Perhaps. But also consider that what Apple typically sues for is not "required" technology. So there's a debate as to what is truly more "valuable." Technology that has been created which is essential vs technology which is a brand differentiation.
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
Perhaps. But also consider that what Apple typically sues for is not "required" technology. So there's a debate as to what is truly more "valuable." Technology that has been created which is essential vs technology which is a brand differentiation.
Apple is certainly up there as the top most sued company of recent times. The more you make, the more the vultures you'll find looking for easy scraps.
http://m.indiatimes.com/technology/enterprise/which-is-the-most-sued-company-apple-149467.html
However, this claim is nothing vulture like and is not about a company looking for scraps. So kind of irrelevant to the discussion.
I had the ROKR before I upgraded to the iPhone. Almost forgot about them. I remember always being upset that it would limit me to 100 songs.
You don't know that. No one does. It might be vulture-like or it might not be. One thing is clear. Apple and Ericsson both strongly believe they have a strong case. Otherwise it would've been settled out of court.
Sure. I don't doubt Apple is up there in terms of number of patent litigation - though many of which they have filed themselves. Apple is also one of the top IPR filers.
The OPs statement was the Apple is the most sued company overall, not just in terms of patents. I would wager a company with a longer history of being profitable takes that title - like GE, GM, State Street, Citigroup, JP Morgan, Shell, etc.
Well I guess I am looking at it differently. I don't see it as a vulture case because Apple does owe money to Ericsson for the patents. It's just a question of how much.
To me, if this were a vulture type case, then it would be more frivolous and one party claiming they owed and another claiming they did not.
I'm partially joking, but Apple can't even get wifi right. I'd really hate to see the outcome of that fullblown wireless tech. Apple and patent free really don't belong in the same sentence unless the word antithesis is in there somewhere.Again, I'm partially joking.
OT: This seems less an issue of infringement and more a price negotiation. We know Apple is using the tech, it's just a matter of how much are they going to pay for it.
Yeah I know the issue in this article doesn't quite relate to what I was saying. I'm just frustrated that it's 2015 and we don't have unlimited internet everywhere yet. But yeah I agree, wireless isn't exactly their strong suit.
Yeah, I should have known I would get some flack for posting that. I don't expect them to, I just thought that widespread internet everywhere would greatly enhance their ability to sell internet connected products, so maybe they would want to promote the adoption quickly by making it free, or at least very cheap. I'm a shareholder and fairly conservative financially, so yeah I don't expect them to give something to us for free. It was more pie in the sky thinking for being frustrated with the current state of affairs.
As for Apple benefiting from not supporting legacy devices or technologyApple has never been afraid to leave behind old technology. They've done that time and time again, which often pisses off everybody. Many people say they do it too soon, but they're instrumental in the industry to pushing things forward. I'd say most of that benefit is because they've actively worked towards that benefit, not just because they were late to the phone game or anything else.
A common misconception is that the broadband chipmakers have paid all the royalties already. In most cases, this is not done because then you could OVERPAY for features that you're not using.
E.g. today's broadband chips can handle almost any cellular protocol, plus GPS, WiFi, Bluetooth, you name it. If I build a remote data transmitting station, I only want to pay for base GSM, not CDMA, WCDMA, LTE and everything else.
More importantly, by keeping the licenses at a higher level, the inventor maintains a better defensive arsenal against companies that wish to sue over other IP.
FRAND does not mean the same rate as everyone else. It means similar opportunities must be presented for similar buyers.
Just like any purchase, rates depend on things like license quantity, length of contract, the buyer's credit rating, willingness to cross license, etc.
In some past FRAND cases, like with Motorola and Samsung patents, there had never been any license done without cross-licensing. So there was no historical cash base rate to give Apple.
For decades, ETSI cellular FRAND technology has been licensed based on the wholesale price of the target device. This was done partly to encourage phone makers to come out with lower priced devices. It worked, too, and thus we have the huge worldwide infrastructure and market that newcomers like Apple have made billions of dollars from.
A phone that sells for $35 with a profit margin of just $5, only has to pay $1 of that in royalties. OTOH, a $400 phone making $200 in profit, pays more like $20+. Note btw, that Apple claims that Foxconn is the real iPhone maker, and thus often only pays royalties based on the ~$240 Apple pays Foxconn per unit. This means they pay less than others already.
--
This royalty basis is the essence of Apple's current dispute with Ericsson. Apple argues that royalties should be based on the smallest saleable patent-using component. In other words, the broadband chip.
While a couple of lower judges have used the "smallest saleable" concept to come up with royalties, the higher courts and the DOJ have said they do not want to make it a hard and fast rule, for multiple reasons.
First, consider that silicon chips are constantly dropping in price. Should the IP be valued less because a physical incarnation later costs less to make? Obviously not. An idea worth $10 is still worth $10 even if the chip later costs less to make in quantity.
Secondly, the courts / DOJ have noted that there are plenty of situations where even a tiny patent has a huge effect on saleability. E.g. consider if someone invented a ten cent chip that made a smartphone's battery last for two weeks. The value of that chip is hugely more than its cost or how much of the phone it physically makes up. The same concept goes for desirable features like LTE. (It's also the argument Apple used for its own rates.)
Moreover, the DOJ agreed long ago to this kind of royalty base:
And since then, Congressional inquiries and ITC decisions have also noted how common this practice is:
Still and all, Ericsson has filed suit to let a court decide the rates. Apple has always avoided previous such offers by Nokia and Motorola, probably because they fear that a jury might decide Apple owes more than they pay now.
TL;DR - Apple wants to pay LESS than the historical FRAND rate that everyone else has paid for decades. Ericsson is willing to let the courts set the rate.
I hope that something non-spectrum based will come along, such as quantum entangled bit transfer or something. Yeah again, pie-in-the-sky thinking, but I think possible in the next 15 years.
As for streaming, I can't even remember the last time I watched something live on TV. Maybe the World Series? It has probably been years otherwiseunless it's a sporting event at a friend or family member's house. The sport I care most about is football, so I stream that. Also streamed the Royals while they were making their playoff run, and then either streamed or watched the World Series live. Too soon. Anyway, yeah once sports switch there will be no need. I hardly have any friends who pay for cable, and my younger sisters stream. I know I've talked to my interns about it before, and those who live off campus definitely stream.
Not exactly what I meant. What I was getting at is that in 2007, Apple brought to market a phone. Since then, they have taken the same ride as many other manufacturers in terms of advancing technology. However, Apple has only had to worry about the iPhone (for example) and no pre-2007 devices. Other manufacturers had/has a legacy of devices and tech to support (IE - non smart-phones) I am sure kdarling can explain it better.
Does Apple still support old iPods though? They tend to just drop things and move on to what is better. Those companies could have stopped making those legacy phones, but the main problem was that their smart phones weren't good enough to compete with the iPhone so they kept with their bread and butter for far too long. I understand what you're saying, but I think much of it is their own fault.
There's still a big enough market for non-smartphones though.
These manufacturers also had/have a lot more input into the device for their network.
When I worked for one of the major players, I was amazed to see their product roadmap but also how long (at that time) it would take for ONE phone to be released because of all the back and forth it would take to get everyone on board. Apple had a lot less of that working with their business model.
Quantum manipulation have been the subject of research for over fifty years now. The closest done so far has been modulation of gravity waves with very limited laboratory duplication. My take is that we will not see that for a long time and multi-band, spread spectrum is what will take off next.
This.........
Pure and simple, this is Apple's idea of pricing negotiations, and it will have to pay no matter what. it will be interesting to see just how much patience Ericsson has. But so far it is biding it's time, letting the ITC handle it's side.
Also I do not consider 1 to 3 dollars per device for a license to use technology Ericsson invented and developed and pushed to market and ended up being dominant in as expensive, not when you consider it's essential technology to make a phone work as a phone and Apple marks up it's devices by 70% or more.
"Over time, East Texas became known as a place very friendly to patent plaintiffs and unfriendly to patent defendants, particularly out-of-state or foreign tech companies. " http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/east-texas-courts-are-back-on-top-for-patent-lawsuits/
There's a reason Ericcson filed in East Texas. Exactly the same reason Apple filed in California.
Well said.
----------
Apple doesn't have to use other people's patents and services either, except they wouldn't have anything, probably not even a business.
I love how most in here have already decided the US ITC will rule against Apple. Let's wait, eh?
I'll have to do some research on that technology but it sounds familiar. I thought I read something a few months ago about how they made some big advances with the quantum stuff, and I'm hoping that with more powerful computers we can model things better and perhaps that will give us better insight into how things work. However from what I've read, it seems like quantum computers are more likely before long-distance communication, with graphene based systems being an intermediate step between silicon and quantum. Yeah 15 years is probably too soon but looking at how we went from big beige boxes with dial-up in 2000 to decent high-speed LTE coverage on fast computers in our pocket in 2015 I'm hopeful that things will continue to rapidly improve.
I love how most in here have already decided the US ITC will rule against Apple. Let's wait, eh?
I think the USITC has to rule against Apple unless it can be proven that Apple doesn't use the tech. But it's a long process and Ericsson runs the risk of losing out in the long run. With Google's appeal of the Robart ruling going to court recently, I believe Apple is following Microsoft's route and challenging what they feel are exorbitant fees for FRAND tech.
I think the parties will ultimately settle; however, IMMHO, Apple has more to gain.