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 560954
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: what law??
by TechGeek on Thu 9th May 2013 17:15 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: what law??
by TechGeek on Thu 9th May 2013 17:41 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 Parent Score: 2

RE: what law??
by jared_wilkes on Wed 8th May 2013 20:39 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: what law??
by TechGeek on Thu 9th May 2013 17:33 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 Parent Score: 2