Wow, you actually managed to turn a "Samsung mistreats their workers" into an "Apple supplier mistreats workers" story. And you weren't ironic in the least.
Imagine when a "blackout" will be done to Japanese-style automatic toilets...
"...Malware.... Here goes a jet of boiling water right into your ba*ls!..."
So, 1024-bit encryption (at least) to the hot water valve key has to be enforced!:-)
Wouldn't that be "turns of the flushing noise it makes so nobody can hear you while you are on the toile - so everybody can hear you on the toilet"? That would lead to mass suicides.
Do you think it's Fair for Samsung to demand 2.4% of the total price of the phone -- somewhere around $16 per unit -- for a tweak to the standard implemented by the Infineon baseband processor?
Based on what I've read about the industry and patents, yes it's fair. Here's a PDF on licensing fees for LTE patents, which are also standards-essential patents. Licensing rates for each company's patent portfolio ranges from 0.8% to 3%. And yes that's a percent of the handset price, not for the radio - the paper makes it pretty clear that percentage of handset price is the norm. The "not more than $1 per handset" Apple was insisting on would be less than 0.2%, which is ridiculously low by market standards.
Errm, read that again. "“a reasonable maximum aggregate royalty for LTE essential IPR in handsets is a single-digit percentage of the sales price." - "“[u]nder this proposal no manufacturer should pay more than 5 percent royalties covering all essential WCDMA patents from all patent holders.”
Not 2% for one out of over a thousand patents. Less than 10% for all of them. That would be less than 0.01% of the handsets selling price per patent. Which makes even 2% royalties from the price of the chip completely unreasonable.
PS: Note that the document nowhere says that licensing fees are computed by the selling price of the device - only what their estimated percentage of the selling price would be.
Your argument seems to rest on drawing a complete comparison between the evils of Apple and the evils of Samsung.
No, my argument rests on you claiming that Samsung is being treated unfairly despite being a saint while Apple gets preferential treatment despite being evil, because Apple paid some money for Obama's campaign. And that your argument is bullshit. And you haven't done a thing to prove it isn't bullshit.
The veto came to be because the ITC made a wrong judgement - that's my argument. And everyone but Samsung and the Apple haters agree.
But you know, a couple of hundred grand goes a long way. If Samsung had been paying as much, maybe it would have got more consideration.
Ahh, so because Obama and all other US politicians have every right to hate Apple they supposedly give them preferential treatment. You guys crack me up.
Ever considered that Samsung are criminals and get what they deserve? The fact that Apple supposedly violates Samsung's Standard Essential patents in devices with chips by one maker but not in those with chips by a different supplier? That Samsung decided not to push suits about the same SEP in the EU after Motorola got in trouble trying to pull the same FRAND shenanigans against Apple there? That Samsung's chairman had to resign because he faced jail time in the biggest corruption scandal South Korea has seen (benefitting Samsung for decades), was pardoned and return back to Samsung? That Samsung also builds most of its phones in China under worse conditions and unlike Apple actually even owns some of the factories?
Ummm... Apple devices are made in sweatshops in China and elsewhere. Samsung phones are made in Korea. South Korea had an average wage in 2011 of 31,051 USD (disposable income). The US was $42,050.
Wow. You actually believe Obama made that decision himself? Let alone because of some minor campaign distribution?
Let me tell you something - the reason Samsung keeps getting into legal trouble is because they are criminals. Their chairman had to resign because of a major corruption scandal (which supposedly was the reason Samsung became so big), facing jail time. He was later pardoned and now again is chairman of Samsung.
It's the same exact situation, just with the roles revers.. oh.
Yeah, exactly the same - only Samsung has standard essential patents they didn't offer under FRAND terms, while Apple's patents are, well, normal patents.
so the piece doesn't explicitly state that there is a relationship, but it suggests there is one.
curiously, an inverse relationship (fewer sunspots = cooler earth)
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.
Oddly enough, the maximum number of sunspots per cycle has lowered since the 60s, yet temperatures are still on the rise. Showing that man made warming is stronger than "sunspot cooling".
I'm aware of what a technical standard is, but I'm also aware that some standards have patents associated with them. GSM is a standard, but it's also patented. In fact, Rambus managed to get some of its patented processes into the standard for DDR computer memory behind JEDEC's back. My claim is that during the early days of motoring, someone could have claimed an exclusive right on red signal for stop and green signal for go or on the accelerator pedal being rightmost and the brake immediately to its left. I'm failing to understand what you're claiming here.
Your "claim" is just a dangling in the air, and the only thing that possibly would be different is that a hundred years ago things would have been decided in a different way. And unless you can give a real good reason why "stop" has to be red or else the world ends, "blue" means stop would be the only thing that makes sense - because that's what everybody would have been taught for a century.
Any standard body worth its name requires companies submitting their patents into a standard to licenses them under FRAND terms. Motorola and Samsung tried to get around that attacking Apple. Now they get into trouble for it. Deal with it, indstead of making claims not related to the issue at hand.
Slashdot Mirror
but this is germany, and so literally shitting on each other IS what is culturally in vogue (if you believe the films that come from germany...)
And yet there is only one country where "literally shitting on somebody" jokes are part of mainstream media. And it ain't Germany.
Umm, samsung is still the biggest. Apple was around 14% a couple of days ago. In third or fourth place If I remember correctly.
In second. Selling over 2.5 times as many as the third.
Wow, you actually managed to turn a "Samsung mistreats their workers" into an "Apple supplier mistreats workers" story. And you weren't ironic in the least.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57559324/group-says-it-found-child-workers-at-samsung-supplier-factory/
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/apr/25/samsung-tin-mines-indonesia-child-labour
http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/news/new-448.html - Samsung’s Audits Ineffective, More Child Workers Uncovered
http://www.change.org/petitions/samsung-stop-exploiting-child-laborers
http://libcom.org/news/samsung-workers-mexico-hunger-strike-solidarity-needed-16072011
http://www.chinalaborwatch.org/news/new-455.html
You are talking about the iPhone 5, in which case, this is certainly a new trend. Otherwise, upto now, it had only been the 30-pin adaptor.
Translation: You are too dumb to use Google - http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/11/hands-on-with-the-iphone-micro-usb-plug-and-third-party-chargers/
Imagine when a "blackout" will be done to Japanese-style automatic toilets... "...Malware.... Here goes a jet of boiling water right into your ba*ls!..." So, 1024-bit encryption (at least) to the hot water valve key has to be enforced! :-)
Wouldn't that be "turns of the flushing noise it makes so nobody can hear you while you are on the toile - so everybody can hear you on the toilet"? That would lead to mass suicides.
No, iPhone can only use the same charger as an iPad or iPod touch, nothing else.
Wrong. http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/74660/can-you-charge-an-iphone-5-from-a-standard-non-apple-micro-usb-cable - now go to bed without dessert.
Based on what I've read about the industry and patents, yes it's fair. Here's a PDF on licensing fees for LTE patents, which are also standards-essential patents. Licensing rates for each company's patent portfolio ranges from 0.8% to 3%. And yes that's a percent of the handset price, not for the radio - the paper makes it pretty clear that percentage of handset price is the norm. The "not more than $1 per handset" Apple was insisting on would be less than 0.2%, which is ridiculously low by market standards.
Errm, read that again. "“a reasonable maximum aggregate royalty for LTE essential IPR in handsets is a single-digit percentage of the sales price." - "“[u]nder this proposal no manufacturer should pay more than 5 percent royalties covering all essential WCDMA patents from all patent holders.”
Not 2% for one out of over a thousand patents. Less than 10% for all of them. That would be less than 0.01% of the handsets selling price per patent. Which makes even 2% royalties from the price of the chip completely unreasonable.
PS: Note that the document nowhere says that licensing fees are computed by the selling price of the device - only what their estimated percentage of the selling price would be.
everyone but Samsung and the Apple haters agree.
It must be nice to see the entire world split into these tidy categories that define behavior. Very soothing. Very simple.
Says the Republican claiming the only possible reason for the veto was Apple paying slightly more to Obama's campaign.
Your argument seems to rest on drawing a complete comparison between the evils of Apple and the evils of Samsung.
No, my argument rests on you claiming that Samsung is being treated unfairly despite being a saint while Apple gets preferential treatment despite being evil, because Apple paid some money for Obama's campaign. And that your argument is bullshit. And you haven't done a thing to prove it isn't bullshit.
The veto came to be because the ITC made a wrong judgement - that's my argument. And everyone but Samsung and the Apple haters agree.
I'm guessing the GP is pointing to the trendline being downward since y2k.
If you zoom in real close, the "trendline" is going up again in the last year. BTW, how exactly is the "trendline" computed?
You actually believe Obama made that decision himself?
Well, not entirely. There's also the bipartisan lobbying by Obama's fellow USians. Despite the fact that Apple dodges most of its US tax via the Double Irish, and indirectly Apple employs 700,000 Chinese to make its gadgets (vs 43,000 in the US), it's still marketed as a "United States" corporation. So it plays on the sympathies of its "local" politicians.
But you know, a couple of hundred grand goes a long way. If Samsung had been paying as much, maybe it would have got more consideration.
Ahh, so because Obama and all other US politicians have every right to hate Apple they supposedly give them preferential treatment. You guys crack me up.
Ever considered that Samsung are criminals and get what they deserve? The fact that Apple supposedly violates Samsung's Standard Essential patents in devices with chips by one maker but not in those with chips by a different supplier? That Samsung decided not to push suits about the same SEP in the EU after Motorola got in trouble trying to pull the same FRAND shenanigans against Apple there? That Samsung's chairman had to resign because he faced jail time in the biggest corruption scandal South Korea has seen (benefitting Samsung for decades), was pardoned and return back to Samsung? That Samsung also builds most of its phones in China under worse conditions and unlike Apple actually even owns some of the factories?
I'm a fanboy because Apple uses 2010s touchscreen technology, while Samsung is stuck in the 80s?
Ummm... Apple devices are made in sweatshops in China and elsewhere. Samsung phones are made in Korea. South Korea had an average wage in 2011 of 31,051 USD (disposable income). The US was $42,050.
So... what????
http://www.itproportal.com/2012/11/27/china-labor-watch-hits-out-at-samsung-over-poor-working-conditions/ - what indeed.
Cross licensing standards-essential patents is the usual way to get access to standards-essential patents.
FTFY.
But Apple don't want to pay what others paid for it.
You DO know the definition of "FRAND" is not "Better deal for Apple than anyone else gets" right?
Yes, I do, but neither you nor Samsung know that it means "the same deal as anybody else".
It's normal for 2008 patents to be enforced on 80's touchscreen technology?
Are you saying Samsung phones use 80s touchscreen technology?
Google spend more than 7 times as much in the same timeframe.
Well, the issue is Obama overturning an ITC ruling favouring not Google but Samsung over Apple. So dragging Google into it is a kind of distraction.
Apple paid Obama $308,081 in 2012 Samsung paid Obama $1,000 in 2012 ( as $250 and $750).
How likely is it, do you think, that Obama will turn around and veto the recent Apple-requested ITC ban on Samsung products?
Wow. You actually believe Obama made that decision himself? Let alone because of some minor campaign distribution?
Let me tell you something - the reason Samsung keeps getting into legal trouble is because they are criminals. Their chairman had to resign because of a major corruption scandal (which supposedly was the reason Samsung became so big), facing jail time. He was later pardoned and now again is chairman of Samsung.
and got told they wouldn't get non-discriminatory terms
False. Apple was told that they'd get the same terms as anyone else licensing them (the definition of "non-discriminatory") but didn't
FTFY.
Why would it be unlikely?
It's the same exact situation, just with the roles revers.. oh.
Yeah, exactly the same - only Samsung has standard essential patents they didn't offer under FRAND terms, while Apple's patents are, well, normal patents.
Your an idiot. Seriously. I'm not perpetuating anything, merely pointing out a link on the web. I didn't qualify it.
Yeah. Sure. Putting a title on a link is not "qualifying it", especially when the title implies it stands for the world. You are the idiot, Sir.
so the piece doesn't explicitly state that there is a relationship, but it suggests there is one.
curiously, an inverse relationship (fewer sunspots = cooler earth)
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.
Oddly enough, the maximum number of sunspots per cycle has lowered since the 60s, yet temperatures are still on the rise. Showing that man made warming is stronger than "sunspot cooling".
I'm aware of what a technical standard is, but I'm also aware that some standards have patents associated with them. GSM is a standard, but it's also patented. In fact, Rambus managed to get some of its patented processes into the standard for DDR computer memory behind JEDEC's back. My claim is that during the early days of motoring, someone could have claimed an exclusive right on red signal for stop and green signal for go or on the accelerator pedal being rightmost and the brake immediately to its left. I'm failing to understand what you're claiming here.
Your "claim" is just a dangling in the air, and the only thing that possibly would be different is that a hundred years ago things would have been decided in a different way. And unless you can give a real good reason why "stop" has to be red or else the world ends, "blue" means stop would be the only thing that makes sense - because that's what everybody would have been taught for a century.
Any standard body worth its name requires companies submitting their patents into a standard to licenses them under FRAND terms. Motorola and Samsung tried to get around that attacking Apple. Now they get into trouble for it. Deal with it, indstead of making claims not related to the issue at hand.
Do you even know what a standard is?