Not my words…they’re the sub-healine of the article.
I’ve been thinking about writing about this abrubt and sudden shift im Mueller’s reporting too, but I’m glad someone esle did.
Anyhow, I have noticed the same thing, and I’m not sure what’s going on because up until recently Mueller seemed to be more level-headed. His recent articles almost reak of one-sided reporting.
Considering that he has trumpeted Apple’s victories in the past, and also pretty much all Android OEM’s losses it just seems weird.
I’m very interested to see if something else surfaces on this in the (near) future…
The most interesting economic information is that Motorola, according to the brief, “demand[s] that Apple take a license at a rate that was more than 12 times what Motorola was charging other licensees for the same technology–a rate that was unfair, unreasonable, and decidedly discriminatory”. The public version of the brief obviously does not contain any such thing as a list of various Motorola license deals. But it becomes clearer and clearer that Motorola’s 2.25% demand is unrealistic and not supported by the deals it actually concluded. Apple says that the demand, corresponding to about $12 per iPhone, “was more than 12 times what Apple was already paying to license Motorola’s SEPs”, apparently referring to what Apple was paying indirectly through the use of Motorola-licensed baseband chips.
From Apple’s opening brief in this appeals case:
Motorola has sued Apple in various forums for infringement of eight SEPs (presumably, its eight strongest SEPs) and is batting 0-for-8 in establishing liability in U.S. actions.
The company that Google bought for $12.5 billion to protect Android from patent threats cannot even protect itself.
Areamobile, a high-quality German news website focused on wireless communications devices, reports today (in an article that also mentions last Friday’s ruling) that German customers face a “heavily-shrunk” choice of Android-based Motorola smartphones. I had previously heard something similar from a news agency reporter who is following some of the German Android-related lawsuits. Areamobile noted that Motorola Mobility’s German website lists only three Android-based smartphones — and no tablet computer.
…and let’s not forget how this all started:
But to be clear, now-Google-owned Motorola Mobility is not a victim. It was Motorola Mobility’s choice in the spring of 2011 to sue Apple in Mannheim before Apple filed any lawsuit against it outside the United States, and to sue Microsoft in Mannheim in the summer of 2011, also before Microsoft filed any non-U.S. lawsuit against it. Motorola Mobility was trying to take advantage of the fact that injunctions are routinely granted in Germany — and of German case law relating to standard-essential patents. For the same reason, Samsung also sued Apple in Germany before Apple brought any German litigation against Samsung. And Samsung has not won anything against Apple in this country to date.
After this partial summary judgment win, Apple is in pretty good shape with a view to the Wisconsin FRAND trial, which is scheduled to start on November 5, 2012. It still has the burden of proof on its claim that Motorola’s 2.25% royalty demand is inconsistent with FRAND, and there are some other requirements to meet, but the issues have been narrowed ocnsiderably. Almost exactly a year after Google announced its acquisition of Motorola Mobility, and only days after Google announced mass layoffs at the acquired company, Friday’s decision is only the latest event of many that call into question the patent strategy behind that $12.5 billion impulse buy.
It’s not even clear that Samsung will make enough money as a result of this infringement finding to offset the 800,000 euros it now owes Apple in legal fees because it lost with respect to three of its four patents.
Samsung won’t be able to enforce a ban on Apple devices, and it has to grant FRAND licenses to the infringing products, something I think, Apple was gunning for in the first place.