You guys are funny! ???? what is so hard to understand with a patent?
If someone was using and not paying apple for reproducing the Lightning connector what would apple do?
What did apple do with Google when they thought that google copied an immaterial GUI?
... All I'm saying is that you gotta have some ability to think for yourself guys!
Clearly you haven't actually understood the situation. Ericsson has FRAND patents that Apple used to pay for. FRAND patents have to be licensed by law. You have to offer these patents at the same price to everyone, you can't up the price just because it's Apple. Ericsson are trying to rip off Apple because they have a load of money. Apple aren't taking that lying down and have stopped payments for the FRAND patents until Ericsson sort out the pricing issue. At which point, Apple will pay them what they owe.
Clearly you haven't actually understood the situation. Ericsson has FRAND patents that Apple used to pay for. FRAND patents have to be licensed by law. You have to offer these patents at the same price to everyone, you can't up the price just because it's Apple. Ericsson are trying to rip off Apple because they have a load of money. Apple aren't taking that lying down and have stopped payments for the FRAND patents until Ericsson sort out the pricing issue. At which point, Apple will pay them what they owe.
Actually, you don't understand the situation. Ericsson is claiming they offered Apple the same Frand rate as others are paying but that Apple refused to pay those rates.
Quote:
Paragraph 35 from Ericsson's complaint makes some general allegations about Apple's behavior and how it compares to that of its competitors:
"The parties' licensing negotiations have been unsuccessful because Apple refuses to pay a FRAND royalty corresponding to those paid by its competitors for Ericsson's Essential Patents. Apple fails to honor the fact that FRAND licensing is a two-way street, requiring not only that the licensor is fair and reasonable in providing licensing terms, but also that the licensee negotiates in good faith and accepts FRAND terms when they are offered."
It's different. Ericsson made their patents part of the LTE standard and are trying to take a piece of every iPhone. There's a whole lot more value wrapped up in an iPhone than just LTE but they still want a piece of that.
And you are basing this of what fact? LTE took Ericsson years to test and develop, should it just be given away because it is in your iPhone. The same thing goes with the Bluetooth, should Apple just stop paying Ericsson for that too?
It seems like Fox news is more 'Fair and Balanced' IMHO!
TMay is another member here who has taken the time to do some research on his own (too few seem to have done so before commenting) and I'd love to read his take on it as well.
Gatorguy and I disagree in nuance on basis for FRAND, but otherwise, the FRAND rate/basis setting isn't all that dramatic; just business as usual, and I have noted in previous threads that the Court is tending to rule in favor of basis as a device, not a finished product. Apple isn't at even minimal risk for an injunction on this.
The Court of Eastern Texas offer would make my eyes roll, but otherwise, the meat of this is that Apple is attempting to invalidate some of Ericsson's non-SEP IP, hence ITC involvement by Ericsson to rule that Apple is infringing and asking for an injunction. This is actually quite interesting, as Apple would have to be at some risk by doing this, so the value of this must be high either monetarily or more likely, as precedent.
If you want to know how this might turn out, look at previous U.S. ITC rulings and injunctions; are injunctions common for similar cases?
My own opinion is that Apple and Ericsson will ultimately settle, and the details will be sealed.
Gatorguy and I disagree in nuance on basis for FRAND, but otherwise, the FRAND rate/basis setting isn't all that dramatic; just business as usual, and I have noted in previous threads that the Court is tending to rule in favor of basis as a device, not a finished product. Apple isn't at even minimal risk for an injunction on this.
There is a scenario where Apple could see an exclusion order. If Ericsson can successfully show that the offer made to Apple was a fair one, offered under FRAND terms, and Apple still refused it the likelihood of the ITC blocking Apple device imports goes way up. That's what the Texas filing is intended to prove. I don't think the President (actually his rep) would overrule in that case either.
With that out of the way I also agree with you tmay. I think Ericsson can put enough pressure on Apple to force a settlement and they will just as Apple did with Nokia a couple years back after several rounds of tit-for-tat legal filings.
EDIT: Apple noted just this circumstance when they intervened to ask the ITC to deny Samsung's case against Ericsson back in 2013. (friends change fast in tech don't they?)
The Ericsson subsidiary involved in this case is based in Plano Texas. The parent company is of course in Sweden. Of further note is that Ericsson successfully defended their LTE FRAND-licensing when Samsung was forced into a $650M plus ongoing royalties settlement last year.
There is a scenario where Apple could see an exclusion order. If Ericsson can successfully show that the offer made to Apple was a fair one, offered under FRAND terms, and Apple still refused it the likelihood of the ITC blocking Apple device imports goes way up. That's what the Texas filing is intended to prove. I don't think the President (actually his rep) would overrule in that case either.
EDIT: Apple noted just this circumstance when they asked the ITC to deny Samsung's case against Ericsson back in 2013.
"The iPhone maker also maintained that Samsung's commitment to FRAND terms prevented the ITC from handing down an exclusion order other than in exceptional cases in which a potential licensee won’t pay a royalty that has been court-approved as FRAND...
Apple wouldn't fit that scenario. They have no history of not paying, and with the Court's approval, they would likely place any money owed in escrow, and they would appeal any Court of Eastern Texas judgement wrt FRAND. I find that the ITC would be unwilling to issue an injunction based on these factors.
Of course they would. Apple's history means nada, only the specifics of this case would be considered.
If (perhaps a big if) Ericsson gets a favorable ruling from the Texas court and Apple won't then take a license under those District court-sanctioned Ericsson terms it makes Apple an unwilling licensee, correct? Apple could end up filing an appeal of the Texas ruling while under an ITC exclusion order barring certain products from import, a poor bargaining position. They'll settle before it gets that far.
Of course they would. Apple's history means nada, only the specifics of this case would be considered.
If (perhaps a big if) Ericsson gets a favorable ruling from the Texas court and Apple won't then take a license under those District court-sanctioned Ericsson terms it makes Apple an unwilling licensee, correct? Apple could end up filing an appeal of the Texas ruling while under an ITC exclusion order barring certain products from import, a poor bargaining position. They'll settle before it gets that far.
Oh, I noted it which doesn't address my post question. Would Apple then be an unwilling licensee if a court certifies the offer as FRAND? Even the letter explaining the Presidents's veto of the previous Apple exclusion order noted that circumstance as possible grounds for the ITC to take action. The ITC shortly thereafter affirmed it in their response to the Presidential action.
"Froman said import bans should be issued based on essential patents only in rare circumstances, such as when a potential licensee refuses to negotiate reasonable terms." If the District court were to find the Ericsson offer to be reasonable then... ?
Oh, I noted it which doesn't address my post question. Would Apple then be an unwilling licensee if a court certifies the offer as FRAND? Even the letter explaining the Presidents's veto of the previous Apple exclusion order noted that circumstance.
"Froman said import bans should be issued based on essential patents only in rare circumstances, such as when a potential licensee refuses to negotiate reasonable terms." If the District court were to find the Ericsson offer to be reasonable then... ?
I don't find that the document linked demonstrates anything specifically enabling injunctions, other than there are many ambiguities that are germane to a "reasonable" negotiation by both parties, and yes, there are many notes about the negotiation histories of the participating parties.
I don't find that the document linked demonstrates anything specifically enabling injunctions, other than there are many ambiguities that are germane to a "reasonable" negotiation by both parties, and yes, there are many notes about the negotiation histories of the participating parties.
So no comment from you then whether under the circumstance described Apple might be considered an unwilling licensee and subject to a possible ITC action.
So no comment from you then whether under the circumstance described Apple might be considered an unwilling licensee and subject to a possible ITC action.
No.
That's my comment.
I don't find that Apple would be an unwilling licensee, and I don't find that the ITC would consider Apple an unwilling licensee, wrt FRAND.
So no comment from you then whether under the circumstance described Apple might be considered an unwilling licensee and subject to a possible ITC action.
Pretty good analysis of injunctive relief and when it is applicable and with what constraints. The ITC seems to be more favorable, but it is also true that the FTC and the District Courts are less favorable.
Comments
That one statement earned you a one-way trip to my block list.
Yes but we had to see his post before you sin-binned him!
You guys are funny! ???? what is so hard to understand with a patent?
If someone was using and not paying apple for reproducing the Lightning connector what would apple do?
What did apple do with Google when they thought that google copied an immaterial GUI?
... All I'm saying is that you gotta have some ability to think for yourself guys!
Clearly you haven't actually understood the situation. Ericsson has FRAND patents that Apple used to pay for. FRAND patents have to be licensed by law. You have to offer these patents at the same price to everyone, you can't up the price just because it's Apple. Ericsson are trying to rip off Apple because they have a load of money. Apple aren't taking that lying down and have stopped payments for the FRAND patents until Ericsson sort out the pricing issue. At which point, Apple will pay them what they owe.
Clearly you haven't actually understood the situation. Ericsson has FRAND patents that Apple used to pay for. FRAND patents have to be licensed by law. You have to offer these patents at the same price to everyone, you can't up the price just because it's Apple. Ericsson are trying to rip off Apple because they have a load of money. Apple aren't taking that lying down and have stopped payments for the FRAND patents until Ericsson sort out the pricing issue. At which point, Apple will pay them what they owe.
Actually, you don't understand the situation. Ericsson is claiming they offered Apple the same Frand rate as others are paying but that Apple refused to pay those rates.
Paragraph 35 from Ericsson's complaint makes some general allegations about Apple's behavior and how it compares to that of its competitors:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2015/01/apple-ericsson-spat-shows-some-big.html
It still sounds like Im talking to a class of 5 year olds. A patent is a frickin patent. It does not matter what the cost is to use it.
Either you pay or you do not use it. I do not go and buy a car and then refuse to pay because I believe someone got a better deal....
Yes but we had to see his post before you sin-binned him!
Truth hurts sometimes..
It's different. Ericsson made their patents part of the LTE standard and are trying to take a piece of every iPhone. There's a whole lot more value wrapped up in an iPhone than just LTE but they still want a piece of that.
And you are basing this of what fact? LTE took Ericsson years to test and develop, should it just be given away because it is in your iPhone. The same thing goes with the Bluetooth, should Apple just stop paying Ericsson for that too?
It seems like Fox news is more 'Fair and Balanced' IMHO!
TMay is another member here who has taken the time to do some research on his own (too few seem to have done so before commenting) and I'd love to read his take on it as well.
Gatorguy and I disagree in nuance on basis for FRAND, but otherwise, the FRAND rate/basis setting isn't all that dramatic; just business as usual, and I have noted in previous threads that the Court is tending to rule in favor of basis as a device, not a finished product. Apple isn't at even minimal risk for an injunction on this.
The Court of Eastern Texas offer would make my eyes roll, but otherwise, the meat of this is that Apple is attempting to invalidate some of Ericsson's non-SEP IP, hence ITC involvement by Ericsson to rule that Apple is infringing and asking for an injunction. This is actually quite interesting, as Apple would have to be at some risk by doing this, so the value of this must be high either monetarily or more likely, as precedent.
If you want to know how this might turn out, look at previous U.S. ITC rulings and injunctions; are injunctions common for similar cases?
My own opinion is that Apple and Ericsson will ultimately settle, and the details will be sealed.
There is a scenario where Apple could see an exclusion order. If Ericsson can successfully show that the offer made to Apple was a fair one, offered under FRAND terms, and Apple still refused it the likelihood of the ITC blocking Apple device imports goes way up. That's what the Texas filing is intended to prove. I don't think the President (actually his rep) would overrule in that case either.
With that out of the way I also agree with you tmay. I think Ericsson can put enough pressure on Apple to force a settlement and they will just as Apple did with Nokia a couple years back after several rounds of tit-for-tat legal filings.
EDIT: Apple noted just this circumstance when they intervened to ask the ITC to deny Samsung's case against Ericsson back in 2013. (friends change fast in tech don't they?)
"The iPhone maker also maintained that Samsung's commitment to FRAND terms prevented the ITC from handing down an exclusion order other than in exceptional cases in which a potential licensee won’t pay a royalty that has been court-approved as FRAND...
http://www.law360.com/articles/406937/apple-asks-itc-to-reject-samsung-case-against-ericsson
There is a scenario where Apple could see an exclusion order. If Ericsson can successfully show that the offer made to Apple was a fair one, offered under FRAND terms, and Apple still refused it the likelihood of the ITC blocking Apple device imports goes way up. That's what the Texas filing is intended to prove. I don't think the President (actually his rep) would overrule in that case either.
EDIT: Apple noted just this circumstance when they asked the ITC to deny Samsung's case against Ericsson back in 2013.
"The iPhone maker also maintained that Samsung's commitment to FRAND terms prevented the ITC from handing down an exclusion order other than in exceptional cases in which a potential licensee won’t pay a royalty that has been court-approved as FRAND...
http://www.law360.com/articles/406937/apple-asks-itc-to-reject-samsung-case-against-ericsson
Apple wouldn't fit that scenario. They have no history of not paying, and with the Court's approval, they would likely place any money owed in escrow, and they would appeal any Court of Eastern Texas judgement wrt FRAND. I find that the ITC would be unwilling to issue an injunction based on these factors.
Of course they would. Apple's history means nada, only the specifics of this case would be considered.
If (perhaps a big if) Ericsson gets a favorable ruling from the Texas court and Apple won't then take a license under those District court-sanctioned Ericsson terms it makes Apple an unwilling licensee, correct? Apple could end up filing an appeal of the Texas ruling while under an ITC exclusion order barring certain products from import, a poor bargaining position. They'll settle before it gets that far.
Of course they would. Apple's history means nada, only the specifics of this case would be considered.
If (perhaps a big if) Ericsson gets a favorable ruling from the Texas court and Apple won't then take a license under those District court-sanctioned Ericsson terms it makes Apple an unwilling licensee, correct? Apple could end up filing an appeal of the Texas ruling while under an ITC exclusion order barring certain products from import, a poor bargaining position. They'll settle before it gets that far.
Please note my previous response.
"Froman said import bans should be issued based on essential patents only in rare circumstances, such as when a potential licensee refuses to negotiate reasonable terms." If the District court were to find the Ericsson offer to be reasonable then... ?
This article might offer you some insights too.
http://www.arpc.com/media/publication/25_SEPs at ITC.pdf
Oh, I noted it which doesn't address my post question. Would Apple then be an unwilling licensee if a court certifies the offer as FRAND? Even the letter explaining the Presidents's veto of the previous Apple exclusion order noted that circumstance.
"Froman said import bans should be issued based on essential patents only in rare circumstances, such as when a potential licensee refuses to negotiate reasonable terms." If the District court were to find the Ericsson offer to be reasonable then... ?
This article might offer you some insights too.
http://www.arpc.com/media/publication/25_SEPs at ITC.pdf
I don't find that the document linked demonstrates anything specifically enabling injunctions, other than there are many ambiguities that are germane to a "reasonable" negotiation by both parties, and yes, there are many notes about the negotiation histories of the participating parties.
So no comment from you then whether under the circumstance described Apple might be considered an unwilling licensee and subject to a possible ITC action.
No.
That's my comment.
I don't find that Apple would be an unwilling licensee, and I don't find that the ITC would consider Apple an unwilling licensee, wrt FRAND.
So no comment from you then whether under the circumstance described Apple might be considered an unwilling licensee and subject to a possible ITC action.
Here's a link from an IP litigator:
http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=3aad1da2-08a9-4f14-a147-611b1e39ff75
Pretty good analysis of injunctive relief and when it is applicable and with what constraints. The ITC seems to be more favorable, but it is also true that the FTC and the District Courts are less favorable.
No.
That's my comment.
I don't find that Apple would be an unwilling licensee, and I don't find that the ITC would consider Apple an unwilling licensee, wrt FRAND.
You don't find... Are you a judge ruling on this matter? Do you have some evidence that the statement by Ericsson in their submission is false?
You don't find... Are you a judge ruling on this matter? Do you have some evidence that the statement by Ericsson in their submission is false?
Aren't we all "Judges" ruling on this matter in this thread?
We just don't have the force of law behind our judgements.
Aren't we all "Judges" ruling on this matter in this thread?
We just don't have the force of law behind our judgements.
Not really. We mostly make guesses and have opinions and we 'think', but only Judges 'find'.