple used against Motorola consisted of design (rounded corners) and software interface patents. Its literally hardware patents vs software patents. The relevance is that hardware patents are more likely to be SEP than a software patent.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: what law??
by jared_wilkes on Thu 9th May 2013 18:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: what law??"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

You didn't read... yet again. I didn't say the patents Apple and Microsoft are using in x, y, or z particular litigation. I said their SEPs. They do in fact have those too, and they aren't creating any problems by demanding absurd rates or injunctions.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: what law??
by jared_wilkes on Thu 9th May 2013 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: what law??"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Additionally, I don't see anything that's anymore hardware-related about Moto's patents than 99% of software patents. We are talking about frequency modulation and block processing of interlaced video.

Reply Score: 2

RE: what law??
by jared_wilkes on Wed 8th May 2013 20:39 UTC in reply to "what law??"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Additionally, Apple didn't refuse to mediate. They met several times. Apple not agreeing to Motorola's rate during those mediation sessions doesn't amount to Apple refusing to mediate anymore than it amounts to Motorola refusing to mediate.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: what law??
by TechGeek on Thu 9th May 2013 17:33 UTC in reply to "RE: what law??"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Additionally, Apple didn't refuse to mediate. They met several times. Apple not agreeing to Motorola's rate during those mediation sessions doesn't amount to Apple refusing to mediate anymore than it amounts to Motorola refusing to mediate.



Apple did refuse court mediation, that was the reason the Wisconsin court dismissed the case "with prejudice". They refused to be bound by the court's decision if they didn't like the outcome.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: what law??
by jared_wilkes on Thu 9th May 2013 17:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: what law??"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Did they refuse to abide by the outcome or to mediate? Which is it? Citation needed.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: what law??
by TechGeek on Fri 10th May 2013 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: what law??"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Did they refuse to abide by the outcome or to mediate? Which is it? Citation needed.


Apple refused to be bound by the outcome of the courts decision. Here is the text from their response to the court:

" When the Court asked Apple on late Tuesday afternoon, October 30, to commit by noon the next day as to whether it would be bound by whatever FRAND finding the Court made, Apple agreed but with caveats as to the amount and scope. The Court’s order dated November 2 states that, because Apple would not make an unconditional commitment to be bound, the Court would reverse its prior decisions regarding the availability of specific performance and

declaratory relief should Apple prove that Motorola breached its FRAND commitments, and questioned whether the trial should proceed at all." This information is available on groklaw here:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2012110322254380&query=mot...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: what law??
by jared_wilkes on Fri 10th May 2013 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: what law??"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

This is not a refusal to mediate. This is Apple's refusal to accept a binding decision by the Court to set a royalty rate that would potentially affect Apple in a unilateral manner and at a rate higher than Apple felt should be the ceiling for such royalties.

Edited 2013-05-10 14:41 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: what law??
by TM99 on Sun 12th May 2013 05:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: what law??"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

Of course it is a refusal to mediate.

If Motorola and Apple could not reach a decision on their own, then the Courts become the mediators. But at that level then, naturally, the court will give them a binding contract. Apple didn't like the odds and wouldn't commit. Therefore the court dismissed the case because it couldn't do what it was intended to do - settle a dispute with a binding contract ruling.

Keep your stories straight Jared. You can't be for a system of patent litigation where the Courts are the ones that decide the law when a dispute arises. And then turn around and say that Apple should not follow the Courts ruling or even agree to participate because it might not be in their best self-interest. In other words, you are only for patent litigation when Apple comes out on top.

Reply Score: 1

FRAND vs Other Patents
by robert1963 on Thu 9th May 2013 01:04 UTC
robert1963
Member since:
2010-04-11

When a company is approached by a standards committee to to see if their patent can be used in a standard the company has two options. 1- Put the patent in the standard and understand that they have to follow the FRAND rules, they get a license fee either directly or indirectly from each company that uses the patent, either way they cannot dictate who can or dictate different amounts from every company. or 2 - Don't do it and try to license it yourself, you can license it how you see fit.

Motorola with the patent in question decided to go the FRAND route, figuring that a little from everyone is better from maybe a lot from a little or possibly none, (i.e. the standard would have moved on to some other way of what the patent did, and Motorola would have to try to "sell" their technology on their own.)

Apple, either was never contacted by a standard body and ask for FRAND licensing or told them they are doing 2. So they are under no-nada reason to even let anyone use their patents.

Now, Apple/Microsoft/Samsung..... are asserting their patents against each other, and as in some way against Google. Now, google not having enough patents to fight back, thinks it a good deal to purchase Motorola, (Who have been in so many standards that more than likely don't have anything that is not FRAND). Some person most likely at Motorola looking to sell off the unit, gives Google a bill of goods on the patents. (Just like you could say Sun did to Oracle.) Google thinks its a good deal, and buys Motorola. Now Google/Motorola want to fight back, Problem most of their patents are FRAND. They start trying to get things blocked on import for their patents. Apple/Microsoft/... calls Googles bluff, and off to court they go. The judge looks at google and says as long as the companies are willing to license under FRAND rules, they are out of luck on any kind of injunction.

Now, Apple with it's patents not in a situation they are part of FRAND, can sue anyone up and down the court.

Think about the reason for FRAND licenses, it stops someone from putting something into a standard, then using their patent in that standard from stopping others from using it. (Exactly what the court told Google they are doing.)

Lets say a standard comes out that does not follow FRAND model.

Company "A" puts a patent into the standard, produces a product "APrime". Along comes company "B" and produces a product "BDelta", it is a hit. A's product APrime, sales goes to zero. "A" then goes well lets change the license for "B" to 1000X we normally license the patent for, or asking for an injection. Now, all "B" did was use a standard, they more than likely either joined the standard body, or used standard off the shelf chips. And I will tell you standard bodies charge a lot of money every year to get access to the standards, and most of the time this covers the royalties for using the standard, usually based on the number of products or size of the company.

Just think about how many standards there are out there, USB/PCI/HDMI/DVI/WIFI/FIREWIRE/Thunderbolt... Each one of these have patents against them, if they were not released under some kind of FRAND from their respected standard bodies. Then anyone that hold a patent could stop any other company from using the standard.

Apple patents that they are asserting are not part of any standard and don't fall under FRAND. And they are allowed by LAW to stop others from using them.

Don't get me wrong, I think all patents should be abolished. I think anyone who has their name on a patent should be put in jail for as long as the patent is in effect. I think all the companies in this are DILL-HOLES. It just Google/Motorola got caught trying to do something that is wrong no matter how they try to shape it.

Reply Score: 2

Confused
by Lunitik on Thu 9th May 2013 16:09 UTC
Lunitik
Member since:
2005-08-07

Motorola would not have filed suit at all if Apple hadn't sued based on the shape of the phone and various icons which are pretty arbitrary.

Why are these legitimate patents, and not also patent abuse? For me, in this context, abuse means to use wrongly. Patenting something as obvious as rounded corners on a phone is absurd.

If Apple actually innovated, maybe this would go over better, but Apple doesn't even have a phone without the likes of Motorola putting in the RnD to develop the tech. By suing everyone that actually plays a role in the industry, people they depend on, they are simply building a straw house.

Honestly, I feel like these tech companies should rescind FAND offerings and just create Foundations that pool this research, include the players in the industry, then kick out people like Apple that are acting maliciously. There is no risk to all who act in the best interests of the technology because they are members, while people that don't play nice would be charged huge amounts in patent royalties.

Let them compete on products, not in the court room. It is simply crazy that the courts are actually siding with Apple in this, there is no advancement to technology in general by having rounded corners.

The only message this is really sending out is that you innovate at your own risk, you may not get anything in return for your advancements even if it proves invaluable - standardizing your innovation within the industry can enable all to benefit but you.

To my mind, it is appalling that Motorola and companies like it are losing huge amounts of money despite all they have done for the world - we wouldn't even have mobile phones without them!

Edited 2013-05-09 16:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Confused
by TM99 on Thu 9th May 2013 16:36 UTC in reply to "Confused"
TM99 Member since:
2012-08-26

To my mind, it is appalling that Motorola and companies like it are losing huge amounts of money despite all they have done for the world - we wouldn't even have mobile phones without them!


You said it all right there!

Motorola was innovating mobile technology before the iPhone was a damned twinkle in Job's eye.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Confused
by mkone on Fri 10th May 2013 00:18 UTC in reply to "Confused"
mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

To my mind, it is appalling that Motorola and companies like it are losing huge amounts of money despite all they have done for the world - we wouldn't even have mobile phones without them!


That is because you misunderstand the issues. The thing that makes Motorola's patents most useful is that they are in the standard. If they weren't in the standard, they likely wouldn't be anywhere near as useful. It feels like they have done a lot for the world because the world decided to use their patents (with their permission). If the world had decided to use another method, their patents would likely have been next to useless. There are a lot of technologies that do not make it to the product stage because people didn't adopt them.

Reply Score: 2