Motorola Wins Legal Victory Over Apple in Germany, Impact Disputed

[BLUELION]

Olteros,

google entered our discussion when it was pointed out that Google is not Moto. Since Google acquired Moto, they are one and the same irregardless of when the actual acquisition took place. why? Because as of today, Google owns Moto and their arsenal of patents, both common and FRAND based.

What I said was "misuse" of FRAND patents, which by classification, require Fair, reasonable and Non discriminatory licensing to a "Essential" patent. Past cases on FRAND have highlighted time and again that "essential" patents can't be circumvented in the implementation of a technology because they are the core of that particular technology. As such, to refuse to license or to hinder the ability of others, in particular a competitor, is strictly prohibited by FRAND. If this occurs, which is the obvious motive behind the Moto charge post-google acquisition, is to deny FRAND from being established with the technologies patented by Moto.

Again Olteros, I shared it was a "misuse" of FRAND. Legality is subjective because there is no way to prevent someone from using an "essential" technology even if a patent exists and is held by one company over another. In the end, the other company will be able to use it the only thing you gain is a royalty derived from a fair and reasonable licencse.

To deny a license of a FRAND classified patent is misuse of the patent. Please read up on it and you shall see as I did when I read up on it, that once a patent is determined to be FRAND patent, you can't prevent others from using it but you can demand a license fee for that patent.

Putting aside Samsung, what has copied Google directly from another competitor?

And where is the sentence that says that Motorola and Samsung are using FRAND patents illegally?

----------



And where has been stated that Motorola is misusing their patents?

 

[SiPat]

Moto applies for injunction against Apple

Apple ignores hearing

Temporary injunction issued

Apple keeps selling product

Moto applies for enforcement

Apple appeals

Temporary injunction set-aside

Full hearing scheduled (when??)

Apple complains to EU Commission on Moto's misuse of F/RAND patents

Moto investigated by EU Commission

Moto guilty fined €1bn-€2bn for anti-competitive and unfair practices in attempting to prevent Apple's legitimate use of F/RAND patents

 

[Oletros]

Agreed. They're becoming patent trolls.

And to all the people citing the Samsung vs Australia case as evidence of Samsung violating Apple patents,

Australian injunction is not as easy as you say. Apple has a prima facie case about Samsung infringing two patents but Samsung has a prima facie case about the validity of those patents. The judge held the injunction because she toight that was harmful to Apple not to held it and then Samsung winning than not holding it and Samsung losing the case.

----------

google entered our discussion when it was pointed out that Google is not Moto. Since Google acquired Moto, they are one and the same irregardless of when the actual acquisition took place. why? Because as of today, Google owns Moto and their arsenal of patents, both common and FRAND based.

What I said was "misuse" of FRAND patents, which by classification, require Fair, reasonable and Non discriminatory licensing to a "Essential" patent. Past cases on FRAND have highlighted time and again that "essential" patents can't be circumvented in the implementation of a technology because they are the core of that particular technology. As such, to refuse to license or to hinder the ability of others, in particular a competitor, is strictly prohibited by FRAND. If this occurs, which is the obvious motive behind the Moto charge post-google acquisition, is to deny FRAND from being established with the technologies patented by Moto.

Again Olteros, I shared it was a "misuse" of FRAND. Legality is subjective because there is no way to prevent someone from using an "essential" technology even if a patent exists and is held by one company over another. In the end, the other company will be able to use it the only thing you gain is a royalty derived from a fair and reasonable licencse.

To deny a license of a FRAND classified patent is misuse of the patent. Please read up on it and you shall see as I did when I read up on it, that once a patent is determined to be FRAND patent, you can't prevent others from using it but you can demand a license fee for that patent.

And again, when it has been established that Motorola or Samsung are guilty of misusing FRAND patents? Can you show me a fracking sentence or you only hope that they will be guilty?

And yes, you can prevent someone using a FRAND license if it is established that they doesn't want to pay a FRAND price

And I repeat, what has copied directly Google?

 

[starvingartist8]

I think you only post to joke, it's impossible that you believe the things you write

----------



Mmmm, no, Motorola Mobility is not yet Google and the case started before Google said i will buy it.

I get a kick out of all your posts. You really lower the bar on this forum lol

 

[Oletros]

I get a kick out of all your posts. You really lower the bar on this forum lol

Put in ignore list and problem resolved. Easy, isn't?

And lowering the bar? Pot, kettle.

 

[BLUELION]

Wrong Rodimus Prime and this is why...

FRAND means the following: If I hold a patent on an "essential" technology, I can require a license to be paid by anyone who wants to use this patent. But the license fee has to be FAIR, REASONABLE and NON-DISCRIMINATORY.

That is to say that it has to be equitable and reasonable as it is applied to a large pool of users of said patent. But, it also has to be non-discriminatory that is it must not request more than or unfair requests in licensing agreements as compared to the pool of users of said patent.

What this also means is that to demand Apple to pay with another patent is both not warranted and essentially is unfair, unreasonable, and very discriminatory. FRAND does not require a competitor to give the holder of a FRAND patent right to request access to a non-FRAND patent held by a competitor. it only requires that the FRAND patent be licensed on fair, reasonable and ND terms.

If Apple does not want to pay a certain rate, perhaps its because it may not be fair and reasonable. In the end the Nokia and Apple dispute resulted in a fair license but also resulted in a strategic establishment of a cross license between the two companies. Mutual benefit as opposed to mutual destruction. But to be clear, if a competitor doesn't want to pay for license fee (for what ever reason they cite) will NOT result in that competitor getting an injunction placed against them.

Injunctions are given because of default judgement (that is you didn't respond to the initial complaint), or you were found to be in violation of misusing a common patent. FRAND patents are different.

And if Apple is unwilling to pay for the FRAND patents? Apple wants the same low rate other company get with out putting any patents in the pool to gain that right.
That is part of the issue with Nokia is Apple wanted a cheaper rate with out giving anything in return (aka patents) no patents = higher rate plan and simple.

Refusing to pay for patents means you can get an injunction against you FRAND or not.

 

[powers74]

battle

I really don't see how iPhone can compete against the new Porscheberry anyway. Apple might as well just cede Deutschland.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Unfortunately (for some), Apple's bankroll and the consumer have decided that outcome to be unlikely.

But you can always hope.

Who holds more cell phone patents, Apple or Moto? Who was more likely to infringe on a cellular patent, Apple or Moto? Who made cell phones first, Apple or Moto? Who did Apple approach first to design the iPhone? Yes, I did say design.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

FRAND means the following: If I hold a patent on an "essential" technology, I can require a license to be paid by anyone who wants to use this patent. But the license fee has to be FAIR, REASONABLE and NON-DISCRIMINATORY.

That is to say that it has to be equitable and reasonable as it is applied to a large pool of users of said patent. But, it also has to be non-discriminatory that is it must not request more than or unfair requests in licensing agreements as compared to the pool of users of said patent.

What this also means is that to demand Apple to pay with another patent is both not warranted and essentially is unfair, unreasonable, and very discriminatory. FRAND does not require a competitor to give the holder of a FRAND patent right to request access to a non-FRAND patent held by a competitor. it only requires that the FRAND patent be licensed on fair, reasonable and ND terms.

If Apple does not want to pay a certain rate, perhaps its because it may not be fair and reasonable. In the end the Nokia and Apple dispute resulted in a fair license but also resulted in a strategic establishment of a cross license between the two companies. Mutual benefit as opposed to mutual destruction. But to be clear, if a competitor doesn't want to pay for license fee (for what ever reason they cite) will NOT result in that competitor getting an injunction placed against them.

Injunctions are given because of default judgement (that is you didn't respond to the initial complaint), or you were found to be in violation of misusing a common patent. FRAND patents are different.

you are right fair and reasonable terms. Putting up patents (non FRAND ones) means you can use that as part of the agreement to get a lower rate. Do not put up patents means you pay a higher rate. It is not rocket science.

Company A has some FRAND patents that company B and C need.
Company B is willing to trade some patents to company A so for a lower rate.
Company C wants the same rate company B has but does not want to licenses any patents to company A but A requires a higher payment with out patent trading.

On look nothing is wrong with C paying more than B because B traded patents for a lower rate. This is the case here. If you want a lower rate it cost you some patents in licencing. Could be you have FRAND patents in that trade. FRAND does not mean you have to give the same rate to everyone. Never has never will.

 

[ed724]

Fail

Sounds like a big FAIL on the part of Apples' legal team, IMO.

 

[D4F]

Moto applies for injunction against Apple

Apple ignores hearing

Temporary injunction issued

Apple keeps selling product

Moto applies for enforcement

Apple appeals

Temporary injunction set-aside

Full hearing scheduled (when??)

Apple complains to EU Commission on Moto's misuse of F/RAND patents

Moto investigated by EU Commission

Moto guilty fined €1bn-€2bn for anti-competitive and unfair practices in attempting to prevent Apple's legitimate use of F/RAND patents

You forgot to add.

In the end apple pays moto $2-3bn for past due FRAND patents which they use since 2007...

 

[Rodimus Prime]

You forgot to add.

In the end apple pays moto $2-3bn for past due FRAND patents which they use since 2007...

try going back even farther to 2003. This is in all their computers. Apple opened a huge can of worms by going law suit crazy and now they are going to be hit by all the big guys who been in the wireless business a hell of a lot longer than Apple.

 

[Menopause]

Impending troll party on this thread !

 

[BC2009]

I think it was silly of Apple not to even show up to defend this since they are now appealing the decision. Surely the lawsuit against Apple, Inc. does not make much sense since they don't sell in Germany and Apple is actively defending the lawsuit against Apple Germany which does sell products in Germany. But failing to even show up to court in the other lawsuit seems dumb. At least show up and move that the case be dismissed since it is inconsequential.

At first it seemed like Apple ignored this side of the case, but now they are appealing the decision -- which shows that somebody got a phone call and got told they were stupid. Apple needs to be active on these fronts -- laziness is something they cannot afford -- the competitors are always waiting for a misstep of some kind to latch on to.

 

[SiPat]

If technology covered by F/RAND is embedded in microchips, the chip maker pays the licence fee and adds the cost to the sale price of the chip.

Apple would not be required to pay for use of those already licensed chips.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple complains to EU Commission on Moto's misuse of F/RAND patents

Moto investigated by EU Commission

Moto guilty fined €1bn-€2bn for anti-competitive and unfair practices in attempting to prevent Apple's legitimate use of F/RAND patents

Misuse ? If Apple does not pay for the use of those patents, Motorola has every right to sue, F/RAND or not.

I think a lot of you don't actually know what F/RAND means. It does not mean that anyone can use the patents without paying the patent holder. It does not mean you can't sue someone over infringment of these patents.

----------

If technology covered by F/RAND is embedded in microchips, the chip maker pays the licence fee and adds the cost to the sale price of the chip.

Not necessarily the case.

 

[*LTD*]

Who holds more cell phone patents, Apple or Moto? Who was more likely to infringe on a cellular patent, Apple or Moto? Who made cell phones first, Apple or Moto? Who did Apple approach first to design the iPhone? Yes, I did say design.

None of this really makes any difference.

 

[BLUELION]

Try this on for size Olteros...

Link #1: http://www.thenewamerican.com/world...eu-antitrust-agency-probing-apple-and-samsung
[see paragraph 2 about "antitrust investigations"]

Link #2:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/74556883/

Pay close attention to the statements said about the Google acquisition of Motorola...why?...they are crap. That is they can't do anything to stop people from using those patents. And, it was a foolish Gamble taken by Google to try to leverage the market. Bottom line, they spent money that didn't help them. I mention this because this is the connection between Moto and Google.

Link #3:http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/07/apple-says-samsung-has-abusively.html
[direct quote: from the The concept of FRAND paragraph: "Reasonable" means that business terms must be appropriate. There must be a valid reason for a certain price or a certain requirement, such as a limitation on someone's right to use a patent. "Asking for the moon" is unreasonable, and thus a violation of the FRAND idea.

"Non-discriminatory" means that there must be a valid reason for treating different business partners differently, but all other things being equal, you can't just discriminate based on race, gender, or any other motive that's unrelated to the transaction itself, such as discriminating against a competitor just because you don't like competition.]

Australian injunction is not as easy as you say. Apple has a prima facie case about Samsung infringing two patents but Samsung has a prima facie case about the validity of those patents. The judge held the injunction because she toight that was harmful to Apple not to held it and then Samsung winning than not holding it and Samsung losing the case.

----------



And again, when it has been established that Motorola or Samsung are guilty of misusing FRAND patents? Can you show me a fracking sentence or you only hope that they will be guilty?

And yes, you can prevent someone using a FRAND license if it is established that they doesn't want to pay a FRAND price

And I repeat, what has copied directly Google?

 

[samcraig]

None of this really makes any difference.

In your world or the real one?

 

[bbeagle]

Apple doesn't sell anything in Germany?

www.Apple.com/de ???

Seriously? Does anyone read anything any more?

1) APPLE, INC. sells NOTHING IN GERMANY.
2) Apple's subsidiary, APPLE IMC, sells Apple products in Germany.

Therefore,
APPLE, INC. losing a German lawsuit doesn't matter, just like APPLE IMC losing a United States lawsuit doesn't matter.

Every company does this. For example, Coca Cola has many subsidiaries for all the countries they sell Coca Cola in.

 

[BLUELION]

I can see where you are coming from but...

There must be a valid justification for a fee. Though your argument appears to make sense when posited as you have, it conveniently over simplifies and brushes aside the requirements of FRAND. You can't seek access to patents from a competitor and expect that to be reasonable, particularly in cases where the competitor does not want to grant such patents. No on in their right mind, would grant a patent that is not FRAND to a competitor. Unless, the patent in question is negligible compared to the benefit derived form patents obtained in any such agreement. I agree its not rock science, but neither is the concept of FRAND. If you ask for X dollars from company A, and you ask for X+Y dollars form company B, is equally wrong as asking company A to pay x dollars and requiring company B to pay X dollars + Z patents...Unfair and unreasonable.

Check this link out.

Link http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011...abusively.html
[direct quote: from the The concept of FRAND paragraph: "Reasonable" means that business terms must be appropriate. There must be a valid reason for a certain price or a certain requirement, such as a limitation on someone's right to use a patent. "Asking for the moon" is unreasonable, and thus a violation of the FRAND idea.

"Non-discriminatory" means that there must be a valid reason for treating different business partners differently, but all other things being equal, you can't just discriminate based on race, gender, or any other motive that's unrelated to the transaction itself, such as discriminating against a competitor just because you don't like competition.]

you are right fair and reasonable terms. Putting up patents (non FRAND ones) means you can use that as part of the agreement to get a lower rate. Do not put up patents means you pay a higher rate. It is not rocket science.

Company A has some FRAND patents that company B and C need.
Company B is willing to trade some patents to company A so for a lower rate.
Company C wants the same rate company B has but does not want to licenses any patents to company A but A requires a higher payment with out patent trading.

On look nothing is wrong with C paying more than B because B traded patents for a lower rate. This is the case here. If you want a lower rate it cost you some patents in licencing. Could be you have FRAND patents in that trade. FRAND does not mean you have to give the same rate to everyone. Never has never will.

 

[AJH1993]

Seriously? Does anyone read anything any more?

1) APPLE, INC. sells NOTHING IN GERMANY.
2) Apple's subsidiary, APPLE IMC, sells Apple products in Germany.

Therefore,
APPLE, INC. losing a German lawsuit doesn't matter, just like APPLE IMC losing a United States lawsuit doesn't matter.

Every company does this. For example, Coca Cola has many subsidiaries for all the countries they sell Coca Cola in.

Gee, sorry...

 

[*LTD*]

try going back even farther to 2003. This is in all their computers. Apple opened a huge can of worms by going law suit crazy and now they are going to be hit by all the big guys who been in the wireless business a hell of a lot longer than Apple.

We keep hearing about how the "giants" of the mobile phone industry are going to stick it to Apple with all these mysterious patents. Any day now. It's just around the corner. They're just lying in wait, right?

And then...... nothing.

Still waiting on the competition's deadly master-stroke. Please let us know when it finally happens. Hopefully Mac Rumors will still be around so you can post about it.

 

[erzhik]

Just because Apple doesn't sell anything that could be banned in Germany, doesn't mean they never will.

Whichever way you to cut the cake, Moto won a huge lawsuit. They won't ban anything Apple in Germany now, but it will be a blocking wall for future products that could've been sold.

 

[samcraig]

We keep hearing about how the "giants" of the mobile phone industry are going to stick it to Apple. Any day now. It's just around the corner.

And then...... nothing.

Still waiting on the competition's deadly master-stroke. Please let us know when it finally happens. Hopefully Mac Rumors will still be around so you can post about it.

How does that answer my question. Further - Apple is the giant of the mobile phone industry based on revenue, right? Or are others giants because of sales? I keep getting confused since you use whatever argument suits you best to the discussion.

In MY opinion - Apple is no longer and shouldn't be considered the underdog. They aren't and haven't been for awhile.

Meanwhile - please also share who these people are who insist the "giants" are going to stick it to Apple. Do you mean MR posters?