German court tosses Samsung's 3G patent suit, Apple's slide-to-unlock complaint

2456

Comments

  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,553member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    Yes, but once again, Qualcomm already has licensing agreements and pays for the use the FRAND patents. The royalty is based on their *chip's* sale price. However, Moto told Qualcomm it was revoking its license with respect to Apple only.



    Use common sense, for once. If 2.5% of a smartphone's sale price was fair for a single FRAND patent out of a much, much larger patent pool, the royalties would quickly add up to be more than the sale price of the device. You think that's fair or reasonable? The point of FRAND is really to protect competition and the consumer by keeping prices down. Unreasonable royalties, when aggregated, could exponentially drive up the price of components for some companies, perhaps keeping them from the marketplace.



    Do you know what Qualcomm wants for it's LTE standards (FRAND) royalty rate? Probably not. Would you be surprised to find out it's 3.25% of the device's wholesale selling price? Do you consider that unfair?

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...dWTJwg&cad=rja



    See Page 2
  • anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,558member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post


    FYI in terms of the FRAND patent, while Apple does benefit from the use of the patent, Apple is not, technically, Samsung's customer. Samsung licensed Quaalcom to produce the products that enable the technology represented by the patent. Apple bought and Quaalcom sold those chips on the basis of them being licensed by Samsung.



    Samsung withdrew licensing for the products sold to Apple (after the fact for some parts), but not for other customers of Quaalcom. Instead of trying to collect royalties of 2.25% of the sales price for the product that Quaalcom made, they are now trying to collect that royalty against the Apple product containing the product that Quaalcom made.



    Hardly fair or reasonable. For all intents and purposes, Samsung is manipulating the rules to both gain a larger payday and to unfairly hurt their chief competitor in the marketplace.



    For comparison, this is analogous to a patent holder of technology critical to LCD screens made by Samsung refusing to license their product for use in Hondas unless Honda paid a royalty equal to 2.25% of the retail sales price of the Honda. That would amount to a royalty, exclusive of manufacturing costs of approximately $607 (on a $27,000 vehicle) on a screen that is 4x5 inches in size.



    If you call THAT fair, ...



    You have to keep in mind that GG is a paid shill. it's his job to spin things in Google/Android's favor. It's also his job to manufacture lies out of facts. So, it's typical of his posts that he will present a set of "facts" and links that support his spin (although, sometimes it seems he's just hoping no one bothers to read his sources and that we just accept the presence of a link as authoritative), without bothering to include others that don't. It's also typical that he will misapply them to the point at hand, pretending that certain other facts don't exist or that there are no distinctions that invalidate his arguments. Such are the techniques of the professional propagandist.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Do you know what Qualcomm wants for it's LTE standards (FRAND) royalty rate? Probably not. Would you be surprised to find out it's 3.25% of the device's wholesale selling price? Do you consider that unfair?

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...dWTJwg&cad=rja



    See Page 2



    You're ignoring two important factors:



    1. Qualcomm only charges the royalty on the cost of the chip, not the finished device. A Qualcomm chip in an iPhone is just a few dollars, so the royalty is a few cents. Motorola wants the royalty assessed on the final product price - which would be more like $15 for an iPhone or $6,000 for a Mercedes A-class.



    2. Qualcomm's license fee covers ALL Qualcomm patents (hundreds of them). Motorola wants 2.25% PER PATENT.



    Nice try, though.
  • sacto joesacto joe Posts: 596member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    You have to keep in mind that GG is a paid shill. it's his job to spin things in Google/Android's favor. It's also his job to manufacture lies out of facts. So, it's typical of his posts that he will present a set of "facts" and links that support his spin (although, sometimes it seems he's just hoping no one bothers to read his sources and that we just accept the presence of a link as authoritative), without bothering to include others that don't. It's also typical that he will misapply them to the point at hand, pretending that certain other facts don't exist or that there are no distinctions that invalidate his arguments. Such are the techniques of the professional propagandist.



    Wow. Not just a troll, but a Big Smelly Hairy Incentivized Troll (Big S.H.I.T.).
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,068member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UMadBrah? View Post


    Good. I mean, srsly: slide to unlock? Total bogus that such a thing can be patented. I get why a company like Apple would file it: all giant companies file ridiculous patents, but they do so for defensive reasons.



    The fact that Apple tried to use this patent in an offensive way is just ridiculous.



    It's far from the offensiveness or ridiculousness of Moto etc suing over FRAND patents because they tried to jack up the price for one company (that makes an insane amount of money) and got caught.



    ANd by the by there are way more 'ridiculous' lawsuits filed by other companies against each other and Apple than Apple has filed. We just don't hear about them because they don't get the page hits that dropping "Apple" gets. Face it, this ain't CNN. Page hits are how they pay for their business



    Quote:



    Yeah, it's under the FRAND flag, but if Apple isn't paying the requested fair fees, they are in the wrong.



    You are correct. But the key to this is that fees were not fair. Qualcomm has it in documentation that they paid the fees for the patent and whomever buys the chips buys that paid for license. Moto is saying no, Apple has to pay again (double dipping). THen they asked for a royalty per unit sold based on the full retail price claiming that it was fair to charge the same percent. but that's not how the rules for FRAND are set up. They are on the amount and 2.25%, or whatever it is, of $200 is not the same as 2.25% of $700. That fails the non discriminatory test because it isn't the same amount for all players.



    It's not unlike the whole "iPad" trademark thing. When it was some Jo Blo company the value of the trademark was $55k for 10 countries. When it was found out it was Apple then Proview started their game that cause Apple can afford to pay more they should. Moto is playing the same tricks with this patent
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,553member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    You're ignoring two important factors:



    1. Qualcomm only charges the royalty on the cost of the chip, not the finished device. A Qualcomm chip in an iPhone is just a few dollars, so the royalty is a few cents. Motorola wants the royalty assessed on the final product price - which would be more like $15 for an iPhone or $6,000 for a Mercedes A-class.



    2. Qualcomm's license fee covers ALL Qualcomm patents (hundreds of them). Motorola wants 2.25% PER PATENT.



    Nice try, though.



    Claim #1. - Incorrect. The royalty is based on the wholesale selling price of the finished product, ie iPhone, not just a chip.

    http://www.thestreet.com/story/10985...on-iphone.html



    Claim#2: Incorrect again. The 2.25% royalty rate is for all patents that Moto has contributed to the standard.



    I'll go even further for you. Let's talk one of the newer standards, 4G/LTE. A lot of companies have contributed IP to the standard and they all wish to be paid for their inventiveness. They also want it based on a percentage of the devices selling price, a completed phone or tablet utilizing LTE as an example. So how much does everyone want?



    Alcatel/Lucent - 2%

    Ericsson - 1.5%

    Huawei - 1.5%

    Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans

    Motorola - 2.25%

    Qualcomm - 3.25%

    ZTE- 1%



    Total: 13.8% of the device's total selling price, not just a chip price.



    The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.
  • pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Do you know what Qualcomm wants for it's LTE standards (FRAND) royalty rate? Probably not. Would you be surprised to find out it's 3.25% of the device's wholesale selling price? Do you consider that unfair?

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...dWTJwg&cad=rja



    See Page 2



    First off, it depends on the number of patents being licensed, as opposed to "one bullet kills". Second, it's not clear how this relates to a company like Apple, who buys chips from Qualcomm. Is the 3.25% the cost of the chip itself? Or is this if you want to go make the chip in house? Does it cover all relevant 4G patents?



    Third, Qualcomm does not have a history of playing fair, like Motorola, so I wouldn't put it past them.



    Lastly, thanks for deflecting my points and spinning it into a different subject. Maybe next time, if you're going to reply, you'll actually address the points I brought out. You squirm when people like to pin you down on a specific point, always taking the "high ground" with the "I'm just pointing out the facts so you can educate yourself" position. Trouble is, you contaminate your facts with a subtle bias that involves cherry picking, and in that you're very similar to a politician. I don't mean that as a compliment.
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,068member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    The court never heard the case. They could not have made any decision as to the merits.



    I suspect on the Apple one what they tossed was the original suit that was based on the broad patent, which should have been tossed. This was likely just a formality. Apple will appeal with the new and more specific patent and the whole thing won't really be over. But it will be more reasonable.
  • charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,068member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mausz View Post


    Unless there is also a cross-licensing of other patents as well between samsung and nokia. I have read this somewhere else (can't seem to find the link right now). FRAND licensing can be different to different licensees if they are part of a "bigger" deal



    Sort of. The gross amount has to be the same to be fair to all parties.



    It goes something like this.



    I have a patent that you want to license. It's FRAND so I charge you the same $15 that everyone else is paying. But you have a patent that I want to license that would cost me $10. To keep the whole thing simpler I take that $10 in cash off the bill and you pay me $5+my license. You are paying less cash but the gross is the same as what GatorGuy etc are paying for the patent.
  • pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Claim #1. - Incorrect. The royalty is based on the wholesale selling price of the finished product, ie iPhone, not just a chip.

    http://www.thestreet.com/story/10985...on-iphone.html



    Claim#2: Incorrect again. The 2.25% royalty rate is for all patents that Moto has contributed to the standard.



    I'll go even further for you. Let's talk one of the newer standards, 4G/LTE. A lot of companies have contributed IP to the standard and they all wish to be paid for their inventiveness. They also want it based on a percentage of the devices selling price, a completed phone or tablet utilizing LTE as an example. So how much does everyone want?



    Alcatel/Lucent - 2%

    Ericsson - 1.5%

    Huawei - 1.5%

    Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans

    Motorola - 2.25%

    Qualcomm - 3.25%

    ZTE- 1%



    Total: 13.8% of the device's total selling price, not just a chip price.



    Doesn't Apple own a significant amount of patents related to 4G from their Novell and Nortell purchases?



    Also, you can see why this approach is flawed. Either you're only highlighting a portion of the facts, or this will likely be addressed by regulatory bodies. A royalty of 13.8% would be close to $100 on an iPhone and iPad, and that doesn't even include the necessary GSM patents. Or all the other required standards.



    If true, this reinforces that Apple is right to lead the charge to fix FRAND abuse in the telecom industry.
  • tinman0tinman0 Posts: 168member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by UMadBrah? View Post


    Good. I mean, srsly: slide to unlock? Total bogus that such a thing can be patented. I get why a company like Apple would file it: all giant companies file ridiculous patents, but they do so for defensive reasons.



    So why didn't you patent it?
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by DrFreeman View Post




    However the point would be that there are a few thousand standard FRAND patents in each phone or laptop (lets assume 1000).



    Did you just make that number up out of thin air?



    Or do you have a cite?
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,553member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    Lastly, thanks for deflecting my points and spinning it into a different subject. Maybe next time, if you're going to reply, you'll actually address the points I brought out. You squirm when people like to pin you down on a specific point, always taking the "high ground" with the "I'm just pointing out the facts so you can educate yourself" position. Trouble is, you contaminate your facts with a subtle bias that involves cherry picking, and in that you're very similar to a politician. I don't mean that as a compliment.



    Sorry for the delayed reply Pendergast. I was busy researching one of your concerns. If you'll look at my last post you'll see there is no deflection at all, with your questions generally answered. If there's something I haven't addressed for you let me know what it is and I'll see if I have a comment I can make.



    EDIT: Here's an article you should read.

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...pTaqtQ&cad=rja



    Suggestion: Don't be so quick to believe that what Apple or FOSSPatents has to say about a subject is the complete story and the sole authoritative source.
  • pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Claim #1. - Incorrect. The royalty is based on the wholesale selling price of the finished product, ie iPhone, not just a chip.

    http://www.thestreet.com/story/10985...on-iphone.html



    Claim#2: Incorrect again. The 2.25% royalty rate is for all patents that Moto has contributed to the standard.



    I'll go even further for you. Let's talk one of the newer standards, 4G/LTE. A lot of companies have contributed IP to the standard and they all wish to be paid for their inventiveness. They also want it based on a percentage of the devices selling price, a completed phone or tablet utilizing LTE as an example. So how much does everyone want?



    Alcatel/Lucent - 2%

    Ericsson - 1.5%

    Huawei - 1.5%

    Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans

    Motorola - 2.25%

    Qualcomm - 3.25%

    ZTE- 1%



    Total: 13.8% of the device's total selling price, not just a chip price.



    The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.



    Also, do you have an article that shows that the above rates are supposed to be combined? I was under the impression that Qualcomm sells completed chipsets, and Apple has them inserted into iDevice assembly. Are you sure that some of the rates aren't what Qualcomm pays (since Qualcomm currently pays Moto a royalty) and then sells their chipset at a rate that covers their costs?
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post




    Its all business. Apple will win some, Google will win some, in the end they will all settle, or workaround or whatever.



    Apple is unlikely to settle when they are the plaintiff. One does not settle if one wants Global Thermonuclear War.



    Apple will settle when they get sued for ripping off IP. Not otherwise. Apple does not license its IP.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    Use common sense, for once. If 2.5% of a smartphone's sale price was fair for a single FRAND patent out of a much, much larger patent pool, the royalties would quickly add up to be more than the sale price of the device.



    You seem to assume both that



    - All patents are of equal value, and

    - Only one patent is involved here.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,553member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    Also, do you have an article that shows that the above rates are supposed to be combined? I was under the impression that Qualcomm sells completed chipsets, and Apple has them inserted into iDevice assembly. Are you sure that some of the rates aren't what Qualcomm pays (since Qualcomm currently pays Moto a royalty) and then sells their chipset at a rate that covers their costs?



    Yes I do, linked in my last post. I see you continuing to imply the royalty is based on a chipset price. It is not. The royalties are calculated based on the completed end-product..



    I really really suggest you read the article I linked that discusses telecommunications industry standards and the royalties associated with them.



    At the end of the day, if a company (for instance Apple) feels that the standards royalties are too high, they have a tried-and-true solution: Cross license some of your own.



    It's Apple that's trying to change the rules and say they're not going to play by old ones, which is fine by me. I agree that patent licensing is causing a whole lot of issues. At the same time Apple wants it their way and only their way, and hopes complaining to the EU will get them what they want. I'm quite certain Apple is well-aware of how royalties are determined in the industry and how you reduce your out-of-pocket expenses for them. They just went thru the motions with Nokia last year.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    You're ignoring two important factors:



    1. Qualcomm only charges the royalty on the cost of the chip, not the finished device.



    Wrong again!





    "complete, end user subscriber devices that implement LTE and/or WiMax

    standards, but do not implement any 3G CDMA standards, of approximately 3.25% of

    the wholesale selling price of each such device,"





    Do you ever get tired of that?
  • tooltalktooltalk Posts: 766member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


    FRAND terms require fair fees. You can't charge apple $15 and then charge Nokia $3 just because Apple has more valuable products. And since they are part of standards, you shouldn't be able to have an injunction either.



    Nokia is a bad example.. There's a lot of cross-licensing deals between Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, etc.. I think this is what Samsung wants from Apple, but Apple doesn't want to cross license (Jobs' thermo nuclear war against Android). Furthermore, most Apple's patent lawsuits against Samsung are based on Android OS specific features - almost all Samsung specific lawsuits have been thrown out so far.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


    Sort of. The gross amount has to be the same to be fair to all parties.




    That is incorrect. Wikipedia has a decent layman's explication.
Sign In or Register to comment.