Apple seeks up to $15 per Android device in settlements offered to Motorola, Samsung

24

Comments

  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    Seems fair to me.



    Fandroids should realize that they're using devices which infringe upon other people's intellectual property, and they should pay accordingly.



    The future looks great. Imagine some cheap ass Android phone being sold and $5 goes to Microsoft, $15 goes to Apple, and $20 goes to Oracle!



    Royalties are just part of the game, tho $20 to Oracle is now pretty unlikely. They may not get any royalties at all from their current litigation.



    Anyway, I've seen claims that even Apple may be paying Nokia more than $10 per iPhone sold just for the license to the standards patents they they settled with Nokia last year. Apparently 5% of the handset sales price, give-or-take, is common in the industry. I found evidence the other day that handset manufacturers that aren't willing to cross-license may be paying upwards of 13% for a license to 4G/LTE standards.
  • pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OneVoice View Post


    With all the lawsuits Apple has filed, tell me what patents they have validated thus far that should substantiated their competitors paying them a license fee for?



    The patent to automatically recognize a phone number in an email or text so it can be saved to contacts which they supposedly won against HTC and of which HTC has already worked around? The ipad design patent Apple supposed got an injunction against Samsung which was then quickly worked around in the 10.1N model?



    What these lawsuits prove is that there are so many layers into what a patent entails. You have to be very specific in what you're trying to patent and it's in the details that competitors can work around your patent or a judge can say "no, it doesn't meet all the requirements of your patent."



    These lawsuits are nothing more than nuisance to these mutibillion dollar companies. If on the other hand you're a small company these lawsuits can break your company.



    I don't think we've seen all the "big guns" yet, and Apple continues to be granted patents that were filed when the iPhone came out.



    Sure, you can design around the patents, but often that harms user experience. Which is the point: either don't infringe, or pay.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...cement-of.html



    In this article, Motorola is described as using a "it only takes one bullet to kill" and demanded the same 2.25% royalty for only 2 patents being asserted, instead of the whole patent pool. This isn't directly related to Apple, but it's where the sentiment comes from.



    I don't believe they want 2.25% for *each* patent, but that they value anything from a single patent to an entire pool of patents at the same rate.



    And that makes sense. I've seen the exact same 2.25% royalty rate applied to their radio standards package licensing from a few years back. They're pretty consistent with the 2.25% for a standards package across the board no matter the number of them contributed to any particular standard.
  • pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Royalties are just part of the game, tho $20 to Oracle is now pretty unlikely. They may not get any royalties at all from their current litigation.



    Anyway, I've seen claims that even Apple may be paying Nokia more than $10 per iPhone sold just for the license to the standards patents they they settled with Nokia last year. Apparently 5% of the handset sales price, give-or-take, is common in the industry. I found evidence the other day that handset manufacturers that aren't willing to cross-license may be paying upwards of 13% for a license to 4G/LTE standards.



    Your "evidence" didn't have any sources, and it was just your interpretation that all the values should be aggregated together. As that would amount to over $100 on an iPhone, and since there is no disclosure that Apple is paying anywhere close to that amount (their profit would be a lot less), it seems likely that there is another explanation, namely that much of the royalties are paid by the chipset manufacturer (Qualcomm) which in turn charges Apple a royalty in the form of the cost of the chip.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    Your "evidence" didn't have any sources, and it was just your interpretation that all the values should be aggregated together. As that would amount to over $100 on an iPhone, and since there is no disclosure that Apple is paying anywhere close to that amount (their profit would be a lot less), it seems likely that there is another explanation, namely that much of the royalties are paid by the chipset manufacturer (Qualcomm) which in turn charges Apple a royalty in the form of the cost of the chip.



    You said the exact same thing before. I gave you evidence it was true, while you only had a vague belief that it couldn't be with no citations to back up your "feelings". I really don't feel like rehashing it, but I gave more than one solid source for my claims. Qualcomm themselves very plainly say the 3.5 they want by themselves is based on the finished end-user subscriber device:

    "Qualcomm expects that it will charge royalties for a license under its standards essential LTE patents and/or standards essential WiMax patents for 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, subject to reciprocity and other standard terms and conditions.



    The link to Qualcomms' document this came from is here, post 22.

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=145061



    There's also this link:

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

    and this one:

    http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...pTaqtQ&cad=rja
  • onevoiceonevoice Posts: 6member
    Big Guns?!



    They were issued the Slide To Lock and promptly used that to sue Motorola and block two of the older versions of their phones? In the newer android system you can unlock by sliding right to left, left to right, make a circle or J shape.



    When the courts look more into this they will not only throw out this patent claim but also negate it because this patent it was previously awarded to Neonode. And if you argue that Apple's patent isn't exactly like Neo's then that's the same argument Motorola can use against Apple.



    And designs don't stay the same for eternity. Even Apple makes changes to their products. Look at how the iPhone has progressed.



    Plus you use your most powerful patents in a lawsuit to get your adversaries to settle with you for your full portfolio. Every good lawyer knows you shouldn't go into trial unless you know you're going to win (except those greedy ones that just like to keep on billing you). That is what Nokia did with Apple so what makes you think Motorola will ask for 2.25% for only 2 patents?
  • sennensennen Posts: 1,415member
    I wonder if the announced Android "activations per day" will go down in light of this...
  • onevoiceonevoice Posts: 6member
    Additionally, Apple's claim against Samsung regarding the Slide To Lock was thrown out.
  • tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 40,379member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sennen View Post


    I wonder if the announced Android "activations per day" will go down in light of this...



    No, if this goes through, it means we'll finally have the actual numbers coming through. They'll legally be required to provide them.



    Yeah, that… that'll make 'em go down by tens of thousands, I guess…
  • pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    You said the exact same thing before. I gave you evidence it was true, while you only had a vague belief that it couldn't be with no citations to back up your "feelings". I really don't feel like rehashing it, but I gave more than one solid source for my claims. Qualcomm themselves very plainly say the 3.5 they want by themselves is based on the finished end-user subscriber device:

    "Qualcomm expects that it will charge royalties for a license under its standards essential LTE patents and/or standards essential WiMax patents for 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, subject to reciprocity and other standard terms and conditions.



    The link to Qualcomms' document this came from is here, post 22.

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=145061



    There's also this link:

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

    and this one:

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



    First off, I did not argue about Qualcomm; I even cited them in my post.



    I may well be wrong, but keep in mind that "published rates" are merely what the owner publishes, and is akin to an initial offer. It has not been established as "reasonable" by the courts, and the licensee can make a lower offer. These patents can also be invalidated.



    Apple has standards-essential 4G patents as well, so the point is pretty much moot.
  • pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OneVoice View Post


    Big Guns?!



    They were issued the Slide To Lock and promptly used that to sue Motorola and block two of the older versions of their phones? In the newer android system you can unlock by sliding right to left, left to right, make a circle or J shape.



    When the courts look more into this they will not only throw out this patent claim but also negate it because this patent it was previously awarded to Neonode. And if you argue that Apple's patent isn't exactly like Neo's then that's the same argument Motorola can use against Apple.



    And designs don't stay the same for eternity. Even Apple makes changes to their products. Look at how the iPhone has progressed.



    Plus you use your most powerful patents in a lawsuit to get your adversaries to settle with you for your full portfolio. Every good lawyer knows you shouldn't go into trial unless you know you're going to win (except those greedy ones that just like to keep on billing you). That is what Nokia did with Apple so what makes you think Motorola will ask for 2.25% for only 2 patents?



    Apple is continuing to be granted patents related to multi-touch (specific implementations, mind you). Slide-to-unlock isn't a "big gun"; at best, it's cosmetic.



    Neonode, Neonode. Slide-to-unlock is not a gesture, a la the Neonode patent. Slide-to-unlock is manipulating a virtual object to unlock the device along a predetermined path. If Android wants to change it (as they have in newer versions), that's fine. The point it to prevent slavish copying.



    And Motorola did ask for 2.25% for only 2 patents, although it was to Microsoft, not Apple.
  • elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jd_in_sb View Post


    "I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong" - Steve Jobs



    Settling doesn't sound like something Apple's co-founder would have done.



    Sounds like Captain Ahab chasing the white whale.
  • gatorguygatorguy Posts: 14,854member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    And Motorola did ask for 2.25% for only 2 patents, although it was to Microsoft, not Apple.



    Again the 2.25% applies to a license to the entire package of patents that Motorola pledged to that standard afaik. Motorola was showing two specific ones as being infringed by Microsoft, but the 2.25% would buy them the licensing to any Moto patents pledged for that particular standard. Are there only two that Motorola contributed? I don't know. If you have some source showing there were only those two contributed, then a simple link to the evidence is plenty to convince me.
  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


    Again the 2.25% applies to a license to the entire package of patents that Motorola pledged to that standard afaik. Motorola was showing two specific ones as being infringed by Microsoft, but the 2.25% would buy them the licensing to any Moto patents pledged for that particular standard. Are there only two that Motorola contributed? I don't know. If you have some source showing there were only those two contributed, then a simple link to the evidence is plenty to convince me.



    You keep saying that, but at the time, it was clear that they were asking for 2.25% per patent - and Google affirmed that number.
  • greginpraguegreginprague Posts: 415member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by OneVoice View Post


    Additionally, Apple's claim against Samsung regarding the Slide To Lock was thrown out.



    According to Foss Patents on Friday only one of two claims against Samsung for Slide to Lock was thrown out. There's still another yet to be ruled on.
  • dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,481member
    A willingness to settle could mean Apple doesn't think its case is that strong. In the end there'll be cross licensing with little to no cash exchanged.
  • carlosviscarracarlosviscarra Posts: 37member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflocal View Post


    Simply on principle, Apple should be demanding at least $100/per handset. Hell, $200. Shut em out as far as I'm concerned. Let them go back to their blackberry clone before Schmidt caught wind of what Apple did.



    Luv your comment!



    Im glad im not the only one who see the real truth about what happened!
  • srangersranger Posts: 469member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alienzed View Post


    What Motorola has sought in its proposed settlement is nothing like what Apple wants. Apple is in no way obligated to license it's patents whereas Motorola's patents are on FRAND terms and has no choice but to license them.



    Actually they are only required to license the FRAND patents on fair and reasonable terms. No one here knows what Motorola or Apple has offered. There is speculation, but no terms published to my knowledge...



    I can't see Motorola or Samsung licensing Apples patents as they claim to have already altered the products so that they do not infringe on the patents. The only one that is still in limbo seem to be the auto hyper link detection......
  • srangersranger Posts: 469member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    I don't think we've seen all the "big guns" yet, and Apple continues to be granted patents that were filed when the iPhone came out.



    Sure, you can design around the patents, but often that harms user experience. Which is the point: either don't infringe, or pay.



    Actually some work around turn out to be a better idea. Take the drag to unlock that Androind ICS uses vs the slide to unlock that apple uses. You drag the icon to the app that you want to bring to the front and it opens the app and unlocks the phone. It is very handy and does not seem to violate the guided path slide to unlock patent that apple has....
  • jack99jack99 Posts: 157member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post


    I'd be happy if Apple gets even the minimum in royalty fees. At least Google and Android won't get away completely. Every little bit of interference will help to slow Android's momentum down. Eventually Android OS will be modified enough where they won't have to pay Apple anything and Apple will get what it was originally after.







    The nice thing about not understanding the full implications and consequences of patent wars like this one is you get to view it all like a round of fantasy football.



    It's only when you start working and actually paying the bills you realize there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Sign In or Register to comment.