| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| How Apple and Microsoft intend to destroy Android |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-07-29 10:48:54 |
| Groklaw nails it: "In other words, [Apple and Microsoft] want to disarm the companies that got there first, built the standards, and created the field, while the come-later types clean up on patents on things like slide to unlock or a tablet shape with rounded corners. Then the money flows to Apple and Microsoft, and away from Android - and isn't that really the point of all this, to destroy Android by hook or by crook? The parties who were in the mobile phone business years before Apple or Microsoft even thought about doing it thus get nothing much for their earlier issued patents that have become standards. Apple and Microsoft can't compete on an even field, because the patent system rewards the first to invent (or now, after the recent patent reform, the first to file). Neither Apple nor Microsoft got there first. Samsung was there, since the '90s." To illustrate: Apple is demanding $24 (!) per Samsung device for design patents, while at the same time, Apple also demands that Samsung does not charge more than $0.0049 per standards essential patent per device. This is absolutely, utterly, and entirely indefensible. And then Apple and its supporters have the nerve to claim Samsung is ripping them off. Yes, this pisses me off, and no, that's not because it's Apple doing it (Microsoft is just as guilty). It's because this is plainly, utterly, clearly, and intrinsically unfair. |
|
| RE: Comment by El_Exigente |
| By MechR on 2012-07-30 00:56:06 |
|
> In return for having their patents made part of the standard, Samsung agreed to FRAND royalties, and if that is no longer sufficient, then that's Samsung's own fault, and possibly they will think longer and harder before getting into a similar situation again. Well, that's exactly the problem, isn't it? If chickenshit patents become more valuable and dangerous than hard patents, then the incentive to develop or FRAND the latter goes away, and everybody loses. |
 - Score: 7 |
| RE: Disarm the companies that got there first |
| By Soulbender on 2012-07-30 02:01:35 |
|
> Who got there first? RIM. |
| - Score: 2 |
| Oh please... |
| By MollyC on 2012-07-30 03:30:18 |
|
Samsung, regardless of whether they were in the mobile phone business in the 90s, didn't start making BILLIONS of dollars on it until just recently. And how? By blatantly ripping off Apple's designs. So spare me the concerns for Samsung. Oh, and here's another thing to ponder: by blatantly ripping off Apple's designes, Samsung has pretty much destroyed the Android market for all other OEMs but themselves. Increasingly, Android = Samsung. If Samsung hadn't ripped off Apple's designs, maybe Android would be a healthy, multi-vendor, market. But Samsung is doing a great job of monopolizing the Android market. More power to them, but let's not pretend their recent dominance of the Android market wasn't due to copying the successful, market-proven, Apple designs. Edited 2012-07-30 03:33 UTC |
| - Score: 0 |
| What does Groklaw say about Google/Motorola |
| By MollyC on 2012-07-30 03:48:44 |
|
demanding 4 billion dollars a year in patent fees from Microsoft for four H.264 patents, which amounts to approximately one million times the going rate for the typical H.264 patent? Given Groklaw's well documented hatred of Microsoft, I bet they cheer that on. So I have a hard time taking their complaints regarding Apple's demands of Samsung seriously. Groklaw isn't exactly an objective source; their analyses should be taken with buckets of salt. As for FRAND patents, I don't know if Groklaw is telling both sides of the coin on that. FRAND patents do have relatively low licensing fees (since they cover essential standards, without which nobody could implement anything). That would appear to suck for those that hold the FRAND patent, but the other side of the coin is that once a patent is declared as FRAND, it's pretty much unassailable. So while the holder of the patent can't gouge others, nobody can realistically challenge the validity of the patent either. So there's two sides: the patent holder can only charge reasonable fees, but the other parties (from a practical standpoint) have no choice but to license the patents (so it's a guaranteed source of revenue for the patent holder). Both sides win. By contrast, consider the "design patents" that Apple is demanding - who really cares? Samsung doesn't HAVE to use those designs. I'm actually surprised that Apple is even offering $24 per device for their "design patents"; they usually offer "infinity" patent licence fees (i.e. offer no license fee at all, and instead demand that other products leave the marketplace altogether). |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Comment by kurkosdr |
| By MollyC on 2012-07-30 03:51:44 |
|
Motorola Mobility might be dead in a few years. They lose money every year as it is and Samsung is absolutely destroying them in the Android market. MotoMobo is almost reduced to a warehouse of FRAND patents that Apple and Microsoft suckered Google into paying 12 billion dollars for. I expect Google to take an 8 billion dollar charge on that purchase in a few years. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[4]: Comment by some1 |
| By MollyC on 2012-07-30 03:57:19 |
|
You thought wrong. There's been no ruling that Microsoft is prohibited from enforcing its patents. Where'd you get that from, slashdot circa 2003? |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE[5]: Comment by marcp |
| By MollyC on 2012-07-30 04:00:29 |
|
US does recognize software patents, but I've read that it's the EU that recognizes "design patents", of the sort that Apple is enforcing. Also, I think individual EU countries recognize some software patents (Motorola's demands for 4 billion dollars a year to license four H.264 patents have been made and recognized in Germany, not the US). |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: Comment by kurkosdr |
| By ilovebeer on 2012-07-30 04:28:55 |
|
> As long as Motorola Mobility is under Google ownership, there will be at least one brand that makes Androids and doesn't pay extortion royalties. For some reason, I can't imagine Google agreeing to pay MS and Apple said extortion royalties. Microsoft and Apple are not criminal enterprises engaged in extortion. Since you apparently don't know what extortion actually is -- when you legally own something and require a fee be paid for its use, you are NOT committing extortion... Even when it ends with "or else". If you're going to throw words around, at least make an effort to know what they mean. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Comment by El_Exigente |
| By lemur2 on 2012-07-30 04:56:05 |
|
> In return for having their patents made part of the standard, Samsung agreed to FRAND royalties, and if that is no longer sufficient, then that's Samsung's own fault, and possibly they will think longer and harder before getting into a similar situation again. Is it really the case that the ideologists at Groklaw do not understand the purpose and economic rationale for there even being such a thing as a standard-essential patent? It's hard to believe. As for Apple demanding $24 per device for its design patents: well, they can demand anything that they want. A jury will decide how much they should actually get. And if the jury decides that $24 is what the per device royalty should be, then that's what it should be. I think you just don't get it, or perhaps you don't want to get it. Apple are being asked to pay the same royalty rate for Motorola & Samsung patents as everyone else already pays. Apple alone have NOT paid. The "ND" part of FRAND means "non-discriminatory" ... that means that Apple must pay the same as everyone else has paid. http://www.muktware.com/4029/app... > Even as Apple has carried out a coordinated campaign of dragging Samsung‘s name through the mud in this lawsuit and in the media, it has used Samsung‘s patented technology while flatly refusing to pay for its use. Also, Samsung have identified prior art for Apples supposedly "original" design patent for the iPhone. Apple stole this design from Sony. From the same page as linked above: http://www.muktware.com/sites/de... So in effect, Apple are trying to say that they alone have to pay only half a cent per device for Motorola and Samsung's IP, but Motorola and Samsung apparently allegedly owe Apple $24 per device for a purely cosmetic "design" which Apple stole from Sony in the first place. How is that Fair? How is that Reasonable? How is that Non-Discriminatory? Answer ... it simply isn't. In any reasonable outcome, Apple will get squashed utterly in this lawsuit, a bit like Oracle before them and their Java lawsuit against Android. Edited 2012-07-30 05:05 UTC |
| - Score: 7 |
| RE: Oh please... |
| By Johann Chua on 2012-07-30 05:04:26 |
| And Apple never ripped anyone else off for their designs, I take it. |
| - Score: 4 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
