Motorola Requested 2.25% Patent Licensing Royalty on iPhone Purchases

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Feb 6, 2012.

  1. macrumors bot


    Apr 12, 2001

    Late last year, Motorola Mobility requested Apple pay a potential royalty of 2.25% on its iPhone sales in recently unsealed litigation from last year. The royalty would amount to more than $1 billion in 2011 alone, though there is no indication which specific iPhone models would be covered by the license nor if it would be retroactive to the initial launch of the iPhone in 2007.


    The patents appear to be covered under the FRAND standard, which requires patents to be licensed for "fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms". The 2.25% request that Motorola offered was in response to a demand for a FRAND pricing offer from Apple.

    Florian Mueller, writing about the issue, offers some additional insight:
    A quote in the Wall Street Journal from the chief executive of the Epicenter IP group, which helps companies license patents, noted that "there is no debate that Motorola was the inventor of the mobile phone" and its patents could be broad and necessary for a phone maker.

    This is only one more step in the long and drawn-out patent battle between the two companies, but the licensing rate for patents is typically a closely held competitive secret. The 2.25% rate would be a significant amount of money, given the tremendous sales Apple is generating from its iPhone business.

    Article Link: Motorola Requested 2.25% Patent Licensing Royalty on iPhone Purchases
  2. macrumors 601


    Jan 6, 2004
    Western US
    The amount of money generated should be irrelevant. The question is, how fair is 2.25%? What % are other similar FRAND patents typically licensed at? Are there guidelines or limits placed on these?
  3. macrumors 6502

    Feb 27, 2011
    Motorola almost went out of business a few years ago. They make junk and now they want to steal from Apple, wow! All that CPU business they lost from Apple has to really hurt when all your other products suck, specially all the consumer junk they make.

  4. macrumors 68020


    May 6, 2010
    The United States
    Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A405)

    Is that unfair?
  5. macrumors 6502

    Apr 5, 2004
    Great White North
    Well Apple is stealing from Moto. Moto developed a lot of technology back in the early days and has patents on it. They deserve to make money back on it (based on the current patent system).

    Now how much money is the question. And since they are patents considered to be FRAND patents, we will have to wait and see what the judge says when he see's what Moto gets from other companies that have licences the patents.
  6. macrumors 6502


    Nov 8, 2007
    The way I see it, there were a few hundred standards required patents available. Sure Moto and Samsung hold a significant stake between them, but say there are 50 total standards required patent holders all asking for 2%. There is no way that is fair.

    Also, patent exhaustion should apply IMO. Buying a chip from Qualcomm only costs $15 and has all 175 or so patents licensed in the chip already. $0.30 (1/50th) of $15 is about all I'd give Motorola/Samsung and ONLY if there isn't patent exhaustion.
  7. Editor emeritus


    Jul 10, 2003
    Falls Church, VA
    This is called negotiation. Moto is starting high, and they also happen to be in a good negotiating spot having won some rulings. However, I highly doubt the number will stay above 2%. Probably end up closer to 1% (which is still a significant chunk of change)
  8. macrumors 6502a

    Apr 1, 2008
    Obviously you're an apple......enthusiast, but Motorola has been making phones a lot longer than apple and it's not surprising that they have patents that apple is using and if so then apple should pay.
  9. macrumors 68000


    Jun 29, 2007
    I'd be interested to see what percentage other companies have to pay for a patent like this.
  10. macrumors 68000


    Oct 30, 2008
    The court will want to know all these answers. If Motorola is deemed as attempting to gouge a FRAND patent, there will be trouble.

    2.25% strikes me as a tad high, but the reporting is unclear on what the 2.25% would be levied upon.
  11. macrumors P6


    Apr 1, 2005
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    If Motorola is shown to charge less to other phone makers they can and will be under scrutiny for anti-competitive monopoly laws in Europe. That's a big no no.
  12. macrumors demi-god


    Jun 9, 2007
    Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 24+.
    A few information tidbits for the thread:

    • Re: Motorola's 2.25%. Samsung had asked Apple for 2.4% for their patents.

    • It's probable that one reason other companies aren't making as much profit on their phones as Apple, is that they're paying far more in license fees, some of which Apple has been avoiding as long as possible.

    • Motorola first asked Apple for royalties a month after the iPhone went on sale in 2007. Reportedly Apple stalled four years to respond with a counter-offer. (Similar to what they did with Nokia.)

    • Over 150 companies belong to the GSM FRAND alliance. Unknown how many get license fees.

    • Fee example: in 2007, Broadcom won an ITC import injunction on certain Qualcomm chips. Verizon ended up themselves paying the $6 patent fee per CDMA phone to Broadcom for a while, just to be able to import phones into the US and not run out of stock.

    • FRAND does NOT mean that everyone, big or small, new or old, must get the same terms. Quantity, length of contract, cross licensing of patents, all these and more are factors.

  13. macrumors 68040


    Nov 17, 2003
    I say pay them. Maybe that money will go to R&D and we can finally get the powerbook G5.
  14. macrumors 65816

    Rajani Isa

    Jun 8, 2010
    So Apple paying out a billion or so bucks to Motorola is supposed to make the G5 come about?

  15. macrumors 6502

    Feb 26, 2010

    I have seen one.... I promise!!
  16. macrumors 6502

    Jul 22, 2002
    At the end of the day I suspect Motorola won't get much of anything, simply because they've not asserted the violation of these basic patents with the release of any of the other of the thousands of mobile phones that have been released over the years or even when the iPhone was first released which would indicate that patent issues were never an issue.
  17. macrumors 68040


    May 10, 2010
    Actually it will not be Apple who is paying for it ... eventually it will end up on our wallet ... at least for the next generation. For the last generations they must have some big accruals in their balance sheet.
  18. macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Oct 9, 2006
    That or they already have FRAUD agreements in place with the others. This would not be the first time Apple avoided trying to pay FRAUD patents. They did the same on Nokia. Question is how much did Apple end up paying Nokia at the end of that case as Apple did settle and it was an undisclosed amount.
  19. macrumors member

    Mar 10, 2011
    I think Apple should just buy Motorola and dissolve their languishing mobile business. buuuuuh-bye
  20. macrumors 603


    Wow, 2.25% seems a lot to Me.

    Isn't this all about GPRS, an "outdated" technology, In the last few years I can't even remember that My connection fell back to GPRS.
    Why pay that much if it's so rare that a connection is made through GPRS.

    Should Apple pay a fair amount, Yes they should pay as long as this technology is part of the iPhone but to Me a fairer deal should be more or less a few hundreds of a Percent, something like 0.2-3%.
  21. macrumors newbie


    Feb 6, 2012
  22. macrumors 603


    Bye bye:rolleyes:
  23. macrumors 6502

    Oct 31, 2010
    What is a FRAUD agreement? Does it have anything to do with organized crime or some such?

    (anyway, I would also try to avoid paying for that :D)
  24. macrumors 68030


    Apr 13, 2010
    Bedfordshire, UK
    You are aware that Google are in the process of acquiring it for $12.5bn, yes?
  25. macrumors P6

    Jun 22, 2009
    Yes. They have. And yes they did. They approached Apple in 2007 and Apple has been stalling ever since.

    Instead of making things up - maybe you should do some research? You don't even have to go far. KDarling posted the facts a few posts up from yours...


    Makes you wonder if people just knee-jerk a silly response as if buying every company in Apple's "way" is a solution and/or they actually read tech news.

Share This Page