Google joins Samsung in patent dispute with Apple

Isn't the whole point of FRAND licensing so that companies can't ask for exorbitant amount of fees in licensing for technologies that are required for standards defined by various standard bodies.<p>This reminds me of the Apple v. Motorola lawsuit in which Motorola was attempting to charge more than FRAND for a patent that is related to UMTS networks and is part of the standard. That case got dismissed with prejudice (no re-filing). Samsung seems to be doing the same thing and I wonder if this judge will throw that part out.

This is the second time Google has supported a partner who is asking absurd percentages on FRAND patents.<p>Of all the IP litigation that is happening, why is Google seemingly supporting the least defensible and moral claims?<p>Maybe Google feels that the world is indifferent about their behavior here, but outside of strong supporters of open source code I feel like Google is losing the PR war about their integrity.

A patent owner can accept FRAND conditions and the patent becomes part of the standard. They then earn a steady stream of licensing money off the ensuing trillion dollar industry.<p>A patent owner can reject FRAND and their technology does not get included in the standard.<p>There is no third option.<p>You can't decide after the trillion dollar industry establishes, to renege on FRAND, because your patent was only made part of the standard -- and therefore only has value -- because of that commitment to FRAND.

I've seen some hyperbolic statements on Google/Motorola/Samsung vs. Apple FRAND patent litigation recently, as if such tactics were unprecedented, and the amounts asked scandalous. I would suggest every person who is getting emotional in the Apple-Android dispute to have a look at this document on 4G FRAND patents:<p><a href="http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/82827/files/LESI-Royalty-Rates.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/82827/files/LESI-Roya...</a><p>It gives some context: <i>Audiences can expect to see the same licensing challenges that first appeared in GSM (2G) and which re-appeared in UMTS (3G) starring again in LTE (4G). The plot is essentially the same: lots of essential patents and many different patent holders.</i><p>And an interesting quote from Motorola (undated, accessed in 2009):<p><i>Motorola expects that its essential patent royalty rate for LTE systems and equipment will be approximately 2.25 percent.</i><p>I'll leave to the courts to decide if this is an appopriate royalty rate for an iPhone. Note that there is a trend of declining rates: Qualcomm used to collect between 4% and 5% of the sales price for FRAND patent royalties[1]. This has since declined to about 3% [2]. As for court actions, Nokia settled with Apple in 2011[3] over FRAND patents[4] for €800m. Apple would also pay Nokia €8 per device, equivalent to 1.75% of the sales price.<p>That being said, I agree that injunctions should not be granted on FRAND patents. I can't imagine a case where it makes sense.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.sramanamitra.com/2007/05/22/iphone-and-the-future-of-qualcomm-addendum/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sramanamitra.com/2007/05/22/iphone-and-the-future...</a><p>[2] <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/01/21/qualcomm-faces-falling-cdma-royalty-rates/" rel="nofollow">http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/01/21/qua...</a><p>[3] <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent-case" rel="nofollow">http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia...</a><p>[4] <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/28285432/Nokia-s-Motion-to-Dismiss-Apple-s-Implausible-Claims" rel="nofollow">http://www.scribd.com/doc/28285432/Nokia-s-Motion-to-Dismiss...</a>

Direct link to full article: <a href="http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/07/133_114203.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2012/07/133_114203...</a>

Isn't a FRAND agreement legally binding? Surely it's more than just a "gentleman's agreement"?

Software patents are intrinsically a mutually assured destruction scenario. The button has been pushed, it's too late to complain about the unfairness of overly brutal retaliation.<p>This farce should never have been started, now that it has, the entire racket needs to be ended, the ball is in the court of the legal system. I'm not holding my breath on the expectation that they'll fix everything anytime soon, so now the market suffers.<p>There's plenty of blame to hand out, but as in all mutually assured destruction scenarios the lion's share has to go to the guy that pushed the big red button.

Time to boycott Google? /sarcasm

I suppose it's too much to hope that this patent war keeps on escalating until the destructiveness of patents is evident to everyone, for at some point these big companies will declare a truce and turn their attention to smaller victims, at which point the patent war won't garner as much attention and it'll be back to business as usual: keeping the smaller companies from challenging the bigger ones.