Could Samsung potentially use this licensing deal to aid their case against Apple? I'd like to see Windows Phones in place of Androids, tbh. Depends how much the licensing dissuades OEMs, although Samsung are looking at Bada and HTC at webOS now (allegedly).
How would it help Samsung in their case against Apple? "Yes, we were illegally using someone else's technology, too, but they agreed to let us pay them lots of money so that we wouldn't have to shut down our cell phone division". I guess I'm having a hard time figuring out how that could possibly help Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jr_b
Who wins/loses in the patent war, Apple or Google?
In the end, it is very unlikely that many (if any ) permanent injunctions will be issued. So it comes down to royalties.
Apple can easily afford substantial royalties. Their margins are the best in the industry (by far) and they have the ability to raise prices even further if necessary. Companies making phones based on Android, OTOH, are already operating at very low margins - even without paying royalties. If significant royalties are tacked on, their low priced strategy goes out the window.
The real winner is likely to be Microsoft (Windows Mobile 8) and whoever buys WebOS from HP.
Can someone please point out how Samsung is responsible for Google's patent infringements? What I just don't understand is how a customer of a product should be held liable for the infringement of the producer. For instance, Apple buys a chip that does something for the iPhone, however, it's later discovered that the chipmaker infringed on someone's patent. So why should Apple be held liable? It's merely a customer of the product, not the infringing party. So, that leads me back to how and why Samsung should be held to the fire for Android?
Google wrote an open implementation of an operating system and made code available to manufacturer. Samsung chose to use and modify it, wrapping it into an actual product that gets paid for.
When you sue over IP you either sue to stop it's use altogether via injunction, or sue for royalties. You can effectively only get the royalties from someone who is selling the IP without permission. So Samsung gets sued because they chose to sell MS's IP in Android, rather than rewriting Android to avoid MS's IP. The selling part is key because that's where the money is.
Google is in relatively gray area, phone manufacturer-wise, because they don't force anyone to use Android. Oracle seems to be the only folks exploring that right now, but their motivation is a little different because I think Oracle wants to kill the DalvikVM since it is a threat to the rest of Oracles JVM licensing business. Or if not kill it, explicitly make Dalvik Java compliant and heftily licensed, which is not a small change to Dalvik on it's own.
With today's consumer segment we have a different sort of lock-in:
When you buy an Apple computer or an Apple phone, the money you spend on apps may well exceed the cost of the device, and you'll never have the choice to use those apps on devices made by anyone else.
In contrast, if you buy software for your Dell running Windows or your Samsung running Android, you can move to a Lenovo running Windows or an HTC running Android and you get to retain your full investment in apps.
That's a strawman. I can't take that investment in Android apps to Rimm, Symbian, MeGo, WinPhone7, WinPhone8, iOS, WebOS, or any other platform. It's not just the manufacturer that matters, it's largely the platform and one is just as locked in as the other when you get to brass tacks.
That's a strawman. I can't take that investment in Android apps to Rimm, Symbian, MeGo, WinPhone7, WinPhone8, iOS, WebOS, or any other platform. It's not just the manufacturer that matters, it's largely the platform and one is just as locked in as the other when you get to brass tacks.
+1
My thoughts exactly. Freedom is not having a bigger jail cell.
Probably, but the original point still stands. One of the things that made Android such an attractive option for manufacturers was the low cost, without that advantage, it might start to get interesting for them to start looking at other mobile OS's. Especially now that the market is drowning in generic uninteresting Android phones, most manufacturers are not really making much money off of it, and Google is going to compete directly through Motorola (which probably means Motorola deviecs will have a competitive advantage).
One possibility is that we'll see more of what Amazon just did, which is to take Android and fork it into a locked down channel for the manufacturer's ecosystem. Saves having to build your own OS from scratch, but you get to boost your margins with content sales. The game console model, if you will.
Of course, Amazon is well situated for this strategy since they already have a lot of content at their disposal, but it doesn't seem out of the question that a big Android licensee might take a look around at the sea of barely distinguishable Android handsets, which are selling for very low profit, and decide that a more customized experience might be the way to go.
Especially as we move from the "everybody needs to get a smartphone" phase into the "everybody has a smartphone" phase. Once the market is fairly saturated, it's all about poaching customers from someone else. If "Android" currently still has a little glamour to it, as your first smartphone OS, that's shortly to end. When it does, just putting that little robot on your ads and hollering about the awesome specs isn't going to give you any market differentiation whatsoever.
Which means going beyond a few custom screens into a fully forked "unique" experience might look like a great strategy to get some specialness attached to your brand, while giving you an opportunity to lock in some content sales at the same time.
Can someone please point out how Samsung is responsible for Google's patent infringements? What I just don't understand is how a customer of a product should be held liable for the infringement of the producer.
Although you already got one answer, here is another way to look at it. If this were not the case, there would be no protection for IP at all. Suppose that company A wanted to use company B's IP without having to pay for it. All they would have to do would be to set up shell company C to steal the IP, and then use C's infringing product without any liability.
Could Samsung potentially use this licensing deal to aid their case against Apple? I'd like to see Windows Phones in place of Androids, tbh. Depends how much the licensing dissuades OEMs, although Samsung are looking at Bada and HTC at webOS now (allegedly).
Nope, Microsoft's patents are mainly untested ones relating to how Linux works.
Microsoft sits on them, biding their time until someone makes it worth their while to come in waving a big stick.
Comments
Could Samsung potentially use this licensing deal to aid their case against Apple? I'd like to see Windows Phones in place of Androids, tbh. Depends how much the licensing dissuades OEMs, although Samsung are looking at Bada and HTC at webOS now (allegedly).
How would it help Samsung in their case against Apple? "Yes, we were illegally using someone else's technology, too, but they agreed to let us pay them lots of money so that we wouldn't have to shut down our cell phone division". I guess I'm having a hard time figuring out how that could possibly help Samsung.
Who wins/loses in the patent war, Apple or Google?
In the end, it is very unlikely that many (if any ) permanent injunctions will be issued. So it comes down to royalties.
Apple can easily afford substantial royalties. Their margins are the best in the industry (by far) and they have the ability to raise prices even further if necessary. Companies making phones based on Android, OTOH, are already operating at very low margins - even without paying royalties. If significant royalties are tacked on, their low priced strategy goes out the window.
The real winner is likely to be Microsoft (Windows Mobile 8) and whoever buys WebOS from HP.
+++ They're a nuisance -- but you just gotta' ignore those pesky little gnats.
was he lying?
Can someone please point out how Samsung is responsible for Google's patent infringements? What I just don't understand is how a customer of a product should be held liable for the infringement of the producer. For instance, Apple buys a chip that does something for the iPhone, however, it's later discovered that the chipmaker infringed on someone's patent. So why should Apple be held liable? It's merely a customer of the product, not the infringing party. So, that leads me back to how and why Samsung should be held to the fire for Android?
Google wrote an open implementation of an operating system and made code available to manufacturer. Samsung chose to use and modify it, wrapping it into an actual product that gets paid for.
When you sue over IP you either sue to stop it's use altogether via injunction, or sue for royalties. You can effectively only get the royalties from someone who is selling the IP without permission. So Samsung gets sued because they chose to sell MS's IP in Android, rather than rewriting Android to avoid MS's IP. The selling part is key because that's where the money is.
Google is in relatively gray area, phone manufacturer-wise, because they don't force anyone to use Android. Oracle seems to be the only folks exploring that right now, but their motivation is a little different because I think Oracle wants to kill the DalvikVM since it is a threat to the rest of Oracles JVM licensing business. Or if not kill it, explicitly make Dalvik Java compliant and heftily licensed, which is not a small change to Dalvik on it's own.
With today's consumer segment we have a different sort of lock-in:
When you buy an Apple computer or an Apple phone, the money you spend on apps may well exceed the cost of the device, and you'll never have the choice to use those apps on devices made by anyone else.
In contrast, if you buy software for your Dell running Windows or your Samsung running Android, you can move to a Lenovo running Windows or an HTC running Android and you get to retain your full investment in apps.
That's a strawman. I can't take that investment in Android apps to Rimm, Symbian, MeGo, WinPhone7, WinPhone8, iOS, WebOS, or any other platform. It's not just the manufacturer that matters, it's largely the platform and one is just as locked in as the other when you get to brass tacks.
That's a strawman. I can't take that investment in Android apps to Rimm, Symbian, MeGo, WinPhone7, WinPhone8, iOS, WebOS, or any other platform. It's not just the manufacturer that matters, it's largely the platform and one is just as locked in as the other when you get to brass tacks.
+1
My thoughts exactly. Freedom is not having a bigger jail cell.
Probably, but the original point still stands. One of the things that made Android such an attractive option for manufacturers was the low cost, without that advantage, it might start to get interesting for them to start looking at other mobile OS's. Especially now that the market is drowning in generic uninteresting Android phones, most manufacturers are not really making much money off of it, and Google is going to compete directly through Motorola (which probably means Motorola deviecs will have a competitive advantage).
One possibility is that we'll see more of what Amazon just did, which is to take Android and fork it into a locked down channel for the manufacturer's ecosystem. Saves having to build your own OS from scratch, but you get to boost your margins with content sales. The game console model, if you will.
Of course, Amazon is well situated for this strategy since they already have a lot of content at their disposal, but it doesn't seem out of the question that a big Android licensee might take a look around at the sea of barely distinguishable Android handsets, which are selling for very low profit, and decide that a more customized experience might be the way to go.
Especially as we move from the "everybody needs to get a smartphone" phase into the "everybody has a smartphone" phase. Once the market is fairly saturated, it's all about poaching customers from someone else. If "Android" currently still has a little glamour to it, as your first smartphone OS, that's shortly to end. When it does, just putting that little robot on your ads and hollering about the awesome specs isn't going to give you any market differentiation whatsoever.
Which means going beyond a few custom screens into a fully forked "unique" experience might look like a great strategy to get some specialness attached to your brand, while giving you an opportunity to lock in some content sales at the same time.
+1
My thoughts exactly. Freedom is not having a bigger jail cell.
+++ We have a winner!
Can someone please point out how Samsung is responsible for Google's patent infringements? What I just don't understand is how a customer of a product should be held liable for the infringement of the producer.
Although you already got one answer, here is another way to look at it. If this were not the case, there would be no protection for IP at all. Suppose that company A wanted to use company B's IP without having to pay for it. All they would have to do would be to set up shell company C to steal the IP, and then use C's infringing product without any liability.
Could Samsung potentially use this licensing deal to aid their case against Apple? I'd like to see Windows Phones in place of Androids, tbh. Depends how much the licensing dissuades OEMs, although Samsung are looking at Bada and HTC at webOS now (allegedly).
Nope, Microsoft's patents are mainly untested ones relating to how Linux works.
Microsoft sits on them, biding their time until someone makes it worth their while to come in waving a big stick.
The people of the world lose.
Nooooooooo!!!