backtop


Print 102 comment(s) - last by btmm.. on Feb 9 at 5:23 AM

Apple surely is bitter for having to pay a top Android phonemaker for its "innovation"

Today Apple, Inc. (AAPL) dodged one bullet in German court, but saw another unfavorable ruling put in place, which will presumably block Apple's iCloud in the European Union nation until Apple can successfully appeal or settles the dispute.

I. Germany Alone Promotes Android and Apple's A Two Side War

Apple late chairmanformer CEO, and co-founder, Steven P. Jobs bragged in a 1994 interview about his company's mastery of stealing ideas from others, stating [video], "Picasso had a saying - 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

Yet it has been Apple's accusations that Android phonemakers have stolen its ideas from that have burned up the blogosphere over the course of the past year.  It takes two tango, and Android phonemakers have responded with equal litigious fury [1][2][3] -- particularly when it comes to Samsung Electronics, Comp., Ltd. (KS:005930) and Google Inc.'s (GOOGpending acquisition Motorola Mobility Inc. 

For the most part member states of the European Union have seemed to grow reacted to the slew of suits and countersuits with growing frustration, tossing out a mixture of outright denials to Pyrrhic victories that do not give Apple or its Android rivals their desired outcome -- the removal of "the other guy's" products from the market.

EU regulators even went as far as to probe Apple and Samsung over potential antitrust abuses.  A formal investigation is currently looking deeper into Samsung's patent use, and a future one may target Apple, as well.

Overseas the U.S. has similarly smacked down Apple's request to ban Motorola's product and Samsung's products.  U.S. courts have only agreed to tentatively ban HTC Corp.'s (TPE:2498) oldest Froyo smartphones in 2012 -- a meaningless victory for Apple as HTC can simply update (or more likely stop selling these aged models).  Even Australia, who initially banned Samsung's Android Galaxy Tab 10.1 at Apple's bequest, saw a higher court smack down the ban stating that the judge who delivered it had grossly misinterpreted the law.

In other words, no one has seemed willing to grant one side or another a major victory and fuel the fire of Android and Apple's patent war.  Nobody, that is, except for Germany. 

German tanks
Germany has been the primary country fueling Android and Apple's world war.  It has now assigned three temporary product bans -- two in favor of Android and one in favor of Apple [Image Source: Avia Armor]

II. Apple's 3G Lineup Gets Briefly Pulled From the German (Online) Market

Germany alone has been steering a different course.  

It gained attention for banning Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 for being too "minimalist" (the German Judge's term) and thus violated Apple's design patent.  That verdict was viewed as Apple's first (and only) real major legal victory over Android. 

Conversely on Dec. 9 Germany's Mannheim court delivered a pro-Android ruling, when it sided with Motorola in a 3G patent case.

It decided to ban online sales and imports of Apple's iPhone 4, iPad (3G), and iPad 2 (3G) for violating Motorola's EP (European Patent) 1010336 (B1)  (U.S. counterpart: U.S. Patent No. 6,359,898) on " a method for performing a countdown function during a mobile-originated transfer for a packet radio system."  The iPhone 4S was exempt because unlike the earlier models, which used chips from Intel Corp. (INTC) subsidiary Infineon (whom Motorola doesn't license the patent to), the latest iPhone uses a Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM) baseband processor.  As Qualcomm is a Motorola licensee, Apple's latest iPhone was spared from the banfest.

11-12-09 Mannheim Ruling for MMI Against Apple



Also unlike the Galaxy Tab 10.1 sales ban, the suspension did not occur immediately, but was staggered to take effect this week.  Today Apple pulled the products from its store, with Deutsche Presse-Agentur quoting an Apple source as saying the decision was in compliance with Dec. Mannheim, Germany court ruling.

The interesting thing is that the patent involved was part of a 3G standard and thus was subject to "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" (FRAND) license terms.  Unlike Samsung, Motorola wasn't disallowing Apple to pay it  -- Apple was reportedly the one denying to pay the FRAND patent holder.  

Apple appeared content to ride out the ban and trying to invalidate the patent or appeal the ruling to the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court.  Apple rebukes the claim that it was unwilling to pay a license fee, instead arguing that Motorola's proposed licensing offers weren't "fair" or "reasonable".

Motorola called Apple's bluff, paying the 100M € bond that it needed to ensure that if Apple prevailed, it would receive compensation for pushing an unjust ban (but if Motorola prevailed it would get its bond back, and have successfully banned the Apple products).

III. Ban Lifted

But in the eleventh hour Apple managed to convince the appeals court to lift the ban.  DPA reporter Christoph Dernbach was the first to report the news, taking to Twitter.  Apple in statement commented, "All iPad and iPhone models will be back on sale through Apple's online store in Germany shortly. Apple appealed this ruling because Motorola repeatedly refuses to license this patent to Apple on reasonable terms, despite having declared it an industry standard patent seven years ago."

The reason for the suspension is a bit confusing.  Florian Mueller claims that it's due to the lower court not giving Apple the appropriate chance to pay a bond to avoid the injunction, pending the appeal.  He writes that Motorola's bond was likely returned and Apple likely posted a 120M € bond to the higher court to block the sales ban.

But BBC News is reporting that Apple has actually made an offer to pay Motorola for the patent, which also may have swayed the court.  

Either way, the BBC News report appears to carry the long term outcome -- Apple will likely be forced to make payments to Motorola for the year or two duration of its 3G sales, to avoid a ban.

IV. Now iCloud/MobileMe Ban (or Push Email Removal) is Pending 

Adding to the confusion, Motorola in Mannheim court today scored a second ruling -- this one against the Apple iCloud and MobileMe.  Many erroneously reported/believed that the iCloud ruling was the result of the brief sales suspension, when it fact the suspension appears to be attributed to the earlier December ruling.

iCloud ban
The iCloud may soon be banned in Germany. [Image Source: 9 to 5 Mac]

Today's victory for Motorola over Apple saw the iPhone maker being found in violation of EP (European Patent) 0847654 (B1) (U.S. counterpart: U.S. Patent No. 5,754,119), which covers a "multiple pager status synchronization system and method".  

The trial regarding the patent began in November and was just adjudicated today.

The terms were not immediately announced, but its presumed that Apple will be given the chance to pay a bond and prevent the injunction, while Motorola will have to pay a bond if it wants to enforce the injunction.  

Judge Andreas Voss made the ruling, which, if it passes the bonding stage, will likely force Apple to kill push-email functionality in order to keep the iCloud and MobileMe services active in Germany.  This means that i-devices with 3G modems would have to return to pulling emails from the server at regular intervals, a slight setback which means you may not be updated as quickly with an important email.

Apple reportedly did not contend in the trial that the patent was covered under FRAND.  Instead it tried to narrow the scope of the patent to allow iCloud to appear sufficiently different so as not to infringe.  This approach basically failed in the lower court.

The ruling hearkens back to NTP, an infamous "patent troll" who for years dogged smartphone makers and computer makers trying to milk exorbitant licensing payouts or block their access to push email.  Now Motorola is trying to do the same thing to Apple.

V. What's Next?

Again, Germany, by far, has appeared the most willing to ban both Android and Apple products.  Due to that, both sides have focused their efforts on German court. Apple has at least two suits against Motorola.  

And Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), who Motorola alone (of the top Android phonemakers) denied to pay licensing fees, will meet the Android phonemaker in court next Tuesday (Feb. 7).  Motorola has countersued Microsoft; the German court will hear four separate complaints against Microsoft on Tuesday.  Motorola also is waiting on a third complaint against Apple, which will be ruled on next Friday (Feb. 10).  Motorola already lost a complaint from Microsoft in the U.S., but again the victory was largely hollow as it only mandated minor app modification.

The German court is also preparing to hear new suits and countersuits between Apple and Samsung.  Apple vs. HTC suits are also pending.

The situation in Germany has devolved under a bewildering mess, but as far as the available information indicates, the only thing that remains officially banned at this point is the original Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 -- although the iCloud/MobileMe could soon join it.

Apple v. Samsung
Apple and its Android rivals are working diligently to bury international courts under an ever-growing pile of suits and countersuits.  The bewildering mess of litigation has thus-far produced little results. [Image Source: Gizmodo]

The German court did soften its blow against Samsung, declining to ban smaller tablets that did not match the iPad's ~10 in. (9.7 in.) screen diagonal footprint.  It also declined to ban Samsung's replacement design, which it specially crafted to escape the local ban.  

Apple's attorneys argued that Apple should be the only one allowed to produce modern tablets in Germany.  They made arguments similar to those made in a failed Australian ban bid, in which Apple's lawyers said, "Samsung says Galaxy Tab 10.1, we say any tablet device."

In related news to the case, EU regulators on Feb. 13 (two Mondays from now) will decide whether to allow Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility.  As part of its antitrust procedure in authorizing the purchase, it may examine whether Motorola unfairly denied Apple FRAND licensing in the two of its three Mannheim Court lawsuits that were based on 3G patents.

In the U.S. Google's acquisition has already been approved.

Sources: Twitter [DPA -- ban lifted], DPA, BBC News, Foss Patents



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

i am going to save this link forever...
By retrospooty on 2/3/2012 6:56:02 PM , Rating: 3
" Apple late chairman, former CEO, and co-founder, Steven P. Jobs bragged in a 1994 interview about his company's mastery of stealing ideas from others, stating [video], "Picasso had a saying - 'Good artists copy, great artists steal.' And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."

And pull it out every time some Apple zealot cries about Apple being copied

Hee hee heee




RE: i am going to save this link forever...
By messele on 2/4/12, Rating: -1
RE: i am going to save this link forever...
By retrospooty on 2/4/2012 7:27:46 AM , Rating: 5
Tech isnt quite the same as art. There is an art to it, but it doesnt change the facts.

Apple copies others and calls it art.

When Apple feels (often incorrectly) that others copy it, it calls it's lawyers.


By Motoman on 2/4/2012 12:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
...especially when you consider the pure fact of the matter that "prior art" is a huge issue in patents. "Prior art" is what Apple is continuously trying to use to sue people...even when it's obvious that their "art" wasn't "prior."


RE: i am going to save this link forever...
By Tony Swash on 2/5/12, Rating: -1
By retrospooty on 2/5/2012 8:04:05 AM , Rating: 5
"That question, why Apple is successful, is a very frightening and confusing one for some people"

This may be true for a few small minded people. Not, me, I am glad for thier success. Although I wouldnt buy Apple products, they did force other phone makers to raise the bar, and we all benefit from that.

But that isnt the issue at all here... The whole tone of your entire comment misses the point here... Apple sues others for doing exactly the same thing Apple does themselves.


RE: i am going to save this link forever...
By Motoman on 2/5/2012 9:54:22 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I think some of them are dumb enough to misunderstand that quote, some of them probably have to Google who Picasso was, but mostly they know in their hearts what Jobs meant but the quote has become a sort of comfort blanket.


You're dripping your stupid all over the internet again. Your attempt at condescension fails miserably, as always. Your statement above says absolutely nothing...it clarifies not in the slightest how Jobs would say that he's going to "steal shamelessly" but somehow meant something else. The "comfort blanket" bit you puked there is pure BS that means nothing at all. Just a typical iMoron trying to sound sophisticated when they well and truly are clueless - you're the barista in the Samsung video.

How about you actually try addressing the question that was posed, in a rational and informative manner? Naturally you can't, because you have no idea what you're talking about, and there's no way to weasel out of Jobs' quote. But try it one more time - what exactly about that quote means something different than Apple will be shameless about stealing?

The rest of your pointless rant also says nothing - it's the same old unfounded self-righteousness that you and all the other iDipsh1ts spout which try to paint non-Apple consumers as the guilty party - when the internet, as always, is awash in information about what a catastrophically poor decision it is to purchase an Apple product. As always, you're trying to create confusion and to obfuscate obvious issues by blathering on about your own superiority complex - when not the slightest thing you have to say makes any sense to anyone with more than a couple synapses to click together.

...and none of this means that Apple has any "mojo" - it means that Apple is an IP thief and Jobs declared it proudly for all the world to see. And it means that you've once again exposed your own self, and all other Macolytes, to be abject cretins for trying to spin that any other way.

It's a shame that the human race produces uncritical, insecure, wildly gullible people like you. You're an embarrassment to the entire human race, as you showcase exactly how utterly incapable of a rational existence a human can be.


RE: i am going to save this link forever...
By Tony Swash on 2/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: i am going to save this link forever...
By Motoman on 2/5/2012 1:34:01 PM , Rating: 2
Once again you've obfuscated. You've not explained how "we're going to be shameless about stealing" means that Apple isn't going to steal. Very nice little prose you wrote there about "inspiration" - but you've said nothing about whether or not Picasso, or anyone else, would or wouldn't steal designs/approaches/techniques/etc. that they've seen someone else use.

And particularly the way you insist on ignoring the fact that Apple's "prior art" is essentially never "prior" to other "art" it's clear that they have, in fact, been shameless about stealing. The only way you can continue to deny that irrefutable fact is through some intellectual cowardice of biblical proportions.


RE: i am going to save this link forever...
By Tony Swash on 2/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: i am going to save this link forever...
By Paj on 2/6/2012 7:37:53 AM , Rating: 2
An interesting viewpoint. However, it fails to address how Android started development before iOS did. (It came to market later because of the Google acquisition). It also fails to address how the iPad looks virtually identical to a Samsung digital photo frame released even before the first iPhone. It also fails to address how, despite your beatification of Apple, it still trails Symbian and Android in installations. It also fails to address the manifold ways that Android UI, and TouchWiz in particular, differs from iOS, or how the latest versions of iOS incorporate concepts that Android introduced (the notification centre being the major example).

Apple has succeeded because of several reasons, but true innovation isnt one of them. True innovation is exceedingly rare, and is bandied about far too much these days. The clickwheel on the first iPod was a genuinely innovative HCI element - but since then, Apple devices are, at their heart, a well designed synthesis of already existing technologies.

Apple is excellent at creating good, consistent user experience on their devices; clean, minimalist design; and inspiring unwavering brand loyalty. This is what gives it the edge over its competitors. This is the key driver to their success - but it is rarely a result of innovation, or superior technology.


RE: i am going to save this link forever...
By testerguy on 2/6/2012 11:42:11 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think which of Android or iOS started development first is relevant, since iOS came out a year earlier Android could easily have changed a lot in that time, indeed many argue it did.

Regardless, I don't think you can claim that Android started development before iOS did. You don't know when iOS development started, but I'm sure I've seen a quote from Tony showing that Steve Jobs started developing it way before Android was even formed.

Did the Samsung lawyers show the 'prior art' of a 'photo frame' in the legal case vs Apple which Samsung lost? If they did, then the law said it wasn't relevant. If they didn't, then the Samsung lawyers already knew it wasn't relevant. Either way, the conclusion that it's not relevant can be reached.

In terms of installations, and numbers thereof, I don't really care, Android is offered on a whole load of cheaper phones (until recently) so it doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot if it has been installed more.

iOS does include concepts that Android introduced, such as the notification bar. Is anyone claiming that it breached copyright in doing so? I don't think so.

You talk about 'true innovation' in such a small minded way. Putting existing technologies together in a way which creates a whole industry (eg the iPad) is innovation in its most relevant sense, the one which is most beneficial to the consumer. Who cares whether some screen company built the screen, or Apple did. It's not innovation either way, in your sense. Nor, by the way, is any of the technology in any Android phone, or pretty much any device out these days.

I would say Apple is technologically ahead too, just look at the GPU in the iPhone 4S and in the very-old-now iPad 2. They are still the fastest you can get in their respective genres, and the battery life Apple managed to get out of them is far superior too. That you claim this can happen without any innovation makes a mockery of the Android manufacturers who failed to achieve the same, and completely misses the heart of the matter which is that the most difficult innovation is bringing everything together in a coherent package. That and the fact that they were first to popularise devices in both industries (again, innovation) is why they have the lead. To date, no Android manufacturer has managed to produced a technologically better device, either phone or tablet (certainly in terms of the CPU/GPU) and yet you say Apple doesn't lead through technology?

Finally, your point that they make excellent user interfaces is also an example of innovation. They basically brought that aim to the rest of the phone and tablet market - that simplicity is what people want. It's, again, the most relevant thing to the end user.


RE: i am going to save this link forever...
By Paj on 2/7/2012 7:28:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think which of Android or iOS started development first is relevant, since iOS came out a year earlier Android could easily have changed a lot in that time, indeed many argue it did.


It's certainly relevant when considering 'who copied who', as many people like to discuss.

quote:
Regardless, I don't think you can claim that Android started development before iOS did. You don't know when iOS development started, but I'm sure I've seen a quote from Tony showing that Steve Jobs started developing it way before Android was even formed.


Possibly not. Either way, its reasonable to assume that development on both OS was occurring at the same time.

quote:
Did the Samsung lawyers show the 'prior art' of a 'photo frame' in the legal case vs Apple which Samsung lost? If they did, then the law said it wasn't relevant. If they didn't, then the Samsung lawyers already knew it wasn't relevant. Either way, the conclusion that it's not relevant can be reached.


While its easy to think of 'the law' as the final arbiter in this, its far more likely to be a result of many other factors - the judges and their level of competence, the chicanery employed in the legal strategies, the tone of the legal team. Judgement != fact.

quote:
iOS does include concepts that Android introduced, such as the notification bar. Is anyone claiming that it breached copyright in doing so? I don't think so.


I wasn't making a reference to copyright. I included this as an example of how companies other than Apple have introduced UI innovation in smartphones, which Apple then incorporates/borrows/steals/slavishly copies.

quote:
You talk about 'true innovation' in such a small minded way. Putting existing technologies together in a way which creates a whole industry (eg the iPad) is innovation in its most relevant sense, the one which is most beneficial to the consumer.


It really depends on how you define innovation. For me, the teams that invented the technologies in the first place were the true innovators. Those who applied their knowledge of science and engineering to create new inventions. Those who invented the GUI, capacitive touchscreen, the lithium ion battery, wireless digital communications. Combining this in a single device is certainly innovation in a sense, but the most innovative (that which was truly original) thing about the original iphone was the UI.

quote:
Finally, your point that they make excellent user interfaces is also an example of innovation. They basically brought that aim to the rest of the phone and tablet market - that simplicity is what people want. It's, again, the most relevant thing to the end user.


Agree - this is what the lion's share of their success is attributable to.


By testerguy on 2/7/2012 9:41:49 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
It's certainly relevant when considering 'who copied who', as many people like to discuss.


It isn't though. You can copy someone whether you started before or after.

It would only be relevant if it was not possible to change the design at any stage.

quote:
While its easy to think of 'the law' as the final arbiter in this, its far more likely to be a result of many other factors - the judges and their level of competence, the chicanery employed in the legal strategies, the tone of the legal team. Judgement != fact.


Then let it be known that I believe that the courts judgement is more likely to be in line with the law than your judgement, and that you are more likely to be mistaken than the court is.

quote:
I wasn't making a reference to copyright. I included this as an example of how companies other than Apple have introduced UI innovation in smartphones, which Apple then incorporates/borrows/steals/slavishly copies.


OK, so we're agreed Apple took a good idea, and created their own version of it. Why is that bad? That doesn't mean they don't innovate in other areas. It just means they recognise a good idea, IMO.

quote:
It really depends on how you define innovation. For me, the teams that invented the technologies in the first place were the true innovators. Those who applied their knowledge of science and engineering to create new inventions. Those who invented the GUI, capacitive touchscreen, the lithium ion battery, wireless digital communications. Combining this in a single device is certainly innovation in a sense, but the most innovative (that which was truly original) thing about the original iphone was the UI.


Yep, I could tell you had this interpretation of innovation. To some extent I agree, that is what I would describe as scientific innovation, or 'raw' innovation. But hardly any of the companies who come up with any of the innovations which power phones actually end up manufacturing them. Even Samsung with its processors and screens, isn't creating anything innovative - it's a screen and a processor, been around for ages. I think it's very unlikely that any manufacturer will be a product innovator and a technology innovator, but I do think that Apple is a product innovator. In that respect, I think we're somewhat agreed.

Thanks for a fair and balanced post, by the way.


RE: i am going to save this link forever...
By Raraniel on 2/5/2012 11:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
Different people want different things out of their technology. The fan boy attitude (on either side of the debate) is usually closed-minded and blind to any merits of the opposition. I personally have no interest in owning apple products, but I know that enough people do for me to have an interest in owning apple stock, and I have no problem making a ton of money off of that interest :)


RE: i am going to save this link forever...
By Motoman on 2/5/2012 11:49:45 AM , Rating: 1
You'll never go broke betting on the gullibility of the consumer. Get some Bose and Monster Cable stock while you're at it.


By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2012 1:37:36 PM , Rating: 1
10 points for Gryffindor!


RE: i am going to save this link forever...
By gunzac21 on 2/5/2012 2:54:28 PM , Rating: 3
if the point of your statement is to claim the apple is overcritized then you are absolutely right.But the "pc" community is really only reacting to what we feel is a VERY disproportionate amount of praise given to the company from so many others. Apple is a great american company that has really raised the bar in ergonomics and style for laptops and handheld electronics for the past 7 years. But this particular case is where we feel that there is hypocracy with apple saying that stealing innovation is just the nature of the game (which is fine) but then turning out to be so litigious.


By testerguy on 2/6/2012 11:45:58 AM , Rating: 1
The copying Apple referred to was ideas, not patented technology or designs.

There's a big difference.

If Ferrari bring out a new car with an electric drive shaft, Porsche may think 'that's a good idea' and implement their own, but try to make it better. That's normal, appropriate, and legal 'stealing' of ideas.

What Samsung did, was take the whole car (or in reality, the iPad), reproduce it, and shove a Samsung logo on it. Right down to the packaging. That is ILLEGAL stealing of ideas, and that is an important distinction to make.


RE: i am going to save this link forever...
By messele on 2/4/12, Rating: -1
By Motoman on 2/4/2012 10:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
Seems pretty straightforward. Don't merely copy, steal.

So what is it about that that non-Macolytes are "deliberately misunderstanding?"


By far the best summary of this issue
By Tony Swash on 2/6/2012 8:53:36 AM , Rating: 1
This is by far the most complete, and seemingly knowledgable, summary of this issue I have come across. A very good summary of the legal tactics and strategic aims of all parties to the dispute. Worth a read.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/apples-ite...




RE: By far the best summary of this issue
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/6/2012 10:01:08 AM , Rating: 2
Gee, it's your favorite site, again....


RE: By far the best summary of this issue
By Tony Swash on 2/6/2012 1:56:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Gee, it's your favorite site, again...


I guess I am just a sucker for somone who seems to know his legal stuff, actually attends many of the relevant court cases, links to full versions of the significant legal docs and offers cogent analysis of the legal strategies of all sides in the dispute. Obviously his work will disturb those wedded to reassuring fantasy rather than reality. Depends whether you are interested in the real world or the imaginary.

Out of interest why don't you critique the article I linked to and let us know its precise shortcomings. I dare you :)


By Cheesew1z69 on 2/7/2012 1:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
Sucker is right...


By Cheesew1z69 on 2/7/2012 1:37:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Depends whether you are interested in the real world or the imaginary.
We know you don't live in the real world. That much is obvious.


RE: By far the best summary of this issue
By SoCalBoomer on 2/6/2012 7:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, here's my critical review of the article:

1. There's a LOT of interpretation and not a lot of actual quotes or statements from the companies in question. For instance:

"They hope"
"they want"
"things to grouse about" - speaking of which, this is a pretty heavily connotative statement, which shows some bias.
"But they probably don't expect "
"not surprisingly"
"He meant to say"

This type of thing goes throughout the article. This was just from a small portion but Mueller interprets motivation instead of letting Motorola, Samsung and Apple do so.

2. - and does so negatively on Samsung's and Motorola's part and positively on Apple's part. Samsung and Motorola "grouse" while Apple "proposes"; Samsung and Motorola are "outrageous" while Apple is "just try[ing] to settle". This statement from Mueller is also significantly indicative of his bias:
"Apple won't get a deal that meets its needs unless Samsung and Motorola (or Google) are forced to recognize the fundamentally greater strategic and commercial value of Apple's non-standards-related patents"

So, in his estimation, Apple's non-standards-related patents are fundamentally more valuable strategically and commercially? Really? He's not an economist; he's not an engineer; he's an IP Activist.

I'm not an engineer, but I would think that patents that set standards (i.e. standards-related patents) would be MORE valuable than non-standards-related ones. Without the standards, we have no networks; we have no consistency; we have no communications.

3. His numbers are specious. "would likely amount to anywhere between 20% and 50% (those percentages are rough estimates on my part) of Apple's sales." - estimates based upon what? And if somehow the licensing numbers did cut into Apple's huge profit margins - perhaps that would bring Apple's business closer to that of everyone else? Would that 20-50% coincidentally equate to the amount of profit margin that Apple has above everyone else? Just rough estimate on my part, based on my 15 years in the IT industry. By the way, "There is, however, still quite some disagreement on various terms that will influence how much Apple will ultimately have to pay for future use . . ." so while he doesn't know, he still makes an estimate.

Continuing - "I don't know when Motorola made its (demand)" - then don't make that point.
It's all "seemingly", honestly. He writes with hero-worship of Apple's legal team: "Apple's German litigators are also among the best of the best." "(Apple) is actually doing the industry at large a great service. . ."

You're entitled to look at this article as the Holy Grail of coverage of Apple's litigatory practices. I obviously don't see it that way.


RE: By far the best summary of this issue
By Tony Swash on 2/7/2012 11:53:12 AM , Rating: 1
Lets accept for the moment and for the sake of argument your criticisms of the FOSS article. Where does that leave us?

As far as I can see the following are true statements about the article in question.

It contains no falsehoods.

It covers the key facts of the case, with explanations, and nothing of significance is omitted.

Its descriptions of the law and of the legal processes involved are all accurate.

It contain links to original and undoctored or edited court documents.

It references and explains little known but very important aspects of the case (such as Orange-Book-Standard framework) which few other commentators do.

It explains legal procedures clearly and shows the links between national law and EU

So in my book that makes this a useful article. I learnt stuff from it about the important details of this case which I did not from other articles I had seen. Hence my recommendation.

Your critique of the article boils down to the fact that the author is clearly not supportive of the way Motorola, and others, are using FRAND patents to attack Apple. Personally I think that that would be the position of any reasonable person who is not adversely affected by iPhobia but I urge people to read the original article and make their own minds up.

Meanwhile things are looking very bad for Google and good for Oracle in their forthcoming trial as it looks like the Lindholm email will now be included in evidence. Google - not evil just stupid.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/failed-att...

Judge Alsup -- the federal judge presiding over this litigation -- attaches a great deal of importance to Lindholm email. At a previous hearing, he essentially said that a good trial lawyer would just need that document "and the Magna Carta" to win this case on Oracle's behalf and have Google found to infringe Oracle's rights willfully. The judge told Google that "you are going to be on the losing end of this document" with "profound implications for a permanent injunction". It's the 'wilful' bit that would be the most damaging.


By SoCalBoomer on 2/8/2012 12:42:39 PM , Rating: 2
No, my critique of the article boils down to the fact that it is a: slanted (note the connotative values of his terms when he talks about Apple vs. Samsung and/or Motorola) and b: interpretive (he tells us what their motivations are as opposed to letting them tell us via quotes.)

You're right - he has a ton of links; but contract this to the OP's large number of actual QUOTES (subsequently linked) which leave us with the ability to read and interpret ourselves without the need to do the secondary research ourselves.

I don't have the time to read transcripts, especially without tags to the exact quote.

So:

It contains no falsehoods. Quite possibly; however since we can see and demonstrate a significant bias (and hero worship) I would not put it past him to have omitted facts that would go against his position.

It covers the key facts of the case, with explanations, and nothing of significance is omitted. Well, again, likely however the explanations are interpretive and biased toward the Apple legal team and we don't know what he's omitted because rather than quote the relevant portions of the transcripts, he merely links to the entire document. . .

Its descriptions of the law and of the legal processes involved are all accurate. Granted - I'm not a lawyer (and don't want to be; don't like lawyers, consider them a half-step up from politicians).

It contains links to original and undoctored or edited court documents. Yes - but not to the relevant portions. Mick's article quoted the relevant portions and gave the links. IMO, Mick's article was AT LEAST as well linked as the FOSS article.

The Google vs. Oracle discussion would be interesting, but it's not relevant to this discussion as this is between Apple and Motorola/Samsung.

You asked for someone, anyone, to critique the article and I did so. (I replied to the wrong post, but it's still in the thread. :D) My critique was based on the author's methods - had he been biased in favor of Motorola/Samsung, I would have stated that. When he uses negatively connotative words for one side and positively connotative words for the other, it shows bias - and readers should see this as they read the original article.


By SoCalBoomer on 2/8/2012 12:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
Quick edit:

Links to original and undoctored or edited court documents:

No - he did NOT. I counted his links:

I counted 15 links in his article (I did not count the wiki links re: Tim Cook).

12 were to his own blog (linkbacks to previous articles about whatever he was talking about)

2 were to court documents (one to the Orange Book Standard Ruling - in German, no less.)

1 was to a patent listing.

That's hardly "links to original and undoctored or edited court documents"


How big was the bribe?
By Nyu on 2/3/2012 5:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
So how much did they pay the judge this time to lift the ban?




RE: How big was the bribe?
By tng on 2/3/2012 6:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He writes that Motorola's bond was likely returned and Apple likely posted a 120M € bond to the higher court to block the sales ban.
So there was 220M Euros floating around in bond money on this? Is the bond held by the German court system? Seems like the interest alone after a week is a good way to help pay for all of this nonsense (if that is the case).
quote:
So how much did they pay the judge this time to lift the ban?
Yeah, it does sound like a system of bribes...


RE: How big was the bribe?
By Shig on 2/3/2012 6:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
A little off topic, but I really like the Scribd embed gagdet, very useful. Also, +1 to WW2 reference.

Bribes are so common, it's like carry on, business as it's supposed to be...


Tony...
By gwem557 on 2/3/2012 6:10:53 PM , Rating: 1
...Swashtika is going to need disaster counseling. Accepting donations.




RE: Tony...
By Pirks on 2/3/12, Rating: 0
RE: Tony...
By Tony Swash on 2/6/2012 4:04:49 PM , Rating: 1
By GotThumbs on 2/5/2012 8:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm getting Soo disgusted with how bad this is getting. It just seems to be getting to the point where Apple is behaving like a school yard bully pushing it's weight around for any little thing. Apple is clearly wanting a world where they are the only choice...and the consumers have no choices.

This kind of corporate bullying is backfiring on Apple. They are already getting a bad name over their tactics...when Apple employees ran-sacked a US mans house for something one of Apples employees 'forgot' in a bar, while police stood outside.

I'm so tired of hearing about Apple and that bastered Jobs (Wozniak was the real genius...Jobs was just a salesman and a thief.....I'll NEVER own an Apple product...and I don't use that word lightly.




Android is still an inferior product
By btmm on 2/9/2012 5:23:16 AM , Rating: 2
All this legal nonsense is a shame and it's hurting consumers. I think Apple should forget about trying to sue it's competitors. The fact of the matter is that Apple does well in the market place because they have great products.

Despite the great advances that Android has made, the latest Android OS really is a great piece of software, the fact that Apple controls the whole iOS eco-system means that the iPhone is overall a superior product.

For the vast majority of users the ease of use and simplicity of the iPhone make it the best choice for them. They don't care about processor speed, camera mega-pixels, etc.

The iPhone does not have the top specs in every department, but it's a more polished product. Added to this, the apps are more reliable and polished too.

At the end of the day, it's the overall user experience is what makes iPhones competitors simply inferior.




More FRAND abuse
By Tony Swash on 2/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: More FRAND abuse
By eskimospy on 2/3/2012 7:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
Apple should go innovate and create their own methods instead of copying others' hard work. Innovation is hard, and I hope in the future Apple learns to compete with their own technology, not by stealing others'. With luck these injunctions will teach Apple that there are no shortcuts to making good products.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By TakinYourPoints on 2/4/12, Rating: -1
RE: More FRAND abuse
By retrospooty on 2/4/2012 7:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
Samsung copied Apple far FAR less than Apple copied Palm, so your link of 2 similar products means nothing. By the linkin the article above in Jobs own words, he copies other companies and calls it art. LOL.

Yes, how artful to copy others work and call it art, then sue others for the same thing. Oh, wait, that isnt art, its called Hipocracy.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/4/12, Rating: -1
RE: More FRAND abuse
By retrospooty on 2/4/2012 2:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
Really?

http://lawpundit.blogspot.com/2011/08/samsung-digi...

You really need to take off the Apple rosey colored goggles. Copying is copying, and it's OK in business. If it wasnt, Ford could sue BMW, GM, Honda , Toyota and all others for copying the mass production automobile that Ford invented.

The end is very simple, its not about who copied what, its about Apple suing other companies for doing the EXACT same thing that Apple does, and always has done. Its called a double standard and there is no excuse for it, not even in the Apple reality distortion field.

Apple directly copied Palm/Handspring to make the iPhone. The whole concept of putting apps on a phone with a touchscreen/icons/grid layout was done on a Treo in the early 2000's. Apple added a great UI, that is all. For that, we all owe them some props. They raided the bar and forced the rest of the industry to step up. But for them to claim other copy their copied devices is ridiculous and you know it. Anything you say counter to that point is just you being in denial about Apple's practices.

Again, to re-iterate, the problem is NOT that Apple copies other companies, the problem is that Apple sues companies for doing the exact same thing that Apple openly does and always has. Its a total double standard, and is complete BS and a waste of time and money on legal systems all over the world.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: More FRAND abuse
By retrospooty on 2/5/2012 8:20:04 AM , Rating: 2
You are such a blind Apple fan its not even funny. They clearly can do no wrong in your eyes.

Lets look at your double standard then.

Apple copies Treo.

Putting OS and apps on a touchscreen phone - check
Grid layout with icons - check
Commonly used tasks on the bottom toolbar - check
(now if you want to get deeper into specific features, this list can grow too huge to type, but I think this drives the point).

Samsung copies Apple (this is hypothetical assuming they didnt copy their own digital pic frame)

Color same - check
Edges similar -check
Overall look similar - check

Wow, Apple is looking really petty now. Good thing they are losing all these cases.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/6/12, Rating: -1
RE: More FRAND abuse
By retrospooty on 2/6/2012 7:35:40 AM , Rating: 2
"And losing which cases? The only cases they are losing are the FRAND patents (essential for any smartphone devices) for which there isn't even a question over whether they have to license them or not? The only company who actually lost so far is Samsung who had to redesign the device to a non-blatantly-ripped off version in order to get around the still-in-place ban on the Galaxy Tab. "

I think most of the rest of this is responded to in the other thread, but as far as what lawsuits. I dont think the article above lists them all, just the ones that were linked here at AT/DT, but , for example:

"Overseas the U.S. has similarly smacked down Apple's request to ban Motorola's product and Samsung's products. U.S. courts have only agreed to tentatively ban HTC Corp.'s (TPE:2498) oldest Froyo smartphones in 2012 -- a meaningless victory for Apple as HTC can simply update (or more likely stop selling these aged models). Even Australia, who initially banned Samsung's Android Galaxy Tab 10.1 at Apple's bequest, saw a higher court smack down the ban stating that the judge who delivered it had grossly misinterpreted the law."


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/6/2012 10:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
Those cases are Apple claiming infringements elsewhere, nothing to do with Apple infringing. Since our debate is about you claiming Apple copies, they are absolutely irrelevant.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By retrospooty on 2/6/2012 11:55:56 AM , Rating: 2
sure, when you ignore all that Apple copies, it is totally irrelevant. Nuff said.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/7/2012 9:45:41 AM , Rating: 1
Retrospooty, FRAND patents by their very nature HAVE to be 'copied' - indeed they are the result of setting standards with the very aim that ALL manufacturers use that technology to create a standard.

Every single phone has the same technology inside them, and licenses the same FRAND patent. It's not copying.

Apple has gotten into trouble not over copying, but over failing to pay FRAND rates in advance, and refusing to pay above-FRAND rates for not having paid FRAND rates in the past.

Accusing someone of having failed to license a FRAND patent is NOT accusing someone of having 'copied' you.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By Tony Swash on 2/4/12, Rating: -1
RE: More FRAND abuse
By retrospooty on 2/4/2012 7:30:35 AM , Rating: 2
Apple competes just fine, no doubt. Its the fact that Apple copies others tech and is fine with it, then sues other companies for doing the same thing that is the issue. For all your over zealous excuses for Apple, you have none for that.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: More FRAND abuse
By retrospooty on 2/4/2012 3:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
"What Samsung did, was like copying the entire car and adding a 'Samsung' name on the side"

The link I posted above shows that Samsung has the exact same look first.

"THAT is the problem, and THAT is the kind of copying which is illegal."

There arent alot of options on a phone with a large touchscreen. They all look alike. Apple copied Palm far FAR more than Samsung or any other company copied Apple. But if you are saying that, outside of the internal tech that Apple copied and the product looks like iPhone/iPad, Samsung had it first. If anything Apple copied Samsung (which, I remind you is perfectly fine). The double standard must die.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/5/12, Rating: -1
RE: More FRAND abuse
By retrospooty on 2/5/2012 8:12:29 AM , Rating: 2
"Sorry, but saying this repeatedly with no evidence whatsoever is just completely idiotic. Did Palm create an iPhone first"

Uhh... Google the word Treo and Tungsten. Looks at some pics and read the product into. Proof.

The rest of your post is just crap.


"Again, please show me the EQUIVALENT PURPOSE device which apple produced AFTER Samsung did, which looks identical?"


Oh, OK, so you think the Samsung device looks more like and iPad, and all that matters is looks (cough Apple fanboy) and not internal tech being copied. OK, well lets go with that. Samsung could just as easily be using their own prior art from their own digital pic frame as a source for the Samsungdesign.

"They deserve to be in trouble for it. "

Actually Apple is pretty unanimously losing these fruitless cases all over the world so that should be your first clue.

Now, lets take a look at you. Clicking on your name reveals the fact that you dont really much of anything here that isnt in defense of Apple. This puts you down as annother blind Apple fanboy that doesnt think rationally, you are here only to defend Apple and really have no other purpose. This alone makes any real conversation with you pointless.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/6/2012 3:59:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Uhh... Google the word Treo and Tungsten. Looks at some pics and read the product into. Proof. The rest of your post is just crap.


So which one of these 'iPhone originals' should we not be able to tell apart from the iPhone?

http://palmaddict.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized...

To save you some time, the answer is that no device which came out before the iPhone was even remotely similar. It was an innovative, ground breaking device. To even compare the phones that I linked is insulting to anyone with eyes.

quote:
Oh, OK, so you think the Samsung device looks more like and iPad, and all that matters is looks (cough Apple fanboy) and not internal tech being copied. OK, well lets go with that. Samsung could just as easily be using their own prior art from their own digital pic frame as a source for the Samsungdesign.


I didn't specify that 'all that matters is looks' - but it certainly matters, whether internals matter or not. I am not the only one who thinks the Galaxy Tab looks like an iPad, look at that link showing how it's similar, or look no further than the Samsung lawyer who couldn't tell them apart. Whether or not they created a picture frame in the past which looks similar, as I already explained to you, is completely irrelevant. Apple was the one who made a tablet with that design first. That is the only relevant fact. Samsung duplicated that design to the point that their OWN lawyer couldn't tell it apart. That is breaching copyright. Simple, obvious.

Now, in terms of internals - some internal technology can be licensed, some internal technology HAS to be licensed (FRAND), and some internal technology can be DUPLICATED using alternative technology. So specifically, what are you claiming Apple copied? Every claim you made before eg Software, Touch screen, are also therefore 'copied' by every Android phone, meaning that in your opinion they should be banned? No - because nobody owns the rights to the idea of using a touch screen device, or to installing software. People DO own the rights to their designs though, and this is in true in basically every manufacturing field.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By retrospooty on 2/6/2012 7:31:25 AM , Rating: 2
"Every claim you made before eg Software, Touch screen, are also therefore 'copied' by every Android phone, meaning that in your opinion they should be banned?"

I am not saying anything should be banned, including Apple products. Again, the issue here is NOT that companies copy other companies, they all do it. The issue is that Apple sues other companies for doing the same thing Apple does and has always done. I believe in a free market and that companies should be competing based on products they make and the prices they sell at, not how good their lawyers are. Too see one company so blindly doing it while suing others for doing it is ridiculous.

Here is where your blind fanboyism and always taking Apple's side makes it impossible to have a real conversation with you. You cant even see (or admit you see) that what Apple is doing is totally hypocritical. You just pick a "seam" in the argument and go with it as if nothing else matters. OK, Samsung had a couple of products that looked like Apple. You say its about prior art, I say its about tech. You say it's a visual copy, I show you a link to a 2006 product of Samsungs that looks the same, you say looks only count when its the same product and that Samsungs prior art doesnt count, because a digital picture frame is not a tablet. I say it shows prior art, you say, its a different size LCD and has larger borders? LOL . It sounds alot like you are taking Apples side just to take Apples side. Visually speaking, they are both an LCD with a case and some internal tech... There arent a whole lot of ways to go with an LCD. In a sense they all look alike.

I'm not going to sit here and argue about Samsung though. The truth is , I dont work there and I dont know. Also, I dont care. The issue I take point with is all of Apple's frivolous lawsuits, not just one.

Apple makes a good product with a lot of merits. They obviously sell alot and make a large profit. They are more than capable of competing in the market, without all the lawsuits. Surely you can agree with that.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/6/2012 11:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am not saying anything should be banned, including Apple products. Again, the issue here is NOT that companies copy other companies, they all do it. The issue is that Apple sues other companies for doing the same thing Apple does and has always done.


This is not true.

In the case with Samsung, Apple won the case because the Galaxy Tab was visually almost identical to the iPad. I don't recall a company ever suing Apple for not having come up with their own design.

Whilst I agree with you that technology itself is naturally copied and ideas are gained from other manufacturers (exactly like Steve Jobs said) - I do NOT agree that copying a design so blatantly is the same thing, and I do NOT agree that it should be allowed.

You want to talk about a free market? The free market revolves around the principle that smaller guys can manufacturer a unique device and their design cannot be legally copied by massive corporates at a fraction of the price. The free market revolves around there being a wide range of different devices which aren't all built to exactly the same design. In EVERY free market the manufacturer is entitled to protect its design rights, and that is why I am siding with Apple in this case.

quote:
Here is where your blind fanboyism and always taking Apple's side makes it impossible to have a real conversation with you. You cant even see (or admit you see) that what Apple is doing is totally hypocritical. You just pick a "seam" in the argument and go with it as if nothing else matters. OK, Samsung had a couple of products that looked like Apple. You say its about prior art, I say its about tech.


As much as I find myself disagreeing with the sea of illogical Apple-hatred on this site, and that may portray me as an Apple fan, I am far from it. I have only ever owned 2 Apple devices, an iPhone 4 and a Macbook Air (new) which I run Windows on. I was looking forward to the Nexus and the Razr only to be disappointed, and now I hope the SG3 is finally a compelling alternative to the iPhone 4S. I am completely impartial and objective, and only on this site does that come across as being a fan-boy, and that is purely to the incredible bias which even Jason Mick has, and I would argue you have. You say that you say it's about tech? How is it about tech when Samsung copies the design of a product, absolutely, right down to the packaging? Nobody is saying the tech is the same in this case. And nobody is saying that tech copying should not be a reason to sue either, but it's painfully obvious that in the case of Samsung, it blatantly ripped off the entire Apple product line, with very little thought going into the design. As a consumer, that frustrates me, I want to see something BETTER, not a cheap rip-off. I absolutely agree with the courts decision which will encourage Samsung to innovate next time.

quote:
You say it's a visual copy, I show you a link to a 2006 product of Samsungs that looks the same, you say looks only count when its the same product and that Samsungs prior art doesnt count, because a digital picture frame is not a tablet. I say it shows prior art, you say, its a different size LCD and has larger borders? LOL .


1 - The fact that the thickness of the borders is different does actually make a massive difference. It makes the devices distinguishable. Take a look at the revised Galaxy Tab 10.1N - it has slightly different border and the court has ruled it can go on sale. When a device is such an identical rip-off that even their lawyers can't tell it apart, any small change matters.
2 - The court also cited dimensions and size as reasons why the two tablets were too similar. Clearly a larger or smaller device can easily be distinguished, and that is the issue here.
3 - The purpose of the device is clearly relevant too - it's not prior art if it doesn't do the same thing.
4 - If you were right, the Samsung legal team would have claimed prior art (I don't believe they did) and successfully won the case (Which they didn't). This alone means that the legal system agrees with me, and that is impartial, so who is the fan boy?

quote:
It sounds alot like you are taking Apples side just to take Apples side. Visually speaking, they are both an LCD with a case and some internal tech... There arent a whole lot of ways to go with an LCD. In a sense they all look alike.


This simply isn't true. With a little bit of design input, Samsung was able to produce a tablet which wasn't infringing. Similarly, every other manufacturer who actually created their own design wasn't successfully sued. Proving your points wrong. The claims of 'round corners' and 'minimalist' are not the reality of why the court ruled in Apples favour.

quote:
I'm not going to sit here and argue about Samsung though. The truth is , I dont work there and I dont know. Also, I dont care. The issue I take point with is all of Apple's frivolous lawsuits, not just one. Apple makes a good product with a lot of merits. They obviously sell alot and make a large profit. They are more than capable of competing in the market, without all the lawsuits. Surely you can agree with that.


I judge each lawsuit on its own merits. Sometimes Apple may go after a company with little reason, but I never find any shortage of people who have already commented to that effect on those articles. Where I do find myself disagreeing, is where people assume that just because Apple arguably makes SOME frivolous lawsuits, that therefore they all must be. I strongly dislike the way Samsung ripped off the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad, and it's nothing fan-boy related, the phone I bought instead of a 3GS was a Samsung Omnia (which was god awful by the way).

I think their capability to compete in the market without the lawsuits is both true, obvious, and irrelevant. Just because a company 'can' compete without lawsuits, doesn't mean that they should just allow another company to so blatantly copy a product. Believe it or not, I would say exactly the same thing if Apple had copied Samsung.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By retrospooty on 2/6/2012 11:58:46 AM , Rating: 2
" I am completely impartial and objective, and only on this site does that come across as being a fan-boy, and that is purely to the incredible bias which even Jason Mick has, and I would argue you have."


Now this is hilarious... It looks like for the most part that is all you do here is defend Apple. You hjust happen to take Apple's side on any and every point, but no, you are totally objective LOL.

Let’s just sum this whole thing up... I say Apple is hypocritical and blatantly copies others and sues when others copy Apple. You say it’s about prior art with Samsung, I say it’s about tech that Apple copied. You ignore all Apple's copying or justify it because Jobs says it’s OK and artfully done, and you say it's about Samsung directly copying an Apple product. I show you a link to a 2006 product of Samsungs that looks the same, you say looks only count when it’s the same product type and that Samsungs prior art doesn’t count, because a digital picture frame is not a tablet. I say it shows prior art, you say it’s a different size LCD and has larger borders so prior art only counts when it’s the exact same product type and size.

Can you not see how obvious it is that you are blindly on Apple's side no matter what. Summing up your whole argument to its base: Copying is OK when done the way Apple does it. Copying Apple is not OK. Suing is OK when Apple does it, but suing Apple is not OK. Ya, no double standard there at all. You ignore anything negative Apple does, while you concentrate on anything negative the competition does.

How can anyone take you seriously, when all you do here is take Apple's side no matter what the issue is? Look at your posting history. It's pretty much all that you do here. This leads me to one of two conclusions. 1. You are a loyal fanboy who is blindly defending anything and everything Apple does to try to change people's minds about Apple. or 2. You have some vested interest in Apple so you are blindly defending anything and everything Apple does to try to change people's minds about Apple. Neither of these options are lend to your ability to have any sort of real debate about anything. You are too transparently agenda driven to have an actual conversation.

End of story, you have been pwned and outed.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/7/2012 9:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now this is hilarious... It looks like for the most part that is all you do here is defend Apple


... as I explained.. there is a clear anti-Apple bias on this site. Whenever there is something bad to say about Apple, you can guarantee it's already been said. When people go too far, and continue to say bad things when they may not be justified, that's when I step in. I would do the same for Android too, but due to the aforementioned bias, this hardly ever happens. Just because I defend Apple in *SOME* cases, doesn't mean I defend them unconditionally.

quote:
I say Apple is hypocritical and blatantly copies others and sues when others copy Apple.


Sorry, what has Apple copied? I'm still waiting on that? You listed some devices which have none of the same technology and look nothing like the iPhone, so I don't see where Apple has been sued for copying a device?

quote:
You say it’s about prior art with Samsung


It's not 'prior art' in this context. It's design rights. As the court said, the design of the Tab 10.1 was too similar to the iPad.

quote:
You ignore all Apple's copying or justify it because Jobs says it’s OK and artfully done


Sorry, again, but what copying? FRAND cases are not about copying, they are about licensing disputes. Feel free to show the cases Apple lost which were about them copying other devices?

quote:
I show you a link to a 2006 product of Samsungs that looks the same, you say looks only count when it’s the same product type and that Samsungs prior art doesn’t count, because a digital picture frame is not a tablet. I say it shows prior art, you say it’s a different size LCD and has larger borders so prior art only counts when it’s the exact same product type and size. Can you not see how obvious it is that you are blindly on Apple's side no matter what.


So, I'm biased towards Apple.

As are the Samsung lawyers who didn't even try to claim that a picture frame was relevant prior are.

As are the judges who made the decision to ban the Galaxy Tab.

But you are completely impartial, despite holding a completely different view to all of those professionals? OK.

quote:
Summing up your whole argument to its base: Copying is OK when done the way Apple does it. Copying Apple is not OK. Suing is OK when Apple does it, but suing Apple is not OK. Ya, no double standard there at all. You ignore anything negative Apple does, while you concentrate on anything negative the competition does.


Again, your whole argument starts out with the premise that Apple has copied something (and illegally so). The reality is that you haven't presented any evidence that they have copied. We've been over FRAND and why that's not the same thing. Feel free to demonstrate in which legal case Apple were judged to have been copying another device.

If Apple had ripped off a Samsung tablet, I would have exactly the same opinion. It's not about caring about companies, I don't care about any of them, I only care about myself.

quote:
How can anyone take you seriously, when all you do here is take Apple's side no matter what the issue is? Look at your posting history. It's pretty much all that you do here.


I've already explained why this is in my first comment above.

quote:
1. You are a loyal fanboy who is blindly defending anything and everything Apple does to try to change people's minds about Apple


I have only ever owned 2 Apple devices - an iPhone 4 and a Macbook Air, on which I run windows. I don't care which company makes the best devices, but when I bought, I bought because they happened to be the best, in my opinion, at the time. Are you seriously being so absurd to suggest that just because I believe Samsung shouldn't replicate a tablet exactly, and because I know the difference between FRAND patents and design rights, that I'm biased? That is ridiculous.

quote:
2. You have some vested interest in Apple so you are blindly defending anything and everything Apple does to try to change people's minds about Apple


I have no vested interest in Apple. I'm not even going to explain to you why I could just as easily cite your clear irrational Apple hatred or explain to you the reasons why that blinds you.

quote:
You are too transparently agenda driven to have an actual conversation. End of story, you have been pwned and outed.


If only saying something would make it true, hey?

If only it would take back all the logical comments I've made proving my case, or add ANY relevant logic to any of yours.

Bless.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By Cheesew1z69 on 2/7/2012 10:33:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I would do the same for Android too
Absolute horseshit....You about about as Apple as they come...

quote:
doesn't mean I defend them unconditionally.
Again, absolute horseshit as that's ALL you do...

quote:
So, I'm biased towards Apple
No shit Sherlock...it's QUITE obvious...


RE: More FRAND abuse
By retrospooty on 2/7/2012 11:45:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I would do the same for Android too
Absolute horseshit....You about about as Apple as they come...

quote:
doesn't mean I defend them unconditionally.
Again, absolute horseshit as that's ALL you do..."


Exactly... The guy says he only ever had 2 Apple products, and that may well be true. But one thing cannot be denied. The only thing he does here at AT/DT is defend anything and everything Apple says, does,makes and sues... Then claims to be partial while omitting valid arguments and concentrating on the small picture... Sound like Pirks to me.

I may not be the most impartial person, I do prefer Android and I do lean toward them, but I can at least see the other side. Apple does make some good products that people want to buy. They arent bad quality, and are very usable. The greatest thing about Apple is they do innonvate. Not always, and not in every product, but they do change things for the better, as is the case with the iPhone's initial release. They raised hte bar by a large margin with the usability factor. Prior to that, smartphones were highly useful, productive, professional, mobile and awful to use. Apple made it nice to use, and anyone using Winmobile 7, Android, WebOS or future QNX phones owes them a big thank you for forcing the competition to raise their games.

With that said, they did NOT invent the touchscreen, multitouch, nor the smartphone, nor the color black, or the shape rectangle and need to shove these lawsuits up their collective arses. They copy others as much as any company, and that isnt a bad thing. Only the lawsuits are bad.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By eskimospy on 2/4/2012 11:04:10 AM , Rating: 3
It's easy to make lots of money when you don't have to spend your time researching innovative technologies and instead choose to steal them from your more creative competitors.

Apple should compete using its own technology, not technology stolen from other companies.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By JediJeb on 2/4/2012 3:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
If you charge twice as much you only have to gain 35% more sales to make 75% more profits. If you charge 10 times as much then you only need 7.5% more sales.

Apples success revolves around being able to overprice a product then convince enough people to buy it. Seems Steve not only took Picasso's philosophy but some from P.T Barnum as well.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By Solandri on 2/3/2012 7:36:03 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that it's abuse of F/RAND. But you do realize the logical consequence if things happen as you predict, right?

Nobody will license their patents under F/RAND anymore. They will keep their IP to themselves, and require all manufacturers to license them independently. The standards bodies will become useless, because nobody will be willing to let their patented technology become part of a standard. You'll get the balkanized mess that's in the U.S. (GSM vs. CDMA), only worse.

The real solution here is to recognize that certain patents are more important, more crucial to technological progress than others. A patent which enables a new technology should be fairly high on that list. A patent for rounded corners should be near the bottom. Right now, both patents are equally capable of getting products banned from the market. And because of this F/RAND business the F/RAND technology patent is actually worth less than the design patent.

Either the punishments for a violation need to be changed to reflect how much a type of patent contributes to technology, or the bar for a design patent violation raised much higher than for a technology patent. The latter is why this nonsense isn't happening in the U.S. A design patent in the U.S. can only be ornamental. If the design serves a function (rounded corners prevent the product from poking and cutting things), then it's not a valid design patent.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/4/12, Rating: -1
RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/4/2012 9:12:50 AM , Rating: 1
And further evidence of my disproving of your 'round corners' claim is that the Galaxy Tab 10.1N which Samsung redesigned, and was deemed not to be infringing, still had round corners.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 9:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
There's no F/RAND "abuse" going on here because FRAND isn't some concrete legally binding law like Tony and other Apple fans make it out to be. There's no legal precedence to spell out what the actual terms mean (fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory), or how they can be enforced. FRAND is more like a gentleman's agreement.

Basically Apple overturned the ban by claiming Motorola is refusing to license on "reasonable" terms, when there's no such legal definition or requirements for what "reasonable" is.

Apple is exploiting a grey area. Don't fool yourself into thinking they are in the right on this.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By Tony Swash on 2/4/12, Rating: -1
RE: More FRAND abuse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 11:14:14 AM , Rating: 1
No Tony.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By messele on 2/4/2012 1:44:28 PM , Rating: 1
Yes Tony.

Moto are demanding 2.5% of revenue from every device Apple sold with the supposed infringement.

The question is, are moto also demanding 2.5% of revenue from every other company that they are licensing their tech to, or are they, as is usual, charging a fixed fee to others of x amount per unit?

I rather suspect that because Apple's devices are generally more expensive per unit they have actually decided that greed is the way forward and think that this minor patent is actually worth 1/40th of the value of the entire iPhone or iPad. This is plainly discriminatory, a bit like charging black basketball players per foot of height to ride the bus, when the Snow White cast get on after them and pay 1/3rd the amount.

It's a good thing perhaps that every patent license does not cost 1/40th the value of a device. I don't think current features would look so clever if that were the case.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 1:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Moto are demanding 2.5% of revenue from every device Apple sold with the supposed infringement.


Sounds "reasonable" to me.

quote:
The question is, are moto also demanding 2.5% of revenue from every other company that they are licensing their tech to, or are they, as is usual, charging a fixed fee to others of x amount per unit?


"Other companies" aren't costing Moto profits. By Apple engaging in a legal battle that's virtually universally agreed to be frivolous, they are hurting Moto's business directly. Thus Apple should help recoup these costs.

quote:
This is plainly discriminatory


That's your opinion. There are absolutely no legal guidelines or determinations of what is considered to be "reasonable" or "fair", thus your accusation is unfounded.

Damn I'm good. I should be a lawyer!


RE: More FRAND abuse
By messele on 2/4/12, Rating: 0
RE: More FRAND abuse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/4/2012 2:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thinking that demanding 1/40th of the value of something that probably uses hundreds of licensed patents is sustainable is wrong, when it is clearly mathematically impossible, never mind the legal angle.


Right that's way more unreasonable than trying to ban entire lines of competing products for vague stylistic reasons!

Mathematically impossible? A total lie. Apple has billions and makes 300% profit on every phone. That fee is not only possible, but very reasonable all things considered.

I love how you people are having a circle jerk of the potential precedence for FRAND abuse. When what you should be concerned about is the precedent for being able to ban entire consumer products, and muscle out competitors from a market, based on such vague and nondescript criteria. I ask you, which one has more far reaching consequences?


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/5/2012 3:50:33 AM , Rating: 2
My god, you're one big walking fail aren't you.

The original post said that apple probably uses 'hundreds' of patents, and therefore to ask for 1/40th of the device for each patent is mathematically impossible - and of course, your tiny little undereducated brain completely missed this, and you think saying '300%' profit matters? Bless.

'Right that's way more unreasonable than trying to ban entire lines of competing products for vague stylistic reasons!'

The entire device, right down to its packaging was ripped off, and guess what, the COURT (impartial) agreed with Apple. That says it all, Samsung copied.

'When what you should be concerned about is the precedent for being able to ban entire consumer products, and muscle out competitors from a market, based on such vague and nondescript criteria. I ask you, which one has more far reaching consequences?'

The FRAND patents, clearly. That's why they are FRAND patents - [atents which are generally standards related which are pretty much necessary to build a standards compliant device which can work with other devices. The requirement to not just copy someone elses design, on the other hand, is perfectly logical, and entirely in line with every other industry. You don't need to copy the design exactly to produce a competing product - and indeed you shouldn't. Samsung was able to get around the ban by actually doing some of their design work for once - they should have just done this in the first place.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/5/2012 3:56:00 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and by the way, it's jerk OFF, not of, and Apple fans are not alone in viewing the FRAND abuse as wrong, the EU are already investigating Samsung for exactly that and are widely anticipated to investigate Motorola too.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2012 8:00:26 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The original post said that apple probably uses 'hundreds' of patents, and therefore to ask for 1/40th of the device for each patent is mathematically impossible - and of course, your tiny little undereducated brain completely missed this, and you think saying '300%' profit matters? Bless.


Which was a stupid point because we're not talking about "hundreds" of patents here, we're talking about ONE. My "tiny" brain simply chose to dismiss your wild analogy that will never happen as wild speculation.

quote:
the EU are already investigating


As if anyone views the EU as an unbiased and credible legal authority anymore when it comes to technology firms.

There's no "FRAND abuse" going on here. It's alleged. Hence the "investigation", which I'm sure will result in another typically ignorant conclusion by the EU.

These are the same people who criminalized Microsoft for giving Windows users a free bundled browser.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/5/2012 9:23:33 AM , Rating: 2
We're talking about 1 patent AMONGST hundreds.

Therefore it could NEVER BE REASONABLE for all of the patents to cost 1/40th of the sales price of the device.

LOL @ accusing the whole EU of being unbiased? Ridiculous.

You're 'alleging' that there is no 'FRAND abuse' going on. The EU clearly believes there is enough evidence to bring your claim into question.

And by the way, IE is bundled with Windows in Europe. Educate yourself please.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2012 11:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The EU clearly believes there is enough evidence to bring your claim into question.


They also ordered Apple to pull the offending products off the shelves first. Funny how you ignore that ruling and focus on the pro-Apple one. In my book that's called a "tie".

quote:
And by the way, IE is bundled with Windows in Europe. Educate yourself please.


It's always been bundled with Windows. EVERYWHERE! Wtf are you talking about? Only in the EU, however, is an OS coming with a free browser somehow illegal.

Why do you think this battle is taking place in the German courts? Because Apple initially picked them because their courts are completely wonky when it comes to patent issues. Like that absurd "minimalist tablet" ruling that the REST OF THE WORLD was left scratching their heads over.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/6/2012 4:06:04 AM , Rating: 2
Apple were ordered to pull the offending products from their ONLINE store, due to a FRAND patent, and not by the EU.

That decision has since been reversed by themselves anyway, as is made clear in this article, and now the EU is investigating Samsung and potentially later on Motorola for their abuse of FRAND patents. The end result is that currently Apple can sell their products, and the Galaxy Tab is still banned. If you call that a tie, then you must have been good at maths.

Even when and if any Apple devices do get banned, it's because of a licensing disagreement, over FRAND patents, nothing to do with copying or infringing patents which aren't necessary for the creation of a standards compliant device. It's just an argument over money. There's a big difference.

You ask WTF am I talking about, explain that Windows always comes with IE, and then say it's illegal? Riiiiight, ok. So while Windows continues to come with IE in the EU, it's illegal and banned? Try no - it isn't illegal in the EU. Hence the clarification of another point on which you are simply wrong.

The 'minimalist tablet' was just one example pointed out by the judge - the Galaxy Tab 10.1N is also a minimalist tablet with rounded corners. Sensationalists like you will try to mislead people by quoting those sentences, but the reality of what the judge said was that the Galaxy Tab was not sufficiently different to the iPad. Simple, obvious - it was a copy.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By JediJeb on 2/4/2012 3:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thinking that demanding 1/40th of the value of something that probably uses hundreds of licensed patents is sustainable is wrong, when it is clearly mathematically impossible, never mind the legal angle.


1/40th of the value or 1/40th of the revenue? If they were charging Apple 1/40th of the revenue and Apple wanted to pay Moto less then they just have to sell the product for less. Less revenue means less payment to Moto, and probably makes them priced closer to what they should be.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/5/2012 3:59:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are absolutely no legal guidelines or determinations of what is considered to be "reasonable" or "fair", thus your accusation is unfounded.


Another complete fail comment. There are numerous legal precedents, the most famous of which is the orange book case, go and look it up.

They concluded that if licensee has offered licensor fair and reasonable license payments, which were refused by the licensor, the licensee could use the FRAND defence if the licensor ever sued them based on use of the FRAND patent.

Go, research, learn, before you spout more complete nonsense.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2012 8:08:40 AM , Rating: 1
Testerguy everyone knows you're a Apple shill with just as much credibility as Tony or Takin. Quit talking while you're still NOT ahead.

From the years in question, Apple cleared $92 BILLION. Motorola is only asking for a cut that amounts to $2billion. Only a rabid brainwashed iTard like yourself would call that "unreasonable".

Again you keep missing the point. Those are not legal precedents, but a case by case judgement. There is still no concrete definition of "reasonable" in relation to FRAND issues.

2 billion out of nearly 100 billion is reasonable, no matter what spin you put on it. You're just another fanboi. If Apple was doing what Moto is, you would completely support them. You don't give a damn about "FRAND" and you know it.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/5/12, Rating: 0
RE: More FRAND abuse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2012 11:07:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now for the final nail in your completely illogical anti-Apple coffin - Apple and Motorola both agree what the reasonable FRAND rates are - and they are NOT the 2.5%. Motorola OPENLY ADMITS THAT IT WANTS ABOVE FRAND RATES for the restrospective licensing, and that is the 2.5%. Apple rejects this on numerous levels.


So you think it's logical to pay ZERO licensing fees for 4 years? Apple hasn't paid Motorola one red cent for patents they've been blatantly using since 2007. How can you justify that? Damn right Motorola deserves retro-active payments! Are you insane?

STOP LYING! There was never an "agreement" by Apple and Motorola because Apple, from day one, has refused to negotiate in good faith with Motorola. They haven't paid ANYTHING to these companies who made the iPhone possible, while raking in billions and billions in profits.

Your concept of FRAND, that it allows you to freely infringe tech patents for years without paying royalties whatsoever, is absurd. FRAND isn't a one way street, get a clue.

You're a shill, everyone here knows it.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/6/2012 4:10:38 AM , Rating: 2
Your questions expose your idiocy even more.

Read this sentence very carefully:

Apple and Motorola are not disputing that the FRAND rates are.

Apple has offered Motorola said FRAND rates for ALL THE TIME IT'S BEEN USING THE PATENTS, including the '4 years' you so stupidly mention (and somehow get the figure 'zero' - complete fail).

The issue is that Motorola wants to charge ABOVE THOSE FRAND rates for the historical licensing, and Apple says that the figure Motorola wants for this is unreasonable (2.5%). Furthermore, Apple says that the fact that there is an unsettled dispute over the 'damages' for late payment of the FRAND payments should not prevent them obtaining the license on FRAND terms moving forward (the very fact which would lead to a ban of their devices).

Your massive rant about how Apple hasn't paid anything is right (as no agreement has yet been reached), but your conclusion that therefore Apple is trying to not pay for the FRAND patents simply exposes how little you actually know about this case. As I said, Apple has offered FRAND rates going back and forward. Motorola has rejected this offer on the basis that they want ABOVE-FRAND payments.

So you're completely wrong in just about everything, and you call me a shill? Bless.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By DeluxeTea on 2/5/2012 2:19:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Moto are demanding 2.5% of revenue from every device Apple sold with the supposed infringement.

2.5% of a $500 iPad comes to about $12.50. For a 16GB iPhone 4S, it's about $16.25. Seems reasonable enough.
For comparison, Microsoft charges Android phone makers $10-15 per phone sold regardless of the phone's retail value for their non-FRAND patents.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/5/2012 3:54:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
2.5% of a $500 iPad comes to about $12.50. For a 16GB iPhone 4S, it's about $16.25. Seems reasonable enough.


Your opinion on what is 'reasonable' isn't relevant. If that was reasonable, though, Motorola would have to up their charges to every other manufacturer, so prices for phones would go up across the board. In other words, it's unreasonable because they are charging less to other manufacturers.

quote:
For comparison, Microsoft charges Android phone makers $10-15 per phone sold regardless of the phone's retail value for their non-FRAND patents.


Your own sentence proves you wrong.....
1 - $10-15 is less than what you describe as being 'reasonable'
2 - It's for multiple patents, not just one, so you can reduce that $10-15 by a factor of..... 10? How many patents are included? Certainly more than 1.
3 - they are NON-FRAND!!! Do you not realise that licensing for NON-FRAND patents DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FAIR OR REASONABLE. FRAND patents, on the other hand, DO have to be. Do you see the difference now?


RE: More FRAND abuse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2012 8:22:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If that was reasonable, though, Motorola would have to up their charges to every other manufacturer


No you just made that up. Show me in black and white writing where FRAND royalties have to be applied equally. You can't.

In this case it's "fair" simply because Apple is so profitable that they need to pay their fair share. Apple is an unethical company which earns ridiculous amounts of profits, but refuses to pay its fair share to the companies on whose backs it stands. Pathetic.

Apple started this crap, don't go hiding behind a FRAND skirt now that you don't like how it's going.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/5/2012 9:35:18 AM , Rating: 2
Key words...

NON...

DISCRIMINATORY.

Read up on what those words mean. And guess what, it wasn't me who invented what 'FRAND' means.

FRAND patents are by their very nature essential to devices, which is why companies who own the rights to them, in this case, Motorola, cannot discriminate against companies by charging them more for the same thing (Fair , non discriminatory) or by refusing to license the patent at all (which is what Motorola is doing with regard to the license going forward).

And Apple didn't 'start' any of this 'crap' - Motorola instigated the first case, and that was after offering Apple what Apple says is an 'unreasonable' license offer which was in breach of the FRAND terms.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2012 10:52:40 AM , Rating: 2
It's not discriminatory. It's simply scaled fairness :) What might be fair for a tiny company like HTC, isn't necessarily fair for a giant like Apple. For them it's getting off Scott free.

Your idea of "fair" is Motorola taking it up the ass. They made an offer, and Apple rejected it. Until some agreement can be made, Apple is violating FRAND by continuing the sell the devices in question. That's why there was a ban in the first place. Remember that? That's the whole point of patents. Hell you think everyone is "copying" from Apple anyway, so how in the hell can you be objective?

Motorola went to Apple as far back as 2007 to work out a deal. Apple has, and still, refused to negotiate in good faith. Do you REALLY think Motorola is the bad guy when as far back as 2007 Apple refused to negotiate with them? Nobody but you would! It's clear Apple thinks they deserve a free ride, to stand on the shoulders of giants who made this technology, and not pay their fair share.

I don't understand why you Apple trolls hang around here. You, Taking, Tony. Everyone has made it clear they think you're idiots, but you keep hanging around trying to push some pro-Apple agenda that nobody but you buys into.

If Apple want's a monopoly on the smartphone market, they can develop their own damn 3G standards and technologies. Until then, pay the piper.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By messele on 2/5/2012 3:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
*facepalm* are you really that thick or is this some sort of hidden camera jape?


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/6/2012 4:16:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's not discriminatory. It's simply scaled fairness :) What might be fair for a tiny company like HTC, isn't necessarily fair for a giant like Apple. For them it's getting off Scott free.


Non discriminatory means not discriminating based on who you are dealing with. It therefore means that Motorola should charge everyone the same. Which, by the way, Motorola and Apple already agree on. So everyone agrees, basically, except you..

Motorola did make an offer, but on terms which do not match the FRAND terms which Apple and Motorola now agree are acceptable, according to Apple. Therefore Apple had little choice but to reject.

They have continually maintained that they offered FRAND rates back then, and they have offered FRAND rates going backwards and forwards in this case too.

Motorola has rejected FRAND rates saying that they deserve ABOVE-FRAND rates, and are trying to get the devices banned on this basis - the same reason they will very likely find themselves under investigation.

Apple has never claimed they are entitled to a free ride, that's just something you make up because you're biased.

Motorola signed a FRAND declaration indicating that they could never refuse to license the patents because they were essential to building standards-compliant devices. Apple has offered Motorola FRAND rates going backwards and going forwards.

Motorola is demanding excessive damages going backwards, far above FRAND rates, and is also seeking to ban the devices going forward by refusing to license at FRAND rates going forward. Both of which are in breach of FRAND terms, and both of which are why the ban has since been lifted.

You describe everyone who corrects you as a troll? Please, inform yourself.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By DeluxeTea on 2/5/2012 11:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your opinion on what is 'reasonable' isn't relevant. If that was reasonable, though, Motorola would have to up their charges to every other manufacturer, so prices for phones would go up across the board. In other words, it's unreasonable because they are charging less to other manufacturers.

Do you even have proof of what Motorola is charging other manufacturers? Or is this just coming out of your ass?

quote:
Your own sentence proves you wrong..... 1 - $10-15 is less than what you describe as being 'reasonable'

Apple charges $650 per unlocked iPhone. 2.5% of it is about $16.25. Let's say a $300 unlocked Android phone will get taxed by MS $10. That's 3.33% right there. A $15 charge is 5%.
quote:
2 - It's for multiple patents, not just one, so you can reduce that $10-15 by a factor of..... 10? How many patents are included? Certainly more than 1.

If Android makers didn't want to pay MS, they could have just changed the feature/s deemed infringing. In Apple's case, they have no choice but to pay up.
quote:
3 - they are NON-FRAND!!! Do you not realise that licensing for NON-FRAND patents DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FAIR OR REASONABLE. FRAND patents, on the other hand, DO have to be. Do you see the difference now?

To quote you:
quote:
Your opinion on what is 'reasonable' isn't relevant.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/6/2012 4:27:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you even have proof of what Motorola is charging other manufacturers? Or is this just coming out of your ass?


I don't need proof of the figure they are charging other manufacturers to prove my point. Motorola themselves admit that they are asking for ABOVE-FRAND rates in this case against Apple. Game, set and match. And who, ironically, is talking about stuff coming out of asses? Fool. ;-)

quote:
Apple charges $650 per unlocked iPhone. 2.5% of it is about $16.25. Let's say a $300 unlocked Android phone will get taxed by MS $10. That's 3.33% right there. A $15 charge is 5%.


The value of the device which is built around a technology is not relevant when assessing the value of that technology in particular. Not only that, is it unknown at the point of licensing what the cost of the final device is actually going to be, to both parties. Finally, and logically, of course a patent should not cost more just because they build in a more expensive screen. Basic common sense.

quote:
If Android makers didn't want to pay MS, they could have just changed the feature/s deemed infringing. In Apple's case, they have no choice but to pay up.


How stupid that you say this? It proves my point.. the whole point about FRAND and them having to be fair and reasonable is that they are ESSENTIAL and so cannot be prohibitively expensive. In Androids case, they can be more expensive because they are non-essential. Totally idiotic comment... Furthermore, you still haven't addressed the fact that there are more than 1 patents in that cost, and that those patents don't have to be 'Fair and Reasonable' in the way that the FRAND ones do.

quote:
quote: 3 - they are NON-FRAND!!! Do you not realise that licensing for NON-FRAND patents DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FAIR OR REASONABLE. FRAND patents, on the other hand, DO have to be. Do you see the difference now?

To quote you: quote: Your opinion on what is 'reasonable' isn't relevant.


I am trying to think if you could possibly look more stupid right now? Pointing out to you that FRAND patents, by their very definition, have to be licensed at reasonable rates, and that non-FRAND patents, by definition, do not have to be licensed at reasonable rates, in no way, shape or form even comes close to voicing any opinion on what is reasonable. It's an obvious logical fact.

You, on the other hand, DID voice an irrelevant opinion that 2.5% was fair and reasonable, and were kindly educated that your opinion doesn't matter at all.

As has already been explained to you, even Motorola can see that, and recognises that it is asking for above-Frand rates, but you're still way too slow to get that.
Most stupid reply ever, lol.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By DeluxeTea on 2/6/2012 8:57:31 AM , Rating: 1
Quite a bit of ad hominem attacks peppering your post - you seem to be quite fond of it once you've been backed into a corner. No use rebutting your points one by one if it's filled with personal attacks. Makes you look more of a fool too, getting so riled up once your beloved Apple is being criticized. :-)

I won't be replying to this thread anymore. Claim this "victory" if you want, my perception of you as being a dumb blind Apple zealot won't change. And frankly, I don't give shit about the opinion of any Apple fan has for me.

Oh, by the way:
quote:
I do not blindly support any company.

What a load of BS.


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/6/2012 11:15:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Quite a bit of ad hominem attacks peppering your post - you seem to be quite fond of it once you've been backed into a corner. No use rebutting your points one by one if it's filled with personal attacks.


Personal attacks (I would argue logically derived) interspersed with facts which prove you wrong.

The reason you're not answering is because the facts I presented prove you wrong, not because you got insulted, you fragile little thang ;-)

quote:
Makes you look more of a fool too, getting so riled up once your beloved Apple is being criticized.


I would argue that actually you looking like a fool is what drove the 'ad hominem' 'attacks'.

quote:
I won't be replying to this thread anymore. Claim this "victory" if you want, my perception of you as being a dumb blind Apple zealot won't change. And frankly, I don't give shit about the opinion of any Apple fan has for me.


As I said, you have been logically outdone, and you're not replying for this reason. Believe it or not, I don't care about changing your incorrect perception of me, what I do care about is people believing your drivel that Apple should be charged more than everyone else for a FRAND patent, or that Apple should pay the same for one patent which is unavoidable as Android manufacturers should pay for a whole selection which they can choose whether to pay or not.

The only reason you think it's 'BS' that I don't blindly support any company is because the facts I presented you with went against your idiotic and irrational hatred for Apple. Of course, someone with such hatred would view anyone logical as a fanboy.

;-)


RE: More FRAND abuse
By messele on 2/5/2012 10:05:54 AM , Rating: 2
...and Microsoft's fee no doubt includes a whole suite of patents that are bundled together, and let me repeat. Every device out there, no matter who makes it has hundreds of patent licensees in place.

If every single patent in isolation was charged at such a greedy percentage as Moto has concocted then nothing would be commercially viable as mathematically it would cost more in patents than the thing would be worth, no matter how much you charged for it.

That is why the 1/40th quoted earlier is significant. Are (so many) people on here really that thick that they cannot comprehend something that simple?


RE: More FRAND abuse
By testerguy on 2/5/2012 3:45:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No Tony


Most ridiculously dumb reply to a comprehensive education ever.


Germany needs money
By ApplenAndroid on 2/3/12, Rating: -1
"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki