Ericcson sues Apple and wants iPhone ban
Everything Goes
Posts: 12,972 Forum Member
✭✭
Ericcson sues Apple and wants iPhones banned in the USA. We all know that wont happen just ask Obama! Yet another fine example of the USA's bent and broken patent system. This time it centre's around 41 patents that Ericcson own and Apple aren't happy with the price they want to pay to continue using them. Apple are struggling to make a healthy profit you know ;-)
http://www.neowin.net/news/ericsson-sues-apple-wants-itc-to-block-iphone-sales-in-the-us-market
Ericsson, world pioneer in mobile technology and wireless communications, is filing seven lawsuits against Apple in a U.S. court, accusing it of infringing on 41 of its patents, including some "that are essential to the 2G and 4G/LTE standards", as well as patents related to the component design of Apple products, UI, location services, and iOS features.
If having to pay half a billion dollars to Smartflash sounds bad, now Ericsson is asking the International Trade Commission to ban sales of Apple's iPhone and iPad in the U.S. market. Kasim Alfalahi, Ericsson’s chief intellectual property officer, stated that “we have offered them a license; they have a turned it down.”
Prior to mid-January 2015, Apple had been paying Ericsson royalties for using their patents, but the license expired, and after not being able to negotiate a renewal, the two companies proceeded to sue each other. Kristin Huguet, an Apple representative, has stated that “unfortunately, we have not been able to agree with Ericsson on a fair rate for their patents so, as a last resort, we are asking the courts for help.”
Apple is accusing Ericsson of "abusive licensing practices", arguing that Ericsson “seeks to exploit its patents to take the value of cutting-edge Apple innovations”, and has refused the offer to have an arbitrator determine the proper rates for the licenses involved in their design.
http://www.neowin.net/news/ericsson-sues-apple-wants-itc-to-block-iphone-sales-in-the-us-market
0
Comments
Yawn!
It's like my kids in the back of the car having an argument about how one of them looked at the other.
Why does it only affect the US though?
It will have to be a sick profit then. Oh,wait, it already is. And here you have it, use if it suits you, ignore when it does not.
They were paying a fair price, but now Ericcson are taking the mickey. What do you expect them to do ? They are not ignoring the patents as you say, they have asked the courts help decide a fair renewal price.
Well, apple think they were paying a fair price. Maybe they weren't.
Anyway, the fact is, the whole thing with patents is becoming increasingly childish from all companies these days.
One thing is does it lock out all the smaller competition and leave the big boys with the most patents to fight it out. A good case for the review of patent law is on the grounds of competition.
It IS a big issue, patents are causing us to have to pay much more than we should for technology and stopping newer companies from coming into the market.
I'm sure no company would try to get a better deal out any agreement it had with Apple on account of Apple's current success.
http://9to5mac.com/2015/02/27/ericsson-itc-iphone-ban/
One thing's for sure - had it been Samsung taking Erricson to court it wouldn't have achieved a thread here.
That's a knowing wink.
Can I just ask - in your opinion should the price Company A pays Company B for something be based on the amount of profit Company A is making?
If so, why?
If not, why mention it as though it is?
I would genuinely be interested in your answers.
Of course it may just have been a petty dig at Apple, based on absolutely nothing. But I'll remain open minded until you expand on any of the above.
I guess we'll never know.
It will be interesting to see if there is a thread about any result of any appeal in the Smartflash case though. I'm sure if there are any developments, there will be.
like the BIOS back in the day
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2585652/app-development/reverse-engineering.html
Yes agreed and largely true although I'm sure some detailed research may provide the odd exception.
I'm sure there's no need for detailed research when we can infer the worst from a mere headline.
Yeah, like Apple have never done that before. :rolleyes:
Apple are very good at negotiating with manufactures so they pay the bare minimum for components. There have been many cases where manufactures have walked away from Apple as it just wasn't worth it. With Patents its more difficult to do since they are essential for the phone to operate. Hence why its gone to court. Apple may well have wanted to pay a lot less for the Patents but Ericcson said no. Maybe Apple think they can increase profits even more by trying this sort of tactic over Patents.
I would have thought that any company would try to negotiate the best price for anything - that much is hardly some sort of black mark against Apple.
My understanding is that Apple had been paying Ericcson already, but the contract ended recently, so it was up for renegotiation. At which point Ericsson want to increase the price significantly. What the true, fair price would be I have no idea - in all likelihood somewhere between the two, as would be typical in any negotiation.
Having said all of that, I don't think you really answered the question, which was about your insinuation that what Apple pay should somehow be related to how much profit they make.
Again, if so, why?
If not, why mention it as though it is?
Its not a trick question - I'm just curious as to your thinking on it.
Wise words? Are you kidding? Idiotic more like it.
If they are "Standard essential patents" for the cellular radios, then these are regulated; by becoming part of the standard the patent owner agrees (contractually, with the standard organisation, e.g. IEEE, or 3GPP) they will be licensed on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) basis.
If they're not standard essential patents, then its over to courts.
I'm confused are you calling yourself an idiot, fair enough then.
I just threw the suggestion into the mix, but it wasn't me who described them as "wise words".
Thats the first I've seen BIB about that, the report i linked to suggested that this is over how the amount is worked out , not that ericsson where trying to ramp up the cost of payment,.
Ive not seen that suggestion anywhere can you link to it please so i can read it. Be interesting to read it
I've already answered it and im not getting bogged down in your twisted arguments