decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Here, here! | 244 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Can we please...
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 | # ]

Friggin' sick of the partisanship here
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 | # ]

Here, here!
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.


[ 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
In my reading of your rant ...
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 -
Registered John Doe^W^WLinux user #296561
Slackin' since 1993

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Can we please...
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?


[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Can we please...
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 | # ]

Can we please...
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 | # ]

Can we please...
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 | # ]

I'm an acid and I donated a I a good thing?
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
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )