The funny thing is that in 2008 Apple was the most sued company in tech. It doesn't sound like Apple started it to me. It sounds like everyone has always been suing everyone in this industry.
Last edited:
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
Yes, and phone makers paid a percentage against their net price for all these years before Apple showed up.
No expansion or change involved.
Charging a percentage of the net phone price, or cross licensing to lower or even remove fees, is how it's been done for 20 years in this particular industry.
Motorola wants 2.25% for their IP. Qualcomm themselves currently get 3.4% of smartphone prices for their part. We don't see Apple suing Qualcomm.
The upshot is that Apple is not being treated in a different way when it comes to what the fees are applied to. I think it's more like they don't want to get pushed into cross licensing.
So, instead of playing by the very rules they claim should be enforced, they understandably want to change the rules in order to maximize their profits. However, licensees have already attempted to change the rules at various times over the past twenty years and failed.
Note that personally I agree with Apple that it'd be nice if the fees applied to only the portion involved. However, again, that's not how everyone else has traditionally been charged.
Last edited:
But isn't the difference that everyone else is paying Motorola when they buy Qualcomm parts? Motorola doesn't want that because it doesn't benefit them as greatly. I am not sure as this is all so muddled.
- Motorola has Intellectual Property and so does Qualcomm.
- Qualcomm gets 3.4% for their own CDMA/WCDMA IP.
- Motorola also gets a percentage for their own IP.
Two separate sets of IP and fees.
Motorola can get their fee either by licensing Qualcomm to collect it for them, or by licensing directly to the user.
What Motorola did was drop permission for Qualcomm to collect the fee for them from Apple, and thus they force Apple to deal directly with Motorola.
Now, according to the Wisconsin judge, it's up to Motorola to prove they have that privilege. This is where Qualcomm's contracts with Motorola come in, and that's why Apple wants copies.
From the sheer number of suits and counter suits filed by both sides, I'm not so sure who is or isn't the patent bully. Apple bought some patents in December and in one of the many suits, is suing Samsung over autocorrect on the phone with one of those patents - seriously?
And I think you are still missing my point about the entire suit/counter suit thing - yeah, we get dinged if Motorola gets 2.25%. Just like we will when Apple eventually licenses some of it's patents back to Motorola. And again, these lawsuits are incredibly expensive and time consuming and WE are paying for them - not sure how you can think it doesn't affect us. I'm not siding with or against Apple here. These suits from everyone are costing us.
I'm sorry Apple didnt start any of this. In the beginning it was Motorola angry they didnt go with a Motorola chip on there phone, now it MMI (and Google) mad that the Iphone sells so well. Read the Wisconsin trial info from the Judge to find out more. But first Motorola cancelled Chen Mei (sp?) license for the very first Iphone about 2 months into the Iphone production and then they cancelled the Qualcomm license (only with respect to Apple) when the Verizon Iphone came out. Everyone else that used the chip was ok with license fees except Apple, you need to pay the fees directly to us, oh an by the way its $2.25% on the total sale price of the phone, not the $0.20 or so we are getting per chip you are making.
Apple is going to win this, because there is no other logical common sense based outcome. If not pigs might start flying.
It is, I am convinced, a misconception to think that the price of any article is dictated mainly by what it costs to produce (including secondary costs like management, marketing, legal, licensing and many more).
The price is always the highest they can get away with. Apple computers have long been the best example for that: As one model ages it never gets cheaper although the prices for its components do. As long as people buy their stuff they will charge what they can. All these litigation const will just come right out of their profit margin (which is much higher than the industry standard anyway). Don't worry too much.
Apple has the right to use Qualcomm chips if it has an agreement with Qualcomm. Thats all there is to it. Motorola has a separate agreement with Qualcomm which has nothing to do with this agreement between Apple and Qualcomm. With that said, why is Apple the litigator? Shouldn't they be the defender if an when Motorola sues for patent infringement?
It is time...
mark my words, we are living in a new era, and laws need to get updated. the 50s and 60s patent laws about 'technology' no longer cut it in this enterwinded world of technology and innovation. No longer is the case that people start from scratch, everything is built on everything.
mark my words, we are living in a new era, and laws need to get updated. the 50s and 60s patent laws about 'technology' no longer cut it in this enterwinded world of technology and innovation. No longer is the case that people start from scratch, everything is built on everything.
This analogy misfires badly. Maybe it is possible that relevant TV, car, mixer and fridge patent issues have already been resolved? Plus there's the more subtle issue that there are significant differences between a end-consumer and an OEM.
Note: For the reading impaired, I'm not saying Apple is in the wrong; just that the analogy provided above is wrong.
----------
I agree with you, but it is fun to speculate; and occasionally stimulating.
Actually we - well , some of us - do have most of the details, as they were revealed in the Wisconsin Court decision over the Motorola ITC case.
http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws...0-de_seq_num-329-dm_id-3602496-doc_num-93.pdf
Includes details on the contested patents, Motorola's actions and even legal precedent relevant to this case.
It is 38 pages of mostly legalese, so reading is only really recommended to enthusiastic armchair lawyers
Thanks a lot for this. As a non-lawyer, I actually found this very clearly written and surprisingly light in legalese (there are a few legal concepts introduced, but they are explained in terms I could understand). It's fairly long, but not horribly so; and of course precedent-citing can be pretty dull to the casual reader. I was able to get through the first third in about 10 minutes and skimmed the rest. Basically, it is pretty damning against Moto, and if other courts and other decisions go the same way Apple is going to do well. The basic decisions here were technical-- this was basically about Moto blocking Apples' countersuit on technical legal reasons-- but it seemed to me, and the judge concluded, that Moto's arguments were just twisted legal arguments that didn't hold water when examined logically. However, in the course of it, facts were cited to support that position that Moto is not playing fairly under FRAND-- in fact, their behavior seems kind of evil:
- Moto want a fix percentage of revenues regardless of the value of their technology in the device-- in other words, the same percentage, and thus a much larger amount, of a $600 hyper-super smartphone as of a $50 device.
- Apple has been trying to get Moto to accept an absolute per/device amount in line with what other manufacturers are paying, and Moto won't agree. This has been going on for about 4 years.
- Moto has been going after the device manufacturers who sell to Apple. Included is Qualcomm-- Moto sent Qualcomm a notice canceling their right to sell chips using Moto technology, specifically with regard to Apple. They did this in another case as well.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
Actually it is not sensible at all.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
Yeah especially for a public company where they are obligated to set the price to maximize profitability. This is pretty standard. Companies don't lower prices when costs drop unless competitive issues dictate it or it allows them to increase sales to be even more profitable.
DeathChill said:
Actually it is not sensible at all.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A334 Safari/7534.48.3)
Boghog said:It is, I am convinced, a misconception to think that the price of any article is dictated mainly by what it costs to produce (including secondary costs like management, marketing, legal, licensing and many more).
The price is always the highest they can get away with. Apple computers have long been the best example for that: As one model ages it never gets cheaper although the prices for its components do. As long as people buy their stuff they will charge what they can. All these litigation const will just come right out of their profit margin (which is much higher than the industry standard anyway). Don't worry too much.
Yeah especially for a public company where they are obligated to set the price to maximize profitability. This is pretty standard. Companies don't lower prices when costs drop unless competitive issues dictate it or it allows them to increase sales to be even more profitable.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow, another lawsuit. I'm pretty new to the world of Mac (like its been just over a month since I bought my MBP), but I've already seen several new lawsuits/results of lawsuits, etc.
Is this all I have to look forward to other than new tech each year?
Is this all I have to look forward to other than new tech each year?
Wow, another lawsuit. I'm pretty new to the world of Mac (like its been just over a month since I bought my MBP), but I've already seen several new lawsuits/results of lawsuits, etc.
Is this all I have to look forward to other than new tech each year?
Just curious what else you were looking forward too?
There have always been lawsuits it just seems like 2011/12 are years that have a bit more than usual.
There haven't always been lawsuits that could affect competition like the ones Apple started.
Well, new software, apps, cool insider tech, etc. I enjoy news that makes my computing experience (and if I ever go back to iPhone, my iOS experience) more exciting.
Lawsuits just make me sigh.
Well, new software, apps, cool insider tech, etc. I enjoy news that makes my computing experience (and if I ever go back to iPhone, my iOS experience) more exciting.
Lawsuits just make me sigh.
Fair enough those are good things to look forward too! Unfortunately lawsuits are part of the whole deal as well.
Can't comment on that as i am no lawyer, however i am guessing there may have been but you or i don't know of them.
Nope, that's not all. Besides paying Qualcomm for the raw chip, Apple also has to pay for any patents associated with using that chip, either directly or via Qualcomm.
Heck, even Qualcomm has to pay for patents related to the chip. For each chip they sell, Qualcomm has to pay Broadcom about $6 in patent fees.
It's a tangled mess, for sure. When the big guns of cell phone IP fight each other, there's often at least a half billion dollar settlement involved somewhere.
That's part of what the court case is about, yes.
There's no question that Apple has to pay Motorola for the patents. What's up in the air is how much. That's the end reason why Apple launched the lawsuit.
As you correctly noticed, this was all about technical reasons why certain arguments should be continued in court or not. After a few years of reading these pretrial decisions, I've noticed that what the judges talk at this point are not always good indicators of how the trials will turn out, or even what they'll revolve around.
Which is the way it's been done for two decades, with an eye towards both 1) holding down phone prices at the lower end (think about it) to maximize cell usage around the world, and 2) maximizing patent profits from those companies who are charging higher prices (and thus, getting more profit themselves).
There's a relatively small group of major companies that hold almost all of the base cell patents, and since they invented the technology, they also had the right to decide how to charge anyone else using it.
Note, btw, that as primary inventor of the cell phone, Motorola holds 50% of those patents.
As I linked in another thread, an excellent (and long) paper about the GSM FRAND situation can be found here. Sounds like you'd like it.
Cheers!
Hello!!! There are more lawyers than any other profession on the planet, except for the first and oldest profession. They're all fighting for their "fair share" of the economy. Our legislators, who are also mostly lawyers, word laws and regulations in a manner that encourages the need for legal help.
----------
We are all friends. We're playing the money game. After we get out of court, we go out together for dinner and drinks, enjoying the good life provided by the games we play.
This is no different than playing a competative sports game with your buddies. The fun is in the games we play and entertainment we provide to our viewers, which pay us big bucks to watch.
Qualcomm is also siding with Appe in this matter because Motorola is only refusing to collect FRAND from Qualcomm wrt Apple. No other cell phone manufacturers are being subjected to this nonsense by Motorola.
This is discriminatory on Qualcomm's part - which goes against FRAND - and is being done in retaliation for Apple trying to protect its IP.
When all is said and done - it looks to be a big win for Apple.
Last edited:
It is, I am convinced, a misconception to think that the price of any article is dictated mainly by what it costs to produce (including secondary costs like management, marketing, legal, licensing and many more).
The price is always the highest they can get away with. Apple computers have long been the best example for that: As one model ages it never gets cheaper although the prices for its components do. As long as people buy their stuff they will charge what they can. All these litigation const will just come right out of their profit margin (which is much higher than the industry standard anyway). Don't worry too much.
I think it's simplistic to think that a companies cost isn't given major consideration when deciding how to price their products. Of course they want to charge what the market will bear and as I mentioned before I understand the need to protect their intellectual property. But, IMO, to think that in some way we aren't paying for it is rather naive.
That's true. Qualcomm no doubt made a really nice deal with Apple and doesn't want to jeopardize it or deals with others.
As far as ETSI-based FRAND goes, if Motorola is offering the same patent selection to Apple, albeit at a different rate structure, then I think they're technically not discriminating against them.
Motorola could, for example, say that their previous rate was insufficient for a single device that was sold not just in North America, but around the world. Such regional rate structure is not disallowed under ETSI rules.
Could be. If so, they wouldn't be the only ones. Heck, Steve Jobs said that he was going to go "thermonuclear" on Android and spend billions in revenge if he had to. Very Star Trek II.
Personally, I thought that Tim Cook ... being more level headed... would try to de-escalate the patent wars after Jobs passed away. Apparently not.
At least it all makes for interesting discussion, and we all each learn a little more about patent law every day.