250 million total for 2010 would amount to 20% of what apple spent on R&D that year, across all its divisions and its entire product lineup. The iphone is rumored to have cost 150 million to develop, so they're asking for more money per year than the iphone cost in total. Who could call that a fair price? Does apple really expect samsung to fund all of apple's R&D on phones and tablets? These are not license terms, these are punishment terms. Besides, $30 on products like the galaxy ace basically means samsung cannot sell into that market. Again, those are punishment terms, forcing samsung to exit the budget smartphone market outright.
Apple doesn't spend much on its R&D by the way, they're the lowest in the industry. For example, Samsung spends 6.5% of their revenue on R&D while apple spends 2.2%. Samsung spends more on R&D than apple, way more, but they didn't do it in a smart way. Samsung outsourced their mobile R&D to india, apple cultivated a smart core team in california. This lawsuit is another reminder why outsourcing R&D is bad for business.
So, where do you fall? Should patent licensing cost be determined based on the cost of innovation, or based on the cost of the resulting product? I think it should be the first, in which case apple shouldn't have been asking for more than $5 per device.
I wasn't stating any opinion. The comment came from an Apple director who said he knew Apple held patents essential for standards and had no interest in licensing them. He didn't go on to explain further as far as I know. Guessing that he only meant IP for developing new standards might be correct, but without further clarification it's also possible (tho less likely) he meant they have IP they consider essential to an existing standard that they don't wish to share either.
Perhaps they'll get a followup question at some point. If I didn't address yours you'll need to be a little clearer.
Something doesn't sound right. So someone says they have patents that need to be FRAND but are refusing to makes FRAND? So they are breaking the law?
I know. You contradict yourself between posts, hence my comment. In one you write, "The comment came from an Apple director [Teksler] who said he knew Apple held patents essential for standards and had no interest in licensing them." and in the next you write, "According to Teksler, Apple is willing to license both standards-essential IP and general computing patents."
I know. You contradict yourself between posts, hence my comment. In one you write, "The comment came from an Apple director [Teksler] who said he knew Apple held patents essential for standards and had no interest in licensing them." and in the next you write, "According to Teksler, Apple is willing to license both standards-essential IP and general computing patents."
Geesh. . .
Perhaps because better and more accurately reported information was found in the meantime? Hardly a contradiction since I quoted the AI article for the first post
Didn't he say they didn't like licensing them, anyway the reality is Apple's membership of and contribution of patents to various standards bodies e.g.. MPEG-LA shows that Apple has no problems with licensing SEP's.
Apple has one patent in h.264. Also Apple is members of several groups and has contributed nothing to them. Blu-ray is a prime example.
Besides, $30 on products like the galaxy ace basically means samsung cannot sell into that market. Again, those are punishment terms, forcing samsung to exit the budget smartphone market outright.
They could remove the disputed features from their devices, couldn't they and then they wouldn't have to pay anything.
They could remove the disputed features from their devices, couldn't they and then they wouldn't have to pay anything.
I guess you didn't think of that, did you?
Actually, I think samsung's "leadership" were really genuine idiots for getting themselves into this situation. They were warned time and time again, in-house and by apple, to visually distinguish their products. They chose not to. They'll probably get hammered by the jury over it.
But ... I still believe apple's "licensing terms" are more like damages claims. It's quite possible that samsung will come off owing less if the court orders them to pay damages than if they had settled for apple's licensing terms.
Comments
250 million total for 2010 would amount to 20% of what apple spent on R&D that year, across all its divisions and its entire product lineup. The iphone is rumored to have cost 150 million to develop, so they're asking for more money per year than the iphone cost in total. Who could call that a fair price? Does apple really expect samsung to fund all of apple's R&D on phones and tablets? These are not license terms, these are punishment terms. Besides, $30 on products like the galaxy ace basically means samsung cannot sell into that market. Again, those are punishment terms, forcing samsung to exit the budget smartphone market outright.
Apple doesn't spend much on its R&D by the way, they're the lowest in the industry. For example, Samsung spends 6.5% of their revenue on R&D while apple spends 2.2%. Samsung spends more on R&D than apple, way more, but they didn't do it in a smart way. Samsung outsourced their mobile R&D to india, apple cultivated a smart core team in california. This lawsuit is another reminder why outsourcing R&D is bad for business.
So, where do you fall? Should patent licensing cost be determined based on the cost of innovation, or based on the cost of the resulting product? I think it should be the first, in which case apple shouldn't have been asking for more than $5 per device.
Something doesn't sound right. So someone says they have patents that need to be FRAND but are refusing to makes FRAND? So they are breaking the law?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Something doesn't sound right. So someone says they have patents that need to be FRAND but are refusing to makes FRAND? So they are breaking the law?
See post 60
I know. You contradict yourself between posts, hence my comment. In one you write, "The comment came from an Apple director [Teksler] who said he knew Apple held patents essential for standards and had no interest in licensing them." and in the next you write, "According to Teksler, Apple is willing to license both standards-essential IP and general computing patents."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I know. You contradict yourself between posts, hence my comment. In one you write, "The comment came from an Apple director [Teksler] who said he knew Apple held patents essential for standards and had no interest in licensing them." and in the next you write, "According to Teksler, Apple is willing to license both standards-essential IP and general computing patents."
Geesh. . .
Perhaps because better and more accurately reported information was found in the meantime? Hardly a contradiction since I quoted the AI article for the first post
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/08/11/apple_warned_samsung_of_possible_patent_infringement_in_2010_presentation.html
and linked much more accurate reporting for the later clarifying post.
http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4392191/Slides--Inside-Apple--Samsung-patent-talks
Apple has one patent in h.264. Also Apple is members of several groups and has contributed nothing to them. Blu-ray is a prime example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsebrech
Besides, $30 on products like the galaxy ace basically means samsung cannot sell into that market. Again, those are punishment terms, forcing samsung to exit the budget smartphone market outright.
They could remove the disputed features from their devices, couldn't they and then they wouldn't have to pay anything.
I guess you didn't think of that, did you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
They could remove the disputed features from their devices, couldn't they and then they wouldn't have to pay anything.
I guess you didn't think of that, did you?
Actually, I think samsung's "leadership" were really genuine idiots for getting themselves into this situation. They were warned time and time again, in-house and by apple, to visually distinguish their products. They chose not to. They'll probably get hammered by the jury over it.
But ... I still believe apple's "licensing terms" are more like damages claims. It's quite possible that samsung will come off owing less if the court orders them to pay damages than if they had settled for apple's licensing terms.