Judge concerned that Apple wants to use Motorola offer for FRAND patent fee as a negotiating tool
Judge Judy to learn that. A similar statement was made in the Microsoft-Motorola Mobility FRAND case which is going to trial on November 13th. In that case, Judge James Robart told both sides to stop using the court "as a pawn in a global, industry-wide business negotiation". The difference between the two cases is that Microsoft subsequently agreed to accept whatever rate the court decides, a decision that scares the heck out of Apple. Motorola Mobility pointed out Microsoft's behavior to Judge Crabb and asked why Apple couldn't be so agreeable.
Judge Crabb is now considering whether or not to allow a trial on Apple's other claims. If Apple wins on these other claims, it might be able to prevent Motorola Mobility from enforcing its standards-essential claims against it. Both sides have until noon on Sunday to respond to the order (don't forget the end of daylight savings time on Sunday morning, guys!) and both sides need to be ready for the possibility that the trial will start at 1pm Monday. On the other hand, Apple has apparently ticked off Judge Crabb enough that she might call off the trial. For once, Apple's arrogance in a courtroom, which Judge Koh and the jury in the Samsung case seemed to turn a blind eye to, might have worked against it.
5. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5986; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Rule #1 in litigating - DON'T piss off the judge.
34. SuperMaoriBro (Posts: 387; Member since: 23 Jun 2012)
I wish apple paid attention to the sentement of many tech fans. If they did they might realise their actions are causing peoples attitudes about them to change . Once a company that was cool, hip, and innovative has now become a power hungry, money hungry, whining bully. They dont seem to realize or care, the shift away from apple has alread started, more and more people are getting sick of them each day. This is only hurting them, as attitudes change, people will stop buying their products , hurting their profits. Maybe then they will care.
6. anywherehome (Posts: 971; Member since: 13 Dec 2011)
Yes, every-one who knows the facts about Apple would never buy its products:
We all in the word pay higher prices of eBooks just because of greedy Apple! Search the facts on the internet
8. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 5225; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
How's apple stupid because of Motorola wanting to abuse FRAND patents?
33. Aeires (unregistered)
Why do people feed this troll?
10. toiletcleaner (Posts: 221; Member since: 10 Oct 2012)
not just stupid but iStupid, Apple wants to rule the cellphone industry and taking to court all the companies the can. so that way, small companies said yes and yes to all what they want,
now Apple needs to paid iFone ( mexican company ) up to 40% for each phone they sell in Mexico. thanks to his litigation move
11. tedkord (Posts: 6008; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
As you can see from the article and the Judges statement, its Apple abusing the process. Of course, you will just ignore Apple's typical poor behavior.
12. lyndon420 (Posts: 2131; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
Motorola has been in the phone business long before you learned to spew words on a blog. If you were a key player in helping pioneer the mobile phone industry, I think you would want to be acknowledged for that.
Apple is like a schoolyard bully who likes taking your lunch money in exchange for letting you live until the next day.
29. jroc74 (Posts: 5219; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Exactly....Motorola has been in the telephone, communications, radio business before Apple was was even thought of...
Moto has been in this business before Jobs was even....born.
Excellent point. If anything, Motorola doesnt get enough credit for its contributions.
15. networkdood (Posts: 6329; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
that is it - I reported Mxy as trolling - sick of reading his/her stupid asinine comments.
23. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5986; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Is Mxy the latest incarnation of Taco? Or, is Mxy a troll in their own right?
17. VZWuser76 (Posts: 2256; Member since: 04 Mar 2010)
There is a difference between abusing, and actually getting paid SOMETHING for them. Basically what apple has done is the very same thing that they accuse everyone else of doing, using patents that others own the rights to and not paying for them. They already had this kind of situation go to court once with Nokia coming out the winner.
That little stunt with the $1 is them trying to put themselves in the dominant position. The difference in this case is that apple is the one with their hands in the cookie jar and all the parties involved in the case (apple, motorola, & google) are american companies. So apple can't rely on good ole' american patriotism to win it for them this time.
20. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)
Mxy, if you think $1 per phone is anywhere CLOSE to fair, given the dumba** judgement levelled against Samsung, then you have no idea wtf being "objective and fair" means.
There is NOTHING you offer that sparks any kind of discussion, all you do is think that Apple should rule the world and that everyone else should bow down.
Wanting Apple to pay more than $1 per phone for multiple patents, FRAND or not, IS fair, whether you like it or not.
Apple opened this Pandora's Box of patent litigations, so no one should be surprised when it bites them in the a**.
28. jroc74 (Posts: 5219; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
$13-$15 per phone is abuse for an essential function of the phone....but $30 per phone for icons and round corners is right?
MS getting $10-$15 from Android manufactures is fine tho right? And thats not even FRAND patents.
Btw.....you probably still think the F in FRAND = Free....so you probably want Apple to pay nothing...
42. Jobes (Posts: 364; Member since: 27 Oct 2011)
:( he has to say it himself otherwise it doesnt work.
39. Zero0 (Posts: 591; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)
I haven't any idea! I mean, it's not like Apple abuses its overly broad, not-at-all obvious patents or anything like that. Apple is an upstanding citizen in the tech community, always forgiving and never patenting ideas that aren't their own.
41. letgomyeggroll (Posts: 138; Member since: 13 Jun 2012)
MXYZPTIK....you are like a child..VERY SELECTIVE hearing. only want to hear what you want to hear. But in your case, you only want to read what you want to read as it is in you favor. Stop fighting for something or someone that have been making a mistake.
This WHY Apple file these stupid lawsuits and starting to get lose on them.....like a proud a parent supporting a child of murdering.
22. darkkjedii (Posts: 13886; Member since: 05 Feb 2011)
I don't think a company as successful as apple can intelligently b called stupid. Greedy like most yes, but stupid no.
32. protozeloz (Posts: 5387; Member since: 16 Sep 2010)
Don't know.... suing a 2003 Mexican company called ifone was not such a good idea
35. rusticguy (Posts: 2828; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
Arrogantly Stupid is the right phrase. Yes it's definitely not just plain stupid :)
3. someones4 (Posts: 622; Member since: 16 Sep 2012)
Apple pushed too hard in this case. Threatening to only pay a certain fee? Ohh....we are all quivering in our boots.
The judge should just throw the case out. Or order Apple to agree with Motorola's terms.
Apple needs a few more of these lessons.
13. lyndon420 (Posts: 2131; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
No...the judge needs to make apple pay a hundred billion dollars for being such an ass.
7. jroc74 (Posts: 5219; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
I'm still amazed that Apple figured $30 a handset was ok for Samsung to pay for icons and round corners...
14. networkdood (Posts: 6329; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
But, of course, apple cronies, G-King and Mxy think that is ok...
24. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5986; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
More like the Apple Apology Tour founders....
30. androiddownsouth (Posts: 598; Member since: 02 May 2012)
I don't recall those two cats apologizing for a d*mn thing fellas lol.
16. dragonscourgex (Posts: 307; Member since: 16 Jan 2012)
The logic I don't understand is how can Apple request a price of $30.00 a phone just to use rounded corners, but, at the same time only want to pay $1 a phone for tech that they need for the phone to run. I would wish one of these judges would ask Apple this question.
26. jroc74 (Posts: 5219; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
This my friend is what makes ppl that try to defend Apple in this case seem a lil insane...
If anything....I can understand a company paying $30 a handset for something essential. Like the license fee MS gets from some Android manufactures....its less than $30. And I think that had to do with maps or something. Whatever it is...its alot more important than a few icons and round corners.
19. JC557 (Posts: 1216; Member since: 07 Dec 2011)
There's just something funny about a judge named Crabb and not being happy with Apple.
Either way, FRAND does not mean free and the fee Apple wants to pay isnt exactly Fair.
21. theBankRobber (Posts: 649; Member since: 22 Sep 2011)
If Samsung can pay $15 a phone to Microsoft, then so could Apple to Motorola. Apple brags about their $100billion in cash that ALL their money is in off shore accounts, the same company that never donates any of their money to anything. Apple is pure greed and to have children in china work for the cheapest they can and now want to pay whatever they want for FRAND license is just pure greed.
25. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5986; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
I think Sammy is paying MS closer to $10/phone for Android smartphones. But I agree with the concept you are advocating.
37. dragonstkdgirl (Posts: 144; Member since: 07 Apr 2012)
"The Cupertino based firm should have known that those wearing a judge's robe don't like being forced into doing anything. We recommend that Apple's attorneys watch a few episodes of Judge Judy to learn that."
This made me choke on my soda.
38. dragonstkdgirl (Posts: 144; Member since: 07 Apr 2012)
Wonder how Apple would react if I came into a store and said,
"I want the iPad, but I only want to pay $150 for it. Gimme."
They'd laugh me out of the store, that's how.
Maybe they should adjust their approach....
43. Rayvelynn (Posts: 124; Member since: 05 Jul 2012)
I think Apple should be limited on how many law suits can be filed within a year, I'm thinking 2 should be the max, LMBO