or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Nokia warns that Nexus 7 tablet infringes its patents
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nokia warns that Nexus 7 tablet infringes its patents

post #1 of 54
Thread Starter 
Nokia has issued a thinly-veiled threat to Google and Asus, the makers of the new Nexus 7 Android tablet, by claiming that the device infringes its patents and recommending that the two companies "simply approach" the handset maker for a patent license.

A spokesperson for Nokia indicated to The Inquirer that it believes the Nexus 7 infringes on its intellectual property.

Google announced the $199 tablet at its developer conference last week. The 7-inch tablet features an Nvidia Tegra 3 chipset and was co-developed by Asus.

According to the report, the allegedly infringed patents are likely part of the IEEE 802.11 WiFi standard.

"Nokia has more than 40 licensees, mainly for its standards essential patent portfolio, including most of the mobile device manufacturers. Neither Google nor Asus is licensed under our patent portfolio," the company's spokesperson told the publication. "Companies who are not yet licensed under our standard essential patents should simply approach us and sign up for a license."



As one of the pioneers of the mobile industry, Nokia amassed a hefty patent portfolio with more than 10,000 patent families. The Finnish company was the world's largest handset maker for over a decade until Samsung unseated it earlier this year.

Apple and Nokia headed off the threat of a protracted legal battle last year when they reached a patent license agreement. Apple paid a one-time sum to the handset maker and agreed to pay ongoing royalties.

The Inquirer went on to speculate that Nokia will not likely pursue a sales ban against Google and Asus and will instead push for licensing.

The Nexus 7 was mostly met with enthusiasm after it was unveiled last week. Some pundits were quick to label it as a serious threat to Amazon's Kindle Fire. Others said that the device will compete with the upcoming Surface tablet from Microsoft. Brian White of Topeka Capital Markets told investors that Apple's iPad could "relax" because the Nexus 7 was "just another Android-based tablet."
post #2 of 54
Since Google is claiming to sell the Nexus 7 without a profit margin I wouldn't put it past them to TRY TO get away with not paying for FRAND licensing or even attempting to pay for it. Now if Nokia tried to do to Google and Asus what they did with Apple over standard essential patents then I can see it differently but all that seems unlikely.


edited for clarity.
Edited by SolipsismX - 7/3/12 at 12:18pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #3 of 54
It won't be a surprise (at all) if Google ignore this threat or even the invitation to obtain the license. Such as...
post #4 of 54
Where's Gator(google)guy when you need an official google statement on something like this?
post #5 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

Where's Gator(google)guy when you need an official google statement on something like this?


He does sometimes make pretty pro-Apple-ish statements... he might be just like any of us, a normal person with strong opinions generously sharing them with the needy Internetz ;)

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #6 of 54

I have one of these because of Google I/O and I have got to say for a low end tablet it is very good. Not good enough where its better than the iPad but still very good.

post #7 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rokrad View Post

I have one of these because of Google I/O and I have got to say for a low end tablet it is very good. Not good enough where its better than the iPad but still very good.

I bet it is good. Funny how in the end, the "integrated" Apple approach is what all companies are turning to. Sad for their (MS and Google) partners, though. In the end, despite the choice, people will buy things from the "source", because of guaranteed OS support and because user experience. I would buy from MS or Google if I were in for an Android or Windows 8 tablet. Slowly, Google and Windows branded tablet will overtake those OEM. Maybe not in a few months, but over 12-24 months for sure. Bye, bye, OEM.

 

I do find 8GB too little. I already find 16GB iPad is too little.

post #8 of 54

Go get 'em Nokia.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rokrad View Post

I have one of these because of Google I/O and I have got to say for a low end tablet it is very good. Not good enough where its better than the iPad but still very good.

 

I recently purchased a rather large rock which, besides hardly costing me anything, is quite good at smashing a window whenever I need to enter my house.

 

Doors are for idiotic iSheep.

Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
Apple Products: So good that their ‘faulty' products outsell competitor’s faultless ones...
Reply
post #9 of 54

Well at least now we know why is it so cheap.

If they can get away with it because they make no profit on selling them than it will be interesting to see other companies following.

post #10 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Since Google is claiming to sell the Nexus 7 without a profit margin I wouldn't put it past them to get away with not paying for FRAND licensing or even attempting to pay for it. Now if Nokia tried to do to Google and Asus what they did with Apple over standard essential patents then I can see it differently but all that seems unlikely.

Not paying FRAND licensing because you make money is NOT how the patent system works.  How much is made by the infringer is an irrelevant fact.

post #11 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Since Google is claiming to sell the Nexus 7 without a profit margin I wouldn't put it past them to get away with not paying for FRAND licensing or even attempting to pay for it. Now if Nokia tried to do to Google and Asus what they did with Apple over standard essential patents then I can see it differently but all that seems unlikely.

Prior suggestions have been that FRAND is calculated on the selling price rather than the gross margin, although it's probably much more complex than what I've read on here. Nothing is ever that simple once examined. Didn't Apple initially try to ignore Nokia?

post #12 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Prior suggestions have been that FRAND is calculated on the selling price rather than the gross margin, although it's probably much more complex than what I've read on here. Nothing is ever that simple once examined. Didn't Apple initially try to ignore Nokia?

I haven't come across anything showing royalties based on profit yet. I've seen it as free, a fixed flat-rate, per fixed quantities such as every 100K units, based on a percentage of the Bill-of-Materials for a completed ready-to-sell device, and as percentage of the selling price.  Nokia seems to like a percentage of the BOM for a finished device from the few sources I've been able to find.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Prior suggestions have been that FRAND is calculated on the selling price rather than the gross margin, although it's probably much more complex than what I've read on here. Nothing is ever that simple once examined. Didn't Apple initially try to ignore Nokia?

FRAND licensing is most commonly a per-unit price. That is, you pay us $0.25 per unit sold. Sometimes, it's a modest percentage, but generally the percentage is of the component. In this case, it would be a percentage of the WiFi chip cost - and would be reasonably well established. Basically, Nokia could charge what is reasonable based on what they charge other, similar, manufacturers. Generally, the number isn't large, but when multiplied by millions of units, it can be significant.

There is, however, a potential issue of patent exhaustion. If the WiFi chip manufacturer has a license of Nokia's patents, Nokia may not be able to collect again.

Motorola is taking an extreme position on both of the above topics and the matter hasn't been settled. First, Motorola wants to charge a (large) royalty on the final device selling price. By that standard, a Mercedes Benz using their patented technology could owe Motorola thousands of dollars for the same license that someone making a $100 throwaway cell phone might pay only a couple of bucks for. That is most certainly not standard practice and is not likely to be upheld by the courts. Furthermore, Motorola has tried to sue Apple for technology even when the component manufacturer already had a license - which will also not normally work (the exception would be if the final device used the technology in a way that was not covered by the component manufacturer's license).
"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 #14 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


FRAND licensing is most commonly a per-unit price. That is, you pay us $0.25 per unit sold. Sometimes, it's a modest percentage, but generally the percentage is of the component. In this case, it would be a percentage of the WiFi chip cost - and would be reasonably well established. Basically, Nokia could charge what is reasonable based on what they charge other, similar, manufacturers. Generally, the number isn't large, but when multiplied by millions of units, it can be significant.
There is, however, a potential issue of patent exhaustion. If the WiFi chip manufacturer has a license of Nokia's patents, Nokia may not be able to collect again.
Motorola is taking an extreme position on both of the above topics and the matter hasn't been settled. First, Motorola wants to charge a (large) royalty on the final device selling price. By that standard, a Mercedes Benz using their patented technology could owe Motorola thousands of dollars for the same license that someone making a $100 throwaway cell phone might pay only a couple of bucks for. That is most certainly not standard practice and is not likely to be upheld by the courts. Furthermore, Motorola has tried to sue Apple for technology even when the component manufacturer already had a license - which will also not normally work (the exception would be if the final device used the technology in a way that was not covered by the component manufacturer's license).

Telecommunication standard-essential royalties based on a percentage of the finished device, whether the total Bill-of-materials or the device selling price, are very common Jr. I've given links here numerous times to the Qualcomm 3G and 4G basic license terms (BOM), as well as evidence of Nokia's basic royalty basis (BOM), Motorola's basic royalty basis (selling price), etc. 

 

I have no idea how you determined the royalty base for FRAND licensing isn't commonly a percentage of a device or component price. I've never seen anything about "FRAND rules" for establishing a royalty basis or that it's most commonly a set fee per unit. so perhaps a citation would be in order if you're claiming fact. 

 

There's also no proof that Moto has sued Apple for technology they already held a valid license for thru another licensee. Just because Apple claimed that in a US court case yet to be adjudicated does not make it factual. So another citation for that claim too would be appropriate if you're claiming it as fact. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #15 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I haven't come across anything showing royalties based on profit yet. I've seen it as free, a fixed flat-rate, per fixed quantities such as every 100K units, based on a percentage of the Bill-of-Materials for a completed ready-to-sell device, and as percentage of the selling price.  Nokia seems to like a percentage of the BOM for a finished device from the few sources I've been able to find.

 

Here's my take (FWIW). When a company agrees to license a critical patent they own under FRAND conditions, they are supposed to: 1) license it to anyone who wants it; 2) offer basically the same or reasonably similar conditions for use to all licensees; and 3) offer basically the same or reasonably similar fees. Conditions and fees can and do vary from one licensee to another and are negotiated. The emphasis is on "fair and reasonable". For example, it's ok to charge a big company with deep pockets more than a new startup with limited resources. However, there are some big no-no's: 1) flatly refusing to license the patent; 2) requiring ridiculously high fees out of line with licenses already granted; and 3) draconian conditions also out of line with licenses already granted that would make the license virtually worthless.

 

Now by Nokia bringing the licensing matter to the attention of Google and Asus in a "can't-we-all-just-get-along" manner, G&A can no longer claim, "Oh, I forgot. My bad. Sorry." If G&A were now to try and ignore Nokia they would be totally open to a suit and the onus would be on them for failing to come to the license-negotiation table. And this might not reflect well on Google (+Motorola) which are already facing investigations in both Europe and the US for misuse of FRAND patents.

 

I expect Nokia will indeed license their patents to G&A under FRAND conditions, but I expect those fees will be on the high side of "fair and reasonable".   lol.gif

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply
post #16 of 54
Okay Fandroids, it's time to add Nokia and their partner in crime - Microsoft to our boycott list. Down with Apple, Nokia, and Microsoft - Googlez for the win!
post #17 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybacmac View Post

I expect Nokia will indeed license their patents to G&A under FRAND conditions, but I expect those fees will be on the high side of "fair and reasonable".   lol.gif

As would I. Claims are that Nokia asks around 5% of the finished device price when there's 10 or more patents in the package.

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/56757.html

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #18 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

As would I. Claims are that Nokia asks around 5% of the finished device price when there's 10 or more patents in the package.
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/56757.html

That's not what the article says. Here's a direct quote:
Quote:
San Diego-based Qualcomm contends that Nokia's assertion about "what are fair and reasonable rates for Qualcomm's patents are directly contradicted by its demands for its own patents." According to Qualcomm, Nokia demands 2.5 percent for a single essential patent, 3.5 percent for two, three patents run 4 percent and 10 or more will go for 5 percent or higher.


They're talking about how much QUALCOMM pays in license fees. Qualcomm manufactures one chip for phones - so those percentages are percent of component cost, not finished device cost.
"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 #19 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That's not what the article says. Here's a direct quote:
They're talking about how much QUALCOMM pays in license fees. Qualcomm manufactures one chip for phones - so those percentages are percent of component cost, not finished device cost.

Read carefully JR. Where does the article say that's the fee Nokia is charging Qualcomm for patents included in Qualcomm chipsets? It doesn't. While you read the article again, more carefully this time, note this sentence too:

"In fact, the company asserted, Nokia has been paying a royalty on WCDMA handsets in excess of 3 percent to Qualcomm alone."

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 54

I'm wondering when this whole technology patents thing collapses in a great big black hole. The only winners are the lawyers. The consumer is certainly not winning - either they pay more for their products or they don't get a choice of products. Since patents (theoretically) exist to spur innovation, which is good for the consumer, yet they're being used to prevent competition and increase costs, both of which are bad for the consumer, I simply find the entire situation distasteful, whoever the party is.

 

Or a group of companies form a patent-cartel, and prevent any newcomer from entering. Again, bad for the consumer.

 

Of course the government rarely pays any attention to the consumer these days, not when business and lobby groups can pay for so many lavish meals and other entertainment, and guaranteed jobs on the board of directors once you've left politics. And when all the political parties are in in up to their grubby necks, the voter merely chooses which shower of bastards they want to screw them over.

 

OTOH you can't blame the companies for exploiting all they can from the laws and regulations that modern society has set up for them.

post #21 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Since Google is claiming to sell the Nexus 7 without a profit margin
 

 

 

Are they really making that claim?  I don't remember them saying that.   Do you have a cite?

post #22 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F. View Post

 

I do find 8GB too little. I already find 16GB iPad is too little.

 

 

I agree.  That is not nearly enough to keep several 720p movies on.  And the lack of an SD card pretty much kills it for me.  Cheap 64 Gig SD cards give these devices unlimited storage - 8 or 16 Gigs is pathetic for today's usage, especially on  tablet.

post #23 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

 

 

Are they really making that claim?  I don't remember them saying that.   Do you have a cite?

I read the same thing, but I'll leave it to Solipsism to find it.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #24 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

so perhaps a citation would be in order if you're claiming fact. 

 

 So another citation for that claim too would be appropriate if you're claiming it as fact. 

 

 

Don't hold your breath.  The chances of him giving  citations are slim.

post #25 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


Are they really making that claim?  I don't remember them saying that.   Do you have a cite?

Here you go, it's at the end of the article.

http://allthingsd.com/20120627/exclusive-googles-andy-rubin-and-asuss-jonney-shih-on-how-they-cooked-up-the-nexus-7/
post #26 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


I Googled "Google Nexus 7 +margin" and came up with zero hits on Google News.  "Google Nexus 7 +profit" had one irrelevant hit.

I'm interested to see what Soli is relying on.

I searched "Nexus 7 no margin" and found plenty. Of course I'm using Bing in an iPad. Perhaps Google is blocking such news, lol.
post #27 of 54

So Asus has been violating nokia patents for how many years now? i mean, if this is 'wireless' related haven't hey had that in laptops/netbooks for a very long time?
 

post #28 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeyestar View Post


I searched "Nexus 7 no margin" and found plenty. Of course I'm using Bing in an iPad. Perhaps Google is blocking such news, lol.

I found lots of 'em using Google and those same search terms. Here's one:

http://www.knowyourmobile.com/blog/1455823/google_says_theres_no_margin_on_nexus_7.html

 

From that article it looks like the original mention may have been at AllthingsD

 

EDIT: I see BuckEyeStar already found the same. I'm late to the party apparently... ;)

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #29 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by tawilson View Post

Not paying FRAND licensing because you make money is NOT how the patent system works.  How much is made by the infringer is an irrelevant fact.
That's my point.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #30 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


Don't hold your breath.  The chances of him giving  citations are slim.

The odds of you ever being right about something are nonexistent.

In reality FRAND is very poorly defined. A discussion is:
http://www.aipla.org/learningcenter/library/papers/SM/2010-Spring-Meeting-Speaker-Materials/Documents/ED_2010_SM_Layne-Farrar_PPR.pdf

While many groups argue that the license fee should be paid only on the value of the component, some companies assess it on the final product - however that appears to be in negotiated agreements. I can't find a single court decision which ordered a FRAND license fee based on the value of the total device. Doing so creates several problems:
1. Including a Qualcomm chip in a Mercedes and licensing the patents could cost many thousands of dollars while the same chip doing the same thing in a $100 throwaway phone would only net a couple of bucks at most (probably less). That doesn't make sense.
2. Even if you leave out cars, let's take the technologies involved in making a phone call and nothing else. Apple would pay 6 times the royalties of a company making a $100 throwaway phone - for exactly the same features and license. That is why Apple is asking the courts to clarify the standard so that any royalties based on selling price would be applied to the AVERAGE selling price for any given type of device. The argument is that since the FRAND patent covers something essential, neither device would work without it and therefore it has the same value in either case.

In the end, nothing related to FRAND is settled at this point and it's impossible to make any absolutely clear statements. The closest thing to being settled is the concept that you can't use a FRAND patent to blackmail a potential licensee and you must license it under fair terms.
"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 #31 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by pytho View Post

So Asus has been violating nokia patents for how many years now? i mean, if this is 'wireless' related haven't hey had that in laptops/netbooks for a very long time?
 

I suppose Nokia didn't consider them competition and never bothered to mention it. Either that or perhaps it's a somewhat dubious claim that Nokia didn't feel a need to take a chance on going after before. Since it's clear a preliminary injunction is a legitimate threat even tho the actual claim hasn't been proven they may look at this a a bargaining chip in any cross-licensing talks between them, their partner Microsoft and Google.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #32 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


Don't hold your breath.  The chances of him giving  citations are slim.

Yeah, because I never do research or post links to sources¡ 😒

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #33 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


The odds of you ever being right about something are nonexistent.
In reality FRAND is very poorly defined. A discussion is:
http://www.aipla.org/learningcenter/library/papers/SM/2010-Spring-Meeting-Speaker-Materials/Documents/ED_2010_SM_Layne-Farrar_PPR.pdf
While many groups argue that the license fee should be paid only on the value of the component, some companies assess it on the final product - however that appears to be in negotiated agreements. I can't find a single court decision which ordered a FRAND license fee based on the value of the total device. 

Can you find a single court decision where a license fee based on the finished device price was ruled illegal? 

 

When you mention FAIR terms, is it meant to be fair to the licensee, the licensor or both? Where's the rule on what is FAIR or a law that applies to it?

 

When it comes down to facts, your claim that FRAND royalties are normally a set price per unit is not supported. You yourself as much as admit so with your "FRAND is poorly defined" mention. You also offer no proof/citation for your claim that Apple already had a valid Motorola license from Qualcomm, leaving it unsupported in fact. It's simply an allegation made by Apple.

 

Rather than make your "authoritative" posts without a basis in fact, why not do some actual research? You don't benefit any reader by posting something as true when it is not, then ignoring most requests for citations in support (probably because they're aren't any).

 

Haven't you noticed I come prepared with backup documents if I make a claim that might be questioned? If you want to win these little debates you insert yourself into, don't come unarmed or you're rarely going to win any. Do your own research. You don't think some here notice when you make stuff up? 


Edited by Gatorguy - 7/3/12 at 7:42am
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #34 of 54

I hope they sue them. I won't be suprised when they do. Google needs to go down.

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply

 

 


Tim Cook using Galaxy Tabs as frisbees

 

Reply
post #35 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

When it comes down to facts, your claim that FRAND royalties are normally a set price per unit is wrong. You yourself as much as admit so with your "FRAND is poorly defined" mention. You also offer no proof/citation for your claim that Apple already had a valid Motorola license from Qualcomm, leaving it unsupported in fact. It's simply an allegation made by Apple.

I have no idea what is "normal" but I do know that at least some licenses are based on a percentage retail price of the item. Nokia, Moto and Qualcomm have a long history of this so I would think it's likely the norm.

I seem to recall reading that one of the issues with companies charging Apple more is that Apple has uses Foxconn for the first retail sale. IOW, Foxconn is responsible for and legally sells every iPhone to Apple thus cut the licensing fees dramatically.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #36 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Since Google is claiming to sell the Nexus 7 without a profit margin I wouldn't put it past them to get away with not paying for FRAND licensing or even attempting to pay for it. 

 

They might try but they won't get away with it. FRAND doesn't mean you don't have to pay. You do. If you don't attempt to get a license that's on you. If you try and they ask for something outrageous then not paying is a way to force it into the courts where the attempt to ask for something that isn't fair etc gets slapped down and you get to pay a fair amount as 'damages' but that's as close as it comes to not paying. 

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 #37 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


FRAND licensing is most commonly a per-unit price. That is, you pay us $0.25 per unit sold. 

 

That's because it has to be fair and non discriminatory and a flat rate is the easiest way to do that. If they charge a percent of the gross selling price of the final product then one company could be paying $0.25 and another paying $2.50 per unit. Same with charging to the final product and not the component itself (or trying to do both which as you noted can lead to exhaustion issues)


Edited by charlituna - 7/3/12 at 8:56am

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 #38 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I found lots of 'em using Google and those same search terms. Here's one:

http://www.knowyourmobile.com/blog/1455823/google_says_theres_no_margin_on_nexus_7.html

 

From that article it looks like the original mention may have been at AllthingsD

 

EDIT: I see BuckEyeStar already found the same. I'm late to the party apparently... ;)

 

 

Yes.  I see that Google did say that.  Thanks.

 

 

 

Quote:
On the subject of cost price, Rubin said: 'When it gets sold through the Play store there's no margin, it just basically gets (sold) through.'
post #39 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

That's because it has to be fair and non discriminatory and a flat rate is the easiest way to do that. If they charge a percent of the gross selling price then one company could be paying $0.25 per unit and another $2.50 per unit all because their item is a higher price. 

An argument in support might be that those selling higher-priced devices get more revenue per device and thus derive more value from the IP. It's only "fair" to share in their success since that IP made your product possible in the first place.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #40 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Can you find a single court decision where a license fee based on the finished device price was ruled illegal? 

As usual, GoogleGuy can't be bothered to read and respond to what I wrote so he has to resort to straw man arguments.

I never made any such claim.
"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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Nokia warns that Nexus 7 tablet infringes its patents