back to article 'I'd buy that for a dollar': Apple on Moto phone patents

Apple is willing to pay to use Googorola's patented wireless technology - as long as it's no more than $1 per iPhone. The fruity firm made the offer in a filing to a Wisconsin court ahead of a patent licensing trial due to start next week. Google-owned Motorola Mobility is accused of breaking an agreement with Apple over the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

        1. elaar

          Re: What does Apple charge?

          "You're confusing FRAND/non FRAND patents and normal vs design patents."

          I think what people are trying to say is; if essential technology patents become FRAND, then shouldn't VITAL design patents also be included?

          If a company is so amazingly innovative to invent rounded corners, and this is used on pretty much all phones available today then surely it's an essential patent, whether being a technology patent or design patent.

      1. toadwarrior
        Facepalm

        Re: What does Apple charge?

        And it's not a frand patent that samsung must have. They should make people pass an IQ test before they can post here.

      2. a_been
        Thumb Down

        @EddieD

        "Getting this in the right place...

        For the record, Apple want $24 per unit from Samsung for the rounded corners"

        No Apple want $24 for Samsung imitating Apples products or did you forget when Samsungs own lawyers couldn't pick out which was a Samsung and which was an Apple product.

  1. Donald Becker

    Almost all other potential licensees are in the patent pool. Apple is not part of the patent pool, and doesn't want to be. Nor are they willing to generally cross-license.

    Being part of the patent pool is like going to a potluck party. Everyone brings a dish. There is a mechanism for payments if someone brings, say, a single cupcake. But with reasonable players, the valuations often work out so that no net payments are made. Now Apple is coming in as a party crasher. They've eaten half a plate of food, covered with ketchup they brought. When someone asks why they aren't sharing the ketchup, they say the ketchup costs $30 per serving offer $1 for the food.

    1. Steve Todd
      Stop

      Bad analogy

      But if you're going to use it then it goes something like this :

      The party organiser asks who's willing to provide food and if they will commit to charging a fair and reasonable amount for it to anyone who asks. They take a look at what's on offer and compose a menu from what's good and not too expensive.

      The party starts. Party goers are asked to pay a cover charge of, say, $10, for the food, but people who have brought food as agreed can knock this cost off of their own entrance, or not go in and take the cash. Someone like Apple turns up and pays the $10 to get in, but then Motorola says that this doesn't cover their offering and they want $200 for that. You've already eaten it? Oh dear, cough up the cash.

    2. a_been

      Apple is part of many patent pools for SEPs, It bought the main part of Nortels mobile patents.

      Are you saying that Apple should licence IOS becauce someone else want's it? Isn't that like saying "hey I like your GF, lend her to me for a night, here's some money"

      How difficult is it to undertand FRAND, SEP and patents!

  2. johnnymotel

    Not mentioned here is that the FTC is recommending the US Justice Dept. sue Google/Motorola for FRAND abuse.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      check the website

      That story is covered in another article

      http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/latest/2012/11/02/ftc_advises_us_government_sue_google_over_attempt_to_bar_competitors/

    2. a_been

      Of course it's not mentioned, the sock puppets and idiots arn't paid to point out bad news for google

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        A thumbs down for linking to another article

        Wow fanboys really are stupid.

        @ a_been - how exactly is publishing the story not pointing out bad news for Google?

        I'll say it again - fanboys really are stupid

  3. toadwarrior

    Motorola has consistently been on the losing side of these battles so it's not hard to see they are being unreasonable. A $1 tbh is more than enough considering how many units are sold.

    I'm just glad the FCC and others are starting to look after google. They're becoming exactly what ISPs wanted to be and that's the service and content provider. Tbh, their fiber network and motorola should be split off from the content side with android going along to motorola.

  4. eulampios

    Microsoft and Apple are twins

    It is not that odd now to see how Apple is similar to Microsoft in this and other affairs. Here is an algorithm that seems to apply to them now:

    1) when you find yourselves floundering in a muddy stagnant proprietary puddle, being unable to innovate. When stealing doesn't help anymore , your competitors are better, sue them for rounded corners, circular squares, rounded wheels, rubber band, exFAT long names, double-clicks or any other rocket science patents you find suitable and suable.

    2) when the competitors see this and ask to pay for their piece of cake technologies that, e.g., make cell phones cell phones, start a very audible whining noise "WTF, they make us, well known orphans, pay for our lunch, how dare they! Abuse of FRAND!!"

    3) Do not attack your comrades-in-proprietary-arms, other respectable jackals of industry. Do help them with all means at your hands and in your pockets. Use pockets of others if necessary, may outstanding jury foremen and the Great American justice system help you. Microsoft, Apple, Oracle and all the like, unite! Commemorate the life and death of SCO!

    1. Ramazan

      Re: eulampious

      Whenever you see a cop beating a guy, wherever a hungry newborn baby cries, whenever you feel FRAND ITU-T or ISO idiocy, look for me ma' -- you'll see me (c) song of young smart Alec. MS and Apple are both known to exploit deficiencies in the law and license agreements, and honestly terms of FRAND are bullshit IMNSHO, and companies who signed FRAND are idiots.

    2. a_been
      Boffin

      Re: Microsoft and Apple are twins

      Ahh, the truth comes out, the free market you hate, your just another parisite who expects others to work to provide food on your plate.

  5. Prof. Mine's A. Pint
    Childcatcher

    Ah, it's all clear now

    I've always wondered why Apple needs to charge more for average spec tech devices.

    Oh, they look pretty and have a UI that my 6 year old learned to use marginally quicker than my Android toys but "Pub Poser Value" aside, I just couldn't see where the extra money was going.

    Now that they are cutting back on R&D the answer is clear; Lawyers fees!

    It's why Apple needs iCustomers to pay more.

    Note: Before the rabid fanbois jump on this post; My home has Apple and Android phones/tabs, but since the arrival of the 'droids neither my wife or kids have bothered to recharge any of the Apple devices.

  6. Dig
    Headmaster

    Fair reasonable Non-discriminatory.

    People seem to be confusing lots of things. The cost of a chip is generally very little except when maybe first produced on a new process. The costly part is the R&D in developing that IP then getting a return for it, so a device may only cost a few $ or less but the IP may be worth tens of dollars.

    If as someone says Apple wants $24 for effectively rounded corners and a mainly screen tablet then I think it is probably fair that in order to make a phone call or transfer data is worth more after all by its nature it is essential unlike rounded corners.

    Non-Discriminatory does not mean that one company pays the same as another. It is appropriate that a company that uses more licenses than another gets a better discount or that a company with a poor credit rating pays more, so for example Samsung sells many more phones than Apple so may expect a bigger discount than Apple. Apple on the other hand don't have a good track record on paying licenses to Motorola so they may see them as a risk until proven otherwise.

    Non Discriminatory means that negotiations should be entered into in the same manner with access not conditional on different things. For example giving one player special deals based on signing early.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Unhappy Judge...

    Looks like the court case might be cancelled... judge is not happy:

    "...Apple states that it will not commit to be bound by any FRAND rate determined by the court and will not agree to accept any license from Motorola unless the court sets a rate of $1 or less for each Apple phone....

    In other words, if Apple is unsatisfied with the rate chosen by the court, it “reserves the right to refuse and proceed to further infringement litigation.” ... Despite its position, Apple maintains that it is entitled to specific performance in the form of the court determining what a FRAND rate is for Motorola’s patents. At the final pretrial conference, I asked Apple to explain why it believed the court should determine a FRAND rate even though the rate may not resolve the parties’ licensing or infringement disputes. I questioned whether it was appropriate for a court to undertake the complex task of determining a FRAND rate if the end result would be simply a suggestion that could be used later as a bargaining chip between the parties. Apple responded that the rate would resolve the dispute in this particular case, namely, whether Motorola’s license offer was FRAND and if not, what the rate should have been.

    Apple’s response was not satisfactory and did not assuage my concerns about determining a FRAND rate that may be used solely as a negotiating tool between the parties. After further consideration, I believe it would be inappropriate to grant Apple’s clarified request for specific performance."

  8. Jeff 11
    Thumb Up

    I honestly couldn't care less about the merits of the argument on either side, any bloody nose received by Apple over patents might bring a little prevailing common sense to these ridiculous spats.

    We might even go back to innovating in products instead of in the courtroom...

    1. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Apple alreadyhas a bloody nose

      Whilst it's repeatedly referring to the german court decision, that was a regional court and the recent UK one is both higher level AND binding EU-wide.

      It's a bit like trumpeting a california court decision whilst ignoring a contrary federal circuit court decision which both trumps it, and covers the same state.

      The results of ignoring the Fedreal court decision would be the same as is now happening in the EU. Apple are playing with fire when they cheek a judge. ("20 years in the Juvie Cubes!")

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like