The arbitrary rates of FRAND licensing we are seeing make the whole notion of FRAND in the first place meaningless.
I mean - - you grant someone a key monopoly because there HAS TO BE A STANDARD way to communicate with something like a cell tower -- and in exchange, they keep prices low and fixed. By extorting 30% from Apple, Nokia should be invalidating their FRAND privilege. I would like the courts to turn their patents to open source -- that should solve this situation for the future.
The arbitrary rates of FRAND licensing we are seeing make the whole notion of FRAND in the first place meaningless. I mean - - you grant someone a key monopoly because there HAS TO BE A STANDARD way to communicate with something like a cell tower -- and in exchange, they keep prices low and fixed. By extorting 30% from Apple, Nokia should be invalidating their FRAND privilege. I would like the courts to turn their patents to open source -- that should solve this situation for the future.
Not any worse that Apple saying that they will not pay more than $1.00 per device for a FRAND patient (less than others are paying) and not offer any cross licensing as most other companies do to get their FRAND licensing fees reduced....
It is going to boil down to having to have a independent board set the fees and all parties have to abide by their rulings.....
The arbitrary rates of FRAND licensing we are seeing make the whole notion of FRAND in the first place meaningless. I mean - - you grant someone a key monopoly because there HAS TO BE A STANDARD way to communicate with something like a cell tower -- and in exchange, they keep prices low and fixed. By extorting 30% from Apple, Nokia should be invalidating their FRAND privilege. I would like the courts to turn their patents to open source -- that should solve this situation for the future.
~30% is the default total of all GSM patent royalties going to several dozen patent holders.
A newcomer with absolutely nothing to trade and no negotiation skills, might have to pay close to that.
At the other end of the spectrum, it's been reported that Nokia only pays a total around 3% for GSM, because they have cross-licensed all their patents for everyone else's.
(In the early days of GSM, when Motorola owned over half the patents, they didn't even ask for cash payments. They only had two license methods: 1) you bought equipment from them and the license came with. or 2) you cross-licensed all your patents. Other members eventually talked them into also accepting a cash royalty.)
This news is the kind that can potentially confuse everyone. Micron just received a patent for . . . (drumroll)
"slide-to-unlock".
The biggest surprise is that it's priority date is a full 4 years before Apple's patent for their iteration of the feature, going back to an original filing in 2000. That means Apple's already awarded slide-to-unlock patent can't invalidate Micron's Then surprise two: Micron's patents are cross-licensed to Samsung.
A sample of the claims in Microns' newly awarded patent.
1. A system comprising:
a touch screen upon which a user is to enter, by drawing, a geometric pattern in a specified direction to gain access to the system; and
a processing circuit coupled to the touch screen to compare the user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory.
The system of claim 1 wherein the user is prevented from accessing the system if the user entered geometric pattern does not approximate the predefined geometric pattern.
The system of claim 3 wherein the processing circuit is further coupled to the memory, the processing circuit is configured to receive the user entered geometric pattern from the user via the touch screen and to grant the user access to the at least one user-accessible file if the user entered geometric pattern matches the predefined geometric pattern.
The system of claim 1 wherein the processing circuit is configured to filter out input entered on the touch screen beyond the user entered geometric pattern.
The system of claim 1 wherein the user entered geometric pattern is a line.
So when will Samsung be paying Apple the money they owe in damages, as determined by a jury verdict?
To my understanding it was to the tune of billions.
Not likely anytime soon. It was to the tune of 'billion,' not multiples. Most patents are under review. Three of the key patents are currently already invalidated.
Samsung tried a quick nullification of one of the remaining patents, and was rightfully denied. Their argument for the 'quick invalidation' was flawed as ruled by the judge. The judge has also stated that that particular patent is likely to be invalidated (on other grounds).
The judge is likely to rule an adjustment to the sum.
In addition to the patents dropping like flies, another big adjustment is likely. One of the key determinations in the $1.05b verdict was Apple argued some of the design oriented infringements were worth on the order of $30 per device and a big part of the sum is based on that. To achieve that sum Apple had to declare it had done 'significant and irreperable harm' to Apple who would never, ever license those key distinctive features of the iPhone to anyone. They have since licensed those patents to HTC for a sum 'much less' then $6 per device. It looks like they tried to pull a quick one on the court, got away with it, then shot themselves in the foot.
The press from the $1b verdict actually helped Samsung quite a bit, and once adjustments are made I'd be surprised if the final value is anything remotely close to a billion.
Comments
I mean - - you grant someone a key monopoly because there HAS TO BE A STANDARD way to communicate with something like a cell tower -- and in exchange, they keep prices low and fixed. By extorting 30% from Apple, Nokia should be invalidating their FRAND privilege. I would like the courts to turn their patents to open source -- that should solve this situation for the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner
The arbitrary rates of FRAND licensing we are seeing make the whole notion of FRAND in the first place meaningless. I mean - - you grant someone a key monopoly because there HAS TO BE A STANDARD way to communicate with something like a cell tower -- and in exchange, they keep prices low and fixed. By extorting 30% from Apple, Nokia should be invalidating their FRAND privilege. I would like the courts to turn their patents to open source -- that should solve this situation for the future.
Not any worse that Apple saying that they will not pay more than $1.00 per device for a FRAND patient (less than others are paying) and not offer any cross licensing as most other companies do to get their FRAND licensing fees reduced....
It is going to boil down to having to have a independent board set the fees and all parties have to abide by their rulings.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner
The arbitrary rates of FRAND licensing we are seeing make the whole notion of FRAND in the first place meaningless. I mean - - you grant someone a key monopoly because there HAS TO BE A STANDARD way to communicate with something like a cell tower -- and in exchange, they keep prices low and fixed. By extorting 30% from Apple, Nokia should be invalidating their FRAND privilege. I would like the courts to turn their patents to open source -- that should solve this situation for the future.
~30% is the default total of all GSM patent royalties going to several dozen patent holders.
A newcomer with absolutely nothing to trade and no negotiation skills, might have to pay close to that.
At the other end of the spectrum, it's been reported that Nokia only pays a total around 3% for GSM, because they have cross-licensed all their patents for everyone else's.
(In the early days of GSM, when Motorola owned over half the patents, they didn't even ask for cash payments. They only had two license methods: 1) you bought equipment from them and the license came with. or 2) you cross-licensed all your patents. Other members eventually talked them into also accepting a cash royalty.)
This news is the kind that can potentially confuse everyone. Micron just received a patent for . . . (drumroll)
"slide-to-unlock".
The biggest surprise is that it's priority date is a full 4 years before Apple's patent for their iteration of the feature, going back to an original filing in 2000. That means Apple's already awarded slide-to-unlock patent can't invalidate Micron's Then surprise two: Micron's patents are cross-licensed to Samsung.
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2010/10/07/samsung-to-pay-micron-275m-in-10-yr-cross-licensing-deal/
A sample of the claims in Microns' newly awarded patent.
1. A system comprising:
a touch screen upon which a user is to enter, by drawing, a geometric pattern in a specified direction to gain access to the system; and
a processing circuit coupled to the touch screen to compare the user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory.
The system of claim 1 wherein the user is prevented from accessing the system if the user entered geometric pattern does not approximate the predefined geometric pattern.
The system of claim 3 wherein the processing circuit is further coupled to the memory, the processing circuit is configured to receive the user entered geometric pattern from the user via the touch screen and to grant the user access to the at least one user-accessible file if the user entered geometric pattern matches the predefined geometric pattern.
The system of claim 1 wherein the processing circuit is configured to filter out input entered on the touch screen beyond the user entered geometric pattern.
The system of claim 1 wherein the user entered geometric pattern is a line.
http://www.google.com/patents/US8352745
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/01/smartphone-wars-microns-slide-to-unlock-patent.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
So when will Samsung be paying Apple the money they owe in damages, as determined by a jury verdict?
To my understanding it was to the tune of billions.
Not likely anytime soon. It was to the tune of 'billion,' not multiples. Most patents are under review. Three of the key patents are currently already invalidated.
Samsung tried a quick nullification of one of the remaining patents, and was rightfully denied. Their argument for the 'quick invalidation' was flawed as ruled by the judge. The judge has also stated that that particular patent is likely to be invalidated (on other grounds).
The judge is likely to rule an adjustment to the sum.
In addition to the patents dropping like flies, another big adjustment is likely. One of the key determinations in the $1.05b verdict was Apple argued some of the design oriented infringements were worth on the order of $30 per device and a big part of the sum is based on that. To achieve that sum Apple had to declare it had done 'significant and irreperable harm' to Apple who would never, ever license those key distinctive features of the iPhone to anyone. They have since licensed those patents to HTC for a sum 'much less' then $6 per device. It looks like they tried to pull a quick one on the court, got away with it, then shot themselves in the foot.
The press from the $1b verdict actually helped Samsung quite a bit, and once adjustments are made I'd be surprised if the final value is anything remotely close to a billion.