I don't think that's anywhere near a correct summary. First of all, AFAIK Apple and Nokia settled out of court. So there was no legal precedent.
Second, it was already well-established that FRAND patents could be worth silly amounts of money, not just a cross-licensing poker chip. For example Qualcomm and Nokia had an extended series of lawsuits over 15 years, including exactly the kinds of antics that are going on now (e.g. complaints to authorities about misuse of FRAND patents). The final lawsuit was settled such that Nokia licensed Qualcomms patents for $billions (much more than Apple paid Nokia), while Qualcomm didn't license Nokia's patents (giving Nokia the option of going after Qualcomm's customers).
Third, the amounts that Google is demanding aren't actually ridiculous by the standards of the industry. And sure, what Google is really after is likely a cross-licensing deal, given Apple's and Microsoft's patent extortion rates.
Thanks for the corrections. In other words, I think I got the gist right, but so many details wrong that calling my synopsis "wrong" would be accurate. Unfortunately, it appears that your reply isn't quite stand-alone. If it was I'd just delete my post and let your very informative one be the only one people had to read.
Comments
I don't think that's anywhere near a correct summary. First of all, AFAIK Apple and Nokia settled out of court. So there was no legal precedent.
Second, it was already well-established that FRAND patents could be worth silly amounts of money, not just a cross-licensing poker chip. For example Qualcomm and Nokia had an extended series of lawsuits over 15 years, including exactly the kinds of antics that are going on now (e.g. complaints to authorities about misuse of FRAND patents). The final lawsuit was settled such that Nokia licensed Qualcomms patents for $billions (much more than Apple paid Nokia), while Qualcomm didn't license Nokia's patents (giving Nokia the option of going after Qualcomm's customers).
Third, the amounts that Google is demanding aren't actually ridiculous by the standards of the industry. And sure, what Google is really after is likely a cross-licensing deal, given Apple's and Microsoft's patent extortion rates.
Thanks for the corrections. In other words, I think I got the gist right, but so many details wrong that calling my synopsis "wrong" would be accurate. Unfortunately, it appears that your reply isn't quite stand-alone. If it was I'd just delete my post and let your very informative one be the only one people had to read.