Apple appears to have played a blinder game of 'good timing'. It's all coming together - Motorola and Samsung being investigated over possible FRAND abuse on two continents, forcing Moto into a corner in the German courts where they have to accept Apple's licensing offer and Samsung's failure to assert infringement of it's SEPs.
Will be interesting to see what the court determines in the way of royalties but I'm willing to bet my cat that it's nowhere near 2.5% of the device's value.
You are missing something. It's a starting point for negotiation. Typically things such as cross licensing bring it down, but the 2.5% offer is open to anyone. The point is that it doesn't choke inexpensive devices and helps promote adoption. in countries where phones are not subsidized, the entire population cannot responsibly buy a $750 phone.
Perhaps I am missing something, but I read it that both Samsung and Appl would allow the court to set the licensing fee level. Not quite sure what the 2.5% rate being 'open to everyone' means other than picking a number out of a hat. My point was that it will be difficult to get payments of 2.5% of the device cost from Apple, when the courts have just recognised that a defacto license was granted via Qualcomm and Intel for the [I]component[/I] containing the SEP IP.
Perhaps I am missing something, but I read it that both Samsung and Appl would allow the court to set the licensing fee level. Not quite sure what the 2.5% rate being 'open to everyone' means other than picking a number out of a hat. My point was that it will be difficult to get payments of 2.5% of the device cost from Apple, when the courts have just recognised that a defacto license was granted via Qualcomm and Intel for the component containing the SEP IP.
I'd prefer not to look up all of the references again. There was contention over Qualcomm's handling of licensing fee collections. I don't know if their agreement had any termination clause relevant to litigation from any of Qualcomm's customers against Samsung. This is possible. Apple includes similar stuff in their own licensing agreements. The 2.5% thing is a standard offer. It's basically a worst case scenario. They've shown this as a starting point for others who generally negotiate from that point via cross licensing. None of this stuff is really as clear cut as you want to make it. If it was simple, contracts and documents would not span many pages.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frac
r? the OP
Apple appears to have played a blinder game of 'good timing'. It's all coming together - Motorola and Samsung being investigated over possible FRAND abuse on two continents, forcing Moto into a corner in the German courts where they have to accept Apple's licensing offer and Samsung's failure to assert infringement of it's SEPs.
Will be interesting to see what the court determines in the way of royalties but I'm willing to bet my cat that it's nowhere near 2.5% of the device's value.
You are missing something. It's a starting point for negotiation. Typically things such as cross licensing bring it down, but the 2.5% offer is open to anyone. The point is that it doesn't choke inexpensive devices and helps promote adoption. in countries where phones are not subsidized, the entire population cannot responsibly buy a $750 phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techstalker
I have no problem about google serving me relevant adds in order to fund the free products I use.
I think you forget stealing, lying etc. but if it makes you feel good..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frac
Perhaps I am missing something, but I read it that both Samsung and Appl would allow the court to set the licensing fee level. Not quite sure what the 2.5% rate being 'open to everyone' means other than picking a number out of a hat. My point was that it will be difficult to get payments of 2.5% of the device cost from Apple, when the courts have just recognised that a defacto license was granted via Qualcomm and Intel for the component containing the SEP IP.
I'd prefer not to look up all of the references again. There was contention over Qualcomm's handling of licensing fee collections. I don't know if their agreement had any termination clause relevant to litigation from any of Qualcomm's customers against Samsung. This is possible. Apple includes similar stuff in their own licensing agreements. The 2.5% thing is a standard offer. It's basically a worst case scenario. They've shown this as a starting point for others who generally negotiate from that point via cross licensing. None of this stuff is really as clear cut as you want to make it. If it was simple, contracts and documents would not span many pages.