Apple Has Licensed iOS Design Patents to Microsoft, Agreement Bans "Cloning"

[G51989]

You're right - I totally don't see Microsoft trying to weasel in on Apple's consumer dominance.

Image

Microsoft already dominates the Desktop/Laptop OS market, Both in Enterprise and Consumer world. Yes, they are trying to get into other markets at well, but I don't think things like the surface pro really targets iPad users.

Amen. Microsoft are still the biggest pack of weasels the tech world has ever known.

How do you figure? Microsoft and Apple have had cross licensing agreements in place for 15 years now, it works great for Apple and Microsoft, Apple gets to use lots of Microsofts Patents, and vice versa. They both win.

 

[G51989]

Microsoft will push this agreement to the limit to see if they can get away with it.

Why would they need to? Microsofts tablets and Windows 8 OS And its UI Metro, look and work nothing like Apple Tablets and OS.

You do realize that Microsoft and Apple have had agreements like this for 15 years now, its benefited Apple and Microsoft.

Mark my words, the lawyers who thought this up should be not only fired, but lined up and shot. Microsoft can't be trusted.

Why? Microsoft has over TEN THOUSAND Hardware and software patents, Apple has a huge number as well ( not sure as to the number ). Microsoft owns the patents on tons of software standards, this way. Apple gets access to Microsofts Patents, Apple gets access to theirs, and they both can go about their business.

Without Cross Licensing, we wouldn't have things like this

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/campaigns/office?afid=p219|GOUS&cid=AOS-US-KWG

Also, without their many agreements, Macs wouldn't be able to use FAT32 Kinda important don't ya think? Just an example.

There is no such thing as this big " Apple V Microsoft " ' war ' as some people here think. Its a nerds wet dream.

Microsoft and Apple realize, that at their core. They don't cater to the same people, and they aren't a huge threat to each other. These cross licensing deals have been in place for a long time, and have benefited each company.

 

[theineffablebob]

Here is an interesting read. Although I don't argue about Sony part.

Innovate or stagnate: Why your next phone will suck if Samsung beats Apple

http://www.digitaltrends.com/apple/...r-next-phone-will-suck-if-samsung-beats-apple

That is a laughably bad article. The author is also clearly biased.

 

[MattInOz]

Here is an interesting read. Although I don't argue about Sony part.

Innovate or stagnate: Why your next phone will suck if Samsung beats Apple

That is a laughably bad article. The author is also clearly biased.

Rob Enderle...
Say no more

 

[Swordylove]

The Surface's Metro user interface looks cool and refreshing. While I love simplicity, the plain grid of icons in iOS is getting old and boring.

 

[Winni]

It's great to ban "cloning"

Yeah, I just wonder when Apple will stop doing it. They cloned a lot of things others have done before them.

 

[Mr. Gates]

Here is the real question : Who gets to decide what is a clone ? Apple ?!

 

[attila]

Maybe they should add that Samsung has copied XCode too...



(OP by fertilized-egg)

 

[thasan]

Compare this with what Apple offered to pay Samsung for their FRAND patents - $0.02 per phone (or something like this).

FRAND: Fair, Reasonable, and "Non-Discriminatory" ...as they are standards. it would be interesting to see what other companies pay for these.

on the other hand, apple can ask whatever they want for their own design patents. they are not standards. call it high or whatever, microsoft was happy to (cross)-licence.

'samesung' on the other hand, decided not to.

 

[samcraig]

There's no correlation between the pfizer Viagra story and "if Apple ceases to exist, Samsung will not survive as they will not be able to continue making generic Apple products."

For one - these drug companies that produce generic drugs don't only make generic drugs from one manufacturer.

Second, and bigger - Samsung doesn't survive by copying Apple products. You can argue it makes them more profitable. You could even argue that Samsung's MOBILE division might suffer. But I disagree completely with the idea that if Apple ceases to exist that Samsung - or any other company would just cease to exist. That is such a leap of absurdity to me.

I didn't respond longer because, quite frankly - if anyone sincerely believes that Samsung only exists to copy Apple and/or can only exist by copying Apple then they're deluding themselves.

It is a nice story. So nice, it may even have a grain of truth in it.

The person you quoted used sound reasoning and pointed out the similarities between the two situations. All you're doing is saying "no" without providing any counter-reasoning.

Yes, there is a niche. But it's really, really small.

And besides, computers running Chrome OS are pretty much the Chrome browser in a box, which means you can get basically all of Chrome's features just by downloading it for Windows or Mac OS.

 

[kdarling]

FRAND: Fair, Reasonable, and "Non-Discriminatory" ...as they are standards.

Of course, FRAND doesn't mean you give up your rights to fair compensation. It just means everyone gets the opportunity to negotiate with the same starting deal.

It would be interesting to see what other companies pay for these.

Below are the publicly known starting rates for most major ETSI FRAND licenses. The ones listed total about 15% of the price of the phone, but probably totals more if all were included. (A decade ago, that total had been as much as 30%.)

If you own a lot of good patents, you can cross license and pay much less. For example, Nokia is said to only pay 3% per handset in total.

Note that the highest one here, Qualcomm, is a little over 3%. You cannot build a 3G phone without their IP. Motorola is less, and is well known for dropping to zero if you cross license with them.

Without cross licensing, Apple wants 5% of a $600 phone and 10% of a $400 tablet for their patents. Even with cross licensing, Apple still wants 4% of that phone.

 

[Imhotep397]

Microsoft will push this agreement to the limit to see if they can get away with it.

Mark my words, the lawyers who thought this up should be not only fired, but lined up and shot. Microsoft can't be trusted.

One word should indicate how much Microsoft pays attention to limits on contracts they signed: Java. There is a whole list of other corporations they have stolen from, and been sued by. Some few successfully...

I agree with this, BUT it matters not. MS has extremely poor taste, the tablet is too large and the keyboard too Starburst like. Multiple developers that have had access to hardware/Windows 8 have gone on record as having said the Windows 8 release is going to be a nightmare. Multiple OEMs have threatened look elsewhere for OS partners because of Surface. On top of all of that the interface is atrocious.

Expect to see more OEMs pushing various various distributions of Linux. (probably unsuccessfully.) It wouldn't surprise me if the dawn of the next Mac clone era arises either.

Having said all of that I'm satisfied that Apple is receiving credit/license fees for inventing something unique.

----------

...Without cross licensing, Apple wants 5% of a $600 phone and 10% of a $400 tablet for their patents. Even with cross licensing, Apple still wants 4% of that phone.

That's fair compensation for turning the entire mobile phone business upside down and opening a completely new market segment of computer users IMO.

 

[LagunaSol]

It almost sounds as if the existence of microsoft deeply offends you.

Why?

See the last sentence of my post you quoted.

 

[samcraig]

----------

[/COLOR]

That's fair compensation for turning the entire mobile phone business upside down and opening a completely new market segment of computer users IMO.

I think fair is relative. What is fair compensation for all the companies that came before Apple and invested billions and years of research and development and built the market up before Apple brought a phone in it in 2007?

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Microsoft and Apple realize, that at their core. They don't cater to the same people, and they aren't a huge threat to each other.

But Microsoft is in the same business as Apple. They are very competitive and what I was getting at was that Apple should not trust Microsoft. In time nearly every company/corporation that has trusted Microsoft has either been burned, put out of business, or bought out (and destroyed) by the massive Microsoft behemoth.

Letting them have access, more access as implied in this article, is a potentially long term bad thing. All Microsoft has to do is their patented obfuscate and delay tactic if ever dragged into court, and Apple won't have a market or a bucket to piss in. Apple has the most to loose if Microsoft plays fast and loose with the agreement...

 

[thasan]

Of course, FRAND doesn't mean you give up your rights to fair compensation. It just means everyone gets the opportunity to negotiate with the same starting deal.



Below are the publicly known starting rates for most major ETSI FRAND licenses. The ones listed total about 15% of the price of the phone, but probably totals more if all were included. (A decade ago, that total had been as much as 30%.)

If you own a lot of good patents, you can cross license and pay much less. For example, Nokia is said to only pay 3% per handset in total.

Note that the highest one here, Qualcomm, is a little over 3%. You cannot build a 3G phone without their IP. Motorola is less, and is well known for dropping to zero if you cross license with them.

Without cross licensing, Apple wants 5% of a $600 phone and 10% of a $400 tablet for their patents. Even with cross licensing, Apple still wants 4% of that phone.

oh, sorry, probably theres a misunderstanding. what i meant is that FRAND is always low as they are essential. while apple can ask whatever they want for their non-FRAND patents.

 

[babyj]

Below are the publicly known starting rates for most major ETSI FRAND licenses. The ones listed total about 15% of the price of the phone, but probably totals more if all were included.

The issue Apple (and Microsoft) have with the rates being demanded by Motorola and Samsung is that they are a percentage of the selling price of the device. That document maybe suggests that this calculation method is common but then maybe it isn't when the actual agreement is put in place. Maybe this wasn't an issue until Apple entered the market with their premium prices.

To give an example of the point, with a 20% royalty rate of the devices selling price for all the wireless technology (2G, 3G, 4G, Wifi etc) this is what Apple would have to pay out for various devices;
- iPhone 3G 8Gb = £53.17
- iPhone 4 8Gb = £71.50
- iPhone 4S 16Gb = £83.17
- iPhone 4S 64Gb = £116.50

Whilst the actual figures are arguable (ie how you calculate them), the disparity between the low end and high end devices is not. Both devices have exactly the same wireless technologies which work in exactly the same way and it adds no extra value on the high end device - yet they are paying out double on it.

I'm not sure who is in the right, though I lean towards Apple's argument. But one thing is for sure, it's the consumer that will end up paying the extra if the total device price is used for the calculation. A 20% royalty on the device price would add at least 20% to the final selling price.

 

[farmboy]

Totally wrong. You need to use all or most of the patented design elements in your own design. Like Samsung did.

You're speaking the wrong kind of English

You can infringe on a patent holder's specific claim even if everything else about your invention is unique.

 

[vrDrew]

Without cross licensing, Apple wants 5% of a $600 phone and 10% of a $400 tablet for their patents. Even with cross licensing, Apple still wants 4% of that phone.

The distinction, of course, is that none of Apple's patents are subject to FRAND commitments. They are well within their rights to ask whatever they want - or think the market will bear.

FRAND-encumbered (standard-essential) patents, however, are often times only valuable because they are part of a standard. And companies trying to use standard-essential patents as a "strategic weapon" (Google, Samsung, HTC) to force other firms to give up their IP are finding that Judges, legislators, and anti-monopoly agencies aren't looking very favorably on their plan.

 

[samcraig]

A 20% royalty on the device price would add at least 20% to the final selling price.

Not necessarily.

 

[babyj]

Not necessarily.

I'd love to hear how a 20% increase in costs would not lead to at least a 20% increase in price, especially given the profit margins Apple keep to and sales taxes. A device costing at retail £500 with a 20% royalty built in, would probably cost £400 with a fixed royalty of say £20.

If I've got something wrong please explain rather than simply denying it.

 

[samcraig]

I'd love to hear how a 20% increase in costs would not lead to at least a 20% increase in price, especially given the profit margins Apple keep to and sales taxes. A device costing at retail £500 with a 20% royalty built in, would probably cost £400 with a fixed royalty of say £20.

If I've got something wrong please explain rather than simply denying it.

Just because a company takes a hit on their profit by X doesn't mean they automatically increase prices by X. There's such a thing as pricing yourself out of the market. I'm not saying prices couldn't or wouldn't increase. But it wouldn't necc be a 1:1 price increase 1:1+ increase.

 

[winston1236]

I think the Keyboard is also a patent that MSFT is paying Apple for, so I'm not so sure I would call it an iPad killer yet. Also, if Microsoft had to make it look like the iPad just to sell it, then it really isn't an iPad killer, but more like an iPad-Step-Brother. Microsoft may as well call it the iStep or iPaid Apple to make this. No?

apple has a keyboard cover? no? then what are you rambling on about?

 

[thekev]

Has anyone considered the possibility of Apple putting Samsung in the same position it was put in by Motorola with regards to FRAND patents? I mean, Apple is just another company in the end seeking to maximize profit. $30 per phone or $40 per tablet seems a bit steep, especially, as many have pointed out, because Android phones are generally cheaper (unlocked) than iPhone's. Not sure about tablet pricings.

The rest of the story about Apple cooperating as much as possible, is of course, subject to a lot of bias since Apple wouldn't want to make itself look bad.

I'm not sure how some of the devices listed have anything to do with Apple's IP by any stretch of imagination. Note the breakdown posted in the thread.

oh, sorry, probably theres a misunderstanding. what i meant is that FRAND is always low as they are essential. while apple can ask whatever they want for their non-FRAND patents.

You know people were complaining about that before saying that it is discriminatory if the licensing fees cost less for a device with a lower retail price. As long as they are presented with the same basis (not necessarily the same

I'd love to hear how a 20% increase in costs would not lead to at least a 20% increase in price, especially given the profit margins Apple keep to and sales taxes. A device costing at retail £500 with a 20% royalty built in, would probably cost £400 with a fixed royalty of say £20.

If I've got something wrong please explain rather than simply denying it.

Well your costs only dictate the minimum amount required to break even. If Apple felt just as many people would buy it at £100 more today, what would hold them back from charging this? Any company has to balance out what is in their best interest on pricing, components used, research, etc. Conversely a £100 drop in their manufacturing costs would not necessarily drop the cost of the device unless Apple feels its in their best interests.

 

[prezasti]

apple has a keyboard cover? no? then what are you rambling on about?

Here:

http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220120194448%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20120194448&RS=DN/20120194448

and Here:

https://www.macrumors.com/2012/08/02/apple-researching-ipad-smart-covers-with-secondary-displays-keyboards-solar-cells/