Your argument can be applied to the price of fish at the local fish monger. Should each chef who buys fish be required to pay a price for fish based upon their intended use and skill at preparing the fish for resale as a restaurant meal, such that a highly ranked chef at a five star restaurant should pay significantly higher for the same fish because she knows how to better prepare it and charges significantly more when she sells it on to her restaurant patrons?.
Are you claiming it should be illegal to do so if the fish seller so wishes? I can't imagine how as they are his fish to sell or not.
Using your argument it would limit the value of a company you built with the sweat of your brow. My company may be much more valuable to certain buyers than others and I may demand a higher price to sell out to them because of the intrinsic value it offers them even if others would not realize that same value. I'm sure that shouldn't be too hard to understand.
EDIT: Like Ericthehalfbee you too seem to be trying to ignore that the patents Ericcsson is claiming Apple infringes are NOT all FRAND-pledged, perhaps to make your argument somehow valid. Ericsson is not required to license them to Apple in the first place and is well within their rights to refuse Apple's use of that patented technology.
Now whether the IP claims are valid to begin with and Apple is using them unlicensed (stealing them as some would claim if the defendant was some other company) are other arguments that will have to be heard if the cases continue. Instead I think the two will magically come to an agreement.
Your argument can be applied to the price of fish at the local fish monger. Should each chef who buys fish be required to pay a price for fish based upon their intended use and skill at preparing the fish for resale as a restaurant meal, such that a highly ranked chef at a five star restaurant should pay significantly higher for the same fish because she knows how to better prepare it and charges significantly more when she sells it on to her restaurant patrons?
If prices were determined purely based on value to the producer, why then do companies use shell companies when buying potentially valuable trademarks?
Unless it was like, Samsung that was involved, in which case the costs should be non existent, right?
Ericcson is another failed company, Sony should have just thrown the mobile division at them rather than buy it. It's proven to be utterly worthless.
Since when is Ericsson a failed cmpany. It is the undisputed market leader in mobile network equipment (the radio equipment sold to the mobile telecom operators like Verizon, ...)
Where is your evidence that Ericsson is demanding cross-licensing as a condition for their SEP IP, and otherwise refuses to offer Apple a license?
In addition you seem to be conveniently ignoring that many of the patents Ericsson is asserting, and that Apple was apparently licensing until a few months ago, are not FRAND pledged. Ericsson is under no obligation to make that patented technology available to Apple in the first place. Compulsory licensing for access to those would not be illegal AFAIK. Do you have a different understanding?
Where did I say Ericsson is demanding cross-licensing? My comment was a reply to yours stating cross-licensing is not illegal. However, in some cases it can actually be (in the case of SEP's).
And I'm not ignoring anything. Funny how you can take a single sentence of mine and extrapolate that out and form a complete and detailed opinion of what I think about this case.
Where did I say Ericsson is demanding cross-licensing? My comment was a reply to yours stating cross-licensing is not illegal. However, in some cases it can actually be (in the case of SEP's).
And I'm not ignoring anything. Funny how you can take a single sentence of mine and extrapolate that out and form a complete and detailed opinion of what I think about this case.
Ahh, I misunderstood. So your comment had nothing to do with the Ericsson claims specifically. My apologies for reading more into your comment than you say you intended.
Well we know how this end for Motorola who attempted to do the same thing. Everyone is seeing Apple profits and now they all want a cut of those profits
Well we know how this end for Motorola who attempted to do the same thing. Everyone is seeing Apple profits and now they all want a cut of those profits
You are right that some patents can't be tied to the price of the handset, ie the Motorola patents asserted against Microsoft that an earlier poster mentioned. Ericsson is not asserting only patents that can be tied to a specific component. They are claiming their developmental work, codified in several US patents, are applicable to the basic functionality of the iPhone itself and not simply one component of it.
Apple realizes more value from the patents than most other handset makers. Their products bring in billions of profit and those patents are much more valuable to them because of it. Ericsson would argue that without the hard and expensive ground work laid by them to make the iPhone possible Apple could not realize those profits. What is specifically unfair, much less illegal, about being asked to pay for the value realized from those patents.
For Ericsson, the same level of effort goes into those inexpensive Android fork phones that use its IP. Are you stating that Ericsson gives them discounts as non or minimal-profits? Xiaomi says thanks!!
What you are really stating, is that Apple would not have an iPhone at all without Ericsson, and hence Apple's profits need to be shared, based on the sales price. This certainly would describe the deep pockets theory of commerce, but one as well practiced by institutions like the Mafia.
For Ericsson, the same level of effort goes into those inexpensive Android fork phones that use its IP. Are you stating that Ericsson gives them discounts as non or minimal-profits? Xiaomi says thanks!!
What you are really stating, is that Apple would not have an iPhone at all without Ericsson, and hence Apple's profits need to be shared, based on the sales price. This certainly would describe the deep pockets theory of commerce, but one as well practiced by institutions like the Mafia.
I'm not saying that at all. That would be Ericsson's argument.
The royalties aren't tied to profits anyway. Samsung is probably paying nearly the same base royalties as Apple on a few of their smartphones since the wholesale price is probably similar. And no I doubt that other companies are offered a lower percentage of the device price as royalties which is actually worse as few of them are seeing significant profits to begin with. They should be the ones raising a ruckus about it as some can probably ill afford the cost.
Anyone thought of having a patent on breathing, or sex maybe? Things move so fast these days, isn't there now a need for a time limit on patents and copyrights? There are so many patents and for such trivial things, it is getting silly. Could you imagine the food industry patenting fish and chips or chicken soup? Maybe someone has, but who would take any notice.
I'm not saying that at all. That would be Ericsson's argument.
The royalties aren't tied to profits anyway. Samsung is probably paying nearly the same base royalties as Apple on a few of their smartphones since the wholesale price is probably similar. And no I doubt that other companies are offered a lower percentage of the device price as royalties which is actually worse as few of them are seeing significant profits to begin with. They should be the ones raising a ruckus about it as some can probably ill afford the cost.
"What is specifically unfair, much less illegal, about being asked to pay for the value realized from those patents."
That would be your editorial statement in agreement with what you believe to be Ericsson's position based on your statements. Is that not the case?
For the record, it was you that brought up profits; I only took it to a logical conclusion.
Wow! The scumbags filed suit in Eastern Texas... Let's start petitioning the president that they close down the Federal court there based on the rampant abuse of the legal system.
As soon as I saw the article said Texas I knew Ericsson had nothing to stand on or not enough money to use a real court. The eastern court of Texas should be shut down permanently.
I would have thought that the recent high-profile Apple cases showed the limited value of patent litigation in the US, at least for large companies. Apple was able to get positive court decisions a couple of times, but has neither been paid the award, nor had any success at an injunction on anything other than very old products.
Apple's strategy is more around building very difficult to copy features/components/design rather than relying on patents.
Seriously doubt this will net Ericsson much, and it will be settled out of court in the end.
"What is specifically unfair, much less illegal, about being asked to pay for the value realized from those patents."
That would be your editorial statement in agreement with what you believe to be Ericsson's position based on your statements. Is that not the case?
For the record, it was you that brought up profits; I only took it to a logical conclusion.
I'm asking the question, which you should feel free to answer: What is specifically unfair, much less illegal, about being asked to pay for the value realized from those patents? Can the value basis be approached as it would be with any other property you own and priced according to the value to the buyer or should patents be handled differently? What do you personally think?
Note that many of the infringment claims are apparently not standard-essential and instead related to semiconductor components, location services, applications, user interface design, and even the iOS operating system. The AI article here now omits that altho the one up on the main page still mentions it.
EDIT:
Apple has issued a statement regarding the disagreement:
“With tens of thousands of innovative employees, Apple has deep respect for intellectual property. We’ve always been willing to pay a fair price to secure the rights to standards essential patents covering technology in our products. Unfortunately, we have not been able to agree with Ericsson on a fair rate for their patents so, as a last resort, we are asking the courts for help.”
I'm asking the question, which you should feel free to answer: What is specifically unfair, much less illegal, about being asked to pay for the value realized from those patents? Can the value basis be approached as it would be with any other property you own and priced according to the value to the buyer or should patents be handled differently? What do you personally think?
Note that many of the infringment claims are apparently not standard-essential and instead related to semiconductor components, location services, applications, user interface design, and even the iOS operating system. The AI article here now omits that altho the one up on the main page still mentions it.
EDIT:
Apple has issued a statement regarding the disagreement:
“With tens of thousands of innovative employees, Apple has deep respect for intellectual property. We’ve always been willing to pay a fair price to secure the rights to standards essential patents covering technology in our products. Unfortunately, we have not been able to agree with Ericsson on a fair rate for their patents so, as a last resort, we are asking the courts for help.”
It appears to be mostly essential patents covering cellular communication.
If in fact Ericsson is using the sales or even the build cost of a smartphone as basis for the licensing rate, I would find this to be unfair, as smartphones have many features, services, software, apps and ecosystem that add value, not to mention brand. You seem to argue that smartphones are communications devices primarily, and I would argue that they are computers primarily, and that the added value of the iPhone is the computer, including the services, software, apps and ecosystems define the value of a smartphone, not just its communications.
That Ericsson failed in the marketplace with smartphones pretty much defines the extent of the communications value in itself.
Since I don't have specifics of what Apple is unhappy about with licensing, I would assume that basis is the issue.
It appears to be mostly essential patents covering cellular communication.
If in fact Ericsson is using the sales or even the build cost of a smartphone as basis for the licensing rate, I would find this to be unfair, as smartphones have many features, services, software, apps and ecosystem that add value, not to mention brand. You seem to argue that smartphones are communications devices primarily, and I would argue that they are computers primarily, and that the added value of the iPhone is the computer, including the services, software, apps and ecosystems define the value of a smartphone, not just its communications.
That Ericsson failed in the marketplace with smartphones pretty much defines the extent of the communications value in itself.
Since I don't have specifics of what Apple is unhappy about with licensing, I would assume that basis is the issue.
Your Ericsson link says the same thing I already said earlier.:
"Many of Ericsson's patents are essential to the 2G, 3G and 4G/LTE standards; others are critical to other non-standardized aspects of Apple's devices.
"After Apple refused Ericsson's offer to have a court determine fair licensing terms by which both companies would be bound, Ericsson filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) requesting an exclusion order against Apple's products for infringing Ericsson patents that are essential to the 2G and 4G/LTE standards.
" Ericsson also filed a second ITC complaint seeking an exclusion order and multiple complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas requesting damages and injunctions for infringement of patents that are critical (not SEP) to many other aspects of Apple's devices.
Since many of the patents in question are NOT SEP's why can't Ericsson ask whatever they want for them?
Your Ericsson link says the same thing I already said earlier.:
"Many of Ericsson's patents are essential to the 2G, 3G and 4G/LTE standards; others are critical to other non-standardized aspects of Apple's devices.
"After Apple refused Ericsson's offer to have a court determine fair licensing terms by which both companies would be bound, Ericsson filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) requesting an exclusion order against Apple's products for infringing Ericsson patents that are essential to the 2G and 4G/LTE standards.
" Ericsson also filed a second ITC complaint seeking an exclusion order and multiple complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas requesting damages and injunctions for infringement of patents that are critical (not SEP) to many other aspects of Apple's devices.
You are avoiding the issue of basis; the value of the device that royalties are based on. Perhaps you have no opinion, but as I noted, this is what I believe that Apple wants the court to determine, the basis that licensing rates will be applied to.
Comments
Using your argument it would limit the value of a company you built with the sweat of your brow. My company may be much more valuable to certain buyers than others and I may demand a higher price to sell out to them because of the intrinsic value it offers them even if others would not realize that same value. I'm sure that shouldn't be too hard to understand.
EDIT: Like Ericthehalfbee you too seem to be trying to ignore that the patents Ericcsson is claiming Apple infringes are NOT all FRAND-pledged, perhaps to make your argument somehow valid. Ericsson is not required to license them to Apple in the first place and is well within their rights to refuse Apple's use of that patented technology.
Now whether the IP claims are valid to begin with and Apple is using them unlicensed (stealing them as some would claim if the defendant was some other company) are other arguments that will have to be heard if the cases continue. Instead I think the two will magically come to an agreement.
Your argument can be applied to the price of fish at the local fish monger. Should each chef who buys fish be required to pay a price for fish based upon their intended use and skill at preparing the fish for resale as a restaurant meal, such that a highly ranked chef at a five star restaurant should pay significantly higher for the same fish because she knows how to better prepare it and charges significantly more when she sells it on to her restaurant patrons?
If prices were determined purely based on value to the producer, why then do companies use shell companies when buying potentially valuable trademarks?
Unless it was like, Samsung that was involved, in which case the costs should be non existent, right?
Ericcson is another failed company, Sony should have just thrown the mobile division at them rather than buy it. It's proven to be utterly worthless.
Since when is Ericsson a failed cmpany. It is the undisputed market leader in mobile network equipment (the radio equipment sold to the mobile telecom operators like Verizon, ...)
Where is your evidence that Ericsson is demanding cross-licensing as a condition for their SEP IP, and otherwise refuses to offer Apple a license?
In addition you seem to be conveniently ignoring that many of the patents Ericsson is asserting, and that Apple was apparently licensing until a few months ago, are not FRAND pledged. Ericsson is under no obligation to make that patented technology available to Apple in the first place. Compulsory licensing for access to those would not be illegal AFAIK. Do you have a different understanding?
Where did I say Ericsson is demanding cross-licensing? My comment was a reply to yours stating cross-licensing is not illegal. However, in some cases it can actually be (in the case of SEP's).
And I'm not ignoring anything. Funny how you can take a single sentence of mine and extrapolate that out and form a complete and detailed opinion of what I think about this case.
Ahh, I misunderstood. So your comment had nothing to do with the Ericsson claims specifically. My apologies for reading more into your comment than you say you intended.
You are right that some patents can't be tied to the price of the handset, ie the Motorola patents asserted against Microsoft that an earlier poster mentioned. Ericsson is not asserting only patents that can be tied to a specific component. They are claiming their developmental work, codified in several US patents, are applicable to the basic functionality of the iPhone itself and not simply one component of it.
Apple realizes more value from the patents than most other handset makers. Their products bring in billions of profit and those patents are much more valuable to them because of it. Ericsson would argue that without the hard and expensive ground work laid by them to make the iPhone possible Apple could not realize those profits. What is specifically unfair, much less illegal, about being asked to pay for the value realized from those patents.
For Ericsson, the same level of effort goes into those inexpensive Android fork phones that use its IP. Are you stating that Ericsson gives them discounts as non or minimal-profits? Xiaomi says thanks!!
What you are really stating, is that Apple would not have an iPhone at all without Ericsson, and hence Apple's profits need to be shared, based on the sales price. This certainly would describe the deep pockets theory of commerce, but one as well practiced by institutions like the Mafia.
The royalties aren't tied to profits anyway. Samsung is probably paying nearly the same base royalties as Apple on a few of their smartphones since the wholesale price is probably similar. And no I doubt that other companies are offered a lower percentage of the device price as royalties which is actually worse as few of them are seeing significant profits to begin with. They should be the ones raising a ruckus about it as some can probably ill afford the cost.
I'm not saying that at all. That would be Ericsson's argument.
The royalties aren't tied to profits anyway. Samsung is probably paying nearly the same base royalties as Apple on a few of their smartphones since the wholesale price is probably similar. And no I doubt that other companies are offered a lower percentage of the device price as royalties which is actually worse as few of them are seeing significant profits to begin with. They should be the ones raising a ruckus about it as some can probably ill afford the cost.
"What is specifically unfair, much less illegal, about being asked to pay for the value realized from those patents."
That would be your editorial statement in agreement with what you believe to be Ericsson's position based on your statements. Is that not the case?
For the record, it was you that brought up profits; I only took it to a logical conclusion.
Let's start a petition to shut it down!
I would have thought that the recent high-profile Apple cases showed the limited value of patent litigation in the US, at least for large companies. Apple was able to get positive court decisions a couple of times, but has neither been paid the award, nor had any success at an injunction on anything other than very old products.
Apple's strategy is more around building very difficult to copy features/components/design rather than relying on patents.
Seriously doubt this will net Ericsson much, and it will be settled out of court in the end.
Note that many of the infringment claims are apparently not standard-essential and instead related to semiconductor components, location services, applications, user interface design, and even the iOS operating system. The AI article here now omits that altho the one up on the main page still mentions it.
EDIT:
Apple has issued a statement regarding the disagreement:
“With tens of thousands of innovative employees, Apple has deep respect for intellectual property. We’ve always been willing to pay a fair price to secure the rights to standards essential patents covering technology in our products. Unfortunately, we have not been able to agree with Ericsson on a fair rate for their patents so, as a last resort, we are asking the courts for help.”
Another jealous loser trying to extract excess money from the winner.
Unfortunately there are some courts and lawyers which live high taking on such ridiculous cases.
I'm asking the question, which you should feel free to answer: What is specifically unfair, much less illegal, about being asked to pay for the value realized from those patents? Can the value basis be approached as it would be with any other property you own and priced according to the value to the buyer or should patents be handled differently? What do you personally think?
Note that many of the infringment claims are apparently not standard-essential and instead related to semiconductor components, location services, applications, user interface design, and even the iOS operating system. The AI article here now omits that altho the one up on the main page still mentions it.
EDIT:
Apple has issued a statement regarding the disagreement:
“With tens of thousands of innovative employees, Apple has deep respect for intellectual property. We’ve always been willing to pay a fair price to secure the rights to standards essential patents covering technology in our products. Unfortunately, we have not been able to agree with Ericsson on a fair rate for their patents so, as a last resort, we are asking the courts for help.”
Here's the Ericsson link:
http://www.ericsson.com/news/1897919
It appears to be mostly essential patents covering cellular communication.
If in fact Ericsson is using the sales or even the build cost of a smartphone as basis for the licensing rate, I would find this to be unfair, as smartphones have many features, services, software, apps and ecosystem that add value, not to mention brand. You seem to argue that smartphones are communications devices primarily, and I would argue that they are computers primarily, and that the added value of the iPhone is the computer, including the services, software, apps and ecosystems define the value of a smartphone, not just its communications.
That Ericsson failed in the marketplace with smartphones pretty much defines the extent of the communications value in itself.
Since I don't have specifics of what Apple is unhappy about with licensing, I would assume that basis is the issue.
"Many of Ericsson's patents are essential to the 2G, 3G and 4G/LTE standards; others are critical to other non-standardized aspects of Apple's devices.
"After Apple refused Ericsson's offer to have a court determine fair licensing terms by which both companies would be bound, Ericsson filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) requesting an exclusion order against Apple's products for infringing Ericsson patents that are essential to the 2G and 4G/LTE standards.
" Ericsson also filed a second ITC complaint seeking an exclusion order and multiple complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas requesting damages and injunctions for infringement of patents that are critical (not SEP) to many other aspects of Apple's devices.
Since many of the patents in question are NOT SEP's why can't Ericsson ask whatever they want for them?
Your Ericsson link says the same thing I already said earlier.:
"Many of Ericsson's patents are essential to the 2G, 3G and 4G/LTE standards; others are critical to other non-standardized aspects of Apple's devices.
"After Apple refused Ericsson's offer to have a court determine fair licensing terms by which both companies would be bound, Ericsson filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) requesting an exclusion order against Apple's products for infringing Ericsson patents that are essential to the 2G and 4G/LTE standards.
" Ericsson also filed a second ITC complaint seeking an exclusion order and multiple complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas requesting damages and injunctions for infringement of patents that are critical (not SEP) to many other aspects of Apple's devices.
You are avoiding the issue of basis; the value of the device that royalties are based on. Perhaps you have no opinion, but as I noted, this is what I believe that Apple wants the court to determine, the basis that licensing rates will be applied to.