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.
IF Apple is claiming that the Ericsson's patents in question are not SEPs, then Apple would also be claiming that it is not using those patents at all. Why would Apple use a non-essential patent to perform a function covered by a standard and valid SEPs? Makes no sense. Also, those non-SEPs would not be subject to FRAND, and Ericsson could charge whatever it wanted for those patents. Given that this entire dispute is about the fairness of the licensing fees, I doubt if your claim is correct.
Even if you are correct about Apple's claims, Ericsson would have to prove that their patents are Standards Essential and that they are used by Apple. If Ericsson is correct, it would be very easy to prove using documents they submitted to the Standard Setting bodies during the standard creation process. It would never have to go the litigation stage.
The current standards setting process relies on patent holders to honestly list the patents that are essential to the 'standard' technology. There is no independent check of their claims before inclusion in the standard or designation as SEPs. Unfortunately, 'SEP' holders are notorious for claiming SEP status for an enormous number of patents that are not in reality essential to the standard. One recent culprit is Samsung - they claimed SEP status for non-SEPs and also hid patents that were truly 'essential' from the standards bodies in order to use them in litigation at a later time. EU regulators took action against Samsung for such behavior and as a result Samsung withdrew all its EU lawsuits against Apple based on SEPs. You can google 'samsung SEP violations' for details.
To be clear, I am not saying Ericsson did this, just that this behavior by SEP holders is more common than it should be. When SEP holders are dishonest, Apple is forced to be extra careful and do its research if it wants to avoid paying unearned licensing fees to SEP holders.
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.
EDIT: And yes looking back over some of the previous posts Tooltalk was disrespectful IMO. He could have made his points in a better manner. That's no excuse for accusing everyone else of being a troll because they disagree with you. It comes off as a bit childish, which I'm sure wouldn't be your intention. You're a smarter guy than that going by your post history.
You need to go back and look again then. You made two assertions directed at me, claiming in both cases I was wrong. I replied back with proof that I was right in the first place, making a honest effort to answer your question. You were simply mistaken in your belief.. I can't help it if you won't read 'em to realize why.
More irrelvant info and misdirection - pretty typical of your posting history.
An article listing the royalty rates asked for by SEP holders is NOT proof of an industry standard or justification for the requested royalty. According to your logic, an article showing that smartphone manufacturers would like SEPs to be free would be 'proof' that license-free SEPs are the accepted industry standard. What nonsense ...
Where is your justification for SEP holders profiting from the software quality, build quality and brand value of iPhones, as opposed to smartphones that are less expensive and less desirable? Nowhere to be seen ....
You insisted that these were the actual rates paid by smartphone manufacturers. I asked you to post links to the contracts proving your claim. You did not. All your double talk can't change that.
You keep posting tons of useless links, hoping that people will assume that they have some bearing on the discussion, instead of wasting their time reading all the articles you link to. Poor tactic. Just proves that you have nothing useful to say and and are as wrong as can be.
An article listing the royalty rates asked for by SEP holders is NOT proof of an industry standard or justification for the requested royalty. Where is your justification for SEP holders profiting from the software quality, build quality and brand value of iPhones, as opposed to smartphones that are less expensive and less desirable? Nowhere to be seen ....
You didn't ask me that.
If you wish I can offer the players answers, which of course are the ones that matter. As for myself I don't believe there is justification for some of the rates, particularly as Qualcomm has set it up. In their case tho it's a massive part of their business and they aggressively protect it. Very few potential or current licensees have attempted to challenge them so far from what I can tell (Nokia being a notable exception) but at some point I see Apple butting heads with them.
Where is your justification for SEP holders profiting from the software quality, build quality and brand value of iPhones, as opposed to smartphones that are less expensive and less desirable? Nowhere to be seen ....
Where is the justification for Apple profiting from software quality and marketability of top apps in the app store as opposed to the apps that are less expensive and less desirable? Nowhere to be seen...
Where is the justification for Apple profiting from software quality and marketability of top apps in the app store as opposed to the apps that are less expensive and less desirable? Nowhere to be seen...
Swings and roundabouts dude.
This is totally non-relevant and an absolutely non-sensical comparison.
Apple doesn't have the same requirements to fulfill that SEP holders have. Apple operates a store that is available with rules and set rates. The value of Apps is set by buyers, not Apple, though Apple does tend to highlight various apps on occasion.
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.
You would do well to link the specifics, but even if that is the case, Apple may as part of its lawsuit, attempt to invalidate SEP, or show that it is inapplicable, without repercussion from the court, although if unsuccessful, the Court will still require Apple to pay licensing and penalties to Ericsson.
@TT - I'm still wiping the tears from my eyes from laughter. Hilarious. Thank you for your suggestion and were that possible on an Internet discussion board I might entertain the notion if I weren't married, the recipient was female, somewhat comely and willing. Otherwise not.
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.
What 'ruling'??? This article does not speak of any ruling, just a settlement that Ericsson agreed to. Nothing to do with the Federal courts. On top of that, the article clearly says that Ericsson's approach of basing fees on '% of sale price' has no basis in logic or law, just Ericsson's desire to squeeze more money out of smartphone manufacturers. This guy does not even read the articles he links to - just vomits on the keyboard and hopes people just take his words at face value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmay
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."
@GG - This discussion has been a good one and it has served to highlight the differing arguments.
There's been no clear consensus here other than some see a need for change and others want the status quo to remain. No doubt where I stand. There's a need for change and as we said earlier it's likely to get very messy as the legal teams go at it.
This case may end up as a precedent for future rulings. It really depends on how far Apple want to push it - could be years before there's a ruling. Or they end up doing the usual Multi-national corp thing and there's a murky back-room deal struck to pacify both. :rolleyes:
@tmay : not sure what you mean. Apple lost all cases on the iPad claims -- all their iPad design patents were completely rejected and invalidated everywhere. The two shapes, "rectangular" and "rounded corners," I was referring to in my comment pertains to app-icons (USD604305 - GUI for a display screen) which allowed Apple to disgorge Samsung's entire profit on infringed devices.
That would have been the look of the UI, not the iPad that you were referring to.
@tmay : not sure what you mean. Apple lost all cases on the iPad claims -- all their iPad design patents were completely rejected and invalidated everywhere. The two shapes, "rectangular" and "rounded corners," I was referring to in my comment pertains to app-icons (USD604305 - GUI for a display screen) which allowed Apple to disgorge Samsung's entire profit on infringed devices.
That's because Samsung stole Apple's design and UI, including the icon for the phone app. And, App icons are square not rectangular. Nice attempt at backtracking, but it did not work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmay
That would have been the look of the UI, not the iPad that you were referring to.
This case may end up as a precedent for future rulings. It really depends on how far Apple want to push it - could be years before there's a ruling.
Hence why Apple wisely passed up arbitration.
From IEEE's standpoint, IP based on the smallest salable device, and at an embedded cost, would be the best path. That would possibly spur whole new classes of connected devices especially by startups, individuals and small companies. This fact alone speaks to the importance of change in how IP is licensed.
That's because Samsung stole Apple's design and UI, including the icon for the phone app. And, App icons are square not rectangular. Nice attempt at backtracking, but it did not work.
This.
I'm pretty sure that tooltalk poorly stated what he was speaking of, but thanks for clarifying this. I would note that Samsung had incriminating emails and a comparative UI roadmap based on iOS that they were working off of. Guilt was obvious and noted in the Jury trial.
Apple wasn't able to do much at all with its iPad design patents, but as it turned out, the competitors never really did figure our how to build a competitor to iPad. Given Samsung's current path of attempting to match Apple's build quality, advertising, and even removal of much valued features from the S6, I'd say that they are one of a number of "fast and slow followers" of Apple.
All of this just seems to reinforce Apple's standing in the industry.
From IEEE's standpoint, IP based on the smallest salable device, and at an embedded cost, would be the best path. That would possibly spur whole new classes of connected devices especially by startups, individuals and small companies. This fact alone speaks to the importance of change in how IP is licensed.
I agree - except on the point of using a blanket sales price. Ericsson will only argue that the sales price should be higher.
I don't care that Ericsson were able to negotiate/extort that concession from manufacturers in the past.
It should be based on the cost of the component. And if Qualcomm are already paying Ericsson for the ip and Apple buy from Qualcomm - why should Ericsson be able to double dip ?
I said before that this is more akin to a sales tax. Odious and insidious.
You're right - this type of "overhead" only serves to stifle innovation. It needs reform.
I agree - except on the point of using a blanket sales price. Ericsson will only argue that the sales price should be higher.
I don't care that Ericsson were able to negotiate/extort that concession from manufacturers in the past.
It should be based on the cost of the component. And if Qualcomm are already paying Ericsson for the ip and Apple buy from Qualcomm - why should Ericsson be able to double dip ?
I said before that this is more akin to a sales tax. Odious and insidious.
You're right - this type of "overhead" only serves to stifle innovation. It needs reform.
That's called patent exhaustion, and if you see the link to Ericsson's IP rate posted by Gatorguy, you will notice the author commenting on how Ericsson makes sure that every user from the top down is licensed such that patent exhaustion is never a claim against Ericsson. After reading this, I have real issues with Ericsson's take on capitalism, but, whatever they can get away with.
It's quite conceivable that they are getting many extra helping of IP licensing on both the mobile and basestation side. Hard to imagine people defending them but I suspect it has more to do with trashing Apple.
My sales price example was directed at the fact that Ericsson's mobile IP doesn't operate in a vacuum. A little too odious, and customers look to create new standards, or actually become competitors. Ericsson needs to be careful that it doesn't burn the nice bridge that it is sitting on. One would not want to effect the basestation side in a negative way by killing mobile use.
That's called patent exhaustion, and if you see the link to Ericsson's IP rate posted by Gatorguy, you will notice the author commenting on how Ericsson makes sure that every user from the top down is licensed such that patent exhaustion is never a claim against Ericsson. After reading this, I have real issues with Ericsson's take on capitalism, but, whatever they can get away with.
It's quite conceivable that they are getting many extra helping of IP licensing on both the mobile and basestation side. Hard to imagine people defending them but I suspect it has more to do with trashing Apple.
I said before that this is more akin to a sales tax. Odious and insidious.
You're right - this type of "overhead" only serves to stifle innovation. It needs reform.
umm - from startups that may have insight into new applications of tech that can't afford to develop knowing they will have a Swedish giant riding alongside in their wallet.
As to specifics - I can't comment because if I knew I would be flat out in that area not pontificating here, somewhat needlessly.:D
What 'ruling'??? This article does not speak of any ruling, just a settlement that Ericsson agreed to. Nothing to do with the Federal courts. On top of that, the article clearly says that Ericsson's approach of basing fees on '% of sale price' has no basis in logic or law, just Ericsson's desire to squeeze more money out of smartphone manufacturers. This guy does not even read the articles he links to - just vomits on the keyboard and hopes people just take his words at face value.
Comments
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.
IF Apple is claiming that the Ericsson's patents in question are not SEPs, then Apple would also be claiming that it is not using those patents at all. Why would Apple use a non-essential patent to perform a function covered by a standard and valid SEPs? Makes no sense. Also, those non-SEPs would not be subject to FRAND, and Ericsson could charge whatever it wanted for those patents. Given that this entire dispute is about the fairness of the licensing fees, I doubt if your claim is correct.
Even if you are correct about Apple's claims, Ericsson would have to prove that their patents are Standards Essential and that they are used by Apple. If Ericsson is correct, it would be very easy to prove using documents they submitted to the Standard Setting bodies during the standard creation process. It would never have to go the litigation stage.
The current standards setting process relies on patent holders to honestly list the patents that are essential to the 'standard' technology. There is no independent check of their claims before inclusion in the standard or designation as SEPs. Unfortunately, 'SEP' holders are notorious for claiming SEP status for an enormous number of patents that are not in reality essential to the standard. One recent culprit is Samsung - they claimed SEP status for non-SEPs and also hid patents that were truly 'essential' from the standards bodies in order to use them in litigation at a later time. EU regulators took action against Samsung for such behavior and as a result Samsung withdrew all its EU lawsuits against Apple based on SEPs. You can google 'samsung SEP violations' for details.
To be clear, I am not saying Ericsson did this, just that this behavior by SEP holders is more common than it should be. When SEP holders are dishonest, Apple is forced to be extra careful and do its research if it wants to avoid paying unearned licensing fees to SEP holders.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/186178/ericsson-turns-patent-royalty-spat-with-apple-into-an-international-incident/80#post_2721816
EDIT: And yes looking back over some of the previous posts Tooltalk was disrespectful IMO. He could have made his points in a better manner. That's no excuse for accusing everyone else of being a troll because they disagree with you. It comes off as a bit childish, which I'm sure wouldn't be your intention. You're a smarter guy than that going by your post history.
You need to go back and look again then. You made two assertions directed at me, claiming in both cases I was wrong. I replied back with proof that I was right in the first place, making a honest effort to answer your question. You were simply mistaken in your belief.. I can't help it if you won't read 'em to realize why.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/186178/ericsson-turns-patent-royalty-spat-with-apple-into-an-international-incident/80#post_2721816
More irrelvant info and misdirection - pretty typical of your posting history.
An article listing the royalty rates asked for by SEP holders is NOT proof of an industry standard or justification for the requested royalty. According to your logic, an article showing that smartphone manufacturers would like SEPs to be free would be 'proof' that license-free SEPs are the accepted industry standard. What nonsense ...
Where is your justification for SEP holders profiting from the software quality, build quality and brand value of iPhones, as opposed to smartphones that are less expensive and less desirable? Nowhere to be seen ....
You insisted that these were the actual rates paid by smartphone manufacturers. I asked you to post links to the contracts proving your claim. You did not. All your double talk can't change that.
You keep posting tons of useless links, hoping that people will assume that they have some bearing on the discussion, instead of wasting their time reading all the articles you link to. Poor tactic. Just proves that you have nothing useful to say and and are as wrong as can be.
Goodbye (added to ignore list).
If you wish I can offer the players answers, which of course are the ones that matter. As for myself I don't believe there is justification for some of the rates, particularly as Qualcomm has set it up. In their case tho it's a massive part of their business and they aggressively protect it. Very few potential or current licensees have attempted to challenge them so far from what I can tell (Nokia being a notable exception) but at some point I see Apple butting heads with them.
Where is your justification for SEP holders profiting from the software quality, build quality and brand value of iPhones, as opposed to smartphones that are less expensive and less desirable? Nowhere to be seen ....
Where is the justification for Apple profiting from software quality and marketability of top apps in the app store as opposed to the apps that are less expensive and less desirable? Nowhere to be seen...
Swings and roundabouts dude.
Where is the justification for Apple profiting from software quality and marketability of top apps in the app store as opposed to the apps that are less expensive and less desirable? Nowhere to be seen...
Swings and roundabouts dude.
This is totally non-relevant and an absolutely non-sensical comparison.
Apple doesn't have the same requirements to fulfill that SEP holders have. Apple operates a store that is available with rules and set rates. The value of Apps is set by buyers, not Apple, though Apple does tend to highlight various apps on occasion.
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.
You would do well to link the specifics, but even if that is the case, Apple may as part of its lawsuit, attempt to invalidate SEP, or show that it is inapplicable, without repercussion from the court, although if unsuccessful, the Court will still require Apple to pay licensing and penalties to Ericsson.
Thank you for your suggestion and were that possible on an Internet discussion board I might entertain the notion if I weren't married, the recipient was female, somewhat comely and willing. Otherwise not.
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
What 'ruling'??? This article does not speak of any ruling, just a settlement that Ericsson agreed to. Nothing to do with the Federal courts. On top of that, the article clearly says that Ericsson's approach of basing fees on '% of sale price' has no basis in logic or law, just Ericsson's desire to squeeze more money out of smartphone manufacturers. This guy does not even read the articles he links to - just vomits on the keyboard and hopes people just take his words at face value.
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."
This ^. Enough said.
There's been no clear consensus here other than some see a need for change and others want the status quo to remain.
No doubt where I stand. There's a need for change and as we said earlier it's likely to get very messy as the legal teams go at it.
This case may end up as a precedent for future rulings. It really depends on how far Apple want to push it - could be years before there's a ruling.
Or they end up doing the usual Multi-national corp thing and there's a murky back-room deal struck to pacify both. :rolleyes:
@tmay : not sure what you mean. Apple lost all cases on the iPad claims -- all their iPad design patents were completely rejected and invalidated everywhere. The two shapes, "rectangular" and "rounded corners," I was referring to in my comment pertains to app-icons (USD604305 - GUI for a display screen) which allowed Apple to disgorge Samsung's entire profit on infringed devices.
That would have been the look of the UI, not the iPad that you were referring to.
@tmay : not sure what you mean. Apple lost all cases on the iPad claims -- all their iPad design patents were completely rejected and invalidated everywhere. The two shapes, "rectangular" and "rounded corners," I was referring to in my comment pertains to app-icons (USD604305 - GUI for a display screen) which allowed Apple to disgorge Samsung's entire profit on infringed devices.
That's because Samsung stole Apple's design and UI, including the icon for the phone app. And, App icons are square not rectangular. Nice attempt at backtracking, but it did not work.
That would have been the look of the UI, not the iPad that you were referring to.
This.
This case may end up as a precedent for future rulings. It really depends on how far Apple want to push it - could be years before there's a ruling.
Hence why Apple wisely passed up arbitration.
From IEEE's standpoint, IP based on the smallest salable device, and at an embedded cost, would be the best path. That would possibly spur whole new classes of connected devices especially by startups, individuals and small companies. This fact alone speaks to the importance of change in how IP is licensed.
That's because Samsung stole Apple's design and UI, including the icon for the phone app. And, App icons are square not rectangular. Nice attempt at backtracking, but it did not work.
This.
I'm pretty sure that tooltalk poorly stated what he was speaking of, but thanks for clarifying this. I would note that Samsung had incriminating emails and a comparative UI roadmap based on iOS that they were working off of. Guilt was obvious and noted in the Jury trial.
Apple wasn't able to do much at all with its iPad design patents, but as it turned out, the competitors never really did figure our how to build a competitor to iPad. Given Samsung's current path of attempting to match Apple's build quality, advertising, and even removal of much valued features from the S6, I'd say that they are one of a number of "fast and slow followers" of Apple.
All of this just seems to reinforce Apple's standing in the industry.
At least MS is attempting to follow its own path.
I agree - except on the point of using a blanket sales price. Ericsson will only argue that the sales price should be higher.
I don't care that Ericsson were able to negotiate/extort that concession from manufacturers in the past.
It should be based on the cost of the component. And if Qualcomm are already paying Ericsson for the ip and Apple buy from Qualcomm - why should Ericsson be able to double dip ?
I said before that this is more akin to a sales tax. Odious and insidious.
You're right - this type of "overhead" only serves to stifle innovation. It needs reform.
I agree - except on the point of using a blanket sales price. Ericsson will only argue that the sales price should be higher.
I don't care that Ericsson were able to negotiate/extort that concession from manufacturers in the past.
It should be based on the cost of the component. And if Qualcomm are already paying Ericsson for the ip and Apple buy from Qualcomm - why should Ericsson be able to double dip ?
I said before that this is more akin to a sales tax. Odious and insidious.
You're right - this type of "overhead" only serves to stifle innovation. It needs reform.
That's called patent exhaustion, and if you see the link to Ericsson's IP rate posted by Gatorguy, you will notice the author commenting on how Ericsson makes sure that every user from the top down is licensed such that patent exhaustion is never a claim against Ericsson. After reading this, I have real issues with Ericsson's take on capitalism, but, whatever they can get away with.
It's quite conceivable that they are getting many extra helping of IP licensing on both the mobile and basestation side. Hard to imagine people defending them but I suspect it has more to do with trashing Apple.
My sales price example was directed at the fact that Ericsson's mobile IP doesn't operate in a vacuum. A little too odious, and customers look to create new standards, or actually become competitors. Ericsson needs to be careful that it doesn't burn the nice bridge that it is sitting on. One would not want to effect the basestation side in a negative way by killing mobile use.
Exactly.
What innovation is being stifled?
As to specifics - I can't comment because if I knew I would be flat out in that area not pontificating here, somewhat needlessly.:D
Look ahead a couple more posts, #112, and you'll see the correct link I meant for Tmay was this one: Yes It's a Federal Court ruling.
http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/2014/12/federal-circuit-gives-guidance-on-litigating-rand-obligation-ericsson-v-d-link/
An hour ago you said I was on your ignore list. :rolleyes: