News - Judge throws spanner in Apple's works in case vs Motorola

[HEXUS]

Judges will tell Apple how much to pay, not the other way around.

Read more.

[Geoff I]

That will bring Apple down to Earth.

Show they cannot ride rough shod over anyone and expect to get away with anything.

[valhar2000]

A billion dollar fine or two would do wonders for Apple's disposition, methinks.

[Biscuit]

So apple tried to dictate the judges decision to her and it backfired?

Cool i guess, I'm just confused as to why apple think they have the right to tell Motorola what they should charge for their patents anyway.

[cjs150]

Biscuit: because the law states that certain patents must be available for licence on fair and reasonable terms because they are fundamental to operating.

If the parties disagree as to what is fair and reasonable then judge gets to decide

[Brewster0101]

I hope Google blow up the cheque from Apple and hang it up in their HQ reception... or better still - do a massive press advert with the cheque and the words - 'Apple have been known to copy ideas too'

[matts-uk]

So apple tried to dictate the judges decision to her and it backfired?

Keep swallowing the negative spin if it makes you feel better.

A different report put it...

"Apple subsequently said it would agree to any court terms that put the license at $1 or less per iPhone sold."

Reported elsewhere, Apple apparently said..

"Motorola cannot offer evidence at this trial that the rate should be higher than $1 per phone, but to the extent the Court sets the rate higher than $1 per unit, Apple reserves the right to exhaust all appeals, and needs also to reserve the right available to any party offered a license: the right to refuse and proceed to further infringement litigation. Make no mistake, that is not an outcome Apple desires."

Perhaps it was a misguided comment but Apple are now forced to take the case to a higher court, where it was probably going to end up anyway, should they wish to proceed.

[Biscuit]

Keep swallowing the negative spin if it makes you feel better.

A different report put it...

"Apple subsequently said it would agree to any court terms that put the license at $1 or less per iPhone sold."

Reported elsewhere, Apple apparently said..

"Motorola cannot offer evidence at this trial that the rate should be higher than $1 per phone, but to the extent the Court sets the rate higher than $1 per unit, Apple reserves the right to exhaust all appeals, and needs also to reserve the right available to any party offered a license: the right to refuse and proceed to further infringement litigation. Make no mistake, that is not an outcome Apple desires."

Perhaps it was a misguided comment but Apple are now forced to take the case to a higher court, where it was probably going to end up anyway, should they wish to proceed.

Not quite sure why it was necessary to single me out, i was just simplifying and repeating the opinion put forward by the article here at hexus. Besides, the quote you have just put forward looks like it says pretty much exactly the same thing but in legalese.

[Scribe]

Not quite sure why it was necessary to single me out, i was just simplifying and repeating the opinion put forward by the article here at hexus. Besides, the quote you have just put forward looks like it says pretty much exactly the same thing but in legalese.

I'd say even with Apple's legal wording, it's still blatant "we've already made our minds up and your opinion doesn't matter" bullying, otherwise why mention it at all.

[cjs150]

"Motorola cannot offer evidence at this trial that the rate should be higher than $1 per phone, but to the extent the Court sets the rate higher than $1 per unit, Apple reserves the right to exhaust all appeals, and needs also to reserve the right available to any party offered a license: the right to refuse and proceed to further infringement litigation. Make no mistake, that is not an outcome Apple desires."

As there was not a court hearing then how exactly did Apple know that Motorola could not offer evidence of a rate higher than $1 per phone?

It still looks like Apple were trying to bully the judge and I hope the appeals court sees through this and tells Apple where to go.

All Apple needed to say is that the reserve both the right to appeal any decision of the judge and the right to take infringement actions (although if Motorola own the patent it surely should be Motorola who take the infringement action against Apple if they do not sign the licence).

Looks very much like Apple's legal team screwed up in the tone of the statement as it could have done entirely inoffensively

[Tpyo]

The clue is in the name (fair and reasonable). While I think it is wrong that several companies have been using these patents in patent disputes, the fact is when you are offered reasonable license terms and turn them down, you are refusing to license a patent. The only difference is that there are no grounds to deny someone use of a FRAND patent if they are willing to pay.

[ajones]

Sites back and waits for Apple Fanboi "RETIREDBARRISTER" to chuck in their two-penneth.

What is it with Apple? IMHO, it's about time device manufacturers who have done very little to develop the core technology behind mobile comms (being able to make a call for instance) but block sales of devices because of silly UI functionality (swiping to unlock for example) start thinking about why they have a market to begin with. OK, Apple have genuinely come to market with a product that is good - fair game to them. But the market existed due to the hard work of others. It's akin to blocking the sale of a car because I have the patent on the colour blue!

FRAND on the other hand was brought in to stop the legacy players from blocking new entrance of new innovators (and stop all of the silly cross-litigation that was going on at the time), not to line pockets.

[crossy]

There's a lot of tension between Apple and Motorola Mobility (+ everyone else) over FRAND patents and exactly how much Apple should be paying to licence them.

Erm, am I missing the whole point of FRAND or are Apple? Surely if even one other company is paying for this IP then that's what Apple have to pay - after all isn't that the definition of "Non Discriminatory" ... everyone pays the same?

following an upset caused by Apple when it stated that it would accept no court ruling that asked for licensing fees above $1 per device, following a filing by Motorola of a "motion for guidance", asking the Judge to determinate and set the FRAND fee

If that's a direct quote then it strikes me as extremely high handed - plus it seems a bit daft to (I'm assuming) agree to court arbitration and then basically say "we'll accept your decision only if it caves into our view point".

Secondly, this additional quote kinds of implies to me that no-one else has licensed whatever tech is in question, in which case Motorola's request for a third party to set the fee level seems pretty fair and reasonable, (presumably after unsuccessful discussions with Apple previously).

Thirdly, doesn't Apple's position show a degree of bad faith going into negotiations - in which case won't that put them on the back foot if this goes to a higher court? Plus, I'm assuming that whatever Apple product is using the disputed tech is currently running unlicensed - will Motorola "do an Apple" and apply for an injunction?

So many questions, so few answers ...

[Gitch28]

That will bring Apple down to Earth.

Show they cannot ride rough shod over anyone and expect to get away with anything.

Doubtful, it is barely what they deserve.

[matts-uk]

Not quite sure why it was necessary to single me out, i was just simplifying and repeating the opinion put forward by the article here at hexus. Besides, the quote you have just put forward looks like it says pretty much exactly the same thing but in legalese.

LOL. I am still pondering why you thought it necessary to post the "wrong, wrong, wrong" video in a response to a post on another Apple thread.

Unfortunately, when something complicated is simplified and then the simplification is simplified and so on, eventually what is left has little in common with the original. Without a bit of care, simplification can create distortion and when it's done deliberately it's called spin.

Did Apple dictate the Judge's decision? No more than your broad band provider dictates your broad band speed when they use the words "Up to". Motorola/Google asked for a guideline prior to the trial and a guideline is what they got.

Prior to commencing a trial it is is routine, expected even, for the parties to 'lay their cards on the table' as it were. It can save a lot of time and money being wasted by lawyers arguing it out in front a Judge, only to repeat the argument in front a different Judge later, as appears to have happened here. In response to Googlorola's pre-trial request for guidance, Apple disclosed they would pay up to $1 per device or go to appeal, as is their right. In view of which, the Judge has refused to hear the case, as is her right.

[matts-uk]

Erm, am I missing the whole point of FRAND or are Apple? Surely if even one other company is paying for this IP then that's what Apple have to pay - after all isn't that the definition of "Non Discriminatory" ... everyone pays the same?

Google/Motorola are in a different court with Microsoft complaining about pretty much the same thing, as Apple are complaining about. A $4.5 Billion per annum, "blatantly unreasonable" licensing cost, as Microsoft put it.

Googlorola is attempting to charge a (2.25%) licence fee based on the cost of the end device (iPhone, XBox etc). Apple would prefer to pay a license fee per the cost of the (Qualcom) chip in each device, which presumably costs roughly the same across manufacturers.

Imagine having to pay more for the same radio fitted to different cars, that's what Google are trying to do. The implication of Googlorola winning out is they gain control of the smart phone space; by way of a patent which was adopted by a standards body (SEP) on the assurance it would not be used to block competing products.

Secondly, this additional quote kinds of implies to me that no-one else has licensed whatever tech is in question,

In the Microsoft case, the patents in question were previously licensed to IBM and RIM. Those licensing terms have been deemed secret, currently sitting in sealed envelopes waiting for the Microsoft trial to begin on the 13th of this month, IIRC. In the Microsoft case, there has been a lot of tooing and froing between lawyers attempting to stop evidence being presented to the court.

Thirdly, doesn't Apple's position show a degree of bad faith going into negotiations - in which case won't that put them on the back foot if this goes to a higher court?

Rock and a hard place. Had Apple not given the $1 per device ultimatum, they may have failed to comply with the pre-trial disclosure request. Would be my opinion.

Plus, I'm assuming that whatever Apple product is using the disputed tech is currently running unlicensed - will Motorola "do an Apple" and apply for an injunction?

Apple presumed they had paid the license fee when they bought the Qualcom chips which implement the patented technology. Googlorola have already tried to block Apple selling products, on the basis they infringed 18 Motorola patents. The ITC disagreed but upheld infringement of one patent, the cost of which was the subject of the canceled court case.