Source: Foss Patents
quote: So Motorola first abused it's FRAND commitment by being discriminatory and then asked a ludicrous license amount for the item. This will be struck down by the courts and bodies like the EU but it will tarnish Motorola's (and Google's) reputation.
quote: There is no evidence that anyone else pays anything like 2.5% of the value of the finished goods
quote: What evidence do you have that the particular licensing fee was ludicrous?
quote: icrosoft charges $10-$15 for its patents licensing for Android phones. That's roughly 5-10 percent of the sales revenue.
quote: Also, how is it discriminatory if Motorola offered to license directly to Apple?
quote: Either way, if Apple pays, it gets licensed -- no discrimination.
quote: Basically Apple wants to try to milk the supply chain by buying its way into certain discounted licenses (by exploiting licensing relationships between firms), while refusing to license its overly broad design and technology. That's plain anticompetitive and abusive.
quote: "Fair" is a very ambiguous term. Clearly Qualcomm was a strategic CPU supplier of Motorola, so it might offer the licensing to Qualcomm at a lower rate. If HTC got discounted FRAND CPUs, is that horrible for Motorola? No, it supports the cause.
quote: "Non-discriminatory" does not mean that a company can not license its FRAND IP at a discounted rate (less than the industry standard) or for free to key allies. It also does not mean that it HAS to license to everyone for the same rate. It merely means it cannot seek licensing ABOVE the industry standard, or deny licensing.
quote: Bor Apple -- the top smartphone maker in the world -- it likely does not want to apply the same discount, but rather wants to develop a direct (but fair) licensing relationship, so it can fully profit off its ingenuity.
quote: Seriously dumb (as ever).
quote: talking uninformed drivel again