Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Feb 2012 19:26 UTC
In the News The first big hurdle has been taken by Google and Motorola Mobility. The European Union has given the green light for Google to proceed with its acquisition of Motorola Mobility. The EU will, however, monitor the deal and its outcome for potential patent abuse. Update: And there we go, the US DoJ has approved the deal as well. Update II: The just-linked DoJ report also approves the Nortel patent sale to Apple, Microsoft, and RIM. I'm hoping for lots of fireworks here so the patent system blows up in Google's, Microsoft's and Apple's faces, so we can point and laugh about all the money they wasted.
Thread beginning with comment 507152
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Huh?
by Tony Swash on Tue 14th Feb 2012 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Huh?"
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

"It looks to like both Samsung and Motorola are abusing FRAND and the Motorola case definitely involves Qualcomm and Apple. This is from The Verge.


You do realise this is just an accusation, right, and not a statement of fact? I know Apple's own words are facts to you, but not to most of the rest of the world.

Just point it out.
"


Thom you should enter the Olympics as a contortionist given how much you bend over backwards to defend Google (and now of course Motorola) ;)

Apple's complaint is here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/81229398/Apple-vs-Motorola-over-Qualcomm-...

Short version:
1) Qualcomm licensed the patents in question and made chips using them. The terms of the license explicitly called out patent exhaustion; Qualcomm's customers would not need to license the patents themselves.
2) Apple bought and used these chips
3) Motorola sent a letter to Qualcomm terminating Apple's -- and only Apple's downstream license
4) Qualcomm told Motorola they couldn't do that
5) Motorola considered the license terminated and started negotiations with Apple to license the patents that Apple believes were already licensed by virtue of buying the chips from Qualcomm. They asked for 2.5% of the total revenue from the Apple products in question.

I haven't seen anyone claim that any of the above is anything other than the facts. Motorola hasn't said any of that is untrue. Qualcomm hasn't said any of that is untrue.

To me, leaving aside the blatant and destructive abuse of the FRAND system, the demand for 2.5% of the total revenue is like some company claiming that it should be paid a licence fee for the electronic controller used in the toilet light in a Airbus 380 and demanding 2.5% of the total revenue Airbus earns from selling the 380.

Thom I am quite open about my position - I am a a very big fan of Apple and have been for close on three decades. I write to defend Apple. Why don't you stop pretending that you are neutral. You are not.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[8]: Huh?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2012 19:31 in reply to "RE[7]: Huh?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Why don't you stop pretending that you are neutral. You are not.


I never said I was neutral. Please point me to an instance where I said I was neutral.

I am against software patents, and especially against the abuse of software patents. That's it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Huh?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 15th Feb 2012 23:09 in reply to "RE[7]: Huh?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Thom is anti-company whorship. So he challenges other people's company whorship, and people end up thinking that he either whorship's a different company or simply hates the company in question. Neither is the case.

For an understanding of why Thom does this, go back and look at all of the ridiculous things that SCO said. Many people took their word and invested huge sums in their legal arguments, that however, did not make them true.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[8]: Huh?
by JAlexoid on Thu 16th Feb 2012 01:42 in reply to "RE[7]: Huh?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

There is one thing in #3 you need to add. Motorola believes that they can invoke the defensive suspension provision.

Reply Parent Score: 2