Comment

No. They are paying Microsoft $10-15 per device because doing so is more cost-effective and quicker for them than developing their own alternative.

Their own alternatives to what?

You clearly have some insight on the functionality covered by these patents.

$10-$15 seems a huge amount for a handful of non-essential patents. Please do share what you know.

A patent which is part of a standard cannot be engineered around by anyone wanting to use that standard.

And yet Apple were found not infringe Samsung’s SEP despite, as you say, it being impossible to design around.

How do you explain this?

19 days ago on Does anyone know why Google bought Motorola?

Comment

Yeah, calling someone disingenuous without any proof is pretty much tantamount to name calling.

Your apology is very strangely constructed, however :)

I’ll leave you to have the last word – it’s clearly very important to you.

20 days ago on Does anyone know why Google bought Motorola?

Comment

Yeah, Apple really care.

https://www.eff.org/who-has-your-back-2013

Apple: 1/6
Google: 5/6

You may want to re-think your argument.

20 days ago on Does anyone know why Google bought Motorola?

Comment

That’s pretty pathetic.

You accuse me of being disingenuous and then you pull this?

I’ve already presented my arguments and supporting evidence for why I think this decision is not the unmitigated success the cheerleaders proclaim it to be.

Very well informed analysis on patent and standards-dedicated sites also calls aspects of the decision into question, some of which I have presented here. You may, of course, pretend that none of that exists – you won’t convince anyone else except the “faithful” by doing so – but it’s your prerogative to live in splendid ignorance, listening only to the echo chamber.

20 days ago on Does anyone know why Google bought Motorola? 1 reply

Comment

LOL – so you’re saying you can’t find anything to support your argument.

You just wave your hands going “I’m right, I’m right, the proof is somewhere over there. You find it.”

Total fail.

20 days ago on Does anyone know why Google bought Motorola? 1 reply

Comment

Multiple commenters have commented that your personal stance on FRAND patents is built on foundations of sand. FRAND constitutes non discrimatory practices, so if your license rate is .02% you can’t jack it up to 2.25% based upon the fact the other company is litigating against you with non-FRAND patents.

Interesting. Please provide your evidence that Motorolas FRAND rate is always 0.2%, independent of any other factors.

Charging 100% of [the market rate] rate due to having an inferior patent for selected markets violates the principals of the FRAND principal.

What are you even trying to say? That charging the market rate is wrong? The market will be surprised to hear that.

The reason I take issue with “multiple commenters” is that they provide no evidence for their claims, or word their arguments so poorly that it’s impossible to know what their point is.

Again with the “weapons” claim. I have not said that FRAND was set up with the intention of creating business weapons.

What I have said is that despite multiple claims that businesses voluntarily waive all their injunction rights when contributing to SEP’s, the record and continued representations by business makes it clear that this is simply not so.

“Nokia […] writes to support reversal of the district court opinion to the extent that it establishes a bright-line rule prohibiting injunctive relief based on the infringement of standard-essential patents altogether […]

If you want to present evidence to the contrary then do so – until then it’s just hand waving and assertions of that which you wish to be true.

FRAND, standard licensing with same rate to all.

You do understand that this is utterly, completely wrong, right? There are NO FIXED RATES for any FRAND organisation. You might be confusing this with patent pools. Your point is so wooly it’s impossible to say.

From the InternatIonal Journal of Standards and StandardIzatIon Research:

“it is not feasible or appropriate to be more specific as to what constitutes “fairness” or “reasonableness” since these are subjective factors determined by the circumstances surrounding the negotiation”

This desire for clear rules is understandable, but it cannot be reconciled with the concept of FRAND as adopted and understood by the industry participants who use it.

No fixed rates. No fixed definitions. It’s all down to negotiation.

How about you go and dig up some facts to support your position?

20 days ago on Does anyone know why Google bought Motorola?

Comment

‘no apparent reason’ is highly disingenuous here. The judgment is linked from the story above and is 207 pages long. The rationale and logic behind the judgment are perfectly clear to me, even as a non-lawyer with only a little knowledge of how patents operate.

And yet you conspicuously fail to quote any passage from that 207 page document to support your claim.

Here’s one for you:

Unfortunately, there is little evidence in the record to assist the court in determining a lower bound. The court must, however, provide a lower bound based on the evidence before it. Accordingly, the court chooses 0.8 cents per unit as the lower bound of RAND.

Please do explain how it can be clear to you when the judge himself says that he had to use figures that may or may not be appropriate because there wasn’t enough evidence?

MIcrosoft were contractually obliged to negotiate a license. They didn’t do that and instead ran to the courts.

Meanwhile here’s what Microsoft were up to:

On June 14, 2011, seven months after Microsoft filed its complaint in this case, David Heiner, Microsoft’s Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, and Amy Marasco, Microsoft’s General Manager for Standards Strategy and Policy, submitted a letter (Ex. 2970) to the FTC:

a. “RAND-based IPR policies provide a flexible framework to help enable customized bi-Iateral negotiations for patent licenses that generally are not limited to just the essential patent claims in connection with a standard.”

“RAND is a time-tested and effective approach to licensing commitments. Like other ‘reasonableness’ standards, it does not dictate specific licensing terms, but it does provide flexibility across a diverse range of situations. As mentioned above, companies make decisions about whether to initiate licensing discussions and, if so, what considerations beyond just the essential claims vis-a-vis the final standard will be included. The negotiation associated with a standards-related patent license typically is no different from any general patent licensing discussion and will involve trade-offs on all of the terms and conditions.

So who exactly is being disingenuous here?

Maybe if you actually read the judgement rather than waving your hands you’d be able to argue your case more effectively.

20 days ago on Does anyone know why Google bought Motorola? 1 reply

Comment

Sure, no reason to believe that a judgement that turns decades worth of industry practice on it’s head, and which for no apparent reason chose the lowest possible numbers for it’s outcome, and which emanates from Microsoft’s back yard won’t be overturned.

So long as we close our eyes and believe hard enough we’ll get the outcome we want, right?

I guess that perhaps, just maybe, your belief isn’t particularly solid, either. ;)

21 days ago on Does anyone know why Google bought Motorola? 1 reply

Comment

The companies are paying Microsoft for the right to use Android, which is built by google. Most of the phone manufacturers paying Microsoft do not have the software engineers to remove the alleged offending features of Android

Yeah, HTC and Samsung are well known not to have a single software engineer.

I’m afraid your argument is built upon a fundamentally flawed premise.

and don’t have the money or will to fight with Microsoft in court (which is what google should be doing).

This is much more on target – only it’s also not true when you look at the likes of Samsung.

So what could have persuaded Samsung – who are perfectly willing to take on patent cases – to settle? Either it was a lot cheaper just to settle – or Samsung looked at the patents and decided that they couldn’t be worked around.

21 days ago on Does anyone know why Google bought Motorola? 1 reply