I've already answered it and im not getting bogged down in your twisted arguments

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.

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?

Seen nothing to suggest that assumed you must have? Only thing I've seen re rates is the link I posted which suggested that apple no longer wanted to pay a rate on the handset but just on the part.

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

Ericcson have been negotiating with Apple for 2 years regarding the renewal which have now expired.


A breakdown of all the patents can be found here:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02...pple_lawsuits/

Reasonable to assume that because.?

In post one you alluded to some sort of connection between Apple's profits and how much they should pay Ericsson.

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.

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.

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

I've said from the start it was an assumption. It may not be the case, but if Apple's position has changed from being happy about the cost, to being unhappy about the cost, then it doesn't seem that unreasonable.

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.

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.

Not sure why you think anyone is complaining. It seems fairly standard practice to let the court arbitrate in these cases.

unfortunately its not that simple the patents in question relate to 2g/3g/4g and are part of a standard. Apple need to use them as does anyone else wishing to build a mobile phone.

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

You didn't say changing you said

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.

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

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.

I think theres a combination of patents some FRAND some non essential. But most seem to be FRAND as the statement from ericsson talks about fair and reasonable-

"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

If I'm talking about two different prices, then of course its changing.



The basis is this:

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.

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

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?

Ok yes ericsson then

There is nothing twisted about his argument. Why on earth won't you answer his simple question " what does one company's profit have to do with how much it should pay another company for something".
You are the one who is twisting and turning having made an unsupportable statement.

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.

what new way? Ericsson arent looking to change the way its paid they want to keep it as FRAND has always been paid a percent of the wholesale cost of the handset. Apple want a new way not ericsson.
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)