razormaid

ericthehalfbee said:

VernonDozier said:

ericthehalfbee said:

There are some here who think license fees for patents should be based on the final cost of the entire product and not the component itself.

On the flip side there are people who think Apple isn't owed money on the profits of an entire Samsung phone for infringing design patents that are only a portion of the entire phone.

Quite the dilemma.

Well, you have two factors at work here.  First, let's face facts.  Apple has an over-reliance on PR and the press.  Today, there exist 573,000 stories and links on the web about the original cross-licensing agreement. When that many articles exist, people will generally draw the conclusion that they licensed all the patents. 

Apple developers are also likely to study all patents; and code patented ideas into Apple's software.  Apple under Tim Cook is incredibly predictable.  Apple can complain, pretend it's a victim, file a lawsuit, and parade it's CEO out to give a speech on how it doesn't need corrective action.   That's how Tim Cook's Apple works and also why people who work in New York Finance like the company so much.  It seems to work well for their stock valuation.

As a second item, hiring attorneys to scour through the patent database for ideas which people and companies were willing to pay real money to patent (and disclose) makes it easy for Apple's R&D budget to find ideas for products.  You'll notice that Apple is accusing Acacia, a Research Company, for anti-trust..?   Sounds like Acacia has some real good R&D researchers and ideas which Apple wants to copy.

But still, patents should be paid for; especially if the company is the size of Apple.   As an example, I could conceivably see Apple not wanting to pay for patents related to phone payments.  In 1999, Nokia, Visa, and Finland-based NordBanken had this technology on a Nokia 7710 phone series in Europe... Back then, Visa had a second SIM card Chip; which Apple probably calls a "Secure Enclave".   Then, Apple re-introduced it as "new technology" with much bravado, and announced the payment platform with Chase Bank and called it ApplePay.   Still, my guess is that Chase didn't develop the technology; but instead, Nokia did, Apple copied it, then approached chase so it could market the iPhone features to its customers.  It was a feature which people didn't know they wanted or even needed, but Apple most likely found the patents and decided to copy another thing someone else did; and slap a fruit on it.

Quite the revisionist history you have there. Apple Pay is based on the EMVco tokenization standard developed by Europay, Mastercard and Visa. Nokia had nothing to do with it. Your comment is complete BS.

slurpy said:

My Apple Watch Series 1 updated just fine. 
So did my iPhone. 
So did my Apple TV. 
So did my Macbook. 

Just like every single other update I've done in the past several years. 

But, I'm sure the 0.1% of people having issues is "evidence" that Apple is in a downward spiral, SJ is rolling in his grave, and doom is at hand. 

Billy Jingles said:

I think the analogy about driving two cars at once is a bit off and here's why. Bluetooth multi-link will allow you to pair with more than one device, then if listening to one input, music on your iPhone for example and a call comes in from another device, say a desk phone that supports bluetooth or soft phone on a computer, you will get an alert and have the choice to either take the call or ignore it. If you take it, the music stops and you take the call, if you ignore it the music keeps playing. I have been doing this with my Plantronics Voyager headsets for years and multi-link is a requirement for me in any headset at this point. I don't want to have to pair and unpair every time I want to use a new device.