Further proof that Samsung will throw ANYTHING against the wall to see if it'll stick. Does anyone see any long term strategy in Samsung's offerings other than taking any and all prototypes to production???
The image in the second photo is answering the question, "How many Samsung engineers does it take to change a light bulb?"
Thanks, I missed the part where the arbitration process was added. My bad.
It was easy to miss. Essentially the judge hauled Google into his chambers where he slapped them around a bit, repeating, "You can't do that you ignorant fucks!!!"
What in Google's behavior shows they're likely to kick partners to the curb? Perhaps you've confused them with a different tech leader.
Right. So offering their own line of phones and tablets which are state of the art and which happen to be almost the only devices which can be upgraded to newer versions of Android is actually GOOD for their OEMs who have to compete with them. I'm sure that OEMs just LOVE having to compete with the company that provides them with their OS.
What in Google's behavior shows they're likely to kick partners to the curb? Perhaps you've confused them with a different tech leader.
Seriously?
How about putting out hardware (ie smartphones and tablets) that directly compete with Android hardware partners, all but one of which is losing money on the proposition?
I know, Microsoft is doing it now too, but that's born out of desperation. What excuse can Google give to, say, HTC?
The FTC order clarifies under what conditions Google can request an injunction. Simplified:
Google must present an offer to the licensee. They can offer the licensee a better deal if there is cross-licensing, but they cannot require it. If negotiations last more than six months, Google can then go to the next step:
Google can request binding arbitration... and the licensee must agree to accept whatever a court or an arbitrator determines as a FRAND rate.
If the licensee refuses to negotiate, or fails to respond to the arbitration request, or refuses to honor the decided rate, then Google can pursue an injunction.
This is the same basic concept that other legal entities such as the ITC have already used.
For example, when the ITC recently ruled for a ban on Apple products, they commented that it was because Apple had failed both to negotiate or to take advantage of ETSI arbitration aid.
This is a win for common sense. Instead of potential licensees delaying payments indefinitely by dragging cases through the courts complaining about "unfair" rates, or SEP holders asking for high rates using an injunction threat, they both now have to make a deal in a rather short period of time.
In addition, the SEP holder's basic patent rights are maintained, by allowing injunctive relief if a fair deal and payments are not eventually made.
So full of it as usual.
There are many problems with this situation. For example, Google, Samsung and Motorola continue to ask for extortionist levels for their FRAND patents. Then when Apple or MS refuse to accept these terms they claim they are unwilling licensees. No SEP holder should be able to ask for the moon knowing full well the other party can't accept their ridiculous offer just so they can proceed to seek an injunction. This basically allows SEP holders to seek injunctions any time they wish simply by making sky-high offers for licensing.
Funny how you avoid the MS/Motorola case. You previously claimed that Motorola's demands were "reasonable" (boy were you wrong on that - words can't express how stupid your position was on that case). You further commented that Motorola's licensing agreements with other companies were "in line" with what they were asking from MS and therefore Motorola's demands weren't "extortionist". Well guess what? The judge ruled in that case and Motorola received a fractiojn of what they were asking - and this is in spite of that judge having access to other Motorola contracts. Again, words can't express how wrong you were on that one. Why should anyone listen to your BS?
The Samsung/ITC case is more involved than the cherry-picked comment you chose (isn't cherry-pickyour middle name?). Samsung is trying to force Apple into cross-licensing because they want access to Apple's non-essential patents. This goes against what the FTC just stated, though that hasn;t stopped Samsung from trying. This is why I predict the ITC decision will get overturned.
I could care less if I get banned or warned. You're a fu$*ing idiot, plain and simple. And a worthless troll to boot.
<p id="user_yui_3_10_0_1_1374696735902_1005" style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;">At $12.5 billion, even if Google bought Motorola just for their 24,500 patents, that's $510,000 per patent.</p>
<p id="user_yui_3_10_0_1_1374696735902_998" style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;"><span id="user_yui_3_10_0_1_1374696735902_1000" style="line-height:1.231;">However, Moto didn't cost as much as some people continue to blindly repeat. </span>
<span id="user_yui_3_10_0_1_1374696735902_997" style="line-height:1.231;">It came with $3 billion in cash reserves, and the settop box part is being sold off for $2.5 billion... which knocks the cash price down to $7 billion. Plus Google gets billions in tax write offs... some analysts say enough to cover the entire purchase... AND they got a phone maker with decades of knowledge.</span>
</p>
<p id="user_yui_3_10_0_1_1374696735902_976" style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;"><span id="user_yui_3_10_0_1_1374696735902_1008" style="line-height:1.231;">On the other hand, Apple, Microsoft and RIM paid $4.5 billion for 6,000 Nortel patents. That's $750,000 per patent (many of which also come with FRAND restrictions), and that's all they got for their money.</span>
</p>
Right. So offering their own line of phones and tablets which are state of the art and which happen to be almost the only devices which can be upgraded to newer versions of Android is actually GOOD for their OEMs who have to compete with them. I'm sure that OEMs just LOVE having to compete with the company that provides them with their OS.
Right. :no:
You apparently don't follow industry news very well JR. Doesn't Google sell Samsung's stock Android S4?. Promote HTC's stock Android HTC One on Google Play. Used Asus rather than their own Motorola to build the Nexus 7? Used LG rather than their own Moto to build the Nexus 4? Yeah, hardly a history of ignoring their OEM's and favoring their own products and Motorola.
Now think really hard. Can you come up with a tech company who trumpets partnerships at product introductions, only to kick them to the curb as soon as they can replace them with their own in-house services?
No the purchase was supposed to help them break into the hardware market and screw their OEMs all under the guise of protecting them. Google was hoping the Android market would mirror the PC market with many OEMs in the game but none becoming dominant. They could then launch Google/Motorola branded hardware and slowly eat their young.
Samsung ruined this plan by beating them to the punch and crushing the other OEMs. Now Google is screwed because unless they can suddenly and miraculously get their hardware plans together it is only a matter of time before Samsung forks Android and takes over the market. At the very least Samsung has too much muscle to now be shoved out of the market by Google as they have all the Android profits falling into their coffers!!!
Bingo. Any one who thinks Google plays defense only is either a shill or an ignoramous.
You apparently don't follow industry news very well JR. Doesn't Google sell Samsung's stock Android S4?. Promote HTC's stock Android HTC One on Google Play. Used Asus rather than their own Motorola to build the Nexus 7? Used LG rather than their own Moto to build the Nexus 4? Yeah, hardly a history of ignoring their OEM's and favoring their own products and Motorola.?
This is why everyone here thinks you're a paid shill. It's impossible to believe that you could possibly be that clueless.
Just a couple of things you ignore:
1. Let's say LG makes and sells their own high end phone. They sell it for $600 and it costs $400 to make. 33% gross margin. Now, Google says "we'll buy a million Nexus devices, but we'll pay you $450. So LG makes less than 10% (which doesn't even cover overheads).
2. Nexus devices often have Android updates available. Very few non-Nexus devices do. Google has a major advantage against their licensees.
3. it's also about branding and name recognition. When Google puts Nexus on all the reference devices, consumers don't realize that it's made by Asus or LG or anyone else. Google gets the marketing value.
It's absolutely insane to think that OEMs would rather make Nexus branded products for Google than make their own products. It's exactly why Apple stopped licensing Mac OS licensees. It doesn't work when the OS owner competes with licensees.
You mean when one pay less the deal is better but not the quality of the patents.
Some people know the price of everything but the value of none.
Ah well, it's easy to throw out a cute saying, especially when you bring absolutely no facts to back it up.
So here's your chance to prove yourself, by explaining to us all in detail why you think those Nortel patents are "better quality" than the Motorola patents, to the tune of a quarter million dollars more apiece.
Hint: the problems you're going to have, are at least two fold. First, the money-making parts of Nortel and the related patents were bought by Ericsson before the auction.
Secondly, much of the remaining patents were LTE related. Most analyses I've seen of who owns the best LTE patents end up like this one:
Quote:
(LG first, with 23%. Qualcomm second, with 21%)
"Four companies basically tied for third place by each claiming 9% of essential LTE patents. They are Motorola Mobility, InterDigital, Nokia and Samsung. The value of both Motorola Mobility’s and InterDigital’s patents has already been well-publicized. Motorola attracted an acquisition offer from Google in August, largely due to its patent holdings."
...
"China’s ZTE has 6% of the LTE patents"
...
"while Nortel, a Canadian telecom company that filed for bankruptcy in 2009, owned 4%."
- Forbes, Identifying the Tech Leaders in LTE Wireless Patents
Looking forward to your own fact finding results, and hopefully a debate without ad hominems substituting for data. Thanks!
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Wow. Just wow.
Samsung Galaxy Folder is on the way. Low end Android clamshell for Korea
Further proof that Samsung will throw ANYTHING against the wall to see if it'll stick. Does anyone see any long term strategy in Samsung's offerings other than taking any and all prototypes to production???
The image in the second photo is answering the question, "How many Samsung engineers does it take to change a light bulb?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
Thanks, I missed the part where the arbitration process was added. My bad.
It was easy to miss. Essentially the judge hauled Google into his chambers where he slapped them around a bit, repeating, "You can't do that you ignorant fucks!!!"
Right. So offering their own line of phones and tablets which are state of the art and which happen to be almost the only devices which can be upgraded to newer versions of Android is actually GOOD for their OEMs who have to compete with them. I'm sure that OEMs just LOVE having to compete with the company that provides them with their OS.
Right. :no:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
What in Google's behavior shows they're likely to kick partners to the curb? Perhaps you've confused them with a different tech leader.
Seriously?
How about putting out hardware (ie smartphones and tablets) that directly compete with Android hardware partners, all but one of which is losing money on the proposition?
I know, Microsoft is doing it now too, but that's born out of desperation. What excuse can Google give to, say, HTC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
The FTC order clarifies under what conditions Google can request an injunction. Simplified:
Google must present an offer to the licensee. They can offer the licensee a better deal if there is cross-licensing, but they cannot require it. If negotiations last more than six months, Google can then go to the next step:
Google can request binding arbitration... and the licensee must agree to accept whatever a court or an arbitrator determines as a FRAND rate.
If the licensee refuses to negotiate, or fails to respond to the arbitration request, or refuses to honor the decided rate, then Google can pursue an injunction.
This is the same basic concept that other legal entities such as the ITC have already used.
For example, when the ITC recently ruled for a ban on Apple products, they commented that it was because Apple had failed both to negotiate or to take advantage of ETSI arbitration aid.
This is a win for common sense. Instead of potential licensees delaying payments indefinitely by dragging cases through the courts complaining about "unfair" rates, or SEP holders asking for high rates using an injunction threat, they both now have to make a deal in a rather short period of time.
In addition, the SEP holder's basic patent rights are maintained, by allowing injunctive relief if a fair deal and payments are not eventually made.
So full of it as usual.
There are many problems with this situation. For example, Google, Samsung and Motorola continue to ask for extortionist levels for their FRAND patents. Then when Apple or MS refuse to accept these terms they claim they are unwilling licensees. No SEP holder should be able to ask for the moon knowing full well the other party can't accept their ridiculous offer just so they can proceed to seek an injunction. This basically allows SEP holders to seek injunctions any time they wish simply by making sky-high offers for licensing.
Funny how you avoid the MS/Motorola case. You previously claimed that Motorola's demands were "reasonable" (boy were you wrong on that - words can't express how stupid your position was on that case). You further commented that Motorola's licensing agreements with other companies were "in line" with what they were asking from MS and therefore Motorola's demands weren't "extortionist". Well guess what? The judge ruled in that case and Motorola received a fractiojn of what they were asking - and this is in spite of that judge having access to other Motorola contracts. Again, words can't express how wrong you were on that one. Why should anyone listen to your BS?
The Samsung/ITC case is more involved than the cherry-picked comment you chose (isn't cherry-pickyour middle name?). Samsung is trying to force Apple into cross-licensing because they want access to Apple's non-essential patents. This goes against what the FTC just stated, though that hasn;t stopped Samsung from trying. This is why I predict the ITC decision will get overturned.
I could care less if I get banned or warned. You're a fu$*ing idiot, plain and simple. And a worthless troll to boot.
Without Apple showing how it's done? I'd say none. Or all, until it's shown.
You mean when one pay less the deal is better but not the quality of the patents.
Some people know the price of everything but the value of none.
Spot on. Touché. Bingo.
You apparently don't follow industry news very well JR. Doesn't Google sell Samsung's stock Android S4?. Promote HTC's stock Android HTC One on Google Play. Used Asus rather than their own Motorola to build the Nexus 7? Used LG rather than their own Moto to build the Nexus 4? Yeah, hardly a history of ignoring their OEM's and favoring their own products and Motorola.
Now think really hard. Can you come up with a tech company who trumpets partnerships at product introductions, only to kick them to the curb as soon as they can replace them with their own in-house services?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleTechSpot
No the purchase was supposed to help them break into the hardware market and screw their OEMs all under the guise of protecting them. Google was hoping the Android market would mirror the PC market with many OEMs in the game but none becoming dominant. They could then launch Google/Motorola branded hardware and slowly eat their young.
Samsung ruined this plan by beating them to the punch and crushing the other OEMs. Now Google is screwed because unless they can suddenly and miraculously get their hardware plans together it is only a matter of time before Samsung forks Android and takes over the market. At the very least Samsung has too much muscle to now be shoved out of the market by Google as they have all the Android profits falling into their coffers!!!
Bingo. Any one who thinks Google plays defense only is either a shill or an ignoramous.
This is why everyone here thinks you're a paid shill. It's impossible to believe that you could possibly be that clueless.
Just a couple of things you ignore:
1. Let's say LG makes and sells their own high end phone. They sell it for $600 and it costs $400 to make. 33% gross margin. Now, Google says "we'll buy a million Nexus devices, but we'll pay you $450. So LG makes less than 10% (which doesn't even cover overheads).
2. Nexus devices often have Android updates available. Very few non-Nexus devices do. Google has a major advantage against their licensees.
3. it's also about branding and name recognition. When Google puts Nexus on all the reference devices, consumers don't realize that it's made by Asus or LG or anyone else. Google gets the marketing value.
It's absolutely insane to think that OEMs would rather make Nexus branded products for Google than make their own products. It's exactly why Apple stopped licensing Mac OS licensees. It doesn't work when the OS owner competes with licensees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamC
You mean when one pay less the deal is better but not the quality of the patents.
Some people know the price of everything but the value of none.
Ah well, it's easy to throw out a cute saying, especially when you bring absolutely no facts to back it up.
So here's your chance to prove yourself, by explaining to us all in detail why you think those Nortel patents are "better quality" than the Motorola patents, to the tune of a quarter million dollars more apiece.
Hint: the problems you're going to have, are at least two fold. First, the money-making parts of Nortel and the related patents were bought by Ericsson before the auction.
Secondly, much of the remaining patents were LTE related. Most analyses I've seen of who owns the best LTE patents end up like this one:
Quote:
(LG first, with 23%. Qualcomm second, with 21%)
"Four companies basically tied for third place by each claiming 9% of essential LTE patents. They are Motorola Mobility, InterDigital, Nokia and Samsung. The value of both Motorola Mobility’s and InterDigital’s patents has already been well-publicized. Motorola attracted an acquisition offer from Google in August, largely due to its patent holdings."
...
"China’s ZTE has 6% of the LTE patents"
...
"while Nortel, a Canadian telecom company that filed for bankruptcy in 2009, owned 4%."
- Forbes, Identifying the Tech Leaders in LTE Wireless Patents
Looking forward to your own fact finding results, and hopefully a debate without ad hominems substituting for data. Thanks!