They have 118,706 employees and do 6 billion in sales in a quarter. Does that sound like a patent troll?
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.
Ericsson Extends Patent Lawsuit Against Apple to Europe
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They have 118,706 employees and do 6 billion in sales in a quarter. Does that sound like a patent troll?
You have to remember that many people here will defend Apple at all costs. Hey its stealing, but since its Apple its OK
You have to remember that many people here will defend Apple at all costs. Hey its stealing, but since its Apple its OK
Yes this thread is sure full of people defending Apple at any cost.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I think you are not understanding the MR community definition of "patent troll." Here it's basically any company or individual with any patent that tries to use it against Apple. The definition can expand or morph to fit the general concept of anyone going against Apple is wrong (and no historical or other hard evidence can be accumulated to modify such opinions). Of course, when it's the other way- when it's Apple flexing their patent portfolio- it's all about "protecting IP" and similar.
From long-term observations, there appears to be 3 kinds of patents:
1. Apple patents are the ONLY bona-fide patents.
2. Patents used against Apple are only owned by patent trolls.
3. Patents that have no effect on Apple are fine unless Apple tries to get into something new against which such patents may lead to claims. Then, see #2.
...and these 2 overwhelming truths(?):
-Patent system is wonderful and "protecting IP" when it's working with Apple's objectives
-Patent system is "broken" and "needs reforms" when it's working against Apple's objectives
When it comes to actual legal actions, in a patent-driven clash where both parties are found to have infringed on the other party's patents,
-the party against Apple should "Die <party name/copycat> Die", while
-the judge is simply wrong about Apple infringing... or what Apple infringed upon should have never been awarded a patent at all.
Did I miss anything?
All
Last edited:
I guess it all comes down to...I don't care. Seriously guys. Take your patent litigation and jam it up your a... Can you do it out of the public spotlight? ...because that would be great.
I just assume everyone steals from everyone. Apple is the same as everyone else...there operating systems just look prettier.
I just assume everyone steals from everyone. Apple is the same as everyone else...there operating systems just look prettier.
When it comes to actual legal actions, in a patent-driven clash where both parties are found to have infringed on the other's party's patents,
-the party against Apple should "Die <party name/copycat> Die", while
-the judge is simply wrong about Apple infringing... or what Apple infringed upon should have never been awarded a patent at all.
Did I miss anything?
All
You missed out "Apple should just buy <party name>
Is this sentence mis-written? If the patent is NOT essential to the standard, isn't Ericsson able to demand whatever they want and Apple can either take it or leave it?
It's also a factor whether the other party also contributes patents to the standard, which often give them a discount. From what I've heard in the past, Apple has a habit of insisting on paying the same discounted amount as other parties without contributing anything themselves.
Do you mean they had an arbitration (which is like a short litigation) and then Apple refused to abide by the decision? Or do you mean Erickson tried to bring in an arbitrator and Apple would not submit to arbitration? Because in that case the arbitrator is not going to actually start much less finish with a decision.
Apple can be a bully. It is very nice to its customers and also, in many ways, to developers and even, I think, to musicians through iTunes where the music companies and musicians do much better than on the streaming services. But to other business folks like their vendors, Apple is supposedly really hard to work with. And they can be a bully.
No, this is not about forcing Ericsson to spend cash. They have plenty and more coming every year. 35,000 patents generate money.
It is a disagreement about the $ amount value of its patents.
Ericsson says X , Apple says Y.
Since the corporations can't agree what number that is, it will be decided in the courts or settled when both sides are close enough to the numbers they envisioned.
That is how that works. Business as usual.
Not quite the case. Apple disputes the LTE patents are essential. Ericsson says they are. That's issue #1. The second issue is how the rate is calculated.
Ericsson wants to use common industry practice of calculating the rate based on the wholesale price of the device. Apple wants to pay based on the cost of the chip that includes the patented IP. This difference in calculation led Apple to file suit first (in patent friendly N. Cali District Court. Ericsson filed in equally patent friendly E. Texas).
Now, when it comes to Apple licensing it's own IP do you think they use the common industry practice of basing the rate on the wholesale price of the device? Or do you think Apple licenses it's IP based on the cost of the chip that includes Apple's IP? I don't know the answer (where's kdarling when you need him).
If Apple charges the same way they want to pay, then I can see their point better. If, on the other hand, Apple charges like everyone else but wants to pay in a special way that benefits only Apple then I have a fair amount of contempt for that.
I mean that erickson asked for arbitration and Apple refused.
I would lol if a judge banned iphone sales in the USA. Kinda like when Apple got Samsungs phone held up and not available for sale. For the record I own an 6+ and like it. It time for Apple to get over its we are always right attitude
Oh banning the phones really shouldn't be the solution. Court should order the license price and Apple can then just pay it. Probably enough money is at stake here that someone will appeal the first adjudicated license price anyway.
I think you are not understanding the MR community definition of "patent troll." Here it's basically any company or individual with any patent that tries to use it against Apple. The definition can expand or morph to fit the general concept of anyone going against Apple is wrong (and no historical or other hard evidence can be accumulated to modify such opinions). Of course, when it's the other way- when it's Apple flexing their patent portfolio- it's all about "protecting IP" and similar.
From long-term observations, there appears to be 3 kinds of patents:
1. Apple patents are the ONLY bona-fide patents.
2. Patents used against Apple are only owned by patent trolls.
3. Patents that have no effect on Apple are fine unless Apple tries to get into something new against which such patents may lead to claims. Then, see #2.
...and these 2 overwhelming truths(?):
-Patent system is wonderful and protecting IP when it's working with Apple's objectives
-Patent system is "broken" and "needs reforms" when it's working against Apple's objectives
When it comes to actual legal actions, in a patent-driven clash where both parties are found to have infringed on the other's party's patents,
-the party against Apple should "Die <party name/copycat> Die", while
-the judge is simply wrong about Apple infringing... or what Apple infringed upon should have never been awarded a patent at all.
Did I miss anything?
All
You appear to have a good understanding of how things work around here.
You may want to add that old favourite that "Apple should just buy <insert company name here>" if said company proves to be too troublesome to Apple.
Your comment seriously diminished the value of your future input (in any) in this discussion.
That's cool. I'm happy you've validated my ridiculous comment by responding.
I have concluded that:
A) I don't care about patent litigation and
B) Ericsson == gerbils (Even if they are, apparently, big time gerbils with lots of moneys, employees, and stuff).
I have concluded that:
A) I don't care about patent litigation and
B) Ericsson == gerbils (Even if they are, apparently, big time gerbils with lots of moneys, employees, and stuff).
help me out, what is a gerbil other than a small furry pet? Are you saying that you think that Erickson should not get paid for their inventions. HTC, Samsung, Sony all pay them. THey invented to technology.
So I guess if you invent something that everyone else needs to use in their product its ok to just use it and not pay you.
----------
was banning the Samsung phones a solution?
I was thinking along these lines as well.
When a company brings a technology to the table that is integrated into an operating norm across one or more standards (CDMA, TDMA, GSM, LTE...) and another hardware manufacturer wants to be able to connect to those networks, then FRAND applies.
Why?
To keep every single hardware manufacturer and network integrator from coming up with their own tweaks and standards until things barely work together. It's necessary for good, clear communication without dropping calls every minute.
It's likely that one of these companies is trying to extract something "above and beyond" what the industry norm is. It'll be interesting to see how this one unfolds.
No, I actually believe in patents... I believe that if Ericsson really has a valid argument and that Apple infringed on their property, it should be made right.
I just get friggin' tired of hearing about it.
http://www.theonion.com/article/nation-tired-of-having-to-skim-past-headlines-abou-29422
I just get friggin' tired of hearing about it.
http://www.theonion.com/article/nation-tired-of-having-to-skim-past-headlines-abou-29422
If you are reading all of this, but don't understand that Ericsson is to handsets the same way Xerox is to the windows UI concept, then you may not be grasping the type of IP that is being contested here.
Apple's idiocy comes in:
"Apple originally filed suit against Ericsson in January, arguing that it was demanding excessive royalties for patents not essential to LTE standards."
If they weren't essential then why did you keep using them without a license?
"Apple originally filed suit against Ericsson in January, arguing that it was demanding excessive royalties for patents not essential to LTE standards."
If they weren't essential then why did you keep using them without a license?
I'm not sure how reasonable that sounds. Clearly Apple have already paid Ericsson millions to this point, now they are looking to shake Apple down for almost three quarters of a billion dollars a year, for the privilege of making a cell phone?
I get that Ericsson did a lot of work in the cell phone arena and holds 35,000 patents, but I don't see that they deserve eight BILLION dollars over the next ten years.
Good info, thanks. But issue #1 seems backwards. Wouldn't any potential licensee want to claim a patent is essential? That would mean they're guaranteed a FRAND rate.
The issue about which price to use would make this whole situation make more sense.