or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › German court tosses Samsung's 3G patent suit, Apple's slide-to-unlock complaint
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

German court tosses Samsung's 3G patent suit, Apple's slide-to-unlock complaint

post #1 of 115
Thread Starter 
A German court handed out two rulings on Friday, tossing one lawsuit from Samsung against Apple over 3G standards, and another suit Apple lodged against Samsung over touchscreen slide-to-unlock functionality.

Judge Andreas Voss in the Mannheim Regional Court issued the two patent rulings on Friday, tossing out the third Samsung complaint in a row, and one of two suits Apple has lodged over slide-to-unlock, according to Florian Mueller of FOSS Patents. Samsung has already announced that they will appeal their dismissal, and it's expected that Apple will appeal their own as well, though the company declined to comment.

The two decisions on Friday mean that now four of 14 Mannheim cases between Apple and Samsung have been ruled on. Six of those are complaints Apple has filed against Samsung, including another related to slide-to-unlock with respect to a utility model, which Mueller explained is a special German intellectual property right.

"Samsung Still hasn't been able to enforce any intellectual property right anywhere on this planet against Apple, while Apple has had some successes (though only preliminary ones so far, most of which were subsequently lifted)," he wrote.

Friday's rulings wrap up what Mueller declared to be a "phenomenal" week for Apple in Germany. It kicked off on Monday when the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court ruled that Motorola Mobility cannot further enforce its standard-essential patent injunction against Apple in Germany during its appeal, which indicates that Apple is "highly likely" to succeed in that pursuit.




And then on Thursday, Apple won another decision over Motorola related to a photo gallery patent. Those victories combined with Friday's dismissal of the Samsung complaint mean Apple won three of four court rulings made in Germany this week.

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 115
Good. I mean, srsly: slide to unlock? Total bogus that such a thing can be patented. I get why a company like Apple would file it: all giant companies file ridiculous patents, but they do so for defensive reasons.

The fact that Apple tried to use this patent in an offensive way is just ridiculous.


the Samsung patent on the other hand is about actual tech that required R&D and actual talent.
Yeah, it's under the FRAND flag, but if Apple isn't paying the requested fair fees, they are in the wrong.
post #3 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

A German court handed out two rulings on Friday, tossing one lawsuit from Samsung against Apple over 3G standards, and another suit Apple lodged against Samsung over touchscreen slide-to-unlock functionality.

Did the court say WHY they did this?

The article seems to be "keeping score" while providing little or no insight.
post #4 of 115
Florian Mueller is going out of his way to put a happy face on it, but I sincerely doubt Apple was indifferent to having the slide-to-unlock patent claim to be determined un-infringed by Samsung.

Of course since this is Germany, there seems to be no end to court specials. In this case there's a Utility Model to consider. What's that? I wondered the same thing, since the patent infringement claim had been tossed. Here's a simple explanation:
http://www.abitz.de/En/GermanUtilityModels

So no worries about prior art that originated outside of Germany. Of course that means that any decision on the German Utility Model claim won't extend outside of Germany either, any more than Moto's cloud-services injunction against Apple.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #5 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by UMadBrah? View Post

Good. I mean, srsly: slide to unlock? Total bogus that such a thing can be patented. I get why a company like Apple would file it: all giant companies file ridiculous patents, but they do so for defensive reasons.

The fact that Apple tried to use this patent in an offensive way is just ridiculous.


the Samsung patent on the other hand is about actual tech that required R&D and actual talent.
Yeah, it's under the FRAND flag, but if Apple isn't paying the requested fair fees, they are in the wrong.

1. Slide to unlock is not what the patent is about, it is the title of the patent. It is a very involved patent and even in Germany, two different regional courts (Munich and Meinheim) came up with two rather different interpretations for it. So read a bit more please on the topic.

2. Samsung and MMI are asking for 2.5% of the total end product for using a FRAND patent. Given the FRAND nature of the things, we should find out whether they are seeking the exact or similar arrangement with other companies or not! I doubt they are, in this case even Qualcomm which is the manufacturer of the chips is siding with Apple which has made this case quite something...

3. Following up from above, if you think 2.5% of the end product is fair, then Airbus should pay 2.5% of the total value of each airplane to Samsung or MMI et al. for providing wifi in the cabins. Given that this is about 1 patent, how would you value the rest of the patents?

4. Please read a bit more on the difference between FRAND and non-FRAND patents!
post #6 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by UMadBrah? View Post

Good. I mean, srsly: slide to unlock? Total bogus that such a thing can be patented. I get why a company like Apple would file it: all giant companies file ridiculous patents, but they do so for defensive reasons.

The fact that Apple tried to use this patent in an offensive way is just ridiculous.


the Samsung patent on the other hand is about actual tech that required R&D and actual talent.
Yeah, it's under the FRAND flag, but if Apple isn't paying the requested fair fees, they are in the wrong.

FRAND terms require fair fees. You can't charge apple $15 and then charge Nokia $3 just because Apple has more valuable products. And since they are part of standards, you shouldn't be able to have an injunction either.
post #7 of 115
Please don't feed the trolls.
post #8 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Florian Mueller is going out of his way to put a happy face on it, but I sincerely doubt Apple was indifferent to having the slide-to-unlock patent claim to be determined un-infringed by Samsung.

We don't know that the court said that. The article is silent as to WHY.

Wait - I take that back.


The court never heard the case. They could not have made any decision as to the merits.
post #9 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFreeman View Post

3. Following up from above, if you think 2.5% of the end product is fair, then Airbus should pay 2.5% of the total value of each airplane to Samsung or MMI et al. for providing wifi in the cabins. Given that this is about 1 patent, how would you value the rest of the patents?

It's very typical for FRAND royalties to be based on the price of a finished product rather than one specific chip.

"Royalties are typically agreed upon as a percentage of gross or net revenues derived from the use of an asset or a fixed price per unit sold of an item of such, but there are also other modes and metrics of compensation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalties
The footnotes lead to the source links if you wish to delve deeper into it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #10 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

FRAND terms require fair fees. You can't charge apple $15 and then charge Nokia $3 just because Apple has more valuable products. And since they are part of standards, you shouldn't be able to have an injunction either.

If injunctions were totally taken off the table, then there would be no point in anybody agreeing to pay to license anything -- somebody could keep on wilfully infringing, and keep on wilfully refusing to pay fair license fees, and the process could go on indefinitely without resolution. The threat of an injunction is a tool which motivates an infringer to bargain in good faith.

That being said, injunctions for FRAND patents should be reserved for cases in which a truly fair offer has been made, and the infringer has wilfully ignored the offer. Of course, that point has definitely not been proven in this case.
post #11 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

FRAND terms require fair fees. You can't charge apple $15 and then charge Nokia $3 just because Apple has more valuable products. And since they are part of standards, you shouldn't be able to have an injunction either.

Unless there is also a cross-licensing of other patents as well between samsung and nokia. I have read this somewhere else (can't seem to find the link right now). FRAND licensing can be different to different licensees if they are part of a "bigger" deal
post #12 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

We don't know that the court said that. The article is silent as to WHY.

Wait - I take that back.


The court never heard the case. They could not have made any decision as to the merits.

We do know why.

The judge found that Apple's construction claim was very specific, with Samsung's implementation of a similar method differing enough to make Apple's claim of infringement unlikely to succeed.

"The court's slide-to-unlock ruling hinged on the manner in which the brush of a finger across a screen unlocks a device. Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple's unblocking function has an on-screen start and end point and works when a finger sweeps in a roughly straight line. However Suwon, Korea-based Samsung's slide-to-unlock feature differs in that it permits "gestures of any path between start and target," presiding judge Andreas Voss told the courtroom."
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It's very typical for FRAND royalties to be based on the price of a finished product rather than one specific chip.

"Royalties are typically agreed upon as a percentage of gross or net revenues derived from the use of an asset or a fixed price per unit sold of an item of such, but there are also other modes and metrics of compensation."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalties
The footnotes lead to the source links if you wish to delve deeper into it.

I am not sure which link you are referring to since there are more70 sources in the footnotes. However the full product rate is only applied in certain industries like material science and pharmaceuticals. This is due to the nature of the products as if you do not use a certain molecule then the whole thing will not work.

In the case of electronics, this does not necessarily apply (some companies may be happy to do that! also there may be a branch of electronics which may practice this!). As no one is forced to use your patent! Companies volunteer their patents to Standard setting agencies under FRAND terms. They are not forced to do so. Also they are getting paid by the manufacturer for every chip which is sold (in this case Qualcomm but it can easily be TI or Intersil). You cannot have a double dip in both the chip and the end product!

Saying all this, again these are FRAND patents. If Samsung wants 2.5% of the end iPhone then Apple, MS could claim 2.5% of anything that Samsung has which supports hardware acceleration! and other companies do the same... We will have nothing left! Law and the spirit of the law is there for a reason.
post #14 of 115
Go Apple!
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #15 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFreeman View Post

I am not sure which link you are referring to since there are more70 sources in the footnotes.

Here's a PDF on the subject if you're really curious on the methods used to determine FRAND royalty rates.

Formulas for Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Royalty rates
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...32c_EA&cad=rja
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #16 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamIIGS View Post

Please don't feed the trolls.

Please define Troll. Anybody that disagrees with you? Anybody that isn't salivating Pavlov-style over everything Apple? If they say anything critical at all, then they should be ignored or criticized?

Please don't feed the Troll haters. Oh, dang. That's me.
post #17 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

It's very typical for FRAND royalties to be based on the price of a finished product rather than one specific chip.

"Royalties are typically agreed upon as a percentage of gross or net revenues derived from the use of an asset or a fixed price per unit sold of an item of such, but there are also other modes and metrics of compensation."

FYI in terms of the FRAND patent, while Apple does benefit from the use of the patent, Apple is not, technically, Samsung's customer. Samsung licensed Quaalcom to produce the products that enable the technology represented by the patent. Apple bought and Quaalcom sold those chips on the basis of them being licensed by Samsung.

Samsung withdrew licensing for the products sold to Apple (after the fact for some parts), but not for other customers of Quaalcom. Instead of trying to collect royalties of 2.25% of the sales price for the product that Quaalcom made, they are now trying to collect that royalty against the Apple product containing the product that Quaalcom made.

Hardly fair or reasonable. For all intents and purposes, Samsung is manipulating the rules to both gain a larger payday and to unfairly hurt their chief competitor in the marketplace.

For comparison, this is analogous to a patent holder of technology critical to LCD screens made by Samsung refusing to license their product for use in Hondas unless Honda paid a royalty equal to 2.25% of the retail sales price of the Honda. That would amount to a royalty, exclusive of manufacturing costs of approximately $607 (on a $27,000 vehicle) on a screen that is 4x5 inches in size.

If you call THAT fair, ...
post #18 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post

FYI in terms of the FRAND patent, while Apple does benefit from the use of the patent, Apple is not, technically, Samsung's customer. Samsung licensed Quaalcom to produce the products that enable the technology represented by the patent. Apple bought and Quaalcom sold those chips on the basis of them being licensed by Samsung.

Samsung withdrew licensing for the products sold to Apple, for some parts after the fact, but not for other customers of Quaalcom. Instead of trying to collect royalties of 2.25% of the sales price for the product that Quaalcom made, they are now trying to collect that royalty against the Apple product containing the product that Quaalcom made.

Hardly fair or reasonable. For all intents and purposes, Samsung is manipulating the rules to both gain a larger payday and to unfairly hurt their chief competitor in the marketplace.

For comparison, this is analogous to a patent holder of technology critical to LCD screens made by Samsung refusing to license their product for use in Hondas unless Honda paid a royalty equal to 2.25% of the retail sales price of the Honda. That would amount to a royalty, exclusive of manufacturing costs of approximately $607 on a screen that is 4x5 inches in size.

If you call THAT fair, ...

No, I don't call it fair. It's also not atypical for royalties to be based on the product sales price.

You might read the PDF I linked above for a better understanding of formulas for determining a fair recompense for FRAND-pledged IP.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #19 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Here's a PDF on the subject if you're really curious on the methods used to determine FRAND royalty rates.

Formulas for Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Royalty rates
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...32c_EA&cad=rja

Thank you for the link however Chrome does not allow it as it is flagged to be duplicate heading!

However the point would be that there are a few thousand standard FRAND patents in each phone or laptop (lets assume 1000). Now if we apply the 2.5% to each one of the patents we have to give 2500% of the value of the end product for the FRAND royalty which is not really practical.

I am not disputing your comment on the FRAND value being based on the end product value. However for an electronic device with such large number of players and the number of patents, it is not practical nor reasonable.
post #20 of 115
You know what's funny?

These lawsuits and patent wars have been going on for years now and what has changed? in iOS OR ANDROID? NOTHING!!!!!

Who has benefited? NOBODY!!! (Well....the lawyers but they are scarcely people)

I don't know why people concern themselves so much with this legal stuff when in truth and in fact the chances of anything in a courtroom causing a 'death blow' to any platform is about the odds of MC Hammer making a musical comeback. Not gonna happen (No disrespect to hammer, love you dude...no homo).

I cant for the life of me figure out why the media hypes this up so much. I mean, is this really what generates the most hits these days?

Its all business. Apple will win some, Google will win some, in the end they will all settle, or workaround or whatever.
post #21 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

No, I don't call it fair. It's also not atypical for royalties to be based on the product sales price.

You might read the PDF I linked above for a better understanding of formulas for determining a fair recompense for FRAND-pledged IP.

Yes, but once again, Qualcomm already has licensing agreements and pays for the use the FRAND patents. The royalty is based on their *chip's* sale price. However, Moto told Qualcomm it was revoking its license with respect to Apple only.

Use common sense, for once. If 2.5% of a smartphone's sale price was fair for a single FRAND patent out of a much, much larger patent pool, the royalties would quickly add up to be more than the sale price of the device. You think that's fair or reasonable? The point of FRAND is really to protect competition and the consumer by keeping prices down. Unreasonable royalties, when aggregated, could exponentially drive up the price of components for some companies, perhaps keeping them from the marketplace.
post #22 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Yes, but once again, Qualcomm already has licensing agreements and pays for the use the FRAND patents. The royalty is based on their *chip's* sale price. However, Moto told Qualcomm it was revoking its license with respect to Apple only.

Use common sense, for once. If 2.5% of a smartphone's sale price was fair for a single FRAND patent out of a much, much larger patent pool, the royalties would quickly add up to be more than the sale price of the device. You think that's fair or reasonable? The point of FRAND is really to protect competition and the consumer by keeping prices down. Unreasonable royalties, when aggregated, could exponentially drive up the price of components for some companies, perhaps keeping them from the marketplace.

Do you know what Qualcomm wants for it's LTE standards (FRAND) royalty rate? Probably not. Would you be surprised to find out it's 3.25% of the device's wholesale selling price? Do you consider that unfair?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...dWTJwg&cad=rja

See Page 2
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post

FYI in terms of the FRAND patent, while Apple does benefit from the use of the patent, Apple is not, technically, Samsung's customer. Samsung licensed Quaalcom to produce the products that enable the technology represented by the patent. Apple bought and Quaalcom sold those chips on the basis of them being licensed by Samsung.

Samsung withdrew licensing for the products sold to Apple (after the fact for some parts), but not for other customers of Quaalcom. Instead of trying to collect royalties of 2.25% of the sales price for the product that Quaalcom made, they are now trying to collect that royalty against the Apple product containing the product that Quaalcom made.

Hardly fair or reasonable. For all intents and purposes, Samsung is manipulating the rules to both gain a larger payday and to unfairly hurt their chief competitor in the marketplace.

For comparison, this is analogous to a patent holder of technology critical to LCD screens made by Samsung refusing to license their product for use in Hondas unless Honda paid a royalty equal to 2.25% of the retail sales price of the Honda. That would amount to a royalty, exclusive of manufacturing costs of approximately $607 (on a $27,000 vehicle) on a screen that is 4x5 inches in size.

If you call THAT fair, ...

You have to keep in mind that GG is a paid shill. it's his job to spin things in Google/Android's favor. It's also his job to manufacture lies out of facts. So, it's typical of his posts that he will present a set of "facts" and links that support his spin (although, sometimes it seems he's just hoping no one bothers to read his sources and that we just accept the presence of a link as authoritative), without bothering to include others that don't. It's also typical that he will misapply them to the point at hand, pretending that certain other facts don't exist or that there are no distinctions that invalidate his arguments. Such are the techniques of the professional propagandist.
post #24 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Do you know what Qualcomm wants for it's LTE standards (FRAND) royalty rate? Probably not. Would you be surprised to find out it's 3.25% of the device's wholesale selling price? Do you consider that unfair?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...dWTJwg&cad=rja

See Page 2

You're ignoring two important factors:

1. Qualcomm only charges the royalty on the cost of the chip, not the finished device. A Qualcomm chip in an iPhone is just a few dollars, so the royalty is a few cents. Motorola wants the royalty assessed on the final product price - which would be more like $15 for an iPhone or $6,000 for a Mercedes A-class.

2. Qualcomm's license fee covers ALL Qualcomm patents (hundreds of them). Motorola wants 2.25% PER PATENT.

Nice try, though.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #25 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

You have to keep in mind that GG is a paid shill. it's his job to spin things in Google/Android's favor. It's also his job to manufacture lies out of facts. So, it's typical of his posts that he will present a set of "facts" and links that support his spin (although, sometimes it seems he's just hoping no one bothers to read his sources and that we just accept the presence of a link as authoritative), without bothering to include others that don't. It's also typical that he will misapply them to the point at hand, pretending that certain other facts don't exist or that there are no distinctions that invalidate his arguments. Such are the techniques of the professional propagandist.

Wow. Not just a troll, but a Big Smelly Hairy Incentivized Troll (Big S.H.I.T.).
post #26 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by UMadBrah? View Post

Good. I mean, srsly: slide to unlock? Total bogus that such a thing can be patented. I get why a company like Apple would file it: all giant companies file ridiculous patents, but they do so for defensive reasons.

The fact that Apple tried to use this patent in an offensive way is just ridiculous.

It's far from the offensiveness or ridiculousness of Moto etc suing over FRAND patents because they tried to jack up the price for one company (that makes an insane amount of money) and got caught.

ANd by the by there are way more 'ridiculous' lawsuits filed by other companies against each other and Apple than Apple has filed. We just don't hear about them because they don't get the page hits that dropping "Apple" gets. Face it, this ain't CNN. Page hits are how they pay for their business

Quote:

Yeah, it's under the FRAND flag, but if Apple isn't paying the requested fair fees, they are in the wrong.

You are correct. But the key to this is that fees were not fair. Qualcomm has it in documentation that they paid the fees for the patent and whomever buys the chips buys that paid for license. Moto is saying no, Apple has to pay again (double dipping). THen they asked for a royalty per unit sold based on the full retail price claiming that it was fair to charge the same percent. but that's not how the rules for FRAND are set up. They are on the amount and 2.25%, or whatever it is, of $200 is not the same as 2.25% of $700. That fails the non discriminatory test because it isn't the same amount for all players.

It's not unlike the whole "iPad" trademark thing. When it was some Jo Blo company the value of the trademark was $55k for 10 countries. When it was found out it was Apple then Proview started their game that cause Apple can afford to pay more they should. Moto is playing the same tricks with this patent

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #27 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You're ignoring two important factors:

1. Qualcomm only charges the royalty on the cost of the chip, not the finished device. A Qualcomm chip in an iPhone is just a few dollars, so the royalty is a few cents. Motorola wants the royalty assessed on the final product price - which would be more like $15 for an iPhone or $6,000 for a Mercedes A-class.

2. Qualcomm's license fee covers ALL Qualcomm patents (hundreds of them). Motorola wants 2.25% PER PATENT.

Nice try, though.

Claim #1. - Incorrect. The royalty is based on the wholesale selling price of the finished product, ie iPhone, not just a chip.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10985...on-iphone.html

Claim#2: Incorrect again. The 2.25% royalty rate is for all patents that Moto has contributed to the standard.

I'll go even further for you. Let's talk one of the newer standards, 4G/LTE. A lot of companies have contributed IP to the standard and they all wish to be paid for their inventiveness. They also want it based on a percentage of the devices selling price, a completed phone or tablet utilizing LTE as an example. So how much does everyone want?

Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%

Total: 13.8% of the device's total selling price, not just a chip price.

The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #28 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Do you know what Qualcomm wants for it's LTE standards (FRAND) royalty rate? Probably not. Would you be surprised to find out it's 3.25% of the device's wholesale selling price? Do you consider that unfair?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...dWTJwg&cad=rja

See Page 2

First off, it depends on the number of patents being licensed, as opposed to "one bullet kills". Second, it's not clear how this relates to a company like Apple, who buys chips from Qualcomm. Is the 3.25% the cost of the chip itself? Or is this if you want to go make the chip in house? Does it cover all relevant 4G patents?

Third, Qualcomm does not have a history of playing fair, like Motorola, so I wouldn't put it past them.

Lastly, thanks for deflecting my points and spinning it into a different subject. Maybe next time, if you're going to reply, you'll actually address the points I brought out. You squirm when people like to pin you down on a specific point, always taking the "high ground" with the "I'm just pointing out the facts so you can educate yourself" position. Trouble is, you contaminate your facts with a subtle bias that involves cherry picking, and in that you're very similar to a politician. I don't mean that as a compliment.
post #29 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

The court never heard the case. They could not have made any decision as to the merits.

I suspect on the Apple one what they tossed was the original suit that was based on the broad patent, which should have been tossed. This was likely just a formality. Apple will appeal with the new and more specific patent and the whole thing won't really be over. But it will be more reasonable.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #30 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

Unless there is also a cross-licensing of other patents as well between samsung and nokia. I have read this somewhere else (can't seem to find the link right now). FRAND licensing can be different to different licensees if they are part of a "bigger" deal

Sort of. The gross amount has to be the same to be fair to all parties.

It goes something like this.

I have a patent that you want to license. It's FRAND so I charge you the same $15 that everyone else is paying. But you have a patent that I want to license that would cost me $10. To keep the whole thing simpler I take that $10 in cash off the bill and you pay me $5+my license. You are paying less cash but the gross is the same as what GatorGuy etc are paying for the patent.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #31 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Claim #1. - Incorrect. The royalty is based on the wholesale selling price of the finished product, ie iPhone, not just a chip.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10985...on-iphone.html

Claim#2: Incorrect again. The 2.25% royalty rate is for all patents that Moto has contributed to the standard.

I'll go even further for you. Let's talk one of the newer standards, 4G/LTE. A lot of companies have contributed IP to the standard and they all wish to be paid for their inventiveness. They also want it based on a percentage of the devices selling price, a completed phone or tablet utilizing LTE as an example. So how much does everyone want?

Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%

Total: 13.8% of the device's total selling price, not just a chip price.

Doesn't Apple own a significant amount of patents related to 4G from their Novell and Nortell purchases?

Also, you can see why this approach is flawed. Either you're only highlighting a portion of the facts, or this will likely be addressed by regulatory bodies. A royalty of 13.8% would be close to $100 on an iPhone and iPad, and that doesn't even include the necessary GSM patents. Or all the other required standards.

If true, this reinforces that Apple is right to lead the charge to fix FRAND abuse in the telecom industry.
post #32 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by UMadBrah? View Post

Good. I mean, srsly: slide to unlock? Total bogus that such a thing can be patented. I get why a company like Apple would file it: all giant companies file ridiculous patents, but they do so for defensive reasons.

So why didn't you patent it?
post #33 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFreeman View Post


However the point would be that there are a few thousand standard FRAND patents in each phone or laptop (lets assume 1000).

Did you just make that number up out of thin air?

Or do you have a cite?
post #34 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Lastly, thanks for deflecting my points and spinning it into a different subject. Maybe next time, if you're going to reply, you'll actually address the points I brought out. You squirm when people like to pin you down on a specific point, always taking the "high ground" with the "I'm just pointing out the facts so you can educate yourself" position. Trouble is, you contaminate your facts with a subtle bias that involves cherry picking, and in that you're very similar to a politician. I don't mean that as a compliment.

Sorry for the delayed reply Pendergast. I was busy researching one of your concerns. If you'll look at my last post you'll see there is no deflection at all, with your questions generally answered. If there's something I haven't addressed for you let me know what it is and I'll see if I have a comment I can make.

EDIT: Here's an article you should read.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...pTaqtQ&cad=rja

Suggestion: Don't be so quick to believe that what Apple or FOSSPatents has to say about a subject is the complete story and the sole authoritative source.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #35 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Claim #1. - Incorrect. The royalty is based on the wholesale selling price of the finished product, ie iPhone, not just a chip.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10985...on-iphone.html

Claim#2: Incorrect again. The 2.25% royalty rate is for all patents that Moto has contributed to the standard.

I'll go even further for you. Let's talk one of the newer standards, 4G/LTE. A lot of companies have contributed IP to the standard and they all wish to be paid for their inventiveness. They also want it based on a percentage of the devices selling price, a completed phone or tablet utilizing LTE as an example. So how much does everyone want?

Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%

Total: 13.8% of the device's total selling price, not just a chip price.

The misunderstanding on just what standards-essential rates are based on and what everyone wants comes from one primary source: Florian Mueller.I believe he's being very dishonest in the slant of his articles concerning Moto and the 2.25% royalty, trying to give the impression that it's highly unusual. I'm sure his sources are at least as good as mine, and just 30 minutes research discovered the above examples. IMO, he has reasons for encouraging claims of unfairness that go far beyond journalistic intentions. Just my 2 cents.

Also, do you have an article that shows that the above rates are supposed to be combined? I was under the impression that Qualcomm sells completed chipsets, and Apple has them inserted into iDevice assembly. Are you sure that some of the rates aren't what Qualcomm pays (since Qualcomm currently pays Moto a royalty) and then sells their chipset at a rate that covers their costs?
post #36 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post


Its all business. Apple will win some, Google will win some, in the end they will all settle, or workaround or whatever.

Apple is unlikely to settle when they are the plaintiff. One does not settle if one wants Global Thermonuclear War.

Apple will settle when they get sued for ripping off IP. Not otherwise. Apple does not license its IP.
post #37 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Use common sense, for once. If 2.5% of a smartphone's sale price was fair for a single FRAND patent out of a much, much larger patent pool, the royalties would quickly add up to be more than the sale price of the device.

You seem to assume both that

- All patents are of equal value, and
- Only one patent is involved here.
post #38 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Also, do you have an article that shows that the above rates are supposed to be combined? I was under the impression that Qualcomm sells completed chipsets, and Apple has them inserted into iDevice assembly. Are you sure that some of the rates aren't what Qualcomm pays (since Qualcomm currently pays Moto a royalty) and then sells their chipset at a rate that covers their costs?

Yes I do, linked in my last post. I see you continuing to imply the royalty is based on a chipset price. It is not. The royalties are calculated based on the completed end-product..

I really really suggest you read the article I linked that discusses telecommunications industry standards and the royalties associated with them.

At the end of the day, if a company (for instance Apple) feels that the standards royalties are too high, they have a tried-and-true solution: Cross license some of your own.

It's Apple that's trying to change the rules and say they're not going to play by old ones, which is fine by me. I agree that patent licensing is causing a whole lot of issues. At the same time Apple wants it their way and only their way, and hopes complaining to the EU will get them what they want. I'm quite certain Apple is well-aware of how royalties are determined in the industry and how you reduce your out-of-pocket expenses for them. They just went thru the motions with Nokia last year.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #39 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You're ignoring two important factors:

1. Qualcomm only charges the royalty on the cost of the chip, not the finished device.

Wrong again!


"complete, end user subscriber devices that implement LTE and/or WiMax
standards, but do not implement any 3G CDMA standards, of approximately 3.25% of
the wholesale selling price of each such device,"


Do you ever get tired of that?
post #40 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

FRAND terms require fair fees. You can't charge apple $15 and then charge Nokia $3 just because Apple has more valuable products. And since they are part of standards, you shouldn't be able to have an injunction either.

Nokia is a bad example.. There's a lot of cross-licensing deals between Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, etc.. I think this is what Samsung wants from Apple, but Apple doesn't want to cross license (Jobs' thermo nuclear war against Android). Furthermore, most Apple's patent lawsuits against Samsung are based on Android OS specific features - almost all Samsung specific lawsuits have been thrown out so far.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › German court tosses Samsung's 3G patent suit, Apple's slide-to-unlock complaint