How's that going to work if each individual user is exposed in some way by IP infringement. Now it may be that Google will negotiate the backplane, and a few modules, but I wouldn't want to bet my savings that everything will be covered.
How's that going to work if each individual user is exposed in some way by IP infringement. Now it may be that Google will negotiate the backplane, and a few modules, but I wouldn't want to bet my savings that everything will be covered.
And that is just a single example.
It wouldn't be cost effective to go after individual users.
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
I hope you aren't misreading my posts as an endorsement of the status quo. With the money and businesses involved things cannot be allowed to continue as is, and clarification from the courts will be necessary.
It wouldn't be cost effective to go after individual users.
I agree, but, as I stated it is but one example. There would be the case that some startup might find it prohibitive to invest in its own IP negotiation and decide it isn't worth it. IP licensing embedded in the device cost would eliminate those problems.
I'll agree in advance that not all IP can be successfully moved to smallest device licensing.
I would note that a few tens of thousands isn't an issue, but 100,000's of will be
Edit: Most likely it will be handled similarly to how Apple OS X on PC's; not an issue if you are an individual; big problems if you are a company profiting from that.
Google could of course indemnify users if it wished.
I agree, but, as I stated it is but one example. There would be the case that some startup might find it prohibitive to invest in its own IP negotiation and decide it isn't worth it. IP licensing embedded in the device cost would eliminate those problems.
I'll agree in advance that not all IP can be successfully moved to smallest device licensing.
I would note that a few tens of thousands isn't an issue, but 100,000's of will be
It seems like every day there's a new company making a smartphone. The fees associated with it don't seem to interfere with them.
We don't know the specifics of the case yet. Is it Ericsson trying to fleece Apple, or is it Apple believing it should get more favorable terms like they're able to get with components?
It seems like every day there's a new company making a smartphone. The fees associated with it don't seem to interfere with them.
We don't know the specifics of the case yet. Is it Ericsson trying to fleece Apple, or is it Apple believing it should get more favorable terms like they're able to get with components?
Apple wants to pay Ericsson licensing only against the value of the 4g/LTE. Apple is adamant that they do not want to reward Ericsson for Apple's many innovations in the iPhone. I would argue that Samsung, and other premium smartphone builders would agree with that generally. It isn't really that difficult conceptually, but I agree with Gatorguy that getting their is the issue, and some notable industry players are balking at a change in basis.
I have been stating for some time that there is trending by the courts to a change to basis as the smallest salable device, and the Apple / Ericsson lawsuits will be the first big test of that. If Apple is successful, it will be seen as a solid precedent, not necessarily in a legal sense due to the subtleties of the case, as much as it might gain industry support for legislation that would drive the change. It will be about the details.
Edit: One of the side issues if the whole IoT.
Would there be markets for 4G/LTE products outside of voice communications; i.e., straight data, that would benefit from smallest device basis on components? I'm guessing so, but these would not be possible with licensing costs comparable to a smartphone, but lower production volumes.
As to the many new companies creating phones/smartphones: I doubt that they could get very far worldwide without paying extensive licensing, but Asian countries seems to have many successful small builders, so IP is either ignored, or at a very low rate.
I hope you aren't misreading my posts as an endorsement of the status quo. With the money and businesses involved things cannot be allowed to continue as is, and clarification from the courts will be necessary.
oh no definitely not - I read that you've been exceptionally balanced and consistent.
Its up to the courts. I'd hate to see a back-room deal made on this, it's too important.
Apple has to go for the doctor on this one, imnsho.
Apple wants to pay Ericsson licensing only against the value of the 4g/LTE. Apple is adamant that they do not want to reward Ericsson for Apple's many innovations in the iPhone. I would argue that Samsung, and other premium smartphone builders would agree with that generally. It isn't really that difficult conceptually, but I agree with Gatorguy that getting their is the issue, and some notable industry players are balking at a change in basis.
I have been stating for some time that there is trending by the courts to a change to basis as the smallest salable device, and the Apple / Ericsson lawsuits will be the first big test of that. If Apple is successful, it will be seen as a solid precedent, not necessarily in a legal sense due to the subtleties of the case, as much as it might gain industry support for legislation that would drive the change. It will be about the details.
Edit: One of the side issues if the whole IoT.
Would there be markets for 4G/LTE products outside of voice communications; i.e., straight data, that would benefit from smallest device basis on components? I'm guessing so, but these would not be possible with licensing costs comparable to a smartphone, but lower production volumes.
As to the many new companies creating phones/smartphones: I doubt that they could get very far worldwide without paying extensive licensing, but Asian countries seems to have many successful small builders, so IP is either ignored, or at a very low rate.
The smallest salable device by whom? By manufacturer or the market as a whole? If by manufacturer then what's to stop Apple from making a cheap phone just to screw Ericsson? I say base it on the device that sells most.
To muddy the waters further an ITC administrative judge made an initial ruling yesterday in a filing involving SEP's. While many here no doubt assumed they could no longer issue exclusion orders (an injunction) over standard essential patents that is not the case.
"Yesterday (4/28), Administrative Law Judge Essex issued a one-page notice of initial determination holding that Nokia’s 3G mobile handsets infringe the asserted claims of InterDigital’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966 and 7,286,847 (“the ‘847 Patent”) in the International Trade Commission’s investigation styled In the Matter of Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-613). In the one page notice, the Judge expressly relied upon a standard adopted by 3GPP in concluding that Nokia’s handsets meet the limitations of the one ‘847 Patent claim asserted by InterDigital
Judge Essex also held “that there is no evidence of patent hold-up, that there is evidence of reverse hold-up, and that public interest does not preclude issuance of an exclusion order.”
So much for talk of no more SEP' injunctions at the ITC
The smallest salable device by whom? By manufacturer or the market as a whole? If by manufacturer then what's to stop Apple from making a cheap phone just to screw Ericsson? I say base it on the device that sells most.
The 4G/LTE chipset would be the smallest salable device.
To muddy the waters further an ITC administrative judge made an initial ruling yesterday in a filing involving SEP's. While many here no doubt assumed they could no longer issue exclusion orders (an injunction) over standard essential patents that is not the case.
"Yesterday (4/28), Administrative Law Judge Essex issued a one-page notice of initial determination holding that Nokia’s 3G mobile handsets infringe the asserted claims of InterDigital’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966 and 7,286,847 (“the ‘847 Patent”) in the International Trade Commission’s investigation styled In the Matter of Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-613). In the one page notice, the Judge expressly relied upon a standard adopted by 3GPP in concluding that Nokia’s handsets meet the limitations of the one ‘847 Patent claim asserted by InterDigital
Judge Essex also held “that there is no evidence of patent hold-up, that there is evidence of reverse hold-up, and that public interest does not preclude issuance of an exclusion order.”
So much for talk of no more SEP' injunctions at the ITC
Sure, evidence of a reverse holdup. I do not see Apple in a reverse holdup in this case; you might see otherwise. Usually the test is an "unwilling" licensee.
To muddy the waters further an ITC administrative judge made an initial ruling yesterday in a filing involving SEP's. While many here no doubt assumed they could no longer issue exclusion orders (an injunction) over standard essential patents that is not the case.
"Yesterday (4/28), Administrative Law Judge Essex issued a one-page notice of initial determination holding that Nokia’s 3G mobile handsets infringe the asserted claims of InterDigital’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966 and 7,286,847 (“the ‘847 Patent”) in the International Trade Commission’s investigation styled In the Matter of Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-613). In the one page notice, the Judge expressly relied upon a standard adopted by 3GPP in concluding that Nokia’s handsets meet the limitations of the one ‘847 Patent claim asserted by InterDigital
Judge Essex also held “that there is no evidence of patent hold-up, that there is evidence of reverse hold-up, and that public interest does not preclude issuance of an exclusion order.”
So much for talk of no more SEP' injunctions at the ITC
So, let me get this staight.
"Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) lost a round in a potentially costly patent battle when a U.S. International Trade Commission judge on Monday found that the software giant used InterDigital Inc's technology in its mobile phones without permission.
The judge, Theodore Essex, said that Microsoft infringed two wireless cellular patents owned by InterDigital (IDCC.O), a patent licensor, and said it would not be against the public interest to ban the Microsoft devices from being imported into the United States.
The judge's decision must be reviewed by the full commission before any import ban is enacted.
The ITC has the authority to stop the import of products that it determines infringe a U.S. patent. Companies frequently sue at the ITC to win an import ban and in district court to win damages.
Wilmington, Delaware-based InterDigital first accused Nokia Corp (NOK1V.HE) of infringing its patents in 2007. Microsoft acquired Nokia's handset division last year. The InterDigital patents relate to moderating a mobile phone's power to reduce signal interference.
The ITC originally cleared Nokia of infringement, but in 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the nation's top patent court, overturned that decision and sent it back to the ITC.
First ITC decision; cleared of infringement;
The Court of Appeals reversed, at least more than two years ago;
The Second ITC decision a week ago, that found infringement. Then the statement that it "would not be against the public interest to ban the Microsoft devices from being imported into the United States."
Unless there was a court order two years ago requiring the parties to negotiate, I'm seeing a gross misapplication of justice.
"You have been found guilty, and will be hanged at sundown"
Yes - but notice M$ response towards the end of the Reuters article.
lol - that's cocky ! They're not worried.
This IP enforcement really is the new Wild West with Cowboys and Injuns abounding.
It needs a landmark decision to clear this nonsense up.
Of course they aren't worried. The wheels of justice, blah, blah, blah.
I wonder what the original error was, and why it took them so long to figure out how to remake the ruling. I leaning towards the Court binge watching shows on Netflix for some 2 1/2 years. Breaking bad would have taken quite awhile in its own right.
Comments
What innovation is being stifled?
That Google modular phone concept.
How's that going to work if each individual user is exposed in some way by IP infringement. Now it may be that Google will negotiate the backplane, and a few modules, but I wouldn't want to bet my savings that everything will be covered.
And that is just a single example.
It wouldn't be cost effective to go after individual users.
It wouldn't be cost effective to go after individual users.
I agree, but, as I stated it is but one example. There would be the case that some startup might find it prohibitive to invest in its own IP negotiation and decide it isn't worth it. IP licensing embedded in the device cost would eliminate those problems.
I'll agree in advance that not all IP can be successfully moved to smallest device licensing.
I would note that a few tens of thousands isn't an issue, but 100,000's of will be
Edit: Most likely it will be handled similarly to how Apple OS X on PC's; not an issue if you are an individual; big problems if you are a company profiting from that.
Google could of course indemnify users if it wished.
It seems like every day there's a new company making a smartphone. The fees associated with it don't seem to interfere with them.
We don't know the specifics of the case yet. Is it Ericsson trying to fleece Apple, or is it Apple believing it should get more favorable terms like they're able to get with components?
It seems like every day there's a new company making a smartphone. The fees associated with it don't seem to interfere with them.
We don't know the specifics of the case yet. Is it Ericsson trying to fleece Apple, or is it Apple believing it should get more favorable terms like they're able to get with components?
Apple wants to pay Ericsson licensing only against the value of the 4g/LTE. Apple is adamant that they do not want to reward Ericsson for Apple's many innovations in the iPhone. I would argue that Samsung, and other premium smartphone builders would agree with that generally. It isn't really that difficult conceptually, but I agree with Gatorguy that getting their is the issue, and some notable industry players are balking at a change in basis.
I have been stating for some time that there is trending by the courts to a change to basis as the smallest salable device, and the Apple / Ericsson lawsuits will be the first big test of that. If Apple is successful, it will be seen as a solid precedent, not necessarily in a legal sense due to the subtleties of the case, as much as it might gain industry support for legislation that would drive the change. It will be about the details.
Edit: One of the side issues if the whole IoT.
Would there be markets for 4G/LTE products outside of voice communications; i.e., straight data, that would benefit from smallest device basis on components? I'm guessing so, but these would not be possible with licensing costs comparable to a smartphone, but lower production volumes.
As to the many new companies creating phones/smartphones: I doubt that they could get very far worldwide without paying extensive licensing, but Asian countries seems to have many successful small builders, so IP is either ignored, or at a very low rate.
oh no definitely not - I read that you've been exceptionally balanced and consistent.
Its up to the courts. I'd hate to see a back-room deal made on this, it's too important.
Apple has to go for the doctor on this one, imnsho.
oh no definitely not - I read that you've been exceptionally balanced and consistent.
Its up to the courts. I'd hate to see a back-room deal made on this, it's too important.
Apple has to go for the doctor on this one, imnsho.
You might want to explain "go for the doctor" for us Americans, but I can guess close enough...
Heck, with all the patents Apple has filed over the past few years it would be in their best interests to do so.
The smallest salable device by whom? By manufacturer or the market as a whole? If by manufacturer then what's to stop Apple from making a cheap phone just to screw Ericsson? I say base it on the device that sells most.
"Yesterday (4/28), Administrative Law Judge Essex issued a one-page notice of initial determination holding that Nokia’s 3G mobile handsets infringe the asserted claims of InterDigital’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966 and 7,286,847 (“the ‘847 Patent”) in the International Trade Commission’s investigation styled In the Matter of Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-613). In the one page notice, the Judge expressly relied upon a standard adopted by 3GPP in concluding that Nokia’s handsets meet the limitations of the one ‘847 Patent claim asserted by InterDigital
Judge Essex also held “that there is no evidence of patent hold-up, that there is evidence of reverse hold-up, and that public interest does not preclude issuance of an exclusion order.”
So much for talk of no more SEP' injunctions at the ITC
Nobody would make SEPs, they'd just license them at whatever rate they choose.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/27/us-microsoft-interdigital-decision-idUSKBN0NI23720150427
No doubt this is a follow on to that probably relating to the same patent.
The smallest salable device by whom? By manufacturer or the market as a whole? If by manufacturer then what's to stop Apple from making a cheap phone just to screw Ericsson? I say base it on the device that sells most.
The 4G/LTE chipset would be the smallest salable device.
To muddy the waters further an ITC administrative judge made an initial ruling yesterday in a filing involving SEP's. While many here no doubt assumed they could no longer issue exclusion orders (an injunction) over standard essential patents that is not the case.
"Yesterday (4/28), Administrative Law Judge Essex issued a one-page notice of initial determination holding that Nokia’s 3G mobile handsets infringe the asserted claims of InterDigital’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966 and 7,286,847 (“the ‘847 Patent”) in the International Trade Commission’s investigation styled In the Matter of Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-613). In the one page notice, the Judge expressly relied upon a standard adopted by 3GPP in concluding that Nokia’s handsets meet the limitations of the one ‘847 Patent claim asserted by InterDigital
Judge Essex also held “that there is no evidence of patent hold-up, that there is evidence of reverse hold-up, and that public interest does not preclude issuance of an exclusion order.”
So much for talk of no more SEP' injunctions at the ITC
Sure, evidence of a reverse holdup. I do not see Apple in a reverse holdup in this case; you might see otherwise. Usually the test is an "unwilling" licensee.
To muddy the waters further an ITC administrative judge made an initial ruling yesterday in a filing involving SEP's. While many here no doubt assumed they could no longer issue exclusion orders (an injunction) over standard essential patents that is not the case.
"Yesterday (4/28), Administrative Law Judge Essex issued a one-page notice of initial determination holding that Nokia’s 3G mobile handsets infringe the asserted claims of InterDigital’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,190,966 and 7,286,847 (“the ‘847 Patent”) in the International Trade Commission’s investigation styled In the Matter of Certain 3G Mobile Handsets and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-613). In the one page notice, the Judge expressly relied upon a standard adopted by 3GPP in concluding that Nokia’s handsets meet the limitations of the one ‘847 Patent claim asserted by InterDigital
Judge Essex also held “that there is no evidence of patent hold-up, that there is evidence of reverse hold-up, and that public interest does not preclude issuance of an exclusion order.”
So much for talk of no more SEP' injunctions at the ITC
So, let me get this staight.
"Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) lost a round in a potentially costly patent battle when a U.S. International Trade Commission judge on Monday found that the software giant used InterDigital Inc's technology in its mobile phones without permission.
The judge, Theodore Essex, said that Microsoft infringed two wireless cellular patents owned by InterDigital (IDCC.O), a patent licensor, and said it would not be against the public interest to ban the Microsoft devices from being imported into the United States.
The judge's decision must be reviewed by the full commission before any import ban is enacted.
The ITC has the authority to stop the import of products that it determines infringe a U.S. patent. Companies frequently sue at the ITC to win an import ban and in district court to win damages.
Wilmington, Delaware-based InterDigital first accused Nokia Corp (NOK1V.HE) of infringing its patents in 2007. Microsoft acquired Nokia's handset division last year. The InterDigital patents relate to moderating a mobile phone's power to reduce signal interference.
The ITC originally cleared Nokia of infringement, but in 2012 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the nation's top patent court, overturned that decision and sent it back to the ITC.
First ITC decision; cleared of infringement;
The Court of Appeals reversed, at least more than two years ago;
The Second ITC decision a week ago, that found infringement. Then the statement that it "would not be against the public interest to ban the Microsoft devices from being imported into the United States."
Unless there was a court order two years ago requiring the parties to negotiate, I'm seeing a gross misapplication of justice.
"You have been found guilty, and will be hanged at sundown"
lol - that's cocky ! They're not worried.
This IP enforcement really is the new Wild West with Cowboys and Injuns abounding.
It needs a landmark decision to clear this nonsense up.
Yes - but notice M$ response towards the end of the Reuters article.
lol - that's cocky ! They're not worried.
This IP enforcement really is the new Wild West with Cowboys and Injuns abounding.
It needs a landmark decision to clear this nonsense up.
Of course they aren't worried. The wheels of justice, blah, blah, blah.
I wonder what the original error was, and why it took them so long to figure out how to remake the ruling. I leaning towards the Court binge watching shows on Netflix for some 2 1/2 years. Breaking bad would have taken quite awhile in its own right.