Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

sir1963nz

macrumors 6502a
Feb 9, 2012
735
1,216
Apple seems to want to set the rates themselves. That's not how it works. A patent holder or judge/arbitrator gets to do that.


Now, consider this: the last major cell phone ban from the ITC was over Qualcomm chips that it said infringed on a Broadcom patent. The royalty rate for that license was set at $6 per device (!).

Edit: interestingly, in that Broadcom injunction, neither the President nor appeals reversed the ITC decision, even though it banned almost every CDMA phone being imported at the time. Since Qualcomm initially appealed and refused to pay, Verizon itself ended up paying Broadcom $6 per phone just to keep from running out of stock.

2.5% of Apples top iPhone comes to $21, or almost 4 times higher than $6
Given the difference between the top/bottom phones is the amount of RAM which has nothing to do with Samsung's Patent and given much of the value of the iPhones is IOS Samsung clearly does not deserve a percentage of the finished product. This tactic would lead to another absurdity of selling the phone to $1 and IOS for $800, giving Samsung 2.5cents per unit (hell give the phone away with $1 so Samsung OWES apple 2.5c).

Samsung in entitled to payment for their IP, however when you can buy a complete phone for the same cost as what they are demanding from Apple as royalty then Samsung is simply being greedy and that is clearly NOT FRAND
 

aerok

macrumors 65816
Oct 29, 2011
1,491
139
I don't see any evidence of what you are saying on this forum.

There are more pro-Samsung comments than pro-Apple comments.

More like there are more anti-patent lawsuit comments than Pro-Apple not matter what comments.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
You've quite an ego to assume that you, a total stranger, can FORCE an "answer" from me. I am not required to give you the "answer" you are seeking. I'm not so daft as to be drawn down rabbit holes by pedantic strangers, online.

I would suggest you go and enjoy your day.

No ego involved here - speaking of assumptions. Of course no one can force you to answer. What I stated is my observation that instead of answering a question you avoided it. Which says a lot more about you than it does about those asking.

But I love your condescension. Bravo! And then you follow it up with suggesting I "go" and enjoy my day. Spectacular!

Again - your posts speak volumes.
 

Jvanleuvan

macrumors regular
Dec 21, 2012
126
37
Right, and it makes sense, but it's a relatively new legal concept as applied to these particular patents.



Yet that is exactly how ETSI FRAND patents have been licensed for the past two decades. Knowing this is key to understanding the background of the cases.

In that way, Apple is not being treated any differently than other licensees.

On the contrary, it's Apple who WANTS to be treated differently. They do not want to pay per price like everyone else has for years. They do not want to play by the rules. They want to change the rules so they make more profit.

This is totally understandable, but it does not make them the victim.


I have an honest question. I thought that royalty rates did only apply to the smallest sellable unit. What if Airbus included a 3g Chip in it's new $200,000,000 A380 jumbo jet? a Plane that has 1 BILLION parts. For the use of just one of those parts, a 3g chip, samsung should get $4,000,000! per chip? What if all the other patent holders get their "fair Share" for that chip? That one ~$20 chip would cost Airbus $60,000,000, per plane? thats around 1000% of their profits on a plane.

Whats the difference here between an airplane as a product using this chip or a IPhone?
 

SILen(e

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2012
243
19
To be fair - if EVERYONE followed Apple's model - the cell market wouldn't succeed because it would be leaving many people without the ability to own a phone.

You can't have every company making ONE phone and have it be high end. And priced as such.

When i see what other companies are and have been releasing - would that be so bad?

It has become better, but often in the past, many devices sold by other companies have been crap and could have been much better if they were sold for only a little bit more.

People bought Acer S3 Ultrabooks with low battery lifeand bad screens for 1100$ instead of the much better 13" MacBook Air for just 100$ more , people are buying tablets for 150$ with mediocre build quality and shorter battery life - or even crappy chinese tablets for 110$ instead of paying just a bit more to get a Nexus 7 that has a build quality that's still not as good as the one of the iPad Mini, but at least that thing has high performance, battery life and a good display.


You can get a different Samsung Galaxy from 50$ to 800$ in 10$ increments.

Companies would have much better performance in all those customer satisfaction studies if they stopped selling ****** or an overabundance of phones and tablets just to have a device that's 5 dollars cheaper than the one from the next competitor.

And people would have better phones and tablets.
Sure, they would have to pay 10 oder 50$ more - but they would be much happier with their new devices in the end.
 

iSayuSay

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2011
3,789
906
People, just stop buying Samsung product.

Look at the future you are building by buying Samsung products: copy design like a cheap ripoff rogue company, use FRAND patents that will make you pay a license for every chipset you buy.

Nonsense

Yeah .. that's what you get for biting the hands that feed you with supplies.
I would still buy Samsung products. Just like Apple does ;)

Last time I checked, Samsung makes great plasma TV, good memory chips, storage, fridge, and even the best Android products around.

Apple does not even make a TV, or relatively speaking Apple does not make a single product by themselves.

If you think Samsung is the biggest patent troll, than you're looking it wrong. See the logo in the back of your iPad? Yeah .. that's more like it.
 

MegamanX

macrumors regular
May 13, 2013
221
0
2.5% of Apples top iPhone comes to $21, or almost 4 times higher than $6
Given the difference between the top/bottom phones is the amount of RAM which has nothing to do with Samsung's Patent and given much of the value of the iPhones is IOS Samsung clearly does not deserve a percentage of the finished product. This tactic would lead to another absurdity of selling the phone to $1 and IOS for $800, giving Samsung 2.5cents per unit (hell give the phone away with $1 so Samsung OWES apple 2.5c).

Samsung in entitled to payment for their IP, however when you can buy a complete phone for the same cost as what they are demanding from Apple as royalty then Samsung is simply being greedy and that is clearly NOT FRAND

But it is. That is how everyone else pays for the patents. It been that way for a while. The reason behind that set up was to encourage low cost phones to be made and sold to poorer places and let everyone get a phone.

Apple is pissed because they do not have any patents in the pool that would lower their rates.
Refusing to play nice is why it is so costly.
 

thejadedmonkey

macrumors G3
May 28, 2005
9,155
3,265
Pennsylvania
If you aren't arguing that the suggested licensing rate is fair, then you are suggesting that, perhaps, Apple is right to not commit to that rate for a patent encumbered with FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory) licensing obligation.

Again, if the rate isn't fair, Samsung is violating the FRAND obligation it willingly took on when getting that patent included in the cellular standard. If that's the case, then Apple *is* playing by the rules.

I'm arguing (for the sake of arguing because someone on the first page asked for a valid reason why anyone could defend Samsung) that Samsung played by the rules, and used the rules to their advantage. Apple said "That's not fair" and didn't want to play by the rules. The ITC said "Sorry Apple, but you do have to play by the rules".
 

alexxxhp

macrumors member
Jul 22, 2009
38
0
???? makes no sense

How did the chips get in the phone in the first place. Someone paid for them, where are they in this retarded fight. I'm sure they did not steal them from the back of a samsung truck, and if they are purchased then they are licensed? or not..... If you you buy a circuit board from radio shack and put it in a device that you build then sell..... They will sue you for buying and using it. Where is this country heading.....
 
Last edited:

frisken

macrumors member
Jun 4, 2013
40
22
Regardless of who's suing who, and for whatever reason, for whatever amount ... Aren't the people ruling in favor of these cases to blame here?

I don't claim to know the ins and outs of this particular case, and both sides are going to simplify everything and use analogies to make their arguments more substantial, but if something incorrect/immoral is taking place here then I'm not going to hold Samsung or Apple responsible; they shouldn't be allowed to pursue this nonsense in the first place, let alone be rewarded for it.

Somethings are wrong with the laws here, not with the parties involved.
 

sir1963nz

macrumors 6502a
Feb 9, 2012
735
1,216
I understand that you're not from the US, but you need to be aware that until about a year and a half ago, what you're saying is not possible here. In fact, it's still not possible in the US if you want to buy an iPhone directly from Apple and 'shop around for service' at its release date.

This is precisely why I've never owned an iPhone. I kept telling people that when Apple started selling the iPhone full price, factory unlocked, at release date, directly from its website here in the US, I'll get one.

That still hasn't happened yet.

That is a marketing decision and has no bearing of how much Samsung is entitled to get for royalties.
 

sir1963nz

macrumors 6502a
Feb 9, 2012
735
1,216
But it is. That is how everyone else pays for the patents. It been that way for a while. The reason behind that set up was to encourage low cost phones to be made and sold to poorer places and let everyone get a phone.

Apple is pissed because they do not have any patents in the pool that would lower their rates.
Refusing to play nice is why it is so costly.

But Apple does have Patents that are in the pool , ones the acquired from Nortel and Freescale. What Samsung wanted was not only payment based on FRAND but they ALSO demanded that Apple give them access to non related patents which went well beyond what they were entitled to.
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
I have an honest question. I thought that royalty rates did only apply to the smallest sellable unit. What if Airbus included a 3g Chip in it's new $200,000,000 A380 jumbo jet?

It'd be no different than if an auto manufacturer included a cell phone in an expensive car :

The royalty would be paid on the system that uses the chip, not on the vehicle carrying the system.

(This assumes the system maker hadn't negotiated a different way of determining royalties, of course. It's not set in stone that the rate MUST be per price. It's simply one of the more common methods that also made sense when trying to promote widespread inexpensive phone usage.)
 

kdarling

macrumors P6
Given the difference between the top/bottom phones is the amount of RAM which has nothing to do with Samsung's Patent and given much of the value of the iPhones is IOS Samsung clearly does not deserve a percentage of the finished product.

Likewise you could argue that given the ~$15 difference in memory cost, Apple is gouging their customers by charging an extra $100.

The reality is that both methods of pricing are based on a desired average.

Samsung in entitled to payment for their IP, however when you can buy a complete phone for the same cost as what they are demanding from Apple as royalty then Samsung is simply being greedy and that is clearly NOT FRAND

One of the interesting things about all these trials, is the information that's been revealed.

For licensing some of their own IP, Apple wanted $30 per phone and $40 per tablet.

  • For a $500 wholesale phone, that's a 6% royalty rate.
  • For a $400 tablet, that's a 10% royalty rate.

And that's for IP that's not even necessary to build a phone.

There's plenty of greed to go around.
 

sir1963nz

macrumors 6502a
Feb 9, 2012
735
1,216
Likewise you could argue that given the ~$15 difference in memory cost, Apple is gouging their customers by charging an extra $100.

The reality is that both methods of pricing are based on a desired average.



One of the interesting things about all these trials, is the information that's been revealed.

For licensing some of their own IP, Apple wanted $30 per phone and $40 per tablet.

  • For a $500 wholesale phone, that's a 6% royalty rate.
  • For a $400 tablet, that's a 10% royalty rate.

And that's for IP that's not even necessary to build a phone.

There's plenty of greed to go around.

However unlike Samsung for the extra money Apple is adding extra value, the larger memory chips will have more pins so its likely they will also have a different PCB.

I am also VERY sure there are other items in your two mythical tablets/phones that have exactly the same cost price.
Also for the owner if they bought a $10 App they would be paying 2.5% of the tablet price but only 2% of the phone price
for the SAME piece of software.... shock horror, App developers are obviously ripping off people with cheap tablets/phones !!!!

Apple I guess took its queue from Music and Petrol, they charge the same price no matter how cheap or expensive the gear you want to put it in, i.e. the same music track costs the same on a cheap MP3 player as it does on the $10,000 stereo system, and petrol costs the same for an old banger as it does for a ferrari.

It is worth noting that this is how Apple gets its 3g/4g now, they simply buy the chips from someone who has paid the IP on a per chip basis so Apple does not need to pay again, no matter what Samsung thought, and they are not paying based on the final retail price of the phone. IP exhaustion s a bitch apparently , even when Samsung tried to rewrite FRAND contracts to prevent chip manufacturers from selling to Apple (and only Apple).
 
Last edited:

tongxinshe

macrumors 65816
Feb 24, 2008
1,064
651
Your math and logic are wrong.

And the error is ...?


Whoa, 4 "likes" to a comment obviously with zero reasoning and zero value. For every piece of MacRumors related to Samsung, it's amazing to always find obvious Samsung paid commentators being aggressively active and making totally shameless / meaningless statements.

----------

This doesn't answer my question.

You don't have any logic in your mind or what?

What I replied you has shown very clearly the 2.5% rate being asked by Samsung isn't actionable at all, so all of the rest who got a license (and still survived) HAVE TO be on a different term / rate.
 

SILen(e

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2012
243
19
Apple does not even make a TV, or relatively speaking Apple does not make a single product by themselves.

Oh - and Nintendo stopped making their consoles themselves in the 90s, Playstation 3s CELL processor is made by IBM, the next gen consoles are all using AMD hardware (with an IBM processor in the Wii U), so is the Playstation 4 an AMD console or is it from Sony, in your opinion?

The Xbox One?

AMD, Foxconn, Microsoft?

But AMD isn't even manufacturing the SoCs themselves, they are manufactured by (former AMD-owned) Globalfoundries or perhaps TSMC.

Do you really wanna say that the company that is manufacturing something to the design of another company is more important than the company which designed it, paid for the manufacturing OR even the development and manufacturing of the components?

Many machines for components like unibody cases at Foxconn are owned by Apple, Apple is designing their own ARM cores, they just hired a bunch of GPU experts...



Your attempt at painting Apple as a company which just pays other companies to glue some components that "real innovative companies" invented into a case with rounded edges and yells INNOVATION! is laughable.
 

Oletros

macrumors 603
Jul 27, 2009
6,002
60
Premià de Mar
What I replied you has shown very clearly the 2.5% rate being asked by Samsung isn't actionable at all, so all of the rest who got a license (and still survived) HAVE TO be on a different term / rate.


What you have replied doesn't shows a ****. Companies has been paying a percentage of the retail price since decades. Qualcomm has been licensing it products for a 3% of the retail price.

Apart that my question was other, so, instead of insulting you should read what is asked and not answering what is not asked.
 

iSayuSay

macrumors 68040
Feb 6, 2011
3,789
906
Oh - and Nintendo stopped making their consoles themselves in the 90s, Playstation 3s CELL processor is made by IBM, the next gen consoles are all using AMD hardware (with an IBM processor in the Wii U), so is the Playstation 4 an AMD console or is it from Sony, in your opinion?

The Xbox One?

AMD, Foxconn, Microsoft?

But AMD isn't even manufacturing the SoCs themselves, they are manufactured by (former AMD-owned) Globalfoundries or perhaps TSMC.

Do you really wanna say that the company that is manufacturing something to the design of another company is more important than the company which designed it, paid for the manufacturing OR even the development and manufacturing of the components?

Many machines for components like unibody cases at Foxconn are owned by Apple, Apple is designing their own ARM cores, they just hired a bunch of GPU experts...



Your attempt at painting Apple as a company which just pays other companies to glue some components that "real innovative companies" invented into a case with rounded edges and yells INNOVATION! is laughable.

Component outsourcing is a common thing in this business. Sony, HP, Dell, or even Microsoft many times does not make their own component but at least they don't act like king and makes lawsuits like Apple, no?

Meanwhile companies like Samsung can design their own chips, products, AND also manufacture their own component in house. That's something worth bragging about

What? You mad because your favorite Apple take a hit on the court? ;)
 

Jibbajabba

macrumors 65816
Aug 13, 2011
1,024
5
Samsung sues Apple, Apple sues Samsung, Google sues Apple, Apple sues Google, the world sues the world and the chickens still lay eggs at a rate of one per day during their first year - nothing new.

Just one fact remains : The patent system is flawed, not the companies participating ..
 

Renzatic

Suspended
Just one fact remains : The patent system is flawed, not the companies participating ..

But we wouldn't know the system is flawed if there weren't companies out there abusing it to hell and back.

Everyone is to blame when it comes to the patent wars. From the patent office awarding cheap, flimsy ideas, to the patent trolls preying on everyone like a bunch of half starved jackals, to the large corporations attempting to take advantage of every flaw in the system they can find in a lame, transparent attempt to get a leg up over the competition.

It's a situation where practically everyone participating is guilty in some shape, form, or fashion.
 

SILen(e

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2012
243
19
Component outsourcing is a common thing in this business. Sony, HP, Dell, or even Microsoft many times does not make their own component but at least they don't act like king and makes lawsuits like Apple, no?

You sir, are very ignorant to what is happening in the world around you.

I guess you imagine Apple started "this patent suing" stuff?

Dell never sues.

HP never sues.

Sony never sues.

And Microsoft...


Just for your information: Every word is a link to a DIFFERENT case of one of the companies you mentioned suing some other company due to patent issues.

And regarding Samsung, well...
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
And the error is ...?


Whoa, 4 "likes" to a comment obviously with zero reasoning and zero value. For every piece of MacRumors related to Samsung, it's amazing to always find obvious Samsung paid commentators being aggressively active and making totally shameless / meaningless statements.



Who are you accusing of being a paid commentator?

And the error is obvious. First of all - how did you arrive at the notion that the iPhone has 100 patents that it uses. And also - how did you arrive that each patent would be worth 2.5% of the phone if used?

That is so far from a real world scenario that you can't begin to use that as an example. Care to try again? This time without implying that someone who points out that you aren't factually correct MUST be a paid shill? Because it certainly couldn't be that you're just wrong and/or I disagree with you. You don't see me accusing you of being an Apple paid for shill for defending Apple, do you?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.