Ericsson Sues Apple Again Over 5G Patent Licensing Infringements

[4jasontv]

Lol. Why innovate or invent anything if you have a paltry 7 years to do anything with it?

Because some money is better than none and you can use other people's ideas that already expired so you don't have to find another way to make a rectangle.

 

[bollman]

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.

Which is why FRAND exists. Developing a new standard is a very time consuming task, and it is quite obvious those who spend billions on developing new standards that so many rely upon should be able to profit.

 

[4jasontv]

Which is why FRAND exists. Developing a new standard is a very time consuming task, and it is quite obvious those who spend billions on developing new standards that so many rely upon should be able to profit.

No. FRAND exists to give money and power to a select few. The standards are agreed upon by the same people who profit from them. Time has nothing to do with it. If they want to make more money they need to make new things. They can’t rely on selling ideas that belong to the public.

 

[bollman]

What ideas belong to the public?
Are you saying any idea that gets adopted as standard should render the patent "public" and impossible to make money from? Great, that would really drive interoperability forward.
Also, I would _really_ hate if cellular networks got replaced every 5 years with no backward compatibility.

 

[Matti_]

Funny how Apple takes 30% of everyone‘s intellectual property in the AppStore, but is crying for 5$ patents.
Apple is just a disgusting company

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

I didn't know if my iPhone could do 5G and found an Apple support doc helping answer that question and what to set it to to either get 5G if available, or not use/ignore it.

 

[4jasontv]

What ideas belong to the public?
Are you saying any idea that gets adopted as standard should render the patent "public" and impossible to make money from? Great, that would really drive interoperability forward.
Also, I would _really_ hate if cellular networks got replaced every 5 years with no backward compatibility.

All ideas belong to the public. Patents grant exclusive use of ideas for a short period, but ultimately that exclusive use is offered to the inventory as a reward not a right.

This is a fundamental principle of patents. To encourage and reward innovation, but not to provide perpetual income. No one should be able to live off a single patent or copyright.

 

[bollman]

There's a huge difference between copyright and patents. You can easily live off copyright, the right is in most countries life+70 years.
It would be rather difficult to develop new standards if the company that does all the work can't recuperate their money. I'm sure the current time period is somewhat carefully selected to make R&D financially sound while at the same time not stifle competition too much.
When it comes to standard patents, we should be grateful for longer patent validity as that makes the license fee lower per unit. Make it too short and the license fee would have to a lot higher, or innovation might stagnate as noone would want to have their tech made standard. Make it too long and it might be difficult to develop new technology.

 

[4jasontv]

There's a huge difference between copyright and patents. You can easily live off copyright, the right is in most countries life+70 years.
It would be rather difficult to develop new standards if the company that does all the work can't recuperate their money. I'm sure the current time period is somewhat carefully selected to make R&D financially sound while at the same time not stifle competition too much.
When it comes to standard patents, we should be grateful for longer patent validity as that makes the license fee lower per unit. Make it too short and the license fee would have to a lot higher, or innovation might stagnate as noone would want to have their tech made standard. Make it too long and it might be difficult to develop new technology.

How do these patents help you or I make our own wireless network? Again, their desire to make money is less important than the public being able to use these patents to make new innovations and use them free of cost. At the very least NO ONE should be making a fee from standards, and it doesn’t matter how long or how expensive it was for the standard to be developed.

If the patent will not allow the public use the innovation while the technology is still a reasonable option the the patent length is excessive.

 

[bollman]

Are you using WiFi? LTE? Those are patents turned into standards so that youand I don't have to use Apple wireless tech, or subscribe to the Apple cell operator. Do we really want every tech company to invent the wheel?
If there were no standards, the world would be a pretty difficult place to navigate, not only with tech, standards are everywhere, and all those standards once were developed by someone or a company.
Yet these standards took many years of hard work for many talented people to develop (at least when it comes to wireless tech like LTE or 5G). Is it really that hard to expect the company employing these skilled workers to recuperate the costs of developing what became a standard? I can assure you that if companies saw the risk of their stuff becoming a standard and therefore robbing them of the chance to make money, all companies would avoid disclosing their tech at all costs, much to the horror of the public stuck with loads of incompatible tech!

 

[4jasontv]

Are you using WiFi? LTE? Those are patents turned into standards so that youand I don't have to use Apple wireless tech, or subscribe to the Apple cell operator. Do we really want every tech company to invent the wheel?
If there were no standards, the world would be a pretty difficult place to navigate, not only with tech, standards are everywhere, and all those standards once were developed by someone or a company.
Yet these standards took many years of hard work for many talented people to develop (at least when it comes to wireless tech like LTE or 5G). Is it really that hard to expect the company employing these skilled workers to recuperate the costs of developing what became a standard? I can assure you that if companies saw the risk of their stuff becoming a standard and therefore robbing them of the chance to make money, all companies would avoid disclosing their tech at all costs, much to the horror of the public stuck with loads of incompatible tech!

It’s not the publics responsibility to ensure they recuperate costs. Why are you so concerned about that? Let me say it for the 10th time: It does not matter how much or how long a patent takes to acquire.

Reinventing the wheel occurs with long patents not short ones. A seven year patent means less reinventing and more innovation.

 

[demodave]

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.

Time and money have everything to do with it. Businesses exist to make money.

money made = sales - costs

The purpose of a patent is the ensure that the costs invested have a return.

If a patent is an SEP, the consortium pays X to release it for public use, and FRAND tems add to income (”sales”).

If the patent is held private, whoever uses it licenses (pays for) the right to use it.

If an idea is kept trade secret, no earnings are made from IP, but the world doesn’t know how to execute it (until it eventually does). So the IP holder has to hope it makes its own products sell better than the competition.

But simply put, its ALL about money, and time is money, so it’s all about money.

The patent system does encourage innovation, but its purpose is to protect the economic rewards of innovation … which is why companies innovate.

 

[4jasontv]

Time and money have everything to do with it. Businesses exist to make money.

money made = sales - costs

The purpose of a patent is the ensure that the costs invested have a return.

If a patent is an SEP, the consortium pays X to release it for public use, and FRAND tems add to income (”sales”).

If the patent is held private, whoever uses it licenses (pays for) the right to use it.

If an idea is kept trade secret, no earnings are made from IP, but the world doesn’t know how to execute it (until it eventually does). So the IP holder has to hope it makes its own products sell better than the competition.

But simply put, its ALL about money, and time is money, so it’s all about money.

The patent system does encourage innovation, but its purpose is to protect the economic rewards of innovation … which is why companies innovate.

No. You have this all wrong. The purpose of a patent is to provide motivation for innovation for a short period by allowing exclusive use of innovation. But the public owns the innovation and needs to have access to it. It’s not for the inventor to make money but to provide innovation to all.

Its purpose is NOT to protect the economic rewards of innovation but to reward innovation.

 

[bollman]

And the reward for innovation is exclusive right to the innovation, for the innovator to monetize as he/she sees fit. Make the time of exclusivity too short, and companies will keep innovation a trade secret, make it too long and innovation becomes harder as new innovation cannot build upon old innovation.
The clash comes when innovation is turned into a standard within the timeframe of exclusivity. That is why FRAND exist. Patents can only be included in a standard if the patent holder agrees to FRAND.
FRAND aims to make sure that anyone can license the patents on fair terms and reasonable licensing costs so that anyone can use the essential patents, but with reasonable compensation for the patents holder for its IP to be included in the patent so that it can gain from its R&D. From Wikipedia on FRAND:
"The development of a patented technology typically requires significant investment in research, and contributing that technology to a standard is not the only option by which a patent holder can recoup that investment and thus monetize its invention. For example, a patent holder has the option to monetize that invention through exclusive use or exclusive licensing. Technology owners might have insufficient incentives to contribute their technologies to a standard-setting organization without the promise of an adequate royalty"

 

[4jasontv]

And the reward for innovation is exclusive right to the innovation, for the innovator to monetize as he/she sees fit. Make the time of exclusivity too short, and companies will keep innovation a trade secret, make it too long and innovation becomes harder as new innovation cannot build upon old innovation.
The clash comes when innovation is turned into a standard within the timeframe of exclusivity. That is why FRAND exist. Patents can only be included in a standard if the patent holder agrees to FRAND.
FRAND aims to make sure that anyone can license the patents on fair terms and reasonable licensing costs so that anyone can use the essential patents, but with reasonable compensation for the patents holder for its IP to be included in the patent so that it can gain from its R&D. From Wikipedia on FRAND:
"The development of a patented technology typically requires significant investment in research, and contributing that technology to a standard is not the only option by which a patent holder can recoup that investment and thus monetize its invention. For example, a patent holder has the option to monetize that invention through exclusive use or exclusive licensing. Technology owners might have insufficient incentives to contribute their technologies to a standard-setting organization without the promise of an adequate royalty"

FRAND absolutely does not ensure everyone can license a patent on fair terms because not all possible licensees are involved in setting the standard.

 

[bollman]

Well, that's what FRAND is supposed to fix. Obviously you feel differently, but the fact still stands: FRAND is supposed to set licensing fee to a fair amount and acceptable terms for both those who own the IP (and want to monetize on their R&D) and those who want to license it (and monetize from producing a product including the IP).

It bet it would pretty darn impossible to agree, should every possible licensee has their say in terms and fees.
Look at Apple's MFI-program. The licensing terms and fees are exclusively dictated by Apple. Don't like it? Get lost. When it comes to IP included under FRAND in standards, there is actual negotiations and if the IP holder is demanding too much or unreasonable terms, the standard will not include the IP, but will instead work around it, or just never come into fruition.

 

[diamond.g]

How do these patents help you or I make our own wireless network? Again, their desire to make money is less important than the public being able to use these patents to make new innovations and use them free of cost. At the very least NO ONE should be making a fee from standards, and it doesn’t matter how long or how expensive it was for the standard to be developed.

If the patent will not allow the public use the innovation while the technology is still a reasonable option the the patent length is excessive.

This may be going out on a limb, but making your own wireless network may be pretty difficult if you didn't buy spectrum to use for your towers/devices.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

It’s not the publics responsibility to ensure they recuperate costs. Why are you so concerned about that? Let me say it for the 10th time: It does not matter how much or how long a patent takes to acquire.

Reinventing the wheel occurs with long patents not short ones. A seven year patent means less reinventing and more innovation.

It *CAN* mean more innovation, and can also mean less (How many innovations have been stopped becasue of the meer threat of litigation? The world will never know). It seems it would depend on the court, and the attorney arguments as to whether any 'innovation' encroaches on a given patent. Many patent holders seem to preemptively sue to protect their patent becoming superfluous or meaningless. Yes, INNOVATION (along the lines of an existing patent) can be seen as a threat to a patent holder. Isn't this a case of that? Ericsson is afraid that Apple's use of the Intel IP would effect their profit and marketability, and they are suing to protect it. I'm sure they are combing through anything they can get their hands on to find ANY use of anything even close to their patent(s) to hold up as PROOF that Apple is trying to make them meaningless, and effect their profits.

 

[DeepIn2U]

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...

Ericsson is not a patent troll. They use their patents and have for over a decade. They're one of the oldest surviving company's in the entire world - over 100yrs now, and have transitioned from textiles (originally) to what they are today.

However,

If I'm not mistaken ... close to 2012 there was a huge patent dispute where a LOT of cellphone manufacturers split into 2 camps I believe Apple partnered with carriers and may have included Ericsson so I'm not certain the patent dispute will be rewarded due to the partnership agreement. This isn't patent trolling but a view into what makes the claim fully valid and what partnerships may make the dispute invalid. Hmm. we shall see.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Hmm. we shall see.

Yes, probably...

I was reacting to the potential that this is Ericsson suing Apple to stop them from using competing Intel IP. There are multiple ways to achieve the same result in software, so my snap judgement was along those lines.

If it turns out that some Ericsson IP is still being used, and Apple is trying to not license it, that is a problem. If it comes down to Ericsson wanting to license even small parts of its IP for the same price, that seems unfortunate for them, and why Apple is choosing to force this to litigation. But who knows... This harkens back to the Apple v Qualcomm battles of the past.

 

[Rigby]

Ericsson is afraid that Apple's use of the Intel IP would effect their profit and marketability, and they are suing to protect it.

Apple does not compete with Ericsson, so the first part makes little sense. And of course Ericsson is protecting its IP, just like Apple does.

 

[Rigby]

I was reacting to the potential that this is Ericsson suing Apple to stop them from using competing Intel IP.

Huh?