Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasonkolb | Hacker News Reader

"The Xbox 360 violates four Motorola patents, according to ITC Administrative Law Judge David Shaw, Wired reports. Shaw made his initial ruling against Microsoft in April, and now recommends a ban on sales and import of the game console."

Didn't Google just buy Motorola?

This could get interesting.

View on HN

I'm not sure that I see it that way. If anything I'd think Google would find it in its (and, frankly, our) best interests to let the patent war escalate further. The more of a mess it is, the more likely someone in government will step in to intervene. At this point it's becoming routine for every successful consumer electronics device to see a patent ban somewhere. That's not sustainable. I hope.

Apple seeks injunction vs HTC for patent infringement; ajross declares patent wars evil incarnate [1].

Google subsidiary Motorola granted likely injunction against Xbox 360; ajross suddenly ok with patent war.

[1] http://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22hacker+news%22+ajross+google+pat...

You're right. My opinion has changed. Apple vs. HTC is a net good too, at least in the sense that it brings us closer to some level of regulatory relief.

I'll give you some props for consistency there.

I'm not some anti-gubmint crank but I do think it's a little wishful to think the US government is going to do anything constructive here much less fix everything anytime soon.

What I see as more likely is the spectre and reality of injunctions leading to a huge round of cross licensing settlements. A good outcome for incumbents in general and a bad one for prospective new entrants who bring the biggest growth.

I hope too.

The government will step in alright and investigate Google/Motorola for anti-trust violation. Just like what is happening in the EU. And I expect them to be severely punished.

The fact is that Google/Motorola behaviour in abusing the principles of FRAND is arguably some of the worst seen in the history of the industry. Almost every single consumer electronic product would have either (a) not existed or (b) be significantly more expensive without the fair licensing of patent pools.

Patents/FRAND pools are just a way for big old companies tax the little guys, not for inovations, but by making an standard encumbered with patents. Completely the the opposite of what patents where supposed to do. So, in a way, FRAND is actually a abuse of the patent system in more ways than not.

Because of FRAND you already have products that do not exist and products that become significantly more expensive.

You clearly don't understand the significance of FRAND at all. And your last statement is pure and utter nonsense.

Please list an example.

Please list an example.

Microsoft's VC-1 is an example of something that was developed internally and released to a standards body, then was later encumbered by patents pooled by others.

Adoption of Ogg Vorbis was significantly hindered by vague threats of patent encumbrance from patent pools established around international standards.

WebM was threatened by MPEG-LA with an anti-VP8 patent pool.

Likewise Rambus very nearly succeeded in fooling a standards body into issuing a standard based on submarine patents (and did fool Intel into betting a generation of chipsets on it). FRAND is a good idea (well, an acceptable one anyway) that has never worked in practice. All systems can be gamed.

You honestly think this is worse than what we've seen from Apple, Nokia, Samsung and Oracle? Seems pretty par for the course to me. Why single out one bad actor for what is clearly an endemic problem?

Afaik, Apple at least has not asserted patents covered by FRAND terms.

You don't understand FRAND/patents at all. A patent will rarely impede prevent entire classes of products being made. But without FRAND many standards would never have taken off without cheap and fair licensing. No Bluetooth. No WiFi. No USB. No XBox. No iPhone.

And the reason Google/Motorola is being singled out is because AFAIK nobody has done this before.

Without FRAND, standards would be fine if they required royalty-free licensing instead, which is preferable.

Google/Motorola are definitely not the first to go to trial over high FRAND licensing fees (see below). The only thing remarkable with the Google/Motorola litigation against Apple and Microsoft is that it was a defensive move on being sued by Apple and Microsoft. It is true they didn't sue Motorola over FRAND patents [EDIT: or did they? see at bottom]... Not by moral virtue I think, but because their patents are far too insignificant to be required by a standard. Note that FRAND is a vague notion that doesn't say what "fair", "reasonable" and "non-discriminatory" should mean in practice. It leaves place for negotiations and even injuctions in case of infringement. Here's a good discussion of FRAND misconceptions:

http://blog.patentology.com.au/2012/02/fraught-issue-of-fran...

Excerpt:

Why should a company be able knowingly to use a patented technology while dragging out licensing negotiations with the patentee, secure in the knowledge that the greatest power the patentee has if agreement cannot be reached is to ask a court to rule on license terms and royalty rates?

Now it's true that the fees demanded by Motorola at this stage (2.25% of the sales price) are higher than usual. But that's after Apple and Microsoft violated their obligation to contract a license for the patents, and sued Motorola over their own patents. It is also expected for a party to start with a higher asking price than what they will eventually settle on. And it is not completely out of line with other FRAND licensing fees. For example Qualcomm routinely collects over 3% of the device cost: http://www.trefis.com/company?hm=QCOM.trefis&driver=idQC... (from http://www.hoista.net/post/17365252561/google-wants-1-7-bill...)

Another example is Nokia who recently settled with Apple for around 4.5% of an iPhone cost: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia... (this was also a case of FRAND patents, see http://www.scribd.com/doc/28285432/Nokia-s-Motion-to-Dismiss...).

How does that compare to what Motorola asks for? From the Guardian article, Nokia takes about 4.5% of the estimated average $264 cost price of an iPhone, which Apple sells to retailers and phone networks for an average of $660. Motorola asks for 2.25% of the sales price, which corresponds to 5.6% of the device cost. Not so different from the Apple-Nokia deal.

EDIT: According to Motorola, Microsoft used FRAND patents to seek an injunction to block Motorola's products:

http://www.itpro.co.uk/639088/motorola-slams-microsoft-paten...

And Microsoft’s complaint with the International Trade Commission sought injunctive relief against Motorola Mobility based on Microsoft’s own standards essential patents. With its recent actions, Microsoft has simply reversed its position on FRAND in order to suit its current litigation strategy.

Apple and Microsoft don't have clean hands here - and that's even if you ignore their lawsuits against Android.

The history is very relevant:

1. Motorola had some FRAND patents (that are not part of a patent pool). 2. They contacted both Apple and Microsoft to get them to license them. 3. After years of failed negotiations, Motorola took them to court to get them to pay up. 4. Now, Apple and Microsoft are trying to use the FRAND offer that they previously declined as a get-out-of-jail-free card (i.e. no blocking current products) while they still fight over past infringement.

If that's how it works, why would anyone with even half a brain ever bother to license a FRAND patent pre-lawsuit? Best case, the patent holder doesn't notice or decides you're not worth going after. Worst case, you get to put off payment until after the patent holder sues.

Sounds like a great way to encourage future FRAND standards, right?

Motorola is doing some serious FRAND abuse and Google has promised that things won't be any worse under their reign, which is pretty small comfort.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80976133/12-02-08-Google-to-IEEE-o...

They bought Motorola Mobility; not the unit of Motorola that makes processors.

This is about Motorola Mobility. They are the ones suing here.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com