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.
U.S. ITC to Investigate Apple After Ericsson Patent Infringement Claims
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If Google and Apple hadn't agreed to stop suing each other, the consumer would suffer.
estimated to be between $250 million and $750 million annually
So Apple is still trying it's tactics to ensure it pays as close to that $250 million mark as possible then.
Well, trouble is, when you are the richest corporation on the planet regularly announcing record profits and earnings, it's a bit hard to swallow when they then refuse to pay for patents they use in every single iOS device they sell!
So I can't see too much leniency being applied to Apple on this, considering everyone else pays for the same patents and Ericsson already has asked the court to set the price, which Apple refused to commit to paying.
I'll laugh if the ITC bans sales of iOS devices haha.
So Apple is still trying it's tactics to ensure it pays as close to that $250 million mark as possible then.
Well, trouble is, when you are the richest corporation on the planet regularly announcing record profits and earnings, it's a bit hard to swallow when they then refuse to pay for patents they use in every single iOS device they sell!
So I can't see too much leniency being applied to Apple on this, considering everyone else pays for the same patents and Ericsson already has asked the court to set the price, which Apple refused to commit to paying.
I'll laugh if the ITC bans sales of iOS devices haha.
when did Samsung license any apple patent and then just refuse to pay because they can't come up with a deal??
It's not the same.
It's completely different. You don't want to pay for a watch that expensive, then don't. But if you're a company that has created standards-based patents and pledged to offer those patents for use under FRAND, and your patents are necessary to be purchased for interoperable networks... and you start gouging one business unfairly... that's completely different.
Also... why the hell does Apple have to pay when they've integrated a chip that has probably also paid Ericsson. Who knows what these companies have been doing lately to try to screw over Apple because of their success.
It's completely different. You don't want to pay for a watch that expensive, then don't. But if you're a company that has created standards-based patents and pledged to offer those patents for use under FRAND, and your patents are necessary to be purchased for interoperable networks... and you start gouging one business unfairly... that's completely different.
Also... why the hell does Apple have to pay when they've integrated a chip that has probably also paid Ericsson. Who knows what these companies have been doing lately to try to screw over Apple because of their success.
estimated to be between $250 million and $750 million annually
So Apple is still trying it's tactics to ensure it pays as close to that $250 million mark as possible then.
Well, trouble is, when you are the richest corporation on the planet regularly announcing record profits and earnings, it's a bit hard to swallow when they then refuse to pay for patents they use in every single iOS device they sell!
So I can't see too much leniency being applied to Apple on this, considering everyone else pays for the same patents and Ericsson already has asked the court to set the price, which Apple refused to commit to paying.
I'll laugh if the ITC bans sales of iOS devices haha.
So you'd happily pay more for a meal than the guy in front of you just because you earn more? You're pretty spesh.
You must have some different news sources. Would you kindly provide links to any information regarding this gouging? I would love to read more about it. Apple is going to pay to licence the patents. Just like they've done in the past. How much is the question.
Just so you know, FRAND doesn't mean everyone pays the same price. Since we don't know what Apple paid previously, it would be pretty hard to say Ericsson is gouging. Further evidence of Ericsson not gouging is they were willing to let the courts set the fee. I'd still like the links if you have them.
----------
If patents actually worked that way, you might have a point. Since they don't, your analogy is not that spech.
Sounds like the patents were about to expire, and Apple headed into the boardroom expecting a quick deal to continue their licenses. But when Apple sat down for negotiations, Ericsson wanted more money for the licenses than before. Apple perplexed, reasoned that no new technologies were created and being asked for- they just wanted the same price as before, and then everyone could go play a few holes of golf and head home in their G5's. Well Ericsson knew they had Apple by the balls, and walked out of the door without making a deal, knowing they could tarnish Apple's name by making this process public- using "fair and reasonable" terminology to steer bias toward Ericsson.
This is all conjecture of course.
Additionally, 1/4 to 3/4 of a BILLION (with a B) per year for these patents sure sounds like an astronomical number for FRAND terms. In 2014, Apple sold ~1/4 of a BILLION (again with a B) iOS devices. Therefore, Ericsson is asking for $1-3 per iOS device sale (assuming Apple sells the same amount, if not more in 2015). That seems a little steep, but what do I know?
This is all conjecture of course.
Additionally, 1/4 to 3/4 of a BILLION (with a B) per year for these patents sure sounds like an astronomical number for FRAND terms. In 2014, Apple sold ~1/4 of a BILLION (again with a B) iOS devices. Therefore, Ericsson is asking for $1-3 per iOS device sale (assuming Apple sells the same amount, if not more in 2015). That seems a little steep, but what do I know?
Explained...
My purpose in making that statement was to form an argument against the original argument to which I was responding. The original poster was saying (paraphrased) that Apple deserves to be "gouged" because they are "gouging" people who are purchasing their watches. The "gouging" part was assumed from the original argument... and perhaps exaggerated to form the point.
"It's not fair to charge Apple a reasonable fee for fair use but it's okay for Apple to charge $10,000 for a watch that's worth between $1,000 to $3,000 at best."
So my point was hypothetical, and not claiming that Apple is being gouged (although I would posit that they are to some degree which is why this is going to court), but responding to the original commenter about how this is different than Apple's "gouging" in that it's completely optional for you to purchase a $10,000 watch, but it's not optional for Apple to use or not use the patents. In that way it's not fair for a company to gouge someone in a required transaction and not gouge others for the same thing. Again, I have no proof either way if that is happening, but I'm thinking in more broad terms of what is fair or not in my opinion.
So I apologize that you didn't understand that line of countering. I may not have made that clear.
You must have some different news sources. Would you kindly provide links to any information regarding this gouging? I would love to read more about it. Apple is going to pay to licence the patents. Just like they've done in the past. How much is the question.
Just so you know, FRAND doesn't mean everyone pays the same price. Since we don't know what Apple paid previously, it would be pretty hard to say Ericsson is gouging. Further evidence of Ericsson not gouging is they were willing to let the courts set the fee. I'd still like the links if you have them.
My purpose in making that statement was to form an argument against the original argument to which I was responding. The original poster was saying (paraphrased) that Apple deserves to be "gouged" because they are "gouging" people who are purchasing their watches. The "gouging" part was assumed from the original argument... and perhaps exaggerated to form the point.
"It's not fair to charge Apple a reasonable fee for fair use but it's okay for Apple to charge $10,000 for a watch that's worth between $1,000 to $3,000 at best."
So my point was hypothetical, and not claiming that Apple is being gouged (although I would posit that they are to some degree which is why this is going to court), but responding to the original commenter about how this is different than Apple's "gouging" in that it's completely optional for you to purchase a $10,000 watch, but it's not optional for Apple to use or not use the patents. In that way it's not fair for a company to gouge someone in a required transaction and not gouge others for the same thing. Again, I have no proof either way if that is happening, but I'm thinking in more broad terms of what is fair or not in my opinion.
So I apologize that you didn't understand that line of countering. I may not have made that clear.
Not sure how they could tarnish Apple by offering a new license based on FRAND terms. Then they offered to let the US Courts decide an amount. Even if the rumored amount is true, Apple would simply get it back by squeezing another vendor's profits by lowering the amount they pay for components. Sort of like they expect to maintain and grow their profit margin while everyone else exists on subsistence volume.
At the end of the day, both Apple and Ericsson are doing what they think is best for their respective companies. It's just business.
There are dozens of RF technologies out there with different trade offs. It is a political game based mostly one what spectrum you can get access to via ITU and FCC regulations. The television VHF analog band was shut down six years ago and we are still in the middle of chopping up old analog channels into wireless service bands.
One thing that is scaring the crap out of legacy broadcast businesses is the quicker than forecast transition from scheduled broadcast to video on demand services like NetFlix, YouTube and others. The current generation of schoolkids are averaging less than four hours a week of viewing schedule broadcast shows. About the only segment that is not suffering the "unplugged" effect is are live sports events.
You're exactly right. I misunderstood the intent of your comment. Apologies.
Bolded from your quote: Ericsson offered FRAND terms on their own. Apple said no. They offered to let the courts make a determination of fees. Apple said no. Apple filed a complaint. Ericsson filed one in return. That's how we got to where we are with court.
The watch is not that expensive, it's a cheap watch with around $850 worth of gold from what I've heard.
I doubt Apple is being gouged, they just hate paying anything. Poor Apple is getting screwed, they've never screwed anyone have they? You're holding it wrong.
Said it before. I'll say it again. This is nothing more than a business negotiation. A loud, public business negotiation.
Not all that different than when Dish Network or Directv get into a public spat with a network and the channel disappears from their systems for a week or two.
Not all that different than when Dish Network or Directv get into a public spat with a network and the channel disappears from their systems for a week or two.
Most of the money for promotion of "patent reform" is Chinese trying to destroy IP domains where anyone can claim from the biggest corporation to the garage entrepreneur.
So someone files a patent and doesn't do anything with it for 17 years, that is fine. It goes public domain and then everyone can run with it. That is why we are seeing VR now with all the Jaron Lanier VPL patents from the 90's expiring.
There "patent reformers" goal is to give nationalized companies the ability to steamroll anyone with an IP claim. Thus they run their overseas factories and build anything they want and sell in the States like they do in the PRC.
I hate companies who try to hurt consumers by getting Apple products banned. There is no place for this in modern society. I hope these actions are stopped long before any of the threats are carried out. It would be terrible for the US and the US economy if iPhones and iPads were banned.
In what world is less than 1% royalty on net sales for essential technology patents deemed steep? I would argue that is on the low side.
I feel that Apple has taked a bad step here - I am almost certain that some people internally are talking to the legal team wondering WTF they are doing.
Hmmmm, unlike some other users on this thread I am not a lawyer deeply involved with this trial so I am in the same "what do I know boat" as you....but...considering what Apple is asking for from other companys (Example: 40$ per Device from Samsung) those 1-3$ seem to be rather low...even taking into account that they are FRAND...
Well they'd better do the right thing and pay what is deemed as fair by the court, but that's not Apple unfortunately.
And so please do tell, how do you know how much everyone else across the planet is paying Ericsson then? How do you know they are charging Apple more? Did I even state anywhere in my comment that Ericsson are deliberately charging Apple more? No I did not.
Also they asked the courts to set a price, Apple refused to state it would accept any price set by the courts, so your comment falls apart on that basis alone.
This is Apples idea of business negotiations, but I hope the ITC ban iOS devices as it's a very stupid way to negotiate I think.
The fact that the ITC is going to investigate Apple in the first instance shows it has already accepted Ericsson's complaint against them as legitimate.
No one can 'appologise' for Apple on this one, every other single manufacture pays for the patents, Apple do not at present, Ericsson asked the courts to set the price, Apple refused to pay any ammount they set.
Last edited: