I, on the other, find that certain preferential features are tied to specific manufacturers and as such, I prefer doing business with those companies. Samesung, in my opinion, has repeatedly shown itself to be an unscrupulous company and I find that I would rather not do any business with them. Yes, I obviously realize that many of their components are in the products I buy, and that cannot be helped, but when I can help it, I avoid them like the plague. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I find certain qualities to be endemic to certain brands and when you buy a product, you are, in a way, buying into the company. Put another way, Samsung may slavishly copy Apple, but they will never be Apple.
That is you prerogative, I however have not been wronged personally by Samsung. In the past, the few times I've had problems with a Samsung product they were rectified fairly quickly. These problems between billion dollar corporations are nothing new and have been going on since the dawn of corporations. Did Samsung blatantly steal from Samsung perhaps, I really don't know, the US courts says yes however most of the courts in the rest of the world say no, as I live in the latter, well. So as far as I look at it is if Henry Ford never copied Springfield Armory or Chicago meat packers the modern assembly line would have been drastically postponed. Could you imagine if Springfield sued Ford over this. Apple made the spoke that made the wheel spin faster, do they deserve credit absolutely, do they have the right to go after everyone trying to build upon their idea, I personally don't think so but that's just me. I mean it made Apple the richest company in the world. These are grumpy people doing grumpy things towards each other, look at the Motorola Xoom, that looks way more like an iPad then the Galaxy Tab does, Apple felt threaten with Samsung or was upset that such a close ally put one over on them, it's a revenge slash squash the competition story, nothing else. But you go right ahead hating companies that Apple sues or is being sued by if it makes you happy. I'll reserve my hatred for companies that build weapons and use child labor.
As noted many times before, that rate method has long been standard for ETSI patents, has some good reasons behind it, and was even approved by the US DOJ back in 2002:
So no, that was hardly "egregious". It's quite common. For example, Qualcomm's market value is greatly based upon what their current per-device percentage rates are.
Many things that might not make sense to the layman, have been policy for decades.
That's why it's not been fair to either side, that rule changes are being applied in the middle of cases.
The good thing that's coming out of all this, is that various agencies might just finally get their act together, and come up with a modern, cohesive set of rules that everyone will know ahead of time, and be applied across the board.
Net sales. Not gross sales. Of the licensed product. The licensed product, in this case, is not the phone but the chip.
Don't waste your time.
His obduracy is only surpassed by his cluelessness.
Net sales. Not gross sales. Of the licensed product. The licensed product, in this case, is not the phone but the chip.
That's not correct. Qualcomm clearly and explicitly states that a licensee's royalty basis is the cost of the completed device (Total BOM rather than the retail selling price tho) and not just a chipset. Research it for yourself if you have any doubt. Had you already done so you'd know what Qualcomm bases it on rather than guessing. A good start would be visiting Qualcomm's own website. They don't hide it.
Be aware that there are few companies that monetize their IP as effectively as Qualcomm. In licensing royalties alone they put right at $2B in the bank in just the last quarter!
EDIT: By the way, Qualcomms estimated current royalties average for devices using their CDMA/3G/4G IP is 3.3% of the total device bill of materials. That's up a tiny bit from the 3.2% per-device royalties from the previous quarter. http://djcs.gtm.idmanagedsolutions.com/cxb/analystpdf/argus/74752510350.pdf
That is you prerogative, I however have not been wronged personally by Samsung... But you go right ahead hating companies that Apple sues or is being sued by if it makes you happy. I'll reserve my hatred for companies that build weapons and use child labor.
First, I never actually stated that I hate Samesung (yes, I realize I am being petty by calling them that, but if the name fits...). Second, I would avoid them even if they were deep in litigation with Microsoft or some other corporate entity. Third, whether the rest of the world courts agree that Samesung didn't copy or steal is debatable. I have given Samesung the benefit of the doubt on numerous occasions, and they have demonstrated themselves as a company I would rather not do business with. All I was trying to accomplish with my previous post was to offer an alternative view.
Nice write up but the fact still remains the ITC found Apple guilty of infringing on the patent. So did the ITC not have all of the facts listed?
I dunno. I think Apple as a company literally makes some people crazy, including presumably otherwise rational folks in positions of authority- like Fandroid crazy, like that British judge that had Apple take out ads that said Samsung didn't copy them (has that ever happened before? Not in the US, as far as I know).
The thing is, if I understand it correctly, in Europe Samsung made the same complaints about Apple as with the ITC and not only got stuffed but was warned about these actions as potential FRAND abuse. This makes sense if the facts of the case are anything like presented here, while the reverse (Samsung trying to double dip on patents already licensed by the chip designer) are head-shakingly incredible. Maybe we aren't getting the whole story?
Kudos to DED...he's been calling out this sort of hypocrisy since the early days of the iPod and Nokias very similar actions then. Roughly Drafted was required reading for me from the beginning particularly for some deliciously constructed sideswipes at Microsoft's efforts. Florian Mueller also deserves a mention for his exhaustive blogging where he has pretty much nailed it from the beginning.
Net sales. Not gross sales. Of the licensed product. The licensed product, in this case, is not the phone but the chip.
No sir, it's based on the entire device. This is an indisputable fact.
Read the full DOJ document to get a better feel for the context, and when I get time later today I'll also post more sources to help you out.
Hint: it makes no sense to base IP licenses on the cost of a physical chip. Chips can drop in price dramatically over time, but the value of the IP does not.
Imagine that you had a patent on say, ramdisk software. The fact that RAM prices have dropped by several orders of magnitude over the past few decades, does not make your patent any less valuable. Quite the opposite, in fact.
An example I just pointed out in another thread, is that everybody pays Qualcomm twice: once for the cost of the physical chipset, and then separately for whatever IP is going to be used on it.
For example, the latest chipsets can implement quite a few standards. But you wouldn't want to pay for TD-SCDMA licenses if you didn't plan on selling your phone in China.
No sir, it's based on the entire device. This is an indisputable fact.
An example I just pointed out in another thread, is that everybody pays Qualcomm twice: once for the cost of the physical chipset, and then separately for whatever IP is going to be used on it.
That's what I understand too from researching it for myself. Qualcomm charges an on-going per-finished device royalty, currently estimated at something north of 3% of the bill of materials plus a one-time licensing fee for access to Qualcomm's IP. it doesn't matter whether a device uses Qualcomm hardware or another chipset vendor instead either. If there's CDMA tech included in a smartphone or tablet then Qualcomm gets a percentage of it's build costs.
They're one of the few companies outside of Apple themselves that knows for certain exactly how much a cellular-equipped iPad or iPhone costs to build.
Kudos here for some real in-depth reporting. Too bad some more widely-read news sites can afford the shoe leather for this type of work.
The only way to make it better? Pair this article with another one, showing Motorola's and others' similar actions.
As Iunderstand the history, Moto sued Apple just weeks after the first iPhone went on sale, and Moto found out that Apple was using the Incheon chips (complication: then made by Chi Mei?). Moto immediately canceled the Incheon license, and as Apple was most (all?) of their business, had relatively little leverage with Moto, leaving the baseband business, and turning over the struggles to Apple.
Having pursued this more casually, I'm not 100% on the facts. It'd be great to put them onto a timeline, showing the many lawsuits that first started against Apple. (That's right, Apple's lawsuits came well later, after Google had had time to crank iOS thru their copying machines.)
Not enough time? That's OK; sooner or later it'll all come out cleanly. Meanwhile, thanks again for this fine piece.
I quite sure you can find your own links regarding Samsung's weaponry activities too…
Well then that's it, no more Samsung products for me, dirty bastards :grumble: In all fairness Apple has found child labor being used in it's supply chain as well. I highly doubt Apple or Samsung had any prior knowledge of these activities. I still find it disgusting and I'm done with them.
@relic, "You don't become one of the wealthiest companies in the world from ripping off others."
I see you don't get out much these days. Samsung has been caught from its CEO on down lying, cheating, etc. REcently a class action suit against samsung tvs for using substandard parts and then not providing warrentte coverage.
Samsung, bad to the core and if "bigger must be better" is the best you can come up with, try reading some of DED's work. That man does his research.
And no, changing colors every 6 months is not major innovation. Now the wave your hand over the phone is getting closer to innovation but only by the method involved.
Nuff said. Either you will understand or not. But facts are facts.
@relic, "You don't become one of the wealthiest companies in the world from ripping off others."
I see you don't get out much these days. Samsung has been caught from its CEO on down lying, cheating, etc. REcently a class action suit against samsung tvs for using substandard parts and then not providing warrentte coverage.
Samsung, bad to the core and if "bigger must be better" is the best you can come up with, try reading some of DED's work. That man does his research.
And no, changing colors every 6 months is not major innovation. Now the wave your hand over the phone is getting closer to innovation but only by the method involved.
Nuff said. Either you will understand or not. But facts are facts.
Again, none of that surprises me nor does it matter to me. What does matter is Samsung is a weapons manufacture and and has child labor in their factories, I didn't know this, I don't no why I didn't do my research, I'm sickened by it, I'm outraged. So I'm done with Samsung and any products that contains their components. I can't believe I tried to defend those bastards. F*ck them...........
That's not correct. Qualcomm clearly and explicitly states that a licensee's royalty basis is the cost of the completed device (Total BOM rather than the retail selling price tho) and not just a chipset. Research it for yourself if you have any doubt. Had you already done so you'd know what Qualcomm bases it on rather than guessing. A good start would be visiting Qualcomm's own website. They don't hide it.
Be aware that there are few companies that monetize their IP as effectively as Qualcomm. In licensing royalties alone they put right at $2B in the bank in just the last quarter!
EDIT: By the way, Qualcomms estimated current royalties average for devices using their CDMA/3G/4G IP is 3.3% of the total device bill of materials. That's up a tiny bit from the 3.2% per-device royalties from the previous quarter.
Nothing quite brings the "Android / profits are bad" crowd and the "patents are a great way to monopolize markets" crowds together than a fierce hatred of Apple.
it is unbelievable that Apple was willing to pay Samsung a whole 33 cents per device for this, just for using a chip that had already licensed this IP... (2.8% of the chip price, for this tiny part of it, 0.0000375% of a protocol that in turn is 1/100th of the chip functionality)
The only reason that Apple use it is because it is an agreed standard. It would take Apple engineers no more than a day to develop an alternative encoding method is they wanted to. This is almost like charging people because of the use of morse code.
Apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system
Abstract
An apparatus and method for encoding/decoding a transport format combination indicator (TFCI) in a CDMA mobile communication system. In the TFCI encoding apparatus, a one-bit generator generates a sequence having the same symbols. A basis orthogonal sequence generator generates a plurality of basis orthogonal sequences. A basis mask sequence generator generates a plurality of basis mask sequences. An operation unit receives TFCI bits that are divided into a first information part representing biorthogonal sequence conversion, a second information part representing orthogonal sequence conversion, and a third information part representing mask sequence conversion and combines an orthogonal sequence selected from the basis orthogonal sequence based on the second information, a biorthogonal sequence obtained by combining the selected orthogonal sequence with the same symbols selected based on the first information part, and a mask sequence selected based on the biorthogonal sequence and the third information part, thereby generating a TFCI sequence.
No sir, it's based on the entire device. This is an indisputable fact.
An example I just pointed out in another thread, is that everybody pays Qualcomm twice: once for the cost of the physical chipset, and then separately for whatever IP is going to be used on it.
That's what I understand too from researching it for myself. Qualcomm charges an on-going per-finished device royalty, currently estimated at something north of 3% of the bill of materials plus a one-time licensing fee for access to Qualcomm's IP. it doesn't matter whether a device uses Qualcomm hardware or another chipset vendor instead either. If there's CDMA tech included in a smartphone or tablet then Qualcomm gets a percentage of it's build costs.
They're one of the few companies outside of Apple themselves that knows for certain exactly how much a cellular-equipped iPad or iPhone costs to build.
Perhaps I am a bit slower than usual today, but what does BOM have to do with gross or net SALES?
Again, none of that surprises me nor does it matter to me. What does matter is Samsung is a weapons manufacture and and has child labor in their factories, I didn't know this, I don't no why I didn't do my research, I'm sickened by it, I'm outraged. So I'm done with Samsung and any products that contains their components. I can't believe I tried to defend those bastards. F*ck them...........
Living where you do, you have the luxury of saying 'no weapons.'
Pease don't generalize your bucolic, pastoral Swiss existence to the rest of the world.
Nothing quite brings the "Android / profits are bad" crowd and the "patents are a great way to monopolize markets" crowds together than a fierce hatred of Apple.
Yet you don't disagree with anything I wrote, apparently confirmation from you that I'm factually correct.
Comments
That is you prerogative, I however have not been wronged personally by Samsung. In the past, the few times I've had problems with a Samsung product they were rectified fairly quickly. These problems between billion dollar corporations are nothing new and have been going on since the dawn of corporations. Did Samsung blatantly steal from Samsung perhaps, I really don't know, the US courts says yes however most of the courts in the rest of the world say no, as I live in the latter, well. So as far as I look at it is if Henry Ford never copied Springfield Armory or Chicago meat packers the modern assembly line would have been drastically postponed. Could you imagine if Springfield sued Ford over this. Apple made the spoke that made the wheel spin faster, do they deserve credit absolutely, do they have the right to go after everyone trying to build upon their idea, I personally don't think so but that's just me. I mean it made Apple the richest company in the world. These are grumpy people doing grumpy things towards each other, look at the Motorola Xoom, that looks way more like an iPad then the Galaxy Tab does, Apple felt threaten with Samsung or was upset that such a close ally put one over on them, it's a revenge slash squash the competition story, nothing else. But you go right ahead hating companies that Apple sues or is being sued by if it makes you happy. I'll reserve my hatred for companies that build weapons and use child labor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I wondered what kind of bizarre argument you'd come up with. You didn't disappoint - that it truly bizarre.
It's understandable that you're confused, since this piece has rarely been mentioned.
The article and I were talking about the same part of the ITC ruling, which is the patent exhaustion section, that begins like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
As noted many times before, that rate method has long been standard for ETSI patents, has some good reasons behind it, and was even approved by the US DOJ back in 2002:
So no, that was hardly "egregious". It's quite common. For example, Qualcomm's market value is greatly based upon what their current per-device percentage rates are.
Many things that might not make sense to the layman, have been policy for decades.
That's why it's not been fair to either side, that rule changes are being applied in the middle of cases.
The good thing that's coming out of all this, is that various agencies might just finally get their act together, and come up with a modern, cohesive set of rules that everyone will know ahead of time, and be applied across the board.
Net sales. Not gross sales. Of the licensed product. The licensed product, in this case, is not the phone but the chip.
Don't waste your time.
His obduracy is only surpassed by his cluelessness.
That's not correct. Qualcomm clearly and explicitly states that a licensee's royalty basis is the cost of the completed device (Total BOM rather than the retail selling price tho) and not just a chipset. Research it for yourself if you have any doubt. Had you already done so you'd know what Qualcomm bases it on rather than guessing. A good start would be visiting Qualcomm's own website. They don't hide it.
Be aware that there are few companies that monetize their IP as effectively as Qualcomm. In licensing royalties alone they put right at $2B in the bank in just the last quarter!
EDIT: By the way, Qualcomms estimated current royalties average for devices using their CDMA/3G/4G IP is 3.3% of the total device bill of materials. That's up a tiny bit from the 3.2% per-device royalties from the previous quarter.
http://djcs.gtm.idmanagedsolutions.com/cxb/analystpdf/argus/74752510350.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
That is you prerogative, I however have not been wronged personally by Samsung... But you go right ahead hating companies that Apple sues or is being sued by if it makes you happy. I'll reserve my hatred for companies that build weapons and use child labor.
First, I never actually stated that I hate Samesung (yes, I realize I am being petty by calling them that, but if the name fits...). Second, I would avoid them even if they were deep in litigation with Microsoft or some other corporate entity. Third, whether the rest of the world courts agree that Samesung didn't copy or steal is debatable. I have given Samesung the benefit of the doubt on numerous occasions, and they have demonstrated themselves as a company I would rather not do business with. All I was trying to accomplish with my previous post was to offer an alternative view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Nice write up but the fact still remains the ITC found Apple guilty of infringing on the patent. So did the ITC not have all of the facts listed?
I dunno. I think Apple as a company literally makes some people crazy, including presumably otherwise rational folks in positions of authority- like Fandroid crazy, like that British judge that had Apple take out ads that said Samsung didn't copy them (has that ever happened before? Not in the US, as far as I know).
The thing is, if I understand it correctly, in Europe Samsung made the same complaints about Apple as with the ITC and not only got stuffed but was warned about these actions as potential FRAND abuse. This makes sense if the facts of the case are anything like presented here, while the reverse (Samsung trying to double dip on patents already licensed by the chip designer) are head-shakingly incredible. Maybe we aren't getting the whole story?
Florian Mueller also deserves a mention for his exhaustive blogging where he has pretty much nailed it from the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macaholic_1948
Net sales. Not gross sales. Of the licensed product. The licensed product, in this case, is not the phone but the chip.
No sir, it's based on the entire device. This is an indisputable fact.
Read the full DOJ document to get a better feel for the context, and when I get time later today I'll also post more sources to help you out.
Hint: it makes no sense to base IP licenses on the cost of a physical chip. Chips can drop in price dramatically over time, but the value of the IP does not.
Imagine that you had a patent on say, ramdisk software. The fact that RAM prices have dropped by several orders of magnitude over the past few decades, does not make your patent any less valuable. Quite the opposite, in fact.
An example I just pointed out in another thread, is that everybody pays Qualcomm twice: once for the cost of the physical chipset, and then separately for whatever IP is going to be used on it.
For example, the latest chipsets can implement quite a few standards. But you wouldn't want to pay for TD-SCDMA licenses if you didn't plan on selling your phone in China.
That's what I understand too from researching it for myself. Qualcomm charges an on-going per-finished device royalty, currently estimated at something north of 3% of the bill of materials plus a one-time licensing fee for access to Qualcomm's IP. it doesn't matter whether a device uses Qualcomm hardware or another chipset vendor instead either. If there's CDMA tech included in a smartphone or tablet then Qualcomm gets a percentage of it's build costs.
They're one of the few companies outside of Apple themselves that knows for certain exactly how much a cellular-equipped iPad or iPhone costs to build.
Kudos here for some real in-depth reporting. Too bad some more widely-read news sites can afford the shoe leather for this type of work.
The only way to make it better? Pair this article with another one, showing Motorola's and others' similar actions.
As Iunderstand the history, Moto sued Apple just weeks after the first iPhone went on sale, and Moto found out that Apple was using the Incheon chips (complication: then made by Chi Mei?). Moto immediately canceled the Incheon license, and as Apple was most (all?) of their business, had relatively little leverage with Moto, leaving the baseband business, and turning over the struggles to Apple.
Having pursued this more casually, I'm not 100% on the facts. It'd be great to put them onto a timeline, showing the many lawsuits that first started against Apple. (That's right, Apple's lawsuits came well later, after Google had had time to crank iOS thru their copying machines.)
Not enough time? That's OK; sooner or later it'll all come out cleanly. Meanwhile, thanks again for this fine piece.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
…I however have not been wronged personally by Samsung…I'll reserve my hatred for companies that build weapons and use child labor.
Then you HAVE been personally wronged by Samsung and it is time to change your buying habits:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/05/samsung_accused_child_labor/
http://mashable.com/2012/08/08/samsung-child-labor/
http://www.zdnet.com/cn/samsung-accused-of-using-child-labor-in-china-7000002476/
I quite sure you can find your own links regarding Samsung's weaponry activities too…
Well then that's it, no more Samsung products for me, dirty bastards :grumble: In all fairness Apple has found child labor being used in it's supply chain as well. I highly doubt Apple or Samsung had any prior knowledge of these activities. I still find it disgusting and I'm done with them.
I see you don't get out much these days. Samsung has been caught from its CEO on down lying, cheating, etc. REcently a class action suit against samsung tvs for using substandard parts and then not providing warrentte coverage.
Samsung, bad to the core and if "bigger must be better" is the best you can come up with, try reading some of DED's work. That man does his research.
And no, changing colors every 6 months is not major innovation. Now the wave your hand over the phone is getting closer to innovation but only by the method involved.
Nuff said. Either you will understand or not. But facts are facts.
Again, none of that surprises me nor does it matter to me. What does matter is Samsung is a weapons manufacture and and has child labor in their factories, I didn't know this, I don't no why I didn't do my research, I'm sickened by it, I'm outraged. So I'm done with Samsung and any products that contains their components. I can't believe I tried to defend those bastards. F*ck them...........
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
That's not correct. Qualcomm clearly and explicitly states that a licensee's royalty basis is the cost of the completed device (Total BOM rather than the retail selling price tho) and not just a chipset. Research it for yourself if you have any doubt. Had you already done so you'd know what Qualcomm bases it on rather than guessing. A good start would be visiting Qualcomm's own website. They don't hide it.
Be aware that there are few companies that monetize their IP as effectively as Qualcomm. In licensing royalties alone they put right at $2B in the bank in just the last quarter!
EDIT: By the way, Qualcomms estimated current royalties average for devices using their CDMA/3G/4G IP is 3.3% of the total device bill of materials. That's up a tiny bit from the 3.2% per-device royalties from the previous quarter.
http://djcs.gtm.idmanagedsolutions.com/cxb/analystpdf/argus/74752510350.pdf
Nothing quite brings the "Android / profits are bad" crowd and the "patents are a great way to monopolize markets" crowds together than a fierce hatred of Apple.
it is unbelievable that Apple was willing to pay Samsung a whole 33 cents per device for this, just for using a chip that had already licensed this IP... (2.8% of the chip price, for this tiny part of it, 0.0000375% of a protocol that in turn is 1/100th of the chip functionality)
The only reason that Apple use it is because it is an agreed standard. It would take Apple engineers no more than a day to develop an alternative encoding method is they wanted to. This is almost like charging people because of the use of morse code.
Apparatus and method for encoding/decoding transport format combination indicator in CDMA mobile communication system
Abstract
An apparatus and method for encoding/decoding a transport format combination indicator (TFCI) in a CDMA mobile communication system. In the TFCI encoding apparatus, a one-bit generator generates a sequence having the same symbols. A basis orthogonal sequence generator generates a plurality of basis orthogonal sequences. A basis mask sequence generator generates a plurality of basis mask sequences. An operation unit receives TFCI bits that are divided into a first information part representing biorthogonal sequence conversion, a second information part representing orthogonal sequence conversion, and a third information part representing mask sequence conversion and combines an orthogonal sequence selected from the basis orthogonal sequence based on the second information, a biorthogonal sequence obtained by combining the selected orthogonal sequence with the same symbols selected based on the first information part, and a mask sequence selected based on the biorthogonal sequence and the third information part, thereby generating a TFCI sequence.
Perhaps I am a bit slower than usual today, but what does BOM have to do with gross or net SALES?
Living where you do, you have the luxury of saying 'no weapons.'
Pease don't generalize your bucolic, pastoral Swiss existence to the rest of the world.