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."
Permalink for comment 560921
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: Comment by shmerl
by Tony Swash on Wed 8th May 2013 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: Comment by shmerl"
Tony Swash
Member since:

You really have no clue how this works. There is no such thing as a "FRAND-based license". Each and everyone of those licenses between these companies is individually agreed upon after hard negotiations, in which cross-licensing usually plays a huge role. The more you have to offer up for cross-license, the less you have to pay in cold hard cash.

You'll note that this system worked just fine... Until Apple decided it didn't want to cross-license. Motorola is under NO obligation WHATSOEVER to fulfil Apple's every demand. If Apple doesn't want to cross-license, than it has to pay more than other companies that do want to cross-license. How is this so hard to understand? Note that the courts did NOT condemn Motorola's demands... They condemned Motorola's subsequent suing over these patents.

Despite Apple not having been able to negotiate a license, it then proceeded to willingly infringe these known patents by stealing Motorola's technology and implementing it anyway. When Samsung steps on some crazy ridiculous super-obvious software patent, you call them criminals. When Apple willingly infringes cold and hard hardware patents without paying or having a license, Motorola is the criminal?

You, sir, seem to have lost all touch with reality.

Your ethical and intellectual collapse is complete. You actually have convinced yourself that Motorola's actions are OK and that Apple are the bad boy (again). The champion of openness celebrates the bonfire of the standards just to poke Apple in the eye. Astonishing.

Wikipedia - entry for FRAND


Fair relates mainly to the underlying licensing terms. Drawing from anti-trust/competition law; fair terms means terms which are not anti-competitive and that would not be considered unlawful if imposed by a dominant firm in their relative market. Examples of terms that would breach this commitment are; requiring licensees to buy licenses for products that they do not want in order to get a license for the products they do want (bundling), requiring licensees to license their own IP to the licensor for free (free grant backs) and including restrictive conditions on licensees’ dealings with competitors (mandatory exclusivity).

Non-discriminatory relates to both the terms and the rates included in licensing agreements. As the name suggests this commitment requires that licensors treat each individual licensee in a similar manner.This does not mean that the rates and payment terms can’t change dependent on the volume and creditworthiness of the licensee. However it does mean that the underlying licensing condition included in a licensing agreement must be the same regardless of the licensee. This obligation is included in order to maintain a level playing field with respect to existing competitors and to ensure that potential new entrants are free to enter the market on the same basis.

Reply Parent Score: 1