or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

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...
By extension companies that do not use the patent themselves for any product should not be able to sue someone else since they aren't "losing by not having something to sell". Would that be accurate?
It wasn't the same thing at all.
Ahh, I misunderstood. So your comment had nothing to do with the Ericsson claims specifically. My apologies for reading more into your comment than you say you intended.
Are you claiming it should be illegal to do so if the fish seller so wishes? I can't imagine how as they are his fish to sell or not.Using your argument it would limit the value of a company you built with the sweat of your brow. My company may be much more valuable to certain buyers than others and I may demand a higher price to sell out to them because of the intrinsic value it offers them even if others would not realize that same value. I'm sure that shouldn't be too...
Where is your evidence that Ericsson is demanding cross-licensing as a condition for their SEP IP, and otherwise refuses to offer Apple a license?In addition you seem to be conveniently ignoring that many of the patents Ericsson is asserting, and that Apple was apparently licensing until a few months ago, are not FRAND pledged. Ericsson is under no obligation to make that patented technology available to Apple in the first place. Compulsory licensing for access to those...
You are right that some patents can't be tied to the price of the handset, ie the Motorola patents asserted against Microsoft that an earlier poster mentioned. Ericsson is not asserting only patents that can be tied to a specific component. They are claiming their developmental work, codified in several US patents, are applicable to the basic functionality of the iPhone itself and not simply one component of it.Apple realizes more value from the patents than most other...
Why do you think the costs should be non-existent? AFAIK there's been no finding of that has there? Samsung is still on the hook for damages. The amount hasn't been finalized, but that's due to appeals and/or patent office actions. Apple will make full use of all avenues for appeal too if they come out on the losing end of this one, as well they should.
... but it may still be fair.
That's correct, one judge in one specific case. In that instance the patents were applicable to a single component of a larger device, the smallest salable unit doctrine. It was the wi-fi chip in that instance IIRC.In the case of Ericsson v. Apple they would claim that the completed product/device is the applicable unit since the patents apply to several features of the iPhone and not one specific component of it. That position is supported by several court rulings, one...
New Posts  All Forums: