decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Apple has RIGHTS! | 255 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections thread
Authored by: nsomos on Saturday, November 03 2012 @ 11:41 PM EDT
Please post corrections here.
A summary in the posts title is nice.
Check against PDF originals before suggesting
corrections to anything from a PDF source.

Thanks

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple has RIGHTS!
Authored by: kawabago on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 12:06 AM EDT
Apple needs the court to enforce Apple's rights! It also
needs the court to trample all over everyone else's rights. I
never thought a company could make Microsoft look good.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How long before this shows up in California?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 12:44 AM EDT
Seems pretty clear that Moto will file this in the Microsoft case sooner or
later.

In any event whether this trial goes forward or not there will be an appeal by
one party or the other. It could ultimately raise the issue of a split in the
courts. Depending of course what happens on Appeal in both cases.

It seems the appropriate move for this case would be to defer the trial and come
to some conclusion regarding what this trial is really going to decide. At this
point I don't think anyone knows, especially the judge.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 01:01 AM EST
;-)

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 01:01 AM EST
:-P

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Stuff Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 01:02 AM EST
:-|

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

got to be joking
Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 01:06 AM EST
just... what an _odd_ position for Apple to take.

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

FOSSPatents interested in legal accuracy
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 01:09 AM EST
Good one.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Motorola - FRAND Royalty Rate Trial in Wisconsin May Be Cancelled ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 01:36 AM EST
Hmmm.... I wonder what would happen if the judge looked at everything and
decided to simply dismiss Apple's case...with prejudice.

--W. H. Heydt

[ Reply to This | # ]

visiting the court
Authored by: Tufty on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 02:03 AM EST
I would REALLY love to visit one of these trials and report. I cannot. I live
hundreds and thousands of miles away and have other commitments that make it
impossible, not to mention the need for visas in advance.

Reading members' accounts adds so much to the colour of what is going on even if
we have to wait for the transcript to get the fine detail. To be able to feel
and smell what goes on is immense. For those who can turn up and do these
reports it is a huge event to those of us who cannot attend.

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

FRAND rate on wireless declared standards-essential portfolios
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 04:17 AM EST
The judge is wise to get out from under.

Apple use the phrase 'FRAND rate on wireless declared standards-essential
portfolios'. When I was young, we called a radio receiver, a wireless set.

Some of those wirelesses used the FM patents. They had to use the standards, or
they did not work. Of course, wireless is so much more than radio. Once you
waited for the tubes to light up you got light, heat and entertainment.

Supposing the judge selected $1.50 per device for each FRAND rate on wireless
declared standards-essential portfolios. Is that for each patent or for all of
them? What if there are lots, and each is owned by one of ten inventors? Does
that add up to $15 per item?

So, does each RFID chip that now costs less than $1 increase in price to $15?
Optical cables don't have wires in them. That makes them wireless. Does each
optical cable have $15 added to the price to pay for the patented and
standardised connections? Is the copper wire based Thunderbolt cable always
going to be $15 less than the optical fibre cable? Or is it just the driver
chips? Is the optical Thunderbolt driver chip going to be $15 more than the
copper cable chip?

Most aircraft use radar. That is transmitted over waveguides to the aerial
(antenna). The waveguides do not contain a wire: they guide the wireless waves.
Once out of the aircraft, they are evidently wireless. Radar uses wireless
declared standards-essential patents. So do the standardised waveguides. Will
each waveguide component bear the $15 surcharge as well as the radar
electronics? Does the royalty band only apply to 'electronics' rather than
'wireless'?

Those 'Oyster' cards used to pay for metro tickets, are they now at a $15
minimum charge? What about Ethernet over electricity supply cables? That is
being standardised. It uses wireless signals transported via the house
electricity cabling. Will that bear a new $15 premium per device.

The transport of the wireless signal over house electricity cabling is no
different to the transport of the mobile telephony wireless signal from the chip
to the antenna. Otherwise, the phone would be wireless patent free and only the
air we breath would be patent encumbered.

I haven't mentioned wifi, yet, because Apple are going to have to pay $15 for
the mobile telephony standards and a further $15 for the wifi standards.

There seem to be a number of insuperable problems for the court if they try to
establish a legal framework for FRAND patents.

The first is the setting of the technical scope. Does this particular FRAND
range only apply to telephones using the mobile telephone protocols or does it
include touch tablets with mobile telephone capability? Does it include laptops
with mobile broadband capability, or to the dongles that provide such
capability.

What about the Surface which is not suited to mobile telephony, but needs mobile
broadband as well as wifi? What about my smart electricity meter which uses SMS
to transmit usage to my supplier?

What about those anti-theft devices built into high-end autos that provide the
cars geographic location? Do mum's and dads have to pay the same price for the
teenager location app in their smartphone?

If the judgement applies to all devices using mobile telephony communication,
then it makes the mobile broadband dongle hopelessly expensive and the patents
on the top of the range iPad hopelessly under priced. Also, there are so many
patents owned by so many companies in this field that the final count of licence
fees will be an unknown especially since the technology is changing so quickly.


Apple argue about what is right for their product range and compare it with all
the competing products no matter how different the market position is for those
products.

In my view, there can never be a legally correct finding from one court action
which will only apply to one company when they operate in one country. The
market changes and the products get commoditized. Apple might get a rate they
can live with in this year's market place, but what about in five year's time?

I have shown how the phrase 'wireless declared standards-essential' is so broad
that it covers an increasing proportion of the devices in our homes and offices
including TVs, smart meters, internet radios, set top boxes, audio and video
servers, computers, children's toys, my toys, home intrusion alarms, car keys,
garage door remotes, electronic tickets, building passes, window blinds,
wireless communications and radio transmitters and receivers. I'm confident you
have added to the list while you were reading it.

No band of licence fees will ever be appropriate to the full scope of wireless
devices and no more can it remain relevant as markets and technology moves on.
The courts do not have the technical and legal skills to narrow the legal range
to an appropriate area of technology. Not even if they limit themselves to one
company, like Apple.

---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Dramatic oversimplification
Authored by: The Cornishman on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 04:27 AM EST
Act 1 Scene 1
Motorola: You're practicing our patent technology!
Apple: Am not.
Motorola: Are Apple(TM) products not standards-compliant, then?
Apple: Yes, yes, all right. FRAND terms mean we pay you next to nothing,
right?
Motorola: We're thinking a fortieth of the price of each piece of i-Tat you
sell, actually!
Apple: Wa-aa-aah! We only make 25% on every unit, as it is!

Act 1 Scene 2
[Negotiations: this act may be too short to stage meaningfully]

Act 1 Scene 3
Apple: See you in court, dudes.
Motorola: Whatever.
[Curtain]

Act 2 Scene 1, A Wisconsin Court Room
Apple: Judge, judge, make them behave
The Court: I ought to bang your heads together, then maybe I'd knock some sense
in there.
Apple: Yes, yes. Bang our heads together! We'll pay ANYTHING you say! Well, up
to a dollar a go for every i-Tat, so make sure you don't get any funny ideas.
[Apple dons large protective helmet]
Apple: Let the head-banging commence!

Act 2 Scene 2, to be staged tomorrow in The Real World, apparently...

---
(c) assigned to PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple infringes mexican iFone brand
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 05:21 AM EST
It seems that Apple is also copying the names for their products from other
"low profile" companies. In this case, the very famous name
"iPhone" is plagiarized from the mexican company "iFone".
Apple lost this battle in Mexico City recently. Here is a link in Spanish:

http://www.milenio.com/cdb/doc/noticias2011/d1da5a413211e7f1e30c99ab4980dc8d

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Motorola - protection against another judge / jury?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 06:47 AM EST
What I find incredible is that Apple are arguing they could be harmed by another
judge ordering an injunction against the iPhone/iPad. They would be harmed by
that, and so they want this judge to prevent other judges from determining that
an injunction is appropriate.
How is that not gaming the system? How can it be appropriate to have someone
rule that no judge may, no matter the set of circumstances before him, rule that
injunctive relief against Apple is appropriate?
How can it be even within the power of this judge to rule so?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Motorola - FRAND Royalty Rate Trial in Wisconsin May Be Cancelled ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 06:49 AM EST
I can't do it anymore. I can't keep purchasing Apple products. I can't keep
recommending them to my family friends and customers. This despicable behavior
on the part of Apple is the last straw for me. Thanks PJ for bringing this to
the forefront. I cannot in good faith continue to give them thousands and
thousands of dollars. I have been using Apple products for longer than I can
remember because their products work and as a developer I feel I get the best of
both worlds. As a developer with a conscience I will say it here first. I will
no longer purchase or recommend their products to anyone. I will do everything
in my power to dissuade anyone from purchasing their products from now until my
last breath.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prejudice!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 09:16 AM EST
If she dismisses the case, the Judge needs to attach
prejudice. To prevent Apple from suing Samsung on the same
issue again, and taking it to a friendlier court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Qualcomm and patent exhaustion
Authored by: gard on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 09:27 AM EST
Hi,

Apple's filing states:
"the role of Apple’s existing license to Motorola’s
portfolio through Qualcomm"

I presume this is a reference to the patent exhaustion
concept. What exactly is the situation with that? Is this
something covered by legal precedents, or is it up to the
contract between Motorola and Qualcomm? I would have
thought it is the latter. Wouldn't that contract call out
what Qualcomm is allowed to do, and bequeath to its chipset
customers, regarding any Motorola IP it has cross-licensed?
How is Apple asserting a unilateral right to Motorola's IP,
without Qualcomm providing cover? Why isn't Motorola saying
they have not authorized Qualcomm to resell those IP?

I recall the jury in the Samsung case drew some conclusions
regarding patent exhaustion, but wasn't sure if Samsung's
cross-licensing contracts with the chipset vendors in that
case was part of the evidence.

Thanks,
gard

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Motorola - FRAND Royalty Rate Trial in Wisconsin May Be Cancelled ~pj
Authored by: JamesK on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 11:39 AM EST
{
since Apple revealed in a filing and then at the final pretrial conference that
it won't be bound by the court's rate if it doesn't agree that it's low enough
}

So, Apple believes it's entitled to ignore court decisions it doesn't like. Of
course, after what happened with that "apology" in England, it doesn't
surprise me.


---
The following program contains immature subject matter.
Viewer discretion is advised.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Twist on Apple's arguments
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 09:15 PM EST
I have an interesting twist on Apple's arguments. They
acquired some SEPs and they're arguing very hard that those
SEPs are only worth a few cents per phone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I like Judge Barbara B. Crabb
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 09:34 PM EST

She's one smart cookie. She saw what was really there, rather than the
magic trick that Apple's lawyers were pointing at (sorry, been reading a
book about magic tricks).

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • BB Crabb - Authored by: BJ on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 09:15 PM EST
Updates 1 and 2
Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 01:02 AM EST

In "APPLE’S RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S ORDER OF NOVEMBER 2, 2012 MOTOROLA'S BRIEF REGARDING JURISDICTION AND AVAILABILITY OF REMEDIES" they come up with this wonderful plan, (that I just read in a brain dead state after a long day) that would permit the trial to go on. They suggest the judge need only set a FRAND rate for both party's patents, impose it, and Apple will happily pay its part - more or less, if I understood that anyhow). However, I think this is totally bogus, because Apple doesn't have and FRAND patents in value equal to Motorola, does it? Weren't we all saying that since Microsoft and Apple were late to the cell phone business they don't have the FRAND patents the old timers have? And this suggestion of Apple's, I don't think Motorola is concerned about Apple's FRAND patents even if they have a few. They are concerned about all the other patents Apple has been using against them or will use against them, like rectangle with rounded corners or whatnot. The whole picture needs to be looked at, not just the FRAND patents. Obviously, Apple's "brilliant ideas" will be totally self- serving, with nothing good for Mo.

Then the other thing, "MOTOROLA'S BRIEF REGARDING JURISDICTION AND AVAILABILITY OF REMEDIES". This was a disappointment, because it is not a reply to Apple's latest proposal. It must have been written earlier than Apple's response. I guess Motorola had to address the original communication from the judge in any event, but in many ways this document by Motorola is now stale. What will be much more interesting will be their response to Apple's wild ideas.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Tell me if I'm wrong
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 03:32 AM EST
So Apple's strategy is....

Delay the trial until after the MS trial (under a seemingly friendlier judge).

Then either push for a trial or fold its hand depending upon the result of the
MS trial?

I do hope Motorola have counter claims which will ensure the trial doesn't
collapse and will be used to hold Apple's feet to the fire.

[ Reply to This | # ]

FTC planning to Sue Google for FRAND Patent abuse
Authored by: Tim on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 06:20 AM EST
It may just be that Apple is asking for a delay in the hope that the FTC will get involved, which could make the lawsuit moot:-
Based on multiple sources, Bloomberg is reporting that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is recommending to commissioners that Google be sued for trying to block competitors’ access to key smartphone-technology patents in violation of antitrust law.

Google had been trying to use their FRAND patents, gained by purchasing Motorola, to try and block imports by Microsoft and Apple into USA.

Link - Bloomberg

[ Reply to This | # ]

Update 3: It's politics
Authored by: BJ on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 01:57 PM EST

Say PJ -- I share your appall!

But IT has been politics longer than just yesterday.
Think about the OOXML travesty.

To answer your personal maxim: "When you want
to know more...":

Uncover, uncover, U N C O V E R !

That may yet be your new guiding principle.


bjd



[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple v. Motorola - Dismissed with prejudice
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 03:17 PM EST
Excellent decision Judge Crabb. Excellent.


---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )