or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

Apple eventually caved and did in fact license back some of their own IP, even some specific to the iPhone, in agreeing to take a license to Nokia's SEP patent portfolio. That would indicate that the EU did not find it to be illegal wouldn't it? Otherwise why would Apple agree to a cross-licensing agreement offering patents to IP that makes an iPhone an iPhone? I'm quite certain that would not have been Apple's preferred choice.EDIT: For those that don't believe Apple...
Do you have a link where the EU that says cross-licensing discounts can't be offered in SEP licensing? That was supposedly what Samsung was offering and that Apple refused but not because of the cross-license offer but because to the 2.4% royalty rate in the first place. Essentially Apple's complaint to the EU was that it was Samsung not negotiating in good faith as they had not shown 2.4% was their standard royalty rate.If there's somewhere the EU stated that...
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...
New Posts  All Forums: