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 560900
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[10]: Comment by shmerl
by Tony Swash on Wed 8th May 2013 13:25 UTC in reply to "RE[9]: Comment by shmerl"
Tony Swash
Member since:
2009-08-22

Or, and this is more likely considering how this industry works, Motorola asked for cross-licensing patents with Apple, and Apple refused. Cross-licensing is normal in this industry, and since Apple refused, prices went up. The same happened with Apple/Nokia, which later got settled under pressure from Microsoft.

Apple didn't want to cross-license its patents, and as such, Motorola initiated a price hike. Seems very reasonable to me.


It appears that your dislike of Apple has completely corroded your moral, ethical and intellectual integrity.

No company is under any moral, ethical or legal compulsion or requirement to license it's intellectual property.

Motorola voluntarily offered it's IP to be the basis of an industry telecoms standard through a FRAND commitment and as a result it's IP was adopted across the industry via FRAND licenses.

When Motorola, now a division of Google, decided to refuse Apple a FRAND based license it was in breach of it's moral, ethical or legal commitments. If Motorola/Google did indeed demand a cross license to Apple's IP as the cost of issuing a license to FRAND encumbered IP then that was clearly and completely morally, ethically or legally wrong because it was seeking to use a FRAND patent as a lever in order to gain competitive advantage.

Apple are clearly and completely morally, ethically or legally in the right to request a standard FRAND license and refuse any demanded higher than usual payments or cross licensing.

The bankruptcy of your position on all this and it's staggering hypocrisy can be clearly illustrated by a simple thought experiment in which the roles are reversed. Imagine an alternative world in which Apple owned patents which it had offered for many years via a FRAND commitment and which as a result had become widely adopted and essential for the basic functioning of any modern handset. Then Google launches a new handset the sales of which take off like a rocket and Google asks Apple for a standard FRAND patent, but Apple refuses and demands that Google to give it a license to Google's core search and Adsense patents, presumably so that Apple could build a competing search engine. I find it hard to believe that you would come out in support of Apple in those circumstances.

Thom - principles are all well and good but if you rigorously profess them, particularly in public, you really have to stick to them.

This case could not be more morally, ethically or legally clear cut.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[11]: Comment by shmerl
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 8th May 2013 13:58 in reply to "RE[10]: Comment by shmerl"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

When Motorola, now a division of Google, decided to refuse Apple a FRAND based license it was in breach of it's moral, ethical or legal commitments.


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.

Edited 2013-05-08 13:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[12]: Comment by shmerl
by majipoor on Wed 8th May 2013 14:23 in reply to "RE[11]: Comment by shmerl"
majipoor Member since:
2009-01-22

Motorola did explicitly modify their contract with Qualcomm to exclude Apple from the usual license fee which is usually included in the 3G chip price.

Motorola ask 2.5% royalties: in the H.264 trial vs Microsoft they ask the same amount arguing that it is a fair amount: a US judge has recently ruled that according to license deal with other OEM, a fair amount would be 1/2000 of what Motorola ask.

In a very similar case, Samsung was denied any royalty for their FRAND patent in France and Italy due to patent exhaustion: the fee is already part of the 3G chip price.

Thom, you are shameful: what Motorola did is the worst of patent abuse which you fight day after day here, with one exception: when Apple is the victim. Worse: instead of simply not commenting these cases, you take the exact opposite point of view.

Edited 2013-05-08 14:24 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[12]: Comment by shmerl
by Tony Swash on Wed 8th May 2013 16:18 in reply to "RE[11]: Comment by shmerl"
Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

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

Definitions

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

RE[12]: Comment by shmerl
by maccouch on Sun 12th May 2013 22:07 in reply to "RE[11]: Comment by shmerl"
maccouch Member since:
2012-03-14

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


I don't think it's your "opponent" that has lost all touch with reality. If your don't even understand the concept of self assumed frand patents, there's not much to discuss here.

Seriously Thom, take a vacation somewhere, this "place" is clearly affecting your judgment and you're affecting its reputation.

Reply Parent Score: 1