Yea, right. Perhaps that was the deal Apple made with Microsoft. Google, however, mostly only owns standard essential patents that it has to license to Apple. As seen by the Samsung's lawsuit, Apple's patents are far more valuable. If this were to happen, Google would pay something.
That's not necessarily true. The default rate offering may be much higher than Apple would like, and really we don't even know what patents each company wishes to use. It's just too little information to really form a solid conclusion.
Talented as jobs was at CEO, I'm glad he's dead as his thermonuclear war against android was unrealistic. Hopefully cook is a lot more level headed in dealing with such issues.
You think a patent lawsuit is a valid reason for being pleased someone is dead? So if I wanted to throw the legal system at whoever stole my car last year, would you be glad to see me dead? I guess so. And that makes you some kind of psychopath.
Doesn't matter in the slightest. Apple has all the right in the world to tear apart thieves of intellectual property.
Perhaps, but is it the best course of action?
If Apple went the Microsoft route and license their patents to Samsung... ok, so Samsung refused at $30/handset. Say Apple offers it at $1 per patent, so $3 for all 3 utility patents, an offer Samsung would be retarded to refuse. Well Samsung sells 30ish million smartphones per quarter, so that's 90M back to Apple every quarter. In less than 3 years they would've made that 1Billion they just won, AND have lucuative contracts going forward, AND not have nearly as much legal expenses.
In addition, They wouldn't be actively trying to move away from Samsung and end up sourcing subpar LG screens for their iPads, or be flat out refused an exclusive agreement with TSMC.
Plus without the bad blood between Google and Apple, they wouldn't have to dedicate resources to developing their own mapping software, and SIRI would be much improved if it had better integration with Google search, and access to other Google databases.
Of course it hasn't. Of course.
Of course:
Australia: Injunction against the tab has been overturned
Netherlands: Apple loses against tab on appeal
UK: Apple lost and has to publically apologize to Samsung (stayed, as noted)
Germany: Apple wins aganist the tab, but has its slide to unlock claim thrown out, and is in danger of having its bouceback patent invalidated
South Korea: Tie I think? They both infringe, don't know what that really means yet
If Apple went the Microsoft route and license their patents to Samsung... ok, so Samsung refused at $30/handset. Say Apple offers it at $1 per patent, so $3 for all 3 utility patents, an offer Samsung would be retarded to refuse. Well Samsung sells 30ish million smartphones per quarter, so that's 90M back to Apple every quarter. In less than 3 years they would've made that 1Billion they just won, AND have lucuative contracts going forward, AND not have nearly as much legal expenses.
Guess who offered to license. Guess who turned them down and stole the IP anyway.
SIRI would be much improved if it had better integration with Google search, and access to other Google databases.
I doubt that. Access to Google databases is something many people would be against, even without Android. Google's not too big for their britches, but they're growing eyes out the wazoo.
Of course:
Australia: Injunction against the tab has been overturned
Netherlands: Apple loses against tab on appeal
UK: Apple lost and has to publically apologize to Samsung (stayed, as noted)
Germany: Apple wins aganist the tab, but has its slide to unlock claim thrown out, and is in danger of having its bouceback patent invalidated
South Korea: Tie I think? They both infringe, don't know the complete outcome yet
Did I miss anything?
Yeah, the point. They won in the US. I don't meant to sound exceptionalistic or isolationist when I say that, but they got the big one and they got it good. It's the first step to getting the other companies too scared to continue business with Android, at least in the US. And that's where it matters.
If Apple went the Microsoft route and license their patents to Samsung... ok, so Samsung refused at $30/handset. Say Apple offers it at $1 per patent, so $3 for all 3 utility patents, an offer Samsung would be retarded to refuse. Well Samsung sells 30ish million smartphones per quarter, so that's 90M back to Apple every quarter. In less than 3 years they would've made that 1Billion they just won, AND have lucuative contracts going forward, AND not have nearly as much legal expenses.
Now that Samsung has been found guilty, it is a lot easier for Apple to go for triple damages, suddenly getting THAT money back over nine years of licensing doesn't look so good.
I disagree. I see the potential gains of a good relationship with Samsung and Google as much more rewarding than a desire for revenge.
Guess who offered to license. Guess who turned them down and stole the IP anyway.
At the price Apple was offering; I'm saying its still better at $1 per than to litigate.
I doubt that. Access to Google databases is something many people would be against, even without Android. Google's not too big for their britches, but they're growing eyes out the wazoo.
lol. Your language is colorful as always. Have it opt in then. I think you overestimate the amount of people actually concerned about their privacy. Have you looked at what people post to facebook lately?
That said, I've been using Google services (search, primary e-mail, maps) since 2004. I've had no issues with privacy.
Yeah, the point. They won in the US. I don't meant to sound exceptionalistic or isolationist when I say that, but they got the big one and they got it good. It's the first step to getting the other companies too scared to continue business with Android, at least in the US. And that's where it matters.
I'm sorry, but while the US is the most visible market, globally, its not the end all be all of everything. China alone is approaching (or has surpassed) the US' size. Add that to Europe, Japan and the rest of Asia, and I don't view the US market as that important. EU, for the most part has rejected Apple's claims. Asia remains to be seen.
edit: and Japan just ruled against Apple as well, another large market.
Now that Samsung has been found guilty, it is a lot easier for Apple to go for triple damages, suddenly getting THAT money back over nine years of licensing doesn't look so good.
Based on what I've read about the case, it seems like triple damages are unlikely.
and keep in mind my numbers were low, only included the 3 utility patents, and only for Samsung, just to show how much potential there is in terms of licensing.
"Having a phone conversation" and "ongoing discussions" are extremely vague phrases. You could pretty much let your imagination run wild on the subject. The topic of the call could be anything from "Eric, this is your last warning" to "How are the kids?" (if Schimdt has kids) and everything in between. I know the rumor-mill is working overtime recently, but really? Who knows, maybe Tim found Eric's keys in the boardroom or something. Hardly worth reporting unless there is something a little more descriptive. On the other hand, it did get me to respond, so I guess the article did its job.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Yea, right. Perhaps that was the deal Apple made with Microsoft. Google, however, mostly only owns standard essential patents that it has to license to Apple. As seen by the Samsung's lawsuit, Apple's patents are far more valuable. If this were to happen, Google would pay something.
That's not necessarily true. The default rate offering may be much higher than Apple would like, and really we don't even know what patents each company wishes to use. It's just too little information to really form a solid conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
That would be the best outcome.
Talented as jobs was at CEO, I'm glad he's dead as his thermonuclear war against android was unrealistic. Hopefully cook is a lot more level headed in dealing with such issues.
You think a patent lawsuit is a valid reason for being pleased someone is dead? So if I wanted to throw the legal system at whoever stole my car last year, would you be glad to see me dead? I guess so. And that makes you some kind of psychopath.
Perhaps, but is it the best course of action?
If Apple went the Microsoft route and license their patents to Samsung... ok, so Samsung refused at $30/handset. Say Apple offers it at $1 per patent, so $3 for all 3 utility patents, an offer Samsung would be retarded to refuse. Well Samsung sells 30ish million smartphones per quarter, so that's 90M back to Apple every quarter. In less than 3 years they would've made that 1Billion they just won, AND have lucuative contracts going forward, AND not have nearly as much legal expenses.
In addition, They wouldn't be actively trying to move away from Samsung and end up sourcing subpar LG screens for their iPads, or be flat out refused an exclusive agreement with TSMC.
Plus without the bad blood between Google and Apple, they wouldn't have to dedicate resources to developing their own mapping software, and SIRI would be much improved if it had better integration with Google search, and access to other Google databases.
Of course:
Australia: Injunction against the tab has been overturned
Netherlands: Apple loses against tab on appeal
UK: Apple lost and has to publically apologize to Samsung (stayed, as noted)
Germany: Apple wins aganist the tab, but has its slide to unlock claim thrown out, and is in danger of having its bouceback patent invalidated
South Korea: Tie I think? They both infringe, don't know what that really means yet
Did I miss anything?
Originally Posted by majjo
Perhaps, but is it the best course of action?
Yes.
If Apple went the Microsoft route and license their patents to Samsung... ok, so Samsung refused at $30/handset. Say Apple offers it at $1 per patent, so $3 for all 3 utility patents, an offer Samsung would be retarded to refuse. Well Samsung sells 30ish million smartphones per quarter, so that's 90M back to Apple every quarter. In less than 3 years they would've made that 1Billion they just won, AND have lucuative contracts going forward, AND not have nearly as much legal expenses.
Guess who offered to license. Guess who turned them down and stole the IP anyway.
SIRI would be much improved if it had better integration with Google search, and access to other Google databases.
I doubt that. Access to Google databases is something many people would be against, even without Android. Google's not too big for their britches, but they're growing eyes out the wazoo.
Of course:
Australia: Injunction against the tab has been overturned
Netherlands: Apple loses against tab on appeal
UK: Apple lost and has to publically apologize to Samsung (stayed, as noted)
Germany: Apple wins aganist the tab, but has its slide to unlock claim thrown out, and is in danger of having its bouceback patent invalidated
South Korea: Tie I think? They both infringe, don't know the complete outcome yet
Did I miss anything?
Yeah, the point. They won in the US. I don't meant to sound exceptionalistic or isolationist when I say that, but they got the big one and they got it good. It's the first step to getting the other companies too scared to continue business with Android, at least in the US. And that's where it matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
Perhaps, but is it the best course of action?
If Apple went the Microsoft route and license their patents to Samsung... ok, so Samsung refused at $30/handset. Say Apple offers it at $1 per patent, so $3 for all 3 utility patents, an offer Samsung would be retarded to refuse. Well Samsung sells 30ish million smartphones per quarter, so that's 90M back to Apple every quarter. In less than 3 years they would've made that 1Billion they just won, AND have lucuative contracts going forward, AND not have nearly as much legal expenses.
Now that Samsung has been found guilty, it is a lot easier for Apple to go for triple damages, suddenly getting THAT money back over nine years of licensing doesn't look so good.
I disagree. I see the potential gains of a good relationship with Samsung and Google as much more rewarding than a desire for revenge.
At the price Apple was offering; I'm saying its still better at $1 per than to litigate.
lol. Your language is colorful as always. Have it opt in then. I think you overestimate the amount of people actually concerned about their privacy. Have you looked at what people post to facebook lately?
That said, I've been using Google services (search, primary e-mail, maps) since 2004. I've had no issues with privacy.
I'm sorry, but while the US is the most visible market, globally, its not the end all be all of everything. China alone is approaching (or has surpassed) the US' size. Add that to Europe, Japan and the rest of Asia, and I don't view the US market as that important. EU, for the most part has rejected Apple's claims. Asia remains to be seen.
edit: and Japan just ruled against Apple as well, another large market.
Based on what I've read about the case, it seems like triple damages are unlikely.
and keep in mind my numbers were low, only included the 3 utility patents, and only for Samsung, just to show how much potential there is in terms of licensing.
"Having a phone conversation" and "ongoing discussions" are extremely vague phrases. You could pretty much let your imagination run wild on the subject. The topic of the call could be anything from "Eric, this is your last warning" to "How are the kids?" (if Schimdt has kids) and everything in between. I know the rumor-mill is working overtime recently, but really? Who knows, maybe Tim found Eric's keys in the boardroom or something. Hardly worth reporting unless there is something a little more descriptive. On the other hand, it did get me to respond, so I guess the article did its job.
Does the word Cartel still have coinage in the American language?