or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › HTC profits plunge 57% in face of Apple injunction, European struggles
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HTC profits plunge 57% in face of Apple injunction, European struggles

post #1 of 43
Thread Starter 
While Apple's competitor Samsung expects to see record profit from the June quarter, rival HTC is struggling in the face of disappointing sales in Europe and an Apple injunction that delayed the launch of new handsets in the U.S.

HTC expects that its second quarter net profit will drop by 57 percent to $247.7 million in the June quarter, less than half what it earned in the same period a year prior. That number was also significantly below what market analysts expected.

The Taiwanese handset maker blamed poor economic conditions in Europe, according to Reuters, for its disappointing sales. In addition, HTC saw some of its phones held up by U.S. Customs after Apple was awarded an injunction for patent infringement.

While HTC struggles, another smartphone maker that primarily sells Android handsets, Samsung, expects to see record profits from its June quarter. This week Samsung provided guidance for profits of 6.7 trillion won ($5.9 billion) from the three-month span, handily besting its previous record of 5.85 trillion won from the first quarter of this year.

While Apple and Samsung continue to see record sales, HTC has languished and failed to compete with the two companies in the high-end smartphone market. In April, HTC announced that its pre-tax profits fell by almost 70 percent, while total sales also fell by almost a third.

HTC One X
HTC's One X smartphone


According to IDC, HTC was the fifth-largest smartphone maker in the world in the first quarter of calendar 2012. Its 6.9 million shipped smartphones were behind Research in Motion (9.7 million), Nokia (11.9 million), Apple (35.1 million), and Samsung (42.2 million).

HTC hopes that its newly launched One X smartphone will give it some traction once again in the high-end smartphone market. It's an Android-powered device that features a 4.7-inch 720p high-definition display, with a 1.5 gigahertz dual-core processor and 4G LTE high-speed data connectivity.

While Apple and Samsung compete at the top of the market, an accurate comparison of actual smartphone sales is impossible, as Samsung does not provide such data. Apple discloses iPhone sales in its own quarterly earnings report, which the company will do again for its June quarter on Tuesday, July 24 at 2 p.m. Pacific, 5 p.m. Eastern.
post #2 of 43
Aren't they the 3rd most profitable handset vendor after Apple and Samsung? At least they are turning a profit.

"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 43

HTC isn't handling the thermonuclear war too well. 

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


an accurate comparison of actual smartphone sales to end users is impossible, as Samsung does not provide such data. 

 

 

I've always viewed this as ridiculously shady. Then again, it's Samsung we're talking about. They've turned deception and evasion into an art. 

post #4 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
While Apple and Samsung compete at the top of the market, an accurate comparison of actual smartphone sales to end users is impossible, as Samsung does not provide such data. Apple discloses iPhone sales in its own quarterly earnings report, which the company will do again for its June quarter on Tuesday, July 24 at 2 p.m. Pacific, 5 p.m. Eastern.

Apple's revenue is not reported as sales to end-users either. These two AI sentences are constructed so as to be misleading IMO.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #5 of 43

The One X has a quad core processor, the main thing against HTC is they can't compete against Samsung's hype.

 

While they were focussing on Apple, Samsung basically left them with nothing but crumbs.

 

The One X is every bit as good as a Galaxy S III.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #6 of 43
I find it very amusing that the Fandroids (really just Apple haters) move from one manufacturer to another depending on the proposed iPhone killer du jour. At one time Motorola was the be all end all of smarthphones, the one that would destroy Apple. Then as Moto started to trail off this crowd hitched their wagons to HTC. Now Samsung is the White Knight that will deal the death blow and save mankind from the walled garden. In the tablet world it was... hell, I don't even remember. Then it was the Fire, then the Galaxy Tab, now the Nexus 7. I wonder what happens when some of these manufacturers decide to go with yet another mobile OS. Rumors are flying that Firefox OS is around the corner. Samsung has its own OS if it wants to go that way. Fine and dandy but it all revolves around defeating Apple and taking that profit crown away.
post #7 of 43

Apple reports the number of phones sold to customers, not "shipped" as other guys do.

They are requesting regular reports from their local distributors. The distributors are interested in reporting the inventory correctly, because unsold units are subject of price protection (e.g. in case of a price drop or new model release). The unsold units are reported by Apple as channel inventory.

There is still some margin of error because of second-tire resellers or something, but it is relatively small.

post #8 of 43

Which is why time and time again, this strategy has failed and will continue to fail.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

I find it very amusing that the Fandroids (really just Apple haters) move from one manufacturer to another depending on the proposed iPhone killer du jour. At one time Motorola was the be all end all of smarthphones, the one that would destroy Apple. Then as Moto started to trail off this crowd hitched their wagons to HTC. Now Samsung is the White Knight that will deal the death blow and save mankind from the walled garden. In the tablet world it was... hell, I don't even remember. Then it was the Fire, then the Galaxy Tab, now the Nexus 7. I wonder what happens when some of these manufacturers decide to go with yet another mobile OS. Rumors are flying that Firefox OS is around the corner. Samsung has its own OS if it wants to go that way. Fine and dandy but it all revolves around defeating Apple and taking that profit crown away.
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #9 of 43

It would probably make sense for apple to lay off HTC for a while and focus more on Samsung. Seems like it's in Apple's best interest for the Android platform to be as fragmented as possible, without any one leader emerging. Taking down Samsung clearly needs to be job 1 for Apple. So far, the ace in the hole for Apple is the iPad. But it would be nice to see Apple get out in front of Samsung on smartphone sales and stay there. 

post #10 of 43

Sold vs. shipped means nothing when it comes to profits.  Profits are profits.  Why is Samsung so profitable and HTC going down the toilet?  I admit, I know nothing of either phones, but is Samsung "innovating" far more than HTC or is HTC just failing to capitalize on the market due to lack of advertizing?  Poor carrier tie-ins?  Not enough sell-thru channels?

 

Apple's profits are due July 27/28? and should wow us all.  I just hope their stock reflects that (I own some).

post #11 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Aren't they the 3rd most profitable handset vendor after Apple and Samsung? At least they are turning a profit.

They're one of only three that are.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #12 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Sold vs. shipped means nothing when it comes to profits.  Profits are profits.  Why is Samsung so profitable and HTC going down the toilet?  I admit, I know nothing of either phones, but is Samsung "innovating" far more than HTC or is HTC just failing to capitalize on the market due to lack of advertizing?  Poor carrier tie-ins?  Not enough sell-thru channels?

 

Apple's profits are due July 27/28? and should wow us all.  I just hope their stock reflects that (I own some).

 

Mobile platforms tend to be winner-takes-all with one manufacturer dominating a platform (probably because there's no incentive for carriers to buy phones from different manufacturers when they all look the same and run the same software). For example, HTC was once responsible for 80% of Windows Mobile phones in the pre-Android era, despite Microsoft have many other partners. The best argument I've heard (from Horace Dediu) for Samsung's dominance over HTC is that as the smartphone market has rapidly expanded to greater volumes, HTC hasn't been able to match Samsung in distribution, so Samsung has managed to displace it as the go-to manufacturer for Android phones.

post #13 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Sold vs. shipped means nothing when it comes to profits.  Profits are profits.  Why is Samsung so profitable and HTC going down the toilet?  I admit, I know nothing of either phones, but is Samsung "innovating" far more than HTC or is HTC just failing to capitalize on the market due to lack of advertizing?  Poor carrier tie-ins?  Not enough sell-thru channels?

 

 

 

I dunno, they all seem the same to me. Like HP vs. Dell vs. Acer.

 

The Android OEM game is all about market flooding. 

post #14 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apple's revenue is not reported as sales to end-users either. These two AI sentences are constructed so as to be misleading IMO.

Actually, Apple sales for iPhone, iPad, etc are on one of the quickest turn rates in the industry.  Apple says it only has 3-6 weeks of inventory at best, and many times its first come, first sold.    

 

Samsung sells thru many many many third party distributors and many times it sells old inventory cheap just to get rid of it.  It is reported by several sources that Apple is making 70% of the profit in the smart phone market.   That pretty much says it all. 

 

Just saying.....

post #15 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Sold vs. shipped means nothing when it comes to profits.  Profits are profits.  Why is Samsung so profitable and HTC going down the toilet?  I admit, I know nothing of either phones, but is Samsung "innovating" far more than HTC or is HTC just failing to capitalize on the market due to lack of advertizing?  Poor carrier tie-ins?  Not enough sell-thru channels?

 

Apple's profits are due July 27/28? and should wow us all.  I just hope their stock reflects that (I own some).

 

Samsung makes a lot more than just handsets.

 

Read the report: http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/ir/financialinformation/earningsrelease/IR_Earnings2007.html

 

Presentation: http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/ir/ireventpresentations/earningsrelease/downloads/2012/20120429_conference_eng.pdf

 

The SmartTV sales were up 550% and I don't expect that to continue when Apple enters the market.


Their Semiconductor and Memory sales both declined, 13% and 17% respectively. Operating profits in Semiconductors dropped 54%.

 

Their profits are in Handsets and SmartTVs.

post #16 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

 

Samsung makes a lot more than just handsets.

 

Read the report: http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/ir/financialinformation/earningsrelease/IR_Earnings2007.html

 

Presentation: http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/ir/ireventpresentations/earningsrelease/downloads/2012/20120429_conference_eng.pdf

 

The SmartTV sales were up 550% and I don't expect that to continue when Apple enters the market.


Their Semiconductor and Memory sales both declined, 13% and 17% respectively. Operating profits in Semiconductors dropped 54%.

 

Their profits are in Handsets and SmartTVs.

 

Good point- didn't know the SmartTV sales jumped up that much.  It definitely see why it looks appealing to people (although I wouldn't buy one).  In addition, they have their hands in everything- cameras, camcorders, security cameras, air conditioners, household appliances, kitchen appliances- and that's just consumer stuff...  They are very diverse and very profitable.  I'm sure they and their shareholders don't care that they release their smartphone numbers- all they care about are their profits- which are huge.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #17 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apple's revenue is not reported as sales to end-users either. These two AI sentences are constructed so as to be misleading IMO.

They report devices in the channel at the beginning, devices put into the channel, and devices in the channel at the end. It is not rocket science. They do this separately for iPhones and iPads.

Samsung reports nothing now and used to only report devices going into the channel. That takes a crystal ball and LSD to figure out.

How is their statement misleading? Where are the devices going?
post #18 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Good point- didn't know the SmartTV sales jumped up that much.  It definitely see why it looks appealing to people (although I wouldn't buy one).  In addition, they have their hands in everything- cameras, camcorders, security cameras, air conditioners, household appliances, kitchen appliances- and that's just consumer stuff...  They are very diverse and very profitable.  I'm sure they and their shareholders don't care that they release their smartphone numbers- all they care about are their profits- which are huge.

Of they went into that detail in every unit the call would take all quarter 1smile.gif
post #19 of 43
HTC's problem started when Apple expanded to more carriers.
Simple as that.

HTC will be finished the day the iPhone 4 becomes free on contract.
post #20 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

I find it very amusing that the Fandroids (really just Apple haters) move from one manufacturer to another depending on the proposed iPhone killer du jour. At one time Motorola was the be all end all of smarthphones, the one that would destroy Apple. Then as Moto started to trail off this crowd hitched their wagons to HTC. Now Samsung is the White Knight that will deal the death blow and save mankind from the walled garden. In the tablet world it was... hell, I don't even remember. Then it was the Fire, then the Galaxy Tab, now the Nexus 7. I wonder what happens when some of these manufacturers decide to go with yet another mobile OS. Rumors are flying that Firefox OS is around the corner. Samsung has its own OS if it wants to go that way. Fine and dandy but it all revolves around defeating Apple and taking that profit crown away.

I don't think anyone is trying to destroy Apple. Moto was in a good position to be the number 1 Android handset maker and squandered that opportunity with either crappy, ugly, too frequently released devices plus super locked down to ensure devs wouldn't choose them. They should stick to making high end devices like the RAZR MAXX and they might be able to gain the number 1 position.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #21 of 43
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Apple's revenue is not reported as sales to end-users either. These two AI sentences are constructed so as to be misleading IMO.

The real issue isn't end users vs channel. The issue is Samsung doesn't break down sales by type. They simply say "40 million smartphones" sold. This includes the GS3 right down to the 320x240 Android phone still selling with Froyo. It also includes their QWERTY smartphones, their phones running Bada, Windows Mobile and WP7. The fandroids like to point out total Samsung smartphones vs total iPhone sales, but this is meaningless since many Ssmsung phones don't compete with the iPhone.

The best way to look at this is to look at their revenue/profit and compare this to their phone sales. Then you realize the average price of their phones is quite low, meaning a large portion of those sales are low end devices. Yet me even claiming such blasphemy will get me berated, even though the numbers prove my position.

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply

Author of The Fuel Injection Bible

Reply
post #22 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

Quote:
 
The real issue isn't end users vs channel. The issue is Samsung doesn't break down sales by type. They simply say "40 million smartphones" sold. This includes the GS3 right down to the 320x240 Android phone still selling with Froyo. It also includes their QWERTY smartphones, their phones running Bada, Windows Mobile and WP7. The fandroids like to point out total Samsung smartphones vs total iPhone sales, but this is meaningless since many Ssmsung phones don't compete with the iPhone.
The best way to look at this is to look at their revenue/profit and compare this to their phone sales. Then you realize the average price of their phones is quite low, meaning a large portion of those sales are low end devices. Yet me even claiming such blasphemy will get me berated, even though the numbers prove my position.

I agree with you. It's obvious there's some significant number of base-model smart-phones being sold, primarily because there's a market for a significant number of those base-model smart-phones. Arguing about which ones compete with the iPhone might be fun for a forum discussion,but  it really matters not at the end of the day does it? Samsung's profits from their mobile division are skyrocketing, just as fast as Apple did just a couple years back. Up over 300% YOY. As other members here like to accurately say, it's not as much about volume as it is profit. Apple is king of the heap there, but it's increasingly obvious that Samsung pays attention to what makes Apple successful, not just in design but in business. Their profits are way up too, and it's not coming from just low-profit base-model phones.

 

Apple doesn't publish any breakdown of 3GS, 4 and 4S sales either, but who cares other than bloggers and news writers? If they had 50 phone models they still wouldn't break numbers down by SKU. Several billion in profit is a whole lot more important than satisfying someone's curiosity. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The One X has a quad core processor, the main thing against HTC is they can't compete against Samsung's hype.

While they were focussing on Apple, Samsung basically left them with nothing but crumbs.

The One X is every bit as good as a Galaxy S III.
Well, except for the whole multitasking fiasco. And no memory expansion capability. And the lack of a removable battery. But hey, it has a slightly better screen, so it's got that going for it.

The HOX is similar to the iPhone in what it can't do, rather than what it can.
post #24 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

I find it very amusing that the Fandroids (really just Apple haters) move from one manufacturer to another depending on the proposed iPhone killer du jour. At one time Motorola was the be all end all of smarthphones, the one that would destroy Apple. Then as Moto started to trail off this crowd hitched their wagons to HTC. Now Samsung is the White Knight that will deal the death blow and save mankind from the walled garden. In the tablet world it was... hell, I don't even remember. Then it was the Fire, then the Galaxy Tab, now the Nexus 7. I wonder what happens when some of these manufacturers decide to go with yet another mobile OS. Rumors are flying that Firefox OS is around the corner. Samsung has its own OS if it wants to go that way. Fine and dandy but it all revolves around defeating Apple and taking that profit crown away.

It goes back a long way for many. The older ones of course are all PC / Wintel nerds thus Apple haters. Anything from Apple just say no! Praise anything that is a copy of Apple whoever makes it. Even when it is a foreign company over an American one.

Meanwhile I wonder how long before Apple's patents gain any traction against Google themselves.
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #25 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


It goes back a long way for many. The older ones of course are all PC / Wintel nerds thus Apple haters. Anything from Apple just say no! Praise anything that is a copy of Apple whoever makes it. Even when it is a foreign company over an American one.
Meanwhile I wonder how long before Apple's patents gain any traction against Google themselves.

FWIW there's some push underway in Europe to pressure Apple into licensing rather than withholding IP from the marketplace. It goes hand-in-hand with Apple and Microsoft's push to have those same standard-setting organizations create ground rules for what is a permissible royalty basis for FRAND-pledged IP along with a declaration on standards IP holders use of injunction requests to pressure potential licensees.

 

Personally I don't expect them to hand-slap Moto or Samsung or Qualcomm or Nokia or any of the others on FRAND licensing and enforcement policies without also calling out companies like Apple for aggressive and exclusionary IP litigation.

 

When Florian Mueller finally blogs about it, which he will, he'll have you come away believing an upcoming ITU Roundtable is only about possible abuse of standards-essential patent enforcement. It's not.

http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/45.aspx

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #26 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

The One X has a quad core processor, the main thing against HTC is they can't compete against Samsung's hype.

 

While they were focussing on Apple, Samsung basically left them with nothing but crumbs.

 

The One X is every bit as good as a Galaxy S III.

It's every bit as good as the iPhone too but of course that's just my opinion.

post #27 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

HTC isn't handling the thermonuclear war too well. 

 

 


 

 

 

I've always viewed this as ridiculously shady. Then again, it's Samsung we're talking about. They've turned deception and evasion into an art. 

I think some of your hatred is misplaced at times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony View Post

It's every bit as good as the iPhone too but of course that's just my opinion.

I may have to look at one given the lack of an iphone for my carrier. I'd only change carriers if that made sense. I care more about which carrier than which phone I use even given the amount of things we all access  through our phones at this point.

post #28 of 43

OMFG!  LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So true.

post #29 of 43
I read the ITU press release and they talk about SEP and non SEP patents. The problem is that they have no authority to force Apple and MS to license their non essential patents. The other problem is that if the ITU allows Samsung and Moto to pursue these lawsuits with frand patents, then Apple and MS will have to be allowed to follow up with their 3G and 4G frand patents that they have via Rockstar ( 6000 former Nortel patents. ) That is when this will go thermonuclear. (which contrary to popular thought, was said in early 2010, not on Steve Job's deathbed.)
post #30 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post

I read the ITU press release and they talk about SEP and non SEP patents. The problem is that they have no authority to force Apple and MS to license their non essential patents. The other problem is that if the ITU allows Samsung and Moto to pursue these lawsuits with frand patents, then Apple and MS will have to be allowed to follow up with their 3G and 4G frand patents that they have via Rockstar ( 6000 former Nortel patents. ) That is when this will go thermonuclear. (which contrary to popular thought, was said in early 2010, not on Steve Job's deathbed.)

I don't know for certain what authority some of the regulatory agencies actually have. I do know that in the EU at least if a specific patent is found to be essential to a developing standard but that patent holder refuses to license it, blocking the standard from being developed, they can deem the patent essential anyway and force licensing on FRAND terms. Before you ask, no I don't have an example of that happening tho there may be one or two somewhere.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #31 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't know for certain what authority some of the regulatory agencies actually have. I do know that in the EU at least if a specific patent is found to be essential to a developing standard but that patent holder refuses to license it, blocking the standard from being developed, they can deem the patent essential anyway and force licensing on FRAND terms. Before you ask, no I don't have an example of that happening tho there may be one or two somewhere.

I think your missing the order of events here...

A patent cannot be essential to a standard unless it is already/or will be pledged to a standard. By this it means that the patent owner willingly puts forth its patents under the assumption of FRAND, willing to license to anyone.

By definition, a patent can't be "essential" to a standard if it is not part of a standard. If it is part of a standard then it has be to licensed on frand terms, according to the ITU, ISO, and IEEE. The problem with "frand terms" is that they were never clearly definded and different companies negotiate different prices with each licsenee. But they are not supposed to be able to deny anyone a license.

Another issue is patent exhaustion.
If Moto licenses Qualcomm or whoever to use their patents for 2.25% of the cost of a $10 GSM radio, they should not be able to ask Apple for 2.25% of a $500 ipad since Apple already bought a part that was licensed. If Moto got its way then they would get 2.25% of a $50,000 car if it used one of their patents for services such as OnStar or whatever.

If things operated the way Moto claims they should, nothing would ever be created bc most devices that use GSM are using 1000's of patents. It would take less than 10 @ 2.25% it make a device unprofitable considering most devices have less than a 22.5% margin.

I don't want to sound like a jerk but....
You obviously don't like Florian or his website, but you obviously haven't read it bc you have no idea what you are talking about. Not that he is the enlightened one or anything, but he does explain things in easy ( for complex legal issues ) to understand concepts.

I've taken patent law classes and other business law classes, so Florians website is supplemental to things I already know. One of my coworkers is a IP attorney, and we have been discussing these cases weekly since late 2010.

Everyone on the Internet has a bias, but some actually try to educate people, take them all with a grain salt, but learn what you can from them.

I would speculate that 95% of people who complain about Florain have never read an entire post of his, or at least they didn't comprehend the legal arguments. They are too busy exhutling their own bias for their platform of choice. The people who don't understand think he is anti-google, but really he is anti-bullshit.
post #32 of 43

Apple is destroying HTC.

But is it a good thing?...

post #33 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by igorsova View Post

Apple is destroying HTC.

But is it a good thing?...

 

Apple "and Samsung" are destroying HTC.

 

It seems to be the way businesses evolve. Personally I don't like it. Car companies, computer companies, food companies... there used to a lot of them but gradually it gets boiled down to a handful (or less), and, imho, our choices become much more limited. Businesses aren't charities, though, and, sadly, some companies are unable to survive.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #34 of 43
Companies have no right to exist. Either you make competitive products and sell them or you don't and die. That's life. Maybe next time should HTC should choose a better software partner, because this whole android thing isn't going to well for them.
post #35 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post

Companies have no right to exist. Either you make competitive products and sell them or you don't and die. That's life. Maybe next time should HTC should choose a better software partner, because this whole android thing isn't going to well for them.


I second that. Companies have no right to exist. They earn their spot by making sure the market needs them, or make sure the market keeps them. Companies come and go. some get rebranded. In this world, not everyone can be successful. a

post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post

Companies have no right to exist. Either you make competitive products and sell them or you don't and die. That's life. Maybe next time should HTC should choose a better software partner, because this whole android thing isn't going to well for them.

 

I'm just going to replace word "HTC" with word "Jews", and project it back in history. I can only hope that you finally will see how your position looks like:

"Jews have no right to exist. Either you make strong armies and fight NAZIs or you don't and die. That's life. Maybe next time should Jews should choose a better allies, because this whole Judaism isn't going to well for them."

 

Correct, Adolf Technarchy?...

post #37 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by igorsova View Post

I'm just going to replace word "HTC" with word "Jews", and project it back in history. I can only hope that you finally will see how your position looks like:
"Jews have no right to exist. Either you make strong armies and fight NAZIs or you don't and die. That's life. Maybe next time should Jews should choose a better allies, because this whole Judaism isn't going to well for them."

Correct, Adolf Technarchy?...

Not only is your argument not one, you've Godwined away any credibility you might have otherwise had.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #38 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by igorsova View Post

I'm just going to replace word "HTC" with word "Jews", and project it back in history. I can only hope that you finally will see how your position looks like:
"Jews have no right to exist. Either you make strong armies and fight NAZIs or you don't and die. That's life. Maybe next time should Jews should choose a better allies, because this whole Judaism isn't going to well for them."

Correct, Adolf Technarchy?...

1) Cool it with the personal attacks.

2) Ever heard of Godwin's Law?

3) So all companies should support all other companies equally? If you have an actual defense as to why survival of the fittest shouldn't be a factor in commerce or why a failing company should be supported because of "basic corporate rights"(?) then make an argument for it. I need a good laugh.

"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 #39 of 43

The choice of their preferred OS aside, HTC have been instrumental in the development of smartphones over the last 10 years, pushing boundaries with what were ultimately niche phones but daring never-the-less. IMO the market needs makers that are willing to release low volume units.

post #40 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacepower View Post


I think your missing the order of events here...
A patent cannot be essential to a standard unless it is already/or will be pledged to a standard. By this it means that the patent owner willingly puts forth its patents under the assumption of FRAND, willing to license to anyone.
By definition, a patent can't be "essential" to a standard if it is not part of a standard. If it is part of a standard then it has be to licensed on frand terms, according to the ITU, ISO, and IEEE. 

From ETSI:

"For the avoidance of doubt in exceptional cases where a STANDARD can only be implemented by technical solutions, all of which are infringements of IPRs, all such IPRs shall be considered ESSENTIAL." In fairness I do believe that I overstepped by also claiming the patent holder could be forced to license on FRAND terms. The cite only establishes the IP to be deemed essential regardless of the holder's views. Thank you for sending me on a verification check.

 

Going further than that despite Microsoft's loud and long protests to the EU, they were ordered to not only license their server tech including appropriate patents, but told it would be on FRAND terms, available to all competitors.

 

From MS:  "The Commission also held that Microsoft violated EU competition law by failing to disclose to competitors some of its most innovative technologies relating to “server” operating systems (i.e., back-office computers that help run networks). The Commission reached this conclusion despite the fact that many of the world’s most powerful IT companies, such as IBM, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett-Packard, Novell, and Red Hat, compete vigorously in the supply of server operating systems. The Commission ordered Microsoft to create extensive documents describing its complex and innovative technologies – many of which are protected by patents and trade secrets – and to license these technologies to competitors. In recent months, the Commission has broadened the scope of this compulsory license considerably by holding that Microsoft: (i) must license these technologies even outside Europe; (ii) must license these technologies royalty-free; and (iii) cannot prevent licensees from disclosing Microsoft trade secrets in their source code."

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/european/EU_Competition_Overview.mspx

 

As for your comments on Mr. Mueller, if you spent much time here you might know that FOSSPatents is one of my three go-to sources on patent litigation, the other two being PatentlyO and Groklaw. In the case of Mr. Mueller, he almost always has the facts he chooses to use correct, which is admirable and a good reason for my visits to his blog. He just doesn't mention any that might not be beneficial to Microsoft's goals (nor Oracle's now). You never found it odd that there's not even one article at FOSSPatents criticising Microsoft? 

 

Motorola isn't saying "that's the way it should work". On the contrary it's the way it does work, and Mr. Mueller is well aware of that. Since it doesn't advance Microsoft's arguments to have a mention by Mueller that MS partner Nokia reportedly wants 2.5% of a finished consumer-ready device cost for a single patent, up to 5% for 10 or more, he's not going to say a word about it. Qualcomm wants 3.5% of a completed device price not just a chipset, but don't expect FOSSPatents to mention it since it's an inconvenient fact. And those are just the two of the bigger ones. According to the ETSI, companies from Ericsson to Alcatel, and ZTE to Huawei receive royalty payments based on a percentage of a finished consumer device's price. It's not the rarity that "someone" apparently convinced you it is. 

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

 

 

I believe Microsoft's goal, Apple's as well, is to isolate Motorola as a rogue patent claimant, basing royalties on the "ridiculous notion" of a finished device. Pointing out that it's a common royalty basis for FRAND royalties in the telecom industry would not support his client's claims would it? How else to explain his failure to mention it while portraying Moto as an outlier.

 

So contrary to what you might think, yes I do read every single article that's posted at FOSSPatents. I also read the Twitter links he offers to better understand his sources and views. But I don't trust him to tell me the whole story. He's paid to offer support to his clients, Oracle and Microsoft among others, and IMO that support appears to extend into his personal blogs, evidenced by the total lack of any concerns or criticisms written about them. He's great with the facts. Just realize he'll dole out only those that aren't at odds with his clients gameplans as far as I can see.

 

Would I go so far as to say Motorola or Samsung's use of SEP's to seek injunctions is proper. No sir. Nor do I necessarily agree with a BOM being the proper royalty basis in all cases but at the same time that's been seen as proper, even by Microsoft, for a long time. Neither Apple nor Microsoft should be able to avoid paying the same royalties requested from other licensees (with credit for patents granted back in return, ie cross-licensing) and there should be consequences. I don't see any obvious reason those penalties could not be determined by a court, altho they should seldom get that far IMO. I don't support injunctions as a proper cure except in the possible case that an infringer absolutely refuses to pay royalties under any circumstance and in opposition to court rulings.


Edited by Gatorguy - 7/7/12 at 2:03pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › HTC profits plunge 57% in face of Apple injunction, European struggles