Federal Appeals Court rules that Apple has the right to appeal dismissal
Motorola wanted Apple's appeal to be halted or have the proceedings moved to the court of Judge Richard Posner who had previously presided over other Apple-Motorola suits. The appeals court had no choice but to turn down the appeal from Motorola since allowing it would have led to the company seeking a sales ban on Apple products which would have violated a consent degree that Google signed with the FTC to settle anti-trust charges. Motorola had failed to mention the consent decree in its filing, something that the court picked up on. Even asking for an injunction on sales of Apple products violates the decree, although there has been no apparent movement to punish Google. Even though Motorola's requests were basically shot down, the request to move the case to Judge Posner's court is still a possibility as the appeals court asked both sides to file briefs on the issue of jurisdiction with Apple's opening brief due in three weeks.
Apple says that a sales ban should not be allowed until all efforts at licensing FRAND-related patents are made. The problem is that Motorola has not tried hard to negotiate a license with Apple for these patents, and when it did come up with a royalty figure that it wanted Apple to pay (2.25% of retail), it was well above the industry norm. Recently, a Washington court told Microsoft to pay Motorola $1.8 million a year for a couple of patents related to wireless standards and video standards. Motorola was seeking $4 billion a year for the rights to use those two patents.
source: FOSSPatents via electronista
1. jromy (Posts: 111; Member since: 26 Feb 2013)
Ok, a judge already decided that Motorola was on the right and dismissed Apple's claim. Yet some how all I got from this article is that Apple is the victim and Moto/Google are greedy. It takes some hard work to word an article in a way that makes it look that way tho. There was a ruling already, all those other "facts" are just cheap shots IMHO, but why?
5. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 2842; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Of course they got greedy. They're trying to abuse FRAND patents. Can't put a price on fair and reasonable.
12. tedkord (Posts: 3907; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
You keep saying that, and its why you have zero credibility. Of course you can put a price on fair and reasonable - thats exactly what FRAND does. Everyone pays roughly the same price, be it a set amount per device or a percentage of sales. You can be pretty sure that the whole hang up here is Apple doesn't want to pay what others are paying. We saw it with the streaming music, they wanted a rate that was half the lowest rate in the industry. Apple doesn't want FRAND. Apple wants special pricing.
The problem is, you believe FRAND stands for Free is Reasonable if Apple Needs it for Devices.
8. -box- (Posts: 3564; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
Alan F. is known to be unabashedly pro-apple
11. MartyK (Posts: 668; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
Oh yes, if you look at any and all articles with his name on it, he ALWAYS write about how terrible Google-Android and Nokia- WP are, not once,has he says anything bad about Apple..check I dare anyone to show me a article in which he wrote something bad about Apple, he's worst then Mac9to5
9. roscuthiii (Posts: 1712; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
Well... for 3 reasons: #1 - because it's an article from Alan, who #2 - got the story from Electronista, which in turn got the info from #3 - FOSS Patents.
Anyone familiar with any of the three above should understand the wording of the article as it relates to Apple patents.
2. xperiaDROID (Posts: 4812; Member since: 08 Mar 2013)
Geez......how many lawyers did Apple hire? So, and where's the Apple Headquarters, in the court?
3. MartianMe (unregistered)
fucc apple n microsoft .... pay up bitchezz!!!
4. darkvadervip (Posts: 275; Member since: 08 Dec 2010)
Fuc google spying azz. At this point no one will be safe to walk around with google glasses. I predict every police and agency will get one with facial recognition!
14. Droiddoes (unregistered)
". I predict every police and agency will get one with facial recognition!"
And this would be a bad thing....how? If the police aren't actively looking for you it's a non issue. I would support that feature to help our men and women in blue be more efficient and help cut down on cases of "he fits the description"
6. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 5632; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
And I find the COURTS/JUDGE are imcompitent aholes. and Their still being paid under apple's pay roll
10. roscuthiii (Posts: 1712; Member since: 18 Jul 2010)
Please let this docket fall on Judge Posner's bench. He seems to be one of the few judges around with any common sense.
Other than that, just have to see whose legal team brings their 'A' game.
13. tedkord (Posts: 3907; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Alan, what is the industry norm for these patents? Since you bolded the words "well above", I'm going to assume you know what others are paying for these patents.