Apple says it would pay $1 per Apple iPhone to Motorola to license FRAND patents
0. phoneArena 31 Oct 2012, 19:07 posted on
Attorneys representing Apple have told a U.S. District Court in Wisconsin that the Cupertino based tech titan would be willing to pay up to $1 per iPhone for the right to license some standards-essential patents; if the court orders Apple to pay more than $1, the company says it will fight...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
15. tedkord (Posts: 7965; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
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 $30 per phone.
The nerve, expecting money for something trivial like actual tech that the phone won't function without. Pfffft.
77. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 7705; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
It's like I said before, the actual tech falls under fair and reasonable. You can't put a big fat price on something like that.
78. someones4 (Posts: 622; Member since: 16 Sep 2012)
No, the problem is that no one knows what rate is fair. Motorola may think 2% is fair for their work and innovation. Apple's unwillingness to negotiate is clearly at fault here. They shouldn't steal first and complain later.
Think of it this way. I wanted to buy a Bugatti. But I don't think 2 million is fair. Then i didn't even attempt to negotiate and stole the car. When i got caught i sued the manufacturer for making the car so expensive and i offered them a dollar for it.
Replace the car with Motorola's patents in the example above.
79. dmckay12 (Posts: 243; Member since: 25 Feb 2012)
Evidently I am not the only one who is high.
19. dmckay12 (Posts: 243; Member since: 25 Feb 2012)
It depends on how it is used and what it is used for, like whether or not it is being used for profit, what the patent covers, like if the patents are essential for the function of something. In fair use claims where a non-patent holder is using it for profit then they generally have to license the patent. The other factors determine how much the fee should be. Apple is using the patents for profit, and unless the patents are declared invalid, they will have to pay. BTW 1$ per phone is a small amount.
22. sorcio46 (Posts: 422; Member since: 27 Jul 2011)
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 (Posts: 741; Member since: 22 Sep 2012)
Nice avatar pic dude, gotta get me a similar one
BTW: Apple tots deserves what URL pic stands 4
24. jroc74 (Posts: 5647; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
For the last time......the F in FRAND does not mean free.
69. networkdood (Posts: 6330; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
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 (Posts: 768; Member since: 10 Nov 2009)
Apple must pay $15 per iPhone to Motorola same as per Android phone pay to Microsoft.
50. someones4 (Posts: 622; Member since: 16 Sep 2012)
they should pay more for the trouble they gave to everyone
57. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
it must be fair like Microsoft requires...so at least 10 dollars!!!
2. hung2900 (Posts: 899; Member since: 02 Mar 2012)
And they wanted $30 per sammy's phone even bada and under $100android phones! Apple s*****!
29. stealthd (Posts: 1067; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
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 (Posts: 732; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
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 (Posts: 1067; Member since: 12 Jun 2011)
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.
47. AstronautJones (Posts: 295; Member since: 01 Aug 2012)
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.
3. InspectorGadget80 (unregistered)
only a dollar APPLE YOUR SO DAMN CHEAP. CHEAPSKATE
4. wassup (Posts: 565; Member since: 23 Jun 2011)
and they ask Samsung for $30 for bloody design patents? you've got balls apple, I'll give you that.
5. someones4 (Posts: 622; Member since: 16 Sep 2012)
Apple is bossing the courts around and threatening everyone. Scrooges....
6. nyamo (Posts: 274; Member since: 19 Mar 2011)
i wish ms would go after apple for some reason. and apple could've made it look like they were trying and go with $2
35. jpmcnown (Posts: 34; Member since: 03 Jul 2012)
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.
7. hawke9150 (Posts: 31; Member since: 17 Jun 2011)
AWWWW, poor widdew appow getting b*tch slapped with a fist full of irony!
8. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 7705; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
I don't think it's fair for them to pay any money on a fair and reasonable patent.
11. Zero0 (Posts: 592; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)
That's why Apple's suit against Samsung should be thrown out of the courts.
13. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)
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 (Posts: 2022; Member since: 09 Sep 2011)
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 (Posts: 4717; Member since: 17 May 2011)
I was thinking the same about the difference is he is might be blind and you are in denial
55. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)
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.
58. someones4 (Posts: 622; Member since: 16 Sep 2012)
The key word is fair. Hence, Apple has to pay a fair price.
12. wendygarett (unregistered)
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 (Posts: 7705; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
It's no joke Sniggly. They shouldn't be paying them anything at all since this is a FRAND patent.
20. medicci37 (Posts: 1159; Member since: 19 Nov 2011)
@ Mxyzptlk Just because it's a FRAND patent, does not mean Apple can use it 4 free. Learn the law dumbass
28. wassup (Posts: 565; Member since: 23 Jun 2011)
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.
38. gallitoking (Posts: 4717; Member since: 17 May 2011)
says someone that thinks the Nexus 4 is an innovating device...
43. protozeloz (Posts: 5392; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)
Well it does really unique things.... just saying
59. wassup (Posts: 565; Member since: 23 Jun 2011)
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.
62. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)
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.
64. wassup (Posts: 565; Member since: 23 Jun 2011)
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.
66. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)
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.=)
72. wassup (Posts: 565; Member since: 23 Jun 2011)
aah well... I get full bars where I live, but yeah I understand T-mobile's signal issues :/
65. wassup (Posts: 565; Member since: 23 Jun 2011)
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. )
73. jroc74 (Posts: 5647; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
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.
37. gallitoking (Posts: 4717; Member since: 17 May 2011)
thats why they offered a 1$ with taxes included
34. phitch (Posts: 214; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)
Just report him for trolling and move on, he is clearly just attempting to bait everyone and should receive a nice permaban.
41. gallitoking (Posts: 4717; Member since: 17 May 2011)
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
46. jroc74 (Posts: 5647; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
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.
51. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 7705; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Android fans are no different since they always go onto Apple articles and insult Apple fans while nothing happens.
61. jroc74 (Posts: 5647; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
I take it you didnt even read the post you responded too....
60. phitch (Posts: 214; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)
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.
42. Sniggly (Posts: 7296; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
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 (Posts: 7705; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
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?
53. remixfa (Posts: 14255; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
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?
75. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 7705; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
That would not be ok. Samsung copied many ideas from Apple especially in their earlier phones.