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."
Thread beginning with comment 560880
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th May 2013 10:04 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by Tony Swash on Wed 8th May 2013 10:39 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

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!



OK - so the situation is this: Motorola voluntarily offers up some key patents to be licensed in a FRAND framework. This means that the patents become accepted as industry standards and thus become fundamental and essential for the operation of all modern mobile phones. Being part of a FRAND framework means that Motorola has formally committed to always offering licenses, for those patents to anybody who wants them and who is willing to pay, in a fair and non-discriminatory fashion, i.e it will not withhold a license if one is requested and it will not charge a particular licensee more than anybody else is paying just to gain competitive advantage.

Those FRAND commitments (to be fair and non-discriminatory) are precisely what allows any technology owned by one company to become accepted as an industry standard, it is the very basis of the way standards are set, because it insures that once established as a standard the owners of the patents will not abuse their position to seek competitive advantage.

Along comes Apple and it starts making phones that kick Motorola's ass in the market place and it says can we please have a fair and non-discimnatory license so we can pay you a fair and non-discimnatory license fee for using your standard essential patents without which our phones will not work. And Motorola says to Apple 'f--k off, you can't have a license and you must stop using our patented technologies, without which you cannot make a working phone'.

Apple then has a choice. It can stop making phones and call it's lawyers or it could decide to continue to make phones and call it's lawyers. The first option allows the blatant abuse of FRAND by motorola to succeed and option two does not.

And you think Apple is the villain for taking the second option?

Jeez Thome what happened to you, how did your ethical perspective become so warped? Does dislike of Apple trump all other ethical considerations? How can anyone remotely defend what Motorola did?

How can you one day write about the evils of IP and patent law and the wonders of openness and then the next day use weasel words about the evils of technology being stolen to defend an utter abuse of a FRAND standard just because the victim of the abuse is Apple?

Edited 2013-05-08 10:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by Nelson on Wed 8th May 2013 11:57 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

And Motorola would be within their rights to want compensation for that period of time, at a FRAND rate determined by the court.

This is common practice, in fact, Apple is due to get some additional money from Samsung for the damages acrued during the time elapsed since the court ruling.

I don't understand how you make the leap from that, to attempt to rationalize what Motorola is doing. Motorola is not at all justified under any interpretation of the law for what they're doing. It is in fact extremely dangerous and the EXACT kind of IP abuse you should REALLY be writing about.

Motorola is NOT a good faith negotiator. Apple and Microsoft both agreed to legally binding resolutions to the patent licensing dispute at whatever rate the court determined, and Motorola STILL sought an injunction.

That shows that it isn't about compensation for IP, it's about getting an injunction. Which would be fine had they not pledged the patents to be offered on FRAND rates.

Anyway, I feel like everyone in this thread is talking past each other. To you, Motorola is some how always going to be justified because you have this elementary eye-for-an-eye moral compass guiding you.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Wed 8th May 2013 18:50 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

So patents should be respected when it is against companies you don't like, but it is okay to say fuck patents when you happen to think it is bullshit.

Frand or not ... this is a double standard.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/06/european-commission-motorola-pre...

Motorola originally said it would license these patents under FRAND terms when they became standard-essential, which Apple was happy to pay for. However, the company pursued an injunction nonetheless.


Sorry Thom you are talking bullshit.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Comment by shmerl
by jared_wilkes on Wed 8th May 2013 21:46 in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by shmerl"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

That's because it's not stealing. And Apple and Microsoft have both agreed to pay a fair rate, once determined.

Funny how all of a sudden (I mean when it's Apple or Microsoft) use of intellectual property (which shouldn't be property) is STEALING (even though neither has denied Motorola access to or use of the "property.") Etc...

Reply Parent Score: 2