Mav - 08 February 2012 03:06 PM

Wait - if Google will actually use FRAND for its intended purpose, then Moto’s FRAND-based actions are hosed, right?

If only.  That’d set positive precedent for AAPL as far as Samsung goes as well.

Only if Google does what you think they are saying.  Fair and reasonable to them may be 25¢ per device with a cross license agreement for Apple’s IP.  Otherwise its 2.25% (~$10) per device.

Google is going to say anything at this point, in order to get EU approval of the purchase of MOT.  Once the sale is completed, Google’s behavior could be 180º out of sync with what they promised.

Mike in Helsinki - 08 February 2012 04:51 PM

the_dragonfly - 21 December 2011 10:58 AM

[This post was removed because the moderators arbitrarily censor.]

Good.  And keep censoring.  I trust the moderators.

Lucky me.  I didn’t have to read the post, as I have him on ignore.

Note the “if only”.  Mueller reports that Google hasn’t really said anything of substance yet.

Mueller reports that Google is taking an extreme stance, defending and promising to continue Motorola’s patent policies, which are IMO criminal.

macglenn - 08 February 2012 06:25 PM

Mueller reports that Google is taking an extreme stance, defending and promising to continue Motorola’s patent policies, which are IMO criminal.

I have lost pretty much all respect for Google.  How a company with so much smarts ended up being an Intellectual Property thief is something I will never get.  I hope Oracle absolutely smokes them in that Java suit.  They deserve it.  Next, I hope some regulator somewhere puts an end to this FRAND nonsense.

From FOSS patents:

Winning streak ends: Motorola Mobility fails to win 3G/UMTS-based injunction against Apple in Germany

Apple’s Mannheim jinx has been broken: this morning, Judge Andreas Voss of the Mannheim Regional Court announced that a Motorola Mobility lawsuit over a patent declared essential to the 3G/UMTS wireless telecommunications standard has been dismissed.
The judge explained that the court does not hold Apple to infringe claim 9 of EP1053613 on a “method and system for generating a complex pseudonoise sequence for processing a code division multiple access [CDMA] signal”. In the court’s opinion, MMI failed to present conclusive evidence for its infringement contention. MMI argued that any implementation of 3G/UMTS must inevitably infringe this patent claim, as opposed to demonstrating that the accused Apple products actually practice the claimed invention. Since the asserted patent claim is centered around the “means” used to generate a number that optimizes wireless transmissions, the court would have wanted to see proof that Apple’s products contain such “means”. The judge clarified that the court would have deemed the patent claim infringed even if the “means” had been program code as opposed to a hardware implementation—but MMI didn’t show any kind of actual implementation (neither hardware nor software), and arguing merely on the basis of the specifications of the standard was insufficient to win.
This is a textbook example of a patent that was declared essential (by MMI itself, not by any standard-setting organization) but isn’t essential in the court’s opinion: the judge doesn’t rule out that Apple may be able to implement the standard without necessarily having products that contain the “means” claimed by MMI.

More solid commentary from Florian Mueller:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012/02/apple-requests-us-preliminary.html

An article in Appleinsider this morning reveals some information from Motorola’s 10k.

A regulatory filing from Motorola Mobility has revealed that Apple has complained to the European Commission over the handset maker’s efforts to obtain injunctions against its rival by wielding standards-essential patents with FRAND commitments.

Motorola’s Form 10-K annual report, filed on Friday (via MacNN), revealed that the company has just received a letter from the commission notifying it of Apple’s complaint. The form disclosed ongoing legal proceedings, including its dispute with Apple.

Apple’s complaint was submitted to the Competition Directorate-General and asked for the commission to intervene “with respect to standards-essential patents” (SEPs). The iPhone maker alleges that Motorola has breached its Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory commitments for its SEPs.

FRAND commitments are vital to the establishing of industry standards, especially within the wireless industry. Companies are often required to agree to license their patents on FRAND terms to competitors in order before submitting their intellectual property to standard-setting organizations. Court filings show that Motorola has offered Apple a patent license, but Apple believes the 2.25 percent royalty rate that its rival is seeking is unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory.

Motorola expects this particular issue to be resolved in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of this year.

More at the link