Apple filed in the Northern District of California.
What is the District of Eastern Texas noted for?
@tmay : not sure what you mean, Apple routinely used the Dusseldorf and Munich courts to sue competitors -- and won preliminary injunctions on a few occassions, though they were all eventually lost or reversed in appeal. And let's not forget Rockstar, Apple's proxy war with Google, based in Plano, TX.
"Ericsson on Friday announced it filed seven lawsuits against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, as well as two ITC complaints, over 41 separate patents covering a variety of wireless standards and technology."
"Ericsson on Friday announced it filed seven lawsuits against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, as well as two ITC complaints, over 41 separate patents covering a variety of wireless standards and technology."
For its part, Apple in January filed a lawsuitagainst Ericsson for charging excessive royalty rates for 4G LTE technology, arguing the Swedish firm's IP is non-essential. Following Apple's legal move, Ericsson quickly countered with its own complaint in Texas. ..."
Apple started it in January, ahead of Ericsson's ITC complaints and Texas lawsuits.
Here's a question I had yesterday: is there a point at which Apple gets overwhelmed with lawsuits?
I swear, the world is full of companies, nations and people that would sooner sue than take care of their own business. As a strategy. If you got money they are gonna pound you for whatever they can get.
That's the only worry I can come up with for Apple investors.
How many simultaneous lawsuits can they take on?
At what point does Apple have more lawyers walking the halls than top engineers?
Nope. While Apple has its own legal dept, it can hire outside law firms to help. And I doubt they are allowed to roam the halls.
Not mentioned is that Ericsson offered to have an independent arbitrator determine the proper rates, but Apple reportedly refused to be bound by whatever the rate he/she decided was fair. To me that sounds like a reasonable offer and one that might have avoided lawsuits.
Wow another Apple supportive post ... oh wait a minute ... it wasn't ... /shock
What this article fails to remind readers is that Ericsson initially filed in the best court in the world, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. /s
"In a complaint lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Apple revealed that Ericsson is leaning on deemed standard essential IP to demand a percentage of the total price of every cellular-connected iPhone or iPad sold, reports Reuters.
"Ericsson seeks to exploit its patents to take the value of these cutting-edge Apple innovations, which resulted from years of hard work by Apple engineers and designers and billions of dollars of Apple research and development — and which have nothing to do with Ericsson's patents," the complaint reads, as reported by Bloomberg.
Apple contends royalties should be based on the value of the component using the patented tech, such as baseband chips or application processors, which would come out to a fraction of what Ericsson is asking."
@tmay : I think we had this debate before. Again, while I agree that some type of "apportionment" rule should be used to determine a royalty rate, I don't agree that all FRAND/non-FRAND rates should be based on the "smallest salable unit." There are already some analytical frameworks to determine whether or when a component or an entire-product royalty basis is appropriate. In this particular case, Ericsson is a major contributor to various communication standards at the heart of Apple iPhones/iPad and their royalty basis is fair and reasonable by the industry standard -- it would be extremely hard for Apple to win on that point and set a new standard using the same argument rejected before.
@tmay : I think we had this debate before. Again, while I agree that some type of "apportionment" rule should be used to determine a royalty rate, I don't agree that all FRAND/non-FRAND rates should be based on the "smallest salable unit." There are already some analytical framework to determine whether or when a component or an entire-product royalty basis is appropriate. In this particular case, Ericsson is a major contributor to various communication standards at the heart of Apple iPhones/iPad and their royalty basis is fair and reasonable by the industry standard -- it would be extremely hard for Apple to win on that point and set a new standard using the same argument rejected before.
IEEE doesn't agree, and as I have mentioned before, the courts in both the U.S. and Europe are trending towards basis as the smallest salable unit.
So, while it might have been fair and reasonable in the past, is it currently? Should Apple's devices that are computers be judged the same as dumb or even feature phones?
Is it communications at the heart of the device or a computer?
"In a complaint lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Apple revealed that Ericsson <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/14/us-apple-patent-ericsson-idUSKBN0KN0B820150114" style="border-style:none;" target="_blank">is leaning</a> on deemed standard essential IP to demand a percentage of the total price of every cellular-connected iPhone or iPad sold, reports Reuters. "Ericsson seeks to exploit its patents to take the value of these cutting-edge Apple innovations, which resulted from years of hard work by Apple engineers and designers and billions of dollars of Apple research and development — and which have nothing to do with Ericsson's patents," the <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-14/apple-sues-ericsson-to-reduce-royalties-on-phone-patents-1-.html" style="border-style:none;" target="_blank">complaint reads</a> , as reported by Bloomberg. Apple contends royalties should be based on the value of the component using the patented tech, such as baseband chips or application processors, which would come out to a fraction of what Ericsson is asking."
It's all about the money. What do they charge everyone else? It's the same ole Apple shake down.
It's all about the money. What do they charge everyone else? It's the same ole Apple shake down.
Wrong.
Apple actually wants the court to rule with regard to the basis of patents. It may save them money, but it isn't a shakedown, and will benefit most of the consumer electronics industry.
Apple actually wants the court to rule with regard to the basis of patents. It may save them money, but it isn't a shakedown, and will benefit most of the consumer electronics industry.
If it goes against them and the basis remains the wholesale cost of the hardware do you personally expect Apple to accept that and take a license? Not asking you to speak for Apple but I am curious what you yourself think would happen.
If it goes against them and the basis remains the wholesale cost of the hardware do you personally expect Apple to accept that and take a license? Not asking you to speak for Apple but I am curious what you yourself think would happen.
From Apple:
"Ericsson seeks to exploit its patents to take the value of these cutting-edge Apple innovations, which resulted from years of hard work by Apple engineers and designers and billions of dollars of Apple research and development — and which have nothing to do with Ericsson's patents," the complaint reads, as reported by Bloomberg.
Apple contends royalties should be based on the value of the component using the patented tech, such as baseband chips or application processors, which would come out to a fraction of what Ericsson is asking.
Barring an outright win, Apple has also requested the court instate a reasonable royalty rate if the company is found to infringe Ericsson's IP.
"Ericsson seeks to exploit its patents to take the value of these cutting-edge Apple innovations, which resulted from years of hard work by Apple engineers and designers and billions of dollars of Apple research and development — and which have nothing to do with Ericsson's patents," the <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-14/apple-sues-ericsson-to-reduce-royalties-on-phone-patents-1-.html" style="border-style:none;" target="_blank">complaint reads</a> , as reported by Bloomberg. Apple contends royalties should be based on the value of the component using the patented tech, such as baseband chips or application processors, which would come out to a fraction of what Ericsson is asking. Barring an outright win, Apple has also requested the court instate a reasonable royalty rate if the company is found to infringe Ericsson's IP.
That's your answer.
Apple doesn't give any indication of what they would do if the basis remains the wholesale cost of the hardware. You've always had an opinion so I'm simply curious what you personally think Apple would do in that event: Use the IP unlicensed anyway or accept it for the time being and take a license just as they had before? If you prefer not to offer your opinion fair enough.
IEEE doesn't agree, and as I have mentioned before, the courts in both the U.S. and Europe are trending towards basis as the smallest salable unit.
So, while it might have been fair and reasonable in the past, is it currently? Should Apple's devices that are computers be judged the same as dumb or even feature phones?
Is it communications at the heart of the device or a computer?
Do you have any source for the IEEE not agreeing or courts trending to that?
Do you have any source for the IEEE not agreeing or courts trending to that?
He's absolutely correct about the IEEE recently making an effort to change their licensing policies. I've posted that here before.
Unfortunately it's actually had the effect of backfiring somewhat as companies including Nokia, Qualcomm, Ericsson and others, some of the biggest patent owners on the planet, have announced they'll no longer issue licenses under the IEEE standards. That's only makes things much more difficult and unclear instead of simplifying things.
It makes those companies position quite clear though :-)
They're going to shoot for the moon if the courts will let them. But yes, previously adhered to international standards are consigned to the waste bin. Very murky if they head down that path.
gatorguy is correct: Apple filed the first lawsuit in the Northern District of California to have a court decide which view of the royalty rate is correct: payment based on the chip the patents are used in (Apple's view, the cheaper option), or payment based on a percentage of the selling price of the entire smartphone (Ericsson's view, which would be much more money for them). Ericsson's response lawsuits were filed in the notorious Eastern District of Texas, which is as good as admitting that they didn't think they'd win in California.
For the record, other companies have tried to tie standards-essential patents to "whole unit" royalties and it largely hasn't worked, but they'll keep trying because its worth so much more if they can get it.
Comments
Ericsson filed in Eastern Texas.
Apple filed in the Northern District of California.
What is the District of Eastern Texas noted for?
@tmay : not sure what you mean, Apple routinely used the Dusseldorf and Munich courts to sue competitors -- and won preliminary injunctions on a few occassions, though they were all eventually lost or reversed in appeal. And let's not forget Rockstar, Apple's proxy war with Google, based in Plano, TX.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/02/27/ericsson-unloads-legal-barrage-against-apple-in-ongoing-patent-dispute
"Ericsson on Friday announced it filed seven lawsuits against Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, as well as two ITC complaints, over 41 separate patents covering a variety of wireless standards and technology."
Apple didn't start this one.
@rob53: please, read your own citation
"...
For its part, Apple in January filed a lawsuit against Ericsson for charging excessive royalty rates for 4G LTE technology, arguing the Swedish firm's IP is non-essential. Following Apple's legal move, Ericsson quickly countered with its own complaint in Texas. ..."
Apple started it in January, ahead of Ericsson's ITC complaints and Texas lawsuits.
Nope. While Apple has its own legal dept, it can hire outside law firms to help. And I doubt they are allowed to roam the halls.
Wow another Apple supportive post ... oh wait a minute ... it wasn't ... /shock
What this article fails to remind readers is that Ericsson initially filed in the best court in the world, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. /s
Rockstar certainly considered East Texas a fine court and tried to bring its enemies there as well (http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/04/18/apples-rockstar-patent-consortium-denied-request-to-transfer-google-suit-to-texas).
Rockstar certainly considered East Texas a fine court and tried to bring its enemies there as well (http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/04/18/apples-rockstar-patent-consortium-denied-request-to-transfer-google-suit-to-texas).
Apple at least has (considerable) offices in Texas...
Apple at least has (considerable) offices in Texas...
That also happens to be the location of Ericsson's US headquarters... (http://www.ericsson.com/thecompany/company_facts/worldwide/na/us)
Yep.
Here's the Appleinsider link to the article:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/01/14/apple-sues-ericsson-to-trim-wireless-patent-royalty-rates
"In a complaint lodged with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Apple revealed that Ericsson is leaning on deemed standard essential IP to demand a percentage of the total price of every cellular-connected iPhone or iPad sold, reports Reuters.
"Ericsson seeks to exploit its patents to take the value of these cutting-edge Apple innovations, which resulted from years of hard work by Apple engineers and designers and billions of dollars of Apple research and development — and which have nothing to do with Ericsson's patents," the complaint reads, as reported by Bloomberg.
Apple contends royalties should be based on the value of the component using the patented tech, such as baseband chips or application processors, which would come out to a fraction of what Ericsson is asking."
@tmay : I think we had this debate before. Again, while I agree that some type of "apportionment" rule should be used to determine a royalty rate, I don't agree that all FRAND/non-FRAND rates should be based on the "smallest salable unit." There are already some analytical frameworks to determine whether or when a component or an entire-product royalty basis is appropriate. In this particular case, Ericsson is a major contributor to various communication standards at the heart of Apple iPhones/iPad and their royalty basis is fair and reasonable by the industry standard -- it would be extremely hard for Apple to win on that point and set a new standard using the same argument rejected before.
@tmay : I think we had this debate before. Again, while I agree that some type of "apportionment" rule should be used to determine a royalty rate, I don't agree that all FRAND/non-FRAND rates should be based on the "smallest salable unit." There are already some analytical framework to determine whether or when a component or an entire-product royalty basis is appropriate. In this particular case, Ericsson is a major contributor to various communication standards at the heart of Apple iPhones/iPad and their royalty basis is fair and reasonable by the industry standard -- it would be extremely hard for Apple to win on that point and set a new standard using the same argument rejected before.
IEEE doesn't agree, and as I have mentioned before, the courts in both the U.S. and Europe are trending towards basis as the smallest salable unit.
So, while it might have been fair and reasonable in the past, is it currently? Should Apple's devices that are computers be judged the same as dumb or even feature phones?
Is it communications at the heart of the device or a computer?
It's all about the money. What do they charge everyone else? It's the same ole Apple shake down.
Wrong.
Apple actually wants the court to rule with regard to the basis of patents. It may save them money, but it isn't a shakedown, and will benefit most of the consumer electronics industry.
If it goes against them and the basis remains the wholesale cost of the hardware do you personally expect Apple to accept that and take a license? Not asking you to speak for Apple but I am curious what you yourself think would happen.
From Apple:
"Ericsson seeks to exploit its patents to take the value of these cutting-edge Apple innovations, which resulted from years of hard work by Apple engineers and designers and billions of dollars of Apple research and development — and which have nothing to do with Ericsson's patents," the complaint reads, as reported by Bloomberg.
Apple contends royalties should be based on the value of the component using the patented tech, such as baseband chips or application processors, which would come out to a fraction of what Ericsson is asking.
Barring an outright win, Apple has also requested the court instate a reasonable royalty rate if the company is found to infringe Ericsson's IP.
That's your answer.
Do you have any source for the IEEE not agreeing or courts trending to that?
Unfortunately it's actually had the effect of backfiring somewhat as companies including Nokia, Qualcomm, Ericsson and others, some of the biggest patent owners on the planet, have announced they'll no longer issue licenses under the IEEE standards. That's only makes things much more difficult and unclear instead of simplifying things.
Here's a recent article that explains what's going on:
http://www.iam-media.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=d07d0bde-ebd6-495a-aa72-4eecb9dac67d
They're going to shoot for the moon if the courts will let them.
But yes, previously adhered to international standards are consigned to the waste bin.
Very murky if they head down that path.
For the record, other companies have tried to tie standards-essential patents to "whole unit" royalties and it largely hasn't worked, but they'll keep trying because its worth so much more if they can get it.