or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by tooltalk

 @tmay :  Apple's home court awarded Apple for "three design patents claiming the rectangular shape, rounded corners, translucent screen, and colorful icons common to smartphones," three utility patents (two of which are now invalid), and two trade dress dilution claims.  The UI design/utility patents are part of the underlying OS component which is given away for "free."  So why should we apply one patent rules (ie, awarding infringer's entire profit to Apple) designed to...
 @tmay :  Apple used that exact royalty basis (entire market value) theory against Samsung and won in 2012.  And as of December of 2014, Apple continued to defend the verdict at CAFC.  Now, Apple wants the apportionment rule (smallest saleable unit) to be applied in this case (see ¶ 6 of Apple's complaint) and calls Ericsson's licensing offer "abusive licensing practices." Apple find that fair when it's convenient for them, unfair when it's not.
 click bait?
 that's a bad idea..  That's going to invite a lot of hobo's who would otherwise loiter around Starbucks or McDonalds. 
sounds like a logical fallacy : hey, Amazon who happens to be 80% smaller than Apple is doing much worse, so we are okay.   I also see some confirmation bias here, IDC is always right -- especially when it suits AI reporter's agenda !!!
 Hmm.. isn't Apple the most named defendant in IP lawsuits -- over 90 patent lawsuits over the past few years alone according to an old AI article? You forgot to mention Ericsson. Oh, and nVidia is not too far behind and will drop a bomb on Apple once they settle with Samsung.
u talk'ng about Apple?
 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...
New Posts  All Forums: