Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
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?

Apple's lawsuits have resulted in quite a bit of revenue they would not have otherwise had.

At least, that's what Apple claims, since every one of their injunctions has included arguments that they would LOSE money if their patents were not upheld.

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.

Motorola approached Apple in August 2007.

It is Apple that has dragged its feet, which is why the court originally granted the injunction, apparently causing Apple to decide to start to negotiate for real.
 
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!"

It's very easy for Apple to criticize FRAND because they have nothing to lose. A reform to FRAND would only benefit Apple. Again - they have nothing to lose. I don't blame Apple for trying or even making the comment. I just find it "funny."
 
If you can't understand that "Show me where kdarling has stated that" equals to "kdarling hasn't stated that" says a lot about you

Strange, I asked you to show me the equivalent US patent to the German case, you showed me an incorrect one and then never responded again. That says a lot about you. You're not exactly the most credible source here...
 
That guy is making a tablet and it's a rectangle! SUE THIS GUY TO OBLIVION.

Hey, let's think about this! The first TRIANGULAR tablet? Patent attorneys, here I come!
 
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!"

What are you talking about? Apple entered the market after the standard was set. How are they supposed to contribute to it at that point? Also, I'd like to point out that Apple does in fact own patents and IP that are part of the 3G specification and many other industry standard technologies, including both HTML 5 (canvas) and H.264 (container) which they currently license ROYALTY FREE.
 
Motorola approached Apple in August 2007.

It is Apple that has dragged its feet, which is why the court originally granted the injunction, apparently causing Apple to decide to start to negotiate for real.

Why would they approach Apple in 2007? They didn't start using 3G until 2008 with the iphone 3G. Did the original iphone have a radio with 3G disabled, and if so, why would that matter since the issue at hand is usage, not presence?
 
Why would they approach Apple in 2007? They didn't start using 3G until 2008 with the iphone 3G. Did the original iphone have a radio with 3G disabled, and if so, why would that matter since the issue at hand is usage, not presence?

Undoubtedly, Apple was designing the iPhone 3G in 2007.
It doesn't just take a few days or weeks to design a phone, it takes months and years.
 
Motorola approached Apple in August 2007.

It is Apple that has dragged its feet, which is why the court originally granted the injunction, apparently causing Apple to decide to start to negotiate for real.

And you somehow know all the details of those on going negotiations?

The court is forced to grant the injunction, just as with the Nokia case, Apple IS NOT PAYING THEM for using their IP. That is a fact. They have failed to reach an agreement. For all we know, Motorola's original intentions of their lawsuit may have been to force Apple to settle out of court. And Apple obviously wanted to force the failed negotiations into the court system, because they felt they weren't getting a fair deal from Motorola.
 
Why would they approach Apple in 2007? They didn't start using 3G until 2008 with the iphone 3G. Did the original iphone have a radio with 3G disabled, and if so, why would that matter since the issue at hand is usage, not presence?


The patents in question are GPRS patents
 
As I posted this morning in another thread, I've found some interesting stuff while researching this topic.

One tidbit was that Motorola owns 50% of the 132 patents supposedly deemed necessary to create a GSM phone and network. That's three times the number of patents that the next closest patent owner has.

More pertinent to this thread, is that apparently Motorola never directly agreed to FRAND terms... but would only allow their patents to be used by either 1) those who bought Motorola equipment or 2) those who cross-licensed patents with them, such as Nokia, Ericsson and others.

In other words, Motorola has never tried to make money just from their patents alone. Instead, they wanted customers or they wanted cross-licensing, which to them was worth lots more since then they didn't have to pay royalties on the equipment they themselves built.

Now we have this case. Apple doesn't buy Motorola chips or phones or other cell equipment, and they don't like cross-licensing.

So there might not be any monetary rate precedent to make a FRAND determination.
 
Motorola approached Apple in August 2007.

It is Apple that has dragged its feet, which is why the court originally granted the injunction, apparently causing Apple to decide to start to negotiate for real.

You're absolutely right.

Motorola claims it approached Apple in 2007 regarding licensing. Apple didn't consider it fair, apparently, and let the matter sit with the courts. Turned out to be a smart move.

It is also true that the Motorola dinosaur has been running on empty for years now.

If Moto prefers to operate as a patent-licesning entity, they should simply make a public declaration to that effect. This way at least, they'll be able to do what they failed to do in the past: re-invent their business. And they won't seem quite like the lazy, unimaginative, money-grubbing scoundrels that they are. Moto was just another victim of June 2007. Apple made statistics out of a lot of the old guard, and instead of pushing the innovation envelope and focusing on delighting consumers, these also-rans are simply pushing paper.
 
Why would they approach Apple in 2007? They didn't start using 3G until 2008 with the iphone 3G. Did the original iphone have a radio with 3G disabled, and if so, why would that matter since the issue at hand is usage, not presence?

This is about basic GSM technology, which Motorola was a huge part of inventing.

UMTS-3G is a different invention (despite common myth that it's directly related) and so Qualcomm is the one who gets most of the 3G patent royalties (for WCDMA).
 
And you somehow know all the details of those on going negotiations?

The court is forced to grant the injunction, just as with the Nokia case, Apple IS NOT PAYING THEM for using their IP. That is a fact. They have failed to reach an agreement. For all we know, Motorola's original intentions of their lawsuit may have been to force Apple to settle out of court. And Apple obviously wanted to force the failed negotiations into the court system, because they felt they weren't getting a fair deal from Motorola.

First you are sarcastic implying that kdarling doesn't have inside info and then you ahead and assert something which would only be known by an insider?

Hmmmm:rolleyes:
 
Why would they approach Apple in 2007? They didn't start using 3G until 2008 with the iphone 3G. Did the original iphone have a radio with 3G disabled, and if so, why would that matter since the issue at hand is usage, not presence?

The original iPhone did use 3G tech, I believe at the time people referred to it as 2.5G. Even the 3G in the latest iPhone uses some 4G tech, which I've heard it called 3.75G.
 
You're absolutely right.

Motorola claims it approached Apple in 2007 regarding licensing. Apple didn't consider it fair, apparently, and let the matter sit with the courts. Turned out to be a smart move.

It is also true that the Motorola dinosaur has been running on empty for years now.

If Moto prefers to operate as a patent-licesning entity, they should simply make a public declaration to that effect. This way at least, they'll be able to do what they failed to do in the past: re-invent their business. And they won't seem quite like the lazy, unimaginative, money-grubbing scoundrels that they are. Moto was just another victim of June 2007. Apple made statistics out of a lot of the old guard, and instead of pushing the innovation envelope and focusing on delighting consumers, these also-rans are simply pushing paper.

Define "for years" and "empty." I think you might be in a minority in making such assertions.

Second - Who are you to tell Motorola what they should and shouldn't do just because you don't care for them?

Motorola re-invented their business (and others) a few times over in the history of their company. But feel free to ignore history - won't be the first time.

"And they won't seem quite like the lazy, unimaginative, money-grubbing scoundrels that they are. " - to whom? You? Again - minority. Why so hurt/threatened by them, LTD?

You know - if Apple followed YOUR model of business (IE - giving up when they are down) instead of fighting back or changing - then they'd be out of business and there would be no iPhone.

I don't know why you think ONLY Apple has the ability to revive itself. And I don't really understand your need to throw words like "dinosaur" over and over at Motorola. Again - why so angry?
 
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.

Motorola claims it approached Apple in 2007 regarding licensing. Apple didn't consider it fair, apparently, and let the matter sit with the courts. Turned out to be a smart move.

At least, don't contradict yourself in the same thread.
 
Just for some clarity in this pile of BS

Motorola is trying to require Microsoft to do the same thing with the Windows Phone and samsumg is doing the same with Apple and Microsoft.

This tells me there is some anti-competitive action going on.

Oh. And Google says it will do the same thing if it is allowed to buy Motorola IP.

Google is so "open and friendly"

Ha !

;)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.