they join together as groups so that it costs each individual company less money and they still get the patents that they want.
guess you didn't read the article...
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.
Apple Has Outright Ownership of Nortel's LTE (4G) Patents?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Originally Posted by MacRumors
Meanwhile, the largest contributor of the consortium was said to be Apple who put up $2 billion "for outright ownership of Nortel's Long Term Evolution (4G) patents as well as another package of patents supposedly intended to hobble Android."
From my understanding this just means that Apple owns them and gets the license fees from them. This doesn't mean that MS, Sony and everyone else in the group can't use them free of charge. I think they can all use the patents, its just some are owned by the different companies now. I think its cross license deal, maybe I wrong.
Meanwhile, the largest contributor of the consortium was said to be Apple who put up $2 billion "for outright ownership of Nortel's Long Term Evolution (4G) patents as well as another package of patents supposedly intended to hobble Android."
From my understanding this just means that Apple owns them and gets the license fees from them. This doesn't mean that MS, Sony and everyone else in the group can't use them free of charge. I think they can all use the patents, its just some are owned by the different companies now. I think its cross license deal, maybe I wrong.
Not sure I trust Cringely on this one. There's little actual fact out there we can use to check up on his claims.
After reading his other blog post on his opinion that Apple's data centre is empty - based on basic misinterpretations about data centres, data and even gets some known industry numbers wrong - I'll hold off until more is known.
After reading his other blog post on his opinion that Apple's data centre is empty - based on basic misinterpretations about data centres, data and even gets some known industry numbers wrong - I'll hold off until more is known.
Completely Defensive. Also ensures ANOTHER steady stream of revenue (big picture here people). Apple will not attempt to stop others products with this acquisition, and honestly can't.
Focus on the filing Friday against Samsung, and Samsung's response on Saturday. This is the fight. Not Nortel.
They are not getting the patents to hobble their competitors. They need the patents as protection for their own products and will license the patents.
And this is what you do with a multi billion dollar war chest.
Good purchase, IMO. It gives them a very nice strategic position. That said, because it was done via a consortium, it's likely that Microsoft/RIM/Sony Ericsson, etc have licensing agreements-- at least that's the way I read it. In fact, it's almost certain. How it probably worked out is that each company has a patent chest that they are sole owners of, and since they all went in together, each company is cross licensing to each other at a reduced monetary rate in exchange for IP rights. It's only logical really-- these other companies would not allow Apple to control the 4G IP otherwise.
What this allows Apple to do is maintain a steady monetary stream, IP cross licensing, and a large negotiating factor for those not in the initial cross licensing patent pool. This means LG, HP, Google, and Nokia are in the targets, and likely this was also done to reduce the pull Nokia has on 4G phone IP.
To those stating that Apple will use this to stifle opponents (Android, etc)-- unlikely. They really aren't in a tenable position to cut off the IP, and it's likely that they'll freely cross license it for the reasons stated above. Keep in mind Apple also needs some of Nokia's 4G patents, among others.
Good purchase, IMO. It gives them a very nice strategic position. That said, because it was done via a consortium, it's likely that Microsoft/RIM/Sony Ericsson, etc have licensing agreements-- at least that's the way I read it. In fact, it's almost certain. How it probably worked out is that each company has a patent chest that they are sole owners of, and since they all went in together, each company is cross licensing to each other at a reduced monetary rate in exchange for IP rights. It's only logical really-- these other companies would not allow Apple to control the 4G IP otherwise.
What this allows Apple to do is maintain a steady monetary stream, IP cross licensing, and a large negotiating factor for those not in the initial cross licensing patent pool. This means LG, HP, Google, and Nokia are in the targets, and likely this was also done to reduce the pull Nokia has on 4G phone IP.
To those stating that Apple will use this to stifle opponents (Android, etc)-- unlikely. They really aren't in a tenable position to cut off the IP, and it's likely that they'll freely cross license it for the reasons stated above. Keep in mind Apple also needs some of Nokia's 4G patents, among others.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
This is beautiful and ironic. The one who knows when and how to introduce products to market, is the one who has some control over related supporting patents.
This is beautiful and ironic. The one who knows when and how to introduce products to market, is the one who has some control over related supporting patents.
Nope... I think you're dead on right.
This is not about hobbling the competition, it's about patents being up for sale and Apple felt it was a good investment to own them. If anything, I would think Apple would be more worried about the reverse since they have been taking the rest of the industry to school for the past 5 years.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
This is almost TOO funny! You must be part of Google's target market--testosterone-driven males younger than 30 years.
Winni said:
This is almost TOO funny! You must be part of Google's target market--testosterone-driven males younger than 30 years.
MS is known for doing "incredibly stupid" things. I wouldn't put anything past them as long as Ballmer is at the wheel.
Then why buy in the first place if required to share? Makes no common sense other than defense and carrying a big stick.
And do we need to remind the Apple haters and Android lovers that infest this forum that Google makes money by selling customer data to advertisers, not by selling Android or Android phones? With the government opening an anti-trust investigation and a little pressure from Apple over patents perhaps Google could be persuaded to spin off Android or even abandon it all together. I wonder how it would fair with every manufacturer doing its own thing with what's left. I also wonder what happens if Google decides to start charging OEMs a licensing fee to use Android, like Microsoft. IMHO the crystal ball is very cloudy when it comes to Android's future.
Happy 4th all my MacRumors friends, stay well and God bless
(something something, Nortel LTE-Topical)
(something something, Nortel LTE-Topical)
Microsoft don't make phones. Nor does Google for that matter.
However, Samsung, Nokia, LG, HTC and the rest all make phones and will be ponying up some cash in the next few weeks.
Just remember, everytime you see 4G mentioned on tv, that's the Apple cash register ringing
This is a long way from 1999.Happy 4th all my MacRumors friends, stay well and God bless
(something something, Nortel LTE-Topical)
You too!
iPhone's display does have higher pixel density (330 vs 218) but it's disputable whether such high density even make sense (remember Apple had to double screen resolution in each dimension to make software transition easier). It appears that there is a benefit in increasing PD above 218 but it's less clear at which point this benefit ends. On the other hand, SAMOLED brings huge advantages in at least two aspects: true black colors and contrast ratio (100,000:1 vs 800:1 for iPhone). Another less obvious benefit of OLE display is that it is thinner than LCD (because it does not require backlit).
Being in USA I have not had a chance to compare the two displays by myself but here is a a verdict from one Indian publication:
Verdict
If there is a smartphone out there which manages to provide the sheer speed of the iPhone then it has to be the Samsung Galaxy S2. There are no two ways about it - it is currently the fastest phone in the market and quite reasonable priced at Rs 32890, given the amount tech crammed into it. It even manages to eclipse the iPhone's Retina display, which is a feat in itself. While all this is good we still don't like Samsung's TouchWiz in-spite of all the improvements.
That's a good point. I was surprised by Google's bidding based on pointless (for the purpose) mathematical constants. Almost seems they were bored and just going through the motions.
Quite a change from all the initial PR and having been the ones casting the first bid.
Microsoft don't make phones. Nor does Google for that matter.
However, Samsung, Nokia, LG, HTC and the rest all make phones and will be ponying up some cash in the next few weeks.
Just remember, everytime you see 4G mentioned on tv, that's the Apple cash register ringing
That is assuming they did not already make an agreement with Nortel and I believe that part of the sell required the one who bought the patents to honor any agreements already in place by Nortel.
So in other words it is safe to say that it will not effect most of them as chances are really good they already had agreements in place before hand. Samsung and HTC both have LTE phones already out in the market so they have to already have an agreement in place.
There's nothing disputable about it, side by side the iPhone is clearly sharper - if you can't see it you need new glasses.
The dual core Exymos is nice and fast but not very energy efficient, I used one for a week and never made it past 5-6pm on a typical workday. There's also not many apps to really give it a go, you only notice the performance in the web browser.
Having seen how the A5 chip performs on the iPad 2, Apple just needs to ship a phone with that and it'll be ahead even in the the performance curve.
Let's not even go to build quality and choice of materials on the two phones.
I can say with absolutely certainty that there is no AMD research in oz. I can say with absolute certainty that to the extent Intel has research teams in oz (I don't know), most of their research is done in Washington state, Israel, Sunnyvale, and Austin.
As for the stats report, I have no idea. I don't vouch for it at all. That dude wanted evidence, so I pointed at it, but my point (made repeatedly) is that I never claimed the U.S. is #1 in innovation - I only dispute that Australia and the U.K. are higher in innovation.
I'm tired of this statement. You cannot get a "software patent" in the U.S., either (at least not like everyone implies). You cannot patent a pure algorithm or abstract idea, same as Australia. You are patenting a machine that performs some series of steps; these steps may be directed by software (or cams, levers, and dancing squirrels) You do the same thing in Australia. In New Zealand there are guidelines permitting "embedded software" to be patented, same as the U.S. (which permits patenting of media containing instructions causing a machine to perform specific steps). In both Australia and the U.S. you can patent a business method if it is performed by a computer. The "well defined" laws in Australia are essentially the same as in the U.S. as far as what is patentable, but it is easier to get a patent in Australia than in the U.S. - most folks consider the USPTO to do a better job of finding prior art than other countries. People who complain about U.S. "software patents" are people who have not read the claims of the patent and/or who don't work as patent agents in the U.S. or other countries.
The simple reason you find less to object to in these two countries is there are fewer high-tech companies native to these locations, so far fewer patents filed in the computer-related industries, and foreign countries do not consider these markets (particularly New Zealand, but also Australia) to be important locations for bringing national stage patents. (Remember that inventors have to file patents in every country they want protection - this can get very expensive, so the U.S., Europe, Japan, and China, and to a lesser extent Canada, tend to be the priorities.)
Last edited:
That would be an incorrect conclusion. It would suck for consumers a lot more if companies could not receive time-limited protection and a fair ROI for all their R&D. It's the only way you're going to see innovation in products. Did you like rotary dial phones that much?
Exactly, what motivation would companies have to put effort and money into improving or developing anything, if it could just be copied by any fly-by-night company the week after and sold for cheaper?
We probably wouldn't even have phones let alone mobile ones, since that whole industry was built on the backs of patents (and patent lawsuits eg Graham Bell vs Western Union back in 1878!)
Not sure why you felt the need to throw in "haters" and "lovers", since the fact that Google sells ad space by user info is well known by everyone.
Apple does the same with their own ad sales, using targeted info such as where we are, and what media and apps we've bought via iTunes.
However, neither Google nor Apple actually sell any personal info.
In my experience this is absolutely true. We had several office actions here, none in Australia, and much faster issue. Canada, on the other hand....12 years before it issued, with zero office actions. Talk about broken.
When you bid on something on ebay, for instance, would you be the person bidding at $300, or the person bidding $301? Most people understand this concept of overbidding and even $1 over isn't enough anymore. That is why Google bid odd numbers; $314.15 compatible to this example. It was a [geeky] strategy, one that seems to be lost on a few of you.