|
||||||||
Ericcson sues Apple and wants iPhone ban |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,257
|
Quote:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Quote:
I've already answered it and im not getting bogged down in your twisted arguments
![]() You didn't mention anything at all about what one company's profit had to do with how much it should pay another company for something. So no, you didn't answer it at all. You mentioned Apple's profits in post 1, so I'm just interested what that actually has to do with it? Presumably the answer is "nothing" and that's why you're now dodging the question. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Quote:
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 It seemed reasonable to assume the previous contract was for a rate they considered fair, and that the proposed new rate was (significantly) higher, which they had an issue with. Is the new rate proposed by Ericsson was actually about the same as the old rate? |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 204
|
Quote:
It just said they hadn't been able to agree what they considered a fair rate.
It seemed reasonable to assume the previous contract was for a rate they considered fair, and that the proposed new rate was (significantly) higher, which they had an issue with. Is the new rate proposed by Ericsson was actually about the same as the old rate? |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,257
|
Quote:
In post 19?
You didn't mention anything at all about what one company's profit had to do with how much it should pay another company for something. So no, you didn't answer it at all. You mentioned Apple's profits in post 1, so I'm just interested what that actually has to do with it? Presumably the answer is "nothing" and that's why you're now dodging the question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the future....
Posts: 11,257
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Ericsson Essential Patents in 2008, but its license has now expired. During the past two years of negotiations for a renewal agreement, Ericsson extended multiple offers to Apple to renew its portfolio license on FRAND terms. These negotiations have been unsuccessful for the simple reason that Apple refuses to pay a FRAND royalty for a license to Ericsson’s Essential Patents.
A breakdown of all the patents can be found here:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02...pple_lawsuits/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,342
|
Quote:
It seemed reasonable to assume........ that the proposed new rate was (significantly) higher, which they had an issue with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Quote:
You do enjoy these twisted arguments and we all know you get a kick out of it but you will have to find some other sucker to wind up
![]() I asked you why you felt that was relevant. How exactly is that twisting anything? All that is really happening here is that you are avoiding the question because, as we both know, its not relevant at all. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Quote:
Reasonable to assume that because.?
So if they were happy with the price up until now, but unhappy with the price going forward, then its reasonable to assume the price is changing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 204
|
Quote:
Because presumably they were happy about the price for the deal that has just expired.
So if they were happy with the price up until now, but unhappy with the price going forward, then its reasonable to assume the price is changing. As i pointed out in the link the dispute seems to be about how the amount is calculated i.e. on the wholesale cost of the whole handset not the part Also the language used of significantly higher id assume from that you must have seen some link to suggest this not just assumed it yourself |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Quote:
Could also assume that the price is the same or less but apple believe the patents are worth much less than 5 years ago ?
As i pointed out in the link the dispute seems to be about how the amount is calculated i.e. on the wholesale cost of the whole handset not the part Also the language used of significantly higher id assume from that you must have seen some link to suggest this not just assumed it yourself Going back to the OP, and the question of the relevance of Apple's profits - that seemed to read as though Apple should be prepared to more on account of their healthy profits. |
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 216
|
Everybody's rent goes up each year so why are apple complaining
they have been ripping there customers off for years with there over priced phones and computers If they don't like it stop using someone else's patents get there own. |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
Everybody's rent goes up each year so why are apple complaining
they have been ripping there customers off for years with there over priced phones and computers If they don't like it stop using someone else's patents get there own. |
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 204
|
Quote:
Everybody's rent goes up each year so why are apple complaining
they have been ripping there customers off for years with there over priced phones and computers If they don't like it stop using someone else's patents get there own. |
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 204
|
Quote:
Not sure why you think anyone is complaining. It seems fairly standard practice to let the court arbitrate in these cases.
Ericsson appear to have offered apple the opportunity to go to court and let the court decide the FRAND rate (arbitrate) , Apple refused this , then filed there own case against ericsson saying they wanted excessive royalties . it was at this point ericsson filed for an import ban |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,342
|
Quote:
Because presumably they were happy about the price for the deal that has just expired.
So if they were happy with the price up until now, but unhappy with the price going forward, then its reasonable to assume the price is changing. Quote:
Originally Posted by calico_pie I see no basis for this assumption at all, as been already pointed out to you. You then go on say the right/correct price is probably some where in between the two, which again infers the Moto price is too high. It seemed reasonable to assume........ that the proposed new rate was (significantly) higher, which they had an issue with. I fail to see any objectivity at all in this stance and it not being a reasonable assumption at all. Are we now going to have 30+ pages around what you didn't say again and what significantly higher actually means
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,493
|
Quote:
there not going to court to sort it out, there going to court as ericsson want an import ban on the products in question.
Ericsson appear to have offered apple the opportunity to go to court and let the court decide the FRAND rate (arbitrate) , Apple refused this , then filed there own case against ericsson saying they wanted excessive royalties . it was at this point ericsson filed for an import ban |
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 204
|
Quote:
My understanding is the patents owned by Ericsson are not subject to FRAND. Ill have to read up a bit as I've not kept up with this particular case.
"By refusing Ericsson’s fair and reasonable licensing offer for patented technology used in Apple smartphones and tablets, Apple harms the entire market and reduces the incentive to share innovation,” the company said in a statement. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...licensing-spat |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Quote:
You didn't say changing you said
Quote:
I see no basis for this assumption at all, as been already pointed out to you. You then go on say the right/correct price is probably some where in between the two, which again infers the Moto price is too high. The basis is this:I fail to see any objectivity at all in this stance and it not being a reasonable assumption at all. Are we now going to have 30+ pages around what you didn't say again and what significantly higher actually means
Apple were happy with the old price. Apple are unhappy with the proposed new price. That seems a perfectly clear basis for an assumption that the proposed new price is higher than the old price. And yes - in any negotiation over price it seems reasonable to think one party will go too low, the other party go too high, and and eventual deal struck somewhere between the two figures. That must be Negotiation 101 - why you take issue with that I have no idea. This isn't about me confusing any issue, its about you (pretending?) not getting the simplest of things. |
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,342
|
still no answer why it was reasonable to assume moto asked for significantly more! !Of course we all know why you feel it is reasonable, it is funny though
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
I'm not even sure what price you are referring to about Moto? I haven't said anything about Moto.
What point are you trying to make about Moto? |
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,342
|
Ok yes ericsson then
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,209
|
Quote:
You do enjoy these twisted arguments and we all know you get a kick out of it but you will have to find some other sucker to wind up
![]() You are the one who is twisting and turning having made an unsupportable statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 9,423
|
Quote:
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 For example, if it was a set amount of, say, $100m, and they want to change it to $10 per device, then that's going to be a larger amount due. |
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 204
|
Quote:
I meant to just add to an earlier reply on this. Yes, I understand its to do with how the amount is worked out. But it seems reasonable to think that the new way will result in higher payments than the old way. Otherwise, why would Apple have a problem?
For example, if it was a set amount of, say, $100m, and they want to change it to $10 per device, then that's going to be a larger amount due. It may not even be about money per say but ericsson may have asked for some apple patents to be cross licensed. Something apple arent keen to do (nor do they have to if they arent FRAND patents) |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:24.



