|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 05:12 PM EST |
^_^
I don't think any of us are really surprised. (Well, I kind of expect that Apple
is surprised.)
"Relieved" is more the word.
If the judge here started the "Advisory Judgement" ball rolling it
could have gone bad in a lot of ways.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 05:17 PM EST |
Samsung made same offer to apple, but apple said they will only pay $1 per
device, at 2.25% rate, that is on price of item, so on say typical iphone is
600$. so 16$ approx per phone which is a major ammount. Apple said they will pay
a max of 1$ with 0 negotiation. But Apple don't seem to relize that fair and
reasonable work both ways on a FRAND patent, Motorola can't be unreasonable but
Apple can't be as well. I won't say motorola's offer was reasonable it could be
a bit high, but I also think apple's offer of $1 is not reasonable considering
patent in question.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 06:34 PM EST |
The main issue is Apple don't want these to be used as bargaining chips
against apples other patents as we've seen rounded corners are worth far
more than mere standard essential patents. Its gaming the system [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 06:35 PM EST |
The main issue is Apple don't want these to be used as bargaining chips
against apples other patents as we've seen rounded corners are worth far
more than mere standard essential patents. Its gaming the system [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 06:39 PM EST |
That is something I don't really get (and the apple example seemed really weird
with the options argument, that doesn't really seem applicable to me).
The contract was between Motorola and the standards body. So wouldn't the person
who needs to sue Motorola be the standards body? Even if Apple could sue, aren't
contracts supposed to be viewed through the joint understanding of the two
contractors, so in that case wouldn't the view of the standards body on if this
is a FRAND offer or not be the most applicable thing in regards to if the
contract has been fulfilled or not? I don't see how apple's view, or even as the
judge mentions his own view on if this is FRAND or not matters when both parties
to the contract may agree that it is FRAND.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 08:36 PM EST |
Isn't the issue related to what others have paid for these Motorola patents and
whether Apple actually attempted to negotiate?
In a simple sense, if others have agreed to a 2% rate, then this must indicate
that such a level is considered fair and reasonable. If all others have paid a
similar rate then by definition it can not be discriminatory.
Thus, sense again dictates that 2.25% must be considered FRAND, unless the deal
was encumbered by a patent swaps of sorts. That is you pay 2.25% for my patent
and i pay 2.25% for your patent and we can both discriminate against those
without a patent portfolio to swap against.
So shouldn't the question really be one of whether patent swapping is a
discriminatory practice and whether Apple even attempted to negotiated in good
faith? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: yacc on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 11:04 AM EST |
Well, FRAND has no inheritent
contract. Apple is just getting desperate, as
Android is
eating more and more into the cake. If you cannot compete,
try to
sue your competition into non-existence. Stupid move
if you haven't done your
IPR homework (Apple has a tendency
not to bother to license 3rd party patents,
they just use
them), their own IPR is comparatively weak (hey look we
patented
a new gear shift stick design, what's that compared
to patents on engines and
other important/critical parts of
a car), and you are the new kid on the block
(and no, the
iPhone might (or not) changed UI design for mobile devices,
BUT
they did not obsoleted all the complicated underlying
stuff).
So in
this situation, a reality-oriented strategy would have
been not to mention the
IPR to much, and just compete. If
you cannot, you are obviously doing something
wrong, so
change and optimize what you do.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 06 2012 @ 05:02 PM EST |
We should perhaps try to rebuild the scale Apple is using.
Between $0 and $1 a device is reasonable.
What should we call then the range from $1.01 to $2.5, unreasonable? From $2.5
to $10? And the price it asked Samsung?
OK, this are not the same series of patents. But what we red about some Apple
patents and prior art, you need a special jury to find them valid.
I can not see how "reasonable" can be defined without taking into
account the price the licence taker asks for it's own patents.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 02:38 PM EST |
Since Apple got its case dissmissed, will they be responsible for motorolas
leagal costs?
I don't know how leagal costs are handled in US, but since they draged motorola
almost to a trail I can assume a this costed Motorola a lot. So it seems fair if
Apple gets to pay for it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
