Googorola's desire for iPhone royalties will upset Apple cart

Hardball

Given that Steve Jobs is reported to have said that he will do what ever it takes and spend every last dollar Apple have to see that no one else makes a smart phone with a touch screen, and that since his untimely demise Apple still seem wedded to that cause. They can hardly complain if the targets of their ire aren't going to the limits allowed them by the rules to fight back.

Apple could end this whole pile of poo in an instance if they wanted too. They could offer a cross licensing deal with their competitors, just like every other player in the market place has. But they don't want too. They've said repeatedly that they do not think any competitor should be allowed to exist.

The $12.5 billion question

So thst's how Google expects to recoup the $12.5 billion they're going to pay for Motorola (and other patent troves), they'll just slap 2.5% on every 3G smartphone out there.

Apple says that "seeking an injunction would be a violation of the party's commitment to FRAND licensing".

Why does this remind me of the whole Samsung Galaxy Tab 10 fiasco? Admitedly this wasn't related to patents subject to FRAND licensing.

I wonder if Google can charge their other Android partners less while still claiming to comply with FRAND? Might conflict with the non-discriminatory part?

Or maybe they're planning to charge everyone - Android partners included - the same 2.25%? After all that was Motorola's original plan.

Take care Samsung, HTCs, LGs and others...

The thing about Apple's letter is that it gives me the impression that they want the kind patents they don't have many of (standards essential) to be free for them to use while expecting that the kind of patents that they do have (non-essential) can be used to prevent anyone else from doing similar things.

If MMI is used to licensing to companies with low-margin products, such as a $10 chip, the 2 percent may not be that significant.

I have no idea if this is how they charge other companies, but if it is,and they were to give Apple a lower percentage because of the higher selling value of the Apple product, it would be unfair to the companies who have been paying licensing fees.

Google did not start this whole mess and they're still fighting against it

...fears that the Chocolate Factory will start throwing its weight around in the courts ? That will be the F in FUD. The title of the article is misleading since Google is not seeking any licensing revenue from Apple, it just want to make sure they're not being bullied. After all it is not Google that promised to destroy Apple, it is rather the other way around.

In regard to the thorny issue of injunctions, it is a nice try from Apple which flooded their competitors with them and now they would like to not be used against them because they say it's not fair.

Let's also not forget Microsoft who handsomely taxed Android OEMs and now when it's their turn to come out with Windows tablets and phones, they are afraid to face the same music they played and they would like Google to be disarmed.

As one roman senator said more that two thousand years ago, prepare for war all of you who couldn't bear the peace.

As for citing Florian Mueller as a source, I will just leave it for other commentators to express their opinion.

Microsoft is fair?

It's all seems to be marketing tactics/words from Apple.

Obviously, slavery is deemed fair if both sides know what they are getting!

What Apple are really saying is "We don't want to bother paying licence fees until we get sued"

I hope Apple gets absolutely hammered in the courts. They started this (The radio patents are the worthwhile ones).

The reason why this has happened is because of Apple refusing FRAND terms in the past. (The Qualcomm chips in the 4S are already licensed). That is why it is 2.25% for *past* infringement.

They want FRAND now and to ignore the past. (Which is against the FRAND terms).

Larger than Apple

Cisco and Microsoft are already backing Apple's proposal too:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16960676

sick

I am so sick of copyrights and patents being being used to shut down competition that I could puke. Even with copyrights on movies being extended to 120 years by the Sonny Bono copyright changes is now keeping people from viewing old movies. I hope that the US wakes up and completely reforms it copyright and patient laws before it totally destroys innovation and the arts.

"Apple says the terms of the licence were not fair and reasonable and non-discriminatory – so it didn't accept it."

Isn't that irrelevant? If I'm not mistaken that statement would indicate that Apple knowingly and willingly violated Motorolla's patent. Surely not liking the price of a license can't be legal grounds for ignoring IP laws....or if it is then someone should probably let the guys over at Pirate Bay know about that little loophole.

MMI are being c***ts

Apple bought chips that were patent encumbered, and the chip vendor coughed up to Moto as required. Subsequently, ...

Negotiations for Licensing between Apple and Motorola

Apple’s original iPhone went on sale in June 2007. Apple’s original iPhone contained an Infineon baseband chipset, which incorporated technology covered by patents that Motorola has declared as essential. Apple purchased the Infineon baseband chipset through a manufacturing agreement with Chi Mei Corporation, which manufactured the Infineon baseband chipset under a licensing agreement with Motorola. On August 4, 2007, Motorola gave Chi Mei a 60-day suspension notice on its licensing agreement.

D. Motorola’s Termination of the Qualcomm License

On December 16, 2009, Apple and Qualcomm entered into a contract whereby Apple would purchase chipsets from Qualcomm that were compliant with the CDMA2000 standard. The chipsets incorporated technology that Qualcomm licensed from Motorola. On January 11, 2011, on the day Apple announced the Verizon iPhone 4, Motorola notified Qualcomm of its intent to terminate any and all license covenant rights with respect to Qualcomm’s business with Apple, effective February 10, 2011.

http://articles.law360.s3.amazonaws.com/0249000/249997//mnt/rails_cache/https-ecf-wiwd-uscourts-gov-cgi-bin-show_doc-pl-caseid-29810-de_seq_num-329-dm_id-3602496-doc_num-93.pdf

As usual, when Google wins, everyone else loses.

Can you give me some examples when Microsoft demanded price-gouging royalties for a FRAND patent? Or some examples of promises made to a standards organization that they subsequently violated?

On the other hand you can be sure that if Motorola/Google is successful in this ploy, then FRAND will cease to have any meaning at all, and every holder of a FRAND patent will demand the same kind of exorbitant royalties - not only Microsoft. And *you* can expect prices of electronics goods to soar, as either the exorbitant royalties will need to paid, or expensive research to find workarounds will need to be found, or competition will be restricted - or all of the foregoing. But no matter how it works out, if Google/Motorola wins with this ploy, *you* will lose.

But then again, that oh-so-clever "M$" you use, tells us that you are *already* a loser.