Slashdot Mirror
Apple Demands $40 Per Samsung Phone For 5 Software Patents
An anonymous reader writes "Apple and Samsung couldn't agree on a patent cross-license even though their CEOs met recently. What could be the reason (or one of the reasons) is that Apple is asking for obscenely high patent royalties. At the March 31 trial an Apple-hired expert will present to a California jury (already the third jury trial in this dispute) a damages claim of $40 per device (phone or tablet) for just a handful of software patents. The patents are related to, but don't cover all aspects and elements of, functionalities like slide-to-unlock, autocorrect, data synchronization, unified search and the famous tap-on-phone-number-to-dial feature. Google says there are 250,000 patentable inventions in a smartphone. On average, Apple wants $8 per patent per device. That would add a patent licensing bill of $2 million to each gadget. So Apple and Samsung will be back to court again later this month."
Most of this thing is just common sense technological progress. If Apple didn't come up with it, someone else inevitably would have. There wasn't any spark of genius required.
Apple are acting like total cunts.
Whether they're in the right or wrong, under current patent law, they're still acting like total cunts.
No comment on how that compares to their customers.
So if their are 250,000 patentable inventions in a phone, and that phone retails for $600, by my math each of those inventions are worth about a quarter of a cent per device. So it looks like Apple has a justifiable claim to 1.25 cents per phone.
for Samsung to grind Apple's production to a halt with lack of parts.
So how many LOC are in a smartphone? (I know, some are hardware patents, but let's assume almost all are software). Does every class/method/function get a patent?
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
This reminds me of the YouTube video "Apple kills Star Trek".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
close to the truth, and utterly funny if you haven't seen it yet.
So it's pretty obvious that those parents aren't worth that much, I can only think this is some sort of legal strategy.
You're not allowed to patent an obvious advancement.
But patent law is offensively fucked up. Basically, it's a war of money. Both sides line up patent lawyers (one of a very few formally recognized specializations for attorneys in the U.S.) and burn money until someone gives up. This case will almost certainly wind up before the Supreme Court eventually - unless Samsung folds and pays to make apple go away. Fortunately, Samsung is sufficiently profitable that it can saturate the process with more money than required and write it off as a margin cost for continuing to compete in the smartphone market.
Apple's patents are offensively bad. There *is* enough there to require a jury verdict to nullify them rather than a summary ruling by the Court (preferably one where the foreman doesn't lie about having a personal stake in proving that software patents are nearly always valid - like the last trial between these two) but in a sane system of patents there would be no question that "slide to unlock" is a variation of long established design concepts - i.e. a latch.
Is that seriously a thing? How can that be patent-able?
Is there some other way to dial, other than to tap on the touch screen?
Those that can't compete, litigate :)
Well, actually, there's another option, which Samsung opted for - infringe the patents and then drag the issue out in court and wage a PR war of misinformation. Most companies, however, either agree to license the patents or, if they can't reach an agreeable rate with the patent holder, design around the patents instead
Bias much?
I guess the bias the other way is roughtly that Samsung rightfully determined that the patents were obvious non-innovations that should never have been issued a patent in the first place and infringed on them knowing that the courts would see the patents fall once someone actually challenged them.
The truth is somewhere in the middle I expect.
Apple's patents that they are enforcing aren't FRAND. They are under no obligation to license them to anyone.
And if they never should have been issued patents for them in the first place? What then? Apparently to the courts we must go.
Now, feel free to mod me down since I'm clearly an Apple fanboy despite speaking the truth and I've dared to impugn the honour of Samsung...
Oh the hell with that, I doubt Samsung has much honour to impugn but... swipe to unlock et al shouldn't even be patents.
Most companies, however, either agree to license the patents or, if they can't reach an agreeable rate with the patent holder, design around the patents instead.
If one company owned patents on inventions that turned out to be essential to the difference between dumbphones and smartphones and declined to license them, how many customers would be happy with only one smartphone maker?
Samsungs reaction here is the only sane one. When someone (apple) attacks you over trivial things like "implementing a latch in software" for big money while they are simultaneously using hardware you invented and patented for mere pennies.. that isn't exactly 'fair'.
Apple is the real shit-stirrer here, everybody was playing relatively nicely until they decided to fire the nukes at everyone in terms of software patents.
If apple is allowed to get away with their bullshit, who will be in the firing line next?
That software can even be patented at all is ridiculous.
I'd cease all production of the chips that Apple buys. See if you can find a new fab on short order.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
If it's the "data tapping" patent I'm thinking of, it's about recognizing a phone number in a document and making it clickable.
No, you are completely wrong.
FRAND patents are not of little value, and are not normally licensed for little value.
They are normally part of cross-licensing agreements between companies, with small associated payments to make the contracts binding, but primarily they are used as a technology trading base.
Apple of course refuses to participate in the trading.
They say 'license your FRAND patents to us for the same as everyone else, and then we will screw you to the wall for our patents'.
FRAND owners say "WTF? those fees are for crosslicensing agreements, without that, you need to pay real money'
Apple says "Then we wont pay you anything, and since we appear to have the US legal system all tied up, piss off, in fact, we will sue you over a bunch
of patents we never invented, just added the words 'on a capacitive touch screen' to the end of! ha!"
And if you think thats good business, well.... time will tell. I wonder how well Apple will do when the next round of critical infrastructure wireless patents are no longer FRAND, and Apple hold no cards.
Kill the meaning of FRAND patents is a standardisation disaster, and a short term cash grab by Apple to the detriment of everyone else, including their own users.
I finished a book a while ago that I think really illustrates why software patents are objectionable, and what's wrong with the patent system as a whole, today.
The book is "The Last Lone Inventor" by Evan I. Schwartz. It describes the work of Philo T. Farnsworth to create television. During the time that Philo was working on television, many scientists employed by the radio industry were also working to develop usable video transmission technology, with inferior designs. Most of their work involved mechanical television cameras that used spinning wheels. Philo's invention was all electronic. It scanned, transmitted, and displayed a line at a time to create a two dimensional image. This remained the fundamental technology in displays at least until LCD and plasma screens replaced CRT.
Now, while many other patent related problems were well demonstrated by the book, the one most clearly related to software patents pertains to the intent of the patent system. Patents are not, as they are often regarded today, a recognition that an inventor owns his ideas. Ideas are not property, and have never been recognized as such. Patents are a recognition that some inventions rely on information that isn't obvious. Some inventions require the inventors to test and improve their inventions for years before they can be brought to market. Underlying the patent system is the belief that this work will not be done, that inventors will not fund years of experimentation and development, if they don't believe that they'll be able to sell that invention to recover the costs of its development. In a free market, competitors will be able to offer the same invention at a lower cost than its inventor, because the competitors did not have to invest in the development of the invention. Patents attempt to create an incentive to invent by ensuring that inventors who do invest in development are given a limited monopoly on their invention.
However, patents aren't free. It is not enough for the inventor to merely offer his invention to the market to receive patent protection on it. An inventor is also required to completely disclose how the invention works. After the patent period expires, the public must be able to continue using the invention independent of the inventor.
That is the fundamental purpose of the patent system: to benefit the public by providing it with the knowledge required to reproduce the invention. It is the public's benefit, not the inventors, that is the goal of the patent system. The inventor's benefit is simply the means to achieve that goal. The Constitution of the United States reflects this:
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries
Philo's work was exactly the progress of science that the patent system was intended to promote. His invention required tremendous investment to create. His idea was sound, but a great deal of experimentation was required to create a working device. Other highly skilled scientists were not able to create a working device on their own, or created working devices of significantly lesser quality. The exact properties of the materials and components used in the camera and television set were not previously known, and were discovered through Philo T. Farnsworth's experimentation and development.
The invention of television was worthy of patent protection.
Software development isn't like the invention of television in ANY way.
Software development does involve testing cycles, but otherwise almost never involves the kind of experimentation involved in the invention of television, because the exact properties of computer operations are previously known. Computers perform a limited number of operations, exactly according to a specification, and exactly the same every time. Because the behavior of the system is known in advance, the uncertainty inherent in real world material inventions does not exist in software development.
Some time ago, someone commenting on yet another patent conflict between Apple and Samsung suggested that Apple was obligated to defend its patents for fear of losing them. My understanding of this premise is that if a company owns a patent on some technology and does not defend itself against any potential forms of patent infringement, then that company could potentially lose that patent. Under these conditions, a company would be given incentive to fight any and all things that even resemble patent infringement just as a way to insure that they will never lose their patents. Is there any legitimacy to this claim? If so, this would simply say that patent law needed to change (which it surely does regardless), not that Apple's behavior needs to change.
I wonder what Apple would charge if Samsung agreed to using square corners instead.
I had an account before, but I've forgotten the password. That beta site is awful.
Anonymous Coward here with the latest.
Slashdot crowd quickly forgets the past as Beta takes over their website slowly creeping into everything.
In 1998 - 2006, I used a series of different non-Windows Mobile based devices from imported Nokia phones to Palm to some very creative Japanese imports, but Apple redefined the way it worked with the iPhone in 2007.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not crediting them with the app revolution or a lot of very important things that have happened. Still, Google was working towards a Blackberry style device until Apple released the iPhone and rewrote the book overnight.
With that said, software patents are the only thing I can think of worse than Beta so the $40 is entirely unreasonable.
Aren't patents supposed to cover "not obvious" things? What, are Samsung phones not supposed to sync data? TAPPING on a phone number to CALL it? Simply amazing. I don't suppose anyone at Apple ever thought the money spent waging war against Samsung would be better spent...oh, I don't know...making better products?
You can dance if you want to.
Kill the meaning of FRAND patents is a standardisation disaster, and a short term cash grab by Apple to the detriment of everyone else, including their own users.
It's not like you sprinkle magic pixie dust on a patent and it becomes a "FRAND patent," or that certain categories of patents are "FRAND patents."
What you're referring to as "FRAND patents" are those for which the owner has previously pledged (typically to a standard-setting organization of which they're a member) to license the patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Courts tend to enforce that sort of promise when it's actually time to negotiate the rate of the license and the patent holder and licensee have a different understanding of what "fair" and "reasonable" mean.
If a patent holder does not make that kind of commitment, the patent is not subject to FRAND licensing terms (or, as you call it, a "FRAND patent"). Full stop.
If Apple is holding other patent owners to their FRAND licensing commitments, but is licensing its non-FRAND patents on non-FRAND terms, that doesn't "kill the meaning of FRAND patents." Whether you like Apple's chosen patent monetization strategy is a different issue altogether, but there's no need to make stuff up in the process of making that point.
Wow, someone who wrote something sensible.
Also what Apple is asking for is DAMAGES for wilful infringement. Damages are typical MUCH higher than licensing would be so as to discourage wilful patent infringement.
and I'm back to college to study law. Because the only people who are really making money in those whole shameful mess are the lawyers. And why shouldn't they? This level of stupidity and greed should be taxed.
morcego
I'm 3D printing my next phone!!! Bahaha!!
I guess the bias the other way is roughtly that Samsung rightfully determined that the patents were obvious non-innovations that should never have been issued a patent in the first place and infringed on them knowing that the courts would see the patents fall once someone actually challenged them.
that is not how things should work. If you disagree you go to court first or license then fight them in court or you avoid the patented methods altogether. Intentionally infringing because you don't think they should have the patents is moronic and opens yourself to untold potential liability costs (as they are now experiencing).
FRAND patents are not of little value, and are not normally licensed for little value. They are normally part of cross-licensing agreements between companies
That doesn't make any sense at all, patents licensed under FRAND terms need to be non-discriminatory as that's what the ND stands for. Typically that means that if you sign an agreement and pay $0.20/unit, anybody can make something with a HDMI port or something like that. Cross licensing agreements are the opposite of that, you get to use my patents if I get to use yours. If you don't have any interesting patents, no agreement for you so they're discriminatory and because the patents involved are unique the cost is not uniform either. In short, you don't have any clue what you're talking about and apparently neither do the mods.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Apple can wish in the bucket on the left and crap in the bucket on the right. The first one to fill up to the top line gets fed back to them.
Cook approved the loss of local sync for iOS
devices in Mavericks. That is such a clueless
shithead move it boggles my mind. I sold all my Apple
stock when I learned about this.
Now Cook is wasting company resources litigating instead of
competing based on merit. I guess this is what can be expected
from a bean counter.
I used to like Apple and Apple products. Now I can't WAIT
to get rid of absolutely every last Apple product I own.
My next phone will be a plain old "dumb" phone. I've had enough of
being led around by the nose by the cunts who lead companies like
Apple and Microsoft.
and burn down the patent office. Problem solved.
I had several good friends who were Palm executive level, including head of UI team. Palm was dumbstruck by the apple interface, it's fluidity and ease of use.
United States is the world develop rules of the game, good protection of the interests of the United States,Samsung has become the apple of cows, there is a need when squeezed.
News: I've just patented stupidity. I expect to be making an incredible income stream from all levels of society.
One aspect of the invention involves a method that includes: in a first area of the touch screen, displaying a current character string being input by a user with the keyboard; in a second area of the touch screen, displaying the current character string or a portion thereof and a suggested replacement for the current character string; replacing the current character string in the first area with the suggested replacement if the user activates a delimiter key on the keyboard; replacing the current character string in the first area with the suggested replacement if the user performs a first gesture on the suggested replacement displayed in the second area; and keeping the current character string in the first area if the user performs a second gesture on the current character string or the portion thereof displayed in the second area.
So, you got a touch screen. User hits a "key" on the touch screen, autocomplete commences. User hits another key, selection changes, user hits backspace, selection changes. Lacking other prior art (that I know exists), Visual Studio 6 (circa 1999) had intellisense that does the exact same thing, except for "on a touch screen" which ought to be an obvious, and unpatentable extension. Granted (VC6 intellisense) it sucked, but still, prior art.
But but...everything is supposed to be free (of cost and in the freedom sense)! Now yes there are R&D costs but researchers shouldn't get paid, they should work for free instead and create inventions that people who actually make things can use without spending a dime on developing the invention...because that would work SO well. Where is the proof that an idiotic model like that would work? Nothing stops people from trying that but it doesnt work.
You see this is the problem, it's all *rabble rabble patents bad* but there is no reason all the people crying foul couldn't go and invent their own things, protect them with patents and then release them license-free but instead it's all gimme gimme gimme for free! It's the same with the FOSS advocates, if they spent less time complaining about proprietary software and more time developing good software that people wanted to use then they wouldnt have to complain about proprietary software anymore.
The title and summary are clearly slanted by how it describes the case as Apple demanding $40 per Samsung device, then uses that claim to say Apple "is asking for obscenely high patent royalties". If you read the rest of the summary carefully (no, I didn't read the article!), what is happening is an Apple expert witness will be presenting evidence that the patents in use by Samsung are worth (by his judgement) $40 per device.
Basic trial tactics: ask for x, claim damages are far greater than x, then settle for an amount less than x.
Your argument is that Samsung has a right to ignore patents if THEY fucking THINK so?!?
Dude, what makes me think your paycheck is in won
I thought Google develops Android. I have the Cyanogen Mod 11 ROM on a Samsung Galaxy S2, which means the only thing remaining Samsung about the phone is the name on the outside and on the battery- all Samsung programming has been gutted. I still have slide to unlock, one tap dialing, and data synchronization. Shouldn't Apple be suing Google instead?
But now Apple is as hip and cool as a room full of patent lawyers.
if you think thats good business, well....
At least it makes me feel good about doing my part to put the south side of the "peak" into "peak apple".
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
everything inside a iphone was made by samsung fucknuts, apple couldnt make a blinking LED at this point
I think that what he was referring to is the fact that Apple has refused to license those FRAND patents on the same terms that other companies did (small price + cross-licensing agreement), and demanded to just pay in cash, and a ridiculously small amount at that - the one that's nowhere even near in value to that cross-licensing that everyone else opts for.
Nice Strawman argument, since thats not what they're doing. Its actually that company A owns a FRAND Patent Ann that is valued at $5 per device, company B owns a FRAND patent Bob that is valued at $4.80.
Patents Ann and Bob combined give a standard for a gray Thingie to be built to.
Company A and B cross licence those patents so they can both sell Thingies and company B pays company A 20c.
Company Fruit later comes along and wants to sell its new black coloured Thingies. These black coloured Thingies still need to comply with the standard for Thingies. So Fruit needs to licence Ann and Bob. Company A says that'll be $5. The Fruits claim this is discriminatory pricing and that they should get a licence to use Ann for 20c.
So Apple want $40 a phone for a few cosmetic and convenient things they were the first to bring to market, like tapping a number or bounceback when you over scroll - but they baulk at paying $2 a phone for stuff that *makes the phone actually work* like 3G/4G, WIFI, etc. etc. How the hell is that ok? And if you want to say those 3G patents Samsung hold are FRAND and essential for phones, fine - but Apple still wasn't even paying the FRAND amount. So why can't Apple's innovations be considered essential and ubiquitous to normal mobile phones, now and also be forced to be reasonable??
http://www.cheaplocks.co.uk/im... If Google had gone with this one, they would have gotten screws upfront. But seriously, all of those "features" mentioned have been around for years (decades even). Apple didn't invent them, they just slapped them in a phone, and even at that they weren't the first.
That would be the best thing, they will lose money but it will just make Apple lose way more, as the competence (LG) may just ask whatever price they want and it will just rape Apple economy so much that they will give away their patents. Samsung may not be able to sell in the US but Apple is fucked worldwide.
Perhaps not how it should work, but it is how it does work. Unless/until you are actually accused of infringing and hit up for money, you can't get the issue before the court at all.
Imagine if apple made a beard trimmer ...
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Aww! Look, they're feeding the lawyers again!
When I was a kid in the 1980s my phone had a dial. I had to slide to unlock that. The slide was circular, and unlocking entailed starting to dial a number, but sliding and unlocking it was, nonetheless. The phone couldn't be used unless I did it, and no amount of prodding would convince it otherwise.
Apple... The biggest hypocrits on earth... Steal the ideas from others, put a shiny coat on it and say it was theirs... And then they also bitch at samsung which just asks the same price for Apple as they are asking others for FRAND patents, but nooo Apple think THEY don't have to pay.. And now they are asking ridiculous prices for patents which they even shouldn't have had (so clearly an officer at the patentoffice must have been sleeping while checking out the patents or has been given a big extra from apple for passing the patent)..
You are correct, but the per unit fee is much higher than $0.20/unit in the case of the 3G/4G patents that are in dispute here. Most companies do not pay those fees, they cross-license instead. Since Apple is unwilling to cross-license they have to pay the per unit fee like everyone else. It's not discrimination, it's the standard terms offered to everyone and just because Apple doesn't like the deal doesn't make them the victim.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Nearly all those patents have prior art on windows mobile phones and should be invalidated. Windows mobile 2003 , 5 (2005) and 6 (Feb 2007) all predate the First iphone , June 2007. Yep its only been around 7 years.
Look at the HTC Wizard, Imate JasJam and HTC Hermes
XDA was primarily a windows mobile hacking and tweaking community.
XDA Developer archives should show community created applications for one touch dialing, slide to unlock (No apple didn't invent it, they patented it) In fact most apple "innovations" already existed on or as part of windows mobile, but the phones were so expensive (for 2003-2005) that few people had them.
...is how they've taken what used to be good paying American jobs and outsourced them to mordor. Their patent scumbaggery is galling, but it hasn't actually destroyed families who lost their livelyhood when Apple moved to China.
Apple the patent troll will soon stop making devices at all.
This only impacts America, which is about the only place left, where Apple's absurd patents could even have the faintest hope of enforcement. Does the management at Apple feel no shame? They are making a mockery of themselves (with their ridiculous and petty patents), and their country (with its absurd patent system that tolerates the ridiculous patents).
It's time to simply kill off patents altogether. They no longer serve the original purpose and the little guy is going to get ripped off anyway.
Fuck patents, fuck government and fuck the system.
I'd simply tack on the court costs to Apples purchases.
Apple is becoming the new Microsoft. Just as MS was once the new IBM. Both these old giants are still trying desperately to get rid of their "evil incarnate" image. And if you think IBM is actually cool and all open and everything... well they had a lot of time to change their image. Because it wasn't MS that invented FUD.
nt
Oh my good gawd, you have no clue what you're talking about.
You honestly think that the 3G/4G patents are licensed at more than $0.20 each?
Really!?!
Let's do some basic math:
250,000 patents (the VAST majority of which are FRAND patents similar to the 3G/4G patents to which you're referring) x $0.20 = $50,000
FIFTY!
THOUSAND!
DOLLARS!
You SERIOUSLY think that each phone has FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS worth of patents in it?
Really???
It amazes me how low the level of intellectual discourse on this site has fallen in recent years...
I'm not a Google fan anymore, but to suggest that they are even in the same league of sue happy as Apple is patently absurd. Google didn't even patent a ton of stuff until they started getting sued for stuff that they made. Apple is a company that has not had any groundbreaking innovation since the iPhone, and barely has even incremental advances now. They are a one trick pony and even a pretty pony starts to look old after a while.
Huh. An inventor named Farnsworth created television? I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that he was probably the inspiration behind Hubert J. Farnsworth the inventor on Futurerama the TV show... neeto.
No, you are completely wrong.
FRAND patents are not of little value, and are not normally licensed for little value. They are normally part of cross-licensing agreements between companies, with small associated payments to make the contracts binding, but primarily they are used as a technology trading base.
I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. I believe you may be thinking of patent pools, which do act the way you describe - every pool participant throws in some patents and gets a cross license to the other patents in the pool. Non-pool participants have to pay cash for licenses.
FRAND is different - FRAND is where a company encourages everyone to adopt their patented technology as part of a standard, and agrees to offer licenses to anyone who wants one at Fair, Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) rates. There's nothing about cross-licensing as part of that.
Why would a company offer up a patent for FRAND licensing? Because if it's part of the standard, then they collect a nice 1% or so royalty from everyone. If it wasn't FRAND, then they might be able to insist on 5 or 10% royalties for the patent, but then, it's unlikely that it would've become part of the standard because no one wants to pay that high a rate. So it's a "make it up in volume" business trade-off.
Continuing with your post:
Apple of course refuses to participate in the trading.
They say 'license your FRAND patents to us for the same as everyone else, and then we will screw you to the wall for our patents'.
FRAND owners say "WTF? those fees are for crosslicensing agreements, without that, you need to pay real money'
Apple says "Then we wont pay you anything, and since we appear to have the US legal system all tied up, piss off, in fact, we will sue you over a bunch of patents we never invented, just added the words 'on a capacitive touch screen' to the end of! ha!"
As noted above, FRAND patents are not part of cross-licensing agreements, nor can a FRAND owner require a cross-license to a patent or charge higher royalty rates from a licensee, because, by definition, that would not be "Non-Discriminatory". And that's where Samsung really screwed up in this pile of litigation - when Apple sued them for infringement of various other patents, Samsung tried to get an injunction to keep Apple from using the FRAND patented technology. That's a no-no - by offering up the patent for use in the standards, they agreed never to seek injunctions for infringement. That's why the DoJ (as well as their counterparts in Europe) are investigating Samsung over potential anti-trust issues.
Why do the same people who think Samsung asking for $16 per device for a single patent is literally "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" complain when Apple is asking half of that?
Even if that's what he meant, at the end of the day it gets us to exactly the same place -- he's effectively ordering Apple to assign an arbitrary value to its patent portfolio that may not reflect its actual value, apparently based on a distorted understanding of how patent valuation and licensing actually works.
Here's a little thought experiment. For the sake of the hypothetical, please assume all patents are in the same or similar technology space:
Scenario 1: I'm a company with 5 patents. I approach Samsung and say "hey -- I've seen all those 'small price + cross licensing agreement' deals you've done with other companies.* I want the same deal. Here's my 5 patents and a "small price" -- cough up your 100,000 patents." Proper result?
Scenario 2: I'm a company with 1,000,000 patents, including a broad, pioneering patent on logic circuits made from room-temperature superconductors. Samsung approaches me and offers its 100,000 patents and a "small price," and demands a cross-license to my 1,000,000 patents, including the superconductor patent. Proper result?
Big companies have disagreements about the actual value of their patents all the time. Companies decide to cross-license -- or not -- with other companies all the time. The OP presented no evidence that Apple is doing anything fundamentally different.
* Which I probably haven't, because many companies tend to be highly secretive of the exact terms of these agreements -- for obvious reasons.
That doesn't make any sense at all, patents licensed under FRAND terms need to be non-discriminatory as that's what the ND stands for. Typically that means that if you sign an agreement and pay $0.20/unit, anybody can make something with a HDMI port or something like that. Cross licensing agreements are the opposite of that, you get to use my patents if I get to use yours. If you don't have any interesting patents, no agreement for you so they're discriminatory and because the patents involved are unique the cost is not uniform either. In short, you don't have any clue what you're talking about and apparently neither do the mods.
You're confusing a fixed royalty with non discriminatory terms. FRAND means that parties bringing the same resources to the table get the same deal. Terms are still negotiable for parties bringing different resources to the table subject to some fairness standard. Apple brought nothing else to the table but still wanted to pay the low royalty reserved for cross-licensers. That's Apple's negotiating tactic, fine, but it shouldn't mean that other parties must accept it by some FRAND rules.
Just think about your position. Under your interpretation, a patent cross-licensing deal is worth absolutely zero. That's ludicrous, and completely unfair and unreasonable. Or rather, if you want to take that position, then should we assume Apple's patents are worth zero as well?
Yes, of course, the value of the cross-licensed patents should enter into consideration. And Apple claims that its patents (which were mostly UI stuff like swipe-to-unlock) so valuable that any such cross-licensing agreement with Samsung and others is beyond consideration. Which is, of course, bullshit as well.
Stop stealing money from people who actually create something new instead of selling old ideas in shiny box to brainwashed people for triple the price.
Just die already, Apple.
Your business model is evil.
... that we have to read a Florian Mueller's post to get this information rather than be able to read Groklaw's PJ giving us the low-down. You know though that Apple MUST be trying to overcharge if even he states: "... I face the first situation in which I don't merely disagree with Apple but am rather wondering whether it has lost its mind."
We miss you PJ !!!!!
>And if they never should have been issued patents for them in the first place?
Why should legitimate patents not have been granted in the first place? Apple is 100% in the right here.
I used to think patents were a good idea, now I just say fuck them.
It is worth pretty much 0. I rarely see anybody making any calls on the phone.
Given your propensity for using the term on a public forum there's no question that most people who read the above think you a 'total cunt'.
Apple needs to go away now. Honestly, why are people still buying their overpriced products?
And Apple claims that its patents (which were mostly UI stuff like swipe-to-unlock) so valuable that any such cross-licensing agreement with Samsung and others is beyond consideration. Which is, of course, bullshit as well.
Citation required. Actually several, given the number of conclusory propositions you have packed in those sentences. To support all that, it seems to me you'd need to be able to semi-confidently answer at least the following questions:
As I said previously, companies agree to cross-license or decide not to cross-license all the time -- it's not at all the universal concept that the conventional wisdom in this thread suggests. A patentee at the end of the day has the right to exclude others from practicing the subject matter of the patent, and the patentee may or may not choose to give up that right in exchange for money. It's true that injunctions are becoming more infrequent, but one of the primary considerations these days for granting an injunction is whether the parties are true competitors. In other words, the law still recognizes the patentee's right to use the patent to protect market share. Don't like that and think we should continue moving toward a truly compulsory licensing system -- or that we should nuke the patent system altogether? Talk to your congresscritter. Meanwhile, as the saying goes, don't hate the player -- hate the game.
That is simply not true. You can challenge patents in court before you are accussed of infringing and with the Apple being such a nasty set of bastards it would seem prudent to review the shit they claim to have invented before going to market.
Returning this subterranean carbon tragically entrapped for countless millennial to its rightful place in the atmosphere is every coal burner's responsibility. How dare they deign to disrupt this vital atmospheric restoration project? Shame on them.
Wow. Amazing. A post with facts gets modded down, and a post with opinions that do not correspond with reality gets modded +5 informative.
You should really just go talk to a patent attorney about your concept of FRAND and how these things work. Or take a legal class. Plenty of free ones around. Or heck, buy a legal text book on contracts and FRAND.
While I'm not an attorney, I do work with plenty of them, and your version of how things work do not reflect reality.
Ahem. Development started 12 years before 1999.
You were saying?