n2itivguy

beautyspin said:

Marvin said:

crowley said:

Marvin said:

If the courts allowed every patent owner to do the same, the costs would eventually amount to far more than the cost of the entire product, which makes no sense.

Why not?  IP certainly has value, I don't see why it makes no sense for it to have more value than the assembly cost of the physical product.  For a technology product that's a composite of so many hardware and software elements and operating in an integrated network of assorted standards, the iPhone is very exposed to patents.  They'll just have to raise the price to accommodate the licensing.

Going forward they can raise the prices but not in retrospect. To allow a single company with a couple of patents to wipe out nearly all of a company's net profit in a region for a decade is crazy. There should be a time limit applied at least in retrospect such as no royalties 5 years or more back, 20% royalties 4 years back, 40% 3, 60% 2, 80% 1 and 100% going forward and they can decide if they agree to the terms.

Making a company pay full royalty rates they didn't agree to and didn't apply to their products at the time of sale is not a fair policy. An established business could operate for decades and some random patent troll emerges and bankrupts the company overnight over some trivial patents. One of their patents is for switching between 3G/4G and the slow 2G network and covers some basic algorithm to determine when to switch. That's not worth $7b and no company would agree to pay those rates, which is why Intel and Qualcomm didn't. Apple shouldn't then have to cover this when they only used chips made by those other companies.

Patent infringement should be applied to the companies who make the infringing components, that's Intel and Qualcomm in this case and patent owners shouldn't be allowed to apply their own made-up royalty rates retroactively that weren't agreed to by the infringing companies. What's to stop them saying $20 per device and then it's over $35b, that's a completely unworkable way to do business.

They infringed on patents that too not trivial design patents but necessary technological patents, they are paying the price. It is not only Apple that does research, every other company does it too and it costs them money. Using those technologies without paying licensing fees is thievary, whichever way you look at it. It wanted $40 dollars for five frivolous patents. https://www.slashgear.com/apple-demands-sky-high-samsung-patent-licensing-fee-11320242/. The five patents in question concern certain features around how unified search operates, slide-to-unlock, how phone numbers can be dialed by pressing them, auto-complete, and data sync. They got it coming. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and they want to run away. Lol!

spheric said:

CloudTalkin said:

I don't know man.  This feels like typical Apple: deny, deny, deny the thing.   

Typical would imply that it's a regular thing. I recall video on iPod and music subscription services as two cases in the last twenty years. That's pretty much it, though. 

And Apple were right about both: video on iPod sucked, and music subscription is a really, really shitty idea. But that ship has sailed.

elijahg said:

So this means the AppleTV is really $149 + $99 for a PS4 controller that is pretty much essential if you want to play 3D games.