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 Suit Against Motorola Over FRAND Licensing Rates Dismissed

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the stop-wasting-our-time dept.

The Courts 249

chill writes "A suit by Apple claiming that Motorola Mobility, now owned by Google, is seeking unreasonably high license fees for the use of patents on wireless technology has been thrown out by a judge in Madison, Wisconsin. Last week, Apple told the court it would pay up to $1 per device for a license to Motorola patents covering cellular and Wi-Fi technologies. Motorola Mobility was arguing for a royalty payment of 2.25 percent on each device." From the article: "'At the final pretrial conference, I asked Apple to explain why it believed the court should determine a FRAND rate even though the rate may not resolve the parties' licensing or infringement disputes,' Crabb wrote in an order on Friday. 'I questioned whether it was appropriate for a court to undertake the complex task of determining a FRAND rate if the end result would be simply a suggestion that could be used later as a bargaining chip between the parties.'"

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

lick my nuts (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41888687)

Lick my nuts

Apple also said... (4, Interesting)

sconeu (64226) | about 2 years ago | (#41888723)

Apple also said it would ignore the court's order if it chose more than $1/device.

Re:Apple also said... (4, Interesting)

jkrise (535370) | about 2 years ago | (#41888853)

Apple also said it would ignore the court's order

Steve Jobs should've been alive.... and witnessed the humiliation his so-called thermonuclear war is bringing onto his beloved company.

Re:Apple also said... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41888979)

If Steve Jobs were alive, he'd have RDFed the judge into agreeing with him.

Re:Apple also said... (5, Insightful)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41889217)

Apple was a thug long before Steve Jobs declared thermonuclear war, but Jobs was a master at concealing that. Tim Cook isn't. This is one of several reasons that it is just wonderful for the rest of us that Tim Cook now runs Apple.

Re:Apple also said... (4, Funny)

mjwx (966435) | about 2 years ago | (#41889267)

Apple was a thug long before Steve Jobs declared thermonuclear war, but Jobs was a master at concealing that. Tim Cook isn't. This is one of several reasons that it is just wonderful for the rest of us that Tim Cook now runs Apple.

Actually, Steve Jobs wasn't very good at concealing the fact he was an arsehole, this we have known since the 80's. Granted Tim Cook is worse at it, but that doesn't make Steve Jobs good at it.

Think of it this way, I'm a better singer than 99.9999% of all rappers, but that doesn't mean I can hold a note (nor does it stop me wailing 80's power ballads down the highway).

Re:Apple also said... (4, Funny)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#41889571)

Think of it this way, I'm a better singer than 99.9999% of all rappers, but that doesn't mean I can hold a note (nor does it stop me wailing 80's power ballads down the highway).

The RIAA may beg to differ. At the rate we are going, our cars will listen to what we are singing, determine how many people are in the car listening to it, and automatically charge you for royalties on each person as well as a surcharge for bad singing.

Re:Apple also said... (5, Funny)

mjwx (966435) | about 2 years ago | (#41889681)

Think of it this way, I'm a better singer than 99.9999% of all rappers, but that doesn't mean I can hold a note (nor does it stop me wailing 80's power ballads down the highway).

The RIAA may beg to differ. At the rate we are going, our cars will listen to what we are singing, determine how many people are in the car listening to it, and automatically charge you for royalties on each person as well as a surcharge for bad singing.

I'm sure I'm out of tune enough for it to be considered an original work. Especially with the low standards of originality in the music industry.

Re:Apple also said... (1)

chaboud (231590) | about 2 years ago | (#41890085)

I'm pretty sure that's going to be ASCAP. Do I need to now pay $0.08 to the PIAA?

Re:Apple also said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41889555)

How so? Their systems were always more closed than the competition, but there are good reasons for that approach and for their target market - the non-tinkerer - I don't see the problem with it. In my mind they only became real thugs when the patent nonsense began. The only other thing that compares in terms of assholishness was their purposeful disruption of jailbroken iPhones.

Re:Apple also said... (2)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 2 years ago | (#41888911)

Judges really don't like it when you ignore them. If Apple keeps going down this road as with the advertisement debacle its going to get a spanking it will be a long time forgetting.

Re:Apple also said... (5, Interesting)

TigerTime (626140) | about 2 years ago | (#41888921)

Wait, and wasn't Apple wanting something like $30/phone from Samsung for rounded corners, the bounce back patents, and a couple other small ones???

$1 is laughable when compared to the importance of the phone.

Re:Apple also said... (3, Funny)

siddesu (698447) | about 2 years ago | (#41889057)

Some might argue that the most important feature of the phone from the perspective of the marker is how well it sells. And when it comes to that, the rounded corners and the way the interface looks and behaves may be much more important than the actual tech that is working inside. People base a lot of purchasing decision on recommendations and advertising, not on reading the full specs.

Re:Apple also said... (3, Interesting)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41889257)

Regarldess of the merit of your speculation on the importance of rounded corners relative to the functionality of a phone, it would seem that the legal world is now coming around to the belated realization that rounded corners are not actually something you can patent. [project-disco.org]

Re:Apple also said... (1)

siddesu (698447) | about 2 years ago | (#41889347)

I am not speculating about the importance of rounded corners relative to the functionality of the phone, I am merely making the point about the importance of the looks to the saleability of the product. What the legal world is thinking about patentaibility of rounded corners now is completely irrelevant. Apple did not make the cash pile they are sitting on because of the patents.

Re:Apple also said... (1, Interesting)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41889435)

Apple did not make the cash pile they are sitting on because of the patents.

Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that Apple lost more than $100 billion of market value in the last seven weeks, after becoming a patent troll.

Re:Apple also said... (1)

siddesu (698447) | about 2 years ago | (#41889495)

How so? They started suing people around only after the said people made competitive products that sold well. IIRC, the first Apple suit about the iPhone came in 2010, against HTC. At that time, the iPhone and the iPad were already quite successful and making quite a lot of money.

Re:Apple also said... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41889313)

So your saying people are sheep? I spend a lot of my time in purchasing decisions researching background and reviews, and almost everyone I know does that as well. Only a few, all of which have little technical background (Eg: hardly ever use a computer, and when they do it's mostly checking e-mail, etc...) purchase based on appearance, and even then those people tend to favor reviews from friends over appearance.

So don't try to excuse apple's tactics as though they are justified. If I were Samsung/Motorola I'd open a huge anti-competitive lawsuit against Apple.

And to be honest the main reason I wont purchase anything made by Apple even though their technology is well designed is because I don't support their legal and corporate practices. When Apple starts behaving like a respectable company and stops suing everyone for minor issues, and starts treating me like I am an individual not a drone. (Meaning I am allowed to make a choice even if it's one they don't like) then I might consider their products as a viable solution, until then apple is off limits for me and my family.

I mean I wouldn't mind their tactics if I were a business owner, as the whole apple perspective tends to protect businesses. However as an individual, I don't like them.

Re:Apple also said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41889391)

So..... what you're saying is that it doesn't matter that the iPhone can be just a paperweight, doesn't do much of what a smartphone is suppose to do (i.e. do calls, have data connectivity, etc), as long as it has round corners (and a brick can always "bounce back")? Yeah, good luck trying to sell that to the market.

To have what it's considered the most important features in a smartphone first has to BE a smartphone. It's not true that people are not interested in the specs, the full specs is inherited, the phone first has to perform the way is expected to, i.e. run x applications, have y features, render nice graphics, be smooth while scrolling about... oh, and yeah, be able to do calls with good quality, be able to take advantage of data plans in whatever generation of mobile connectivity it's on, and so on. And for that it needs good display, good cpu, adequate ram, etc. So, it's inherited and the buyer doesn't need to know full specs as long as it says it does all those things.

Re:Apple also said... (4, Funny)

jrumney (197329) | about 2 years ago | (#41889407)

Some might argue that the most important feature of the phone from the perspective of the marker is how well it sells.

The most important feature of a phone from the perspective of a marker is how absorbent the surfaces are. Gorilla glass - the marker is just going to rub off. Plastic is generally better but you still need to avoid touching it for a while to let it dry. Paper would be better, but not a practical material to make smart phones out of.

Re:Apple also said... (0)

siddesu (698447) | about 2 years ago | (#41889431)

Very smart.

Re:Apple also said... (3, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41889573)

So making the phone look good is more important than making the phone a phone? Do iPod Touch's outsell iPhones?

Re:Apple also said... (1)

siddesu (698447) | about 2 years ago | (#41889615)

Does the iPod touch work as a phone?

Re:Apple also said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41889761)

Is the iPod touch a phone?

Re:Apple also said... (2)

siddesu (698447) | about 2 years ago | (#41889819)

Ask the GP, he seems to think so.

Re:Apple also said... (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#41889877)

It is if you install a VOIP app.

Re:Apple also said... (1)

siddesu (698447) | about 2 years ago | (#41889937)

Really? And how do you connect on the go? Carry a data dongle?

Re:Apple also said... (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#41890045)

Not everyone needs an always-on connection in their pocket....

Re:Apple also said... (4, Insightful)

Grieviant (1598761) | about 2 years ago | (#41889815)

The "some that might argue" that are fools ignorant of the communications technology in cellular phones. Apple abuses their FRAND free ride on the significant communications R&D that has taken place over the last 20 years and tries to gouge everyone else on artsy fartsy design and software patents that wouldn't exist without the complicity of clueless patent examiners.

Re:Apple also said... (0, Troll)

jader3rd (2222716) | about 2 years ago | (#41889293)

Wait, and wasn't Apple wanting something like $30/phone from Samsung for rounded corners, the bounce back patents, and a couple other small ones???

$1 is laughable when compared to the importance of the phone.

Yes, but a dollar figure sets a minimum bar for the cost of the device. If 100 companies when after Apple, all claiming 2.5% of the cost of the device, the device would have to cost at least 2.5 times what it costs. Percentages are an impossible and unfounded way to demand royalties from another group.

Re:Apple also said... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41889679)

Read up on FRAND and then start posting. Your opinion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the issues at stake.

Re:Apple also said... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41889701)

Are you sure it's not your opinion that suffers from those flaws?

Contrary to common Apple apologists misconceptions, FRAND doesn't mean "cheap" nor "can't sue me".

"ignore the court's order"... not quite (1)

Caledfwlch (1434813) | about 2 years ago | (#41889083)

Actually, from TFA, "Apple said that if the court found in Motorola's favor and instructed Apple to pay more than $1, Apple would pursue all possible appeals against the ruling." which isn't the same as ignoring it, unless you have a citation from somewhere else.

Re:"ignore the court's order"... not quite (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41889423)

excuse me, but you didn't say anything about rowed icons or rounded corners.... it's almost as it you're not trying to bash Apple... what's up with that? Look around you, man... don't let the truth stand in the way of a good bashing!

Re:Apple also said... (1)

beltsbear (2489652) | about 2 years ago | (#41889193)

No, Apple did not say that. They said they would be willing to pay $1 per device WITHOUT a court order.

Re:Apple also said... (2, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41889607)

But their offer is an implication their devices willfully infringe the patents. They're refusing to pay the $1 per device on the millions of devices they agree infringe on Motorola's patents but have already sold and profited from.

Re:Apple also said... (3, Informative)

beltsbear (2489652) | about 2 years ago | (#41889851)

Most offers like that are made as an offer of settlement and do not admit infringement. Aren't lawyers amazing?

Re:Apple also said... (3, Informative)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41890067)

Amazing is not the word I'd use to describe lawyers.

That's either misinformed or a lie (1)

pem (1013437) | about 2 years ago | (#41889831)

depending on who you are...

Re:Apple also said... (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#41889325)

Wow. If I were the judge that would really torque me. I would set the rate at 10 bucks wait for them to defy me and then start throwing officers in jail.

I do not understand (4, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#41888737)

I do not understand why the same company which sued others over some lousy rounded corners refuses to pay royalties over others' patents?

If I expect others to pay me over some lousy rounded corners I expect myself to play the same game - and will pay the royalty I owed to others when I use their patents.

At least, that was been taught to me by my elders.

Maybe Apple Inc has other kinds of "elders" - one who expect others to pay them while refusing to pay others.

Re:I do not understand (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41888767)

Because Apple made it's billions stealing other people's ideas, and it would really cut into their profits if they had to pay to use the ideas they're appropriating.

Re:I do not understand (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41888789)

It's pretty straightforward, actually: Apple are a bunch of cunts. Hope that clears things up.

Re:I do not understand (5, Funny)

mjwx (966435) | about 2 years ago | (#41889241)

It's pretty straightforward, actually: Apple are a bunch of cunts. Hope that clears things up.

The association of collective vagina's takes offence to this comparison.

Re:I do not understand (2)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41889637)

Not really, they're too busy playing with their iPhones and iPads to notice some random AC joke on Slashdot.

Re:I do not understand (3, Funny)

samion.blanc (2729103) | about 2 years ago | (#41889711)

yeah well the ACV can S my D

Re:I do not understand (3, Funny)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41889273)

That's funny, we say the same thing about most anonymous cowards too!

Re: I DO understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41888821)

I do not understand why the same company which sued others over some lousy rounded corners refuses to pay royalties over others' patents?

If I expect others to pay me over some lousy rounded corners I expect myself to play the same game - and will pay the royalty I owed to others when I use their patents.

At least, that was been taught to me by my elders.

Maybe Apple Inc has other kinds of "elders" - one who expect others to pay them while refusing to pay others.

Thing is, the high ups in Apple are greedy, childish, petulant bastards, who love nothing more than twisting our laws to their benefit, and crying bloody murder when the court rulings don't go their way.

It's not their fault. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41888831)

I don't blame them.

After 20 years of doing whatever the fuck you feel like, and having droves of idiots defending anything you do, regardless of how illegal, immoral and just plain insane your behavior and decisions are...

You'd lose a bit of self criticism too.

Re:It's not their fault. (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41889599)

How can you even post this, given the immense irony of it?

Re:I do not understand (4, Insightful)

slew (2918) | about 2 years ago | (#41888871)

Apple: All your ideas are belong to us.

What more to understand?

Re:I do not understand (4, Interesting)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41888885)

i'll get modded down but the way FRAND works is the rates are usually a few cents per device and you cross license any FRAND patents that you have as well. you don't have to license non-FRAND patents.

apple doesn't have much FRAND patents but they have a lot of non-FRAND patents that others want. everyone else has lots of FRAND but not much non-FRAND that is wanted now. so its a game that lasts years

in the end apple will write a huge check for back royalties and come to some kind of agreement on everything else

Re:I do not understand (2, Insightful)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 years ago | (#41888975)

the longer apple fights this, the more $ per device they will have to dish out as track record showing apple's refusal to make a deal will hurt then in FTC/court's eye's.

Re:I do not understand (2)

Turboglh (816701) | about 2 years ago | (#41889033)

A point I've heard mentioned in other places. I guess the divide is between a company who has, and a company who doesn't have, FRAND patents.

I think the idea is that MotoMobility/Google are asking for a higher rate due to a lack of reciprocal FRAND patents.

Re:I do not understand (1, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | about 2 years ago | (#41889063)

apple doesn't have much FRAND patents but they have a lot of non-FRAND patents that others want.

What? You mean those stupid patents on rounded corners and arranging icons in a row? Others may want such 'features' but they ought not have been allowed to be patented in the first place.

Re:I do not understand (1)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41889099)

rounded corners are design patents. everyone has them. check out the patent office, samsung has patents on the shape of their refrigerators

Re:I do not understand (-1, Offtopic)

beltsbear (2489652) | about 2 years ago | (#41889239)

The few cents per device is normal for FRAND licensing without cross licensing but that turns to zero if you are cross licensing a similar amount of FRAND patents. The problem has come that some patent owners (Samsung, Motorola) want to charge unusually high rates for FRAND patents to Apple take advantage of the large profits Apple is making. They have even tried to get Apple to pay for 'exhausted' patents such as on radio chips that Qualcomm sells Apple. Qualcomm has already paid the licensing fees for the chips, Apple should not have to pay a second time. Everyone may not like Apple and I do partially blame them for this patent war, but they have not been treated properly on the FRAND patents.

Re:I do not understand (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41890073)

I don't think you understand what FRAND is or what the licencing terms are. You pulled a stupid statement out of your ass by suggesting that it's normal to only pay a few cents per device if there is no cross licencing.

Re:I do not understand (4, Insightful)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41889329)

apple doesn't have much FRAND patents but they have a lot of non-FRAND patents that others want.

That is not clearly true at all. It is more accurate to say, Apple says it has a lot of patents that others want. Case in point: the bouncing scroll patent. Invalidated. [gizmodo.com]

My feeling: Apple has a bunch of junk patents but is skilled at gaming the courts.

Re:I do not understand (2, Insightful)

JimCanuck (2474366) | about 2 years ago | (#41890001)

i'll get modded down but the way FRAND works is the rates are usually a few cents per device and you cross license any FRAND patents that you have as well.

FRAND patents are typically a % of either manufacture or retail costs of the device, in any industry.

Apple's original argument was the 2.5% was too "expensive" for a iPhone they want to retail for $600 verses the same 2.5% that HTC pays for their $50 disposable phones.

Re:I do not understand (0, Troll)

jkrise (535370) | about 2 years ago | (#41888917)

I do not understand why the same company which sued others over some lousy rounded corners refuses to pay royalties over others' patents?

Why is this hard to understand? Apple is an American company, and that makes it the best in the World, without any question. Like all Americans and American companies, it needs to be protected from the jihadists............. er competition; else there will be thermo-nuclear warfare and the infidels must be destroyed. Every patriotic judge has a duty to protect Apple, the great American company.

Re:I do not understand (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41889059)

Yes, Apple is an American company, but Apple pay few tax in USA and the iPhone is build in China with few American part.

Re:I do not understand (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#41889641)

...and the iPhone is build in China with zero American parts.

Fixed that for you.

Re:I do not understand (2, Insightful)

tofubeer (1746800) | about 2 years ago | (#41888941)

If Motorolla didn't want to license things for a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rate then they should not have made the patent part of the standard. They chose to have it as part of the standard so it is subject to FRAND licensing.

Apple didn't make "rounded corners" part of a standard (nor did they actually sue over them). They are under no obligation to license that IP at all, let alone at a reasonable rate.

Re:I do not understand (3, Insightful)

jkrise (535370) | about 2 years ago | (#41888993)

Apple didn't make "rounded corners" part of a standard

Apple didn't make rounded corners - period; many others did that way before them. The stupid patent office shouldn't have issued patents on such silly things to Apple. And Apple should've been decent enough not to sue others over such trivial pathetic matters.

Re:I do not understand (2)

Turboglh (816701) | about 2 years ago | (#41889069)

As posted above, a normal part of a FRAND license is reciprocal licensing of your FRAND patents. If you don't have enough (or any) to balance out what you want to license, then a higher rate is to be expected.

Re:I do not understand (5, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | about 2 years ago | (#41889081)

Motorola did offer to license at a FRAND rate. This is normally followed by a negotiation (based on things like is the licensee offering a license to important patents in return), but Apple declined to negotiate. Note that "FRAND" does not mean "whatever rate the licensee wants to pay".

Re:I do not understand (-1, Troll)

beltsbear (2489652) | about 2 years ago | (#41889259)

No, Motorola wanted a very much inflated rate due to Apple's deep pockets and the bad blood between them. On non-FRAND patents they are FREE do this. They are not free to charge Apple whatever they want. Motorola wanted more then 10x the going rate for the FRAND patents.

Re:I do not understand (3)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41889503)

Motorola wanted more then 10x the going rate for the FRAND patents.

Citation please.

Re:I do not understand (0)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41889659)

And the GP does not have to provide a citation for his own dubious claim?

Re:I do not understand (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41890059)

Because Motorola does not have a history of asking 10X the usual FRAND license fees. Neither do they have a history being total dicks about their patents.

Re:I do not understand (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41889109)

You sir, are either ill informed or a fanboy.

Moto offered Apple the same percentage that they offer everyone. Everyone else has goodies that Moto was willing to accept in lieu of the full 2.25%. Moto either A. didn't want what Apple was willing to trade or B. Apple didn't want to trade anything Moto wanted. This means Moto was expecting the full 2.25% that it asks from anyone.

Apple's being a whiny, greedy child and deserves to be punished for infringing on legit IP they NEED to make a smartphone/tablet/etc...

Moto doesn't need trade dress patents from Apple.

End of story.

Re:I do not understand (-1, Flamebait)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41889309)

Sorry, but ACs don't get to claim "end of story".

The simple fact is until a court had adjudicated if 2.25% is "fair or reasonable", you and I both have no clue over the matter, and it matters not a whit if Motorola has made the same demands on other companies.

"End of Story."

Re:I do not understand (5, Informative)

kaiser423 (828989) | about 2 years ago | (#41889689)

and it matters not a whit if Motorola has made the same demands on other companies.

That's actually the only relevant part of ND in FRAND -- it matters greatly what other companies were offered and/or accepted in order to prove non-discriminatory pricing.

Re:I do not understand (2)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41889873)

The "offered" part, no. The "accepted" part, yes.

Re:I do not understand (2, Insightful)

gutnor (872759) | about 2 years ago | (#41889933)

Apple's being a whiny, greedy child and deserves to be punished for infringing on legit IP they NEED to make a smartphone/tablet/etc...

Well, complaining about somebody being a fanboy and falling right in the other camp. Unless you give more numbers, it may very well be that Apple has a good case. Motorola could very well have set a very high price for "everybody" knowing that all its best buds would not have to pay anyway. That's not even very advanced, that's just a classic trick.

Anyway, any new player need to ask authorisation via licensing/exchange to all its competitors because they all hold mandatory patent and are all in bed together. Is that supposed to be good thing ? I can't believe how people on slashdot are happy to accept patents as long it is used against Apple.

Re:I do not understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41889123)

If Motorolla didn't want to license things for a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rate then they should not have made the patent part of the standard. They chose to have it as part of the standard so it is subject to FRAND licensing.

Apple didn't make "rounded corners" part of a standard (nor did they actually sue over them). They are under no obligation to license that IP at all, let alone at a reasonable rate.

The question is what is "reasonable"? Personally, I think anything that doesn't involve cross-licensing your patent portfolio, whether it is FRAND or not, is an unreasonably low rate.

Re:I do not understand (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41889501)

It's a good thing you're not a lawyer then...

Re:I do not understand (5, Informative)

AnfieldSierra (737890) | about 2 years ago | (#41889167)

And if Apple doesn't want to enter into negitiations with Motorola over the rate of the license then it is not operating in good faith. Other handset manufacturers have licensed Mototola's standards esdsential patents, probably by being reasonable and negotiating like normal people. Apple have played hardball here by refusing to negotiate up front and going straight to court instead. Groklaw, as usual, have a good summary here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121105153442192 [groklaw.net]

Think of Apple as a cat. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41888989)

Apple has the same understanding of property as a cat - once they pee on it, it's theirs. It doesn't matter where an idea came from, once they pee on it/put in a iThing, it's forever Apple's property. It's unreasonable to them to pay anyone for anything they own/peed on, so the only possible value that would constitute FRAND to them is free.

Re:Think of Apple as a cat. (-1)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41889527)

Your metaphor is so bad it doesn't even make sense. Try again AC.

Re:Think of Apple as a cat. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41890003)

You must not have a cat. It made perfect sense to me.

Re:I do not understand (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41889255)

I don't understand why Slashdot posters continue to cherry pick which legal cases to cite as their basis for painting one Fortune 500 company saintly and another devilish. These large tech companies are involved in dozens of cases / litigations, some of which they are on solid ground, others of which they are on shaky ground. It's true for Apple, it's true for Google, it's true for everybody.

Actually, I take it back, you probably DO know this, just trolling regardless, huh.

Re:I do not understand (1)

jader3rd (2222716) | about 2 years ago | (#41889311)

I do not understand why the same company which sued others over some lousy rounded corners refuses to pay royalties over others' patents?

It could be that they believe that the technology Motorola is providing adds a certain dollar value to the device, not multiplies the value of the device by its mere presence.

Apple is killing themselves in this... (2)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 years ago | (#41888799)

Yea So far when it comes to these LTE patents it seems like Apple is unreasonable. But best way for samsung and google to battle apple in this case would be provide licensing costs that other phone makers pay for these patents. If Apple is trying to force a a lot lower rate. They apple can be seen as being unreasonable party if case gets to FTC. Apple was offered a # by samsung, Apple just walked away without even trying to negotiate, and LTE patent being only worth $1, per device seems kinda low and iffy. Looking at all these cases Apple is bring on against motorola and refusal to work with samsung on license option. Wonder how long it will be til both google and samsung say they got some litigation for apple, an FTC Import ban, Apple's constant court filing IMO is a clear case of apple not wanting to license these key patents anything that seen as reasonable by samsung/google's means. When it gets to point FTC sales ban comes in to pay against apple, all this crap of apple trying to avoid a license is gonna end up with their balls which Google/Samsung brand shotgun next to them.

Court, to Apple: Fuck off! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41888811)

Apple, to Court: Please remove the competition for us.

Court:Not possible; compete in the market on merit

Apple: But we are Apple, we need protection.

Court: Fuck off, and don't come back.

Re:Court, to Apple: Fuck off! (-1, Troll)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#41888897)

Nice troll, AC. More like:

Apple to court: We can't resolve this dispute, help us.

Court: We don't have the resources to make a solid judgement on this. You're big boys, solve it on your own.

But I guess everything looks like your comment when you're a mindless fanboy or fandroid.

Re:Court, to Apple: Fuck off! (1, Informative)

Turboglh (816701) | about 2 years ago | (#41889093)

AC is troll.

But I disagree on your respin. Apple asked for a judgement that would only be binding upon MotoMobility, and not on Apple. The court decided it didn't want to make a ruling that would have no effect besides to act as a new negotiating point between the two parties and dismissed it because Apple was unwilling to abide the courts ruling (whatever that may have ended up being)

Smart judge. (5, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about 2 years ago | (#41889009)

How many judges would have spotted that suit for the Trojan horse it is? This one did, and we are all grateful for it. No, she's not going to get famous for holding The Next Apple Trial, and that's great. For once, we have a judge who just wants to do her job. And she's a judge who knows that her job isn't to generate bargaining chips in commercial contracts negotiations.

Thank you Judge Barbara Crabb for telling Apple that asking Mommy for permission after Daddy already said no isn't going to work.

Re:Smart judge. (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about 2 years ago | (#41889135)

Apple had a case against motorola back in june as well that was thrown out as well.

Re:Smart judge. (5, Funny)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#41889405)

For once, we have a judge who just wants to do her job.

Lucy Koh is another judge who apparently just wants to do her job, but as an Apple employee.

Re:Smart judge. (0, Flamebait)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41889557)

Translation: Any judge who rules against Apple is saintly. Any judge who rules for Apple should be disrobed. I miss anything?

Re:Smart judge. (1)

Gumbercules!! (1158841) | about 2 years ago | (#41889807)

Nope.

Tim Cook is presiding over the demise of Apple. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41889129)

WHAT A LEGACY !!!!

On the other hand, it's about what you could realistically expect from
a guy who went to Auburn.

Jobs was the glue that held things together, now we all get to watch
the disintegration. There is no joy in this, but Tim Cook should be
ashamed enough that seppu-ku should be among the uppermost
options he considers, at least if he wants to be remembered as a man.

Re:Tim Cook is presiding over the demise of Apple. (1)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41889467)

Last I checked, sales at Apple are still increasing, year-to-year.

I generally associate a company that is increasing its revenues with "success". Perhaps your standards differ.

Goodie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41889357)

This is great. I can't wait to for Motorola cite precedent during the appeals of the Apple suit against Samsung when Apple was seeking $25+ per device for bullshit design patents like rounded corners. These FRAND patents are the real deal --backend stuff that actually took significant R&D capital to develop.

Slashdot only posts Apple litigation stories... (-1, Troll)

Scowler (667000) | about 2 years ago | (#41889447)

... nothing else.

What happened to apple.slashdot.org technology stories? There are plenty of news stories out there. They've only freaking revamped two thirds of their product lineup in the last 6 weeks, for goodness sake. Yet all Slashdot (read: Fandroid Central) can post is the stories involving lawsuits, it's disgusting.

Tragically, the Fanboi site macrumors is nowadays providing more unbiased coverage of Apple than is the declining Slashdot. Maybe if Taco was still around...

Priceless (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about 2 years ago | (#41889959)

Fanboi site macrumors is nowadays providing more unbiased coverage of Apple

Re:Slashdot only posts Apple litigation stories... (1)

Marksolo (970704) | about 2 years ago | (#41889985)

Rather than whine and complain about how every one is bashing Apple as you have repeatedly done throughout this page consider that for n people there are n+1 different stories. Apple is known for weaponising their patents and waging war against all that would stand against them. So in this case turnabout is not fair play? Sure they updated their product line, there has been much discussion/worship/bashing of the new iproducts this is a news site, this article was posted after the various product launches.

Consider also that the people that tend to visit slashdot are usually inteligent teck savvy people, some who like Apple products and some that detest them for various reasons. The moral of the story is put some content is your posts because all you sound like is the obsessed fan boy you accuse everyone else of being.

Re:Slashdot only posts Apple litigation stories... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41890043)

Because Apple has no new technology innovation.
Adding another incremental version number to the essentially identical product isn't revamping anything. It's just more fodder for the ADD fanbois that simply MUST have the latest iShiny.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?