5 ms·

The government will step in alright and investigate Google/Motorola for anti-trust violation. Just like what is happening in the EU. And I expect them to be sev

The government will step in alright and investigate Google/Motorola for anti-trust violation. Just like what is happening in the EU. And I expect them to be severely punished. The fact is that Google/Motorola behaviour in abusing the principles of FRAND is arguably some of the worst seen in the history of the industry. Almost every single consumer electronic product would have either (a) not existed or (b) be significantly more expensive without the fair licensing of patent pools.

felipeko 14y ago
Patents/FRAND pools are just a way for big old companies tax the little guys, not for inovations, but by making an standard encumbered with patents. Completely the the opposite of what patents where supposed to do. So, in a way, FRAND is actually a abuse of the patent system in more ways than not. Because of FRAND you already have products that do not exist and products that become significantly more expensive.
- taligent 14y ago
  You clearly don't understand the significance of FRAND at all. And your last statement is pure and utter nonsense. Please list an example.
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    Please list an example. Microsoft's VC-1 is an example of something that was developed internally and released to a standards body, then was later encumbered by patents pooled by others. Adoption of Ogg Vorbis was significantly hindered by vague threats of patent encumbrance from patent pools established around international standards. WebM was threatened by MPEG-LA with an anti-VP8 patent pool.
    - ajross 14y ago
      Likewise Rambus very nearly succeeded in fooling a standards body into issuing a standard based on submarine patents (and did fool Intel into betting a generation of chipsets on it). FRAND is a good idea (well, an acceptable one anyway) that has never worked in practice. All systems can be gamed.
ajross 14y ago
You honestly think this is worse than what we've seen from Apple, Nokia, Samsung and Oracle? Seems pretty par for the course to me. Why single out one bad actor for what is clearly an endemic problem?
- Camillo 14y ago
  Afaik, Apple at least has not asserted patents covered by FRAND terms.
- taligent 14y ago
  You don't understand FRAND/patents at all. A patent will rarely impede prevent entire classes of products being made. But without FRAND many standards would never have taken off without cheap and fair licensing. No Bluetooth. No WiFi. No USB. No XBox. No iPhone. And the reason Google/Motorola is being singled out is because AFAIK nobody has done this before.
  - jkn 14y ago
    Without FRAND, standards would be fine if they required royalty-free licensing instead, which is preferable. Google/Motorola are definitely not the first to go to trial over high FRAND licensing fees (see below). The only thing remarkable with the Google/Motorola litigation against Apple and Microsoft is that it was a defensive move on being sued by Apple and Microsoft. It is true they didn't sue Motorola over FRAND patents [EDIT: or did they? see at bottom]... Not by moral virtue I think, but because their patents are far too insignificant to be required by a standard. Note that FRAND is a vague notion that doesn't say what "fair", "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory" should mean in practice. It leaves place for negotiations and even injuctions in case of infringement. Here's a good discussion of FRAND misconceptions: http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/02/fraught-issue-of-frand-ii-politics-of.html http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/02/fraught-issue-of-fran... Excerpt: Why should a company be able knowingly to use a patented technology while dragging out licensing negotiations with the patentee, secure in the knowledge that the greatest power the patentee has if agreement cannot be reached is to ask a court to rule on license terms and royalty rates? Now it's true that the fees demanded by Motorola at this stage (2.25% of the sales price) are higher than usual. But that's after Apple and Microsoft violated their obligation to contract a license for the patents, and sued Motorola over their own patents. It is also expected for a party to start with a higher asking price than what they will eventually settle on. And it is not completely out of line with other FRAND licensing fees. For example Qualcomm routinely collects over 3% of the device cost: http://www.trefis.com/company?hm=QCOM.trefis&driver=idQCOM.0080#/QCOM/n-0014/0080 http://www.trefis.com/company?hm=QCOM.trefis&driver=idQC... (from http://www.hoista.net/post/17365252561/google-wants-1-7-billion-from-unfair-iphone http://www.hoista.net/post/17365252561/google-wants-1-7-bill...) Another example is Nokia who recently settled with Apple for around 4.5% of an iPhone cost: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent-case http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia... (this was also a case of FRAND patents, see http://www.scribd.com/doc/28285432/Nokia-s-Motion-to-Dismiss-Apple-s-Implausible-Claims http://www.scribd.com/doc/28285432/Nokia-s-Motion-to-Dismiss...). How does that compare to what Motorola asks for? From the Guardian article, Nokia takes about 4.5% of the estimated average $264 cost price of an iPhone, which Apple sells to retailers and phone networks for an average of $660. Motorola asks for 2.25% of the sales price, which corresponds to 5.6% of the device cost. Not so different from the Apple-Nokia deal. EDIT: According to Motorola, Microsoft used FRAND patents to seek an injunction to block Motorola's products: http://www.itpro.co.uk/639088/motorola-slams-microsoft-patent-tactics http://www.itpro.co.uk/639088/motorola-slams-microsoft-paten... And Microsoft’s complaint with the International Trade Commission sought injunctive relief against Motorola Mobility based on Microsoft’s own standards essential patents. With its recent actions, Microsoft has simply reversed its position on FRAND in order to suit its current litigation strategy.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

felipeko 14y ago

Patents/FRAND pools are just a way for big old companies tax the little guys, not for inovations, but by making an standard encumbered with patents. Completely the the opposite of what patents where supposed to do. So, in a way, FRAND is actually a abuse of the patent system in more ways than not. Because of FRAND you already have products that do not exist and products that become significantly more expensive.

taligent 14y ago
You clearly don't understand the significance of FRAND at all. And your last statement is pure and utter nonsense. Please list an example.
- nitrogen 14y ago
  Please list an example. Microsoft's VC-1 is an example of something that was developed internally and released to a standards body, then was later encumbered by patents pooled by others. Adoption of Ogg Vorbis was significantly hindered by vague threats of patent encumbrance from patent pools established around international standards. WebM was threatened by MPEG-LA with an anti-VP8 patent pool.
  - ajross 14y ago
    Likewise Rambus very nearly succeeded in fooling a standards body into issuing a standard based on submarine patents (and did fool Intel into betting a generation of chipsets on it). FRAND is a good idea (well, an acceptable one anyway) that has never worked in practice. All systems can be gamed.

ajross 14y ago

You honestly think this is worse than what we've seen from Apple, Nokia, Samsung and Oracle? Seems pretty par for the course to me. Why single out one bad actor for what is clearly an endemic problem?

Camillo 14y ago
Afaik, Apple at least has not asserted patents covered by FRAND terms.
taligent 14y ago
You don't understand FRAND/patents at all. A patent will rarely impede prevent entire classes of products being made. But without FRAND many standards would never have taken off without cheap and fair licensing. No Bluetooth. No WiFi. No USB. No XBox. No iPhone. And the reason Google/Motorola is being singled out is because AFAIK nobody has done this before.
- jkn 14y ago
  Without FRAND, standards would be fine if they required royalty-free licensing instead, which is preferable. Google/Motorola are definitely not the first to go to trial over high FRAND licensing fees (see below). The only thing remarkable with the Google/Motorola litigation against Apple and Microsoft is that it was a defensive move on being sued by Apple and Microsoft. It is true they didn't sue Motorola over FRAND patents [EDIT: or did they? see at bottom]... Not by moral virtue I think, but because their patents are far too insignificant to be required by a standard. Note that FRAND is a vague notion that doesn't say what "fair", "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory" should mean in practice. It leaves place for negotiations and even injuctions in case of infringement. Here's a good discussion of FRAND misconceptions: http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/02/fraught-issue-of-frand-ii-politics-of.html http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/02/fraught-issue-of-fran... Excerpt: Why should a company be able knowingly to use a patented technology while dragging out licensing negotiations with the patentee, secure in the knowledge that the greatest power the patentee has if agreement cannot be reached is to ask a court to rule on license terms and royalty rates? Now it's true that the fees demanded by Motorola at this stage (2.25% of the sales price) are higher than usual. But that's after Apple and Microsoft violated their obligation to contract a license for the patents, and sued Motorola over their own patents. It is also expected for a party to start with a higher asking price than what they will eventually settle on. And it is not completely out of line with other FRAND licensing fees. For example Qualcomm routinely collects over 3% of the device cost: http://www.trefis.com/company?hm=QCOM.trefis&driver=idQCOM.0080#/QCOM/n-0014/0080 http://www.trefis.com/company?hm=QCOM.trefis&driver=idQC... (from http://www.hoista.net/post/17365252561/google-wants-1-7-billion-from-unfair-iphone http://www.hoista.net/post/17365252561/google-wants-1-7-bill...) Another example is Nokia who recently settled with Apple for around 4.5% of an iPhone cost: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent-case http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia... (this was also a case of FRAND patents, see http://www.scribd.com/doc/28285432/Nokia-s-Motion-to-Dismiss-Apple-s-Implausible-Claims http://www.scribd.com/doc/28285432/Nokia-s-Motion-to-Dismiss...). How does that compare to what Motorola asks for? From the Guardian article, Nokia takes about 4.5% of the estimated average $264 cost price of an iPhone, which Apple sells to retailers and phone networks for an average of $660. Motorola asks for 2.25% of the sales price, which corresponds to 5.6% of the device cost. Not so different from the Apple-Nokia deal. EDIT: According to Motorola, Microsoft used FRAND patents to seek an injunction to block Motorola's products: http://www.itpro.co.uk/639088/motorola-slams-microsoft-patent-tactics http://www.itpro.co.uk/639088/motorola-slams-microsoft-paten... And Microsoft’s complaint with the International Trade Commission sought injunctive relief against Motorola Mobility based on Microsoft’s own standards essential patents. With its recent actions, Microsoft has simply reversed its position on FRAND in order to suit its current litigation strategy.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]