or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

 Are you guys even reading the article?   Not all Ericsson's patents are SEP -- or licensed under FRAND terms. EDIT:  just read Ericsson's filing. I have to backtrack my comment about Ericsson's patents in question -- the lawsuit is about Ericsson's SEPs.    Apple is essentially arguing that (1) Ericsson's SEPs are not in fact "essential" -- therefore Apple does not infringe on Ericsson's patents. But, (2)  if they are "essential," they must be licensed under FRAND terms.
 @Phone-UI-Guy  : No,  Apple is not contesting the validity of Ericsson's patents or claiming Ericsson defrauded any SSO --  either by lying about offering FRAND licensing terms, or by failing to disclose its IPR in standard essential patents. Ericsson was once a leader in mobile tech and still possesses "seminal" wireless patents that are not pledged to any SSO (therefore not bounded by any FRAND terms). 
 @RedGeminiPA : How do you know that Apple is "forced" to pay more than other companies? Firstly, Samsung had a similar dispute over licensing renewal a couple of years back and it ended in a settlement last year.  According to the Bloomberg article cited here, "the deal boosted Ericsson’s 2013 fourth-quarter sales by 4.2 billion kronor ($520 million) and net income by 3.3 billion kronor." I'm guessing Apple would probably have to pay a lot more since it has so little to...
 No, much of their marketing spending ends up in the hands of retailers or consumers as rebates, promotion, spiff, etc, etc, not ads.  Sure, everyone, including Apple copies shamelessly.  That's what everyone does in this business. Now, I keep hearing that Xiaomi is backed by the Chineses gov't at other sites like Arstechnica.com again and again by someone with the same namehandle -- and then repeated by other lemmings elsewhere.  Do you have any evidence that supports...
 Sure, and where in FRAND, does it say if the apportionment rule (component) or the entire market value rule (end user product) applies in this case? Your argument is a red herring. Further, it's common industry practice for SEP holders to charge royalty rates based on end-user devices (eg, Qualcomm, Moto, or pretty much the whole wireless industry). The question really comes down to whether patented features create the basis for market demand for an entire product.  In...
 @ECats:  Sure, so then I'm guessing you strongly disagree with DED's assertion that Apple A8's "significant performance lead in both areas" -- as there is really no cross-platform mobile benchmark good enough to quantify CPU performances ?
 @JBDragon : Sure, and Qualcomm, Mediatek, Samsung, etc will have their next generation AP's by the time A9 is out. Now, as for your multicore comment, there is a good reason why almost all processor makers stopped competing for higher clock frequency in favor of multi-cores in mid 2000: power efficiency.  Adding more cores reduces power consumptions and heat dissipation for the same performance, not the other way around.  According to a IEEE article by Phillip Ross :  
 Well, I don't follow these things, but that appears to be the case :      
 @Frood :  No, the vast majority of that verdict was for three copied designs ($399M) and the trademarked look ($382M) -- ie, copying the iPhone.  The pinch-to-zoom has been invalidated by USPTO -- Apple appealed last year, but the USPTO upheld their previous decision and declared it invalid.  
 @formosa : Sure, but all of Samsung's infringing devices have been discontinued long ago or are no longer for sales in the US.   As for your "cupholder" comment, Apple used the same legal argument against Samsung in the 2012 ITC case -- Apple argued that Samsung's patent royalty rate should be based on the cost of infringing component (ie, cupholder), not end-user device (ie, car) and that Samsung was entitled to 0.000000000..x% per device royalty rate. Not...
New Posts  All Forums: