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
Actually, your example is completely off the mark. There is no singular price for the licensing of patents, because fee is based on varying factors (sales volume, price, ...).
The guy in front of you actually gets the license to sell you meals for whatever he wants for the same amount you would pay for your single meal. I guess you're okay with that.
----------
It is sort of funny.
They cannot pay Ericsson for LTE/Bluetooth technologies, the basis of all iOS devices, while they easily shuffle out 4-12x times of cash for Beats and those two clowns attached to it.
If you were taking me to court, you know what, while I still had the option to appeal, I too would refuse to state I would accept any price set by the courts. Damn straight I'd refuse to my dying breath. "Hey fellas, know what, I'll pay whatever this hick "United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas" says I should pay without taking it further. They sound like the ultimate authority." FFS.
Where was this indignation when Apple sued others and wanted their products banned. Ohhhhh riiiiiiiight. Apple.
BTW, this is the second description you got wrong. Maybe you should read up on the details of the issue.
What are you thoughts on the actual topic of the OP? Who do you think is right and why? That would help further the discussion. I'm interested in your take.
As in Apple doing it's best to negotiate what is fair?
The investigation can be real easy:
Questions to Ericsson:
What are you charging everybody else?
What was the last agreed upon price with Apple?
What is the increase percentage and what cost increases have you had to justify that increase?
Unfortunately both parties use their inability to negotiate a successful outcome for both, they'll have to keep the courts busy to learn what is considered fair.
Apple isn't saying it isn't paying, it just wants a "fair" price , i.e. whatever Ericsson charges other companies or what is considered fair.
Please let me know what I got wrong and I will. I followed the links and they led to an Ericcson press release mentioning that particular court. My "take" would be I'd certainly take this as far as I could. I seriously doubt you're interested in it though.
If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't have asked. As to what you got wrong... the meal analogy since patents don't work like that. Everyone doesn't pay the same price. You have the events twisted in the case. Basically Ericsson is asking for binding arbitration to speed the process and remove the specter of price gouging.
Apple filed a complaint first. Ericsson only filed a complaint after trying to negotiate based on FRAND terms, then offered to let the courts decide the fees. Apple said no to both, claiming Ericsson is asking too much.
Based on the numbers from the OP Ericsson is asking between $1-3 per device. Is that too much? I don't know. But if you put it in the perspective of how much Apple was trying to get from Samsung, it can't be considered too much. All of this is just contract negotiations. Apple has to license the patents. The only question is how much they will have to pay.
You Guys Are Hilarious
Apple sues Microsoft because they wanted to be the only company with a GUI-driven operating system ... even though they themselves did not invent the GUI-driven operating system. Their goal was not to license the tech but to stop everyone else from using it entirely.
Apple sues Samsung (as part of their proxy war against Google) because they wanted to be the only company with touchscreen-driven phones ... even though they themselves did not invent touchscreen-driven phones. Again, their goal was not licensing but keeping others out of the market.
And all of you are OK with this.
But when Ericsson sues Apple over vital technology that they actually invented like Bluetooth, 2G, 4G you guys believe that Apple should pay nothing, or as little as Apple desires to pay? When Samsung claimed that such things as rounded corners, size of icons, button placement etc. weren't necessary and integral features to smartphones - and their sales of hundreds of millions of Galaxy S3, S4, Note 2, Note 3 and Note 4 phones that they sold after being forced to abandon their "too much like Apple" designs due to lawsuits before going back to the iPhone clones with the S6 after Apple ended litigation threats proves that they aren't - you all claimed that Samsung was shameless with unmitigated gall, but Apple can claim that mobile phones will work fine without LTE and other mobile phone Internet access technology and standards, you all nod in agreement?
For the record: A) Ericsson did not try to charge Apple more. Instead, Apple tried to get Ericsson to accept LESS. B) Ericsson is not charging Apple more than everyone else. Apple is trying to pay LESS than everyone else.
So Ericsson didn't change; Apple did.
Why? Because back in 2008 when Apple entered the licensing agreements, no one knew whether the iPhone would succeed at all, let alone become the single most profitable and influential product on the planet. So Apple needed Ericsson's tech in order to have any hope of competing against the likes of Nokia, Blackberry and other established players in the market, because a phone without their technology would not have even been able to achieve reliable or high speed internet access. But now that the iPhone is the biggest, baddest device on the block, Apple wants to make the argument that it doesn't NEED Ericsson's tech nearly as much; or that Ericsson's mobile WiFi tech isn't nearly as important to the iPhone's success as is, say, iOS 8, the App Store, fingerprint scanners etc.
The flaw in that argument: without mobile wi-fi pretty much none of that stuff works. It would be like giving bargain basement compact car tires to a high performance sports car. Without Ericsson' tech, Apple may not have even seen mobile phones as a worthwhile business to get into in the first place. Or if they had, they certainly would not be nearly as successful, as it is the fast, reliable mobile Internet that caused people to buy iPhones instead of Windows laptops to begin with. If you are going to make the argument that people are spending $700 - along with data plans of $60 a line - merely to make calls instead of having an entertainment/productivity device that fits in your pocket and is 100% functional wherever you go ... let's see Apple try that argument before the ITC.
Ericsson is in a better legal standing here. Ericsson's position is:
A) we want to charge Apple the same rate for the same tech that Apple uses in the same way that we charged them in the past
B) we want to charge Apple the same amount that we charge everybody else for the same tech that everyone else uses in the same way
Apple's position:
A) we want to pay LESS for the same tech that we use in the same way because THANKS TO THIS TECH we sell a lot more iPhones than we used to
B) we want to pay LESS for the same tech than everyone else who uses it in the same way pays because we sell a lot more phones than they do
Apple's argument is that they are being punished for their success by being forced to pay the same rate as everyone else, so that they should pay a lower rate that will allow Ericsson to earn the same from Apple as they do from, say, Motorola. Ericsson's counterargument is that the patent has the same value whether you are a tiny company selling 100,000 units like Pebble, a medium sized company selling 10 million units like HTC or a huge company selling 100,000 million units like Apple. Now companies can voluntarily enter into terms like the ones that Apple wants if they agree to it, but Ericsson's terms - charging everyone the same - is standard. Apple wants to use its success as an excuse from deviating from the standard, but the problem is that they rely on Ericsson's tech in order to have their success. Apple would have a stronger case if there was an alternate, competing mobile wi-fi option, but since there isn't they are stuck.
But it makes no sense because without mobile Wi-Fi tech that Ericsson provides, A) Apple would not sell a lot more iPhones than they did in 2008 and B) they certainly would not sell more phones than a competitor who uses Ericsson's technology to provide the fast, stable Wi-Fi that iPhones would LACK without it.
I really do not expect a court to side with Apple just because they sell so many iPhones. Especially since Ericsson's tech is a key reason why so many people find buying an iPhone to be preferable to lugging around a laptop everywhere they go. Is it the only reason? No. Is it the main reason? No. But it is a vital reason, one that the product simply could not exist as a practical device without. That is why the courts are more likely to rule that Ericsson's patents are worth MORE than what Apple is paying for them and not less.
And incidentally: keep in mind that Ericsson only wants what amounts to a few cents per iPhone or iPad sold in return for their vital hardware and protocol inventions. By contrast, Apple demanded that Samsung pay them $40 for every smartphone or tablet sold mostly because they "looked similar." Samsung of course refused to pay, but Apple did force HTC - who doesn't have the lawyers to fight it out like Samsung - to pay much, much more in licensing fees then Ericsson is demanding from Apple, and this is one of the reasons why HTC has so much trouble making a profit, despite the fact that HTC actually went out and innovated their own hardware and UI designs. As a matter of fact, Samsung was paying MICROSOFT more money - about $1 billion a year - than Apple was paying Ericsson - from $250 million to $750 million a year - over patents that Samsung later decided to be absolute garbage and simply stopped paying. Microsoft threatened to sue Samsung to force the royalty payments to continue but didn't follow through because they themselves knew that their patents had little value.
But hey, if Apple wants to develop their own mobile Wi-Fi tech and get all of the carriers on the planet to adopt it, they can feel free. Otherwise, they should just pay up.
Apple sues Microsoft because they wanted to be the only company with a GUI-driven operating system ... even though they themselves did not invent the GUI-driven operating system. Their goal was not to license the tech but to stop everyone else from using it entirely.
Apple sues Samsung (as part of their proxy war against Google) because they wanted to be the only company with touchscreen-driven phones ... even though they themselves did not invent touchscreen-driven phones. Again, their goal was not licensing but keeping others out of the market.
And all of you are OK with this.
But when Ericsson sues Apple over vital technology that they actually invented like Bluetooth, 2G, 4G you guys believe that Apple should pay nothing, or as little as Apple desires to pay? When Samsung claimed that such things as rounded corners, size of icons, button placement etc. weren't necessary and integral features to smartphones - and their sales of hundreds of millions of Galaxy S3, S4, Note 2, Note 3 and Note 4 phones that they sold after being forced to abandon their "too much like Apple" designs due to lawsuits before going back to the iPhone clones with the S6 after Apple ended litigation threats proves that they aren't - you all claimed that Samsung was shameless with unmitigated gall, but Apple can claim that mobile phones will work fine without LTE and other mobile phone Internet access technology and standards, you all nod in agreement?
For the record: A) Ericsson did not try to charge Apple more. Instead, Apple tried to get Ericsson to accept LESS. B) Ericsson is not charging Apple more than everyone else. Apple is trying to pay LESS than everyone else.
So Ericsson didn't change; Apple did.
Why? Because back in 2008 when Apple entered the licensing agreements, no one knew whether the iPhone would succeed at all, let alone become the single most profitable and influential product on the planet. So Apple needed Ericsson's tech in order to have any hope of competing against the likes of Nokia, Blackberry and other established players in the market, because a phone without their technology would not have even been able to achieve reliable or high speed internet access. But now that the iPhone is the biggest, baddest device on the block, Apple wants to make the argument that it doesn't NEED Ericsson's tech nearly as much; or that Ericsson's mobile WiFi tech isn't nearly as important to the iPhone's success as is, say, iOS 8, the App Store, fingerprint scanners etc.
The flaw in that argument: without mobile wi-fi pretty much none of that stuff works. It would be like giving bargain basement compact car tires to a high performance sports car. Without Ericsson' tech, Apple may not have even seen mobile phones as a worthwhile business to get into in the first place. Or if they had, they certainly would not be nearly as successful, as it is the fast, reliable mobile Internet that caused people to buy iPhones instead of Windows laptops to begin with. If you are going to make the argument that people are spending $700 - along with data plans of $60 a line - merely to make calls instead of having an entertainment/productivity device that fits in your pocket and is 100% functional wherever you go ... let's see Apple try that argument before the ITC.
Ericsson is in a better legal standing here. Ericsson's position is:
A) we want to charge Apple the same rate for the same tech that Apple uses in the same way that we charged them in the past
B) we want to charge Apple the same amount that we charge everybody else for the same tech that everyone else uses in the same way
Apple's position:
A) we want to pay LESS for the same tech that we use in the same way because THANKS TO THIS TECH we sell a lot more iPhones than we used to
B) we want to pay LESS for the same tech than everyone else who uses it in the same way pays because we sell a lot more phones than they do
Apple's argument is that they are being punished for their success by being forced to pay the same rate as everyone else, so that they should pay a lower rate that will allow Ericsson to earn the same from Apple as they do from, say, Motorola. Ericsson's counterargument is that the patent has the same value whether you are a tiny company selling 100,000 units like Pebble, a medium sized company selling 10 million units like HTC or a huge company selling 100,000 million units like Apple. Now companies can voluntarily enter into terms like the ones that Apple wants if they agree to it, but Ericsson's terms - charging everyone the same - is standard. Apple wants to use its success as an excuse from deviating from the standard, but the problem is that they rely on Ericsson's tech in order to have their success. Apple would have a stronger case if there was an alternate, competing mobile wi-fi option, but since there isn't they are stuck.
But it makes no sense because without mobile Wi-Fi tech that Ericsson provides, A) Apple would not sell a lot more iPhones than they did in 2008 and B) they certainly would not sell more phones than a competitor who uses Ericsson's technology to provide the fast, stable Wi-Fi that iPhones would LACK without it.
I really do not expect a court to side with Apple just because they sell so many iPhones. Especially since Ericsson's tech is a key reason why so many people find buying an iPhone to be preferable to lugging around a laptop everywhere they go. Is it the only reason? No. Is it the main reason? No. But it is a vital reason, one that the product simply could not exist as a practical device without. That is why the courts are more likely to rule that Ericsson's patents are worth MORE than what Apple is paying for them and not less.
And incidentally: keep in mind that Ericsson only wants what amounts to a few cents per iPhone or iPad sold in return for their vital hardware and protocol inventions. By contrast, Apple demanded that Samsung pay them $40 for every smartphone or tablet sold mostly because they "looked similar." Samsung of course refused to pay, but Apple did force HTC - who doesn't have the lawyers to fight it out like Samsung - to pay much, much more in licensing fees then Ericsson is demanding from Apple, and this is one of the reasons why HTC has so much trouble making a profit, despite the fact that HTC actually went out and innovated their own hardware and UI designs. As a matter of fact, Samsung was paying MICROSOFT more money - about $1 billion a year - than Apple was paying Ericsson - from $250 million to $750 million a year - over patents that Samsung later decided to be absolute garbage and simply stopped paying. Microsoft threatened to sue Samsung to force the royalty payments to continue but didn't follow through because they themselves knew that their patents had little value.
But hey, if Apple wants to develop their own mobile Wi-Fi tech and get all of the carriers on the planet to adopt it, they can feel free. Otherwise, they should just pay up.
Last edited:
Lmao apple make the tech patent free. Sure...
Only if there are more parties involved in the creation would something from apple be patent free like the new MacBook connector that was a group effort.
Fair to whom? Apple isn't exactly known for being fair in negotiations with vendors. In fact the opposite is true.
Irrelevant and confidential. They are asking for FRAND terms.
Irrelevant again. That was 2008. From everything I've read they are asking for fair and reasonable. Maybe that first contract was less than fair and reasonable.
$5 billion per year in R&D and LTE. Remember they're asking for FRAND terms; they aren't asking for $40 per device (like Apple did). Based on the numbers from the OP they are asking $1-3 per.
You're smart enough to know that other companies are not paying a flat rate. Those rates are negotiated separately. Someone could be paying $1 per device and another could be paying $5 per. Isn't it more likely Apple is looking to pay the lowest price possible? A determination based on FRAND terms would be considered fair, imo. Apple doesn't want that. To be clear, I don't fault Apple for wanting to pay the least amount possible. It's business. I also don't fault Ericsson for wanting to get more value for their IP. Again, it's business.
If that's Apple's fear (paying whatever a "hick" court decides) then they should shut up and settle with Ericsson. BTW, the US courts are a little more sophisticated in these matters than you intimate. Well, at least that's the claim of my good friend who teaches IP law and is now in the process of training all or most of the US Federal judges in the nuances of these matters.
There need to be special cases for technology. It shouldn't be illegal for Samsung to rip off Apple with touch screen phones. The way the screen moves shouldn't be a patent.
does this relationship stem from the original Sony-Ericsson phone that had iTunes on it?
For those who don't know what i'm talking about here.
http://www.techhive.com/article/123126/article.html
For those who don't know what i'm talking about here.
http://www.techhive.com/article/123126/article.html
Here's where you're wrong. Because my posts have less to do with what you THINK they are about and more about providing facts or truths about the matter vs supporting one organization over another.
But nice try.
I'm guessing there's a metric ******** of patent payments wrapped up in any device that's brought to market. The great unwashed will never ever know these details so we, both you and I, are in no position to say what is fair. $3 on a 1k device doesn't sound like much but is Ericcson taking its fair share? I don't know, you don't know. I'll wait till there's a published court ruling to decide.
As for the meal analogy, I was responding to the tone of the post I quoted. Re-reading it I might have been unfair to the poster, but I don't care how big a company is, they still have the right to take every single legal avenue available. If it turns out they have an unfair advantage then that's a problem with the system. Apple is a company, not a charity.
And as for binding arbitration, I would never, EVER, accept that till there were no more options for appeal. EVER. You can't say "Apple said no" to letting the courts decide and equate that to Apple refusing to give up the right to appeal. They are so far from being the same thing it's not funny.
I want this to work its way through the courts, and if it turns out they've been a bunch if dicks I hope Apple get all the books thrown at them. That's my take.
I'm not trying anything. I've seen your posts in threads where the situation was reversed. Not sure why you think I just say things without any proof like the people you DON'T call out do?
In threads where the situation is reversed, you are correct you provide facts and truths. In this thread all you're doing is calling people out.
I don't have to try anything when the proof is as easy as clicking your name and checking your posts. If you don't want to be consistent don't get offended when people notice.
But don't you see their logic? Banning Apple products hurts all consumers, banning other products helps all consumers by encouraging them to join the cult and know the true inner peace of being an apple user.
Surely it is relevant though? If a patent is considered standard, then would Fair, Reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms not be equal for everyone?
For example, how is one company paying $1 per device and another paying $5 dollar per device fair? How is wanting to take more from a hugely successful company than you do an average player at best non-discriminatory?
If it's for the companies to negotiate terms on an individual basis, what is the exact point of FRAND? There seems none.
And for those calling out Apple over this, because they're happily sued others. There is a huge difference here between going to court to agree a fair rate of payment (Apple have never said they're not willing to pay!) and going to court because something is blatantly infringing upon your technology without permission and blatantly mimicking your products to capitalise upon their success!
It is weird? Maybe they think by taking it to court they will get a better price and then back pay based on the court imposed price. That seems like the only strategy that makes sense here, but even that seems like a gamble, because they could end up with a higher price or even with a lower price they could have to pay a fine or interest on the back pay.