Ceredon. Can you explain exactly why moto shouldn't sue when Apple decides not to pay for their agreed upon price for using moto's patents? The fact is, every other company licenses their patents so others can use it.Apple feels they can patent other people's work, then not even let others pay to use their vague patent, but instead ban the device. Very dirty business practices.
Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using HowardForums
Speeds from my HTC SensationThe last one is Roadrunner-Way to impress, Time Warner
Ceredon. Can you explain exactly why moto shouldn't sue when Apple decides not to pay for their agreed upon price for using moto's patents? The fact is, every other company licenses their patents so others can use it.Apple feels they can patent other people's work, then not even let others pay to use their vague patent, but instead ban the device. Very dirty business practices.
There was no agreed upon royalty. Qualcomm licensed the patents and used them in their parts. Apple uses those parts, which are already licensed. Moto decided they should double dip, and charge Apple as a separate licensee. That would be like you paying royalties to all the companies your car maker pays to build their cars. With the decision that Apple should pay the second helping of royalties, it comes down to how much. Moto requested an amount so high and outside of FRAND allowances, that the EU and FTC are now investigating those charges.
And you have no idea that Apple won't license to the other companies. All you can honestly say is that Apple has not reached agreements with all of them. In that case almost ALL infringement cases, whether Apple is involved or not, start with an injunction request. That is standard procedure and an expectation in infringement cases, even when a license is the end goal. Exactly as moto, samsung, nokia and MS all do themselves. If you hate Apple for that, you obviously hate the others, right? Please answer. The fact is that Apple does license some of their patents to others and holds others close. Exactly as every other company does.
Moto on the other hand wants to double dip on licenses and use FRAND in a discriminatory way (violating the F and the ND of FRAND). Now that is dirty business practices.
Not one of their competitors licenses out all of their IP to everyone else. If you believe otherwise, that explains some of your other positions.
What Apple should do now is use Google's own argument of common and ubiquitous equating to standard and start a competing search service using Google's patents, and not pay them for it or ask for permission.
Edit: is that really the entirety of the haters argument? That Apple, alone of all companies, should be required to license all of their IP to any and all? No one else does, but Apple should? That explains a lot.
Unlocked iPhone 5, unlocked iPhone 4
Unlimited airtime, Unlimited CAN/US long distance, Unlimited SMS to CAN/US wireless numbers
2500 Call Forwarding minutes to CAN/US numbers
CiD, 6GB
Google Voice for visual voice mail with message transcription, conditional greetings, unlimited messages (vs 35 message cap), remote retrieval from any PC or phone, no auto-purge after 10 days and most importantly no $7-$8 charge.
$53
There was no agreed upon royalty. Qualcomm licensed the patents and used them in their parts. Apple uses those parts, which are already licensed. Moto decided they should double dip, and charge Apple as a separate licensee. That would be like you paying royalties to all the companies your car maker pays to build their cars. With the decision that Apple should pay the second helping of royalties, it comes down to how much. Moto requested an amount so high and outside of FRAND allowances, that the EU and FTC are now investigating those charges.
And you have no idea that Apple won't license to the other companies. All you can honestly say is that Apple has not reached agreements with all of them. In that case almost ALL infringement cases, whether Apple is involved or not, start with an injunction request. That is standard procedure and an expectation in infringement cases, even when a license is the end goal. Exactly as moto, samsung, nokia and MS all do themselves. If you hate Apple for that, you obviously hate the others, right? Please answer. The fact is that Apple does license some of their patents to others and holds others close. Exactly as every other company does.
Moto on the other hand wants to double dip on licenses and use FRAND in a discriminatory way (violating the F and the ND of FRAND). Now that is dirty business practices.
Not one of their competitors licenses out all of their IP to everyone else. If you believe otherwise, that explains some of your other positions.
What Apple should do now is use Google's own argument of common and ubiquitous equating to standard and start a competing search service using Google's patents, and not pay them for it or ask for permission.
Edit: is that really the entirety of the haters argument? That Apple, alone of all companies, should be required to license all of their IP to any and all? No one else does, but Apple should? That explains a lot.
Then why do all the others, even though they do sue each other occasionally, and come to an agreement, yet apple is the common denominator of those who can't. I don't believe that is a coincidence. Fanboy away for apple, I don't care, but, sooner or later you have to start asking yourself why it is like that. Oh, and by the way, Qualcomm doesn't pay the licensing fee for chips ordered by Apple. So Moto is not double dipping. And moto only sued first cause they tried to negotiate cross licensing patents and apple made clear that they wouldn't and would sue, so moto just got the paperwork done faster. I don't think either one of these companies is right, but I do think apple is more in the wrong.
Then why do all the others, even though they do sue each other occasionally, and come to an agreement, yet apple is the common denominator of those who can't. I don't believe that is a coincidence. Fanboy away for apple, I don't care, but, sooner or later you have to start asking yourself why it is like that.
All the others don't always come to an agreement. If you think that, you are deluded or incredibly misinformed. Either way goes a long, long way to explaining your position. And even evil Apple has licensing agreements for others to use their IP, just not all of their IP. That is their right, as it is everyone else's. You are living in a fantasy.
Now that that is established, that no, not every company licenses all of the IP and yes, Apple does license some of the theirs, again I will ask, is that the best you have? Because if so, to not be a complete hypocrite, you either hate all companies for doing exactly the same or you now acknowledge Apple is no worse. Or I guess the third option is to continue to live with fantasy as your reality and spread the gospel.
Unless a part of a standard, patent owners have the right to license their IP out or hold it close. Unless you are in china. Would you mind if I came and took your car? Everyone else let's me, so you would be unethical if you didn't let me just take what I wanted. That's is your reasoning. Based on inaccurate fact and a massive misunderstanding of IP, but that is your logical conclusion.
Originally Posted by MasonDoctorJT
Oh, and by the way, Qualcomm doesn't pay the licensing fee for chips ordered by Apple. So Moto is not double dipping. And moto only sued first cause they tried to negotiate cross licensing patents and apple made clear that they wouldn't and would sue, so moto just got the paperwork done faster. I don't think either one of these companies is right, but I do think apple is more in the wrong.
Moto has a negotiated licensing agreement with Qualcomm from which they derive a benefit. Subsequently charging Qualcomm's customer's is exactly what double dipping is. Moto sued first because they knew they were going to get sued, yes, because they knew they were infringing. But they still sued first. Something our UK friend has yet to recognize.
Can you explain how Apple is more wrong, other than just saying it? Moto is violating the FRAND principles and is arguably double dipping. Apple is trying to prevent unauthorized use of their IP. That's it. So one protecting their property, the other violating the terms they requested for their IP licensing and double dipping.
^pretty much, at least as far you guys have been able come up with.
They've pulled some **** moves in their time. But you guys are really stretching for reasons. At best. Sort of sad.
Certainly you have both/all been entirely unable to come up with even a single reason where Apple is clearly worse than any of the others. Most of your 'reasons' have either been clearly made up or just wrong. Everyone should have an opinion, but my preference is to base mine on facts and reason. Why don't you?
ceredon is right!!!
apple are not the instigators of most of the patents, their patents are significant and are not even slightly vague, apple are nothing but a poor victim who are just defending their amazing inventiveness and original ideas, and it's ludicrous to insinuate that apple are infamous for stealing everyone else's ideas and then claiming them as their own
While I haven't seen many of ceredon's posts (only the quoted ones to be exact) I must say sarcasm isn't a good way of proving your point.
Nobody said Apple was perfect, but blaming every lawsuit and issue on them, calling them the sole "aggressor" and being super anti-apple is no better than those who are super pro-apple.
You're no better than the supporters, you're just on the other side of the coin.
There was no agreed upon royalty. Qualcomm licensed the patents and used them in their parts. Apple uses those parts, which are already licensed. Moto decided they should double dip, and charge Apple as a separate licensee. That would be like you paying royalties to all the companies your car maker pays to build their cars. With the decision that Apple should pay the second helping of royalties, it comes down to how much. Moto requested an amount so high and outside of FRAND allowances, that the EU and FTC are now investigating those charges.
And you have no idea that Apple won't license to the other companies. All you can honestly say is that Apple has not reached agreements with all of them. In that case almost ALL infringement cases, whether Apple is involved or not, start with an injunction request. That is standard procedure and an expectation in infringement cases, even when a license is the end goal. Exactly as moto, samsung, nokia and MS all do themselves. If you hate Apple for that, you obviously hate the others, right? Please answer. The fact is that Apple does license some of their patents to others and holds others close. Exactly as every other company does.
Moto on the other hand wants to double dip on licenses and use FRAND in a discriminatory way (violating the F and the ND of FRAND). Now that is dirty business practices.
Not one of their competitors licenses out all of their IP to everyone else. If you believe otherwise, that explains some of your other positions.
What Apple should do now is use Google's own argument of common and ubiquitous equating to standard and start a competing search service using Google's patents, and not pay them for it or ask for permission.
Edit: is that really the entirety of the haters argument? That Apple, alone of all companies, should be required to license all of their IP to any and all? No one else does, but Apple should? That explains a lot.
Is that really the entirety of your argument? Just cause you have an excess if time to write really long replies that say no more than repeat the same gibberish that Apple is right over and over, doesn't make your argument better. We both don't have every fact, and I'm entitled to my view of what's happening and your entitled to yours, and since this is the apple section of the forum, I'll leave it at that.
Is that really the entirety of your argument? Just cause you have an excess if time to write really long replies that say no more than repeat the same gibberish that Apple is right over and over, doesn't make your argument better. We both don't have every fact, and I'm entitled to my view of what's happening and your entitled to yours, and since this is the apple section of the forum, I'll leave it at that.
Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using HowardForums
You absolutely are entitled to your opinion. It's a shame you need to fabricate facts to support your opinion. If you have to make up 'facts' to support your opinion it says a lot about what your opinion is worth. If your opinion also requires different standard for different parties, it shows just how weak your position is. It's a shame you don't realize that. Religious zealotry can be blinding like that.
You absolutely are entitled to your opinion. It's a shame you need to fabricate facts to support your opinion. If you have to make up 'facts' to support your opinion it says a lot about what your opinion is worth. If your opinion also requires different standard for different parties, it shows just how weak your position is. It's a shame you don't realize that. Religious zealotry can be blinding like that.
"Then why do all the others, even though they do sue each other occasionally, and come to an agreement, yet apple is the common denominator of those who can't." -Fabrication (double fabrication actually). Many (most) other companies do not license all of their IP. Apple does license some of their IP. Yu just want to believe Apple doesn't license their IP and everyone else does. That simply isn't true. Sorry.
"Can you explain exactly why moto shouldn't sue when Apple decides not to pay for their agreed upon price for using moto's patents?" -Fabrication. There was no agreed upon price. Moto tried to break their FRAND commitments and extort more from Apple. That goes against FRAND principles that Moto volunteered to place their patents under and which they have benefitted from.
"The fact is, every other company licenses their patents so others can use it." -Fabrication. The fact is that Apple does license some of their IP. Another fact is most companies do not license all of their IP to others.
"Oh, and by the way, Qualcomm doesn't pay the licensing fee for chips ordered by Apple." -Fabrication. Moto and Qualcomm entered a cross licensing agreement. Moto took payment in the form of use of Q's IP.
Right. You fabricated nothing. The sad part is that you then take those fantasies and form your opinion around them.
"Then why do all the others, even though they do sue each other occasionally, and come to an agreement, yet apple is the common denominator of those who can't." -Fabrication (double fabrication actually). Many (most) other companies do not license all of their IP. Apple does license some of their IP. Yu just want to believe Apple doesn't license their IP and everyone else does. That simply isn't true. Sorry.
"Can you explain exactly why moto shouldn't sue when Apple decides not to pay for their agreed upon price for using moto's patents?" -Fabrication. There was no agreed upon price. Moto tried to break their FRAND commitments and extort more from Apple. That goes against FRAND principles that Moto volunteered to place their patents under and which they have benefitted from.
"The fact is, every other company licenses their patents so others can use it." -Fabrication. The fact is that Apple does license some of their IP. Another fact is most companies do not license all of their IP to others.
"Oh, and by the way, Qualcomm doesn't pay the licensing fee for chips ordered by Apple." -Fabrication. Moto and Qualcomm entered a cross licensing agreement. Moto took payment in the form of use of Q's IP.
Right. You fabricated nothing. The sad part is that you then take those fantasies and form your opinion around them.
Again, longwinded replies spewing what you've read or heard and already said. There is no need to keep repeating yourself. I posted based on what I have read from reliable sources, again I fabricated nothing. Problem is both your, and my sources could be wrong in instances.
Again, longwinded replies spewing what you've read or heard and already said. There is no need to keep repeating yourself. I posted based on what I have read from reliable sources, again I fabricated nothing. Problem is both your, and my sources could be wrong in instances.
Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using HowardForums
No, your fabrications aren't just a matter of misinformed or incorrect sources. They are simply fantasy. The best you could claim is you read your misconceptions on the internet. Better to open a book, go to school, educate yourself. Otherwise you risk wallowing in ignorance for a very long time.
Like I said, the sad part is that you've allowed yourself to form opinion on fantasy. But it's also kind of funny.
Again, longwinded replies spewing what you've read or heard and already said. There is no need to keep repeating yourself. I posted based on what I have read from reliable sources, again I fabricated nothing. Problem is both your, and my sources could be wrong in instances.
Sent from my HTC_Amaze_4G using HowardForums
I hate to say it but your "rebuttal" here is pretty weak. It seems as though you don't have any actual argument so you're attacking the length of the other parties argument and then stating that you're probably both wrong.
It just looks like you don't know what you're talking about.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by MasonDoctorJT
Bookmarks