What I'm struggling to comprehend is that the chip manufacturers were able to avoid paying these royalties, yet Apple is unable to achieve the same result. Apple surely has a defence relating to downstream product use; but if not, why not?
Is this case against Apple simply a matter of the patent holder squeezing the customer of its customers in order to get the money it is rightfully owed?
The may have to leave the UK market to set an example and cool the current wave of attacks. What would be the cost of not leaving?
Interesting that you did not comment on the copyright infringement but on the fact that Apple might leave. So in your mind it’s okay for Apple to steal someone else’s IP. Good to know.
I’m not disputing the copyright infringement. The article quotes the judge clearly baiting Apple with not only ‘disappointing fees’ but the tone of the rest of the commentary. Apple is facing this across the world and should respond even before fees are set, no business should have to operate in a region which constitutes such a clear litigious liability.
Total iPhone sales are estimated around 52m units between 2011-2019. At an ASP of $800, that makes $41.6b and a 25% net profit margin is around $10b. Issuing a $7b charge for a couple of patents is insane and would of course lead Apple to consider leaving the UK to avoid paying it. It seems to be applied to every iPhone sold worldwide but that's equivalent to $134 per iPhone they've ever sold in the UK.
I've been the only person on these forums to consistently and repeatedly say, for about two years now, that Apple should leave any market where the government makes it unprofitable to continue doing business in that country. I am consistently mocked for this point of view,
That is not what you have been saying, not what you were mocked for.
Exactly!!!
@22july2013: You were/are being mocked for suggesting that Apple leave markets at the slightest hint of scrutiny of Apple's practices, adhering to the various demands (irrespective of whether implementable or not) from host country, NOT when doing business becomes unprofitable in that country. There is a HUGE difference between what you have been suggesting in other threads and this specific post. And as Avon B7 has explained in above post, it still does not make sense for Apple to pull out of a market as big as UK, instead of using legal channels to remedy their situation if they strongly believe that injustice is being meted out to them.
Those words are yours, not mine, i.e., "at the slightest hint of scrutiny." You just make false stuff up without citing anything I said. The fact that you and Crowley are both "attacking" me without citing any proof of your claim, is precisely the proof of my claim that I am "consistently attacked" (direct quote).
You are consistently criticised when you say untrue and/or crazy things. You have repeatedly claimed that Apple should leave jurisdictions that interfere with Apple's right to operate the App Store in whatever way they see fit, along with other regulatory measures. That's a very long way from making it unprofitable to do business.
Your directives have been consistently ideological, not economical.
If you want proof then open any thread about the App Store being subject to regulatory scrutiny. You very reliably pop up in all of them with the same comments, and they are rarely about Apple becoming unprofitable in a country.
If the courts allowed every patent owner to do the same, the costs would eventually amount to far more than the cost of the entire product, which makes no sense.
Why not? IP certainly has value, I don't see why it makes no sense for it to have more value than the assembly cost of the physical product. For a technology product that's a composite of so many hardware and software elements and operating in an integrated network of assorted standards, the iPhone is very exposed to patents. They'll just have to raise the price to accommodate the licensing.
Going forward they can raise the prices but not in retrospect. To allow a single company with a couple of patents to wipe out nearly all of a company's net profit in a region for a decade is crazy. There should be a time limit applied at least in retrospect such as no royalties 5 years or more back, 20% royalties 4 years back, 40% 3, 60% 2, 80% 1 and 100% going forward and they can decide if they agree to the terms.
Making a company pay full royalty rates they didn't agree to and didn't apply to their products at the time of sale is not a fair policy. An established business could operate for decades and some random patent troll emerges and bankrupts the company overnight over some trivial patents. One of their patents is for switching between 3G/4G and the slow 2G network and covers some basic algorithm to determine when to switch. That's not worth $7b and no company would agree to pay those rates, which is why Intel and Qualcomm didn't. Apple shouldn't then have to cover this when they only used chips made by those other companies.
Patent infringement should be applied to the companies who make the infringing components, that's Intel and Qualcomm in this case and patent owners shouldn't be allowed to apply their own made-up royalty rates retroactively that weren't agreed to by the infringing companies. What's to stop them saying $20 per device and then it's over $35b, that's a completely unworkable way to do business.
That's why there's a court involved, to determine what's fair.
The may have to leave the UK market to set an example and cool the current wave of attacks. What would be the cost of not leaving?
“Set an example”... you really want things to look bad for Apple, don’t you? Yeah, let’s have corporations bully entire countries into having things the way corporations want. That is always great for humanity... 🙄
If the UK market becomes too toxic then leaving it may not be a bad thing. Apple is a for profit business and if the market condition isn’t profitable whats the point of been on it? Besides is not like the UK market is as big as the EU market.
The EU market is also getting toxic.
Stopping corporations from ruling the world, destroying our environment, and dictating terms to entire nations is “toxic”, by you...?
The may have to leave the UK market to set an example and cool the current wave of attacks. What would be the cost of not leaving?
“Set an example”... you really want things to look bad for Apple, don’t you? Yeah, let’s have corporations bully entire countries into having things the way corporations want. That is always great for humanity... 🙄
There’s a lot of armchair John Galts around these parts.
The may have to leave the UK market to set an example and cool the current wave of attacks. What would be the cost of not leaving?
I don’t know. Everyone on forums seem to agree that Apple should leave every country that attacks them. Seems like a good plan! /s
The cost of not leaving? Not sure what you mean but leaving means it leaves the market open for knockoffs and patent thieves like Huawei and Samsung to take over the market Apple spend decades and billions of dollars inventing.
Samsung and Huawei are knockoffs and patent thieves? The case clearly proves who the patent thief is. Are you being sarcastic? Apple is literally being tried for infringing on patents, and that too not cosmetic patents like rounded edges. Would definitely like to see Apple pull out of UK.
If the courts allowed every patent owner to do the same, the costs would eventually amount to far more than the cost of the entire product, which makes no sense.
Why not? IP certainly has value, I don't see why it makes no sense for it to have more value than the assembly cost of the physical product. For a technology product that's a composite of so many hardware and software elements and operating in an integrated network of assorted standards, the iPhone is very exposed to patents. They'll just have to raise the price to accommodate the licensing.
Going forward they can raise the prices but not in retrospect. To allow a single company with a couple of patents to wipe out nearly all of a company's net profit in a region for a decade is crazy. There should be a time limit applied at least in retrospect such as no royalties 5 years or more back, 20% royalties 4 years back, 40% 3, 60% 2, 80% 1 and 100% going forward and they can decide if they agree to the terms.
Making a company pay full royalty rates they didn't agree to and didn't apply to their products at the time of sale is not a fair policy. An established business could operate for decades and some random patent troll emerges and bankrupts the company overnight over some trivial patents. One of their patents is for switching between 3G/4G and the slow 2G network and covers some basic algorithm to determine when to switch. That's not worth $7b and no company would agree to pay those rates, which is why Intel and Qualcomm didn't. Apple shouldn't then have to cover this when they only used chips made by those other companies.
Patent infringement should be applied to the companies who make the infringing components, that's Intel and Qualcomm in this case and patent owners shouldn't be allowed to apply their own made-up royalty rates retroactively that weren't agreed to by the infringing companies. What's to stop them saying $20 per device and then it's over $35b, that's a completely unworkable way to do business.
They infringed on patents that too not trivial design patents but necessary technological patents, they are paying the price. It is not only Apple that does research, every other company does it too and it costs them money. Using those technologies without paying licensing fees is thievary, whichever way you look at it. It wanted $40 dollars for five frivolous patents. https://www.slashgear.com/apple-demands-sky-high-samsung-patent-licensing-fee-11320242/. ;The five patents in question concern certain features around how unified search operates, slide-to-unlock, how phone numbers can be dialed by pressing them, auto-complete, and data sync. They got it coming. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and they want to run away. Lol!
The may have to leave the UK market to set an example and cool the current wave of attacks. What would be the cost of not leaving?
I don’t know. Everyone on forums seem to agree that Apple should leave every country that attacks them. Seems like a good plan! /s
The cost of not leaving? Not sure what you mean but leaving means it leaves the market open for knockoffs and patent thieves like Huawei and Samsung to take over the market Apple spend decades and billions of dollars inventing.
"For the third consecutive year, China-based telecoms giant Huawei Technologies, with 4,411 published PCT applications, was the top corporate filer in 2019"
"As early as 2016, the licensing registration information published by the State Intellectual Property Office at that time showed that in 2015, Huawei licensed 769 patents to Apple, and Apple licensed 98 patents to Huawei"
Consumers will pay the toll in raised prices. Let the UK shoot themselves in the foot.
Do you realise that in the UK, the Judiciary is not elected as in the USA and is fiercely independent of the Government?
IMHO, those patent trolls need to be closed down and I hope that is what eventually happens. They do not add anything worthwhile to society, only take.
The may have to leave the UK market to set an example and cool the current wave of attacks. What would be the cost of not leaving?
I don’t know. Everyone on forums seem to agree that Apple should leave every country that attacks them. Seems like a good plan! /s
The cost of not leaving? Not sure what you mean but leaving means it leaves the market open for knockoffs and patent thieves like Huawei and Samsung to take over the market Apple spend decades and billions of dollars inventing.
Samsung and Huawei are knockoffs and patent thieves? The case clearly proves who the patent thief is. Are you being sarcastic? Apple is literally being tried for infringing on patents, and that too not cosmetic patents like rounded edges. Would definitely like to see Apple pull out of UK.
The case hasn’t proven anything, making everything else you’ve stated worthless not even consider. How hard is it to see that Apple isn’t the infringer if the products that infringed _weren’t even made by them and are products used in many, many, MANY other products? I mean, should a patent troll sue _you_ for using an iPhone or Android device that has the same technology in it because you’re now somehow infringing on the patent?! 🙄 Stinkin’ use your head here. A child could, should and would see how stupid this patent troll garbage is.
If the courts allowed every patent owner to do the same, the costs would eventually amount to far more than the cost of the entire product, which makes no sense.
Why not? IP certainly has value, I don't see why it makes no sense for it to have more value than the assembly cost of the physical product. For a technology product that's a composite of so many hardware and software elements and operating in an integrated network of assorted standards, the iPhone is very exposed to patents. They'll just have to raise the price to accommodate the licensing.
Going forward they can raise the prices but not in retrospect. To allow a single company with a couple of patents to wipe out nearly all of a company's net profit in a region for a decade is crazy. There should be a time limit applied at least in retrospect such as no royalties 5 years or more back, 20% royalties 4 years back, 40% 3, 60% 2, 80% 1 and 100% going forward and they can decide if they agree to the terms.
Making a company pay full royalty rates they didn't agree to and didn't apply to their products at the time of sale is not a fair policy. An established business could operate for decades and some random patent troll emerges and bankrupts the company overnight over some trivial patents. One of their patents is for switching between 3G/4G and the slow 2G network and covers some basic algorithm to determine when to switch. That's not worth $7b and no company would agree to pay those rates, which is why Intel and Qualcomm didn't. Apple shouldn't then have to cover this when they only used chips made by those other companies.
Patent infringement should be applied to the companies who make the infringing components, that's Intel and Qualcomm in this case and patent owners shouldn't be allowed to apply their own made-up royalty rates retroactively that weren't agreed to by the infringing companies. What's to stop them saying $20 per device and then it's over $35b, that's a completely unworkable way to do business.
They infringed on patents that too not trivial design patents but necessary technological patents, they are paying the price. It is not only Apple that does research, every other company does it too and it costs them money. Using those technologies without paying licensing fees is thievary, whichever way you look at it. It wanted $40 dollars for five frivolous patents. https://www.slashgear.com/apple-demands-sky-high-samsung-patent-licensing-fee-11320242/. The five patents in question concern certain features around how unified search operates, slide-to-unlock, how phone numbers can be dialed by pressing them, auto-complete, and data sync. They got it coming. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and they want to run away. Lol!
Again: NOT proven, and _Apple didn’t make the technology that’s being stated as being infringing on the said patents_. Just… smh.
Hey, you — kid using that graphing calculator! Yeah, you owe me xx$₽¥€ because the one diode in there you had absolutely nothing to do with making, manufacturing and such (accusatory and not yet proven) infringes on something I didn’t have anything to do with either, but somehow was able to buy a (possibly generically written) patent we can now claim is ours. And for extra bullying, what you owe is all only calculated in an assumed/made up today’s amounts vs yester-year’s amounts applicable to any fees that may’ve been owed back then and appropriately adjusted through to present. Plus, all your life years are belong to us! Nyah! /s
Apple would not be the first to leave the UK. Many international financial institutions have already beat them to it and headed across the channel.
The UK intended itself to become more business friendly by leaving the EU. But it appears they are becoming less so.
Not true, what hallucinogens are you taking?
I'm defintiely not taking the hallucinogenic Brexit propaganda. JP Morgan Chase is latest to announce their exit from the London financial markets.
So you’re the person who reads The New European! Maybe you should try a real newspaper. JP Morgan is considering relating the EU business it rights into the EU, it’s not exiting the London market of which the EU is just a small fraction. But don’t let facts spoil your political narrative.
Comments
Is this case against Apple simply a matter of the patent holder squeezing the customer of its customers in order to get the money it is rightfully owed?
Apple is facing this across the world and should respond even before fees are set, no business should have to operate in a region which constitutes such a clear litigious liability.
Your directives have been consistently ideological, not economical.
If you want proof then open any thread about the App Store being subject to regulatory scrutiny. You very reliably pop up in all of them with the same comments, and they are rarely about Apple becoming unprofitable in a country.
I'm defintiely not taking the hallucinogenic Brexit propaganda. JP Morgan Chase is latest to announce their exit from the London financial markets.
Which won't be an option if the hardware is unable to support UK mobile frequencies, or if iOS drops support for UK.
https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2020/article_0005.html
"For the third consecutive year, China-based telecoms giant Huawei Technologies, with 4,411 published PCT applications, was the top corporate filer in 2019"
https://inf.news/en/economy/e92b707602685f6b4b2b7a2f4103edb4.html
"As early as 2016, the licensing registration information published by the State Intellectual Property Office at that time showed that in 2015, Huawei licensed 769 patents to Apple, and Apple licensed 98 patents to Huawei"
IMHO, those patent trolls need to be closed down and I hope that is what eventually happens. They do not add anything worthwhile to society, only take.
But don’t let facts spoil your political narrative.
Really dumbass threat I say.