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!

To Mollify Google on Moto Patents, Apple Proposes $1/Device Fee

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the you-know-what-the-cartel-wants dept.

Cellphones 582

An anonymous reader writes "Motorola feels that Apple is infringing on several FRAND patents that have to do with how every smartphone in existence connects to WiFi and cellular networks. Since Apple makes smartphones, and Google is looking to use their newly acquired Motorola as a weapon, the two companies are only a few days away from the courtroom. Apple has conceded that the Moto patents are valid by offering to pay Google/Moto $1 per device, but only going forward. Motorola wants 2.25% per device and for it to cover all Apple devices (back dated). If Motorola pursues the case and the court issues a per device rate that is higher than Apple's offer, Apple promises to pursue all possible appeals to avoid paying more than $1. Motorola could end this quickly, or watch as Apple drags this out for what could be years."

cancel ×

582 comments

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

At last an offer. (1, Flamebait)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#41844785)

Now negotiations can begin. The negotiations will be short.

Re:At last an offer. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41844911)

I'd prefer to see Google enter into "aggressive negotiations" with Apple.

Re:At last an offer. (2)

wiedzmin (1269816) | about 2 years ago | (#41845131)

I would love to see Google block Apple from their search results and all of their services, but we both know that's not going to happen.

Re:At last an offer. (1, Troll)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 2 years ago | (#41845285)

I would love to see this too, because motogoog would be immediately convicted of monopoly manipulation by FTC, and torn into a dozen little pieces. the search business, the email business, the android business, etc. Then existing players could snap up each piece as they see fit.

Re:At last an offer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41844985)

Exactly. Only 13 and a half years to go! It's just around the corner now.

Re:At last an offer. (0)

Quakeulf (2650167) | about 2 years ago | (#41845001)

They'll give them an offer they can't refuse.

Bad faith (4, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about 2 years ago | (#41844813)

By not negotiating in good faith Apple seems to be setting itself up to lose badly in court. Surely any court will look at Apple's demands as unreasonable, given that they back them up with the threat of a protracted legal process costing tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars.

Re:Bad faith (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41844833)

Apple do seem to believe lately that their Reality Distortion Field affects judges as well as fanboys.

Re:Bad faith (-1, Troll)

bsane (148894) | about 2 years ago | (#41844841)

Who says they're unreasonable? Maybe Moto's demands are...

Re:Bad faith (2)

plaguerider (2576157) | about 2 years ago | (#41844879)

This comment is clearly fandroid bait

Re:Bad faith (5, Informative)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | about 2 years ago | (#41845059)

Who says they're unreasonable? Maybe Moto's demands are...

Realizing that apple is offering quite a bit less then even half a pecent, and while recognizing that the patents are valid they refuse to be responsible for the past, it doesn't take much sanity to see Apple is trying to leverage the threat of a long drawn out lawsuit to avoid paying for their past infringement. It's exactly the kind of behavior that Googlerola should be putting them to the screws for, and seeing that they both have disposable lawyers sitting around, it's not unlikely either.

Re:Bad faith (3, Interesting)

michrech (468134) | about 2 years ago | (#41845299)

Realizing that apple is offering quite a bit less then even half a pecent, and while recognizing that the patents are valid they refuse to be responsible for the past, it doesn't take much sanity to see Apple is trying to leverage the threat of a long drawn out lawsuit to avoid paying for their past infringement. It's exactly the kind of behavior that Googlerola should be putting them to the screws for, and seeing that they both have disposable lawyers sitting around, it's not unlikely either.

Apple needs to realize it's not dealing with just any company here. Google may not have as much cash on hand as Apple currently does, but it is certainly wealthy enough to drag Apple through the courts just as long as Apple wants. The courts will hopefully realize this isn't the first time Apple has been caught using a competitors patented technology, offered a laughably small amount for their unlawful/unlicensed use of said competitors technology (they pulled pretty well the same crap with Samsung in Australia, if I recall correctly) while demanding HUGE sums from those they're suing for use of their technology, and smack their asses into next week for it.

Re:Bad faith (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845111)

$13.50 per device demand vs. $1 per device offer, considering Apple's offer to Samsung [fosspatents.com] ? If it wasn't FRAND, Motorola would be more than reasonable. Whether the demand for FRAND purposes is reasonable, however, depends on how much they charge to license to other companies than Apple.

Re:Bad faith (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845195)

Sorry, that's going off of an average $600 device cost. I couldn't begin to calculate the real number.

Re:Bad faith (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845187)

Who says they're unreasonable? Maybe Moto's demands are...

So it's unreasonable for moto to want payments for devices that have been sold in the past which used these patents, when apple admit the patents are valid but they don't have a licence for them. Perhaps apple should do the same then, and say that anything with infringed on any of their patents in the past does not matter, only stuff going forward from now.

Re:Bad faith (-1)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#41845051)

Am curious, what exactly ARE their demands?
Just tons of money or something oddly specific?

Re:Bad faith (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41845105)

Am curious, what exactly ARE their demands? Just tons of money or something oddly specific?

RTFS:

Motorola wants 2.25% per device and for it to cover all Apple devices (back dated).

Seriously, why post a comment when you can't even be bothered to read the summary?

Oh, right - fanbois. Logic is anathema.

Re:Bad faith (2)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#41845203)

That's hardly unreasonable.

They are devices that have used the patented technology, thus it's only fair Apple should pay for all the devices. And as for the %, it's not that much even on a $500 phone when you consider the obscene margins they are sold at.

Is $2.25 FRAND? (2, Informative)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#41844825)

If $2.25 is simimar to what they have licensed it to others for, then Apple will have a hard job arguing that it isn't FRAND, and therefore that Moto shouldn't be allowed to enforce the patents.

I'm also fairly sure that FRAND doesn't mean that you're free to infringe until you get caught.

Anyway, bad as patents seem to be I'd love to see Apple get absoloutely battered because of patent infringements, because they insist on doing it to others. Hoist on their own petard and all.

Perhaps it will convince them to divert their lobbying power to removing patents.

Just kidding!

Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41844865)

Wrong question. It should be, is 2.25% FRAND?

Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (2)

colesw (951825) | about 2 years ago | (#41844875)

Not $2.25, 2.25% ... probably makes a bit more of a difference :)

Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 years ago | (#41845045)

it does, 2.25% of the cost of full price phone, which can vary based on model, 15$ on 600$ iphone. On FRAND yes moto has to license it under fair and reasonable price. BUT it works both ways and Apple has to be fair and reasonable as well. they can't offer some insanely low number and stick to it. Since Apple has been infringing on patent since forever there should be some extra back due interest paid on all those devices that have been sold to date.

Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (1, Funny)

Reverand Dave (1959652) | about 2 years ago | (#41844891)

it's 2.25% not $2.25. If the device cost 100 dollars then it would be $2.25 but since Apple seems to think it needs to charge $300-$500 for anything with rounded edges and a shiny cover it's likely to cost much more than that. I personally find it hilarious that they are hoping to rig some kind of sweetheart deal when they are gonna be on the ass end of a legal ass fucking.

Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (3, Insightful)

medcalf (68293) | about 2 years ago | (#41844969)

But aren't you just assuming that 2.25% is FRAND, rather than a sweetheart deal? Yeah, odds are $1 per device, especially just devices going forward, is way too low, but why is 2.25% way too high? If you think about it, if there are 10 companies with standards-essential patents, and each charges 2.25%, then that's 22.5% of the device's post-profit cost, which seems rather high. Also, I believe that there are way more than 10 companies that own patents that are essential to cell phone standards.

Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (5, Insightful)

iserlohn (49556) | about 2 years ago | (#41845277)

Two words: Cross-licensing.

Apple refuses to do it. Everyone else does. That's why we're here discussing this at all.

Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (2, Interesting)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#41844987)

it's 2.25% not $2.25. If the device cost 100 dollars then it would be $2.25 but since Apple seems to think it needs to charge $300-$500 for anything with rounded edges and a shiny cover it's likely to cost much more than that. I personally find it hilarious that they are hoping to rig some kind of sweetheart deal when they are gonna be on the ass end of a legal ass fucking.

Does Samsung "think it needs to charge" $300-500 for anything with rounded edges and a shiny cover too?

Maybe they charge that because that's what it costs to make (plus profit).

I'm not sure how the argument that Apple's phones are somehow overpriced holds much water when they are very similar in price to Android handsets of similar quality like the Galaxy line.

Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845057)

They should agree to pay 2.5%, and then set their prices down to $40 each. Or even better, give them away for free.
That would show them!

Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#41845093)

Oops yes.

2.25% as has been pointed out not $2.25.

Makes a 5-6x difference for an iphone.

Re:Is $2.25 FRAND? (3, Informative)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 2 years ago | (#41845121)

My understanding is that most other companies who use these patents opted to do some sort of cross-licensing agreement rather than paying cash on the barrelhead. Since Apple refuses to do that, it could make it tricky to figure out exactly what they should owe, even if the patents are found to be covered by FRAND principles.

Similar? (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | about 2 years ago | (#41844881)

Isn't this the same type of behavior that the Apple faithful hated about Microsoft in years past? Or was that just the Slashdot crowd in general?

Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (5, Insightful)

EasyTarget (43516) | about 2 years ago | (#41844883)

This is surely simple; Apple is using Motorolas patents; if they will not accept the FRAND offered by Moto then a Judge will surely be willing to grant a injunction against sales and promotion of all infringing products. As apple themselves have shown, this need not take years.

Or do fanbois think that 'rounded corners' drawn by one of their case designers a few years back represents a more important piece of IP than the detailed algorithms controlling signalling in a congested radio band that took real scientists and engineers years of research and skill to develop?

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (0, Redundant)

dyingtolive (1393037) | about 2 years ago | (#41844899)

Or do fanbois think that 'rounded corners' drawn by one of their case designers a few years back represents a more important piece of IP than the detailed algorithms controlling signalling in a congested radio band that took real scientists and engineers years of research and skill to develop?

Quite likely.

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (0)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#41844951)

This is surely simple; Apple is using Motorolas patents; if they will not accept the FRAND offered by Moto then a Judge will surely be willing to grant a injunction against sales and promotion of all infringing products.

At this point, we have no way of knowing whether Moto's offer is non-discriminatory, and I suspect not nearly enough information to judge if it's reasonable--thus the possibility of trial...

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (0, Troll)

the computer guy nex (916959) | about 2 years ago | (#41844957)

This is surely simple; Apple is using Motorolas patents; if they will not accept the FRAND offered by Moto then a Judge will surely be willing to grant a injunction against sales and promotion of all infringing products. As apple themselves have shown, this need not take years.

Or do fanbois think that 'rounded corners' drawn by one of their case designers a few years back represents a more important piece of IP than the detailed algorithms controlling signalling in a congested radio band that took real scientists and engineers years of research and skill to develop?

I can't believe people actually think this garbage.

Apple does not have a patent on 'rounded corners'. They have a trade dress patent which is a collection of almost a dozen individual features that create the unique image of an iPhone. They do not have individual patents on each individual feature, but rather one trade dress patent to stop KIRFs.

http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/samsung-vs.-apple-e1313955567548.jpg [idownloadblog.com]

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845089)

Fanboy located.

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41845133)

Bullshit image is bullshit image.
Lots of devices looked like the iphone before the iphone. I am sure someone will post the counter picture soon.

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 2 years ago | (#41845155)

I can't believe people actually think this garbage.

Your trolling is invalidated by the TNG PADD. HTH, HAND.

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (1)

lowlymarine (1172723) | about 2 years ago | (#41845169)

Except that Apple totally does have a design patent on rounded rectangles: http://www.google.com/patents/USD618678 [google.com]

The broken lines show portions of the electronic device which form no part of the claimed design.

The only things that aren't broken lines? The basic shape of the housing.

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845315)

The outline of the housing, the outline of the screen, and the speaker for the phone. Not rounded corners. Just like GP said.

Together the solid lines immediately make me think 'iPhone', because together they form the face of the iPhone. Which is probably why Apple got the design patent. And probably why Samsung copied them - to trade on the cachet Apple had built up.

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (5, Informative)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#41845273)

I can't believe people actually think this garbage.

I can't believe people in glass houses use a stone throwing gattling gun with such abandon.

http://media.idownloadblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/samsung-vs.-apple-e1313955567548.jpg

And there you go like a true fanboi using that widely debunked graphic which only shows a small selection of Samsung phones.

If you were hones, you would have shown this one:

http://www.osnews.com/img/26230/s-comp.PNG [osnews.com]

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41844977)

Rounded corners and icons on a grid on a phone was stolen from Sony. Give it time, they're going to have Apple's butt over this using Apple's own court testimonies from around the world.

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41844983)

You can get the algorithms out of a book, but it takes vision to decide after all the years of pointed corners that they should be rounded.

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (3, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#41845015)

Actually, given that they are FRAND patents, Apple should pay (by the rules stipulated in the FRAND terms) the same rate that everyone else paid for those patents. No more, no less.

Whatever that figure is, that is what Apple should pay.

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (1)

dodobh (65811) | about 2 years ago | (#41845271)

So 1% on all devices + cross licensing of all patents to all entities who license these patents?

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (3, Insightful)

Lithdren (605362) | about 2 years ago | (#41845311)

...and Apple has already said they will not pay what everyone else pays.

Everyone else goes into a cross-liscence instead of paying actual money per device, Apple has already refused to do this.

What I find interesting is Apple feels that paying 1 dollar per device MOVING FORWARD is somehow a fair price. I could see an argument that 2.25% of the total value of a phone is too high, but clearly what Apple offers is absurdly low. They then threaten to drag out legal procedings if it goes to court if they are to pay anything more than what they've already demanded.

Even if it was a huge loss to the company, i'd want to nail them to a tree for that alone, you let one company push you around like that suddenly everyone else can now opt for the same. I dont really see the point, all Apple is doing is forcing this to go to court, and any court with an ounce of brainpower will find Apple is not being fair, regardless of what the other side is offering at this point.

The fact that I dont understand the play they're making makes me worry we're not being told something, whatever that is Apple feels its in their favor. That, or they're just a bunch of idiots, which can never be ruled out, for either side.

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (3, Interesting)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 years ago | (#41845037)

The question is whether or not FRAND terms have been offered. Apple claims that the terms they received from Motorola were not in accordance with FRAND principles, and it will seek to demonstrate that is the case in court. If that occurs, Motorola stands to not only lose the licensing fees that Apple would have been paying it, they also stand to get investigated for acting in that way, which could hurt them a whole lot more.

Re:Apple has shown the way for Motorola. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845083)

Or do fanbois think that 'rounded corners' drawn by one of their case designers a few years back represents a more important piece of IP than the detailed algorithms controlling signalling in a congested radio band that took real scientists and engineers years of research and skill to develop?

To be fair, most True Believers Of The Right And Just Apple Faith* don't realize their shinies use that technology. They think they just use Apple's Divine iNtervention 3G, except when it's not working. Then it's clearly AT&T's fault.

*: I think that's the technical name they prefer nowadays.

Judge will not block sales (1, Informative)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41845265)

then a Judge will surely be willing to grant a injunction against sales and promotion of all infringing products.

Nope. Read this related review of Microsoft vs. Google (er, Motorola) on FRAND [fosspatents.com]

Basically judges everywhere agree you cannot use FRAND as a tool to extort way more money from successful companies than from others. The only question at hand is how much money Apple (and Microsoft) will be paying - even if Apple appeals it simply means delaying when they are paying Motorola, but will not result in Apple devices being blocked from sale.

Think about What Could Be... (4, Insightful)

InvisibleClergy (1430277) | about 2 years ago | (#41844895)

Think about what could be made if, instead of burning all of this money for a Pyrrhic victory against each other, Google and Apple spent all of that money on development. That would be nice. That would be neighborly.

Apple, Google: Listen to Mr. Rogers's ghost. Why won't you be each other's neighbors?

Re:Think about What Could Be... (4, Interesting)

firex726 (1188453) | about 2 years ago | (#41845113)

Mostly everyone was cool, they would sue each other then cross license it all as a settlement.

It was in part to create a barrier to entry, a newcomer could neither afford the licenses nor have enough clout in their own portfolio to represent a threat.

Apple basically walked in and launched the nukes by not going along with the established deal. For better or worse, I'm not making a judgment.

Re:Think about What Could Be... (1)

AndreR (814444) | about 2 years ago | (#41845163)

It's not because they lack money that Apple and Google don't do more development.
Consider that Apple spends 2% of their revenue on R&D. And that they have 100+ *billion* in the bank and are doing nothing with it.

Apple's Fault (4, Insightful)

oGMo (379) | about 2 years ago | (#41845167)

Apple chose to use the "nuclear option," and have no-one to blame but themselves. These things are typically settled reasonably ... compare patent stacks, few pennies go to the one with the taller stack. But no, Apple has shown they don't play nice. Everyone with any sense will be hostile toward Apple. Prisoner's Dilemma [wikipedia.org] , basically, except everyone knows ahead of time that Apple defects.

Apple can't win this way in the long run. They may have a big pile of cash, but if everything they want to do suddenly gets nickel-and-dimed, they'll find that only goes so far.

Re:Think about What Could Be... (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about 2 years ago | (#41845231)

The money isn't being burned. It's landing in lawyers' pockets and is a quite lucrative enterprise for them. As long as this remains so, the lawsuits will continue. If some kind of patent reform would stop the lawyers' profits, the lawsuits would go away.

But how to reform patent law, and still preserve rights of legitimate patent holders . . . we'll I'm stumped on that.

How is a percentage of a device cost fair? (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41844897)

I have no idea if Apple's $1 figure is fair. It's probably a lowball figure to negotiate from.

But I am sure Motorola's counter of a percentage based on device cost is NOT fair. After all, the only difference between a 64GB iPhone and a 32GB iPhone is the amount of RAM, yet Apple would have to pay Motorola more for a license from the more expensive phone! That is ridiculous.

Re:How is a percentage of a device cost fair? (5, Insightful)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 2 years ago | (#41844961)

But I am sure Motorola's counter of a percentage based on device cost is NOT fair.

Why is it not fair? If anything it's fairer than a fixed fee.

A fixed fee would block out cheap devices, like dumb phones and cheap cellular attached random bits of kit. If anything having a percentage is fairer since it allows the patent holder to make some money while not forcing the market exclusively into high cost devices.

Point should be to be paid for development (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 2 years ago | (#41845141)

A fixed fee would block out cheap devices

First of all - cheap device with LTE??

Secondly - How exactly would it block cheap devices? A fee of $1 would certainly not block cheap devices from existing. Furthermore I don't think a percentage fee is all that fair for Motorola in the case of a $20 phone, then they get paid a pittance for a technology they worked hard to develop.

The only really fair way to approach fees for patents used in standards is a clear and unchanging fee charged per device, so that anyone contemplating using that technology in a device has an up-front understanding what it adds to the cost.

If anything it's fairer than a fixed fee.

So you really think it's right for Motorola to get paid more because you decide to add more RAM, or USB ports, or a better screen to a device...

In that world you get devices that have lower quality components because it adds to the royalty fees you have to pay.

Re:Point should be to be paid for development (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41845201)

Soon enough there will be cheap devices with LTE. Some of them may even be dumbphones as eventually VoLTE will replace the previous voice calling methods..

Re:Point should be to be paid for development (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845293)

Article states this patent applies to all smartphones.

Don't see why you're limiting to LTE devices.

Re:How is a percentage of a device cost fair? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845031)

I don't know, maybe because that's how every single FRAND license has ever been negotiated? If the terms are Fair and Non-Discriminatory (the F and ND in FRAND), you cannot use fixed-per-device terms for one company and percentage-based terms for others.

Re:How is a percentage of a device cost fair? (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#41845077)

Indeed. Now if only Apple would release a completely useless 32KB version of their iPhone for $10, then the licence cost on the 32GB version would appear over a million times excessive. Asking a percentage on the value of a device rather than the cost is reasonable. Whether the specific percentage they are asking is reasonable is another matter.

Lets hope common sense wins (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41844901)

AFAIK Apple has always agreed the patents are valid, they have however refused to pay UNFAIR fees.

Put it another way,what Motorola is asking for is like a Tyre company charging for a tyre based on what your car is worth, or the exact same tyre.
Apple is asking to pay the same price as everyone else.

Love/Hate Apple as much as you like, but if it was you buying the tyre for your car would you think it is Fair, Reasonable to pay 10 times the price someone else does simply because your car costs more ?

Re:Lets hope common sense wins (3, Funny)

plaguerider (2576157) | about 2 years ago | (#41844927)

buddy, you're on the wrong website for that kind of talk

Re:Lets hope common sense wins (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41844981)

If you put 35 dollar tires on a Ferrari, it would essentially cease to be a Ferrari in terms of any performance metric. Besides, it's Apple's decision to gouge their customers. If their profit margin was similar to everyone else's, it wouldn't be 10 times the price.

Re:Lets hope common sense wins (1)

plaguerider (2576157) | about 2 years ago | (#41845177)

Good point, everyone should have the same margins.

Re:Lets hope common sense wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845217)

Funny how Samsung charges similar pricing for their Galaxy phones. Are they gouging too?

Re:Lets hope common sense wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845175)

you could be correct, but i i think your leaving out a part. The part that apple has been freely infringing for some time, and moto has been getting nothing. so maybe apple pays a lump some the a set amount per phone, but the percentage they are asking for includes both infringement going forward and the infringement that has been taking place.

FRAND (1)

Coward Anonymous (110649) | about 2 years ago | (#41844905)

At what $ value did Motorola license these patents to other companies?

Re:FRAND (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#41845011)

Whatever $ value it is, I'm sure it covered all devices instead of just the ones they will be selling past some future date.

Re:FRAND (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845025)

They won't say publicly. I wonder why?

Re:FRAND (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845053)

Actually Pre-Apple most of these phone companies just cross licensed each others patents to avoid situations such as this. Apple however refuses to cross-license any of their patents, no matter how ridiculous those patents may be. I really hope a judge slaps them down hard and then maybe they'll get the idea that patent warfare isnt in their best interests.

Hey Google fanbois, is it time to start the hate? (0, Troll)

RocketRabbit (830691) | about 2 years ago | (#41844915)

I wonder if we can sense any consistency from the pro-Google now that Motorola (ie Google) has decided to go ahead and sue Apple. We all know the general feeling on Slashdot has been driven by people who feel that Apple should not be able to protect what it feels are its important patents - now that Google is on the warpath, is it possible that we will see them maintain a consistent position regarding how "evil" patent lawsuits are and that they are "holding back technology?" Or will they simply take the line that, "Well, it's ok if Google does it because I either work for them, or I have such tunnel vision that I can't see the hypocrisy that everybody else sees in me?"

Anyway, this will be a delicious bunch of posts to read - the screeds will be incoherent, filled with vague and un-provable legal prognostication, and cause many particles of sand to become lodged in many, many manginas (pre- and post-op).

Happy posting everybody!

Re:Hey Google fanbois, is it time to start the hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41844997)

Google is giving Apple a taste of its own medicine.

Re:Hey Google fanbois, is it time to start the hat (1, Insightful)

RocketRabbit (830691) | about 2 years ago | (#41845055)

Yes, this is a typical response, exactly what I expected. I'm glad to see that I'm not going to be disappointed in this thread!

Pray tell, doesn't this go against Google's pledge to "only use patents defensively" which I often hear quoted here? Is it OK to abandon another one of your principles (Don't Be Evil was clearly just something that you repeated to suckers) when it suits you?

Re:Hey Google fanbois, is it time to start the hat (3, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41845173)

You mean attacking those who attack you is not defense?

Should they just take it?

Besides this is motorola pursuing a lawsuit that started before Google bought them.

Re:Hey Google fanbois, is it time to start the hat (1)

Bobfrankly1 (1043848) | about 2 years ago | (#41845251)

Pray tell, doesn't this go against Google's pledge to "only use patents defensively" which I often hear quoted here?

While I don't particularly take Google's side (I see both companies as a plague at times), one could apply the adage: "The best defense is a good offense".

Re:Hey Google fanbois, is it time to start the hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845197)

So I suppose Google, with a *slight* vestment in Android, should just sit back and watch Apple start a war with a number of Android phone manufacturers?

I also suppose that even though a person may think violence is bad, that it's inconsistant behavior for them if they tried to fight back while they're being mugged.

I suppose that's ok as long as you're either an Apple zealot, blind idealist, or don't mind being mugged.

Re:Hey Google fanbois, is it time to start the hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845215)

Hey, I've got a better idea! This thread will be for discussing the know-it-all asshole who thinks he's so clever because he can rush to conclusions from a false assumption (Google == Motorola, implying that all of Motorola's decisions are now directly made by Google and that all of Motorola's executives have been swiftly replaced in the amount of time since the sale was finalized, which, as anyone familiar with any company larger than a lemonade stand can attest to, is an absurd (some would say "wrong") assumption) and make smug comments about every person who responds to him! He certainly helps the discussion by giving him an apparently much-needed avenue to stroke his fragile ego!

Oh, almost forgot: This thread doesn't concern you, RocketRabbit. The grown-ups are talking now.

Re:Hey Google fanbois, is it time to start the hat (1)

tycoex (1832784) | about 2 years ago | (#41845305)

Two things:

First, I think that most people here feel that technical patents are somewhat more valid than design patents. While there are a number of people who think that patents as a whole are bad, but most people think that patents are okay, it's patents on things like "rounded corners" (aka design patents) that people dislike.

Secondly, if you attack someone who attacks you, are you being offensive or defensive? It's not immediately clear if retaliating after being attacked is a defensive action or an offensive one.

TFS is flamebait. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41844947)

Motorola could end this quickly, or watch as Apple drags this out for what could be years.

This implies that Motorola should bow gracefully to its Apple overlords, and accept the fact it is lucky to get table scraps. The patents are valid and Apple has been infringing. I would normally just say WTF? but then I saw it posted by Timothy :(

Not that patents are valid (0)

fermion (181285) | about 2 years ago | (#41844959)

Just that $1 a phone is cheaper than court. Apple seems to willing to pay to get rid of pests.

As far as "what has been offered' to others, then why does not Samsung give $2.50 to Apple. After all most Android devices pay 10-15 dollars to MS per device because MS owns *nix and all smartphone patens, so everything that is going make a call is going to have pay MS. money. OTOH, instead of just paying Apple, who also claims to own everything smartphone, they fight.

This is pretty much just a fight over who is going profit off the crumbs of the people who actually do the work to bring an innovative product. Google has yet to bring a product to market that the market really wants. The same with MS. Samsung has a leg to stand on, but because it has caved and paid money to MS, who has no real claim to it, they are kind of screwed, It is like paying for black mail. One you pay, you are stuck.

Re:Not that patents are valid (5, Insightful)

Zak3056 (69287) | about 2 years ago | (#41845079)

Google has yet to bring a product to market that the market really wants.

If I may quote Monty Python's 'Life of Brian': "All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us? "

Honestly, if you can't find anything that Google has brought to the table that the market "really wants" you just aren't paying attention.

Re:Not that patents are valid (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845267)

How many products sold directly by google have most of us chosen by the vote out personal cash. Haw many use google pay, how many have paid for google drive, how many have bought a phone from Google? MS can at least say that people pay cold hard cash for it's mouse and xbox, and that is in a highly competitive market.

I want to see the world burn! (5, Insightful)

XaXXon (202882) | about 2 years ago | (#41844971)

Let's get to the point where no one can make a phone anymore. That seems to be the only way we'll see the patent system get reformed.

Re:I want to see the world burn! (3, Interesting)

Qwavel (733416) | about 2 years ago | (#41845209)

We're a large part of the way there: there are very few companies in the world with sufficient patent arsenal to make a phone.

Here is a recent NPR podcast:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/10/23/163480928/episode-412-how-to-fix-the-patent-mess [npr.org]

It mentions the ridiculous number of patents required to make a smartphone (can't remember the number) and the legal impossibility of making arrangement for all those patents.

Re:I want to see the world burn! (1)

Richard_J_N (631241) | about 2 years ago | (#41845287)

If I were Moto, I'd offer Apple a choice: $20 per device, OR a promise that neither party would ever sue the other for any patent (and Google would have to cover Android too) except if countersuing.

Re:I want to see the world burn! (1)

Princeofcups (150855) | about 2 years ago | (#41845319)

Let's get to the point where no one can make a phone anymore. That seems to be the only way we'll see the patent system get reformed.

What they really want is just one maker of phones with a world monopoly.

Huge balls (3, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#41844975)

Apple sure do have a pair of huge balls.
One day they'll stumble over 'em.

Re:Huge balls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845241)

No, sorry. Apple failed to patent balls. Instead, they carry a large pair of rectangular-shaped testicles with rounded corners, although one of them has recently shrunk a bit smaller than the other.

Simple. Trade. (2)

jabberwock (10206) | about 2 years ago | (#41845023)

How does this not get resolved by: "Sheesh, okay. Stop suing us, and we'll stop suing you. You can use our really dumb patents, we can use yours."

Oh, right. Lawyers are involved.

Apple's didn't admit guilt (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845027)

it says 'Apple’s offer makes it clear they accept Motorola’s patents are valid, so now it’s just a squabble over their value.'

Not really, maybe they just figured it was cheaper to pay $1 going forward than pay lawyers to get a fair agreement.

I wonder what the patent number is?

bring it back around (1)

Twillerror (536681) | about 2 years ago | (#41845035)

How about Google just asking Apple to not charge Samsung a billion dollars and call it even.

Which will win out? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41845049)

Greed, or logic?

its not like apple ( or google ) will lose a dime anyway, as the extra cost incurred just gets passed along to the consumer.

Better idea (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 2 years ago | (#41845071)

Take $0 and a contract stating they will not sue any Android distributer in the future for patents.

Apple has been such an enormous patent troll (1)

Alien Being (18488) | about 2 years ago | (#41845091)

They deserve to be buried by Google/Motorola. $1000/device, final offer you bastards.

Fundamental WiFi patent (1)

ElitistWhiner (79961) | about 2 years ago | (#41845099)

MOTO owns the fundamental patent they must share
SO...
GOOG is spoiling for a fight
AND
AAPL stands to rights recognizing its validity and fundamental offer requested to pay
SCOTUS
will decide restraint of trade on this one

Shape up (1)

slapout (93640) | about 2 years ago | (#41845115)

Dear Apple, Samsung and other companies,

Patents are a tool to help the people of a society. If you continue to abuse this tool, we the people will ban all patents or take other steps necessary to see that they are used properly.

children playing with knives (2)

markhahn (122033) | about 2 years ago | (#41845151)

companies are like children, and can't be trusted to play with sharp, pointy objects. actually, it's more like they were digging in the back yard and found a buried mine that happened to be a neutron bomb. they're poking at it with sticks now.

society created the whole concept of IP, and we need to clean it up now, before it causes more damage.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... (1)

penguin1337 (2714197) | about 2 years ago | (#41845225)

I personally don't believe in software patents at all, but you have to admit this is poetic justice. If I was Google, I'd aquire as many patents against apple as I could and everytime they sued someone for some stupid patent, I'd return the favor.

Apple: Contempt of Court (4, Insightful)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 2 years ago | (#41845243)

Apple really seems to have been going out of its way to piss off courts recently. First the event in Britain where they basically thumbed their nose at the Appeals Court and defied their order about posting the apology. Now they're pre-emptively threatening the court in Wisconsin, saying that if they don't get what they want, they are going to go all-out with appeals. While judges know their decisions are subject to appeal, they very much do not like being publicly threatened in such a manner by litigants, especially while the trial is still going on. I think they may have bought themselves a world of pain with this verdict when it finally comes. And appeals courts will be all the more likely to look at Apple's filings with a skeptical eye now that they've already told all the world they are doing it as part of a hardball business strategy.

Apple.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41845261)

Apple has an impressive set of testicles.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?