Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Overturns Motorola's German iPad and iPhone Sales Bans

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the german-courts-love-patent-drama dept.

Iphone 120

SpuriousLogic sends this excerpt from a BBC article detailing the suspension of a sales ban on certain Apple products in Germany: "Motorola Mobility had forced Apple to remove several iPad and iPhone models from its online store [yesterday] after enforcing a patent infringement court ruling delivered in December. An appeals court lifted the ban after Apple made a new license payment offer. However, Germany-based users may still face the loss of their push email iCloud service after a separate ruling. 'A suspension like this is available only against a bond, but Apple is almost drowning in cash and obviously won't have had a problem with obtaining and posting a bond.' ... A statement from Apple said: 'All iPad and iPhone models will be back on sale through Apple's online store in Germany shortly.'" Reader DJRumpy points out that Motorola is seeking royalties of 2.25% for Apple's wireless devices in exchange for a license to use Motorola's patents.

cancel ×

120 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And that's how it is supposed to work. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38930333)

You use something someone created, you pay them for it. Then why is it when the situation is reversed, Apple says: "F*ck you! I'm going to ban it.". Just makes them seem like hypocrites and frankly, douches.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (0, Troll)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930395)

Just makes them seem like hypocrites and frankly, douches.

Doesn't matter. Just like nerds feel proud to be nerds, Apple douches feel proud to be Apple douches.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (0, Offtopic)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930409)

Do as I say, not as I do. It's a standard mantra amongst religious folk, whether following J.C. and the apostles, or S.J. and the apostles.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (3, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930655)

Do as I say, not as I do. It's a standard mantra amongst religious folk....

You may be unaware of this, but if you bring up religious zealotry at times that have absolutely nothing to do with religious zealotry, you're going to bring religious zealotry in to defend it. Understand?

Cut it out. If you want to discuss religious silliness, you need go no further than the smartphone OS wars.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38932803)

looking for the bilover?---datebi*cO'm--- is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.sign up for free.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38933175)

at times that have absolutely nothing to do with religious zealotry,

I thought it was Apple we are talking about.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38930411)

I love the pic circulating around the net. It shows one of those backscatter x-ray photos - the kind that lets you see the bones like a normal x-ray but you also see the semitransparent flesh. So anyway this pic has two x-ray photos side by side. One is a very morbidly obese person (undoubtedly American), the other is a slim person. You'll never guess what! The bones are the same size.

"I'm big boned!" Yeah sure, cuz we all know bone is jiggly and shaped like rolls of fat. On the plus side (no not plus-sized), that's one more excuse put into the trash where it belongs.

See fatties, this is really for your own good. It's called tough love. The harder it is for you to make stupid excuses that anybody with sense already knew was bogus, the more likely you are to face your terrible lack of discipline, and your inability to make simple connections like the connection between eating more calories than you burn (also known as "eating too much") and gaining weight. That's what all the lame excuses are for, because your gluttonous pride can't stand to admit just how much control you do have over it and just how much you actively chose to be what you are - fat.

Once you finally stop making dumb excuses that would insult the intelligence of a retarded dog, you can start taking constructive action to take control of your own life, lose weight, and generally stop failing at life by blaming your faults on something other than yourself. Maybe you could also realize that before you were 100 pounds overweight, you were 80 pounds overweight and before that you were 50 pounds overweight and before that you were 25 pounds overweight, and that was more than enough to think "say, this is moving in the wrong direction, if I keep doing the same thing I'll keep getting the same result, maybe I should change my lifestyle right now before this really gets out of control!"

Obesity is adult people who made a choice and cannot admit they made a choice. Sort of like dumb women who get knocked up at the age of 19 by a guy who they knew doesn't want to be a dad and won't stick around to help and then complain they're poor and can't make ends meet like their choices had nothing to do with that. That's why obesity is a form of mental retardation. Unlike most, it's reversible

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (-1, Troll)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930447)

someone ate your doughnut? what the fuck are you ranting on retard?

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38930485)

I like fat women.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38930837)

I like fat women.

Yeah I bet. They're so desperete for male attention they'll even fuck you! Scrapin' the bottom of the barrel, you is.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38931137)

Why even post this? Seems like you're insulting people to create an argument where this is none. Take that crap back to whatever cesspool you came from.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (3, Insightful)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930527)

You use something someone created, you pay them for it. Then why is it when the situation is reversed, Apple says: "F*ck you! I'm going to ban it.". Just makes them seem like hypocrites and frankly, douches.

Do you have any references to Apple refusing to license patents they included in a standard with FRAND promises or trying to charge a competitor a higher rate than other companies?

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (2, Insightful)

pavon (30274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931883)

Do have any references that Motorola refused to license their FRAND patents under FRAND terms? Because they didn't.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931987)

What do you think the case is about?! Apple have been trying to licence the patents from the beginning (as in, they legally have to - the patents in question are part of the 3G specification covered under RAND terms, they know that they must licence them), but exactly what they are worth is the crux.

Moto has been attempting to do away with that pesky RAND stuff and charge what it likes, which it simply cannot do. Apple is willing to pay what everyone else pays.

This would be so much easier if it was done in cash.

If it's in the 3G spec (as these patents are) then Apple have been trying to square that away from the start - it's not the first time they've faced challenges on patents supposedly in the standard spec that mysteriously are "not covered" when their design patent lawsuits started flying around.

If motorola were playing fair, it would not be at trial. (And if Apple had not been involved in a general lawsuit fight, perhaps no one would be in this mess)

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38933403)

What do you think the case is about?! Apple have been trying to licence the patents from the beginning (as in, they legally have to - the patents in question are part of the 3G specification covered under RAND terms, they know that they must licence them), but exactly what they are worth is the crux.

Moto has been attempting to do away with that pesky RAND stuff and charge what it likes, which it simply cannot do. Apple is willing to pay what everyone else pays.

There's no evidence of any of that, other than Apple press releases. The German court in fact have ruled that this is exactly what Apple didn't do, hence the court case and the blocking of their sales.

Motorola have no legal obligation to charge their FRAND license amount for the time that Apple were not paying up. As several people on this article have pointed out, FRAND only applies if you license the patent in a timely fashion rather than bitching and procrastinating like Apple have.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (1)

Kartu (1490911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38933587)

This case is about German court agreeing that FRAND applies to future use, but not for the PAST infringement and that Motorola is right in asking for MORE money for the time when Apple used their stuff without paying them.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (1, Interesting)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930647)

Just makes them seem like hypocrites and frankly, douches.

More properly, unmasks them. Apple has always been like this since my earliest dealings with them (1984, how apropo). For some unfathomable reason, Apple's true corporate culture has only recently become widely known and properly called out.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (1, Interesting)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930659)

And a message to Apple spin control in advance: sending in PR drones to Slashdot really just sums up what you have become.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (3, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38932009)

Slashdot really has fallen so far in the many years I've been here. Back in the old days, accusing someone who holds a different opinion to you of being a shill was something that occasionally came up in jest. Now it's used as a legitimate arguing tool on pretty much every story, regardless of topic.

I'm not even sure where it began, or why? Does it somehow "validate" the slashdot community as important enough in global political policy and technology news that there are shills from Google, Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Facebook, the oil industry, the "global warming is real green scam lobby", the republican party, the democrat party, big pharma... all fighting over the supposed "must-win" battleground of slashdot comments?

The fact that you're anticipating a paid PR shill response in advance is just hilarious.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38933295)

I'm not even sure where it began, or why?

It began when it was discovered that certain high tech companies have retained certain unscrupulous PR firms to go astroturfing on community sites for the purpose of spin control.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (3, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38932077)

Ya know, that is the part I have always found frankly mystifying when it comes to Apple. you talk to Applelites or whatever you want to call them and the way they talk you'd think it was SJ and a bunch of hippies sitting around with no shoes in bean bag chairs somewhere in Cupertino. Whether you like their devices or hate them SJ was NEVER like that, he was always frankly an asshole, see how he screwed his supposedly good friend Woz out of half the profits of their game sale to Atari. The one thing ALL those companies had in common, Apple, MSFT, Oracle, etc is at least 1 type A super asshole with a cutthroat take no prisoners attitude that had no problem backstabbing their way to the top.

So i just never understood this complete disconnect between reality and mythology when it comes to Apple. Frankly i'm surprised that SJ's douchebag behavior is finally coming out now that he's gone, frankly i figured they'd make him into a saint if past treatment of him and Apple was any indication. If you like their products? hey i'm glad you found something that works for you, really wish you nothing but happiness. but don't pretend that Apple is ANY different than IBM or any other megacorp because they aren't. These companies are NOT your friends, they do NOT care about you, and if Apple could see their profits rise 15% this quarter by throwing you in a cage with a horny silverback you'd be getting some gorilla loving before the day is out. Maybe a few applelites ought to read this book [amazon.com] and do some introspection.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38931075)

So why doesn't Motorola give apple a taste of their own medicine and say "NO apple sales what so ever. How do you like it you little copy right infringing bitch?" Also i tried using an iphone for the past month, and it is so unbelievably badly thought out (although usually pretty) all you ifanatics obviously have a case of the emperors new clothes.

Re:And that's how it is supposed to work. (0)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38932023)

*Apple (x2)
*copyright
*I
*iPhone
*emperor's

You also forgot to log in! (Posted from your iPhone perhaps?)

Just desserts. (5, Insightful)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930353)

Apple flings lawsuits like mad. Then it bites them in the butt. Can we all just agree that the patent system is idiotic and far too overbearing already?

Re:Just desserts. (4, Insightful)

kangsterizer (1698322) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930513)

the "cool" stuff about patents and all the lawsuits
the only losers are always us, the consumers. no one else.

Re:Just desserts. (1)

Crewdawg (1421231) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930667)

Undoing accidental mod

Re:Just desserts. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38930987)

Undoing accidental mod

be more careful next time you stupid clumsy nigger

Re:Just desserts. (4, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930677)

Can we all just agree that the patent system is idiotic and far too overbearing already?

How would we know? When patents are discussed around here they're assumed to be six words long, mainly because not one person here has ever actually read any of the patents in question. If we can't do that, then no, we cannot agree the patent system is idiotic We actually have to understand it, first.

Re:Just desserts. (1)

Daniel Phillips (238627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931097)

When patents are discussed around here they're assumed to be six words long, mainly because not one person here has ever actually read any of the patents in question.

You don't know that.

Re:Just desserts. (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38932033)

Yes we do, given that any time the Apple design patent question comes up, there are 20 comments on how it's a patent on rounded rectangles.

If anyone had actually *read* the patents we might actually get somewhere with the discussion. But that's a lot to expect. I've seen several comments recently that failed to even read the summary, let alone the article or any links in it.

Re:Just desserts. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38932809)

It's a synecdoche (I don't say a justified one) -- the design patent covers a shape whose most conspicuous element is the rrect shape (in plan view). Someone choosing to refer to it as "a patent on rrects" certainly does not mean they haven't read it.

Re:Just desserts. (2)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931103)

If the patented subjects were simple enough to have been implemented many times independently by engineers versed in the art, solving the same problem, then they were obvious, and shouldn't have qualified for patent protection in the first place.

And you can be pretty sure they weren't developed from the patent filings, as most companies prohibit engineers from looking at patents, as you get more leniency if you accidentally violate a patent than if you do it knowingly, which is another telling fact against patents (it shouldn't be possible to violate them accidentally).

Re:Just desserts. (1)

Dr Max (1696200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931643)

What we need to do is separate patents from ideas. Patents are a good thing, they are the reason big companies spent millions of dollars on R&D pushing the bounds of science. Where the system gets abused however is the use of other peoples inventions. Like apple owning the patent for fuel cells in computers when they didn't invent either tech. Not saying ideas like this aren't valuable but they aren't even in the same league as inventing the actual computer. So what if we start an idea register where the application fee is small, less legal work, and maybe a computer system to look for previous work; but the idea can only be owned by a small group of people, and a payout for use of the idea is mandatory, unbiased, and a fraction of what can be charged today for patents. It means many more people will have access to the system (I've looked into registering patents and even if you can do all the legal work your self, it still cost a small fortune), which will boost the amount of brains on the problems, and big companies won't be able to abuse simple ideas.

Re:Just desserts. (2)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931189)

How would we know? When patents are discussed around here they're assumed to be six words long, mainly because not one person here has ever actually read any of the patents in question. If we can't do that, then no, we cannot agree the patent system is idiotic We actually have to understand it, first.

I don't think reading the patents is the problem. If you look at individual patents then you will undoubtedly find some that are reasonable and have narrow claims (though generally nobody infringes those) and others that take the form "{thing the Post Office has done for 200 years} but on the internet" or "{thing secretaries have done for 500 years} but on a phone."

The thing is, the individual patents have never been the problem. The problem is that each major company has thousands of patents on thousands of possible features, and each product has thousands of features. Some overlap in the two sets is inevitable, so you have a situation where everybody is infringing everything. Which means that whenever a company starts to fail in the marketplace, or just feels like being a dick, they can bog down the entire industry in a series of multimillion dollar lawsuits and there is no cost-effective precaution that anyone can take to inoculate themselves against it. Or if a company fails entirely and gets liquidated, its patents can end up in the hands of trolls who use them to extort money from the people who actually make stuff.

Even when things are working "well," the result is merely that everyone cross-licenses one another and all the money spent on patent prosecution and license negotiations for thousands of patents only goes to cancel out the money wasted by the other guy on the same thing. It's a complete waste of resources at best and a full employment program for patent litigation lawyers if the slightest thing goes wrong.

Re:Just desserts. (1)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931193)

If we can't [read the patents], then no, we cannot agree the patent system is idiotic

I disagree. We may not be able to discuss or agree that the specific patents in question are idiotic without reading the claims, but we can still discuss the patent system as a whole.

If the system promotes a world where two companies can have legal pissing matches all around the world, taking turns having each others' products yanked off the market (and then reinstated!) then I would call that a pretty retarded system, regardless of the merits of the particular patents. That Apple's patents are design patents makes it more clear.

Re:Just desserts. (2)

dogmatixpsych (786818) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931009)

Motorola sued Apple about this issue (maybe not in Germany but certainly here in the U.S.) before Apple really started going after other companies. I'm not defending Apple, I'm just pointing out that this didn't happen to Apple because of them "flinging around lawsuits", Motorola went after Apple before that happened.

Re:Just desserts. (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931285)

Apple flings lawsuits like mad. Then it bites them in the butt. Can we all just agree that the patent system is idiotic and far too overbearing already?

In this story, "overbearing" can be used to describe more than just the patent system. I'm thinking of a five-letter word that rhymes with "zapple".

Except Apple didn't get bit in the butt (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38932065)

Seems to be a one-way thing. When Apple files law suits against Apple competitors, other companies are not allowed to sell products that compete with Apple. There is no option to post a bond, or whatever.

But when other companies sue Apple. Apple still gets to sell Apple products.

Apple gets special treatment, that Apple competitors do not get. That is hardly a case of Apple being bit in the butt.

Yes, the patent system is broken. But Apple chose to file those bogus law suits, the broken patent system did not force Apple to file the bogus suits.

Hmmm.... (2)

butilikethecookie (2566015) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930357)

2.25% is not a ton of money.....Why don't they just pay it. I wonder if they infringed them on purpose (with knowledge they are using Motorola's stuff) or was it just an accident....

Re:Hmmm.... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38930441)

Simple. If every one of the (estimated) eighteen companies that own essential GSM patents demanded a separate license at 2.2% instead of the few pennies per unit that they almost certainly charge to everyone else, it would add up to almost half the cost of the device.

Besides, there's debate over whether Apple's purchase of off-the-shelf GSM silicon (rather than designing it themselves) means that they already paid for the license, in which case Motorola is double dipping....

Re:Hmmm.... (2)

cheekyboy (598084) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930865)

exactly

like wise, the opposite is impossible, since it would be illegal to SELL a chip without paying for a licence.

So if you buy a chip, its assumed, its already paid for.

Else... the chip maker is breaking the law and must pay the licence as they are selling it first point of call.

Its not like apple sells hardware to retail chains patents unpaid, and the retail chain has to pay patents.

Re:Hmmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38932487)

The assumption in the later case is that Apple is designing their own chip and paying for a company to fab it for them. In that case Apple would need to pay for the appropriate licenses.

the hedge fund mentality (0, Troll)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930461)

2.25% of a billion dollars is 22.5 million dollars. that is just enough money for some hedge fund douchebag to buy another house in connecticut, pay his child support to his 3 ex wives, hush money to his two favorite prostitutes, and still have enough left over to buy a week's worth of cocaine and diamond encrusted ice cream at some shitty, over-baroque palace in Las Vegas or Dubai.

Re:Hmmm.... (4, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930543)

2.25% is an enormous sum of money, when you consider that a device might use patented techs from hundreds of companies. If each of these hundreds of companies asked for 2.25%, you're gonna be in trouble.

Re:Hmmm.... (1)

inpher (1788434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930831)

2.25% is an enormous sum of money, when you consider that a device might use patented techs from hundreds of companies. If each of these hundreds of companies asked for 2.25%, you're gonna be in trouble.

It would be impossible at even 0.1% since there are 2987 patents in 1729 families [dime-eu.org] . 2.25% will never fly, especially for a single patent (probably a patent family actually). An average licensing cost of 0.01% per family would be 17.29% of the cost of the device. There is no way 2.25% can be considered FRAND.

Re:Hmmm.... (3, Insightful)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930887)

for initial negotiated fees i agree.. but for fees applied to a product made by a company that knowingly attempted to doge the fee..it isn't.

i'm not taking any side on this.. as i don't know the details.. but it only makes since that the fee applied after you are caught doing wrong be high enough to prevent you from doing it again. if it was the same cost as just licensing it to begin with then there would be zero incentive to license it ahead of time but rather you would produce and hope you didn't get caught an did then it's a know cost that you had already accounted for.

Re:Hmmm.... (3, Informative)

inpher (1788434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930947)

for initial negotiated fees i agree.. but for fees applied to a product made by a company that knowingly attempted to doge the fee..it isn't.

Me neither, but this link [bbc.co.uk] (found in other comments on this article) claims Motorola repeatedly declined payment from Apple.

Re:Hmmm.... (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931145)

but the question is did they decline payment from Apple before or after they filled the injunction?

If it was during the development period prior to first sale then Moto is in the wrong. If it was after Apple started selling and "got caught" doing wrong then Moto is within their rights to refuse to license it at that point, at least until the law suite is completed.

Re:Hmmm.... (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38932085)

There's no way Apple is going to start selling hardware that bakes in patented standards like GSM/3G/Wifi/etc without getting its licencing ducks in a row - they have whole departments for that sort of thing (as does any large company).

There's absolutely zero chance that they decided to try and "dodge" paying for one of the patents that they are *guaranteed* to be using (since they are in the standards). Risking their product line (and ultimately, profit and healthiness of business) on something that braindead is just not going to fly.

By all accounts, this has been ongoing for a long time. It's never been about anyone trying to avoid paying for use of patents. Just how much needed to be paid.

Re:Hmmm.... (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38932171)

ever forget to pay a bill? i know many large companies that do..

I'm sure they have their ducks in a row... or at least they though they did.. I do have to wonder if they didn't though - else how could Moto have gotten the successful injunction to begin with?

From what i can tell so far Apple assumed it paid the fees when it bought chips from Qualcomm (ak Qualcomm paid Moto the fees).. but that doesn't seem to be true.. Question is if the agreement between Apple and Qualcomm outlined the related fees - if it does then Apple should be able to pay the fine/rate and bill Qualcomm for the problem.. if not then Apple will be standing there realizing they for got to dot their I's and cross there T's..

I'm sure that all the answers will come out during the fight in court.. so we can all just sit back and watch and see who bet right.. i doubt this will drag on for too long.

Re:Hmmm.... (4, Interesting)

theycallmeB (606963) | more than 2 years ago | (#38932165)

As that very article points out, Motorola has declined various settlement offers from Apple for PAST infringement of Motorola's patents. Motorola has licensed these very patents to Apple on FRAND terms for use in newly developed products which is why the iPhone 4S was not affected by the sales injunction, only the older models.

Since Apple did not license the patent on FRAND terms before pushing out the older iPhones, Motorola does not have any obligation to be fair, reasonable or non-discriminatory in negotiating the deal for those products now.

Re:Hmmm.... (1)

Kartu (1490911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38933599)

Mod parent up.

Re:Hmmm.... (2, Informative)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38933555)

The company didn't knowingly try to dodge the fee – they tried to license the patent, and when FRAND terms weren't offered said "fuck you, we'll fight it out in court when the device is out".

Re:Hmmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38933733)

And the only ones stating this are Apple fans, while court seems to disagree.

This, combined with upmodding, combined with misleading title - "complied with court order" != "overturned", and there's stilll shouts about "/.'s antiApple bias".

Re:Hmmm.... (1)

Psicopatico (1005433) | more than 2 years ago | (#38933109)

If each of these hundreds of companies asked for 2.25%, you're gonna be in trouble.

Not an issue:

1) sell your stuff for, say, -5$ a piece
2) ???
3) profit!

Re:Hmmm.... (3, Insightful)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930625)

If every company with a FRAND-related patent charged 2.25% nobody would be able to create a product. That you think it's not a ton of money shows how short-sighted you are being and how you're failing to look at the bigger picture.

Not to mention that FRAND stands for "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" and 2.25% is most certainly _NOT_ Fair nor Reasonable.

Re:Hmmm.... (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 2 years ago | (#38933239)

Not to mention that FRAND stands for "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" and 2.25% is most certainly _NOT_ Fair nor Reasonable.

Gouging everyone for the same amount (proportionately) is both fair and non-discriminatory. Whether it is reasonable is something you can debate if you wish.

Re:Hmmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38931663)

2.25% is not a ton of money.....

2.25% times hundreds of thousands of patents, is a FUCKTON of money!

If an iPhone costs $250 and they sell it for $500, how can you say $2000+ in license fees is anything BUT a ton of money?!? It's more than they make on the phone! It's more than if the raw parts were a christmas gift!

If that is your idea of cheap, you must think the RIAA lawsuits are too pitiful of a tiny amount of money to even have a court bother with!

Re:Hmmm.... (2)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38932057)

The patents are in the 3G standard, therefore Apple didn't infringe them "on purpose" - by implementing 3G they were obliged to use the patent, whether they wanted to or not.

Where it gets sticky is that the patents are RAND covered, so Moto must charge everyone the same. Of course, everyone cross licences, and makes other payment deals etc, but ultimately everyone pays the same. It gets more tricky when you have to decide what your cross licenced patents are worth, or how much a certain percentage of sales will be if you have forecast numbers etc.

They've (Apple and Moto) have been butting heads on this for a long time - much like the Nokia vs Apple suit. Neither side can agree on payment. Given that the patent in question is in the 3G standard, it has never been about one side *not* wanting to pay - paying the correct value is what this is about.

But some expert said Moto's patents were weak... (3, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930435)

This same patent expert insinuated that Google Motorola buy was a bad idea!

Now, we hear that push email may be gone from iDevices. This is to the expert... ...What you say...?

Re:But some expert said Moto's patents were weak.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38930869)

Most of them are weak in that they're FRAND. The actual infringement is done by Qualcomm (or whoever built the chip) and they've already licensed the appropriate patents (something Samsung found only figured out after the judge told laughed them out of court). Motorola tried to renegotiate their license with the Qualcomm so that license wouldn't apply if the chips were sold to Apple. Motorola and Samsung are currently being investigated by the EU over their abuse of FRAND patents.

So, Motorola has a money-losing phone division and some patents, most of which can't be used in a patent war. They're worth something, but not $12 billion.

Numbers (0)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930501)

Okay, They want 2.25% from Apple. How much did they license their patents to other manufacturers for? Since these are FRAND patents they can't charge more than they do competitors in order to try to wring non-FRAND patent licenses out of Apple. So, anyone? Without this information, none of us can have an educated opinion on this topic. Perhaps that is what other companies are paying or perhaps Motorola are trying to abuse the system the way it seems Samsung did.

Re:Numbers (1)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930529)

FRAND doesn't apply to payments that have been missed.

Re:Numbers (1)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930549)

FRAND doesn't apply to payments that have been missed.

FRAND applies to licensing costs. Apple claims to have a license for the patents in question through their suppliers, so if anything it then becomes an issue for the courts to decide liability and, potentially, damages, not for a company to retroactively license under terms that contradict their legal and contractual obligations to standards bodies and the EU government.

Re:Numbers (4, Informative)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930559)

Source. [bbc.co.uk]

Frand-type patents involve technologies that are deemed to be part of an industry standard. In this case Motorola's innovation is deemed crucial to the GPRS data transmission standard used by GSM cellular networks across the world.

Companies must offer Frand-type patents for a reasonable fee to anyone willing to pay.

Apple had previously said it would be willing to pay the fee going forward, but the two firms dispute how much Apple should pay for failing to license the technology up until now. Missed payments are not covered by the "reasonable" rule, and Motorola is able to demand a more expensive price.

Re:Numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38930855)

How can Motorola refuse to license when Apple was willing to pay and later claim Apple did wrong?

Re:Numbers (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38930999)

Apple's "payment" was in the form of worthless UI patents, not actual money. Motorola, rightfully, demanded something that wasn't worthless.

Re:Numbers (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38932101)

Ha. Nice try.

Apple *wishes* they could just pay cash. This would have been settled a *loooooong* time ago.

Also, you forgot to log in.

Re:Numbers (4, Informative)

Vapula (14703) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930545)

Except that with the other manufacturers, it probably has been a patent cross licensing, something that Apple has refused to do from the start.

And Apple built his iUniverse around infringing products, as it refused to license the technologies (waiting for some court to come to help)... IANAL but there is clearly a damage to the other players as Apple may not have been able to enter the market like he did should he have paid for the licences from the start... At that time, it was far from "some little money out of a big warchest"...

Re:Numbers (4, Insightful)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930575)

Except that with the other manufacturers, it probably has been a patent cross licensing, something that Apple has refused to do from the start.

Apple does cross license their FRAND patents which are included in the standards. They don't cross license their other patents such as UI and proprietary hardware. That's the whole point, Motorola seems to be trying to use their FRAND patents (which were included in standards only because of their promises) to leverage against Apple to get licensing to patents that aren't part of any standard. It is exactly why there are rules in the first place about how you can use patents once you agree they are to be used in a standard.

Re:Numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38931051)

Apple's "payment" was in the form of worthless UI patents, not actual money. Motorola, rightfully, demanded something that wasn't worthless.
And the high rate was because Apple was only willing to pay the fee as if they had just started and completely ignore the fact that they didn't license it before selling products using it.

Re:Numbers (1)

SpiralSpirit (874918) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931083)

apple didn't want a biolerplate frand agreement. They wanted their own agreement (which covered previous unlicensed use), and thats what allowed Motorola to dictate whatever terms they want. There is big money involved because if Motorola is correct apple has been infringing on their patent for multiple product generations. The money isn't just licensing for next year, but licensing/damages for the patent being used unlicensed for years and producing big profit.

Re:Numbers (2, Insightful)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931279)

apple didn't want a biolerplate frand agreement. They wanted their own agreement (which covered previous unlicensed use), and thats what allowed Motorola to dictate whatever terms they want. There is big money involved because if Motorola is correct apple has been infringing on their patent for multiple product generations. The money isn't just licensing for next year, but licensing/damages for the patent being used unlicensed for years and producing big profit.

The other way round, actually. What Apple wanted is a license under FRAND terms: You give me the license, I pay you cash. Now many companies in that business don't want these terms, they prefer: You give me a license to your patents, I'll give you a license to mine, because it is cheaper. And that's the kind of license that Motorola wanted to offer and that Apple didn't want.

And there can't be damages for any time where Motorola didn't offer a license under FRAND terms, otherwise the requirement for FRAND terms would be a joke. If I have a patent that I'm required to license to you for X dollars, I could just ask for 10 X dollars, delay an agreement for as long as possible, and then ask for X dollars in license fees and 3X dollars in damages for the time of the delay. (Obviously asking for X dollars for that time is fine).

Re:Numbers (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38932529)

Here is my question on this: the infringement to the patent in question, from what has been reported, only applies to iPhones up to the 4, do not include the 4S because it uses a Qualcom chip instead of the previous brand Apple used. Qualcom is making chips that cellphone makers use to make phones. Since Qualcom licenses these patents from Motorola, the phone becomes immune.

This tells me that the issue should not be Apple, but the chip manufacturer. It is that chip maker that failed at licensing the patents, and then used them to make chips it then sold to Apple. Should this case not be directed at that chip manufacturer instead? It's very likely that manufacturer has other clients that are also using this unlicensed chips, so Apple cant be the only target without Motorola suddenly setting themselves up for unfair practices.

Re:Numbers (3, Insightful)

inpher (1788434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930641)

I'll take some number from my butt (definitions of my butt may vary, but in this context it is random site on internet [mobithinking.com] ).

1.186 billion mobile broadband subscribers.
Let's say that half of these are on a 3G chip that somehow requires the Motorola 3G license: 593 million.
If these devices sell for an average of $20 we would have 11,86 billion in sales for these devices.
If Motorola wants 2.25% of the sales of these devices that would mean $297 million, a very significant number considering it is a single patent of a large portfolio of 1729 patents (yes, one thousand seven hundred and twenty nine [mobithinking.com] ).

Imagine if each of these patents would warrant an average licensing cost of 0.1% rather than the 2.25% that Motorola wants, then we would look at a licensing cost of more than the sales price to license 3G technology for the device. 2.25% does not smell FRAND to me, but I am no patent lawyer, I only pretend I know stuff on the internet.

FRAND (1)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930589)

2.25%? Yeah. That's Fair and Reasonable.

Not.

Re:FRAND (4, Insightful)

Macthorpe (960048) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930613)

As mentioned above, the 'reasonable' part doesn't apply if you don't pay when you should.

Source [bbc.co.uk] for the second (and hopefully last) time :)

Re:FRAND (2)

inpher (1788434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930693)

As mentioned above, the 'reasonable' part doesn't apply if you don't pay when you should.

Source [bbc.co.uk] for the second (and hopefully last) time :)

Well... It's sometimes hard to pay what one should when:

[...] Motorola repeatedly refuses to license this patent to Apple [...]

source [slashgear.com]

Re:FRAND (2)

Amouth (879122) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930949)

well that was because apple was willing to only pay the fee as if they had done it from the start.. and completely ignore the fact that hey had not licensed it prior to selling products using it.

Re:FRAND (1)

inpher (1788434) | more than 2 years ago | (#38930993)

well that was because apple was willing to only pay the fee as if they had done it from the start.. and completely ignore the fact that hey had not licensed it prior to selling products using it.

I agree that that would have been a problem for Apple, however, due to exhaustion because Qualcomm paid Motorola for the chips used by Apple the license was already paid. Then Motorola re-negotiated their bilateral license with Qualcomm and now Motorola wants money from Apple for the time that Qualcomm had already paid, thus trying to get money twice plus some extra.

Re:FRAND (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38932565)

I was under the impression they were only in position to claim money for phones with non-Qualcomm devices, since Qualcomm had that agreement already in place. Think the deal is about the chip that was used before they switched to Qualcomm.

Re:FRAND (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38933437)

I'm not sure an Apple press release is a non-biased source of information.

As far as I understand it, they didn't license the patent, Motorola caught them out, then Apple said "Oh, okay, we'll pay the standard rate from now on and all the time we were using it". Motorola exercised their rights under the FRAND agreement and said "No, you can pay standard rate from now on, but for the time you failed to license we're charging you more". Apple refused to do that, hence why it went to court.

The standards and the FRAND patents that apply to them are well-documented. Apple have no excuse for not licensing.

Re:FRAND (4, Informative)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931835)

You mean like paying when you buy the chips from Qualcomm who had already paid a licensing fee to Motorola for the patents in question?

Yeah.

Motorola is attempting to double-dip. They want money from Qualcomm _and_ Apple for the same chip.

Actually, that last part isn't true - what Motorola actually wants is access to Apple's non-FRAND patents and they're attempting to leverage their own FRAND patents against them in the hopes of forcing a cross-licensing agreement (*). For chips made by Qualcomm who already paid to license the patents. So the double-dipping part is true...

* And I remain baffled that the Slashdot crowd considers this business practice to be acceptable, regardless of who does it or against whom it is done. It goes against the very heart of everything that FRAND stands for and, if successful, will have chilling effects on, well, pretty much any and every industry that makes use of FRAND patents to establish industry standards. In my opinion, _ANY_ company that abuses a FRAND patent should be viewed in a negative light. Then again, I must be new here...

Re:FRAND (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38932601)

Patent licenses aren't per product, they're per company. You can dislike that but thats the law, and evidently the German courts arent on your side.

Re:FRAND (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#38933373)

The iPhone 4 and earlier did not use Qualcomm chipsets. The iPhone 4 and earlier used a Skyworks chipset, I can't find anything confirming that Skyworks actually has a patent license (with the sole exception of the resolution of a patent lawsuit between them and Qualcomm).

Re:FRAND (1)

Tharsman (1364603) | more than 2 years ago | (#38932547)

Unless Apple turns things around and says "OK", I'll give you 2.25%... of the cost of the chip that violates the patents.

motorola sucks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38930791)

maybe if motorola could make a decent product, they wouldn't have to rely on suing others who can.

What goes around... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38930913)

What goes around comes around mothefuckers. I want to see more of this. I want every company with a patent on anything to sue Apple into oblivion, then teabag the corpse. Fuck those faggots.

Amusing (1)

guttentag (313541) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931011)

I always thought it was amusing that the German court system would ban the sale of iPads after much of the Bundestag (the German parliament) bought them for themselves and claimed them as a work expense. They're ubiquitous [cultofmac.com] now in the Bundestag... you see them in photos, one member had to pause during the speech he was reading from his iPad when it crashed, they have officially approved the device for use in reading speeches, and they made the Polish parliament (Sejm) so jealous they followed suit! They're Apple's best advertising agency in Europe.

I know, I know... classic case of left hand doing one thing and the right hand doing another... that's part of what makes it so funny.

Apple prop bet (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931429)

I'm setting the over/under on the year Apple launches a military strike on a sovereign nation at 2018.

I had set it at 2019, but so much money came in on the under that I had to move the line.

I'm giving 20 to 1 that the strike is a HAARP-style weather modification attack, 12 to 1 that it's a death ray fired from a satellite and 5 to 1 that it's via an airborne flu virus modified to make the male population of the target country gay.

A straightforward predator attack with very shiny drones carved out of single pieces of aluminum is going off at even money. If you call the Pope Ratzo All-Winners Guaranteed Absolutely Free In The Money Hotline right now you can get my 100% FREE money-back guaranteed lock of the century and I'll throw in the 2003 Irish Sweepstakes Winning Numbers - IT'S GUARANTEED!!. I'm 24 and 2 against the spread and the Vegas pros call me "Mr Perfect"! Don't leave money on the table! CALL TODAY! (Not available in Virginia, Wisconsin or Rhode Island. You must be over 18. Have a gambling problem? Call 1-888-IMA-LOSR. )

laugh (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931705)

How do you like them apples..

Am I the only one... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38931809)

Am I the only person who is becoming rather tired of the exploitation of an outdated patent and copyright environment to foster out-dated business models or to eliminate competition via excessive legal fees?

.

Microsoft once said (and you know when I resort to quoting Microsoft....), and I paraphrase, those who cannot compete litigate.

Ban everything! (1)

reve_etrange (2377702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931833)

Damn, I was really hoping Germany was going to let all parties prevail in all the lawsuits - by banning all Apple, Samsung and Motorola products at once. That would have been great.

ahhh slashdot (1, Insightful)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38931939)

... where software patents are bad, evil, etc. unless they're being used against apple.

Re:ahhh slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38932535)

When you kill a man, it's a murder. That's bad.

When you kill a murderer, it's an execution. That's good.

Re:ahhh slashdot (1)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 2 years ago | (#38933759)

When you kill a murderer, it's an execution. That's good.

The laws of UK, most of Europe and AFAIK even some US states would disagree with you there. Even in the US I do believe that there's a certain amount of due process to go through - you know, proving the case and so on.

If Motorola are trying to double dip and/or charge Apple more than the going rate (the ND in FRAND stands for "non-discriminatory") then they're in the wrong. If the 2.5% figure is correct, that's completely usurious for one component in a complex device. Motorola lost the right to license their IP on a "take it or leave it" basis when they agreed to let it be incorporated into an international standard.

When Apple is not involved, the groupthink is that standards should be entirely patent-free (quite right too - but not the way the world works).

I don't get it... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38932819)

Why is the word "overturn" used in the subject?

It gives me (and a lot of people) the impression that they're "turning over or upsetting" the ban. They're not. They're only paying money to COMPLY with the court order, just like how Motorola wanted and how patents SHOULD work.

It makes it sound like the patents were invalidated; they're not.

Misleading Article Title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38933219)

With all do respect to Slashdot, but you are making it a little too obvious what Apple fanboys you all are. The court did not "overturn" the ruling, Apple simply felt the pressure and committed to its legal obligations by agreeing to pay for patent usage.

When i read the headline I was expecting information about Apple proving it was Not using Motorola patents, or was utilizing them within patent law.

Please try not to succumb to Fox News -style twists on journalism.

Other then that I like your work, and enjoy most of your articles, thanks!

Fuck Shitorola (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38933423)

Other than the fact that they stopped being relevant many years ago, I will never buy anything from a company associated with Google.

--
Tired of the Google assholes spying on you? Switch to DuckDuckGo [duckduckgo.com] today!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?