Again with the imagined arguments. Where did I say Apple was being unfair? Where did I say anyone was being unfair? Where was I even complaining? You were the one that said I didn't understand FRAND at all and implying you did. So enlighten me.
Right here. You said:
"Assume you have a great idea that may change a market altogether, but to be a player at all you need IP that belongs to the industry pioneers. Without it you can't sell your product at all. Would it be FAIR for them to grant you a license without you reciprocating? If you deny them the improvements that wouldn't have been possible in the first place without their standards IP, you'd conceivably lock those companies who made your business possible out of their own market that they created in the first place. If you don't want them to have a chance to continue in their market, it's only FAIR they be compensated for their potential loss. Thus the FAIR in FRAND."
You are strongly implying that Apple's approach is unfair.
"Assume you have a great idea that may change a market altogether, but to be a player at all you need IP that belongs to the industry pioneers. Without it you can't sell your product at all. Would it be FAIR for them to grant you a license without you reciprocating? If you deny them the improvements that wouldn't have been possible in the first place without their standards IP, you'd conceivably lock those companies who made your business possible out of their own market that they created in the first place. If you don't want them to have a chance to continue in their market, it's only FAIR they be compensated for their potential loss. Thus the FAIR in FRAND."
You are strongly implying that Apple's approach is unfair.
I'm stating how FRAND license negotiations are normally approached in the industry according to articles I've read and that FAIR should apply to both parties. I can't stop you from singling out Apple tho it wasn't what I had in mind. I've linked articles for you and the forum before that state cross-licensing to be the normal path for many standards agreements. Surely you read them before commenting, so would I assume you've discounted what they've said and cross-license expectations would be an unusual request in your opinion?
"Other than" implies that the Apple Moto disagreement supports your guess in some way, I cant see how it does. I'm trying to get the same education that you are basing your educated guess on. Must be some valuable education if your unwilling to give it out for free.
I am guessing that those who hold patents on the tech that would be dropped - the various SIM cards, and holders, and makers, and interface chips, etc, are the ones who do not like this.
If I held the patent on vulcanizing rubber to make automobile tires - and every tire manufacturer in the world paid me royalties to use the process - and someone came along with an alternative that would allow all my royalty paying OEMs to stop sending me money - I sure would try to find a way to block that. I am not sure how similar that is here - but I suspect it is at least in part convincing other folks to let go of something that holding back progress (and they need convincing because it will affect an income stream) - and at least in part because it allows Apple more control and lower cost over the form and function of future devices.
"Other than" implies that the Apple Moto disagreement supports your guess in some way, I cant see how it does. I'm trying to get the same education that you are basing your educated guess on. Must be some valuable education if your unwilling to give it out for free.
You are misreading what I wrote. Other than Apple not being able to agree with Moto on an appropriate license, a fact, the rest of it was opinion.
You are misreading what I wrote. Other than Apple not being able to agree with Moto on an appropriate license, a fact, the rest of it was opinion.
I did misread that sentence. And no wonder, it's a mess. "Other than Apple and Moto not agreeing on appropriate recompense, of course my opinions are guesses". Your opinions and guesses don't appear to have anything to do with the Apple Moto deal. So why bring it up?
Bringing up the Apple Moto deal and your fosspatents non-cite seem to be red herrings. If your going to make a wild ass guess then just do that instead of claiming its some kind of educated guess.Or explain your education.
There is already a smaller sim card, it's called micro sim. I don't understand why Apple needs to come out with their own standard. This absolutly makes no sense to me, what is the difference between the micro sim format that is already released and working to Apples proposed nano sim that is just adding more confusion. I'm with Moto, Rim and Nokia on this one. If Apple was to say add storage to these sim cards or give them some sort of technical advantage I would be all over it but just shaving a mm off of the Micro and then calling it a whole new standard is retarded.
There are zero benifits for manufactures to use this new nano sim especially when Apple owns the patents, sure it's free for them to use today but what happens 5 years from now when the entire industry is using it.
Am I missing something here, it's not smaller then micro as you need a sled and even if you didn't the size difference is so small that there is no way it could make any difference at all.
I recall an episode of the British TOP GEAR automobile show where Jeremy Clarkson equated a SIM tray in the dash of one of the latest super cars as turning it into the world's most expensive cell phone. People are thinking the wrong way with SIMs. Not only can you transfer your phone to another network, you can pull the SIM from one device (your phone0 and put it into another (your car, for true hands-free calling while driving and keeping your cell number). Bluetooth schmootooth. The only catch is remembering to take it with you.
I travel a lot for work and I have many prepaid sim cards for the different countries I visit. I cannot imagine a world without that convienance. It takes me 1 minute to replace a sim card, no mess no complicated sign up process. Also there are a quite of few people who use the sim card from their iPhone to be used in their iPad. Not everyone can afford two seperate contracts. It's even a greater necessity when phone companys charge for tethering or hotspot.
All this talk about embedded sim cards and such will be a nightmare just like CDMA. I can't imagine there is any benefit with going with Apples Nano sim. It will bring about smaller devices, BS, it's all about who controlls the most patents with these companys so they can sue it each other later.
There is no need for another sim format we have the Micro format that should suffice and please don't take away my right to switch out sims. I don't want to register on some damn site everytime I need to change providers, I foresee a lot of customer service nightmares with that scenario.
Not everything Apple does is the best thing since sliced cheese. There is zero reason for this new format other then power and control.
You may now commence with the I am an idiot and the Nano sim will revolutionize the industry as we know it replys now.
Comments
Again with the imagined arguments. Where did I say Apple was being unfair? Where did I say anyone was being unfair? Where was I even complaining?
Right here. You said:
"Assume you have a great idea that may change a market altogether, but to be a player at all you need IP that belongs to the industry pioneers. Without it you can't sell your product at all. Would it be FAIR for them to grant you a license without you reciprocating? If you deny them the improvements that wouldn't have been possible in the first place without their standards IP, you'd conceivably lock those companies who made your business possible out of their own market that they created in the first place. If you don't want them to have a chance to continue in their market, it's only FAIR they be compensated for their potential loss. Thus the FAIR in FRAND."
You are strongly implying that Apple's approach is unfair.
Right here. You said:
"Assume you have a great idea that may change a market altogether, but to be a player at all you need IP that belongs to the industry pioneers. Without it you can't sell your product at all. Would it be FAIR for them to grant you a license without you reciprocating? If you deny them the improvements that wouldn't have been possible in the first place without their standards IP, you'd conceivably lock those companies who made your business possible out of their own market that they created in the first place. If you don't want them to have a chance to continue in their market, it's only FAIR they be compensated for their potential loss. Thus the FAIR in FRAND."
You are strongly implying that Apple's approach is unfair.
I'm stating how FRAND license negotiations are normally approached in the industry according to articles I've read and that FAIR should apply to both parties. I can't stop you from singling out Apple tho it wasn't what I had in mind. I've linked articles for you and the forum before that state cross-licensing to be the normal path for many standards agreements. Surely you read them before commenting, so would I assume you've discounted what they've said and cross-license expectations would be an unusual request in your opinion?
Isn't that what a guess is? If I had proof it wouldn't be just a guess would it?
FWIW, are all the Nortel 4G patents that Apple purchased a few months back FRAND-pledged?
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/07/03/...te-4g-patents/
You said other than Apple and Moto not agreeing on terms it was a guess. How does Apple and Moto not agreeing support your guess?
You said other than Apple and Moto not agreeing on terms it was a guess. How does Apple and Moto not agreeing support your guess?
Ummm. . . .
It's a guess?
Ummm. . . .
It's a guess?
"Other than" implies that the Apple Moto disagreement supports your guess in some way, I cant see how it does. I'm trying to get the same education that you are basing your educated guess on. Must be some valuable education if your unwilling to give it out for free.
If I held the patent on vulcanizing rubber to make automobile tires - and every tire manufacturer in the world paid me royalties to use the process - and someone came along with an alternative that would allow all my royalty paying OEMs to stop sending me money - I sure would try to find a way to block that. I am not sure how similar that is here - but I suspect it is at least in part convincing other folks to let go of something that holding back progress (and they need convincing because it will affect an income stream) - and at least in part because it allows Apple more control and lower cost over the form and function of future devices.
"...to rival mobile devices makers if they agree back the format as..."
"...to rival mobile devices makers if they agree to back the format as..."
...and then:
"...placing the company in a position of powered where it could..."
"...placing the company in a position of power where it could..."
I stopped reading.
"Other than" implies that the Apple Moto disagreement supports your guess in some way, I cant see how it does. I'm trying to get the same education that you are basing your educated guess on. Must be some valuable education if your unwilling to give it out for free.
You are misreading what I wrote. Other than Apple not being able to agree with Moto on an appropriate license, a fact, the rest of it was opinion.
You are misreading what I wrote. Other than Apple not being able to agree with Moto on an appropriate license, a fact, the rest of it was opinion.
I did misread that sentence. And no wonder, it's a mess. "Other than Apple and Moto not agreeing on appropriate recompense, of course my opinions are guesses". Your opinions and guesses don't appear to have anything to do with the Apple Moto deal. So why bring it up?
Bringing up the Apple Moto deal and your fosspatents non-cite seem to be red herrings. If your going to make a wild ass guess then just do that instead of claiming its some kind of educated guess.Or explain your education.
There are zero benifits for manufactures to use this new nano sim especially when Apple owns the patents, sure it's free for them to use today but what happens 5 years from now when the entire industry is using it.
Am I missing something here, it's not smaller then micro as you need a sled and even if you didn't the size difference is so small that there is no way it could make any difference at all.
I recall an episode of the British TOP GEAR automobile show where Jeremy Clarkson equated a SIM tray in the dash of one of the latest super cars as turning it into the world's most expensive cell phone. People are thinking the wrong way with SIMs. Not only can you transfer your phone to another network, you can pull the SIM from one device (your phone0 and put it into another (your car, for true hands-free calling while driving and keeping your cell number). Bluetooth schmootooth. The only catch is remembering to take it with you.
I travel a lot for work and I have many prepaid sim cards for the different countries I visit. I cannot imagine a world without that convienance. It takes me 1 minute to replace a sim card, no mess no complicated sign up process. Also there are a quite of few people who use the sim card from their iPhone to be used in their iPad. Not everyone can afford two seperate contracts. It's even a greater necessity when phone companys charge for tethering or hotspot.
All this talk about embedded sim cards and such will be a nightmare just like CDMA. I can't imagine there is any benefit with going with Apples Nano sim. It will bring about smaller devices, BS, it's all about who controlls the most patents with these companys so they can sue it each other later.
There is no need for another sim format we have the Micro format that should suffice and please don't take away my right to switch out sims. I don't want to register on some damn site everytime I need to change providers, I foresee a lot of customer service nightmares with that scenario.
Not everything Apple does is the best thing since sliced cheese. There is zero reason for this new format other then power and control.
You may now commence with the I am an idiot and the Nano sim will revolutionize the industry as we know it replys now.