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 - Page 3

post #81 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacto Joe View Post

And yet, he appears to be agreeing with you (and Mr. Mueller) in his last post to me.

I've also never disagreed that Motorola should never have started the legal action over that set of patents in the first place. It may not be illegal but it's certainly against the spirit of FRAND.

I'm trying instead to deal with the FUD: Motorola wants 2.25% royalties on each individual patent rather than the package they contributed, it's not common to tie the license to a phone's wholesale price, and claims that the 2.25% royalty is grossly excessive and defies industry standards. None of those are correct.

Oh, and IMO Florian Mueller already knew all of that. . .
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #82 of 115
For what it is worth, I looked up the Trefis analysis on QCOM, and it does use the actual complete handset price as the basis for royalty, and the percentages are of said complete handset. (Retail or wholesale is harder to determine.) Licensing revenue is roughly 80% of chip revenue.

But, what is not said is the percentage of the "value" provided by the standards-essential patents for wireless technology, compared to (say) the screen, camera, or OS. That logically drives down the % royalty rate significantly, similar to the A380 example.
post #83 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

For what it is worth, I looked up the Trefis analysis on QCOM, and it does use the actual complete handset price as the basis for royalty, and the percentages are of said complete handset. (Retail or wholesale is harder to determine.) Licensing revenue is roughly 80% of chip revenue.

But, what is not said is the percentage of the "value" provided by the standards-essential patents for wireless technology, compared to (say) the screen, camera, or OS. That logically drives down the % royalty rate significantly, similar to the A380 example.

Well, Qualcomm does provide one of the few 'all in one' deals in the industry. You can get the entire package - CPU, GPU, radios, camera processor, etc... - all from Qualcomm, all fully licensed. So the 'value' is immense, and IMO well worth the 3.25% fee. But I think that's part of Qualcomm's strategy to sell their hardware - because that percentage for just the radio would be a bit steep.
post #84 of 115
BTW, while not directly related, I thought some of you might like to browse over a UBM report from a couple days back. Did you know Apple has around 8500 US patents, over 15K worldwide. Impressively, most of those are home-grown too, 85% or more.

Another little nugget: Apple has been sued 242 times for patent infringement, while suing others 42 times. I don't know if that includes anything from this year.

http://www.dailydisruption.com/2012/...ent-landscape/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #85 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I've also never disagreed that Motorola should never have started the legal action over that set of patents in the first place. It may not be illegal but it's certainly against the spirit of FRAND.

I'm trying instead to deal with the FUD: Motorola wants 2.25% royalties on each individual patent rather than the package they contributed, it's not common to tie the license to a phone's wholesale price, and claims that the 2.25% royalty is grossly excessive and defies industry standards. None of those are correct.

Oh, and IMO Florian Mueller already knew all of that. . .

1. Based on this ruling and its translation the feud is over one patent:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...ls-courts.html

2 & 3. Yes it is not uncommon and it is not excessive PROVIDED:
that the chip(s) contains several functionalities altogether! In that situation you can negotiate a common package for everything. However this has to be based on FRAND if we are dealing with standard based patents like this one.

What I understood from German court translations was the Moto in its defence stated: that it only takes one patent to stop the device working hence a high margin royalty is acceptable. This is of course against all sense and ....
post #86 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

BTW, while not directly related, I thought some of you might like to browse over a UBM report from a couple days back. Did you know Apple has around 8500 US patents, over 15K worldwide. Impressively, most of those are home-grown too, 85% or more.

Another little nugget: Apple has been sued 242 times for patent infringement, while suing others 42 times. I don't know if that includes anything from this year.

http://www.dailydisruption.com/2012/...ent-landscape/

I'm not sure why this surprises you. Many have stated when all of these lawsuits started popping up that Apple is constantly getting sued (sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly) but rarely initiates such lawsuits itself. That's why when people call Apple a "patent troll" it rankles my feathers.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #87 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFreeman View Post

1. Based on this ruling and its translation the feud is over one patent:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...ls-courts.html

Except the argument is over Apple having a license to the package of patents. Only one is being highlighted as applicable in this case (I don't know why).

"Apple's January 30, 2012 brief opposing MMI's motion to quash contains some information that a lot of people are wondering about these days when they see what's going on between Apple and Motorola over FRAND patents: the royalty rate that Motorola demanded when Apple asked for a FRAND offer.

The answer is: 2.25%. I assume this relates to Apple's sales and to all of MMI's standard-essential patents, though the context is only one patent (the one over which Motorola has already forced Apple, temporarily, to remove certain products from its German online store. Assuming in Motorola's favor that this was a license to all standard-essential wireless patents, the amount still appears excessive to me given how many companies hold patents on such standards and what royalty rate this would lead to in the aggregate."
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2012...-sales-in.html

He just doesn't bother telling the readers that the rate and some much higher are common, as is tying the basis to the finished end-product.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #88 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

I'm not sure why this surprises you. Many have stated when all of these lawsuits started popping up that Apple is constantly getting sued (sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly) but rarely initiates such lawsuits itself. That's why when people call Apple a "patent troll" it rankles my feathers.

It didn't surprise me at all that Apple is sued more often than it files suit. Nice to see actual numbers on it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #89 of 115
post #90 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tune View Post

Patent troll? Nah.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/03/a...atent-lawsuit/

The definition of patent troll has zero to do with the number of patents being defended and in fact supports the fact that Apple doesn't sue any and every company with its patent pool.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #91 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Another little nugget: Apple has been sued 242 times for patent infringement, while suing others 42 times. I don't know if that includes anything from this year.

Unless each and every one of those lawsuits is frivolous, we can conclude that Apple steals IP from other companies.
post #92 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.

:-)

Posted from my iPhone.

Samsung is suing over this.

You are right, Apple is wasting time hiring software engineers to write code to do things such as "slide to unlock", they should sack them and pay Korean companies like Samsung for their "real" tech" instead.

/s
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #93 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Unless each and every one of those lawsuits is frivolous, we can conclude that Apple steals IP from other companies.

Yeah. Because no lawsuit I'd ever frivolous or baseless. Just like no commentor ever trolls.
post #94 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post

Yeah. Because no lawsuit I'd ever frivolous or baseless. Just like no commentor ever trolls.

He's being sarcastic based on the fact that when Apple sues anyone that person is deemed a thief outright yet when it's the other way around the word "Steal" doesn't even come up.
post #95 of 115
The thing is posters should be more specific on who s/he feels expresses that because not everyone on this board thinks that way. I'd be insane to say that Apple has never been sued justly.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #96 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post

Yeah. Because no lawsuit I'd ever frivolous or baseless. Just like no commentor ever trolls.

Unless you assume that each and every one of those suits is frivolous, you must conclude that Apple steals IP from other companies.
post #97 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

He's being sarcastic based on the fact that when Apple sues anyone that person is deemed a thief outright yet when it's the other way around the word "Steal" doesn't even come up.

Not quite "sarcastic". But the fact you cite is real.

I've often wondered why the sauce for the gander is so seldom served around here.



But I'm learning. Yesterday, for example, I learned a little about "iconic marketing". It is an attempt to make people associate a product with themselves, with ownership of the product being a part of their identity.

Seemingly, Apple does it very, very well. Better than Pepsi with their "Pepsi Generation" campaign, and better than Dr. Pepper with their "I'm a Pepper" campaign. Better even than Marlboro with their Cowboy associations.

The whole thing makes me sick. Otherwise rational people buy into it way too often.

It amazes me that some still think of Apple as a scrappy little company run by a bunch of rebels. It saddens me when people consider themselves to Think Different because they buy the most popular available telephone.

You can fool some of the people all of the time. And they will pay you outsized profits to allow it to be done to them.
post #98 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Not quite "sarcastic". But the fact you cite is real.

I've often wondered why the sauce for the gander is so seldom served around here.



But I'm learning. Yesterday, for example, I learned a little about "iconic marketing". It is an attempt to make people associate a product with themselves, with ownership of the product being a part of their identity.

Seemingly, Apple does it very, very well. Better than Pepsi with their "Pepsi Generation" campaign, and better than Dr. Pepper with their "I'm a Pepper" campaign. Better even than Marlboro with their Cowboy associations.

The whole thing makes me sick. Otherwise rational people buy into it way too often.

1) WTH does that have to do with either of these court cases?
2) What difference is "iconic marketing" from those (like yourself) who praise Android to high heaven while minimizing or ignoring its problems
3) why go on a Apple-centric website if it "makes you sick"?
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #99 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Unless you assume that each and every one of those suits is frivolous, you must conclude that Apple steals IP from other companies.

Not true. Whether or not it is theft is far more complex than just assuming. The validity of the suit is potentially questionable. As is whether or not it is a meritless (frivolous) lawsuit. The issue may be over the amount of any payment, if one is due. Or it may be one of ownership. None of those things involve theft.

But, I suspect you know that. And since I must assume you know that, I guess I must assume you a frivolous.
post #100 of 115
In addition to this, it also depends on if the infringement is "willful" or not.
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
2010 mac mini/iPad OG/iPhone 4/appletv OG/appletv 2/ BT trackpad and keyboard/time capsule/ Wii
Reply
post #101 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by freckledbruh View Post

1) WTH does that have to do with either of these court cases?
2) What difference is "iconic marketing" from those (like yourself) who praise Android to high heaven while minimizing or ignoring its problems
3) why go on a Apple-centric website if it "makes you sick"?

1. It has nothing to do with the suits.

2. I have never praise Andorid to high heaven. Confirm that, and thin please think about your own conclusions.

3. I never said that this website makes me sick.

Please put my posts on your ignore list.
post #102 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bsginc View Post

I guess I must assume you a frivolous.

Guess again. You need not assume anything like that.
post #103 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Not quite "sarcastic". But the fact you cite is real.

I've often wondered why the sauce for the gander is so seldom served around here.



But I'm learning. Yesterday, for example, I learned a little about "iconic marketing". It is an attempt to make people associate a product with themselves, with ownership of the product being a part of their identity.

Seemingly, Apple does it very, very well. Better than Pepsi with their "Pepsi Generation" campaign, and better than Dr. Pepper with their "I'm a Pepper" campaign. Better even than Marlboro with their Cowboy associations.

The whole thing makes me sick. Otherwise rational people buy into it way too often.

It amazes me that some still think of Apple as a scrappy little company run by a bunch of rebels. It saddens me when people consider themselves to Think Different because they buy the most popular available telephone.

You can fool some of the people all of the time. And they will pay you outsized profits to allow it to be done to them.

If you don't like Apple, you don't have to come to an APPLE rumors site and post about not liking APPLE. Why even burn the calories? I don't understand that mentality. I don't care for the New York Yankees, so I'm not going to go to a Yankees site and post about how much I dislike what happens in Yankee-world. If you're so starved for attention that riling up the people who do frequent a rumors site about a company you don't care for, might I suggest finding a hobby or reading a book?
post #104 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Not quite "sarcastic". But the fact you cite is real.

I've often wondered why the sauce for the gander is so seldom served around here.



But I'm learning. Yesterday, for example, I learned a little about "iconic marketing". It is an attempt to make people associate a product with themselves, with ownership of the product being a part of their identity.

Seemingly, Apple does it very, very well. Better than Pepsi with their "Pepsi Generation" campaign, and better than Dr. Pepper with their "I'm a Pepper" campaign. Better even than Marlboro with their Cowboy associations.

The whole thing makes me sick. Otherwise rational people buy into it way too often.

It amazes me that some still think of Apple as a scrappy little company run by a bunch of rebels. It saddens me when people consider themselves to Think Different because they buy the most popular available telephone.

You can fool some of the people all of the time. And they will pay you outsized profits to allow it to be done to them.

...or like me they just like stuff that works and is not annoying to use, hence my purchase of several Apple products as they fulfil these needs.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #105 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

...or like me they just like stuff that works and is not annoying to use, hence my purchase of several Apple products as they fulfil these needs.

You are not the kind of Apple customer I am referring to.
post #106 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

...or like me they just like stuff that works and is not annoying to use, hence my purchase of several Apple products as they fulfil these needs.

Exactly. I fought Windows powered computers from version 2.11 to XP, and when I switched to Mac 2 years ago (halo effect from upgrading to an iPhone), I discovered how much computing you can get done when you don't have to fight your devices to have them work together. Apple products do that, without all the fuss and muss.
post #107 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

Exactly. I fought Windows powered computers from version 2.11 to XP, and when I switched to Mac 2 years ago (halo effect from upgrading to an iPhone), I discovered how much computing you can get done when you don't have to fight your devices to have them work together. Apple products do that, without all the fuss and muss.

The interoperability of Apple products is one of the best things about them.
post #108 of 115
Now make it at least 243 times Apple has been sued for IP infringement.

Remember Apple settling with Nokia last year, cross-licensing several patents in the process? And do you recall Nokia and Microsoft cooperating with a patent holding company named Mosaid? That holding company has now sued Apple for 8 counts of patent infringement on standards-essential claims. . .

and using Nokia FRAND-pledged patents to do so!

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...a-patents.html

Electronista predicted this was coming in September of last year.
http://www.electronista.com/articles...eless.patents/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #109 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.

What part of "the judge ruled" do you not understand? The judge is the court. It's official. Maybe it's not the same court system as whatever planet you come from, but it's the court nonetheless.
post #110 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

Guess again. You need not assume anything like that.

Oh. But I must. I must.
post #111 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by F1Ferrari View Post

If you don't like Apple, you don't have to come to an APPLE rumors site and post about not liking APPLE. Why even burn the calories? I don't understand that mentality. I don't care for the New York Yankees, so I'm not going to go to a Yankees site and post about how much I dislike what happens in Yankee-world. If you're so starved for attention that riling up the people who do frequent a rumors site about a company you don't care for, might I suggest finding a hobby or reading a book?

I agree completely, but it's a lost cause. People like him just need attention - no matter what they have to do to get it. If he wasn't here, he'd be dancing naked in Times Square.

The really humorous part is how people like that try to turn it around and call Apple fans names and sheep and so on. But if you think about it, it's perfectly normal and understandable that if someone has a product that they like that they want to tell others about it and maybe discuss the product with others.

But what possesses a person to come to a forum for Apple products to post an endless litany of complaints when they can't stand Apple products, don't use Apple products, and proudly proclaim that they would never use an Apple product if it were the last device on earth? Seems to me that that borders dangerously close to a mental illness.
"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 #112 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

... Please put my posts on your ignore list.

In combination with the rest of his posts, do we really need any more proof that this is tekstud back under yet another alias? "Please ignore me" is classic tekstud.
post #113 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by elroth View Post

What part of "the judge ruled" do you not understand? The judge is the court. It's official. Maybe it's not the same court system as whatever planet you come from, but it's the court nonetheless.

Ask yourself WHAT the court ruled. Think hard about it.

Did they rule on the substance of the complaint? Or did they rule that they would not even consider the underlying substance of the case?

Then go back and read what I said. Maybe print it out and study it for a few days. Then if you still can't figure it out, shoot me an email and I'll explain to you what the court did, and why I said what I did.
post #114 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

In combination with the rest of his posts, do we really need any more proof that this is tekstud back under yet another alias? "Please ignore me" is classic tekstud.

This tekstud guy seems to be a legend around here. I am not he.

But I imagine that he is quite jealous of me, as I get all the credit and he gets none.

Will I eventually be as legendary around here as he is?

Is Slappy really tekstud? It ain't me, I promise you.
post #115 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I've also never disagreed that Motorola should never have started the legal action over that set of patents in the first place. It may not be illegal but it's certainly against the spirit of FRAND.

Yep, just like Apples suit against Samsung over the Tab looks, lame. So until Apple stops going after everyone with a pulse I am so happy that their are other companies out there willing to go after Apple. The more the marryier because one day soon Apple will loose big and maybe then they'll think twice about going after someone else over some lame patent.

I'm not a Apple hater just what they are doing in the legal world, very scummy of them.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
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