6 ms·

Apple isn't doing anything Motorola or Samsung haven't done. The only difference is the judge's decision. #BoycottJudges!

dhughes 14y ago
AFAIK Apple is the only mobile phone corporation who refuses to pay Motorola a royalty for the fundamental patent of a "portable hand-held telephone device".
- runjake 14y ago
  Good? Because that seems absurd.
- admiralpumpkin 14y ago
  Reason: Motorola refused to offer them Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms; unlike the terms given to the rest of the licensees.
  - dhughes 14y ago
    But legally does that matter? Can a corporation pick and choose what patents/royalties or whatever they are to pay for if you use them just because the corporation deems it to be unfair?
    - sjwright 14y ago
      Absolutely, yes. And the other side is allowed to sue in court.
    - admiralpumpkin 14y ago
      Yes. It does. See recent case which was thrown out because they were trying to leverage FRAND patents inappropriately.
- raganesh 14y ago
  Let's talk about that in context. Motorola contributed some patents to a mobile telecom standard; they made a commitment to license these standard essential patents in Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms to everyone who wants to build a "portable hand-held telephone device". Motorola wants 2.25% of the sale price of each Apple device in which the standard is used. Now, if each patent contributor to the standard demands the same rate as Motorola, the outgo will be above 100%. Essentially, only those who have contributed to the patent pool can build a mobile phone. No one else can enter the market. How is that Fair, Reasonable or Non-Discriminatory? That is why there is talk about EU & FTC in US investigating Google/Motorola for anti-competitive behavior. Also, there is another interesting point here - all these patents are implemented in the baseband chip built by Qualcomm and used by Apple in its devices. Qualcomm has already paid the royalty for using Google/Motorola's patents. Now Motorola wants royalty from Apple also, for the same patents. Double-dipping anyone?
  - mongol 14y ago
    Let's see here... Motorola together with telecom companies such as Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens etc worked for decades in establishing standards and infrastructure for digital mobile phones. In this they were truly succesful, and this would not have been possible unless they had shared patents with each other that were involved in common standards. Then, much later, enters Apple and brings nothing to the table with regards to telecom technology. Why should they not pay?
    - r0s 14y ago
      > would not have been possible unless they had shared patents with each other that were involved in common standards How generous of them to establish open standards like that eyeroll.
      - Produce 14y ago
        Seriously. The whole point here seems to be that people should pay a tax because other people are doing obvious fucking shit. Fuck patents.
cooldeal 14y ago
Didn't Apple start suing Android OEMs first? If I remember correctly, there was a mutual destruction pact before then.
- Terretta 14y ago
  No, check the timeline history. Apple did not start this. The smartphone incumbents did, after Apple started eating all the profits.
  - adventureful 14y ago
    So are you saying that Samsung sued Apple first when it comes to smart phones and tablets? I would be very interested to see that case history.
  - CrazedGeek 14y ago
    Can you point to a specific case? From what I can tell, the first two major cases were Nokia v. Apple and Apple v. HTC, in October 2009 and March 2010, respectively (and Nokia's not really part of the current kerfuffle of suits).
    - Terretta 14y ago
      Months ago I outlined the history with cases here in long comments. I'll look it up again and comment here later today or tomorrow.
      - cooldeal 14y ago
        If something needs long winded comments, I am skeptical. For example, did HTC do something to litigate with Apple that caused Apple to sue HTC? I don't see anything like that. If you assert that Apple sued HTC because Nokia sued Apple first, that does not make any sense whatsoever. Nokia isn't even an Android OEM.
        sjwright 14y ago

dhughes 14y ago

AFAIK Apple is the only mobile phone corporation who refuses to pay Motorola a royalty for the fundamental patent of a "portable hand-held telephone device".

runjake 14y ago
Good? Because that seems absurd.
admiralpumpkin 14y ago
Reason: Motorola refused to offer them Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms; unlike the terms given to the rest of the licensees.
- dhughes 14y ago
  But legally does that matter? Can a corporation pick and choose what patents/royalties or whatever they are to pay for if you use them just because the corporation deems it to be unfair?
  - sjwright 14y ago
    Absolutely, yes. And the other side is allowed to sue in court.
  - admiralpumpkin 14y ago
    Yes. It does. See recent case which was thrown out because they were trying to leverage FRAND patents inappropriately.
raganesh 14y ago
Let's talk about that in context. Motorola contributed some patents to a mobile telecom standard; they made a commitment to license these standard essential patents in Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms to everyone who wants to build a "portable hand-held telephone device". Motorola wants 2.25% of the sale price of each Apple device in which the standard is used. Now, if each patent contributor to the standard demands the same rate as Motorola, the outgo will be above 100%. Essentially, only those who have contributed to the patent pool can build a mobile phone. No one else can enter the market. How is that Fair, Reasonable or Non-Discriminatory? That is why there is talk about EU & FTC in US investigating Google/Motorola for anti-competitive behavior. Also, there is another interesting point here - all these patents are implemented in the baseband chip built by Qualcomm and used by Apple in its devices. Qualcomm has already paid the royalty for using Google/Motorola's patents. Now Motorola wants royalty from Apple also, for the same patents. Double-dipping anyone?
- mongol 14y ago
  Let's see here... Motorola together with telecom companies such as Nokia, Ericsson, Siemens etc worked for decades in establishing standards and infrastructure for digital mobile phones. In this they were truly succesful, and this would not have been possible unless they had shared patents with each other that were involved in common standards. Then, much later, enters Apple and brings nothing to the table with regards to telecom technology. Why should they not pay?
  - r0s 14y ago
    > would not have been possible unless they had shared patents with each other that were involved in common standards How generous of them to establish open standards like that eyeroll.
    - Produce 14y ago
      Seriously. The whole point here seems to be that people should pay a tax because other people are doing obvious fucking shit. Fuck patents.

cooldeal 14y ago

Didn't Apple start suing Android OEMs first? If I remember correctly, there was a mutual destruction pact before then.

Terretta 14y ago
No, check the timeline history. Apple did not start this. The smartphone incumbents did, after Apple started eating all the profits.
- adventureful 14y ago
  So are you saying that Samsung sued Apple first when it comes to smart phones and tablets? I would be very interested to see that case history.
- CrazedGeek 14y ago
  Can you point to a specific case? From what I can tell, the first two major cases were Nokia v. Apple and Apple v. HTC, in October 2009 and March 2010, respectively (and Nokia's not really part of the current kerfuffle of suits).
  - Terretta 14y ago
    Months ago I outlined the history with cases here in long comments. I'll look it up again and comment here later today or tomorrow.
    - cooldeal 14y ago
      If something needs long winded comments, I am skeptical. For example, did HTC do something to litigate with Apple that caused Apple to sue HTC? I don't see anything like that. If you assert that Apple sued HTC because Nokia sued Apple first, that does not make any sense whatsoever. Nokia isn't even an Android OEM.
      - sjwright 14y ago