Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ITC Rules Apple Infringed on Samsung Patents, Issues Cease and Desist Order for Older Apple Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know why you think the royalty rate needs to "cover the cost of a $16 chip!" The royalty rate only needs to cover the royalty for the patent(s) in question. The cost of the chip itself is another issue entirely. Your example of a 3% rate on a $100 phone using a $16 chip would result in the net cost of the chip being $19 ($16 for the chip + $3 for the patent).
So it's bad that Apple negotiated a rate lower than the initial offer?
No, Apple said if it were $1 or below, they wouldn't bother to move forward trying to invalidate patents they didn't think were valid, and would accept it without appeal. If it were above that threshold Apple simply reserved the right to continue to invalidate those patents.
The idea that not wanting to pay to license a patent I don't believe is valid somehow makes me 'unwilling' to license any *other* patent is mind boggling. Of course, you didn't get your *prior* description of a case outcome right either, so I shouldn't be terribly surprised that you muffed this one, too.
No. Android is open source. You CANNOT claim that the OS is any part of the phone's price.
I'm sorry - I was just visiting the fantasy world that the person I was responding to was. I didn't REALLY mean it was possible.
1) Open source does not imply free of charge.
2) Software development costs money.
Android is a piece of crap, written by Google nerds who have their heads in the sand. Sorry to be so blunt, but their "improvements" are just lipstick on a pig, and they don't have the design taste to get it right, ever.
What about it is crap? What improvements are you referencing. And what is your total use case timeframe for using Android. And which versions.
Surely this enlightened opinion you have has some depth, right?
Who are you - a court of law? lol!
It's crap - in my opinion - only someone trying desperately to "prove" to me that it isn't, would ask such pedantic questions. I've seen Android far too many times to deem it an efficient system, overall. It's buggy, fragmented, inconsistent and maintained by a company with zero ethics and NO idea about what real world (read: everyone APART from geeks, which is about 95% of their customers) want.
Samsung's official Comment
"We believe the ITC's final determination has confirmed Apple's history of free-riding on Samsung's technological innovations," Samsung said in a statement to the Althings website. "Our decades of research and development in mobile technologies will continue, and we will continue to offer innovative products to consumers in the US."
...I think it is absolutely discussing as its actually vise versa. If one does a little research on Samsun and their emergence in the Television market in the 1970's you will learn that their corporate culture has ALWAYS been get-a-hold-of other products, dismantle them and improve upon every aspect.
Making it even worse, US tax laws take funding away from innovation while Korea tax laws shelter funding for future rip-off's of US innovation. In the case of China, they just hack in to their rival and steal to their way to the top. I learned that recently on my way to work listing to NPR. Its a fact. The IRS's greed stifles new growth opportunities and makes new or struggling business exist in a hostile economic environment.
Meanwhile in Asia, they make all of the parts used for Iphone, assemble the product. How could a company with a track record like Samsun NOT steal secerates?
"We believe the ITC's final determination has confirmed Apple's history of free-riding on Samsung's technological innovations," Samsung said in a statement to the Althings website. "Our decades of research and development in mobile technologies will continue, and we will continue to offer innovative products to consumers in the US."
...I think it is absolutely discussing as its actually vise versa. If one does a little research on Samsun and their emergence in the Television market in the 1970's you will learn that their corporate culture has ALWAYS been get-a-hold-of other products, dismantle them and improve upon every aspect.
Making it even worse, US tax laws take funding away from innovation while Korea tax laws shelter funding for future rip-off's of US innovation. In the case of China, they just hack in to their rival and steal to their way to the top. I learned that recently on my way to work listing to NPR. Its a fact. The IRS's greed stifles new growth opportunities and makes new or struggling business exist in a hostile economic environment.
Meanwhile in Asia, they make all of the parts used for Iphone, assemble the product. How could a company with a track record like Samsun NOT steal secerates?
Who are you - a court of law? lol!
It's crap - in my opinion - only someone trying desperately to "prove" to me that it isn't, would ask such pedantic questions. I've seen Android far too many times to deem it an efficient system, overall. It's buggy, fragmented, inconsistent and maintained by a company with zero ethics and NO idea about what real world (read: everyone APART from geeks, which is about 95% of their customers) want.
LOL - your post speaks volumes. Thanks.
Ahh. I see we're using the old "lipstick on a pig" chestnut to describe Google now. Good to see that things have at least marginally progressed around here.
But expecting non-essential IP to be used as currency for SEP licensing fees is a bad trend. Companies that own SEPs will be able to use their market power to essentially get a reduction in R&D costs.
----------
But Apple negotiated and paid a licensing fee.
Whoah, hang on there. This isn't about Apple's model, that's the whole point!
My objection was to Darling's comment that royalties/licenses are designed so that the more valuable product subsidizes the cheaper product. He brought up margins. He stated that a 100-dollar phone with a 4-dollar margin couldn't pay the kind of royalty that a 650-dollar phone with a 200-dollar margin could, and presumably should.
The royalty/license shouldn't be tied to the value of the whole product, because the products are not comparable and some businesses have different business models than other businesses. It should be tied to the common part that gives each product the specific function that is under patent.
I am wondering if this is not like music or some other sphere where royalties are applied? Would you or Darling suggest that a person using a Bose Digital Radio should pay more for his music or the ability to stream it than a person who listens to a cheap crappy radio? Why not, he is obviously getting more "value" out of the experience and he can afford it, right? No, the royalty is part of the cost of the "song", not the equipment it is experienced through. Likewise, the patent in question is part of the radio component made by Qualcomm or whomever, nothing to do with the device it's going into.
Not only was it suggested that Apple should subsidize others (because they can afford to), you are now suggesting that Apple should prop up the whole industry, and they owe it to everyone, because it turned out, to everyone's chagrin, that, yes, they were indeed the computer guys who could just walk into the business and turn it on its ear.... and, sure, it was all down to the little part from Qualcomm, yeah
Sorry, but the reason that ATT (the only ones BTW) took a chance on the iPhone was because of Apple's years of success with the iPod, and Apple obviously had something to show ATT and propose to them that was unique. Let's turn your statement around... "many people fail to accept that the only reason that the Samsung Galaxy even exists today is because of the years of R&D and effort spent by Apple."
The only reason I pay "an increased fee" is because I know Apple stands behind their products and services with proven track records and satisfaction rates. That is why people are willing to pay a premium for the iPhone. I don't give a monkey's for the phone company's service; I get unlocked phones and shop around for services.
Last edited:
you are now suggesting that Apple should prop up the whole industry because it turned out, to everyone's chagrin, that, yes, they were indeed the computer guys who could just walk into the business and turn it on its ear.... and, sure, it was all down to the little part from Qualcomm, yeah
First I never said what you are suggesting.
And no - it's not just because of the work of Qualcomm and its chip.
Respectfully, I don't think we can discuss this further. You seem to be incorrectly regurgitating things others are saying and not understanding what they are. It would be a futile discussion. So I'll remove myself from it
1) ok.. I mean, to most people it does. This is why red hat didn't sell Linux, it sold support
2) sure.. however, since Google bears those expenses.. as I said- phone manufacturers CANNOT claim that a portion of the cost of the phone is for the OS
All senseless to debate. The original premise is flawed. Apple isn't going to claim iOS as a $X and the phone is $1.
Android perhaps is open source, Google services are not and Samsung apps are not
----------
Is this an example of how a comment must be paid by Samsung to make Apple users look silly?
----------
Who are you - a court of law? lol!
It's crap - in my opinion - only someone trying desperately to "prove" to me that it isn't, would ask such pedantic questions. I've seen Android far too many times to deem it an efficient system, overall. It's buggy, fragmented, inconsistent and maintained by a company with zero ethics and NO idea about what real world (read: everyone APART from geeks, which is about 95% of their customers) want.
And if someone has any doubt about that payroll, there is more
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.
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.