or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

I believe Apple told the press it included wifi. I'd guess the Apple Watch still really isn't a standalone product tho, reliant on an iPhone for the most part.As a side note one of the larger smartphone manufacturers (LG maybe?) just announced a 4G LTE smartwatch, no phone needed.EDIT. It is LG, and it's not Android Wear either.http://betanews.com/2015/02/26/lg-announces-4g-lte-enabled-watch-urbane-smartwatch/EDIT 2: Yes, Apple announced it includes...
I don't know that your memory is accurate. I don't find anything about Sammy getting smacked for asking for cross-licensing. Perhaps you have a link to one?The EU did investigate on a different Samsung/Apple issue where Sammy wanted an injunction on Apple for not taking a license to their SEP portfolio but that wasn't specific to cross-licensing.Samsung reportedly wanted 2.4% of the wholesale device cost, but would lower that rate if Apple would cross-license their own...
Why? Does the EU follow US precedent?Note too that Ericsson claims they "offered to have a (US Federal) court determine fair licensing terms by which both companies would be bound" and Apple refused.EDIT; That earlier offer is discussed here. BTW, Apple fired the first salvo. this whole actions reminds me of Apple's "negotiations" with Nokia from a few years ago with several back and forth lawsuits before they settled...
Apple doesn't say that's the problem. It could be cross-licensing which was apparently the major hold-up for Apple's license negotiations with Nokia a couple years back. As many of these patents are NOT SEP don't you think Ericsson should be able to ask whatever they wish for them?
I haven't avoided it at all..http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/184972/ericsson-unloads-legal-barrage-against-apple-in-ongoing-patent-licensing-dispute#post_2682455
ed
Your Ericsson link says the same thing I already said earlier.:"Many of Ericsson's patents are essential to the 2G, 3G and 4G/LTE standards; others are critical to other non-standardized aspects of Apple's devices."After Apple refused Ericsson's offer to have a court determine fair licensing terms by which both companies would be bound, Ericsson filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) requesting an exclusion order against Apple's products for...
I'm asking the question, which you should feel free to answer: What is specifically unfair, much less illegal, about being asked to pay for the value realized from those patents? Can the value basis be approached as it would be with any other property you own and priced according to the value to the buyer or should patents be handled differently? What do you personally think?Note that many of the infringment claims are apparently not standard-essential and instead related...
http://www.mobileworldcongress.com/about/start-here/who-attends-mwc/
I'm not saying that at all. That would be Ericsson's argument.The royalties aren't tied to profits anyway. Samsung is probably paying nearly the same base royalties as Apple on a few of their smartphones since the wholesale price is probably similar. And no I doubt that other companies are offered a lower percentage of the device price as royalties which is actually worse as few of them are seeing significant profits to begin with. They should be the ones raising a ruckus...
New Posts  All Forums: