For all that we've talked the whole HTC vs Apple subject to death on these forums, there's on thing that I've not seen discussed much and that's what an agreement between them might actually look like. Assuming that the S3 purchase does give HTC enough leverage to prevent Apple driving them out of the US market altogether, what might Apple demand in terms of royalties?
We could imagine they might ask $10 per handset but while that makes sense for MS does it make sense for Apple? A fixed charge per handset would only force HTC to move it's product offering further up-market and into Apple's preferred segment. The higher the charge, the more HTC would have to go toe-to-toe with the iP4. It would seem that Apple would want the exact opposite, to force HTC out of the high-end and into making more low-build quality cheap phones.
A percentage based royalty or better yet a progressive royalty scale that penalized high end phones would seem to be the ideal result for Apple.
Not to split hairs, but I think there's a rather salient difference between the issues regarding Apple's patent infringement and that of companies like HTC and Samsung. Has Apple infringed on patents? Yes. Name me a technology company with over $300 million in revenue that hasn't.
Was there a company that trademarked the iPhone name before Apple. Yes. Did Apple's iPhone look anything like the "other" iPhone. No. Was it even the same product? No. Was it targeted at the same market? No. The first (non-Apple) iPhone was a VoIP phone ... Apple's iPhone was a smart cellular phone. You'd have to be a complete idiot to confuse the two.
As far as the naming of products the list could go on, but that's really not the same thing as giving your product a different name, but copying the look, feel, and experience of another product. I think anyone would agree the latter is far more aggrieved of a patent infringement than the former. You look at these devices (or even play around with them for a couple minutes) and the similarities are too numerous to be coincidence. They are trying to copy the iPhone ... it's that simple.
Now, has Apple infringed on technology patents? Yes. I think the main difference between the patents Apple infringed and the case concerning HTC and Samsung Apple's infringements were functional and not aesthetic. For example, the Nokia and Kodak patents recently Apple was recently found to have infringed upon -- they were all mechanical patents on the inside of the phone. I don't think anyone's initial gut reaction when the iPhone was released was to say, "Oh, that's a Nokia phone ... or a Kodak camera!" That doesn't mean Apple didn't infringe on a patent, but I think the difference between what Apple did and what HTC and Samsung has done is obvious for anyone to recognize. The question then becomes, "is one really 'better' than the other." Well, that's open to debate, but the difference between the two situations is undeniable.
Personally, I think copying the look, design, and feel of a product to ride the coattails of it's popularity is worse than what Apple has done. That's just my opinion though ...
The problem is that Apple isnt suing HTC based on look and feel (they are suing samsung on that though). They are suing based on a technology patent from 1996. One that is very board, that didnt originally cover mobile devices to my understanding, and that is present in pretty much every modern OS.
Also, i own both an HTC phone and an iPhone; im actually posting this from my HTC device. They are worlds apart in terms of look and feel; both hardware and UI wise. While i believe the case aganist samsung's touchwiz UI has merit, to say all android phones are copies of iPhones when there is so much variance on hardware and so many differences in the UI is dishonest at best.
If that's the case, if it's not directly relevant to the UX Apple might not have a problem licensing the patents. Apple consistently show that tech specs are basically irrelevant to most people's purchasing decisions. If they can make a quid selling technology which doesn't suppress their advantages, why wouldn't they?
People dont really get how much easier it is to go after the HW-manufacurer (Googles client) and not the free os manufacturer. They would have a nice time of prooving how much money they lost as its been given away?!? Would you chose to do this, if you had any other options??? Atleast they can cross-referense their own products?!?!
Oracle on the other hand has to do this and Google already said Oracles losses are "NILL" because Google doesnt charge anybody. Obviously the court didnt believe this at all but its not easy to get to a sum in a case like that. Experts suggest it might be 1-3 billion but it might not....(the sum was 100 billion at some time I believe)
FWIW, BoyGeniusReport response to TechCrunch's claim? "Absolutely Ridiculous".
They write that their own well-placed sources put the return rates in the low single digits, which would make them potentially equivalent to those of the iPhone.
From BGR: "So what?s the real number? It?s tough for us to give an across-the-board estimate, of course, but that?s why we have sources. We have been told by three very reliable sources that a safe estimate for Android?s global handset return rate is ?in the low single digits.? That?s a pretty far cry from 30% or 40%, we?d say."
Comments
We could imagine they might ask $10 per handset but while that makes sense for MS does it make sense for Apple? A fixed charge per handset would only force HTC to move it's product offering further up-market and into Apple's preferred segment. The higher the charge, the more HTC would have to go toe-to-toe with the iP4. It would seem that Apple would want the exact opposite, to force HTC out of the high-end and into making more low-build quality cheap phones.
A percentage based royalty or better yet a progressive royalty scale that penalized high end phones would seem to be the ideal result for Apple.
Not to split hairs, but I think there's a rather salient difference between the issues regarding Apple's patent infringement and that of companies like HTC and Samsung. Has Apple infringed on patents? Yes. Name me a technology company with over $300 million in revenue that hasn't.
Was there a company that trademarked the iPhone name before Apple. Yes. Did Apple's iPhone look anything like the "other" iPhone. No. Was it even the same product? No. Was it targeted at the same market? No. The first (non-Apple) iPhone was a VoIP phone ... Apple's iPhone was a smart cellular phone. You'd have to be a complete idiot to confuse the two.
As far as the naming of products the list could go on, but that's really not the same thing as giving your product a different name, but copying the look, feel, and experience of another product. I think anyone would agree the latter is far more aggrieved of a patent infringement than the former. You look at these devices (or even play around with them for a couple minutes) and the similarities are too numerous to be coincidence. They are trying to copy the iPhone ... it's that simple.
Now, has Apple infringed on technology patents? Yes. I think the main difference between the patents Apple infringed and the case concerning HTC and Samsung Apple's infringements were functional and not aesthetic. For example, the Nokia and Kodak patents recently Apple was recently found to have infringed upon -- they were all mechanical patents on the inside of the phone. I don't think anyone's initial gut reaction when the iPhone was released was to say, "Oh, that's a Nokia phone ... or a Kodak camera!" That doesn't mean Apple didn't infringe on a patent, but I think the difference between what Apple did and what HTC and Samsung has done is obvious for anyone to recognize. The question then becomes, "is one really 'better' than the other." Well, that's open to debate, but the difference between the two situations is undeniable.
Personally, I think copying the look, design, and feel of a product to ride the coattails of it's popularity is worse than what Apple has done. That's just my opinion though ...
The problem is that Apple isnt suing HTC based on look and feel (they are suing samsung on that though). They are suing based on a technology patent from 1996. One that is very board, that didnt originally cover mobile devices to my understanding, and that is present in pretty much every modern OS.
Also, i own both an HTC phone and an iPhone; im actually posting this from my HTC device. They are worlds apart in terms of look and feel; both hardware and UI wise. While i believe the case aganist samsung's touchwiz UI has merit, to say all android phones are copies of iPhones when there is so much variance on hardware and so many differences in the UI is dishonest at best.
If that's the case, if it's not directly relevant to the UX Apple might not have a problem licensing the patents. Apple consistently show that tech specs are basically irrelevant to most people's purchasing decisions. If they can make a quid selling technology which doesn't suppress their advantages, why wouldn't they?
People dont really get how much easier it is to go after the HW-manufacurer (Googles client) and not the free os manufacturer. They would have a nice time of prooving how much money they lost as its been given away?!? Would you chose to do this, if you had any other options??? Atleast they can cross-referense their own products?!?!
Oracle on the other hand has to do this and Google already said Oracles losses are "NILL" because Google doesnt charge anybody. Obviously the court didnt believe this at all but its not easy to get to a sum in a case like that. Experts suggest it might be 1-3 billion but it might not....(the sum was 100 billion at some time I believe)
These 2nd rate copycats aren't even that good at copying Apple!
Android?s Dirty Secret: Shipping Numbers Are Strong But Returns Are 30-40%
vs.
iPhone 4's return rate of 1.7%
http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/26/and...rns-are-30-40/
FWIW, BoyGeniusReport response to TechCrunch's claim? "Absolutely Ridiculous".
They write that their own well-placed sources put the return rates in the low single digits, which would make them potentially equivalent to those of the iPhone.
From BGR: "So what?s the real number? It?s tough for us to give an across-the-board estimate, of course, but that?s why we have sources. We have been told by three very reliable sources that a safe estimate for Android?s global handset return rate is ?in the low single digits.? That?s a pretty far cry from 30% or 40%, we?d say."
http://www.bgr.com/2011/07/28/40-of-...ly-ridiculous/