Apple Pushes for Clarification on Licensing of FRAND Patents

[samcraig]

The irony is that Apple is "crying" over the industry and FRAND yet hasn't contributed themselves. In other words "we don't want to play fair but we think everyone else should be!"

 

[Oletros]

Why is that absurd?

The iPhone has all sorts of functionality built into it beyond its ability to access wireless networks. You can build a 3G-enabled dumb phone for less than $30 in costs, whereas the iPhone has a BOM cost of more than $300 - most of which has to do with things like the touchscreen; camera; case; and battery. Why does Motorola take a whack at those costs?

Is absurd because those royalties has been calculated like that since the beginning.

And no, no car with integrated GSM communications has paid royalties taking into account the whole price of the car.

The important thing about FRAND is that it implies the royalties be a) reasonable and b) non-discriminatory. Motorola basing their demands on the cost of the entire device essentially discriminates against manufacturers who put extra functionality into their products. Thats what stifles innovation.

And you claim that is discriminatory exactly why? Any thing to back the claim? Any sentence against other trying to collect royalties like that? Any proof that nobody collect royalties accounting the cost of the device?

----------

FRAND doesn't mean anything other than fair, and frankly, fair is quite subjective. As long as the deal Apple gets is similar to other manufacturers, it doesn't have to be identical at all.

A faily common misconception around these parts.

Yes, I know. And this stories are only Fosspatents' Florian Mueller FUD.

 

[JAT]

But it is true. The injunction against Samsung in the Dusseldorf court was over the Community Design registration #000181607 for what is essentially a rectangle.

I didn't think you used words like "essentially" for proclaiming facts. And more accurately, it is essentially a box.

 

[dethmaShine]

Why is still people using that absurd analogy?

Are you serious? Its a very valid point. I wonder why that didn't strike me before.

The royalty should be a part of the base product that uses the patent, e.g. transceiver device or any SoC for that matter. Tomorrow if Apple decides to sell the iPhone for $999, asking 2.25% of $999 is ridiculous.

Any royalty should be based upon the base technology using that particular patent. Moreover, it should depend upon the negotiation cost b/w the supplier and manufacturer. Here, if XYZ is selling Apple a chip for $x, then the royalty should be some y% of $x. This would help make it much more standardised and the variation would be too low.

 

[Tigger11]

Because its not silly

Why is still people using that absurd analogy?

Because its not an absure analogy? Motorola wants to get an additional $2.50 for each 32 GB Ipad then from the 16 GB Ipad and an additional $5.00 for each 64 GB Ipad over a 16 GB Ipad. Using the list prices we have the following licensing costs:
Cost Licensing
Iphone 3GS 8 GB $375 $9.38
Iphone 4 8 GB $549 $13.73
Iphone 4S 16 GB $699 $17.48
32 GB $749 $18.73
64 GB $849 $21.23

Ipad 16 GB $629 $15.73
32 GB $729 $18.23
64 GB $829 $20.73

Does that really make sense to you when you think about it. Really think a 64 GB 4S should net an additional $12 or so over a Iphone 3GS for motorola when its doing the same thing? Really think an

 

[dethmaShine]

Because its not an absure analogy? Motorola wants to get an additional $2.50 for each 32 GB Ipad then from the 16 GB Ipad and an additional $5.00 for each 64 GB Ipad over a 16 GB Ipad. Using the list prices we have the following licensing costs:
Cost Licensing
Iphone 3GS 8 GB $375 $9.38
Iphone 4 8 GB $549 $13.73
Iphone 4S 16 GB $699 $17.48
32 GB $749 $18.73
64 GB $849 $21.23

Ipad 16 GB $629 $15.73
32 GB $729 $18.23
64 GB $829 $20.73

Does that really make sense to you when you think about it. Really think a 64 GB 4S should net an additional $12 or so over a Iphone 3GS for motorola when its doing the same thing? Really think an

Exactly the point.

 

[kdarling]

One thing I don't understand is how the licensing fees aren't part of the chips built to use the standards (Qualcomm chips right).

Sometimes the costs are included with the chip. Sometimes not, due to the requirement for cross-licensing or having too many modes that might or might not be used by the customer.

E.g. you buy a multi-mode chip but only end up using 2G and no 3G. Why pay for 3G?

How come the percentage is calculated on the total sum of the device?

The original idea was to to try to keep prices down so that phones would be more affordable and get adopted around the world by even fairly poor people.

No, the injunction hasn't been lifted because of that. At least, German courts stated that Motorola DID offered a FRAND offer and is because this that the injunction was granted.

The most plausible reason for the injunction lifting is that Apple has offered a new deal and it is being analyzed

Also of note with Germany is the FRAND requirement for Apple to have made an fair counteroffer reply back in 2007 and IMMEDIATELY start making that payment to Motorola or put the money into a bond as a show of good faith.... whether or not Motorola accepted the counteroffer.

Motorola got the injunction most likely because Apple did not do that.

Nobody has ever been sued for making a tablet that is a rectangle. There are plenty of people making that ridiculous claim, but that doesn't make it true.

Didn't Apple give Samsung some suggestions in court as to how not to infringe on their design... and one of the suggestions was to use a different shape?

After all, how else is Moto supposed to make money?

You mean, they could do like Apple and just sell their devices without suing anyone else over their patented technology contained within?

Oh. Wait.

 

[RiverCitySlim]

Because its not an absure analogy? Motorola wants to get an additional $2.50 for each 32 GB Ipad then from the 16 GB Ipad and an additional $5.00 for each 64 GB Ipad over a 16 GB Ipad. Using the list prices we have the following licensing costs:
Cost Licensing
Iphone 3GS 8 GB $375 $9.38
Iphone 4 8 GB $549 $13.73
Iphone 4S 16 GB $699 $17.48
32 GB $749 $18.73
64 GB $849 $21.23

Ipad 16 GB $629 $15.73
32 GB $729 $18.23
64 GB $829 $20.73

Does that really make sense to you when you think about it. Really think a 64 GB 4S should net an additional $12 or so over a Iphone 3GS for motorola when its doing the same thing? Really think an

You're absolutely right. Motorola should ask for $21.23 for all devices.

 

[Oletros]

Because its not an absure analogy?

Is absurd because a car IS not a phone so comparing it to a phone doesn't make sense.

And that without considering that the 2.25% of every product is only the invention of Florian Mueller

 

[JAT]

You mean, they could do like Apple and just sell their devices without suing anyone else over their patented technology contained within?

Oh. Wait.

Can't have it both ways. Apple hasn't been raking in money from their lawsuits, only from sales.

 

[voonyx]

You mean, they could do like Apple and just sell their devices without suing anyone else over their patented technology contained within?
Oh. Wait.

How much has Apple made from lawsuits vs sales?

Oh. Wait.

 

[HiRez]

The article says Motorola is asking 2.5%, but I believe they asked for 2.25%, didn't they?

 

[Oletros]

Can't have it both ways. Apple hasn't been raking in money from their lawsuits, only from sales.

How much has Apple made from lawsuits vs sales?

Oh. Wait.

So, you can only sue other companies when you swim in a money pool? If you don't have revenues you lose your patents?

 

[nanotlj]

This forum has been engadgeted or samsunged?

This forum has started to become an engadget forum and gotten flooded by trolls who think they are smarter than those lawyers. Wow, we have a lot of rich lawyers in this forum.

----------
geeks = jerks

 

[*LTD*]

You mean, they could do like Apple and just sell their devices without suing anyone else over their patented technology contained within?

Oh. Wait.

Moto sure took long enough to open their mouths about this. After it became apparent they couldn't compete with other Android OEMs, thanks to their lousy products and service, and after taking a gander at Apple's money-pile, they suddenly bring up these FRAND issues.

Should Apple pay Motorola something? Yes. But only after pushing them as hard as possible and causing them as much material difficulty as possible. Apple has absolutely nothing to lose by doing so, and Motorola certainly has it coming.

 

[Oletros]

Moto sure took long enough to open their mouths about this. After it became apparent they couldn't compete with other Android OEMs, thanks to their lousy products and service, and after taking a gander at Apple's money-pile, they suddenly bring up these FRAND issues.

That's not what German courts say

 

[JAT]

So, you can only sue other companies when you swim in a money pool? If you don't have revenues you lose your patents?

No, you can only claim one of the following as a general complaint about Apple. Otherwise you look, at best, silly.

• Apple is failing at lawsuits
• Apple is making money at lawsuits

 

[vrDrew]

Is absurd because a car IS not a phone so comparing it to a phone doesn't make sense.

Whatever. A device that plays music and videos, is a calculator, a handheld gaming device, a camera, an e-reader, a word processor, and a web-browser isn't just a phone either. But maybe you see some distinction that escapes the rest of humanity.

You also you seem to forget is that Samsung and Motorola aren't the only companies that have standards-essential ETSI patents. There are (currently) more than a hundred.

Accepting a royalty rate based on a percentage of the entire device would set a precedent that would enable every single one of them to base their demands on a similar basis. This would likely result in a situation where a manufacturer would have to pay more than 100% of their selling price.

Thats what stifles innovation. Why should anyone put telecommunications functionality in a TV set, a lightswitch, a printer, a thermostat, or who knows what if they know that Samsung, Motorola and the rest of the FRAND patent holding cartel (companies who have committed to base their royalties on FRAND terms) can come along and take all the profits?

 

[sterlingindigo]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

Said the joker to the thief. I hope Apple doesn't finally undo itself in litigation. Live by the sword.

 

[miles01110]

How much has Apple made from lawsuits vs sales?

Oh. Wait.

What does this have to do with anything? Apple is not a law firm. Motorola is not a law firm. You do understand this, right?

 

[forty2j]

The irony is that Apple is "crying" over the industry and FRAND yet hasn't contributed themselves. In other words "we don't want to play fair but we think everyone else should be!"

I could attempt to this post credibility if you can cite the Apple patent that has been declared necessary for an industry standard, and Apple has told the standards body that they will license it under Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory terms, yet they have refused to do so.

--

Lest you forget, Apple is protesting the copying of their industrial design and their user interface. Motorola in particular is responding with "Yeah? Well yours has a cellular radio, and ours does too!"

 

[voonyx]

What does this have to do with anything? Apple is not a law firm. Motorola is not a law firm. You do understand this, right?

OMG! No!! I didn't understand that, thanks for clarifying!!!

Try to keep up with the topic. You'll want to start with LTD's post about Motorola making money and go on from there.

 

[Oletros]

Whatever. A device that plays music and videos, is a calculator, a handheld gaming device, a camera, an e-reader, a word processor, and a web-browser isn't just a phone either. But maybe you see some distinction that escapes the rest of humanity.

Is a PHONE and Apple has registered it as that, a CAR is not a PHONE

You also you seem to forget is that Samsung and Motorola aren't the only companies that have standards-essential ETSI patents. There are (currently) more than a hundred.

Oh, no, I knew. Perhaps the ones that didn't knew who 3G patent pool works or what company has what percentage of patents in the pool are the ones that if doesn't affect Apple it doesn't exist.

Accepting a royalty rate based on a percentage of the entire device would set a precedent that would enable every single one of them to base their demands on a similar basis. This would likely result in a situation where a manufacturer would have to pay more than 100% of their selling price.

Would set a precedent?

Royalties has been set accounting for the cost of the device for years

And still waiting where Motorola have asked a 2.25% of the SALE's price

 

[samcraig]

Moto sure took long enough to open their mouths about this. After it became apparent they couldn't compete with other Android OEMs, thanks to their lousy products and service, and after taking a gander at Apple's money-pile, they suddenly bring up these FRAND issues.

Should Apple pay Motorola something? Yes. But only after pushing them as hard as possible and causing them as much material difficulty as possible. Apple has absolutely nothing to lose by doing so, and Motorola certainly has it coming.

Really? So you're saying Motorola didn't file back in 2007 with the first iPhone? is that what you're suggesting?

 

[Oletros]

No, you can only claim one of the following as a general complaint about Apple. Otherwise you look, at best, silly.

• Apple is failing at lawsuits
• Apple is making money at lawsuits

Please, show me where kdarling have asserted that.