Not debating that the starting negotiation rate was high, but that aside...
The physical chip price is totally irrelevant to licensing. It could cost $150 to make at first, and a few years later cost only $15 to make. Price drops happen all the time as production gets better.
Instead, what matters for licensing is the value of the related IP.
This is why Apple (and everyone else) pays Qualcomm twice. Once for the stock (or custom) chipset that they will solder into the device, and then separately for related IP they will use on that device. (They will not necessarily be the same thing. E.g. why pay for LTE chip capability. if you have no LTE amps or antennas.)
AFAIK, Infineon did not have a license for the patent in question. Intel did, but they didn't buy Infineon until Jan 2011.
So if Samsung wants to licence an SEP from Apple, it's fair and reasonable for Apple to demand cross-licensing of Samsung's non-FRAND encumbered patents on top of monetary compensation, even when it doesn't ask the same of other licensees?
So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime.
What a scumbag company.
Judging from your 6 posts and your comment you have no clue what your talking about. If you actually did some intelligent reading instead of being a troll, you might learn that the company your defending has just about the worst moral compass a company can have. Samsung is run by a cartel of convicted felons including there CEO. What there doing with FRAND SEP's will hurt every company including Apple that has legitimate patents. Its call Patent Hold Up. Go read and get a clue.
"This weekend's ruling may later the strategy of some companies and potentially change (or prolong) dispute outcomes if the ITC becomes more constrictive in handing down cease and desist orders," Um wrote in a note to investors provided to AppleInsider on Monday.
Not to be a noodge, but the very first words of your post, "proof reading" are properly written as one word. Otherwise, I agree with you . . .
It's just funny how it always seems to work work out that way on proofreading complaint posts. ;-)
This is all about jobs and approval ratings- BHO can't afford for any layoffs now which this would surely result in as there just isn't a replacement phone for Apple at this point in time.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Not debating that the starting negotiation rate was high, but that aside...
The physical chip price is totally irrelevant to licensing. It could cost $150 to make at first, and a few years later cost only $15 to make. Price drops happen all the time as production gets better.
Instead, what matters for licensing is the value of the related IP.
This is why Apple (and everyone else) pays Qualcomm twice. Once for the stock (or custom) chipset that they will solder into the device, and then separately for related IP they will use on that device. (They will not necessarily be the same thing. E.g. why pay for LTE chip capability. if you have no LTE amps or antennas.)
AFAIK, Infineon did not have a license for the patent in question. Intel did, but they didn't buy Infineon until Jan 2011.
So if Samsung wants to licence an SEP from Apple, it's fair and reasonable for Apple to demand cross-licensing of Samsung's non-FRAND encumbered patents on top of monetary compensation, even when it doesn't ask the same of other licensees?
Quote:
Originally Posted by harharhar
So Apple can say No, I don't want to pay what everyone else does for this technology that lets us actually sell a phone as a phone. Then, they get away without paying a dime.
What a scumbag company.
Judging from your 6 posts and your comment you have no clue what your talking about. If you actually did some intelligent reading instead of being a troll, you might learn that the company your defending has just about the worst moral compass a company can have. Samsung is run by a cartel of convicted felons including there CEO. What there doing with FRAND SEP's will hurt every company including Apple that has legitimate patents. Its call Patent Hold Up. Go read and get a clue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2old4fun
Proof reading must be a lost art.
"This weekend's ruling may later the strategy of some companies and potentially change (or prolong) dispute outcomes if the ITC becomes more constrictive in handing down cease and desist orders," Um wrote in a note to investors provided to AppleInsider on Monday.
Not to be a noodge, but the very first words of your post, "proof reading" are properly written as one word. Otherwise, I agree with you . . .
It's just funny how it always seems to work work out that way on proofreading complaint posts. ;-)
"Your Honor, we just lost over a billion dollars to Apple in a patent suit; we have to make that up somehow."
This is all about jobs and approval ratings- BHO can't afford for any layoffs now which this would surely result in as there just isn't a replacement phone for Apple at this point in time.
Or maybe he just felt this was a "phony" ruling?
It does seem rather arbitrary though.
How so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurtisEMayle
How so?
Well when was the last time this was ever done- a prez reverse such a penalty?
Five times so far including three by Reagan. None of the previous ones involved SEP issues, so this was a first.