Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > News > Mac News > Apple: Motorola tried to charge us 12 times more for SEPs

Apple: Motorola tried to charge us 12 times more for SEPs
Thread Tools
MacNN Staff
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 26, 2013, 11:26 PM
Apple has filed a rebuttal arguing against a Motorola Mobility appeal in a case where Apple pursued -- and again won -- a summary judgement victory against the Google-owned subsidiary's "unreasonable" 2.25 percent royalty on Standards-Essential Patents (SEPs). The filing claims that Google's pricing on the SEP license is 12 times higher that the deals it made with non-rivals for the same technology, an illegal offer under the Fair, Reasonable and Non-Dscriminatory (FRAND) rules. Apple has offered a more typical deal proposing about $1 per iPhone in royalties.

The dispute comes over the SEPs, which are essential technologies required by any smartphone maker. Apple has long maintained that Motorola Mobility and Google have broken their FRAND obligations by pursuing a common but "unreasonable" 2.25 percent of all sales royalty blanket license on SEPS, and using litigation as a weapon when licensees won't agree. Judge Barbara Crabb agreed, and dismissed without prejudice a lawsuit brought by Motorola Mobility over the matter.

In its filing to try and block an appeal, Apple said that the 2.25 percent royalty was more than 12 times higher than the amount Google charged other companies for the same license of the same technology. Google's higher royalty rate would amount to $12 for every iPhone, about 12 times more than what Apple already pays Motorola Mobility for use of other SEPs in the iPhone. Apple has countered the offer by saying it would pay up to $1 per iPhone for the SEPs in question, in an effort it said was intended to "buy litigation peace and move on."

Apple also noted in its brief that Google has entered into litigation with other companies over the proposed 2.25 percent royalty a total of eight times, and has yet to succeed in any of those efforts to find a judge or jury that agrees with the Google-owned company's arguments. Should the previous dismissal be overruled, Apple wants Motorola Mobility to offer an actual FRAND-compliant rate, and if it refuses have a judge formulate a rate. The company has been understandably hesitant to risk that outcome, fearing a precedent that may not even equal the rates it is currently getting.

Should the hearings fail to resolve the issue, Motorola Mobility's appeal of its loss will likely be heard sometime in 2014. Another Apple vs. Motorola Mobility case being appealed may actually go to trial first, with both parties asking a court to overturn Judge Richard Posner's dual-dismissal over a patent-infringement case the two companies sued each other over in 2012. In that case, Posner said neither company could show any material harm in their claims against the other, and questioned the entire viability of software patents.

( Last edited by NewsPoster; Jul 29, 2013 at 02:13 AM. )
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2010
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2013, 12:49 AM
Google spent $12.5 billion in hard-earned advertising revenue to buy Motorola Mobility. For what, exactly? Anybody?
Sent from my iPad Simulator
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2013
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2013, 04:07 AM
@SockRolid -- Google bought Motorola Mobility for their huge collection of mobile technology related patents, and so they would have a phone manufacturer where they could have full control over the phones/tablets and to have the option of not having to rely on other phone manufacturers for building devices to their spec requirements.

@MacNN Staff - Please stop using "Motorola" to describe "Motorola Mobility", you need to be specific and use either "Motorola Mobility" or "Google-Motorola" or even just plain old "Google". Why? Because there is a Motorola Solutions Inc. (where I work) and we are not affiliated at all with the mobility side. Using Motorola by itself is spreading bad information -- you have a responsibility to your readers to be as accurate as you can.

kthx bye!
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 27, 2013, 04:30 AM

More realistically, Google bought Motorola Mobility because they wanted a way to harass Apple, plus a fallback if it turned out that the open-source nature of Android ended up biting them in the a**, as in fact it did (that is, other Android device makers have started making the devices NOT use services which use Google's servers for ads/sales/whatever.)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Maitland, FL
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 29, 2013, 02:01 AM
hackdefendr: you're right. With no offense intended, we (meaning geekdom generally) tend to forget that there's still a Motorola that's not part of Google because you guys don't make news as much.

I'll alert the staff to your comments. I can't promise anything, I'm not the guy who makes the rules, but I'll encourage them to avoid using "Motorola" as shorthand for "Motorola Mobility."
Charles Martin
MacNN Editor
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:47 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2