• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Google Fights Back

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
not like they are going to sue google, the h.264 consortium will. the consortium is its own organization with its own budget
 
alent1234 said:
apple was in negotiations to license it

under FRAND rules you have to license the patents for a few pennies per device or the same rate to everyone. competitors included
Click to expand...

You should note that Moto offered the same licensing terms to Apple, who called them 'unfair'. Apple needs special treatment, and deserves to get better licensing deals at cheaper prices. Because iDevices are magical.
 
Bateluer said:
You should note that Moto offered the same licensing terms to Apple, who called them 'unfair'. Apple needs special treatment, and deserves to get better licensing deals at cheaper prices. Because iDevices are magical.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because Motorola wanted a certain percentage of the total cost of the phone. When FRAND would ask for fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms, which means what is fair is that Apple would only have to pay for a certain percentage of the total cost of the hardware that incorporates the use of that patent (probably the 3G chip).
 
Bateluer said:
You should note that Moto offered the same licensing terms to Apple, who called them 'unfair'. Apple needs special treatment, and deserves to get better licensing deals at cheaper prices. Because iDevices are magical.
Click to expand...

2.25% of the final $599 price tag is "fair"? That's nuts.
 
Last edited:
poofyhairguy said:
But apparently not enough, as they have tried to seek an injunction against Samsung.

All the iPhone patents need to be in a FRAND-ish arrangement, and Apple should get royalties for them and nothing else.
Click to expand...

Why stick specifically to Apple. When Dyson first came out and filed a patent, Hoover should be able to fork over pennies on the dollar to be able to use the technology and essentially wipe Dyson out, right?

You earn your patent and it's your responsibility to defend your patent.
 
TuxDave said:
Why stick specifically to Apple. When Dyson first came out and filed a patent, Hoover should be able to fork over pennies on the dollar to be able to use the technology and essentially wipe Dyson out, right?

You earn your patent and it's your responsibility to defend your patent.
Click to expand...

That's what Motorola is doing. Defending their patents. Apple wants to fork over pennies on the dollar on Motorola's patents and use their technology, while they sue around the world to wipe Motorola out.
 
senseamp said:
That's what Motorola is doing. Defending their patents. Apple wants to fork over pennies on the dollar on Motorola's patents and use their technology, while they sue around the world to wipe Motorola out.
Click to expand...

Yes, asking Apple to pay money to license their patent (required by everyone using a specific global standard and thus being FRAND) is defending a patent. Asking Apple to pay an unfair price is asking for a lawsuit. 😛

There's a big difference between a standard setting patent and other patents. You don't HAVE to license your regular patents to other people. However if you want to be part of a standard setting organization where you convince everyone in the world to build a platform that uses your patents, you're obligated to license it out for a fair price.
 
Last edited:
TuxDave said:
Yes, asking Apple to pay money to license their patent (required by everyone using a specific global standard and thus being FRAND) is defending a patent. Asking Apple to pay an unfair price is asking for a lawsuit. 😛

There's a big difference between a standard setting patent and other patents. You don't HAVE to license your regular patents to other people. However if you want to be part of a standard setting organization where you convince everyone in the world to build a platform that uses your patents, you're obligated to license it out for a fair price.
Click to expand...

Who says it's an unfair price? Motorola is offering same price to Microsoft too.
 
senseamp said:
Who says it's an unfair price? Motorola is offering same price to Microsoft too.
Click to expand...

The one against Microsoft is a different patent (and no article has mentioned if it's FRAND). I haven't kept up with the courts but I think the ruling is going to be largely based on two facts. How much do other companies pay Motorola for the 3G license and whether or not Apple should even have to pay if they bought a chip from Qualcomm who owns the license.
 
Supposedly the ms patent is a wifi one that's part of a standard as well

A few years ago moto took away Qualcomm's license to their patents so they could play Patent troll
 
senseamp said:
How much does Apple want for its patents?
Click to expand...

They don't want anything for their patents. They want companies to stop infringing on them. Unlike FRAND patents, apple doesn't have any obligation to license them. I feel like we have all been over this ad nauseum. I also feel like you already knew the answer to this question. You may think this is unfair but apple is well within their rights. Motorola, with their 3G patent, is not.
 
cheezy321 said:
They don't want anything for their patents. They want companies to stop infringing on them. Unlike FRAND patents, apple doesn't have any obligation to license them. I feel like we have all been over this ad nauseum. I also feel like you already knew the answer to this question. You may think this is unfair but apple is well within their rights. Motorola, with their 3G patent, is not.
Click to expand...

They are well within their rights as well. FRAND doesn't mean free. Apple has to license those patents to not be infringing on them.
 
senseamp said:
They are well within their rights as well. FRAND doesn't mean free. Apple has to license those patents to not be infringing on them.
Click to expand...

Qualcomm supposedly had already licensed all of the patents. Why should apple pay again?

That's like music companies asking you to pay for the songs that you hear in commercials on TV. The creator of the commercial already licensed the song, why should I pay?

It's also possible that Apple's current Qualcomm-equipped products do not infringe the patent due to "patent exhaustion"—in other words, Qualcomm's license to the patent very likely covers Apple's use of its chips.
Click to expand...
 
cheezy321 said:
Qualcomm supposedly had already licensed all of the patents. Why should apple pay again?

That's like music companies asking you to pay for the songs that you hear in commercials on TV. The creator of the commercial already licensed the song, why should I pay?
Click to expand...

If Qualcomm is licensed, they shouldn't have to pay. If it's not, they should.
 
cheezy321 said:
Agreed. They should pay no more than any other company licensing the same patent.
Click to expand...

Which is how much per device? I am guessing Motorola has cross license agreements with other companies, not per device agreements. If Apple doesn't want to enter into cross license agreement, then a per device rate needs to be established.
 
poofyhairguy said:
You can say that it is within Apple's right to not allow other companies to license iPhone related patents, but when they are so aggressive about defending the patents it hurts consumers who should have other options in the modern smartphone market besides Apple. Heck, that is the point of things like FRAND- to allow innovators to get paid while allowing the industry to move forward.
Click to expand...

That's why there are FRAND patents, to keep the industry moving. Patents that aren't FRAND, the company has the right to not license them. If you expect Apple to license their patents then why just not make everything FRAND?
 
TuxDave said:
Why stick specifically to Apple. When Dyson first came out and filed a patent, Hoover should be able to fork over pennies on the dollar to be able to use the technology and essentially wipe Dyson out, right?
Click to expand...

Bad analogy.

Dysons might be amazing, but you can still clean a carpet without one. You might just have to pay more, or accept technology that is not as efficient.

If Apple is allowed to not license its patents, you might not be able to make a touchscreen smartphone unless you are them.

In a post-PC world where more and more people connect with each other with smartphones rather than computers, and a lot of the innovation is in the smartphone market for both businesses and consumers, Apple keeping their patents can cripple mobile technology and therefore developed society. Apple's patents can put developed countries at a disadvantage for innovation in the sector to undeveloped nations where Apple's patents don't apply. It is in developed society's interest to intervene.

A better analogy is when the first car company invented an air-bag, and that was licensed out to other car makers to make all cars safer. If that first company didn't want to license the air-bag and instead filed an injunction against all car makers that took the idea to try to have safer vehicles I would fully support a judge stepping in and forcing the inventing company to share for the good of us all.

Apple is the most profitable company in the mobile sector, they have huge marketshare and a solid brand name (iPhone) in that market. As far as I am concerned, they already got the benefit the system intended they got from their patents.

They don't have the right to stagnate the smartphone market just because all of that isn't enough for them or because Jobs was butthurt. At some point the law goes out the window and what is practical is what needs to happen (aka something like jury nullification but with judges).
 
Last edited:
MrX8503 said:
That's why there are FRAND patents, to keep the industry moving. Patents that aren't FRAND, the company has the right to not license them. If you expect Apple to license their patents then why just not make everything FRAND?
Click to expand...

Not everything needs to be FRAND, but sometimes you have to do what is practical.

The right to have a patent is supposed to be a benefit to society. Because without an organized society the only natural right you have to protect your invention is to block others from seeing it. The second it stops being a benefit, is the second I believe the system needs to force sharing.

If Apple gets its way, the majority marketshare holder in the smartphone market could be taken out of the market. Millions of consumers who have voted with their wallets that they want Android would be denied the option just to make Apple happy.

I think it is obvious in such a situation that you don't allow Apple to shutdown the current smartphone market. You bend the rule from your bench to force licensing so the most popular platform chosen by the citizens the damn law is supposed to benefit can stay in the market.

I think the momentum shift in Europe means those judges agree with my opinion. It is better to put Apple in their place rather than allow the smartphone market to basically be shut down.
 
samsung can still make touch screen phones. touch has been researched since the 80's. Apple just has patents on a few algorithms for capacitive touch screen devices.

you can still use other screen types. you can change the screen chemical formula. you can code your own algorithms into your OS

its just like car engines. all the car companies build the same basic engine but do it differently enough so they can patent different parts of it including the software that controls fuel injection
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top