... It's been reported in the past that Apple buys the completed product from Foxconn. This is the first sale. Then Apple acts a distributor and then sells it with their mark up, thus reducing the license fees considerably.
So that's why it's not called "the New iPhone". It's pre-owned or used¡
The problem is that Samsung's copying of Apple has made it the only smartphone manufacturer that has remained competitive in the marketplace against Apple. The lesson is that, while you will pay a penalty the penalty is far outweighed by the long term benefit. The risk takers are the losers in this situation.
Sadly you're absolutely correct. I don't know what the future holds for the likes of HTC and Motorola. HTC makes nice phones but just don't sell well, and the latest offerings by Moto are utterly disappointing. Though as of late it does seem like Samsung is straying away from copying Apple.
Junk that doesn't change from one model to the next, they took a Galaxy S 2 added a few pixels to the screen and made it a bit bigger, then called it an S III, their koolaid drinking customers lapped it up.*
*Post may contain traces of sarcasm, which may be lost on some, please consult a British comedian if suffering from adverse affects.
Weren't you just defending Apple against people that complained that Apple did just that? Look again the SGS lll looks very little to the SGS ll
The problem is that Samsung's copying of Apple has made it the only smartphone manufacturer that has remained competitive in the marketplace against Apple. The lesson is that, while you will pay a penalty the penalty is far outweighed by the long term benefit. The risk takers are the losers in this situation.
Doesn't seem to make any sense. A court in Munich recently found that Motorola smartphone infringed on Apple's bouncing-back patent. Now, why isn't Motorola's risk taking paying off?
Junk that doesn't change from one model to the next, they took a Galaxy S 2 added a few pixels to the screen and made it a bit bigger, then called it an S III, their koolaid drinking customers lapped it up.*
*Post may contain traces of sarcasm, which may be lost on some, please consult a British comedian if suffering from adverse affects.
You are absolutely right. The court case in california the jury ruled that qualcomm had paid the license fee and due to the contract that qualcomm had with samsung they could not sue any of qualcomms customers that buy there chips, also they found in favor of apple on the double dipping clause as well you cant charge twice for the same patent its against the law, the term is "patent exhaustion". If this were not the case anyone who makes a product could sue anyone who uses them including people that purchase them for infringing on there patent for not paying them royalties. Both intel and qualcomm have those in there contracts.
Here is a good definition of patent exhaustion or doctrine of first sale.
The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common lawpatent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holder’s exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law.
Procedurally, the patent exhaustion doctrine operates as an affirmative defense, shielding authorized purchasers from infringement claims concerning the use or sale of a patented good after the patent owner authorized its sale.
In other words they can't charge both qualcomm and the end customer for the patent because the end customer is using a qualcomm product incorporating that patent in there completed end device. That would be "double dipping".
Um.. don't think that's what the exhaustion doctrine says. According to Wiki you just quoted:
The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holders exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law. Note, however, that under current law, the patent owner retains the right to exclude purchasers of the articles from making the patented invention anew, unless it is specifically authorized by the patentee.[1]
Likewise, Qualcomm's customers are not covered by default under Samsung's licensing agreement. Qualcomm and Samsung had however signed an agreement not to go after their customers year back. Samsung terminated the agreement when Apple sued Samsung last year.
What's missing from this news item is very important, here's the quote from Engadget :
Quote:
While Judge James Gildea didn't publicly outline why Apple was in the clear, he added that Samsung lacks a domestic business that uses the patents -- important when it's trying to claim economic harm in the US.
So for all we know, Apple did infringe and should have paid license fees, but the ITC simply states it cannot do anything, not even investigate properly, because Samsung does not have a domestic business so in their definition there can not be any economic harm and thus no sentencing.
Sounds very strange to me from a country which projects it's own laws on other countries (see mega upload) and this was also a non issue in the Californian case (I know it's because that was not ITC related).
Um.. don't think that's what the exhaustion doctrine says. According to Wiki you just quoted:
The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holders exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law. Note, however, that under current law, the patent owner retains the right to exclude purchasers of the articles from making the patented invention anew, unless it is specifically authorized by the patentee.[1]
Likewise, Qualcomm's customers are not covered by default under Samsung's licensing agreement. Qualcomm and Samsung had however signed an agreement not to go after their customers year back. Samsung terminated the agreement when Apple sued Samsung last year.
Apple (the purchaser) hasn't made the patented invention anew. They haven't reversed engineered the chips; they haven't copied them; they haven't manufactured similar devices. They've merely used the physical product they were sold. They haven't "made" anything anew.
Um.. don't think that's what the exhaustion doctrine says. According to Wiki you just quoted:
The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holders exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law. [SIZE=14px]Note, however, that under current law, the patent owner retains the right to exclude purchasers of the articles from making the patented invention anew, unless it is specifically authorized by the patentee.[1][/SIZE]
Likewise, Qualcomm's customers are not covered by default under Samsung's licensing agreement. Qualcomm and Samsung had however signed an agreement not to go after their customers year back. Samsung terminated the agreement when Apple sued Samsung last year.
I think you are the one misunderstanding the exhaustion doctrine.
Qualcomm licenses the technology and builds a chip which contains that technology. Apple buys the chip and installs it - unmodified - into their phone. Apple does not recreate the technology anew, but rather simply uses the existing device which has already paid for a license. That's a classic example covered by patent exhaustion - as the court already ruled.
If that's the case, it's f^cking genius, and man would that burn Samsung. I hope you're right.
So Apple works out the component deals and shipping schedules and Foxconn places the orders, assembles and ships and bills Apple per piece? Technically that is the first sale. That is brilliant and a superb way of circumventing any royalty payments based on the retail sale price.
does apple have any frand IP and if so are they happy to allow other firms to use the same techniques. If they do then I can see their point, if not, one could argue that they are being underhanded.
But isn't there a Samsung USA (or whatever) that buys the handsets from Samsung mobile and then distributes them? Or are they shipped direct from the far east to 3rd party distributors. or is this just anti competative legislation acting as a market barrier by any other name
But isn't there a Samsung USA (or whatever) that buys the handsets from Samsung mobile and then distributes them? Or are they shipped direct from the far east to 3rd party distributors. or is this just anti competative legislation acting as a market barrier by any other name
That's an entirely different situation.
Apple has no control over Foxconn and they are entirely separate companies. Therefore, an Apple purchase from Foxconn is not the same as a Samsung US purchase from Samsung Mobile.
That said, I'm not sure that an Apple purchase from Foxconn would count as first purchaser. I haven't reviewed the law, but I believe that in that case, Apple would count as a distributor, not a purchaser under the doctrine.
Apple has no control over Foxconn and they are entirely separate companies. Therefore, an Apple purchase from Foxconn is not the same as a Samsung US purchase from Samsung Mobile.
That said, I'm not sure that an Apple purchase from Foxconn would count as first purchaser. I haven't reviewed the law, but I believe that in that case, Apple would count as a distributor, not a purchaser under the doctrine.
Sorry, not quite sure that I understand your reply, I wasn't referring to the frand element in that post, I was referring to the lack of a domestic entity in the usa
GoodHTCphone,but itisnotselling,andbyMOTO'slatestproductistotally disappointing. After knowing these types of Vintage leather satchel bags for men, you may know which type is the most appropriate cwmalls.com bag for you. If you are going to purchase a Leather double handle briefcase and it is important to search for some information of the bag.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
... It's been reported in the past that Apple buys the completed product from Foxconn. This is the first sale. Then Apple acts a distributor and then sells it with their mark up, thus reducing the license fees considerably.
So that's why it's not called "the New iPhone". It's pre-owned or used¡
Sadly you're absolutely correct. I don't know what the future holds for the likes of HTC and Motorola. HTC makes nice phones but just don't sell well, and the latest offerings by Moto are utterly disappointing. Though as of late it does seem like Samsung is straying away from copying Apple.
Weren't you just defending Apple against people that complained that Apple did just that? Look again the SGS lll looks very little to the SGS ll
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Look again the SGS lll looks very little to the SGS ll
And it's those cosmetic changes to phones that are really important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher
The problem is that Samsung's copying of Apple has made it the only smartphone manufacturer that has remained competitive in the marketplace against Apple. The lesson is that, while you will pay a penalty the penalty is far outweighed by the long term benefit. The risk takers are the losers in this situation.
Doesn't seem to make any sense. A court in Munich recently found that Motorola smartphone infringed on Apple's bouncing-back patent. Now, why isn't Motorola's risk taking paying off?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Junk that doesn't change from one model to the next, they took a Galaxy S 2 added a few pixels to the screen and made it a bit bigger, then called it an S III, their koolaid drinking customers lapped it up.*
*Post may contain traces of sarcasm, which may be lost on some, please consult a British comedian if suffering from adverse affects.
u talking about S3 or iPhone 5?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechanic
You are absolutely right. The court case in california the jury ruled that qualcomm had paid the license fee and due to the contract that qualcomm had with samsung they could not sue any of qualcomms customers that buy there chips, also they found in favor of apple on the double dipping clause as well you cant charge twice for the same patent its against the law, the term is "patent exhaustion". If this were not the case anyone who makes a product could sue anyone who uses them including people that purchase them for infringing on there patent for not paying them royalties. Both intel and qualcomm have those in there contracts.
Here is a good definition of patent exhaustion or doctrine of first sale.
The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holder’s exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law.
Procedurally, the patent exhaustion doctrine operates as an affirmative defense, shielding authorized purchasers from infringement claims concerning the use or sale of a patented good after the patent owner authorized its sale.
In other words they can't charge both qualcomm and the end customer for the patent because the end customer is using a qualcomm product incorporating that patent in there completed end device. That would be "double dipping".
Um.. don't think that's what the exhaustion doctrine says. According to Wiki you just quoted:
The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holders exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law. Note, however, that under current law, the patent owner retains the right to exclude purchasers of the articles from making the patented invention anew, unless it is specifically authorized by the patentee.[1]
Likewise, Qualcomm's customers are not covered by default under Samsung's licensing agreement. Qualcomm and Samsung had however signed an agreement not to go after their customers year back. Samsung terminated the agreement when Apple sued Samsung last year.
What's missing from this news item is very important, here's the quote from Engadget :
Quote:
While Judge James Gildea didn't publicly outline why Apple was in the clear, he added that Samsung lacks a domestic business that uses the patents -- important when it's trying to claim economic harm in the US.
So for all we know, Apple did infringe and should have paid license fees, but the ITC simply states it cannot do anything, not even investigate properly, because Samsung does not have a domestic business so in their definition there can not be any economic harm and thus no sentencing.
Sounds very strange to me from a country which projects it's own laws on other countries (see mega upload) and this was also a non issue in the Californian case (I know it's because that was not ITC related).
Are you sure you understand what sarcasm is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
Um.. don't think that's what the exhaustion doctrine says. According to Wiki you just quoted:
The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control a patented product after an authorized sale. Under the doctrine, once an unrestricted, authorized sale of a patented article occurs, the patent holders exclusive rights to control the use and sale of that article are exhausted, and the purchaser is free to use or resell that article without further restraint from patent law. Note, however, that under current law, the patent owner retains the right to exclude purchasers of the articles from making the patented invention anew, unless it is specifically authorized by the patentee.[1]
Likewise, Qualcomm's customers are not covered by default under Samsung's licensing agreement. Qualcomm and Samsung had however signed an agreement not to go after their customers year back. Samsung terminated the agreement when Apple sued Samsung last year.
Apple (the purchaser) hasn't made the patented invention anew. They haven't reversed engineered the chips; they haven't copied them; they haven't manufactured similar devices. They've merely used the physical product they were sold. They haven't "made" anything anew.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Are you sure you understand what sarcasm is?
It's choice, aye bro'.
I think you are the one misunderstanding the exhaustion doctrine.
Qualcomm licenses the technology and builds a chip which contains that technology. Apple buys the chip and installs it - unmodified - into their phone. Apple does not recreate the technology anew, but rather simply uses the existing device which has already paid for a license. That's a classic example covered by patent exhaustion - as the court already ruled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter
If that's the case, it's f^cking genius, and man would that burn Samsung. I hope you're right.
So Apple works out the component deals and shipping schedules and Foxconn places the orders, assembles and ships and bills Apple per piece? Technically that is the first sale. That is brilliant and a superb way of circumventing any royalty payments based on the retail sale price.
does apple have any frand IP and if so are they happy to allow other firms to use the same techniques. If they do then I can see their point, if not, one could argue that they are being underhanded.
But isn't there a Samsung USA (or whatever) that buys the handsets from Samsung mobile and then distributes them? Or are they shipped direct from the far east to 3rd party distributors. or is this just anti competative legislation acting as a market barrier by any other name
That's an entirely different situation.
Apple has no control over Foxconn and they are entirely separate companies. Therefore, an Apple purchase from Foxconn is not the same as a Samsung US purchase from Samsung Mobile.
That said, I'm not sure that an Apple purchase from Foxconn would count as first purchaser. I haven't reviewed the law, but I believe that in that case, Apple would count as a distributor, not a purchaser under the doctrine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
That's an entirely different situation.
Apple has no control over Foxconn and they are entirely separate companies. Therefore, an Apple purchase from Foxconn is not the same as a Samsung US purchase from Samsung Mobile.
That said, I'm not sure that an Apple purchase from Foxconn would count as first purchaser. I haven't reviewed the law, but I believe that in that case, Apple would count as a distributor, not a purchaser under the doctrine.
Sorry, not quite sure that I understand your reply, I wasn't referring to the frand element in that post, I was referring to the lack of a domestic entity in the usa
Good HTC phone, but it is not selling, and by MOTO's latest product is totally disappointing. After knowing these types of Vintage leather satchel bags for men, you may know which type is the most appropriate cwmalls.com bag for you. If you are going to purchase a Leather double handle briefcase and it is important to search for some information of the bag.