i know this isn't a very constructive post, but seriously. wake me when this patent snoozefest is over.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sues Motorola Over Licensing of Cellular Technology by Qualcomm
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why? How? There are plenty of iPhones and Android phones to go around. Consumers didn't seem too "hurt" when they handed Apple a $46.3 billion quarter, now did they. They're still out there, spending money on product.
Exactly.
Also there's no way apple is the only one using this chip why isn't Motorola suing anybody else
I think you may be snoozing for quite some time...
----------
I keep trying to work it out. Are we missing something or are Motorola really being this arrogant to think they will get away with it?
I'm a very satisfied Apple customer and regard myself very loyal to the brand. Is that making me see this in Apples favor?
I don't believe so in this case and it may actually resolve many of the other lawsuits.
I don't see how Motorola can license a patent to Qualcomm, a chip manufacturer, and then go after the Qualcomm's customers and even get the case heard in court.
I also don't see how Apple could suggest to Samsung in a court document to make their device have a "cluttered appearance" to distinguish it from the iPad.
These lawsuits have become absurd.
I also don't see how Apple could suggest to Samsung in a court document to make their device have a "cluttered appearance" to distinguish it from the iPad.
These lawsuits have become absurd.
The real user of this IP is the consumer. Should we all have to pay a licensing fee as well or is that covered with the purchase of the iPhone?
It would be a good thing for Apple, at least.
It'd be a "good thing for everyone" else if Apple would actually lower their prices if they paid lower license fees
Depends on what you do with the chips. Licences can't always cover what you make with the parts.
For example, I can legally go buy every chip that's in an iPod or Mac, and feel safe that the chip patents involved have been licensed.
However, if I build and sell an iPod or Mac out of those fully licensed chips, Apple is going to go after me... because what I created is not licensed.
More often that not, its more efficient to go after the biggest guy. Knock him down and everyone else falls in line.
But would you be able to buy every single part from the same manufacturers as apple? Some of the parts inside might be only licensed or owned by apple.
And the software is definately apples.
What your saying is not the same thing.
Hardly moronic. Apple is going on the offensive with this issue as they have with the FRAND issue in Europe. Motorola is abusing their position as a contributor to industry standards.
If Googorola wins these issues it'll be a sad day for standards organizations around the world. This will set a precedent that will allow any company that contributes to industry standards to basically license their competitors out of the market and/or drive up the costs of these devices to cover the inflated fees.
suggestion for MacR
Hey, this is getting beyond stupid! This has to be the 37th Post about blood sucking lawyers etc....How about a heading up top with "Front Page" "Mac Blog" etc. We could call it "Legal News" or "Stupid Lawyer Ticks" what ever.
Just move all of this research and development draining news off to a new, dark tab.
please.
Hey, this is getting beyond stupid! This has to be the 37th Post about blood sucking lawyers etc....How about a heading up top with "Front Page" "Mac Blog" etc. We could call it "Legal News" or "Stupid Lawyer Ticks" what ever.
Just move all of this research and development draining news off to a new, dark tab.
please.
Patent lawsuits generally attract counter-lawsuits. It's standard fare.
Very often, companies that generate patent intellectual property (IP) never even sue or obtain money from competitors who are making use of their patented technologies. Often, when there are two or more competitors with competing IP in a shared field, what occurs is a "patent standoff" where each company is afraid to sue the other to enforce their own patents, because they know that this will result in counter-lawsuits for other technologies that the competitors hold, that they need. In other words, large companies often step on and use each others patented technologies without licensing (and with the knowledge of their competitors) because they know that one lawsuit will set of a flurry of counter lawsuits.
Intentionally or not (did they know this was "going nuclear" or were they responding to lawsuits early on), Apple is embroiled in a patent war where the usual situation of "patent standoff" has gone nuclear.
Regardless of what Steve Jobs has said, this may not necessarily be intentional or malicious. In the end, it may be good for Apple and for the market, if it contributes to clarity on the issue of licensing in the cell phone industry which is subject to FRAND restrictions for the purposes of standardization of cellular communications technologies.
I think it's in Apple's best interest to seek clarity on these issues now, early on, when they still have their own intellectual property to deploy in the conflict, rather than wait until later when they might not be in a strong position to push these issues into a clearer light.
Unfortunately, there are few other options. Patent intellectual property unfortunately cannot ultimately tested without litigation, which unfortunately requires lawsuits. Otherwise, everything is left up in the air.
Can we use AdBlock to block any patent related news?
I know, I know... I just have to ignore it. But when you sneeze, do you not look in the kleenex afterwards?
I know, I know... I just have to ignore it. But when you sneeze, do you not look in the kleenex afterwards?
Actually, its not.
What Apple is claiming (in this particular) case is "Patent Exhaustion." Which is the principle that if company A licenses its patent to Supplier B, who then uses the tech in a component which they then sell to company C - Company A cannot then go and sue company C for patent infringement.
FRAND is a totally different concept. It (very briefly) holds that if a company submits its technology to be part of an industry standard, then they HAVE to offer a license on that technology to all comers, and under "reasonable" terms.
Think of the when they were setting up the system of electrical power. Each house needs to have the same sort of electrical outlets, otherwise you would have chaos and waste. And so an industry group decides on a certain type of outlet. Now the design on that type of plug may be patented by one member of the industry group. And every OTHER company that wants to sell lamps and refrigerators and televisions, HAS to use the patented plug and outlet.
FRAND says that the patent holder HAS to license its plug design to everyone that wants to use it. It has to license the design under terms that won't make it uncompetitive, they can't offer preferential terms to some companies and not others.
That is kind of a nutshell of what Samsung and Motorola are going in the smartphone business right now. They are using their "baseband" patents - which were issued with FRAND commitments - in such a way that Apple (in particular) feels violates the FRAND principle. Getting back to the "electrical power" analogy I used above, Motorola is saying that, rather than paying $0.20 per unit to use their "plug" technology - Apple has to pay them a percentage of the cost of their refrigerator.
Can we use AdBlock to block any patent related news?
I know, I know... I just have to ignore it. But when you sneeze, do you not look in the kleenex afterwards?
Need new heading - Front Page / Mac Blog / IOS Blog / God Awful Law Suit Crap /
Good Idea, Right??
What's the problem? This stuff happens all the time. Lawsuits between corporate entities is normal. It's part of the game. It's Apple news so it gets reported. And you know what? MR is smart to post it. This stuff gets hundreds of replies. It's a hot topic that brings everyone out to play.
At least pay attention to the claims on either side and the positions each side has chosen to champion. You might learn something.
Nonsense. I do not use TV sets for building and selling something else. I buy it and use it. No license needed. If Apple was buying Qualcomm chips for internal consumption they would not need any additional licenses either.
It's kindof funny though.
These patent lawsuits, including the lawsuit settled between Nokia and Apple, really does kind-of blow a hole in the hypothesis that TDMA / GSM was ever a more "open" standard than CDMA.
I think it's appropriate that Apple has gone out of their way to point out to regulatory agencies problems in the standardization process having to do with FRAND patents. Policy-wise, I'm not sure it's going to have a huge impact on the current generation of wireless technologies, but I would hope that the standards bodies will take a very close look at what FRAND means when it comes to the next generation of wireless technologies.
These patent lawsuits, including the lawsuit settled between Nokia and Apple, really does kind-of blow a hole in the hypothesis that TDMA / GSM was ever a more "open" standard than CDMA.
I think it's appropriate that Apple has gone out of their way to point out to regulatory agencies problems in the standardization process having to do with FRAND patents. Policy-wise, I'm not sure it's going to have a huge impact on the current generation of wireless technologies, but I would hope that the standards bodies will take a very close look at what FRAND means when it comes to the next generation of wireless technologies.
I get tired of hearing this. Ya know, it would be an even better thing if Porches were priced like Yugos, but that's not going to happen. Of course more people would be happy if everything was priced lower, but that's not how markets work. A company makes a product. They price according to how much they think it's worth. People are willing to pay only so much, if it's too expensive, they'll buy something else as a majority of people do.
Apple's huge profits go back into the company to support their engineering teams that design and develop the pieces necessary for those products.
Sorry, but if you buy a base band chip what else are you going to use it for other than radio communications in some kind of communications device? You're stretching hypothetical licensing terms beyond ludicrous.
From Wikipedia article on FRAND (make what you will of it):
"Fair relates mainly to the underlying licensing terms. Drawing from anti-trust/competition law; fair terms means terms which are not anti-competitive and that would not be considered unlawful if imposed by a dominant firm in their relative market. Examples of terms that would breach this commitment are; requiring licensees to buy licenses for products that they do not want in order to get a license for the products they do want (bundling), requiring licensees to license their own IP to the licensor for free (free grant backs) and including restrictive conditions on licensees dealings with competitors (mandatory exclusivity).
Reasonable refers mainly to the licensing rates. According to some, a reasonable licensing rate is a rate charged on licenses which would not result in an unreasonable aggregate rate if all licensees were charged a similar rate. According to this view, aggregate rates that would significantly increase the cost to the industry and make the industry uncompetitive are unreasonable. It is worth noting that a licensor which has several different licensing packages might be tempted to have both reasonable and unreasonable packages. However having a reasonable bundled rate does not excuse having unreasonable licensing rates for smaller unbundled packages. All licensing rates must be reasonable.
Non-discriminatory relates to both the terms and the rates included in licensing agreements. As the name suggests this commitment requires that licensors treat each individual licensee in a similar manner. This does not mean that the rates and payment terms cant change dependent on the volume and creditworthiness of the licensee. However it does mean that the underlying licensing condition included in a licensing agreement must be the same regardless of the licensee. This obligation is included in order to maintain a level playing field with respect to existing competitors and to ensure that potential new entrants are free to enter the market on the same basis."
"Fair relates mainly to the underlying licensing terms. Drawing from anti-trust/competition law; fair terms means terms which are not anti-competitive and that would not be considered unlawful if imposed by a dominant firm in their relative market. Examples of terms that would breach this commitment are; requiring licensees to buy licenses for products that they do not want in order to get a license for the products they do want (bundling), requiring licensees to license their own IP to the licensor for free (free grant backs) and including restrictive conditions on licensees dealings with competitors (mandatory exclusivity).
Reasonable refers mainly to the licensing rates. According to some, a reasonable licensing rate is a rate charged on licenses which would not result in an unreasonable aggregate rate if all licensees were charged a similar rate. According to this view, aggregate rates that would significantly increase the cost to the industry and make the industry uncompetitive are unreasonable. It is worth noting that a licensor which has several different licensing packages might be tempted to have both reasonable and unreasonable packages. However having a reasonable bundled rate does not excuse having unreasonable licensing rates for smaller unbundled packages. All licensing rates must be reasonable.
Non-discriminatory relates to both the terms and the rates included in licensing agreements. As the name suggests this commitment requires that licensors treat each individual licensee in a similar manner. This does not mean that the rates and payment terms cant change dependent on the volume and creditworthiness of the licensee. However it does mean that the underlying licensing condition included in a licensing agreement must be the same regardless of the licensee. This obligation is included in order to maintain a level playing field with respect to existing competitors and to ensure that potential new entrants are free to enter the market on the same basis."