Apple says it would pay $1 per Apple iPhone to Motorola to license FRAND patents

10. Mxyzptlk posted on 31 Oct 2012, 19:28 4

You can't pay money for fair use.

15. tedkord posted on 31 Oct 2012, 19:39 39

I know. Now if Moto's patents were for something valuable like rectangles with rounded corners, or grids of icons, then they'd be worth $30 per phone.

The nerve, expecting money for something trivial like actual tech that the phone won't function without. Pfffft.

33. someones4 posted on 31 Oct 2012, 21:49 10

Mxyzptlk runs Apple's PR team.

• This comment is posted in response to #15 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #15 Hide

76. Mxyzptlk posted on 02 Nov 2012, 20:23 1

You blew my cover. Shame on you.

• This comment is posted in response to #33 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #33 Hide

45. AstronautJones posted on 31 Oct 2012, 22:56 6

Well played tedkord...

• This comment is posted in response to #15 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #15 Hide

77. Mxyzptlk posted on 02 Nov 2012, 20:24 0

It's like I said before, the actual tech falls under fair and reasonable. You can't put a big fat price on something like that.

• This comment is posted in response to #15 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #15 Hide

78. someones4 posted on 02 Nov 2012, 20:52 2

No, the problem is that no one knows what rate is fair. Motorola may think 2% is fair for their work and innovation. Apple's unwillingness to negotiate is clearly at fault here. They shouldn't steal first and complain later.

Think of it this way. I wanted to buy a Bugatti. But I don't think 2 million is fair. Then i didn't even attempt to negotiate and stole the car. When i got caught i sued the manufacturer for making the car so expensive and i offered them a dollar for it.

Replace the car with Motorola's patents in the example above.

• This comment is posted in response to #77 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #77 Hide

79. dmckay12 posted on 03 Nov 2012, 06:45 0

Evidently I am not the only one who is high.

• This comment is posted in response to #77 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #77 Hide

19. dmckay12 posted on 31 Oct 2012, 19:53 1

It depends on how it is used and what it is used for, like whether or not it is being used for profit, what the patent covers, like if the patents are essential for the function of something. In fair use claims where a non-patent holder is using it for profit then they generally have to license the patent. The other factors determine how much the fee should be. Apple is using the patents for profit, and unless the patents are declared invalid, they will have to pay. BTW 1$ per phone is a small amount.

22. sorcio46 posted on 31 Oct 2012, 20:10 14

Fair Use != "Anyone can use this patent without paying"

Fair Use = "You have to pay a fair price
(about 2/3% of the total price of the product to use it)"

3% of 720€ (iPhone 5 16GB in Italy) is 21€ (27$) not 1$!
2% of 720€ (iPhone 5 16GB in Italy) is 14€ (18$) not 1$!

Apple go back to hell !

49. Nadr1212 posted on 31 Oct 2012, 23:15 2

Nice avatar pic dude, gotta get me a similar one
BTW: Apple tots deserves what URL pic stands 4

• This comment is posted in response to #22 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #22 Hide

24. jroc74 posted on 31 Oct 2012, 20:18 6

For the last time......the F in FRAND does not mean free.

69. networkdood posted on 01 Nov 2012, 12:52 2

Apple wants to pay almost nothing for other's ideas and then make other companies pay more than it is worth for their own patents...
Mxy you such a blind APPLE patsie.

32. som posted on 31 Oct 2012, 21:46 7

Apple must pay $15 per iPhone to Motorola same as per Android phone pay to Microsoft.

50. someones4 posted on 31 Oct 2012, 23:30 7

they should pay more for the trouble they gave to everyone

57. anywherehome posted on 01 Nov 2012, 03:30 3

it must be fair like Microsoft requires...so at least 10 dollars!!!

29. stealthd posted on 31 Oct 2012, 21:09 0

Yes, $30 for patents they were under no obligation to license at all, ever. It would be like Pepsi licensing the Coke bottle design. They don't want to license it at all, but if they're going to it's going to be for a ridiculous amount. The same is not true for FRAND patents where Motorola is obligated to charge the same reasonable rate to everyone.

31. MartyK posted on 31 Oct 2012, 21:37 6

You're right!; however, you can't use people crap without paying for it and then turn around and tell a person what they can charge you!..you're as sick as Apple if you think they are in the right!.

And the nerves to threatening a court with appeal?, If I was CEO of Google, I will tell them to go to Hejj and I will see you in court.

Apple is a Narcissism company.

40. stealthd posted on 31 Oct 2012, 22:11 2

Threateninig a court with appeal? Not sure what you're getting at there, every company appeals court decisions they don't like, there's nothing unreasonable about that. Btw, I'm not sure you're aware, but Apple is a company, not a person, narcissism doesn't apply or make any sense here.

• This comment is posted in response to #31 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #31 Hide

47. AstronautJones posted on 31 Oct 2012, 23:01 4

Yes, no obligation to allow someone to use a rectangle. Since they invented the shape. Oh, and a bezel. Because no device ever had a bezel before either.

35. jpmcnown posted on 31 Oct 2012, 21:53 3

Wait for Apple to finally incorporate a Touch interface into MacOS(like 10 years from now), then they'll sue MS for the Windows 8 Metro UI.

11. Zero0 posted on 31 Oct 2012, 19:31 13

Exactly.

That's why Apple's suit against Samsung should be thrown out of the courts.

13. androiddownsouth posted on 31 Oct 2012, 19:34 11

Awfully hypocritical of you Mxy. It's not fair for Samsung to have to pay Apple all that money for some bull**** rectangle patent, or some more bs "slide to unlock" patent. You sir, are the one that isn't being fair.

All of this patent litigation crap isn't fair b/c it all hurts us, the consumers.

23. GeekMovement posted on 31 Oct 2012, 20:11 3

I'm not surprised. Mxyzptik is always full of the most illogical statements. Full 110% Apple worshiper no matter what they do. Blind fool.

36. gallitoking posted on 31 Oct 2012, 22:03 1

I was thinking the same about the difference is he is might be blind and you are in denial

• This comment is posted in response to #23 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #23 Hide

55. androiddownsouth posted on 01 Nov 2012, 00:49 2

In denial over what? The vast majority of the patent lawsuits are the result of overly broad patents and/or patents that relate to things that aren't selling points. Rectangular shape? Yeah, most TVs are rectangular yet they aren't suing each other stupid over that. Slide to unlock? Yeah, don't think anyone is buying a phone b/c of that either.

With what the judgement against Samsung was(the $$ amount), $1 per phone for multiple patents from Motorola is just plain ridiculous.

I could care less what OS people prefer. What I do care about is insane behavior of companies like Apple regarding dumb sh*t like this. If the roles were flipped, I bet Apple would laugh at Motorola and ask for at least $10 a phone, and that is shooting low most likely.

• This comment is posted in response to #36 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #36 Hide

58. someones4 posted on 01 Nov 2012, 04:26 2

The key word is fair. Hence, Apple has to pay a fair price.

12. wendygarett posted on 31 Oct 2012, 19:34 0

Moto is in trouble for selling his device recently, and Apple found this opportunity to threaten moto to accept $1 or faced the loss...

I personally think Apple should add more few dollars to moto, or donate to the poor... I confess that Apple is stingy when it comes to money...

18. Mxyzptlk posted on 31 Oct 2012, 19:50 3

It's no joke Sniggly. They shouldn't be paying them anything at all since this is a FRAND patent.

20. medicci37 posted on 31 Oct 2012, 20:05 13

@ Mxyzptlk Just because it's a FRAND patent, does not mean Apple can use it 4 free. Learn the law dumbass

28. wassup posted on 31 Oct 2012, 21:07 4

don't mind him. he is just mad that the new Androids coming out will murk any iDevices for the next 2 years at least.
Plus, it's Apple, they can do no wrong in his eyes.

• This comment is posted in response to #20 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #20 Hide

38. gallitoking posted on 31 Oct 2012, 22:06 1

says someone that thinks the Nexus 4 is an innovating device...

• This comment is posted in response to #28 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #28 Hide

43. protozeloz posted on 31 Oct 2012, 22:25 2

Well it does really unique things.... just saying

• This comment is posted in response to #38 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #38 Hide

59. wassup posted on 01 Nov 2012, 06:36 2

I didn't say it was innovating, but then again neither was the 4S/4stretch, the iPod maxi/maxiplus either.
I'm saying that it's better than anything else on the market right now.

• This comment is posted in response to #38 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #38 Hide

62. androiddownsouth posted on 01 Nov 2012, 09:14 1

I gotta disagree man. The Nexus 4 would have to be able to drive my car to be better than anything else on the market now without LTE. I'm sure it's cool, but no LTE man.....c'mon.

• This comment is posted in response to #59 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #59 Hide

64. wassup posted on 01 Nov 2012, 10:01 1

fair enough, no LTE, but no problem, T-Mobile's HSPA+ is pretty speedy when I was in the USA, and when I'm in the UK, 3's network is sooo speedy, I don't really recognise if it's 3G or not.

• This comment is posted in response to #62 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #62 Hide

66. androiddownsouth posted on 01 Nov 2012, 10:24 0

Yeah, where I live, Tmo is pretty awful, so they aren't an option for me lol. If it works great for you then sweet man. Different solutions for different ppl.=)

• This comment is posted in response to #64 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #64 Hide

72. wassup posted on 01 Nov 2012, 17:45 0

aah well... I get full bars where I live, but yeah I understand T-mobile's signal issues :/

• This comment is posted in response to #66 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #66 Hide

65. wassup posted on 01 Nov 2012, 10:03 1

although I do get what you mean, but you can see that LTE just messes up the Nexus (look at Verizon and Sprint, the international S3 got JB before the VZW Nexus. )

• This comment is posted in response to #62 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #62 Hide

73. jroc74 posted on 01 Nov 2012, 17:57 0

Like the iPhone 5 was innovative....:/

Innovation can only go so far. At some point companies will hit a wall. Technology will hit a wall. If an innovation means a worse user experience, dont add it.

• This comment is posted in response to #38 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #38 Hide

37. gallitoking posted on 31 Oct 2012, 22:05 1

thats why they offered a 1$ with taxes included

• This comment is posted in response to #20 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #20 Hide

34. phitch posted on 31 Oct 2012, 21:49 2

Just report him for trolling and move on, he is clearly just attempting to bait everyone and should receive a nice permaban.

41. gallitoking posted on 31 Oct 2012, 22:17 1

he does what everyone else does here in Apple articles, The same rules should apply to Apple haters whom opinion is not requested in every Apple article

• This comment is posted in response to #34 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #34 Hide

46. jroc74 posted on 31 Oct 2012, 22:58 2

Correction, everyone doesnt do that in Apple articles.

Fanboys, trolls dont represent the entire user base, those who comment ....for Apple, Android, WP, anybody.

And having an opinion isnt bad, its how that opinion is presented that causes problems.

• This comment is posted in response to #41 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #41 Hide

51. Mxyzptlk posted on 31 Oct 2012, 23:52 1

Android fans are no different since they always go onto Apple articles and insult Apple fans while nothing happens.

• This comment is posted in response to #46 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #46 Hide

61. jroc74 posted on 01 Nov 2012, 07:10 2

I take it you didnt even read the post you responded too....

• This comment is posted in response to #51 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #51 Hide

60. phitch posted on 01 Nov 2012, 06:57 2

That is a good line of defense Gallito, I am going to go out on a limb and say he is your troll account and you don't want him banned? I don't expect a whole lot from you given your post history, but the defense "They did it first?" This isn't a free and open discussion forum and posting the same exact statement 3 times under one topic is ridiculous. Especially when you know your statement is wrong.

I also strongly disagree with the idea of FRAND in the first place as it certainly does hurt competition more than it helps it. Especially when you have a company like Apple who can essentially (and it is obvious by their bullying tone) buy any single case they wish or bully the judge to give them any result they wish.

The moment you can tell me why a patent such as "rounded corners" is worth $1 Billion dollars but real technology must go into a big pool where everyone can use it and in some cases use it constantly over and over and tell the patent holder to essentially f**k off, I will kiss your feet.

• This comment is posted in response to #41 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #41 Hide

42. Sniggly posted on 31 Oct 2012, 22:24 7

How many times must it be explained to you that the legal definition of FRAND is that there's a limit to the allowable royalties on such patents, NOT that royalties can't be charged at all?

The law doesn't rewrite itself to comply with your idiocy, Mxy.

52. Mxyzptlk posted on 31 Oct 2012, 23:54 1

So you justify Motorola trying to go after royalties from Apple with FRAND patents just because Microsoft busted them for infringing on several of their patents?

• This comment is posted in response to #42 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #42 Hide

53. remixfa posted on 01 Nov 2012, 00:06 5

so you would be OK with Samsung paying $1 per phone found to be infringing on apple's patents then right? Samsung says they should only pay $1, then it should only be $1 right?

• This comment is posted in response to #52 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #52 Hide

75. Mxyzptlk posted on 02 Nov 2012, 20:20 0

That would not be ok. Samsung copied many ideas from Apple especially in their earlier phones.

• This comment is posted in response to #53 Show
• This comment is posted in response to #53 Hide