Apple Sues Motorola Over Licensing of Cellular Technology by Qualcomm

[jrlcopy]

Should Qualcomm be the one in trouble then?

Apple - "Hey you told me you weren't going to sell those chips to anyone else"

Qualcomm - "They offered me money, sorry? Here have a cookie."

Why's it's Motorola's problem? Unless they told Qualcomm that they were only using those chips for something else.

 

[mjtomlin]

With this logic, no company would ever need to pay for any patents.

That's absolutely not true. Qualcomm had to pay. Why? They are the company building products that directly include the IP. Any company that directly uses IP from another company should be responsible for licensing the technology.

Honestly, how stupid would it be for a company to build and sell something that is completely useless unless the customer goes out and pays all the licensing fees to use the IP built into the widget? If you buy the product part of its cost should be to cover the license.

 

[Freis968]

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)

I am so sick of reading about all of these ****ing lawsuits. I wish MacRumors would quit posting them...they make me want to puke!!!

 

[lilo777]

That's absolutely not true. Qualcomm had to pay. Why? They are the company building products that directly include the IP. Any company that directly uses IP from another company should be responsible for licensing the technology.

Honestly, how stupid would it be for a company to build and sell something that is completely useless unless the customer goes out and pays all the licensing fees to use the IP built into the widget? If you buy the product part of its cost should be to cover the license.

You are assuming that Apple is not using the same IP but we do not know that. IP may have some features that require certain compiance/functionality (also covered by the same IP) from the phone. In this case, Apple would need a license too.

 

[SiPat]

Samsung is already being investigated for abuse of FRAND patents in Europe.

The EU hates Google, especially after the debacle of data capture from open wifi devices by Google.

The EU will soon announce an investigation of Motorola for abuse of FRAND patents, especially once Google takes ownership and control.

 

[Can't Stop]

Have you seen Yugos with more powerful engines than Porches? If mobile world, iPhones are the Yugos (priced as Porches) .

Do you care at all what nonsense you write?

 

[mjtomlin]

You are assuming that Apple is not using the same IP but we do not know that. IP may have some features that require certain compiance/functionality (also covered by the same IP) from the phone. In this case, Apple would need a license too.

There are in fact different licensing terms, I understand that. One company can license a technology to build it into its products. That license may not actually cover "use" of the IP. It would then fall on the third company to pay a "use" license. This happens all the time.

Take music for instance. You buy an album, you're licensed to "listen" to it for personal purposes. If you want to use a particular song in your movie, you have to pay for a different "use" license.

Not knowing all the details, I'm going to have to assume that Apple has actually talked with Qualcomm on the matter and asked them about their licensing terms. Thus, this lawsuit.

 

[Can't Stop]

"If mobile world", it's not about specs.

This isn't a drag race.

Leave the car analogies where they belong: with cars.

Why? This Yugo of the mobile world is pretty fast. Of course he forgot to mention that.

 

[Schmitty11]

Why can't we be friends, why cant we be friends....

 

[babyj]

If you've got an hour or two to kill then I'd recommend having a read up on all of this on the Foss Patents blog. As well as coverage of the court proceedings there are some excellent posts explaining what is really going on and at stake.

Apparently all these lawsuits are nothing more than Apple, Motorola, Samsung trying to win some decisive cases to have the upper hand when it comes down to the final and inevitable patent cross licensing deal.

With the Qualcomm chips issue, Motorola are demanding a 2.25% royalty for their patents which are only part of a package of patents that make up the technology and which have been declared under Frand. If every company that has some of the relevant patents got the same royalty then Apple would be paying something like 30% to 50% in royalties.

To make it worse, Motorola are demanding the royalty for the total selling price of the device and not the price of the chip (which contains all the tech covered by the patents). So for a $500 phone they want $11.25, which is about what the Qualcomm chip (for which the patents have already been licensed and paid for) costs.

Not sure all this arguing over the Frand licensing will go on for much longer, in the EU at least. It's starting to get real stupid and it can only be a matter of time before the EU steps in and gives everyone involved some slaps to get them to play fair.

 

[chrmjenkins]

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.

He's talking about Apple lowering their own license fees versus apple licensing fees being driven down causing everyone else's to go down. He's not talking about market prices for finished 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.

Just because it appeals to your common sense doesn't mean that's how the law works, as that's often not the case.

 

[Stridder44]

And the circlejerk continues...

 

[AppleScruff1]

Good. This is what happens when you mess with the bull. Horns.

Apple has the time, resources and money to see this through and to simply roll with it as necessary. Moto, not so much:



But let's forgive Moto for now. Google is trying very hard to recoup that $12 billion, after all. They might find, however, that they've bitten off a little more than they (or Moto) can chew.

Are you a patent expert too? Most impressive.

 

[mjtomlin]

It'd be a "good thing for everyone" else if Apple would actually lower their prices if they paid lower license fees

He's talking about Apple lowering their own license fees versus apple licensing fees being driven down causing everyone else's to go down. He's not talking about market prices for finished products.

Sorry, what I got from it is, he's saying if Apple had to pay lower licensing fees, it would be nice if they also dropped the prices of their products.

Sorry, I just don't see anything in that quote that implies he's referring to Apple's licensing fees they charge other companies? That has never come up in this discussion or anywhere else that I can think of? In fact the last time I can remember that anyone balked at Apple's licensing fees were when they charged $1 per FireWire port.

Just because it appeals to your common sense doesn't mean that's how the law works, as that's often not the case.

You're right, because in this case Apple is clearly using the base band chip for nefarious reasons that void any such licensing terms agreed to by Qualcomm. Do you really think Apple is using the chip in any other manner than any other OEM?

----------

 

[gkpm]

In fact the last time I can remember that anyone balked at Apple's licensing fees were when they charged $1 per FireWire port.

Apple (with the 9 other companies on the IEEE 1394 patent pool) never actually charged $1 in royalties for FireWire. That was rumoured to be happening, but never came to fruition.

The royalties started initially with a $7000 one-time fee for unlimited devices but then changed to $0.25 per device, which is still true today.

 

[*LTD*]

Are you a patent expert too? Most impressive.

No, but we all know what Google is trying to do with Motorola. And Apple's advantageous position from a resource perspective is obvious.

----------

 

[chrmjenkins]

Sorry, what I got from it is, he's saying if Apple had to pay lower licensing fees, it would be nice if they also dropped the prices of their products.

Sorry, I just don't see anything in that quote that implies he's referring to Apple's licensing fees they charge other companies? That has never come up in this discussion or anywhere else that I can think of? In fact the last time I can remember that anyone balked at Apple's licensing fees were when they charged $1 per FireWire port.

Then follow what he said to its logical conclusion. How would apple lowering their product prices help their competitors?

You're right, because in this case Apple is clearly using the base band chip for nefarious reasons that void any such licensing terms agreed to by Qualcomm. Do you really think Apple is using the chip in any other manner than any other OEM?

----------



Do you know how many jobs Apple has created in the US, directly and indirectly? Not too mention jobs all over the world?

You're not getting it. It doesn't matter what you think makes sense. It matters what the law says,

 

[raramaker]

Motorola's strategy

I think Motorola's (and Samsung's) strategy is clear.

1. Apple patents the iPhone and sues HTC. Moto needs these patents for their Android phones.
2. Apple refuses to license the patents.
3. Motorola looks for patents to use to force Apple to cross-license.
4. All Motorola can find is 3G patents that they already license to Qualcomm
5. Motorola terminates the license with Qualcomm and then expects Apple to cross license or pay an unreasonable 2.25%.

This is a desperation strategy since Moto knows that eventually Apple will win their suit against HTC and thus Android.

 

[DanteMann]

Do you know how many jobs Apple has created in the US, directly and indirectly? Not too mention jobs all over the world?

Don't bother with the "creating jobs indirectly" BS because it's just that, BS. Let's talk about how many people they employ in the US, their own country of origin, and how many people they employ overseas. What a complete disgusting greedy joke of a company. Make no mistakes, Apple knows full well how despicable working conditions are in China, yet they still push and fight to manufacture there. It's all about GREED. I will not buy another Apple product. Knowing what I know about the despicable working conditions and Apple complete lack of care for such conditions, I refuse to support such despicable actions. Can't wait to get a new Samsung device made with a CPU from Texas. Thank you Samsung for doing what Apple will NEVER do, manufacture in the US.

 

[gkpm]

Can't wait to get a new Samsung device made with a CPU from Texas.

You can get one right now if you buy an iPhone 4S, as Apple's A5 processor is reported to be made in Texas.

See: https://www.macrumors.com/2011/12/1...for-a5-chip-production-now-fully-operational/

But I get it, you're not really interested, just trolling.

 

[DanteMann]

You can get one right now if you buy an iPhone, as Apple's A5 processor is reported to be made in Texas.

See: https://www.macrumors.com/2011/12/1...for-a5-chip-production-now-fully-operational/

I want my money to go to the company (Samsung) that brought the manufacturing here to the US. Not the company (Apple) that has a lack of respect for basic human rights and has an overwhelming number of employees overseas in a Communist country that has a horrible track record with human rights violations. Despicable.

 

[gkpm]

This is a desperation strategy since Moto knows that eventually Apple will win their suit against HTC and thus Android.

I thought HTC was a non-issue, because "HTC Corp. Chief Executive Peter Chou said the company has developed a workaround for the feature on its smartphones that the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled had violated an Apple Inc. patent."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204552304577111740448299210.html

Wasn't it just related to how numbers and other data was recognised? Doesn't seem like an Android showstopper to me. Maybe I'm missing something?

 

[Kaibelf]

There are in fact different licensing terms, I understand that. One company can license a technology to build it into its products. That license may not actually cover "use" of the IP. It would then fall on the third company to pay a "use" license. This happens all the time.

Take music for instance. You buy an album, you're licensed to "listen" to it for personal purposes. If you want to use a particular song in your movie, you have to pay for a different "use" license.

Not knowing all the details, I'm going to have to assume that Apple has actually talked with Qualcomm on the matter and asked them about their licensing terms. Thus, this lawsuit.

That's a huge stretch. It's essentially saying Apple bought chips that cannot be used, and that Qualcomm sold nonfunctional products.

 

[kdarling]

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.

I was simply responding to the idea that a chip license must cover everything made with that chip. That's demonstrably incorrect.

However, it's easy for an engineer to think of ways that a license for radio chip HARDWARE would not cover what someone does with that chip.

For example, hardware licenses will not cover all the baseband SOFTWARE that is needed to use that chip for communications.

Remember, these chips are basically rather dumb DSPs that require software to become a radio chip. They require lots of specialized code and parts to turn into a particular type of communications device, and there certainly can be non-chip patents on the code, parts and the end combination.

So again, a license to build the chip does not include coverage for the products the chip can be used in.

 

[Kaibelf]

Don't bother with the "creating jobs indirectly" BS because it's just that, BS. Let's talk about how many people they employ in the US, their own country of origin, and how many people they employ overseas. What a complete disgusting greedy joke of a company. Make no mistakes, Apple knows full well how despicable working conditions are in China, yet they still push and fight to manufacture there. It's all about GREED. I will not buy another Apple product. Knowing what I know about the despicable working conditions and Apple complete lack of care for such conditions, I refuse to support such despicable actions. Can't wait to get a new Samsung device made with a CPU from Texas. Thank you Samsung for doing what Apple will NEVER do, manufacture in the US.

You know what's disgusting and greedy? Asserting that only certain people should have jobs based on their country of origin. You know what's even more disgusting? Saying that foreign people should be wearing rags and working on a rice paddy (rather than in a manufacturing plant the way this country did 100 years ago) so that some suburban people can buy a second car to drive their spoiled kids to soccer practice. Also, Samsung? Really? Their CPU may be fabricated in Texas, but the rest of it's done in FAR worse Asian plants than Foxconn. Enjoy your phone.

By the way, did you know what before they came back from the dead, Apple made EVERYTHING in the USA? And it was so expensive, no one bought the products. Hence the dance with bankruptcy. Honestly. Pick up a book before you post so many blatant lies.