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:
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...)
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:
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.
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.