I neither accept nor defend it. I believe you know that. What I've done is explained the facts as it currently stands as well as point out common misconceptions. I've also given examples of why I's not going to be simple nor painless to change it midstream. No company is going to willingly leave money on the table nor will any of them part with more than they absolutely have to. .And really that's what it all boils down to money and not what's ethical or fair.
Of course it's not ethical and fair, and that is why Apple has brought suit and Ericsson has counter sued, but you even admit that you are loathe to change that.
Of course it's not ethical and fair, and that is why Apple has brought suit and Ericsson has counter sued, but you even admit that you are loathe to change that.
Huh? Where did I say that? I think you're mistaking a mention of facts and emerging unintended consequences as a recommendation that things not change at all. They should. At this point tho I don't have a suggestion of what it should change to nor a prediction of how the law will handle it. It's not as simple as I think you believe it should be.
Ericssons' mobile SEP's have always been tied to the wholesale cost of the device. That's their royalty basis just as it is /was with Nokia, Qualcomm, Alcatel, Motorola and many others. Apple's previous licensing deal with Ericsson that expired recently was almost certainly based on the wholesale price too.
No it is NOT. Why don't you provide links to the contracts between Ericsson and other smartphone manufacturers showing this royalty rate?
Here's an opportunity to learn grasshopper. You should take advantage of it before posting on the subject, especially before claiming someone else is wrong. [@]RobM[/@] might also benefit based on his thumbs up of your accusation.
4G/LTE royalty rates, and based on the wholesale price of the phone,just as the 3G FRAND rates were::
Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%
If you actually read only a couple of those links it might help you understand why several of your other points are off the mark. FWIW I've read every one of them, some more than once and going back over a couple of years now.
Of course it's not ethical and fair, and that is why Apple has brought suit and Ericsson has counter sued, but you even admit that you are loathe to change that.
Yet not one single person has been able to show that it's not ethical and fair. Everyone believes so because Apple says so.
Apple is one of the greediest companies on the planet. Greed seems to work for them. Want that WiFi chip you paid for in you Macbook activated to N class - pay us extra. Want to sell our phones - give us a percentage of your data revenues. Want that Macbook Pro retina you paid thousands for to be able to use Ethernet - buy our dongle.
Did Apple force you to buy those products? Nope. And the data revenue sharing was in lieu of subsidies.
Did Apple force you to buy those products? Nope. And the data revenue sharing was in lieu of subsidies.
When did this happen? Please post a link where Apple wanted royalties on its design patents.
They licensed them to Microsoft, the "royalty" requirement being that Apple got to use MS IP without further out-of-pocket costs. Also according to court testimony a few months back Apple offered to license it's patent portfolio to Samsung in return for $30 royalties on every handset they sold and $40 per tablet. Yes it included design per their statement:
Quote: “Samsung chose to embrace and imitate Apple’s iPhone archetype,” Apple said in an Oct. 5, 2010 presentation to Samsung. “Apple would have preferred that Samsung request a license to do this in advance. Because Samsung is a strategic supplier to Apple, we are prepared to offer a royalty-bearing license for this category of device.”
Did Apple force you to buy those products? Nope. And the data revenue sharing was in lieu of subsidies.
Nobody forced Apple to use Ericsson's technology. If their patents are 'non-essential' as Apple claims they are, then why doesn’t Apple take it out of their devices or find a work around?
To avoid unfavorable effects of royalty stacking, Nokia will not charge royalties higher than 2.0 percent from the sales price of an end-user device for IPR that is essential to wireless communication standards irrespective of the number of wireless standards deployed in such a device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Here's an opportunity to learn grasshopper. You should take advantage of it before posting on the subject, especially before claiming someone else is wrong. @RobM might also benefit based on his thumbs up of your accusation.
4G/LTE royalty rates, and based on the wholesale price of the phone,just as the 3G FRAND rates were::
Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%
Total: 13.8% of the device's total build cost (NOT the retail price), and not just a chip price. Who says? ETSI themselves, the standards-bearer for that particular collection.
If you actually read only a couple of those links it might help you understand why several of your other points are off the mark. FWIW I've read every one of them, some more than once and going back over a couple of years now.
EDIT: Forgot to include one important link/
EDIT2: @tmay may be interested in this very recent ruling as it generally runs counter to his belief the Federal courts are not allowing FRAND-pledged SEP royalties to be based on the whole-market concept.
I did not say that the Federal Courts were not allowing it, merely that the trend was towards the smallest salable device as basis. I may turn out to be wrong, and there won't be any change. But as I have stated before, you seem perfectly fine with the status quo,: I am not, and I am hopeful that there are changes.
You seem to have left out the important note by the author of the link;
"That's the "justification" for the royalty base: more money to the patent holder. But this is not an economic justification. There's no reason why Ericsson should get more from Samsung than it would from Qualcomm if a given patent (or set of patents) could also be licensed to the chipset maker. Ericsson asserted not only standard-essential but also various non-essential patents against Samsung, so on the non-SEP side it may claim that it owns technology infringed by, for example, Android. For SEP-only licensing, however, the proper royalty base is the price of a chipset that implements the standard."
That link was near a year and a half old, btw. Recent in legal terms, maybe, but not so in calendar terms.
?You also link to statements that are over a decade old. You make my case. Time for change.
Here's Nokia's 2 % statement:
Currently, we expect Nokia’s rate for devices that deploy LTE as the only wireless communication standard to be in a range of 1.5 percent from the sales price of an end-user device.However. a significant use of LTE is expected to be in connection with other wireless communication standards, such as GSM, UMTS and/or CDMA. When multiple wireless standards are used in the same end product, Nokia will follow similar principles in setting the royalty rate for Nokia patents essential to other standards. To avoid unfavorable effects of royalty stacking, Nokia will not charge royalties higher than 2.0 percent from the sales price of an end-user device for IPR that is essential to wireless communication standards irrespective of the number of wireless standards deployed in such a device.
Tmay, I'm so sorry. I gave you the wrong link. This was the one I intended to refer you to. I had posted the other one higher in the post and erroneously duplicated it.
I'm not sure that it makes a solid case for smallest salable device basis for my side (vs EMVR is its legal description) but I do think that it is very strong on apportionment if EMVR, i.e., the jury would have to be instructed specifically of limits to each.
It definitely isn't carte blanche support for either EMVR or smallest salable device, but forces the court to instruct the jury specifically of application. I would find this fair jurisprudence, and I would see Apple, in this case, of being very aware of the The Appeal Court's direction.
Overall, I see Apple would at least get a fair hearing on EMVR (basis) through the apportionment instructions that the jury would receive.
I'm no lawyer, as you have probably surmised, but I would really like to be present when this unfold in court. Might be the best matchup in recent patent litigation.
(I seem to have obsessively latched on to apportionment as the fair solution to this litigation)
Currently, we expect Nokia’s rate for devices that deploy LTE as the only <a href="http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47158809#" id="user_KonaLink6" style="background-image:none;border-color:transparent;border-style:none;color:#0000FF;display:inline;margin:0px;padding:0px;text-decoration:underline;" target="_blank" name="user_KonaLink6"><span style="background-image:none;border-bottom-style:solid;border-bottom-width:1px;border-left-style:none;border-left-width:0px;border-right-style:none;border-right-width:0px;border-top-style:none;border-top-width:0px;display:inline;float:none;padding:0px 0px 1px;">wireless </span>
<span style="background-image:none;border-bottom-style:solid;border-bottom-width:1px;border-left-style:none;border-left-width:0px;border-right-style:none;border-right-width:0px;border-top-style:none;border-top-width:0px;display:inline;float:none;padding:0px 0px 1px;">communication</span> </a>
standard to be in a range of 1.5 percent from the sales price of an end-user device.However. a significant use of LTE is expected to be in connection with other wireless communication standards, such as GSM, UMTS and/or CDMA. When multiple wireless standards are used in the same end product, Nokia will follow similar principles in setting the royalty rate for Nokia patents essential to other standards. To avoid unfavorable effects of royalty stacking, Nokia will not charge royalties higher than 2.0 percent from the sales price of an end-user device for IPR that is essential to wireless communication standards irrespective of the number of wireless standards deployed in such a device.
That's sales price.
As you correctly point out Nokia's stated royalty rate, and probably the one arranged with Apple a couple years ago (less credit for Apple IP licensed back), is based on the sales price rather than wholesale. Thanks for reminding me. Qualcomm is wholesale (build) as is Ericsson's AFAICT.
Another thing to keep in mind to avoid confusion: The IEEE we both mentioned earlier handles wi-fi standards. 3G and 4G/LTE standards primarily go thru ETSI, a different body with different rules on the appropriate royalty basis.
As you correctly point out Nokia's stated royalty rate, and probably the one arranged with Apple a couple years ago (less credit for Apple IP licensed back), is based on the sales price rather than wholesale. Thanks for reminding me. Qualcomm is wholesale (build) as is Ericsson's AFAICT.
Another thing to keep in mind to avoid confusion: The IEEE we both mentioned earlier handles wi-fi standards. 3G and 4G/LTE standards primarily go thru ETSI, a different body with different rules on the appropriate royalty basis.
The thing that I need to remember is that there is no one size solution to royalty rates, but it would be nice if there was more consistency by IP holders.
If Ericsson's is wholesale build basis, that's better than retail, but it still doesn't account for the disparity in build pricing between premium devices and entry level. I suspect that this is substantially what Apple's grievance is (and any other premium builder would probably agree).
The thing that I need to remember is that there is no one size solution to royalty rates, but it would be nice if there was more consistency by IP holders.
If Ericsson's is wholesale build basis, that's better than retail, but it still doesn't account for the disparity in build pricing between premium devices and entry level. I suspect that this is substantially what Apple's grievance is (and any other premium builder would probably agree).
I think that's the issue too.
BTW, thanks for the respectful discussion we're having. This is the way the give and take here should go. Others should take note of it as it serves as a great example IMHO.
BTW, thanks for the respectful discussion we're having. This is the way the give and take here should go. Others should take notice of it.
I was actually getting very frustrated by the sidetracks that these discussion takes; not by you.
I appreciate the research the you have done. It's first rate.
Still, I would wish that more IP is licensed on a smallest salable device as it would be better for small innovators who would have a difficult path of navigating and negotiating IP, and I am quite aware that Apple can take care of itself in these negotiations.
If only you had chosen to side with the Rebel Alliance rather than the Empire...
Sure, honey, and that's what exactly everyone else with the similar kind of patent portfolio charges. Do you have ANY idea how much everyone else is charging? Ericsson is among the top contributors with large number of seminal and essential SEPs -- and there are perhaps only three or four others who could demand similar or higher rate, say Qualcomm, Alcatel, and Moto, not a dozen. The exact figures are announced and published by the patent holders and GatorGuy provided the link on numerous occasions. But, of course, you already knew that, but are just playing dumb, Dr. ummm, you so smart in what again?
Wrong again, in the Moto v Microsoft case, Microsoft never challenged the royalty basis of Moto's claim, but argued that Moto violated "fair" and "reasonable" part of the FRAND rate demanded and accepted by the industry. The decision was likewise based on what other patent holders of the same standards were asking for their SEPs. And lo-and-behold, their licensing model wasn't even tied to some percentage of any particular component (or an entire device), but on some fixed amount for the first 10,000 units, plus per-unit cost for any additional units. The court also found that Moto's patents weren't all that large or essential in quantity or quality, so the judge awarded Moto what he thought was proportional to Moto's share of the standards. Now, the fact that you are citing a Wiki article indicates you have absolutely no have idea what you are talking about.
wow, you sound so smart!! Ummm, did you just figure that out? or do you actually have any proof that Qualcomm licensed all of Ericsson's patents?
I agree, why should I pay in excess of $50K in taxes every year, while some young ignorant chumps like you pay so much less? Oh, and I'm pretty sure no creativity or hard work went into creating the wireless standards Ericsson spent so much time and money on. Bad Ericsson.
sell at a loss? Yeah, that sounds really stupid. And no, Ericsson is not collecting some percentage of a phone maker's profit. And there are also trade laws preventing companies from dumping their products at below cost.
Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong. And I'm glad that your kinds don't care, because those in the lawyering business and the US judicial system do care and they do matter quite a bit in patent infringement cases.
Hey Tool, thanks for spouting more nonsense.
To help you understand, I will repeat the point. All SEPs are by definition essential to the operation of the standard. No Ericsson's patent is more valuable than any other SEP from any other company.
I noticed you did not provide any logical reason for Ericsson's demand to profit from Apple's work. You just reposted Ericsson's claims with no justification, which is 'we stole other manufacturers and so we have the right to steal from Apple too'. This is not a valid argument and Ericsson will get thrown out of court.
VW pays the same price for a tire whether it ends up on a VW Golf or an Audi A3. That's how it should be. Ericsson and other SEP holders scammed other manufacturers into paying a % of their device cost. Ericsson did not count on a large company like Apple taking a stand against this gouging. There is no legal or common sense justification for SEP licensing fees that are a % of device cost.
Thanks. Someone has to put these morons in their place.
To help your small brain understand, I will repeat the pint... (another pint??)
Hey Tool, thanks for spouting more nonsense and confirming our opinion that your are a moronic troll.
What an appropriate response from a 'Tool'. I am glad you took time off from 'going down' on Ericsson's management to post this clever response.
Perhaps you should tone it down because the forum administration isn't very tolerant of personal attacks, and too it doesn't reflect well on the forum as a whole making it seem intolerant and petty.. Your time would be better spent disproving/disputing what someone has said with facts or politely stated and logical responses instead, don't you think? Some of the folks here have actually spent a great deal of time looking into the facts and issues surrounding this and you can learn from them rather than calling them stupid, small-brained, moronic, or a "tool" as you're doing.
I am all for respectful dialogue, even in the face of self-congratulatory posts from trolls. Unfortunately, it is neither possible nor desirable to be 'respectful' of people who advocate stealing from others, or profiting from other people's work.
According to the '% of device cost' advocates, Apple should give more money to Ericsson than a low end Chinese manufacturer just because Apple chose to use high-end materials and better software. What nonsense! So, if a luxury device maker makes a smartphone encrusted with diamonds and gold, and sell it for $80,000, should they pay Ericsson 100 times the licensing fee Apple pay for their $800 iPhone?
Please stop pretending that all opinions are worth the same irrespective of their relation to logic or common sense. They are not.
You're doing a fantastic job of trolling and name-calling IMO.. Perhaps you should tone it down because the forum administration isn't very tolerant of personal attacks, and too it doesn't reflect well on the forum as a whole making it seem intolerant and petty.. Your time would be better spent disproving/disputing what someone has said with facts or politely stated and logical responses instead, don't you think? Some of the folks here have actually spent a great deal of time looking into the facts and issues surrounding this and you can learn from them rather than calling them stupid, small-brained, moronic, or a "tool" as you're doing.
I guess you were too busy trolling to read the tool's posts. He started the 'name-calling', not me. Just look at his reply to RobM, who was not even talking to him. And, given your history of trolling on this site, you would be better served by cleaning up your act instead of lecturing others. Your 'victim' act is not fooling anybody.
And, your so-called work in looking into the issues is nothing more than regurgitating positions stated by SEP holders. That is nothing to be proud of. Since either you nor your fellow trolls have addressed any of the points raised by me or others on this forum, but continue posting the same irrelevant 'information' again and again, I have no option but to conclude that your purpose is to troll rather than cary on an informed discussion. If you want better responses from others, try improving the quality of your posts.
Hey Tool, thanks for spouting more nonsense and confirming our opinion that your are a moronic troll.
To help your small brain understand, I will repeat the point, very very slowly. All SEPs are by definition essential to the operation of the standard. No Ericsson's patent is more valuable than any other SEP from any other company.
I noticed you did not provide any logical reason for Ericsson's demand to profit from Apple's work. You just reposted Ericsson's claims with no justification, which is 'we stole other manufacturers and so we should settle from Apple too'. This is not a valid argument and Ericsson will get thrown out of court.
VW pays the same price for a tire whether it ends up on a VW Golf or an Audi A3. That's how it should be. Ericsson and other SEP holders scammed other manufacturers into paying a % of their device cost. Ericsson did not count on a large company like Apple taking a stand against this gouging. There is no legal or common sense justification for SEP licensing fees that are a % of device cost.
What an appropriate response from a 'Tool'. I am glad you took time off from 'going down' on Ericsson's management to post this clever response.
Apple is claiming that Ericsson's patents shouldn't be SEPs. If that's the case why don't they just stop using it, or create a work around.
Comments
I neither accept nor defend it. I believe you know that. What I've done is explained the facts as it currently stands as well as point out common misconceptions. I've also given examples of why I's not going to be simple nor painless to change it midstream. No company is going to willingly leave money on the table nor will any of them part with more than they absolutely have to. .And really that's what it all boils down to money and not what's ethical or fair.
Of course it's not ethical and fair, and that is why Apple has brought suit and Ericsson has counter sued, but you even admit that you are loathe to change that.
According to whom? The specifics of the licensing terms are unknown.
4G/LTE royalty rates, and based on the wholesale price of the phone,just as the 3G FRAND rates were::
Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%
Total: 13.8% of the device's total build cost (NOT the retail price), and not just a chip price. Who says? ETSI themselves, the standards-bearer for that particular collection.
http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/82827/files/LESI-Royalty-Rates.pdf
Not enough? There's more you can learn from these links:
Ericsson explains why it collects royalties from device makers
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/ericsson-explained-publicly-why-its.html
Qualcomm royalty rate statement
http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/ltewimax-patent-licensing-statement#node-10731
Nokia SEP rates
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47158809
Qualcomm FRAND rate
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2000/05/15/279766/index.htm
Various SEP studies
http://essentialpatentblog.com/academic-papers-and-articles/
PatentlyO FRAND discussion
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/03/february-of-frand.html
FTC workshop on Frand injunctions
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/patentstandardsworkshop/00011-60525.pdf
If you actually read only a couple of those links it might help you understand why several of your other points are off the mark. FWIW I've read every one of them, some more than once and going back over a couple of years now.
EDIT: Forgot to include one important link/
EDIT2: [@]tmay[/@] may be interested in this very recent ruling as it generally runs counter to his belief the Federal courts are not allowing FRAND-pledged SEP royalties to be based on the whole-market concept.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/ericsson-explained-publicly-why-its.html
Yet not one single person has been able to show that it's not ethical and fair. Everyone believes so because Apple says so.
Did Apple force you to buy those products? Nope. And the data revenue sharing was in lieu of subsidies.
When did this happen? Please post a link where Apple wanted royalties on its design patents.
Quote:
“Samsung chose to embrace and imitate Apple’s iPhone archetype,” Apple said in an Oct. 5, 2010 presentation to Samsung. “Apple would have preferred that Samsung request a license to do this in advance. Because Samsung is a strategic supplier to Apple, we are prepared to offer a royalty-bearing license for this category of device.”
Hardly an offer Samsung would have been expected to accept IMHO but it was an offer.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/apple-licensed-design-patents-to-microsoft-in-anti-cloning-agreement/
http://allthingsd.com/20120810/breaking-apple-offered-to-license-its-patents-to-samsung-for-30-per-smartphone-40-per-tablet/
Nobody forced Apple to use Ericsson's technology. If their patents are 'non-essential' as Apple claims they are, then why doesn’t Apple take it out of their devices or find a work around?
Quote:
Here's an opportunity to learn grasshopper. You should take advantage of it before posting on the subject, especially before claiming someone else is wrong. @RobM might also benefit based on his thumbs up of your accusation.
4G/LTE royalty rates, and based on the wholesale price of the phone,just as the 3G FRAND rates were::
Alcatel/Lucent - 2%
Ericsson - 1.5%
Huawei - 1.5%
Nokia - 1.5% plus another .8% from their partnership with Seimans
Motorola - 2.25%
Qualcomm - 3.25%
ZTE- 1%
Total: 13.8% of the device's total build cost (NOT the retail price), and not just a chip price. Who says? ETSI themselves, the standards-bearer for that particular collection.
http://www.investorvillage.com/uploads/82827/files/LESI-Royalty-Rates.pdf
Not enough? There's more you can learn from these links:
Ericsson explains why it collects royalties from device makers
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/ericsson-explained-publicly-why-its.html
Qualcomm royalty rate statement
http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/ltewimax-patent-licensing-statement#node-10731
Nokia SEP rates
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47158809
Qualcomm FRAND rate
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2000/05/15/279766/index.htm
Various SEP studies
http://essentialpatentblog.com/academic-papers-and-articles/
PatentlyO FRAND discussion
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/03/february-of-frand.html
FTC workshop on Frand injunctions
http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/patentstandardsworkshop/00011-60525.pdf
If you actually read only a couple of those links it might help you understand why several of your other points are off the mark. FWIW I've read every one of them, some more than once and going back over a couple of years now.
EDIT: Forgot to include one important link/
EDIT2: @tmay may be interested in this very recent ruling as it generally runs counter to his belief the Federal courts are not allowing FRAND-pledged SEP royalties to be based on the whole-market concept.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/01/ericsson-explained-publicly-why-its.html
I did not say that the Federal Courts were not allowing it, merely that the trend was towards the smallest salable device as basis. I may turn out to be wrong, and there won't be any change. But as I have stated before, you seem perfectly fine with the status quo,: I am not, and I am hopeful that there are changes.
You seem to have left out the important note by the author of the link;
"That's the "justification" for the royalty base: more money to the patent holder. But this is not an economic justification. There's no reason why Ericsson should get more from Samsung than it would from Qualcomm if a given patent (or set of patents) could also be licensed to the chipset maker. Ericsson asserted not only standard-essential but also various non-essential patents against Samsung, so on the non-SEP side it may claim that it owns technology infringed by, for example, Android. For SEP-only licensing, however, the proper royalty base is the price of a chipset that implements the standard."
That link was near a year and a half old, btw. Recent in legal terms, maybe, but not so in calendar terms.
?You also link to statements that are over a decade old. You make my case. Time for change.
Here's Nokia's 2 % statement:
Currently, we expect Nokia’s rate for devices that deploy LTE as the only wireless communication standard to be in a range of 1.5 percent from the sales price of an end-user device.However. a significant use of LTE is expected to be in connection with other wireless communication standards, such as GSM, UMTS and/or CDMA. When multiple wireless standards are used in the same end product, Nokia will follow similar principles in setting the royalty rate for Nokia patents essential to other standards. To avoid unfavorable effects of royalty stacking, Nokia will not charge royalties higher than 2.0 percent from the sales price of an end-user device for IPR that is essential to wireless communication standards irrespective of the number of wireless standards deployed in such a device.
That's sales price.
http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/2014/12/federal-circuit-gives-guidance-on-litigating-rand-obligation-ericsson-v-d-link/
Tmay, I'm so sorry. I gave you the wrong link. This was the one I intended to refer you to. I had posted the other one higher in the post and erroneously duplicated it.
http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/2014/12/federal-circuit-gives-guidance-on-litigating-rand-obligation-ericsson-v-d-link/
That's a very good article.
I'm not sure that it makes a solid case for smallest salable device basis for my side (vs EMVR is its legal description) but I do think that it is very strong on apportionment if EMVR, i.e., the jury would have to be instructed specifically of limits to each.
It definitely isn't carte blanche support for either EMVR or smallest salable device, but forces the court to instruct the jury specifically of application. I would find this fair jurisprudence, and I would see Apple, in this case, of being very aware of the The Appeal Court's direction.
Overall, I see Apple would at least get a fair hearing on EMVR (basis) through the apportionment instructions that the jury would receive.
I'm no lawyer, as you have probably surmised, but I would really like to be present when this unfold in court. Might be the best matchup in recent patent litigation.
(I seem to have obsessively latched on to apportionment as the fair solution to this litigation)
Another thing to keep in mind to avoid confusion: The IEEE we both mentioned earlier handles wi-fi standards. 3G and 4G/LTE standards primarily go thru ETSI, a different body with different rules on the appropriate royalty basis.
As you correctly point out Nokia's stated royalty rate, and probably the one arranged with Apple a couple years ago (less credit for Apple IP licensed back), is based on the sales price rather than wholesale. Thanks for reminding me. Qualcomm is wholesale (build) as is Ericsson's AFAICT.
Another thing to keep in mind to avoid confusion: The IEEE we both mentioned earlier handles wi-fi standards. 3G and 4G/LTE standards primarily go thru ETSI, a different body with different rules on the appropriate royalty basis.
The thing that I need to remember is that there is no one size solution to royalty rates, but it would be nice if there was more consistency by IP holders.
If Ericsson's is wholesale build basis, that's better than retail, but it still doesn't account for the disparity in build pricing between premium devices and entry level. I suspect that this is substantially what Apple's grievance is (and any other premium builder would probably agree).
BTW, thanks for the respectful discussion we're having. This is the way the give and take here should go. Others should take note of it as it serves as a great example IMHO.
I think that's the issue too.
BTW, thanks for the respectful discussion we're having. This is the way the give and take here should go. Others should take notice of it.
I was actually getting very frustrated by the sidetracks that these discussion takes; not by you.
I appreciate the research the you have done. It's first rate.
Still, I would wish that more IP is licensed on a smallest salable device as it would be better for small innovators who would have a difficult path of navigating and negotiating IP, and I am quite aware that Apple can take care of itself in these negotiations.
If only you had chosen to side with the Rebel Alliance rather than the Empire...
@spock1234 :
Sure, honey, and that's what exactly everyone else with the similar kind of patent portfolio charges. Do you have ANY idea how much everyone else is charging? Ericsson is among the top contributors with large number of seminal and essential SEPs -- and there are perhaps only three or four others who could demand similar or higher rate, say Qualcomm, Alcatel, and Moto, not a dozen. The exact figures are announced and published by the patent holders and GatorGuy provided the link on numerous occasions. But, of course, you already knew that, but are just playing dumb, Dr. ummm, you so smart in what again?
Wrong again, in the Moto v Microsoft case, Microsoft never challenged the royalty basis of Moto's claim, but argued that Moto violated "fair" and "reasonable" part of the FRAND rate demanded and accepted by the industry. The decision was likewise based on what other patent holders of the same standards were asking for their SEPs. And lo-and-behold, their licensing model wasn't even tied to some percentage of any particular component (or an entire device), but on some fixed amount for the first 10,000 units, plus per-unit cost for any additional units. The court also found that Moto's patents weren't all that large or essential in quantity or quality, so the judge awarded Moto what he thought was proportional to Moto's share of the standards. Now, the fact that you are citing a Wiki article indicates you have absolutely no have idea what you are talking about.
wow, you sound so smart!! Ummm, did you just figure that out? or do you actually have any proof that Qualcomm licensed all of Ericsson's patents?
I agree, why should I pay in excess of $50K in taxes every year, while some young ignorant chumps like you pay so much less? Oh, and I'm pretty sure no creativity or hard work went into creating the wireless standards Ericsson spent so much time and money on. Bad Ericsson.
sell at a loss? Yeah, that sounds really stupid. And no, Ericsson is not collecting some percentage of a phone maker's profit. And there are also trade laws preventing companies from dumping their products at below cost.
Whenever people agree with me, I always feel I must be wrong. And I'm glad that your kinds don't care, because those in the lawyering business and the US judicial system do care and they do matter quite a bit in patent infringement cases.
Hey Tool, thanks for spouting more nonsense.
To help you understand, I will repeat the point. All SEPs are by definition essential to the operation of the standard. No Ericsson's patent is more valuable than any other SEP from any other company.
I noticed you did not provide any logical reason for Ericsson's demand to profit from Apple's work. You just reposted Ericsson's claims with no justification, which is 'we stole other manufacturers and so we have the right to steal from Apple too'. This is not a valid argument and Ericsson will get thrown out of court.
VW pays the same price for a tire whether it ends up on a VW Golf or an Audi A3. That's how it should be. Ericsson and other SEP holders scammed other manufacturers into paying a % of their device cost. Ericsson did not count on a large company like Apple taking a stand against this gouging. There is no legal or common sense justification for SEP licensing fees that are a % of device cost.
I am all for respectful dialogue, even in the face of self-congratulatory posts from trolls. Unfortunately, it is neither possible nor desirable to be 'respectful' of people who advocate stealing from others, or profiting from other people's work.
According to the '% of device cost' advocates, Apple should give more money to Ericsson than a low end Chinese manufacturer just because Apple chose to use high-end materials and better software. What nonsense! So, if a luxury device maker makes a smartphone encrusted with diamonds and gold, and sell it for $80,000, should they pay Ericsson 100 times the licensing fee Apple pay for their $800 iPhone?
Please stop pretending that all opinions are worth the same irrespective of their relation to logic or common sense. They are not.
You're doing a fantastic job of trolling and name-calling IMO.. Perhaps you should tone it down because the forum administration isn't very tolerant of personal attacks, and too it doesn't reflect well on the forum as a whole making it seem intolerant and petty.. Your time would be better spent disproving/disputing what someone has said with facts or politely stated and logical responses instead, don't you think? Some of the folks here have actually spent a great deal of time looking into the facts and issues surrounding this and you can learn from them rather than calling them stupid, small-brained, moronic, or a "tool" as you're doing.
I guess you were too busy trolling to read the tool's posts. He started the 'name-calling', not me. Just look at his reply to RobM, who was not even talking to him. And, given your history of trolling on this site, you would be better served by cleaning up your act instead of lecturing others. Your 'victim' act is not fooling anybody.
And, your so-called work in looking into the issues is nothing more than regurgitating positions stated by SEP holders. That is nothing to be proud of. Since either you nor your fellow trolls have addressed any of the points raised by me or others on this forum, but continue posting the same irrelevant 'information' again and again, I have no option but to conclude that your purpose is to troll rather than cary on an informed discussion. If you want better responses from others, try improving the quality of your posts.
Apple is claiming that Ericsson's patents shouldn't be SEPs. If that's the case why don't they just stop using it, or create a work around.