The argument could be made that since they are essential to any company wanting to enter the smartphone market that they're more valuable than ones that can perhaps easily be engineered around.
The argument could be made that standards-essential patents are only valuable because they were declared part of a standard.
Reasonable licensing terms protect a company from antitrust concerns, as by holding a standards essential patent they are in effect controlling the gateway to an entire industry. Whether it makes sense to your or not is beside the point.
Patented technologies are used in standards when the owner of the patent is willing to license the technology on fair terms. If using a technology as part of a standard would mean that the owner could put the squeeze on anyone entering a market, that technology would not be used as part of the standard. Apple technologies were used as part of the MP4 standard, as I recall, and we don't see lawsuits or hear a lot of bitching and moaning about Apple being unfair with it.
You heard lot of bitching and moaning about Qualcomm's 5% (some claimed they were wanting upwards of 7%) standards-essential royalties on the selling price of every 3G CDMA phone not all that long ago, and that was just Qualcomm. Several other companies were also taking a cut, including Moto at their traditional 2.25%. Qualcomm was just the biggest pig.
The argument could be made that standards-essential patents are only valuable because they were declared part of a standard.
Reasonable licensing terms protect a company from antitrust concerns, as by holding a standards essential patent they are in effect controlling the gateway to an entire industry. Whether it makes sense to your or not is beside the point.
So how much specifically are they allowed to charge on a percentage basis? What is the upper limit? Is Qualcomm's current 3.25% illegal? If not, how high can they go legally?
If Steve were alive he would bury Samsux. Samsux can't come up with original designs of their own so they simply ape whatever creations Apple comes up with. I am tired of Samsux.
I have to ask myself... how much is Apple’s innovation driving what Samsung now sells? And how much is Samsung innovation driving what Apple now sells?
If Samsung had never existed, what would the iPad and iPhone be like today? (Pretty similar.)
If Apple had never existed, what would Samsung’s products be like today?
Or... what if both companies existed, and Samsung did cool and innovative things of their own without such blatant copying of Apple? Microsoft has done that, and many tablet/phone designs look nothing like Apple’s. It CAN be done, and then Samsung would be bringing us real choice in the market. “Real Apple” vs. “attempted rip-off Apple” isn’t the kind of choice or “freedom” I value.
I have to ask myself... how much is Apple?s innovation driving what Samsung now sells? And how much is Samsung innovation driving what Apple now sells?
If Samsung had never existed, what would the iPad and iPhone be like today? (Pretty similar.)
If Apple had never existed, what would Samsung?s products be like today?
Or... what if both companies existed, and Samsung did cool and innovative things of their own without such blatant copying of Apple? Microsoft has done that, and many tablet/phone designs look nothing like Apple?s. It CAN be done, and then Samsung would be bringing us real choice in the market. ?Real Apple? vs. ?attempted rip-off Apple? isn?t the kind of choice or ?freedom? I value.
I give you, the Samsung Note, bringing the stylus back to touch screens in case we're nostalgic for the 90's.
So how much specifically are they allowed to charge on a percentage basis? What is the upper limit? Is Qualcomm's current 3.25% illegal? If not, how high can they go legally?
Keep in mind, you're quoting *published rates* which are often the initial offer made; rates are then negotiated down, offset with other standards essential patents, etc. Typically, a player like Apple would make an offer and go from there.
Courts are the ones that decide what is reasonable if no agreement can be reached, especially when other motives are likely at play, like Moto and Samsung possibly wanting to hurt a huge rival.
Keep in mind, you're quoting *published rates* which are often the initial offer made; rates are then negotiated down, offset with other standards essential patents, etc. Typically, a player like Apple would make an offer and go from there.
If you've got nothing you're willing to trade, why should you get a better rate than the published one? Isn't FRAND licensing meant to avoid just that issue of some getting a better rate (or a higher one) simply because of who they are?
I have to ask myself... how much is Apple’s innovation driving what Samsung now sells? And how much is Samsung innovation driving what Apple now sells?
If Samsung had never existed, what would the iPad and iPhone be like today? (Pretty similar.)
If Apple had never existed, what would Samsung’s products be like today?
Or... what if both companies existed, and Samsung did cool and innovative things of their own without such blatant copying of Apple? Microsoft has done that, and many tablet/phone designs look nothing like Apple’s. It CAN be done, and then Samsung would be bringing us real choice in the market. “Real Apple” vs. “attempted rip-off Apple” isn’t the kind of choice or “freedom” I value.
Yeah like that blatant copy Samsung made with the phone projector. Everyone knows they got that from the iphone that had the projector in it.
And the Super AMOLED plus display....taken straight from the iphone
Front facing camera....never existed before iphone.
Pressure sensitive stylus....iphone did it
Notification drop down menu.....STOLEN from the iphone
Multitasking.....now this really gets me ANGRY the way Samsung stole this from the iphone which HAD IT FIRST.
Samsung...so annoying. Apple puts 4g in their phones, here comes samsung to copy them. Apple puts face unlock in their phones, here comes samsung to copy them. Everyone knows Samsung phones had no voice commands before siri came on the scene.
I mean, WHEN WILL IT STOP!! I hope their Galaxy beam fails. Their projector cant measure up to the quality of the one in the iphone.
Innovation creates jobs, advances technology and makes life better for everyone. Apple has a long history of inovation. Samsung can't innovate so they rip off Apple's products and litigate. Samsung is trying to destroy Apple. Just remember that the next time you out shopping.
Innovation creates jobs, advances technology and makes life better for everyone. Apple has a long history of inovation. Samsung can't innovate so they rip off Apple's products and litigate. Samsung is trying to destroy Apple. Just remember that the next time you out shopping.
Actually, Samsung just created a tonload of jobs in austin texas. AMERICAN JOBS. They didn't go build another factory in China like I'm willing to bet Apple would have loved them to do.
And when you hear of a company that is NOT out to destroy its competitor, let me know.
Not to mention Samsung creates thousands of jobs worldwide through their construction business. They are actually building a plant at the refinery that I work at right now. Using LOCAL labor. Don't see Apple in my country, not even a non-unionised apple store.
And what's this about not innovating. Patents granted to apple last year....app 700
Patents granted to Samsung last year.....app 4500
And lets not forget how many ESSENTIAL patents Samsung owns meaning that had it not been for Samsung INNOVATION, would we have been as far advanced in terms of phone capability, voice capability, 2g, 3g, 4g as we are? Samsung did tons of reasearch and innovation to improve the way mobile phones operate on networks and the way data is transferred. Apple on the other hand made it possible to slide a box to unlock your screen....which is great, but c'mon. Lets not make it look like Samsung does nothing.
I have to ask myself... how much is Apple’s innovation driving what Samsung now sells? And how much is Samsung innovation driving what Apple now sells?
Samsung has been in the mobile phone business for at least a full decade longer than Apple, probably not much. Apple's true innovation is in *marketing* and *packaging*.
Quote:
If Samsung had never existed, what would the iPad and iPhone be like today? (Pretty similar.)
Not sure, but without LG Prada? Nah.
Quote:
If Apple had never existed, what would Samsung’s products be like today?
Or... what if both companies existed, and Samsung did cool and innovative things of their own without such blatant copying of Apple? Microsoft has done that, and many tablet/phone designs look nothing like Apple’s. It CAN be done, and then Samsung would be bringing us real choice in the market. “Real Apple” vs. “attempted rip-off Apple” isn’t the kind of choice or “freedom” I value.
Probably like BlackBerry. Samsung actually had a smartphone called BlackJack a couple of years back (and, of course, RIM sued). If LG Prada had succeeded, Samsung would have designed phones around Prada.
The way I see it, the problem isn't so much that Samsung isn't innovative - Samsung is quite well known for technology (likewise its huge patent portfolio, 100,000+ worldwide or 30,000+ US alone) and industrial designs - it's just that Samsung just doesn't know how to market new products. Samsung reminds me of early South Korean mp3 player companies that languished in the US market like iRiver.
I think that's also why, unlike Apple's focused approach, Samsung takes a wide shot-gun approach to everything. I think that explains why there are no fewer than 12 variations of Samsung Galaxy in the market now. Let's throw everything at it, and see what sticks.
Samsung's business strategy is to copy Apple and after being sued, litigate down to what the courts with accept. it's a money maker if you don't loose Apple's $8 billion dollar screen business and customers don't boycott Samsung's products, not to mention being branded a cheap copy machine.
Samsung feels justified because Apple will bury their TV business when the Apple large screen TVs reach the market. But that rationale doesn't fly in the courts.
Samsung's business strategy is to copy Apple and after being sued, litigate down to what the courts with accept. it's a money maker if you don't loose Apple's $8 billion dollar screen business and customers don't boycott Samsung's products, not to mention being branded a cheap copy machine.
Samsung feels justified because Apple will bury their TV business when the Apple large screen TVs reach the market. But that rationale doesn't fly in the courts.
Bye Bye Samsuck.
eh? Apple hasn't won a single lawsuit against Samsung or, to be precise, Samsung's hardware design. The only ones held up in the courts in Dusseldorf and Australia are all based on Android specific features (eg, photo gallery, scrolling, etc).
Unfortunately Samsung is the fastest growing / largest smartphone maker in the world. You can't possibly boycott Samsung unless you are willing to boycott all electronic products from Apple, Dell, HP, Verizon, Sony, etc.. Samsung like it or not is everywhere. Your iPhone is already 25% Samsung (component and price wise).
Comments
The argument could be made that since they are essential to any company wanting to enter the smartphone market that they're more valuable than ones that can perhaps easily be engineered around.
The argument could be made that standards-essential patents are only valuable because they were declared part of a standard.
Reasonable licensing terms protect a company from antitrust concerns, as by holding a standards essential patent they are in effect controlling the gateway to an entire industry. Whether it makes sense to your or not is beside the point.
Patented technologies are used in standards when the owner of the patent is willing to license the technology on fair terms. If using a technology as part of a standard would mean that the owner could put the squeeze on anyone entering a market, that technology would not be used as part of the standard. Apple technologies were used as part of the MP4 standard, as I recall, and we don't see lawsuits or hear a lot of bitching and moaning about Apple being unfair with it.
You heard lot of bitching and moaning about Qualcomm's 5% (some claimed they were wanting upwards of 7%) standards-essential royalties on the selling price of every 3G CDMA phone not all that long ago, and that was just Qualcomm. Several other companies were also taking a cut, including Moto at their traditional 2.25%. Qualcomm was just the biggest pig.
http://www.sramanamitra.com/2007/05/...comm-addendum/
This simply proves the point I made earlier that requirements vary from standard to standard.
The argument could be made that standards-essential patents are only valuable because they were declared part of a standard.
Reasonable licensing terms protect a company from antitrust concerns, as by holding a standards essential patent they are in effect controlling the gateway to an entire industry. Whether it makes sense to your or not is beside the point.
So how much specifically are they allowed to charge on a percentage basis? What is the upper limit? Is Qualcomm's current 3.25% illegal? If not, how high can they go legally?
i wonder if apple will regret starting this patent war after all is said and done.
nope.
If Samsung had never existed, what would the iPad and iPhone be like today? (Pretty similar.)
If Apple had never existed, what would Samsung’s products be like today?
Or... what if both companies existed, and Samsung did cool and innovative things of their own without such blatant copying of Apple? Microsoft has done that, and many tablet/phone designs look nothing like Apple’s. It CAN be done, and then Samsung would be bringing us real choice in the market. “Real Apple” vs. “attempted rip-off Apple” isn’t the kind of choice or “freedom” I value.
I have to ask myself... how much is Apple?s innovation driving what Samsung now sells? And how much is Samsung innovation driving what Apple now sells?
If Samsung had never existed, what would the iPad and iPhone be like today? (Pretty similar.)
If Apple had never existed, what would Samsung?s products be like today?
Or... what if both companies existed, and Samsung did cool and innovative things of their own without such blatant copying of Apple? Microsoft has done that, and many tablet/phone designs look nothing like Apple?s. It CAN be done, and then Samsung would be bringing us real choice in the market. ?Real Apple? vs. ?attempted rip-off Apple? isn?t the kind of choice or ?freedom? I value.
I give you, the Samsung Note, bringing the stylus back to touch screens in case we're nostalgic for the 90's.
So how much specifically are they allowed to charge on a percentage basis? What is the upper limit? Is Qualcomm's current 3.25% illegal? If not, how high can they go legally?
Keep in mind, you're quoting *published rates* which are often the initial offer made; rates are then negotiated down, offset with other standards essential patents, etc. Typically, a player like Apple would make an offer and go from there.
Courts are the ones that decide what is reasonable if no agreement can be reached, especially when other motives are likely at play, like Moto and Samsung possibly wanting to hurt a huge rival.
Keep in mind, you're quoting *published rates* which are often the initial offer made; rates are then negotiated down, offset with other standards essential patents, etc. Typically, a player like Apple would make an offer and go from there.
If you've got nothing you're willing to trade, why should you get a better rate than the published one? Isn't FRAND licensing meant to avoid just that issue of some getting a better rate (or a higher one) simply because of who they are?
I have to ask myself... how much is Apple’s innovation driving what Samsung now sells? And how much is Samsung innovation driving what Apple now sells?
If Samsung had never existed, what would the iPad and iPhone be like today? (Pretty similar.)
If Apple had never existed, what would Samsung’s products be like today?
Or... what if both companies existed, and Samsung did cool and innovative things of their own without such blatant copying of Apple? Microsoft has done that, and many tablet/phone designs look nothing like Apple’s. It CAN be done, and then Samsung would be bringing us real choice in the market. “Real Apple” vs. “attempted rip-off Apple” isn’t the kind of choice or “freedom” I value.
Yeah like that blatant copy Samsung made with the phone projector. Everyone knows they got that from the iphone that had the projector in it.
And the Super AMOLED plus display....taken straight from the iphone
Front facing camera....never existed before iphone.
Pressure sensitive stylus....iphone did it
Notification drop down menu.....STOLEN from the iphone
Multitasking.....now this really gets me ANGRY the way Samsung stole this from the iphone which HAD IT FIRST.
Samsung...so annoying. Apple puts 4g in their phones, here comes samsung to copy them. Apple puts face unlock in their phones, here comes samsung to copy them. Everyone knows Samsung phones had no voice commands before siri came on the scene.
I mean, WHEN WILL IT STOP!! I hope their Galaxy beam fails. Their projector cant measure up to the quality of the one in the iphone.
post
Actually, I'm 100% certain you're not. I just wanted to finally get to use this image.
Innovation creates jobs, advances technology and makes life better for everyone. Apple has a long history of inovation. Samsung can't innovate so they rip off Apple's products and litigate. Samsung is trying to destroy Apple. Just remember that the next time you out shopping.
Actually, Samsung just created a tonload of jobs in austin texas. AMERICAN JOBS. They didn't go build another factory in China like I'm willing to bet Apple would have loved them to do.
And when you hear of a company that is NOT out to destroy its competitor, let me know.
Not to mention Samsung creates thousands of jobs worldwide through their construction business. They are actually building a plant at the refinery that I work at right now. Using LOCAL labor. Don't see Apple in my country, not even a non-unionised apple store.
And what's this about not innovating. Patents granted to apple last year....app 700
Patents granted to Samsung last year.....app 4500
And lets not forget how many ESSENTIAL patents Samsung owns meaning that had it not been for Samsung INNOVATION, would we have been as far advanced in terms of phone capability, voice capability, 2g, 3g, 4g as we are? Samsung did tons of reasearch and innovation to improve the way mobile phones operate on networks and the way data is transferred. Apple on the other hand made it possible to slide a box to unlock your screen....which is great, but c'mon. Lets not make it look like Samsung does nothing.
Sooooo, if Samsung is so great why are they ripping off Apple's designs?
Don't try to reason with him; he's a, how you say, troll.
Sooooo, if Samsung is so great why are they ripping off Apple's designs?
There is a difference between copying someone versus being competitive.
Copying someone = doing the EXACT same thing your competitor is doing with NOTHING new.
Competition = giving SIMILAR form factor but with ADDITIONAL features.
You wouldnt put a document in a copier and expect to get something "similar" to it now would you? You would want an EXACT copy of it no?
Just like the copier example, put the iPad onto a copy machine and you would NOT get the Galaxy Tab as its output.
So DONT call the Galaxy Tab a "copy".
I have to ask myself... how much is Apple’s innovation driving what Samsung now sells? And how much is Samsung innovation driving what Apple now sells?
Samsung has been in the mobile phone business for at least a full decade longer than Apple, probably not much. Apple's true innovation is in *marketing* and *packaging*.
If Samsung had never existed, what would the iPad and iPhone be like today? (Pretty similar.)
Not sure, but without LG Prada? Nah.
If Apple had never existed, what would Samsung’s products be like today?
Or... what if both companies existed, and Samsung did cool and innovative things of their own without such blatant copying of Apple? Microsoft has done that, and many tablet/phone designs look nothing like Apple’s. It CAN be done, and then Samsung would be bringing us real choice in the market. “Real Apple” vs. “attempted rip-off Apple” isn’t the kind of choice or “freedom” I value.
Probably like BlackBerry. Samsung actually had a smartphone called BlackJack a couple of years back (and, of course, RIM sued). If LG Prada had succeeded, Samsung would have designed phones around Prada.
The way I see it, the problem isn't so much that Samsung isn't innovative - Samsung is quite well known for technology (likewise its huge patent portfolio, 100,000+ worldwide or 30,000+ US alone) and industrial designs - it's just that Samsung just doesn't know how to market new products. Samsung reminds me of early South Korean mp3 player companies that languished in the US market like iRiver.
I think that's also why, unlike Apple's focused approach, Samsung takes a wide shot-gun approach to everything. I think that explains why there are no fewer than 12 variations of Samsung Galaxy in the market now. Let's throw everything at it, and see what sticks.
$15 on a $600 dollar phone is 2.5%.
Haven't we decided that is way too high?
Funny that with all your bloviating against Apple, you still don't know the difference between standards-essential patents and normal patents.
Samsung feels justified because Apple will bury their TV business when the Apple large screen TVs reach the market. But that rationale doesn't fly in the courts.
Bye Bye Samsuck.
Samsung's business strategy is to copy Apple and after being sued, litigate down to what the courts with accept. it's a money maker if you don't loose Apple's $8 billion dollar screen business and customers don't boycott Samsung's products, not to mention being branded a cheap copy machine.
Samsung feels justified because Apple will bury their TV business when the Apple large screen TVs reach the market. But that rationale doesn't fly in the courts.
Bye Bye Samsuck.
eh? Apple hasn't won a single lawsuit against Samsung or, to be precise, Samsung's hardware design. The only ones held up in the courts in Dusseldorf and Australia are all based on Android specific features (eg, photo gallery, scrolling, etc).
Unfortunately Samsung is the fastest growing / largest smartphone maker in the world. You can't possibly boycott Samsung unless you are willing to boycott all electronic products from Apple, Dell, HP, Verizon, Sony, etc.. Samsung like it or not is everywhere. Your iPhone is already 25% Samsung (component and price wise).