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 Sues Apple Again Over 5G Patent Licensing Infringements
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple got their heads bashed in by IBM and Microsoft, among others, well before they decided to play this game. The book was written long ago.
That's ridiculous. Ericsson is either the largest or second largest telecom equipment vendor in the world. Even when they were making cellular phones that was just a side business for them. They primarily make the components and software that are used to build mobile networks, and were one of the pioneers in the field dating back to the 1960s. That's why they have a deep patent portfolio.Ericsson could be classified as a "patent troll" as they make no products but instead license their patents...
You must have misunderstood how this works. Apple can access the radio wave spectrum, of course. However, the 5G and other standards have _a lot_ of work behind them. For something to be part of the standard, the owner has to agree "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs)". If not, it won't be part of the standard.
However, companies using the standard have to pay the ones who made all the work. Apple now just want to pay less for no particular reason. Unlike Qualcomm's "% of device sale value", Ericsson seems very reasonable.
Do you know how many parents Ericsson has!!? Do you how long in mobile networking, base stations etc they have deployed and been in?!
I’d say you need to fully research and think how near sighted your thought is on this.
Ericsson could actually win this case. Parents are not specific to a chip manufacturer as we’ve learned on this site with legal proceedings before.
Ericsson has about 100000 employees, and a lot of them are working with R&D in the telecom area (I know a few).
Ericsson produces no consumer products anymore and focuses on the R&D where they historically has made the very foundation of what makes the mobile industry possible, and still produces massive amounts of patents that drive the industry.
Ericsson could be classified as a "patent troll" as they make no products but instead license their patents...
Um you should ask your “friends” that supposedly work there what products - radio antenna, base stations etc they do make and sell.
Their consumer business ended after partnership with Sony (aka SonyEricsson).
But they still make and sell cellular network infrastructure equipment and have long before they made phones
An Open Standard doesn't mean it is patent of royalty free. The 5G / 3GPP Rel 16 is an Open Standard.
And Apple, claiming they own Intel patents so they pay less? How many "5G" R&D did Intel do? Compared to Ericsson ( and Qualcomm ) which practically drive 50%+ of the standard. ( Dont get me started on Huawei )
Intel acquired a portfolio of wireless patents when they bought Infineon, and I think many or most of these went to Apple along with the modem business. But it's still a much smaller portfolio than Ericsson's. I don't know how many patents Apple got from Intel, but in the press release Apple said that they now have a total of 17,000 wireless technology patents (while Ericsson has 57,000 according to this article).
I didn’t agree to give spectrum to companies or set who owns the standard. Imagine having to pay Bicycle and MGM every time you want to play the card game war.
That is similar to Huawei claiming they own 15-20% of 5G patents. That is correct on the surface. The reality is the quality of those patents and how they relate to Smartphone. You can have 5000 patents on 5G self driving cars but none of them matters on Smartphone. Infineon make nearly nothing on 5G. They used to make modem, and those patents may not contribute to the 5G standard. Just like how Qualcomm could have patents on both the modem implementation and the actual standard itself. Wireless Patents also include things like Bluetooth and WiFi. Along with dozen of other category.
The problem is that FRAND doesn't specify anything specific.
If it said "$4,35 per device" or "0.96% of the sales price of the product excluding taxes" there would be very few court cases.
To make a modern smartphone, you probably need to use more than 100 000 patents. If there just was a priceless for those 100 000+ patents the problem would go away.
Wow! Way to misread my post!
I wrote ”consumer products”. I know full and well their network business, and military stuff. I work quite close to one of their big R&D-offices.
And the ”patent troll”-part was followed by a smiley I really thought conveyed the sarcasm. This forum is usually very quick to label any company that wants license fees from Apple ”patent trolls” no matter how valid it is.
I believe that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and if one company seems to have the market in skinning them from the south end, if another company comes up with a way to skin it from the nose, that does not mean that they are violating anyone's patents! I am saying that with Apple buying Intel's IP, it's too early to declare Apple hung drawn and quartered. They really MIGHT have a way to get it done that doesn't violate any patents.
Let's not reward a patent troll prematurely. Good grief...
Do corporations really have parents? ?
Kidding aside, they do have a ton of patents and the engineers, scientists, attorneys and other employees who design these things do earn a salary, have to pay taxes etc. As was above, a flat rate certainly is fairer than a %.
Of course. We don't know what the exact makeup of their portfolios is, but the total numbers can provide a rough estimate of the balance of power in cross licensing negotiations.
They haven't made anything since 2011 because the wireless solutions business was sold to Intel.
But obviously patent filing didn't stop when development continued under Intel's roof.
In the USA companies are legally considered to be people and have special perks, but they are sociopaths by design and they almost NEVER die. I think companies should be required either to loose their personhood status, or if not be forced to die at the average lifespan on earth. This would free up patents, copyrights and more to be used by all.
Are you <expletive> kidding? Do you have any idea how many hours (years) and dollars go into releasing a patent?!?
Years to develop, possibly years to file, then time (also potentially years) to implement - and to achieve production volume to return the whole investment.
I am not a lawyer, but I think where the problem comes is with SEPs (standards essential patents). A company like Ericsson submits it’s patents to a coalition and receives payment to be made part of The Standard. After that, everyone can use it and has to use it, but according to FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory) terms. So they (Ericsson) get paid to join the conversation which then means they can’t charge “extra” to individual users (Apple).
But the idea of a patent only being protected for seven years is ludicrous.
I agree with you..... I think a 10-15 year limit on patents sounds reasonable. Especially in the tech industry, where 10 years is a "long time" where technology has advanced significantly, and items and gadgets from 10 years ago are often considered obsolete or grandfathered technology.
One problem is that patent law, even if there is reform in a country like USA, will not be universal among the Earth's 195 countries.
Hence.... insular patent law reform in the USA is worthless in the context of two giant global overseas corporations having their differences. The first company might say "Well, according to our country's patent laws, we are in the right!" And the other company might say "Well your country and its IP laws are garbage, and we don't recognize it. OUR country's IP laws supports our company's position."
If patent law reform is to be successful.... there has to be universal consensus and uniform guidelines.
Agreed, but someone has to take the first step, if we ever want to move beyond the corporatocracy we currently have.
Last edited:
Time and money spent have nothing to do with it. The purpose of a patent is to provide an incentive to innovate. Seven years is more than enough time for someone to find a way to make their product profitable. If they can't do that's not the fault of the public who has a right to access the innovation.
Again. That doesn't matter. The public doesn't have a responsibility to ensure investments turn a profit. And that's what patents are for: the public. People should be grateful for 7 years because it used to be zero.
They were originally 14 years and we went in the wrong direction.
Time and dollar has _everything_ to do with it. Do you really think something like 5G is slapped together in an afternoon? GSM took 15 years to develop. Can you even imagine if patent holders were only able to get FRAND fees for 7 years after 15 years of development? How'd you like a mobile phone to be $500 more expensive just for the patents?
Which expire after 7 years... and then the patents would cost nothing to use. So yeah, they would be more expensive today but they would lower prices by reducing the barrier for entry. One of the reasons so many of these things cost so much is because they have to find a way to do things without violating someone else's patent, or they don't want to pay for someone else's abuse of their patent.
Lol. Why innovate or invent anything if you have a paltry 7 years to do anything with it?