|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 09:33 AM EDT |
I was in agreement with you all the way down, until I hit
the last few
paragraphs. I too have been disturbed by the
use of the word "donated", when it
is nothing of the sort.
But then you went off the
rail...
Motorola's position here really IS
unreasonable.
Really, they want 2.5% of iPhone sales (~$25
per unit) for a minor patent
on a small portion of the 3G
protocol? That's reasonable?
Really?
It appears you are being deliberately thick headed
here,
because this has been discussed over and over. It is not
about 2.5% of
iPhone sales at all. It is a counter move in a
war that is currently raging,
with both Apple and Microsoft
acting in concert to destroy Google by any dirty,
underhanded tactic they can conceive. It is just Motorola's
initial bargaining
position. Apple refuses to barter.
Most of these RAND negotiations are
resolved by cross
licensing deals, rather than fee some charged per device.
Apple is attacking Android all over the world, with an
endless supply of bogus
software patents, such as the one
about rectangles with rounded corners. At the
same time,
they fight tooth and nail to not pay for the patents that
they
themselves transgress. Hardly fair. I see no evidence
that Motorola is almost
as much a bad guy as Apple. None
whatsoever. Motorola is just a company that
has been
unfairly attacked and is responding any way it can to defend
itself.
There is nothing "bad" about that. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Gringo_ on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 09:43 AM EDT |
I think this is not the right place for you then.
Seriously, you need to
consider if perhaps you should just
go somewhere else where the point of view
is more amenable
to yours. I think you might like Slashdot for example. You
will find many others there that share your point of view
there.
Here, most of us find the actions of companies like SCO
and
Microsoft outrageous. It is not so much a matter of us
making heroes out of
their victims. I don't think any of us
here are deluded into thinking
corporations exist for any
other reason than to make a profit. Novel was not
our hero.
Novel was, however, an underdog deserving of our support in
a
terrible war against Open Source. It was Open Source/Linux
we were defending,
not Novel. Only it happened that by
supporting Novel we were also supporting
Open Source.
I really hope you do decided to go elsewhere. I am
getting
a little tired of your contrived comments where you
pretend not to understand
these things. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
While that is the terminology used in the Standards bodies, I tend to agree
with you.
But can we get the Standards bodies to change their terminology? I'm
going to guess that we can, but it will come down to public pressure. We
need to point out the injury they are doing to the English language.
Wayne
http://madhatter.ca
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Here, here! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 03:46 PM EDT
- Stuff happens - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 22 2013 @ 06:12 AM EDT
- Here, here! [sic] - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 05:47 PM EDT
|
Authored by: alisonken1 on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
... it appears to me that you forgot the "[F]RAND royalty
rates will be used by SEP's" part.
Especially when you state that the SEP can have their IP in
the standards, but then have outrageous fees if they want to
keep someone out of the market.
By allowing their IP to be part of a standard, the
compay/individual agrees to charge, or offer, their IP "...
at a fair and/or reasonable rate ..."
And yes, we know it's about corporations being in business
to line the pockets of the shareholders, but you might want
to tone down some of your rhetoric to facts rather than
language that is incitefull just to get your point across.
---
- Ken -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered John Doe^W^WLinux user #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ukjaybrat on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 12:04 PM EDT |
A few questions concerning a few of your statements:
People with
RAND/FRAND patents aren't the good
guys.
They're not the white knights.
They're not noble selfless
"donors" of their patents to the greater good.
They're the
ones with the legal toll gates on the road that ought to be
free.
Who are the good guys? the white knights? the noble
selfless
companies?
Do they exist? All companies are out to make a profit. Some
do it btter than others.
Really, they want 2.5% of iPhone
sales
(~$25 per unit) for a minor patent on a small portion
of the 3G protocol?
That's reasonable? Really?
What happened when you purchased your
most recent car?
a) The salesman offered you sticker price; you paid for it
because you're a shmuck
b) You negotiated with the salesman and likely paid
a little
less than sticker price
c) You ran to the court crying and said
that the mean ole
salesman was asking too much money and sued him.
One
of these things is clearly a ridiculous outcome. Can you
tell which
one?--- IANAL [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
I understand your feelings, but you are wrong on
the facts.
Novell was not the good guy here until the
Attachmate deal. I wrote an article titled something
like "Novell Sells Out" when it did the deal
with Microsoft. That was a long time before the
attachmate deal, years before.
As I've explained many times, positions I take
on litigation have nothing to do with who I like
or don't like. It's about how the litigation
will affect FOSS, and that's a different analysis.
Right now, Android is under fire from all the
proprietary dudes, and Android runs on Linux.
Microsoft et al are in effect doing what SCO
tried to do, except SCO used copyrights and
now it's mostly patents. But the target is
the same, Linux, and the dream is oodles of
money that are not worked for, just a toll on
top, not just for the money but to make
Linux products cost more, so the proprietary
folks can compete a little longer.
That was SCO's dream too, if you recall, and
Microsoft is living it. It even brags when
it bullies an Android vendor to sign up to
pay Microsoft for using Android, and Linux.
It's making money for what? Patents I believe
are invalid, or unneeded, and they do it
in the shadows, so that no one even knows
what the patents are. Barnes & Noble gave us
a peek, and they said when Microsoft approached
them, the patents Microsoft used were old,
invalid, or not needed.
Doesn't that remind you of SCO? Refusing to
be specific, until it had to, at which point
it all fell apart, the house of cards, because
it had nothing being infringed.
I think it will turn out like that with Microsoft
too. It's trying to force Google to take a
license. I hope Google will stand tall, and
so far they are, but it's about money for
Microsoft and power. It wants to be a player
in mobile, but hardly anyone wants its products,
so this is the plan B.
So if you looked at it like that, who would you
support in the specific litigation? Remember,
you can't just stand back and wait until the
issue is whether standards should be royalty
free. They should be, but that's not on the
table in this litigation.
So, if you are a FOSS person, how do you think
the litigation will affect FOSS if Microsoft
wins? If Motorola does?
Get it now? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 01:30 PM EDT |
2.5% of product sales is not an unreasonable initial offer. It's called a
negotiation. It means one guy shoots high and one guy shoots low and they meet
in the middle and work it out.
Also, for the record, an iPhone is $650 without a contract, and the royalty was
2.25%, so actually $14.625 per unit, meaning you were off by 40%. Hey, doesn't
MS make about that much off of each Android unit? How funny is it that MS makes
more profit off of Android than Windows Phone?
Besides, it's not Motorola's fault that Apple/MS refuse to cross-license for a
better deal. Apple/MS have a choice - they can negotiate a lower rate LIKE
EVERYONE ELSE (you know, NON DISCRIMINATORY) and they simply choose not to do
so, thinking that they are somehow Special and that the Rules that have applied
to everyone for DECADES do not apply to them.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bprice on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 08:53 PM EDT |
They ONLY thing they agree to do is "offer" what IN THEIR ESTIMATION
is a "reasonable" rate to all comers. Doesn't have to be the same rate (which is
why the "ND" is utterly laughable). Doesn't have to actually BE reasonable
(standards bodies don't define or appear to have any interest in opining on
this).
Go read the SSOs' written requirements. That's what the SEP
holders agree to, and they don't say what you, Microsoft and Apple want them to
say. The FRAND provision does not apply to the opening offer: it only applies
to the negotiation that commences with that offer.
Motorola's opening offer
to license at $2.25 per unit merely establishes an upper bound on the
ultimate negotiated royalty. Since Motorola always (IIRC the testimony) starts
there, so it's obviously non-discriminatory: any other opening offer (unless it
were lowered during negotiations) could discriminate against those with whom
successful FRAND negotiations have completed. It's the terms of the completed
negotiations, not the opening offer, that matter.
The negotiations, when the
putative licensee is an honest, fair dealer, normally reduce the cash royalty by
the agreed value of cross-licenses (SEPs and other patents) and other
considerations. This results in an agreement that is Fair, Reasonable, and
Non-Discriminatory to both parties.
Naturally, Microsoft (in this
case) and Apple (in the other case) refuse to negotiate a FRAND royalty: to each
of them, anything that does not discriminate in their favor is Unfair and
Unreasonable. After all, Microsoft deserves to have all the money it wants for
no honest contribution, and so does Apple. Just ask them. --- --Bill.
NAL: question the answers, especially mine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 21 2013 @ 11:21 PM EDT |
Seeing as how that ican be very corrosive, it seems doubtful!
Donation here refers to giving something to the standard without expecting
direct repayment. FRAND means you want something for it, but you will be
a good citizen and license it to whomever, and not say to some "i don't
like
you, so no license!"
There are lots of examples of indirect payments for donations
around....from your local non-profit radio station mentioning donors on the
air, to (especially) large campaign donations being turned into political and
regulatory appointments and favors.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|