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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by John F.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I read the same thing, but I'll leave it to Solipsism to find it.
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.
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/
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.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeyestar
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...
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pytho
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.
Yeah, because I never do research or post links to sources¡ ????
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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?
I hope they sue them. I won't be suprised when they do. Google needs to go down.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
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.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
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.
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.