Motorola licenses standard-essential FRAND patents to Apple in Germany
With Motorola Mobility being investigated by the FTC and the European Commission for allegedly abusing standard-essential patents agaist Apple and Microsoft, and with the prospect of facing a violation of German antitrust law, the company took the only feasible option it had left. Now, its only hope in Germany for its standard-essential IP portfolio is to work out a decent royalty package with Apple.
1. MeoCao (unregistered)
2. TheRetroReplay (Posts: 245; Member since: 20 Mar 2012)
Looks like Motorola is pulling a Microsoft.
3. Aeires (unregistered)
On Apple. Who would have thought it would come full circle?
11. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Moto has to honor its agreements under the FRAND standards.
If Moto had done this from day one, it would have save a number of headaches for everyone. To arbitrary charge a disproportionate royalty, Moto was asking for an investigation from the European and American authorities.
When push comes to shove, Moto saw the light.
18. phitch (Posts: 214; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)
Wrong! Yes, Moto had to honor it's agreements the reality is that Apple wanted a fair lower royalty pricing than other people licensing the patents and that is where the hang up occurred.
20. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
You need to read the court documents. Moto was asking 2.25%.
36. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
you mean... Apple demanded special treatment and refused to pay until it got it!?! im flaberghasted!
4. MartyK (Posts: 711; Member since: 11 Apr 2012)
Oh yea, it's not over Apple...that was only for the FRAND- part.
There's still 7 more patent you infringe on...
Pay day! :)
5. Sniggly (Posts: 6949; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
While Moto may have had to agree to license these patents, it was brought to Germany attention that Apple wasn't paying a single red cent in the first place. Nice to know that after years of lawsuits Apple finally agrees to pay something.
6. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 3510; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Nice to know? How is it nice to pay to use a FRAND patent? That kills the purpose of it being fair and reasonable.
7. Sniggly (Posts: 6949; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Nice job completely misunderstanding the purpose of FRAND. Motorola can still get royalties for FRAND patents; there's just a limit on how much they can ask for.
9. Sparhawk (Posts: 75; Member since: 10 Mar 2012)
He's too busy messing with Superman to follow the FRAND stuff.
14. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Sniggly, it helps if you could read what was stated.
You missed the "That kills the purpose of it being fair and reasonable."
16. Sniggly (Posts: 6949; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
I read what was stated. And he was wrong. He said that Motorola being able to get royalties in the first place goes against FRAND. However, he didn't do his research on FRAND to begin with. Guess who has two thumbs and did? That's right, me.
22. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
> He said that Motorola being able to get royalties in the first place goes against FRAND.
Wrong. He said NO SUCH thing.
Here's what he wrote:
"Nice to know? How is it nice to pay to use a FRAND patent? That kills the purpose of it being fair and reasonable."
He was commenting on Moto's obscene 2.25% rate.
26. Sniggly (Posts: 6949; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
No he wasn't. He was commenting on the fact that there was a royalty to begin with.
It's right there in the quote. "How is it nice to PAY TO USE [not pay TOO MUCH, not pay 2.25 PERCENT, but PAY TO BEGIN WITH] a FRAND patent?"
Your reading comprehension sucks worse than Taco's.
33. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
He was being sarcastic -- I'm sorry your ability to discern sarcasm isn't at the same level like the rest of us.
Again, he never stated "He said that Motorola being able to get royalties in the first place goes against FRAND."
You stated that. So yes, I read just fine.
43. Sniggly (Posts: 6949; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Wait, so now you get to assume that Mxy was being sarcastic?
Look out, folks! We have a f**kin' psychic here!
You'll do anything just to pretend to yourself that you're right, won't you?
37. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
And ....you....seemed to miss what was stated:
"How is it nice to pay to use a FRAND patent?"
That specifically means he think you shouldnt have to pay.
Cmon ardent....give it up. How many times are you gonna be obviously wrong before you give it up?
47. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 3510; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
It's not ethical to get royalties for a fair and reasonable patent. That would be like Burger King paying McDonald's royalties to make and sell hamburgers.
48. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Thank you for chiming in again that you dont think one should pay for FRAND patents.
Please just look it up on wikipedia....it breaks it down very easily.
10. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Before you defend or argue against something....please know more about the subject.
Last time I checked the F in FRAND doesnt mean Free. A quick Google search on FRAND broke it down nice and easy on Wikipedia.
13. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
> Last time I checked the F in FRAND doesn't mean Free. A quick Google search on FRAND broke it down nice and easy on Wikipedia.
Last time WE checked, F stands for FAIR. 2.25% wasn't fair. Nor was it REASONABLE AND NON-DISCRIMINATORY.
Nor was Moto's FRAND related patents meant to be used to extort a company.
15. Sniggly (Posts: 6949; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
You mean to defend against that other company's extortion, right?
Because of course Apple's demand of 30 dollars per Samsung phone was reasonable, fair and non discriminatory. And that's for patents that an increasing amount of people are agreeing they shouldn't have to begin with.
Motorola committed a tactical error, and although they had to retreat a little on this issue, they will still now get money they earned from Apple. In the meantime, they have a new set of patents lined up which don't fall under FRAND at all. Batter up!
25. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Get the facts. Apple's patents are not FRAND related. That is to say Apple's patents are not standards-essential and instead are utility or design patents.
Any company can get around utility or design patent by inventing new patents. By construction, no company can get around standards-essential patents, thus the need for FRAND.
IF Samsung didn't want to pay high royalties to Apple, then it should have out-invented Apple, which it chose not to do.
This is NOT a hard concept to understand. If you want to beat Apple, out-invent them.
28. Sniggly (Posts: 6949; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
And if you're Apple, just sue the s**t out of all of the competitors who are collectively doing better than you.
And I like how you ignore the concept that the "obscene" 2.25 percent is really 13.50 per device.
21. phitch (Posts: 214; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)
Actually 2.25% is perfectly reasonable to license all the FRAND patents that Apple hasn't been paying for. We are talking it covers all the patents Apple violated. $13.50 for a $600 phone is reasonable. Asking someone to pay $40 for a rectangle and bezel not so much. 'MERICA!
27. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
> Actually 2.25% is perfectly reasonable to license all the FRAND patents that Apple hasn't been paying for.
Except that is NOT what the courts decide.
You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not the courts.
24. joey_sfb (Posts: 2892; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
How is apple asking for $30 per phone and $40 per tablet for the round rectangle touchscreen patent be fair.
Grow up! Apple is the embodiment of greed and does not play fair.
29. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
> How is apple asking for $30 per phone and $40 per tablet for the round rectangle touchscreen patent be fair.
Because Apple's patents are FRAND related. Therefore, Apple can charge what the market will bear.
If you don't like Apple's prices, then out-invent Apple. This is not a hard concept to understand.
44. joey_sfb (Posts: 2892; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
Apple, the newly ascended GOD of Greed (base on some nutty postings) has to right to ask for ASTRONOMICAL amount for their FRAND or non-FRAND patents while wilfully infring on patents owned by others.
There i spell it out for you.
38. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
Ardent.....the guy you are trying to defend thought one shouldnt have to pay for using a FRAND patent.
Reading comprehension is your friend....or maybe not....and I like how you changed the subject to the amount of the patent. You have been paying close attention to how Apple does it marketing and whatnot. Good job, Apple would be proud.
2.25 percent isnt fair....but Apple's license demands were? Riiiight. BTW....what are Apple's FRAND patents.....I'm curious...
And like it was mentioned....that amount is still lower than what MS gets from Android OEMs.
12. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
Apple refused to be held hostage and bullied by Moto that was charging an obscene royalty of 2.25%. The fact that Moto backdowned means Moto knew it was wrong.
After Samsung's recent defeat, Moto knew it would really look stupid if it was found in violation of antitrust rules. It is not a coincidence or surprise that Moto had a change of heart after seeing Samsung get destroyed in the 3-week trial.
Apple did the right thing by refusing to pay and forcing the courts to get Moto to honor their obligations.
17. Sniggly (Posts: 6949; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Apple has refused to pay anything, or even negotiate. Jesus, you sure have an ability to twist the real facts around to fit your f**ked up fantasy of Apple being the good guy here.
30. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
> Apple has refused to pay anything, or even negotiate
Check the court documents.
It's amazing how you constantly confuse fact from fiction.
Sniggly, you are entitled to your opinion, but your opinions ARE NOT facts!!!
32. Sniggly (Posts: 6949; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Same with you, asshat. Starting with your assumption that 2.25 is OBSCENE.
Apple's history regarding Motorola is that way back when, in the US, Motorola sent a request to Apple to license their patents that Apple was infringing, to the tune of an as yet undisclosed amount. Apple refused and never even sent a counter offer. That's the reason behind the original lawsuit back in 2009.
I agree that trying to get an injunction based on FRAND related patents was stupid, but it was not morally repugnant as you act like it is, especially in the broader context of Apple's attack on the entire Android ecosystem.
34. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
< Same with you, asshat. Starting with your assumption that 2.25 is OBSCENE
"asshat" is that Snigglyism for I suck and therefore this is the best I can do. Snig, we understand you are no sesquipedilianist.
By the way, the German court deemed the 2.25% to be unreasonable. I prefer to use the word "obscene".
39. Sniggly (Posts: 6949; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
That's Snigglyism for "You are an arrogant prick who's already gotten many things wrong and has a completely biased opinion in favor of Apple, as evidenced in this very comment thread."
They deemed 2.25 percent too high, but there's no information on what rate they WOULD have accepted. Perhaps it was 2.24. Or 2.2. We don't know. You saying it's obscene implies that it was, like, TWICE what the German court would have deemed reasonable.
19. Sniggly (Posts: 6949; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Besides, I didn't realize that 13.50 per phone was all that obscene. Isn't that less than what HTC and Samsung gladly pay Microsoft for its patents?
23. phitch (Posts: 214; Member since: 06 Mar 2012)
The recent defeat in which the head foreman might as well have yelled "American Justice" as he said "It was Apple from the very beginning?" Yeah, that one is going to be overturned by a bunch of judges and not some idiot rednecks. Also, how can you hold the patent on a design of rounded rectangles, bezel, and screen in the center when the LG Prada was shown in 2006 and had ALL THOSE FEATURES! If only Judge Koh would have let that evidence into trial. If I was Samsung, I might just back LG in a lawsuit against Apple to get those patents invalidated due to prior art.
31. ardent1 (Posts: 1991; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
You just don't get it. It's the complete product -- the hardware AND the software for Apple. LG can't write software as well as Apple, so your LG lawsuit will fail.
Most cars on the road have 4 wheels, but Ferrari's and Porche's, etc, each have distinctive designs.
35. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
so.. 2.25% is "OBSCENE", but you chastise Samsung for not taking a $40 per handset licencing "offer" from Apple. Last I checked, thats......6.66%... well. how fitting is that number? hmm.. A deal with the devil indeed.
So, 2.25% FROM apple is "obscene", but 6.66% TO Apple is OK?
Yea, find your foot.. insert it in your mouth please.
40. Sniggly (Posts: 6949; Member since: 05 Dec 2009)
Oh no, you see, copying components which are essential for a smartphone to work to begin with is something which a company should have to pay barely anything for, especially if it's technology that the inventing company spent decades and millions, if not billions on.
However, copying a couple of UI elements and a general shape is clearly evil and must be punished with the greatest amount the "inventing" company (which didn't actually invent any of it, since those same elements showed up in other products before the patent was filed) feels like charging.
That's Ardent's logic for you.
41. jroc74 (Posts: 4720; Member since: 30 Dec 2010)
WOW.....6.66%....that is extremely eerie, scary...lol. And fitting, I agree.
46. remixfa (Posts: 13903; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
the sad fact is that is based on a $600 retail phone. Most of the "infringing" phones are sold at like 300-500 full retail these days for the ones that are still sold, which means your talking over 10%
But as long as its going to apple, its ok... just dont expect apple to pay anything near 2.25%, because that's obsceeeeeeeeeeeeene!
45. MorePhonesThanNeeded (Posts: 618; Member since: 23 Oct 2011)
Some hardcore fruit humping going on in here, sheesh I thought it was about to get x rated. Anyway, Motorola made a bad decision with their FRAND patents with apple, but now with the big Goog behind them believe that their next patents suits will cause Apple some hurt. I can't be the only who finds that some things that Apple gets a pass on and everyone else miraculously can't is nothing more than some sort of bureaucratic mess, which is upheld by courts.
Apple wants to extort well over 3% for rounded rectangular shape, what kind of stupidity gives you a patent for a damn shape that existed before you assumed you created it? Not sure how Apple even tried to ask for such a ridiculous amount, or even if that patent is even valid, that means every manufacturer would have to all of a sudden have to pay these charlatans for the use of a rectangle, curved corners or not it's still a non patentable shape which is common. Oh well the USPTO decided to issue patents for all sorts of stupid things and things that should not be given rights to. Apple has a tendency to patent things in their basic forms so they can muck up the works for everyone else as these guys don't like to license patents out. The day will come when Apple will have to face retribution and my friend it won't be pretty, the longest rope has an end.