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 Proposing Settlements in Android Device Patent Disputes, Would Reap $5-15 Per Android Device
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not against Apple getting a patent royalty. If Google violated the patent then obviously thats there problem. I'm against such a high amount. Doesn't sound like a lot but its a huge amount for a licensing fee on a patent.
Are you talking personally? I'd settle for a penny from each one. At 850K activations a day, I could net more than $3 million/year.
Sometimes you have to stake out a clear position, sometimes you have to move on. Which category is this one? Opinions vary
I see your point, but it's also a fundamental tenet of negotiating to start high. If you want $1.50/device, you don't start there. You start at $5-15 and then agree to compromise for less. It helps your case if/when it goes to the courts because you can demonstrate a willingness not only to settle but that you even reduced the amount you were requesting.
Yeah. Patent advice from a fansite. Even if you go by their description, Apple doesn't even display notifications in the status bar. Hard to discuss though without the actual patent claims.
It's completely possible that iOS violates this potential patent. Of course, that has very little to do with your original claim that iOS is an obvious copy.
If it's determined Apple copied it, they deserve to get taken to court. Thats exactly what everyone here has been saying about android after all...or does it not work both ways.
Not everyone says the same things and not all situations are the same.
Not sure which patents they are wanting royalties for here, but I think no matter what it needs to be a flat amount per device sold. That's the problem with Motorola's asking price on royalties -- they want a percentage. Other problem is that they are trying to get paid for patents that:
A) They have already been paid for (via Qualcomm, Apple's supplier)
B) That are FRAND patents (i.e.: Motorola's doing a bait-and-switch offer for FRAND, and then trying to extort adopters)
To me, patents have a fixed value per unit and that value should not change regardless of the selling price of the overall product. The selling price of the product may dramatically increase due to some other feature completely unrelated to the patent, hence percentage royalties (especially for FRAND) make no sense whatsoever.
On Apple's side, the "Kill Android" and "Spend Every Last Penny" philosophy that Steve Jobs took was never good business. Statements like that make share holders cringe. Business is business and personal is personal. Jobs tended to blur those lines. The only good business reason for Apple to refuse licensing of patents if they can:
A) Successfully prevent competitors from working around the patent
B) Successfully defend the patent in courts
C) Extract more market share due to the patent that would drive more revenue than licensing fees
D) Licensing the patent would dilute Apple's brand and commoditize their products
If the patent does not meet the above tests, then it should be producing revenue for Apple if it can.
Incidentally, I believe that Apple protecting its brand via legal action regarding "trade dress" makes perfect sense. However, the only Android manufacturer that aped Apple's packaging and marketing materials was Samsung, and even they do it a whole lot less now. Most of the photos I've seen of Samsung copying Apple are older products, though I think their power adapter is till a black version of Apple's. Though I think Samsung's change was due in part to Apple's legal action.
A) They have already been paid for (via Qualcomm, Apple's supplier)
B) That are FRAND patents (i.e.: Motorola's doing a bait-and-switch offer for FRAND, and then trying to extort adopters)
To me, patents have a fixed value per unit and that value should not change regardless of the selling price of the overall product. The selling price of the product may dramatically increase due to some other feature completely unrelated to the patent, hence percentage royalties (especially for FRAND) make no sense whatsoever.
On Apple's side, the "Kill Android" and "Spend Every Last Penny" philosophy that Steve Jobs took was never good business. Statements like that make share holders cringe. Business is business and personal is personal. Jobs tended to blur those lines. The only good business reason for Apple to refuse licensing of patents if they can:
A) Successfully prevent competitors from working around the patent
B) Successfully defend the patent in courts
C) Extract more market share due to the patent that would drive more revenue than licensing fees
D) Licensing the patent would dilute Apple's brand and commoditize their products
If the patent does not meet the above tests, then it should be producing revenue for Apple if it can.
Incidentally, I believe that Apple protecting its brand via legal action regarding "trade dress" makes perfect sense. However, the only Android manufacturer that aped Apple's packaging and marketing materials was Samsung, and even they do it a whole lot less now. Most of the photos I've seen of Samsung copying Apple are older products, though I think their power adapter is till a black version of Apple's. Though I think Samsung's change was due in part to Apple's legal action.
I read somewhere (offline) recently an excellent article that Apple is wasting its time, money, and reputation by pursuing these patent wars (regardless of who is suing who)...and that Apple should just settle a few of them. In a settlement, nobody admits to wrongdoing...and if it costs $500 million in a settlement which takes 3 months, that's a lot faster and cheaper than years of legal fees (in tens of millions easily) and if Apple lost it would be much higher a price than a settlement.
Apple can't always be right...sure, protect yourself. But be realistic.
Apple can't always be right...sure, protect yourself. But be realistic.
I've read the patent already, but thanks for the link.
Care to discuss? I'll start.
Where does Apple's notification do this
If you think Apple's implementation infringes this patent then you'd have to accept this patent infringes webOS notifications
Last edited:
The way law works is very simple.
One party wants money
The other doesn't want to give it or not as much as is being asked.
In between the legal costs accelerate.
Since there is always an end to this at one point (either settlement or judgement) people need to decide how far they want to go and when to settle.
If both parties have plenty of money, nobody cries uncle, but looking at the total dollar picture some come to their senses.
Let's hope they all do soon!
With the obvious difference that Apple doesn't display event notifications in the status bar. I don't know if that is enough of a difference to avoid the patent claims at first glance.
That's a pretty clear description of the notification center, though Apple does not display it in response to the selection of a notification icon.
Given how Steve Jobs was so convinced the entire Android system was stolen from iOS, I wonder if Apple had been working on Notification Center early on but just hadn't released it until recently.
Yes, it'll be reduced to a microchip.
Hmm. It seems like it would be more valuable to Apple to prevent Android from having features that would help it sell than to make money off if it.
I've read the patent already, but thanks for the link.
Care to discuss? I'll start.
Where does Apple's notification do this
If you think Apple's implementation infringes this patent then you'd have to accept this patent infringes webOS notifications
Some of the specific details does not apply to iOS notification but if you read the Summary of the patent, then you can see how similar they are.
Check point 005 and 006.
Correct me if I'm wrong, it has been a while since I have used an iPhone.
The problem is most of Apple patents are NOT FRAND patents. They don't have to use it, but a devices work much better when they copy Apple innovations.