I sometimes wonder if you have any idea about the avatar you using. I find it ironic that you of all people would use such a avatar. Just to remind you, don't use it just to look *cool* - you need to appreciate it and show it in your behavior and mannerism.
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.
Motorola Wins Legal Victory Over Apple in Germany, Impact Disputed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I sometimes wonder if you have any idea about the avatar you using. I find it ironic that you of all people would use such a avatar. Just to remind you, don't use it just to look *cool* - you need to appreciate it and show it in your behavior and mannerism.
1. You can repeat the times you want, the fact is that Google doesn't have bought Motorola yet, they're different companies.
2. Link 2, yap standard procedure for the EU anti trust commission but I have asked about a sentence saying that Samsung or Motorola have misused their FRAND patents. Can you provide one?
3. Yap, you have put the definition of FRAND but can you point me where it says that can't be injunctions or that every licensee has to pay the SAME price for the patents?
4. Still waiting and answer about what Google has directly copied from a competitor.
*LTD* speaks the truth. Some (like you) call them crazy, others (like me) see genius. Jobs said that. And it never rang so true here.
False, not every licensee pays the same amount, the only consideration is that it must bu fair and reasonable.
Motorola doesn't pay the same amount of money to Nokia that Apple does because Motorola has a lot of patents in the pool.
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)
In fact, I heard LTD was awarded 1,000,000 Apple stock options if he continuous to spread Jobs distortion field here in MacRumors 'til 2015!!!
the8thark said:
In fact, I heard LTD was awarded 1,000,000 Apple stock options if he continuous to spread Jobs distortion field here in MacRumors 'til 2015!!!
I don't know what you guys are disagreeing over but you seem to be saying the same thing. You can charge licencees different amounts as long as it's for non-discriminatory reasons. In other words, if you have a valid business reason for charging a different rate, you can. But if you're doing it simply because you prefer company A over company B, or if you hate company B more than company A, then you're being discriminatory.
There's more to the world than a binary Those Who Agree With Apple 100%, and Those Who Think Apple Sucks 100%.
There's this huge spectrum of grey between the stark black and white that some of you choose to ignore. As to why, I have no idea. I mean what do some of you personally gain by constantly defending Apple as The Company Who Can Do No Wrong? Is it like a meth high? Do you get money? Satisfaction?
Hell, it's like Tim Cook could arm up and go shoot up a village of starving African kids, and some of you would go out of your way to justify it. You've all started applauding Apple as the giant litigating juggernaut, out to crush everyone, big and small guy alike. Shooting hungry kids is obviously the next step down that slippery slope.
I'd say this is moot. Apple buys chips from vendors like Qualcomm and Intel who have already paid the licensing fee. This is one of the arguments Apple is making about unfair use of FRAND patents.
Where did it say Apple was not offered a licence? All I read is that Apple did not pay.
It seems that Apple thinks the only fair and reasonable price is $0.00 but it is not so.
Sounds like most threads are troll parties lately.
Suggestions for the moderators.
1. Remove the "down" button. "Up" is good enough to determine which opinions have been "vetted".
2. Allow a way to "ignore" accounts that have not had any vetted posts above a certain point.
I like how slashdot can weed out a lot of trolls and ******s. I read macrumor much less now because of this.
----------
Maybe the price was non-zero and it was already paid through Qualcomm or Intel. How do you know Apple is refusing to pay? Sounds like if they are trying to make Moto and Samsung look like bad guys to the courts, they have to at least pretend to pay a nominal fee.
Agree. Florian seems to finally acknowledge the 3 different German lawsuits. The Irish company seems like the one that matters. The Verge guy seems to have this figured out before Florian.
So you're admitting that a FRAND license was offered and nor Apple nor Motorola agree on the terms so the later sue the first?
Well, pretty sure Motorola wouldn't be suing Apple over these patents if they had received payment they were entitled to.
Again, sometimes chipmakers don't actually pay for transferrable licenses to patents. The buyer needs to secure the patent rights to implement the functionality themselves. There is no universal rule here.
Well, pretty sure Motorola wouldn't be suing Apple over these patents if they had received payment they were entitled to.
Again, sometimes chipmakers don't actually pay for transferrable licenses to patents. The buyer needs to secure the patent rights to implement the functionality themselves. There is no universal rule here.
And sometimes chipmakers do pay a transferrable fee (why sell a GSM baseband modem if your customers have to pay the same fee you just did) and the contracts are legally confidential and it takes a court order to get details, like in one of the Apple v Samsung cases. Usually these FRAND technology companies don't care if a small phone maker uses the technology, but hey, when a new kid shows up on the block that just happens to be the largest profitable phone maker, lets get some lunch money!
And other times, when it isn't covered by the chipmaker, some companies that pledge FRAND terms to the standards bodies try to extract unfair license terms from stronger competitors. Again the license deal with other vendors is legally confidential, but maybe Apple found out some other companies licensing details and knows Motorola Mobility is trying to take unfair advantage. Apple doesn't want to admit who broke their confidentiality agreement, so again, it takes a court case and court order to discover the fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory price.
Well he is right to point out that there must be a valid justification for a fee. And he is correct to say that if Company A was required to pay less than Company B for no valid reason it would be unfair and unreasonable. But it is possible that Company A pays less than Company B if there are valid business reasons behind the scenes.
For example, if Company A only wanted a licence to use the patent for one specific use, but Company B wanted to use the patent for multiple uses. Company B would want to have the broader licensing scheme. Therefore, it would be reasonable to charge Company B more, since the licensing arrangement will be broader than the one arranged with Company A.
So the only fact we know is that Apple and Motorola didn't agree in terms, nothing more.
I'm pretty sure Motorola has access to the patent licenses it grants to other companies and would check for this
(Same for Samsung really, it would really be foolish to sue and not check your patent licenses for transferable status).Why? One reason might be this. If X took the whole licensing cost, they would have to take the whole hit, and distributing it "fairly" would be more or less hard. If they dont take the whole licensing cost, and the patent is FRAND, then the patent holder and the entity seeking to license (i.e. not X) can make an arrangement dependent on that specific entities standing (which may or may not include cross-licensing agreements).
I am not saying that is the case. I am just saying that could be the case. It makes sense, so to speak.
Selling / Buying
But Apple IMC doesn't make stuff so it must buy it in from some other company. Would that be anything to do with Apple INC? If so, it can't buy any more stock.
But Apple IMC doesn't make stuff so it must buy it in from some other company. Would that be anything to do with Apple INC? If so, it can't buy any more stock.
Going after Motorola has a lot more to do with things than just patents. Most of the Nortal patents are going to fall under FRAND as well as they cover key parts of LTE so in terms of weapons those patents are useless as well.
Motorola has a lot of other uses for Google. Do not forget about Google TV and Motorola is the largest supplier of set top boxes and DVRs. These means they already have some major agreements with cable providers already in place which in turn have some agreements with the networks. Do not forget about Google TV.
I'm pretty sure Motorola has access to the patent licenses it grants to other companies and would check for this
For most companies and most relationships, I agree. The Apple/Samsung relationship was not direct competition before. Apple bought memory and LCD parts before and now they compete in Samsung's most profitable sector (I think, but not totally confident).
I expect that Samsung was trying to get a premium license from Apple. They probably expected that Apple wouldn't know other deals others were getting, wouldn't jeopardize the relationship, and wouldn't take it to court to find out.
These lawsuits are usually about the fees when others sue Apple and Apple just want the same rate others get. The suits Apple takes against others seems to be different; they want to shut down the others use of the technology.