Note that aspirin is not patented here in France. That's a direct consequence of 1918 victory (it is written in the armistice act).
Any patent on aspirin would be long expired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EauVive
I think it is high time Apple moves to Europe: there is no software patent over here, we are civilized.
The software patent situation in Europe is essentially the same as in the US: you can patent a technical innovation that is implemented in software. Most big companies file their software patents in at least the US, Europe and Japan.
Apple refuses to innovate on key technologies, so it steals them from other companies and refuses to compensate them appropriately.
Kinda like the $1.7 million they gave that couple for their property in NC? They told them to name their price, they did, and Apple paid it. Doesn't do much to support your corporate characterization, does it. But then I don't suppose you'll be back to answer for your asinine comment, being the drive-by graffiti that it is.
You'll notice on that who's suing who diagram that if you remove all the people Nokia and Kodak are suing it gets a lot less complicated. Basically leaving Apple, Rim and MS suing a a couple of people each, and a few one-offs for Oracle, Quallcomm, Elan and now Motorola.
Kodak is done, I guess they figure there's life after death in litigation, and Nokia appears desperate.
Kodak is done, I guess they figure there's life after death in litigation, and Nokia appears desperate.
So if you developed some technology that you patented, and you felt that someone was using these patents without permission, or compensation, you wouldn't seek compensation, or sue them?
So if you developed some technology that you patented, and you felt that someone was using these patents without permission, or compensation, you wouldn't seek compensation, or sue them?
Actually I probably would, but I just think it's telling that the bulk of litigation on that chart is coming from one moribund company and one company that is experiencing unprecedented loss of market share and profits.
I'm having a hard time with 'we engaged in lengthy negotiations'.
Motorola is part of the wireless consortium. Its members are pledged to license their patents at fair and reasonable terms - and EVERYONE has to get the same terms. So what is there to negotiate? Give Apple the same terms as everyone else.
Sounds like another Nokia case. Nokia wanted Apple to pay more than everyone else and got miffed when Apple refused.
Actually I probably would, but I just think it's telling that the bulk of litigation on that chart is coming from one moribund company and one company that is experiencing unprecedented loss of market share and profits.
So it is only desperate when you say it is? If you have an issue with the suits shown in the "diagram", maybe the person who posted the image, or yourself should list what the actual suits are for.
I have been watching all of these lawsuit graphics floating around, guess this will require an update.
Nice graphic...
We can make a very interesting observation - all the companies getting sued are doing well, wheras the companies doing the suing look like the have beens in the industry -
Extrapolating this, it looks like shares of Sharp (in Japan), Samsung, LG Group (Korea) and shares of Motorola would be good to own.... and we can short RIM,. Microsoft, Nokia and Kodak against them.
And as a corollary, is Apple share price already at its peak, considering Apple is doing a lot of suing?
Of course, there is a lot more to investing than this sort of finger in the air rule - but nevertheless, this could signal the start of something.
Again, that was all hearsay, you have no proof of this.
Forget proof, it is quite obvious what is going on here...
The entire Wireless Forum is based on the way the industry was in the past - they licensed out their technologies at "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" rates to everyone - this everyone includes the $15 handset that does just the basic stuff, as well as higher end phones.
Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson and others are caught in a bind here - they get barely $2 for each handset, because that is the maximum that the low priced handsets can bear. Getting $2 from Apple for a $600 iPhone seems pointless, but they have no other option.
This is not so much about money - All these companies are trying to play hardball with Apple, trying to get a cross-licensing deal, where they get access to Apple's multi-touch patents. It is very dicey for Motorola and Nokia to implement Multi-touch because it opens themselves up to a massive risk of a suit from Apple. They thought they can play hardball with Apple, but Apple has shown itself to be a very strong player. Apple knows that if this case goes to court, they will have to pay out - but it will be of the order of $2 per handset - not a big deal. And they will obviously have tons of correspondence to prove that they were always ready to pay $2 per handset, and the only reason why this did not happen so far was because Nokia and Motorola were going against the rules of the Wireless Forum - and trying to get more from Apple. There is no way Apple can get slammed on a wilful violation of patents on this one.
The trouble for Motorola now, is that Apple is definitely going to counter-sue them over the multi-touch implementations in the Droid phones - and that will be a very difficult battle for Motorola to fight.
Forget proof, it is quite obvious what is going on here...
....
Apple knows that if this case goes to court, they will have to pay out - but it will be of the order of $2 per handset - not a big deal. And they will obviously have tons of correspondence to prove that they were always ready to pay $2 per handset, and the only reason why this did not happen so far was because Nokia and Motorola were going against the rules of the Wireless Forum - and trying to get more from Apple.
Quite a lot of assumptions there. Where did you get the 2USD/handset figure? I'd be interested in a source.
It could also be, that Motorola and Nokia are both in the right. Their stories seem very much identical in their lawsuits, negotiations etc. How many manufacturers do you need to come out with near identical stories to be swayed the other way (i.e. Apple doesn't want to pay FRAND)? Would you change your mind if in the next 6 months for example SonyEricsson (owner of many similar GSM and WIFI patents) comes with a similar lawsuit and similar story of failed negotiations? Maybe Qualcomm?
I'm not claiming either case, but you seem to be doing that with very little real evidence. That's why I wanted to point out the other just as propable possibility.
I have a chop-busting question - why didn't they sue three years ago when iPhone first came out?
Because negotiations can take a while. First the company holding the patents has to ensure that the other party is actually infringing on their IP, then the patent holder uses the threat of litigation if the infringing party doesn't pay a royalty. Then the infringing party recedes into the the dark, evaluates the patent holder's claims, and looks for ways to see if the patent holder is infringing on their IP. When both parties return to the negotiating table, they start looking at either paying fees to each other or cross licensing their IP; the latter being the more common option. My guess is that Apple refused to cross license so Motorola is taking the chance in front of a jury for the cash and forcing the cross licensing by getting each other's products banned from being imported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I'm having a hard time with 'we engaged in lengthy negotiations'.
Motorola is part of the wireless consortium. Its members are pledged to license their patents at fair and reasonable terms - and EVERYONE has to get the same terms. So what is there to negotiate? Give Apple the same terms as everyone else.
Sounds like another Nokia case. Nokia wanted Apple to pay more than everyone else and got miffed when Apple refused.
They're not required to license all of their patents just because they're part of a voluntary consortium, and the GSM standards organization is European so agreements made for that organization doesn't mean that the agreement is valid worldwide. Furthermore, Apple doesn't belong to any of the wireless consortiums that would allow them to see reduced to no fee royalties for patents relating to 3G technology. Claiming that Motorola is required to license their patents for a "fair" price because they belong to an alliance for mobile technology, that Apple isn't a member of, is just plain stupid. These alliances are to protect the members from IP claims, not outsiders.
Comments
Note that aspirin is not patented here in France. That's a direct consequence of 1918 victory (it is written in the armistice act).
Any patent on aspirin would be long expired.
I think it is high time Apple moves to Europe: there is no software patent over here, we are civilized.
The software patent situation in Europe is essentially the same as in the US: you can patent a technical innovation that is implemented in software. Most big companies file their software patents in at least the US, Europe and Japan.
Nokia?
Finland
Finland
Haha that was a fast edit there.
Apple refuses to innovate on key technologies, so it steals them from other companies and refuses to compensate them appropriately.
Examples?
Examples?
Of which of course I myself in the past have been guilty. But you just opened up a can of troll worms for sure...
Apple refuses to innovate on key technologies, so it steals them from other companies and refuses to compensate them appropriately.
Have a break and come back. see your reply and tell me how you feel like.
This here's what you call a big circle jerk.
More like a circular firing squad.
Apple refuses to innovate on key technologies, so it steals them from other companies and refuses to compensate them appropriately.
Kinda like the $1.7 million they gave that couple for their property in NC? They told them to name their price, they did, and Apple paid it. Doesn't do much to support your corporate characterization, does it. But then I don't suppose you'll be back to answer for your asinine comment, being the drive-by graffiti that it is.
Kodak is done, I guess they figure there's life after death in litigation, and Nokia appears desperate.
Kodak is done, I guess they figure there's life after death in litigation, and Nokia appears desperate.
So if you developed some technology that you patented, and you felt that someone was using these patents without permission, or compensation, you wouldn't seek compensation, or sue them?
So if you developed some technology that you patented, and you felt that someone was using these patents without permission, or compensation, you wouldn't seek compensation, or sue them?
Actually I probably would, but I just think it's telling that the bulk of litigation on that chart is coming from one moribund company and one company that is experiencing unprecedented loss of market share and profits.
Motorola is part of the wireless consortium. Its members are pledged to license their patents at fair and reasonable terms - and EVERYONE has to get the same terms. So what is there to negotiate? Give Apple the same terms as everyone else.
Sounds like another Nokia case. Nokia wanted Apple to pay more than everyone else and got miffed when Apple refused.
Actually I probably would, but I just think it's telling that the bulk of litigation on that chart is coming from one moribund company and one company that is experiencing unprecedented loss of market share and profits.
So it is only desperate when you say it is? If you have an issue with the suits shown in the "diagram", maybe the person who posted the image, or yourself should list what the actual suits are for.
Sounds like another Nokia case. Nokia wanted Apple to pay more than everyone else and got miffed when Apple refused.
Again, that was all hearsay, you have no proof of this.
I have been watching all of these lawsuit graphics floating around, guess this will require an update.
Nice graphic...
We can make a very interesting observation - all the companies getting sued are doing well, wheras the companies doing the suing look like the have beens in the industry -
Extrapolating this, it looks like shares of Sharp (in Japan), Samsung, LG Group (Korea) and shares of Motorola would be good to own.... and we can short RIM,. Microsoft, Nokia and Kodak against them.
And as a corollary, is Apple share price already at its peak, considering Apple is doing a lot of suing?
Of course, there is a lot more to investing than this sort of finger in the air rule - but nevertheless, this could signal the start of something.
Again, that was all hearsay, you have no proof of this.
Forget proof, it is quite obvious what is going on here...
The entire Wireless Forum is based on the way the industry was in the past - they licensed out their technologies at "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" rates to everyone - this everyone includes the $15 handset that does just the basic stuff, as well as higher end phones.
Nokia, Motorola, Ericsson and others are caught in a bind here - they get barely $2 for each handset, because that is the maximum that the low priced handsets can bear. Getting $2 from Apple for a $600 iPhone seems pointless, but they have no other option.
This is not so much about money - All these companies are trying to play hardball with Apple, trying to get a cross-licensing deal, where they get access to Apple's multi-touch patents. It is very dicey for Motorola and Nokia to implement Multi-touch because it opens themselves up to a massive risk of a suit from Apple. They thought they can play hardball with Apple, but Apple has shown itself to be a very strong player. Apple knows that if this case goes to court, they will have to pay out - but it will be of the order of $2 per handset - not a big deal. And they will obviously have tons of correspondence to prove that they were always ready to pay $2 per handset, and the only reason why this did not happen so far was because Nokia and Motorola were going against the rules of the Wireless Forum - and trying to get more from Apple. There is no way Apple can get slammed on a wilful violation of patents on this one.
The trouble for Motorola now, is that Apple is definitely going to counter-sue them over the multi-touch implementations in the Droid phones - and that will be a very difficult battle for Motorola to fight.
Forget proof, it is quite obvious what is going on here...
That sounds like the AI way, forget proof.
Forget proof, it is quite obvious what is going on here...
....
Apple knows that if this case goes to court, they will have to pay out - but it will be of the order of $2 per handset - not a big deal. And they will obviously have tons of correspondence to prove that they were always ready to pay $2 per handset, and the only reason why this did not happen so far was because Nokia and Motorola were going against the rules of the Wireless Forum - and trying to get more from Apple.
Quite a lot of assumptions there. Where did you get the 2USD/handset figure? I'd be interested in a source.
It could also be, that Motorola and Nokia are both in the right. Their stories seem very much identical in their lawsuits, negotiations etc. How many manufacturers do you need to come out with near identical stories to be swayed the other way (i.e. Apple doesn't want to pay FRAND)? Would you change your mind if in the next 6 months for example SonyEricsson (owner of many similar GSM and WIFI patents) comes with a similar lawsuit and similar story of failed negotiations? Maybe Qualcomm?
I'm not claiming either case, but you seem to be doing that with very little real evidence. That's why I wanted to point out the other just as propable possibility.
regs, Jarkko
I have a chop-busting question - why didn't they sue three years ago when iPhone first came out?
Because negotiations can take a while. First the company holding the patents has to ensure that the other party is actually infringing on their IP, then the patent holder uses the threat of litigation if the infringing party doesn't pay a royalty. Then the infringing party recedes into the the dark, evaluates the patent holder's claims, and looks for ways to see if the patent holder is infringing on their IP. When both parties return to the negotiating table, they start looking at either paying fees to each other or cross licensing their IP; the latter being the more common option. My guess is that Apple refused to cross license so Motorola is taking the chance in front of a jury for the cash and forcing the cross licensing by getting each other's products banned from being imported.
I'm having a hard time with 'we engaged in lengthy negotiations'.
Motorola is part of the wireless consortium. Its members are pledged to license their patents at fair and reasonable terms - and EVERYONE has to get the same terms. So what is there to negotiate? Give Apple the same terms as everyone else.
Sounds like another Nokia case. Nokia wanted Apple to pay more than everyone else and got miffed when Apple refused.
They're not required to license all of their patents just because they're part of a voluntary consortium, and the GSM standards organization is European so agreements made for that organization doesn't mean that the agreement is valid worldwide. Furthermore, Apple doesn't belong to any of the wireless consortiums that would allow them to see reduced to no fee royalties for patents relating to 3G technology. Claiming that Motorola is required to license their patents for a "fair" price because they belong to an alliance for mobile technology, that Apple isn't a member of, is just plain stupid. These alliances are to protect the members from IP claims, not outsiders.