Let us hope that this case gets heard and reviewed by at least one court before settlement so we have some clarity on the merits of the case.
You want to wait 5 years for a court to hear the case?
Well yes...if it means a long battle to actually have a court determine the meaning and value per component of FRAND licensing rates, then so be it. The current system whereby the owners of voluntarily offered IP, incorporated into a standards body specification, can subvert the intent of SEP licensing with individual contract pricing is ludicrous.
"Qualcomm's royalty rates, which are also at issue in Apple's lawsuits, are calculated based on whole device value, not per-component." That is truly an insane way to license IP!
...and yet very common in the industry.
I KNEW you'd post exactly this. It's like copy/paste from your previous posts.
Where's your proof it's common? Do you have the details on a significant number of contracts so you can tally up who does and doesn't do this in order to make this claim?
When the newer 5G standards are ratified I'm pretty sure all the contributors will recognize that the relatively high royalties based on ASP are under fire and a hybrid royalty basis will be used instead. On the negative side some companies (ie.Nokia, Asus) may no longer be willing to contribute to the standards anyway, taking their chance with negotiating licenses to their IP on an individual basis.
With all that said I'm not sure you understand the use of the word "common".
That's a lot of links that say nothing.
I want you to show me actual contracts between suppliers and manufacturers. Unless you can, there's no way you can make any claim whatsoever that this is "common".
For example, you linked a FOSS article on Ericsson. Apple and Ericsson settled out of court. Do you have any information on their contract details and what the royalties ended up being? We know what Ericsson WANTED, but that doesn't tell us what they actually received.
Unless you meant to say it's "common" for patent holders to ask for royalties based on retail price. Not they they get it.
"Qualcomm's royalty rates, which are also at issue in Apple's lawsuits, are calculated based on whole device value, not per-component." That is truly an insane way to license IP!
...and yet very common in the industry.
I KNEW you'd post exactly this. It's like copy/paste from your previous posts.
Where's your proof it's common? Do you have the details on a significant number of contracts so you can tally up who does and doesn't do this in order to make this claim?
When the newer 5G standards are ratified I'm pretty sure all the contributors will recognize that the relatively high royalties based on ASP are under fire and a hybrid royalty basis will be used instead. On the negative side some companies (ie.Nokia, Asus) may no longer be willing to contribute to the standards anyway, taking their chance with negotiating licenses to their IP on an individual basis.
With all that said I'm not sure you understand the use of the word "common".
That's a lot of links that say nothing.
I want you to show me actual contracts between suppliers and manufacturers. Unless you can, there's no way you can make any claim whatsoever that this is "common".
For example, you linked a FOSS article on Ericsson. Apple and Ericsson settled out of court. Do you have any information on their contract details and what the royalties ended up being? We know what Ericsson WANTED, but that doesn't tell us what they actually received.
Unless you meant to say it's "common" for patent holders to ask for royalties based on retail price. Not they they get it.
Why would I care what "you want"? Your purpose for demanding isn't so you can be more knowledgeable about it.
"Qualcomm's royalty rates, which are also at issue in Apple's lawsuits, are calculated based on whole device value, not per-component." That is truly an insane way to license IP!
...and yet very common in the industry.
I KNEW you'd post exactly this. It's like copy/paste from your previous posts.
Where's your proof it's common? Do you have the details on a significant number of contracts so you can tally up who does and doesn't do this in order to make this claim?
When the newer 5G standards are ratified I'm pretty sure all the contributors will recognize that the relatively high royalties based on ASP are under fire and a hybrid royalty basis will be used instead. On the negative side some companies (ie.Nokia, Asus) may no longer be willing to contribute to the standards anyway, taking their chance with negotiating licenses to their IP on an individual basis.
With all that said I'm not sure you understand the use of the word "common".
That's a lot of links that say nothing.
I want you to show me actual contracts between suppliers and manufacturers. Unless you can, there's no way you can make any claim whatsoever that this is "common".
For example, you linked a FOSS article on Ericsson. Apple and Ericsson settled out of court. Do you have any information on their contract details and what the royalties ended up being? We know what Ericsson WANTED, but that doesn't tell us what they actually received.
Unless you meant to say it's "common" for patent holders to ask for royalties based on retail price. Not they they get it.
Why would I care what "you want"? Your purpose for demanding isn't so you can be more knowledgeable about it.
You made a blanket claim about something that you don't have the ability to prove. Are you going to withdraw your original statement?
"Qualcomm's royalty rates, which are also at issue in Apple's lawsuits, are calculated based on whole device value, not per-component." That is truly an insane way to license IP!
...and yet very common in the industry.
I KNEW you'd post exactly this. It's like copy/paste from your previous posts.
Where's your proof it's common? Do you have the details on a significant number of contracts so you can tally up who does and doesn't do this in order to make this claim?
When the newer 5G standards are ratified I'm pretty sure all the contributors will recognize that the relatively high royalties based on ASP are under fire and a hybrid royalty basis will be used instead. On the negative side some companies (ie.Nokia, Asus) may no longer be willing to contribute to the standards anyway, taking their chance with negotiating licenses to their IP on an individual basis.
With all that said I'm not sure you understand the use of the word "common".
That's a lot of links that say nothing.
I want you to show me actual contracts between suppliers and manufacturers. Unless you can, there's no way you can make any claim whatsoever that this is "common".
For example, you linked a FOSS article on Ericsson. Apple and Ericsson settled out of court. Do you have any information on their contract details and what the royalties ended up being? We know what Ericsson WANTED, but that doesn't tell us what they actually received.
Unless you meant to say it's "common" for patent holders to ask for royalties based on retail price. Not they they get it.
Why would I care what "you want"? Your purpose for demanding isn't so you can be more knowledgeable about it.
You made a blanket claim about something that you don't have the ability to prove. Are you going to withdraw your original statement?
Once again why would I care what your opinion on it is or what you personally want? I've shown beyond a reasonable doubt that IP royalties based on revenue (ie device build cost, device selling price, product profits, product gross revenues) is a common basis. Your doubt is not reasonable IMHO.
"Qualcomm's royalty rates, which are also at issue in Apple's lawsuits, are calculated based on whole device value, not per-component." That is truly an insane way to license IP!
...and yet very common in the industry.
I KNEW you'd post exactly this. It's like copy/paste from your previous posts.
Where's your proof it's common? Do you have the details on a significant number of contracts so you can tally up who does and doesn't do this in order to make this claim?
When the newer 5G standards are ratified I'm pretty sure all the contributors will recognize that the relatively high royalties based on ASP are under fire and a hybrid royalty basis will be used instead. On the negative side some companies (ie.Nokia, Asus) may no longer be willing to contribute to the standards anyway, taking their chance with negotiating licenses to their IP on an individual basis.
With all that said I'm not sure you understand the use of the word "common".
That's a lot of links that say nothing.
I want you to show me actual contracts between suppliers and manufacturers. Unless you can, there's no way you can make any claim whatsoever that this is "common".
For example, you linked a FOSS article on Ericsson. Apple and Ericsson settled out of court. Do you have any information on their contract details and what the royalties ended up being? We know what Ericsson WANTED, but that doesn't tell us what they actually received.
Unless you meant to say it's "common" for patent holders to ask for royalties based on retail price. Not they they get it.
Why would I care what "you want"? Your purpose for demanding isn't so you can be more knowledgeable about it.
You made a blanket claim about something that you don't have the ability to prove. Are you going to withdraw your original statement?
Once again why would I care what your opinion on it is or what you personally want? I've shown beyond a reasonable doubt that IP royalties based on revenue (ie device build cost, device selling price, product profits, product gross revenues) is a common basis. Your doubt is not reasonable IMHO.
I see. So as usual you start off with a vague statement posted as an absolute, then have to qualify it once you get called on it.
You've shown nothing except what many companies TRY to get regarding royalties, not what they ACTUALLY get.
"Qualcomm's royalty rates, which are also at issue in Apple's lawsuits, are calculated based on whole device value, not per-component." That is truly an insane way to license IP!
...and yet very common in the industry.
I KNEW you'd post exactly this. It's like copy/paste from your previous posts.
Where's your proof it's common? Do you have the details on a significant number of contracts so you can tally up who does and doesn't do this in order to make this claim?
When the newer 5G standards are ratified I'm pretty sure all the contributors will recognize that the relatively high royalties based on ASP are under fire and a hybrid royalty basis will be used instead. On the negative side some companies (ie.Nokia, Asus) may no longer be willing to contribute to the standards anyway, taking their chance with negotiating licenses to their IP on an individual basis.
With all that said I'm not sure you understand the use of the word "common".
That's a lot of links that say nothing.
I want you to show me actual contracts between suppliers and manufacturers. Unless you can, there's no way you can make any claim whatsoever that this is "common".
For example, you linked a FOSS article on Ericsson. Apple and Ericsson settled out of court. Do you have any information on their contract details and what the royalties ended up being? We know what Ericsson WANTED, but that doesn't tell us what they actually received.
Unless you meant to say it's "common" for patent holders to ask for royalties based on retail price. Not they they get it.
Why would I care what "you want"? Your purpose for demanding isn't so you can be more knowledgeable about it.
You made a blanket claim about something that you don't have the ability to prove. Are you going to withdraw your original statement?
Once again why would I care what your opinion on it is or what you personally want? I've shown beyond a reasonable doubt that IP royalties based on revenue (ie device build cost, device selling price, product profits, product gross revenues) is a common basis. Your doubt is not reasonable IMHO.
I see. So as usual you start off with a vague statement posted as an absolute, then have to qualify it once you get called on it.
You've shown nothing except what many companies TRY to get regarding royalties, not what they ACTUALLY get.
Why are you so interested in derailing a thread with silly demands and distractions based on personalities and not learning?
"Qualcomm's royalty rates, which are also at issue in Apple's lawsuits, are calculated based on whole device value, not per-component." That is truly an insane way to license IP!
Yes, I have to admit I'm struggling to think of anyone else who does this. I'm sure there are, just can't think of one.
Besides Ericcson, Alcatel-Lucent, Nokia, Huawei, LG, Lenovo and a few other major licensees of IP I can't think of any either.
Some of you commenting are looking at the wrong pieces for evidence of illegality and FRAND-violation. ASP (Average Selling Price) as a royalty basis is both legal and common even if specific licensing terms between specific companies in specific contracts may not be.
No doubt that several readers here think that China found Qualcomm guilty of violating FRAND rules and fining them because of royalties based on a completed device. They did not. In fact China for all intents acknowledged that final build cost IS an appropriate royalty basis by telling Qualcomm to reduce it from 100% to 65% of the total cost for Chinese OEM's. It was other parts of Qualcomm's licensing requirements such as mandatory cross-licensing without recompense and including both SEP and non-SEP patents in the same license without the option of negotiating the non-SEP's separately that China found in violation of law.
Same thing in Korea. Basing royalties on a final device cost was not ruled illegal, not even inappropriate AFAIK. It was the bundling of non-SEP patents that might have nothing to do with the a particular product, or perhaps not applicable to any standard used in a company's product, and forcing the licensee to pay royalties on those in order to license the applicable SEP's. That's wrong in my view, and wrong in the view of China and Korea. They deserved to be fined.
Here in the US I suspect the same general finding if the government follows thru on their Qualcomm antitrust suit: Several Qualcomm licensing tactics including the two I mentioned being found to violate competition laws, but royalties based on total build cost not ruled illegal per-se.
For a couple of reasons I think companies like the ones I mentioned will stop world-wide licensing and negotiate royalties for specific regions in order to maximize their revenue, and companies like Apple and Samsung will try to resist in order to minimize their costs of doing business.
ASP as basis has been successfully challenged many times, and the Courts appear to favor that. It's never been "illegal", but times change and Qualcomm, et al, will have to live in a different world.
A modem is a modem, not matter the market or the ASP of the device, and should be priced and sold at the component level.
"Qualcomm's royalty rates, which are also at issue in Apple's lawsuits, are calculated based on whole device value, not per-component." That is truly an insane way to license IP!
Yes, I have to admit I'm struggling to think of anyone else who does this. I'm sure there are, just can't think of one.
Besides Ericcson, Alcatel-Lucent, Nokia, Huawei, LG, Lenovo and a few other major licensees of IP I can't think of any either.
Some of you commenting are looking at the wrong pieces for evidence of illegality and FRAND-violation. ASP (Average Selling Price) as a royalty basis is both legal and common even if specific licensing terms between specific companies in specific contracts may not be.
No doubt that several readers here think that China found Qualcomm guilty of violating FRAND rules and fining them because of royalties based on a completed device. They did not. In fact China for all intents acknowledged that final build cost IS an appropriate royalty basis by telling Qualcomm to reduce it from 100% to 65% of the total cost for Chinese OEM's. It was other parts of Qualcomm's licensing requirements such as mandatory cross-licensing without recompense and including both SEP and non-SEP patents in the same license without the option of negotiating the non-SEP's separately that China found in violation of law.
Same thing in Korea. Basing royalties on a final device cost was not ruled illegal, not even inappropriate AFAIK. It was the bundling of non-SEP patents that might have nothing to do with the a particular product, or perhaps not applicable to any standard used in a company's product, and forcing the licensee to pay royalties on those in order to license the applicable SEP's. That's wrong in my view, and wrong in the view of China and Korea. They deserved to be fined.
Here in the US I suspect the same general finding if the government follows thru on their Qualcomm antitrust suit: Several Qualcomm licensing tactics including the two I mentioned being found to violate competition laws, but royalties based on total build cost not ruled illegal per-se.
For a couple of reasons I think companies like the ones I mentioned will stop world-wide licensing and negotiate royalties for specific regions in order to maximize their revenue, and companies like Apple and Samsung will try to resist in order to minimize their costs of doing business.
ASP as basis has been successfully challenged many times, and the Courts appear to favor that. It's never been "illegal", but times change and Qualcomm, et al, will have to live in a different world.
A modem is a modem, not matter the market or the ASP of the device, and should be priced and sold at the component level.
To price based on a 'value' invites abuse of pricing. No company should license that way. It should be per component, not the entire value of a device. Remember how Microsoft required licensing even if a pc doesn't have windows. It's now illegal.
I remember reading somewhere this actually make sense for some market like telecom, if you based on % of chipset you will never actually get back your investment. The problem now is that they are abusing it.
There were some calculation that nearly $100 per iPhone goes to patent system, more then half goes to 4G. Let say on a 20% Market Share Apple paid average $50 per phone. While the Rest of the industry paid average $20 per phone. Apple is literally paying ~40% of total in the telecom patent industry!
With a projected 1.5B Smartphone sales, that is 40B yearly revenue for the telecom industry, without doing a thing!. And you have to remember if 4G LTE has a life time of 10 - 15 years, that is $500B+, assuming there is no growth of 4G devices! Then there is the coming 5G.
I think Apple wanted a future where Laptop, Desktop, Cars, Phones tablet will all have 4G / 5G built-in, but the roadblock is this ridiculously expensive patents system.
I guess this explains why Elon Musk talks about putting up 4000 low orbit satelittes for wifi.
would give him lots of power if he sold a phone that came with free WiFi and cell onnectivity world wide.
"Qualcomm's royalty rates, which are also at issue in Apple's lawsuits, are calculated based on whole device value, not per-component." That is truly an insane way to license IP!
Yes, I have to admit I'm struggling to think of anyone else who does this. I'm sure there are, just can't think of one.
Besides Ericcson, Alcatel-Lucent, Nokia, Huawei, LG, Lenovo and a few other major licensees of IP I can't think of any either.
Some of you commenting are looking at the wrong pieces for evidence of illegality and FRAND-violation. ASP (Average Selling Price) as a royalty basis is both legal and common even if specific licensing terms between specific companies in specific contracts may not be.
No doubt that several readers here think that China found Qualcomm guilty of violating FRAND rules and fining them because of royalties based on a completed device. They did not. In fact China for all intents acknowledged that final build cost IS an appropriate royalty basis by telling Qualcomm to reduce it from 100% to 65% of the total cost for Chinese OEM's. It was other parts of Qualcomm's licensing requirements such as mandatory cross-licensing without recompense and including both SEP and non-SEP patents in the same license without the option of negotiating the non-SEP's separately that China found in violation of law.
Same thing in Korea. Basing royalties on a final device cost was not ruled illegal, not even inappropriate AFAIK. It was the bundling of non-SEP patents that might have nothing to do with the a particular product, or perhaps not applicable to any standard used in a company's product, and forcing the licensee to pay royalties on those in order to license the applicable SEP's. That's wrong in my view, and wrong in the view of China and Korea. They deserved to be fined.
Here in the US I suspect the same general finding if the government follows thru on their Qualcomm antitrust suit: Several Qualcomm licensing tactics including the two I mentioned being found to violate competition laws, but royalties based on total build cost not ruled illegal per-se.
For a couple of reasons I think companies like the ones I mentioned will stop world-wide licensing and negotiate royalties for specific regions in order to maximize their revenue, and companies like Apple and Samsung will try to resist in order to minimize their costs of doing business.
Seems like basing the licensing cost on a % of selling cost is the same thing that Apple does with the App Store.
To price based on a 'value' invites abuse of pricing. No company should license that way. It should be per component, not the entire value of a device. Remember how Microsoft required licensing even if a pc doesn't have windows. It's now illegal.
I remember reading somewhere this actually make sense for some market like telecom, if you based on % of chipset you will never actually get back your investment. The problem now is that they are abusing it.
There were some calculation that nearly $100 per iPhone goes to patent system, more then half goes to 4G. Let say on a 20% Market Share Apple paid average $50 per phone. While the Rest of the industry paid average $20 per phone. Apple is literally paying ~40% of total in the telecom patent industry!
With a projected 1.5B Smartphone sales, that is 40B yearly revenue for the telecom industry, without doing a thing!. And you have to remember if 4G LTE has a life time of 10 - 15 years, that is $500B+, assuming there is no growth of 4G devices! Then there is the coming 5G.
I think Apple wanted a future where Laptop, Desktop, Cars, Phones tablet will all have 4G / 5G built-in, but the roadblock is this ridiculously expensive patents system.
I guess this explains why Elon Musk talks about putting up 4000 low orbit satelittes for wifi.
would give him lots of power if he sold a phone that came with free WiFi and cell onnectivity world wide.
"Qualcomm's royalty rates, which are also at issue in Apple's lawsuits, are calculated based on whole device value, not per-component." That is truly an insane way to license IP!
Yes, I have to admit I'm struggling to think of anyone else who does this. I'm sure there are, just can't think of one.
Besides Ericcson, Alcatel-Lucent, Nokia, Huawei, LG, Lenovo and a few other major licensees of IP I can't think of any either.
Some of you commenting are looking at the wrong pieces for evidence of illegality and FRAND-violation. ASP (Average Selling Price) as a royalty basis is both legal and common even if specific licensing terms between specific companies in specific contracts may not be.
No doubt that several readers here think that China found Qualcomm guilty of violating FRAND rules and fining them because of royalties based on a completed device. They did not. In fact China for all intents acknowledged that final build cost IS an appropriate royalty basis by telling Qualcomm to reduce it from 100% to 65% of the total cost for Chinese OEM's. It was other parts of Qualcomm's licensing requirements such as mandatory cross-licensing without recompense and including both SEP and non-SEP patents in the same license without the option of negotiating the non-SEP's separately that China found in violation of law.
Same thing in Korea. Basing royalties on a final device cost was not ruled illegal, not even inappropriate AFAIK. It was the bundling of non-SEP patents that might have nothing to do with the a particular product, or perhaps not applicable to any standard used in a company's product, and forcing the licensee to pay royalties on those in order to license the applicable SEP's. That's wrong in my view, and wrong in the view of China and Korea. They deserved to be fined.
Here in the US I suspect the same general finding if the government follows thru on their Qualcomm antitrust suit: Several Qualcomm licensing tactics including the two I mentioned being found to violate competition laws, but royalties based on total build cost not ruled illegal per-se.
For a couple of reasons I think companies like the ones I mentioned will stop world-wide licensing and negotiate royalties for specific regions in order to maximize their revenue, and companies like Apple and Samsung will try to resist in order to minimize their costs of doing business.
Seems like basing the licensing cost on a % of selling cost is the same thing that Apple does with the App Store.
No it's not the same thing, unless you consider Walmart is doing thee same thing... another person wallowing in fallacies to make à so called point
Comments
The current system whereby the owners of voluntarily offered IP, incorporated into a standards body specification, can subvert the intent of SEP licensing with individual contract pricing is ludicrous.
That's a lot of links that say nothing.
I want you to show me actual contracts between suppliers and manufacturers. Unless you can, there's no way you can make any claim whatsoever that this is "common".
For example, you linked a FOSS article on Ericsson. Apple and Ericsson settled out of court. Do you have any information on their contract details and what the royalties ended up being? We know what Ericsson WANTED, but that doesn't tell us what they actually received.
Unless you meant to say it's "common" for patent holders to ask for royalties based on retail price. Not they they get it.
You made a blanket claim about something that you don't have the ability to prove. Are you going to withdraw your original statement?
I see. So as usual you start off with a vague statement posted as an absolute, then have to qualify it once you get called on it.
You've shown nothing except what many companies TRY to get regarding royalties, not what they ACTUALLY get.
Here's a link to one where you could probably make a productive contribution. The current one isn't working for you:
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/200920/how-to-backup-wipe-and-restore-your-mac-before-selling-it#latest
It's never been "illegal", but times change and Qualcomm, et al, will have to live in a different world.
A modem is a modem, not matter the market or the ASP of the device, and should be priced and sold at the component level.
would give him lots of power if he sold a phone that came with free WiFi and cell onnectivity world wide.