Apple Wins Long-Term Protection from Ban on Sales of 3G-Enabled Devices in Germany

[grey02]

One more stupid thing the troll of google did was writing to Qualcomm to cancel the FRAND deal with Apple.

By doing so proved that Apple did pay for the 3G licence.

[dokujaryu]

Originally Posted by Oletros

more words

Ugh, whatever dude. Have a nice day.

[Glideslope]

Originally Posted by Yujenisis

I'm glad to see FRAND patent trolling not being tolerated.

I am wondering what Google/Motorola/Android's game plan is. They surely know they can't really get away with using FRAND patents as a weapon...

Is it an expensive war of attrition they are after?

I'm also left wondering if Tim Cook follow Steve's zeal to protect Apple's ideas?

Ah, delicious drama.

Could not agree more with every word. Don't worry about Tim. More zeal, less in your face, more smoke filled back rooms.(without the smoke)

Hey Erik, Crime does not pay, uh, unless in your case YOU PAY.

----------

Originally Posted by dokujaryu

This means Apple's approach paid off and worked. Just because they amended the offer doesn't mean they gave them 2.25%, that's ludicrous. If anything, the Judges are now more likely to side with Apple and Microsoft's complains that Motorola is violating anti-trust.

Yes. Which was the entire point in the wording the most current ammendment.

Nice work Bruce. I want Erik to be required to sell every Google shaw he owns to survive. Apple will not stop until Erik is toast. No matter how much blood is spilled. Apples entire strategy has been and will continue to be Google.

Microsoft is almost a partner theses days.

I would love to know what was in the letter from Bill Gates that Steve kept at his bedside until he passed.

I could guess, but won't.

[FakeWozniak]

Originally Posted by grey02

One more stupid thing the troll of google did was writing to Qualcomm to cancel the FRAND deal with Apple.

By doing so proved that Apple did pay for the 3G licence.

Can you point me to any article/page to read more about this?

[vrDrew]

Originally Posted by FakeWozniak

Can you point me to any article/page to read more about this?

This emerged in a lawsuit Apple filed against Motorola in US, accusing MMI of antitrust violations:

39. On January 11, 2011, Mr. Kirk Dailey, Motorola's Corporate Vice President, Intellectual Property, sent a letter to Qualcomm, copying Apple, purporting "to terminate any and all license and covenant rights with respect to Apple, effective February 10, 2011 (30 days from the date of this letter)."

40. [...]

41. On April 25, 2011, Mr. Derek Aberle, Executive Vice President of Qualcomm and President of Qualcomm Technology Licensing responded to Motorola’s letter of January 11, 2011. Mr. Aberle disagreed with Motorola’s contention that it could invoke the Defensive Suspension Provision with respect to Apple. He noted that the Defensive Suspension provision did not entitle Motorola to terminate rights based on suits brought by Apple.

You can read the entire complaint, as well as some additional commentary in this Appleinnsider post

[Oletros]

Originally Posted by vrDrew

This emerged in a lawsuit Apple filed against Motorola in US, accusing MMI of antitrust violations:

Dammit, I was looking for the link here in Macrumors posted some time ago

[JAT]

Originally Posted by BobbyRond

Can't we all just get along?

And put every lawyer on the planet out of a job? They'll come after you for that.

[Bobby Corwen]

Lets not be mini-lawyers guys...

[kdarling]

Originally Posted by vrDrew

The Karlsruhe Court formally told MMI in its ruling its refusal to accept Apple's offer is potentially a violation of antitrust law.

You're mixing up the court not allowing any more sales injunctions, with offer negotiations. They're two different things.

Originally Posted by vrDrew

Google and Motorola aren't really interested in royalties from Apple. They want Apple to cross-license its non-FRAND patents, because without them, its Android phone user experience is going to be compromised

There's no doubt they would like a cross-license. ETSI's FRAND rules do say this:

(Granting FRAND IP licenses) may be made subject to the condition that those who seek licences agree to reciprocate. - ETSI IPR policy

The question is, does that only mean other ETSI related patents, or can it apply to patents of any sort?

Everyone should note that this particular FRAND policy was written by the major standard patent holders to lean heavily in their own favor, and does not have most of the prohibitions that people think it does. In fact, it has quite few. For two decades the smaller patent holders have tried to change this, but to little avail.

Originally Posted by vrDrew

If Google/Motorola can't use the Injunction tool to get a ban in place, then they are simply going to have to wait for the court to rule on what a "Fair and Reasonable" royalty is.

"Fair" has nothing to do with royalties. Only "reasonable", and perhaps "non-discriminatory", do. On those:

• "Reasonable" doesn't mean the rate has to be the same for everyone. Cross licensing is a long used method to lower rates, for example.
  
• Royalties have been charged on the total price of a phone for decades, so it might be an uphill battle to claim there's discrimination there.

[Mystic386]

Isn't all of this just business played out on a bigger scale. The US tend to be pretty litigious. Google produced Android and knew it wasn't possible if they abided by the law. But i don't think that's the game. You produce the product, sell it and let the other person sue you. Then you string it out for as long as possible and finally settle and probably be no worse off than if you paid up to start with. (If that was an option).

Lets face it Android was never going to go to market and abide by the law given that the iPhone was such a game changer.

These cases will be bouncing around for a long time.

Motorola's game is a little different. With a failing business they've sought to recover more income from their patents. To a degree Apple are playing the same game as Google here.

It's just a game or dance that lasts for a period of time before being settled. I don't see it as anything to get upset over or accuse either side of doing wrong. It's just business the American way, where the business metaphor is war.

The numbers are getting seriously big though. Apple's turnover is heading toward $3bn per week. The legal bills would probably be a lesser percentage than for most businesses.

Enjoy the show. It'll be here for some time to come.

[mw360]

So Google have spent $12.5 billion dollars just to get Apple's push emails disabled? Great purchase guys.

[BobbyRond]

Originally Posted by JAT

And put every lawyer on the planet out of a job? They'll come after you for that.

Lol. It'll be change of scenery for them. Might be nice...

Anyway, good to see that someone sees the humor in all this.