Ericcson sues Apple and wants iPhone ban

Everything Goes · 28-02-2015, 22:38

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.

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

calico_pie · 28-02-2015, 23:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

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.

calico_pie · 28-02-2015, 23:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by slattery69

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 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?

slattery69 · 28-02-2015, 23:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

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.

Everything Goes · 28-02-2015, 23:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

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.

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

Everything Goes · 28-02-2015, 23:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by jchamier

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.

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

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/

swordman · 01-03-2015, 01:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

It seemed reasonable to assume........ that the proposed new rate was (significantly) higher, which they had an issue with.

Reasonable to assume that because.?

calico_pie · 01-03-2015, 10:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

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

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.

calico_pie · 01-03-2015, 11:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

Reasonable to assume that because.?

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.

slattery69 · 01-03-2015, 11:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

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

calico_pie · 01-03-2015, 11:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by slattery69

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.

sdduk · 01-03-2015, 12:28

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.

kidspud · 01-03-2015, 12:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdduk

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.

slattery69 · 01-03-2015, 12:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by sdduk

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.

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.

slattery69 · 01-03-2015, 13:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidspud

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

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

swordman · 01-03-2015, 13:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

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.

You didn't say changing you said

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie
It seemed reasonable to assume........ that the proposed new rate was (significantly) higher, which they had an issue with.

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

kidspud · 01-03-2015, 13:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by slattery69

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

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.

slattery69 · 01-03-2015, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidspud

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

calico_pie · 01-03-2015, 14:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

You didn't say changing you said

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

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.

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

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.

swordman · 01-03-2015, 16:03

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

calico_pie · 01-03-2015, 16:26

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?

swordman · 01-03-2015, 16:59

Ok yes ericsson then

tdenson · 02-03-2015, 04:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everything Goes

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

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.

calico_pie · 02-03-2015, 10:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by slattery69

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 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.

slattery69 · 02-03-2015, 11:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

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)

28-02-2015, 22:38	#26
Everything Goes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the future.... Posts: 11,259	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie 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. I've already answered it and im not getting bogged down in your twisted arguments

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

28-02-2015, 23:24	#27
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by Everything Goes 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.

28-02-2015, 23:27	#28
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by slattery69 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 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?

28-02-2015, 23:36	#29
slattery69 Forum Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 204	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie 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.

28-02-2015, 23:37	#30
Everything Goes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the future.... Posts: 11,259	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie 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. 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

28-02-2015, 23:44	#31
Everything Goes Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In the future.... Posts: 11,259	Quote: Originally Posted by jchamier 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. Ericcson have been negotiating with Apple for 2 years regarding the renewal which have now expired. 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/

01-03-2015, 01:32	#32
swordman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,342	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie It seemed reasonable to assume........ that the proposed new rate was (significantly) higher, which they had an issue with. Reasonable to assume that because.?

01-03-2015, 10:29	#33
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by Everything Goes 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 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.

01-03-2015, 11:04	#34
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by swordman Reasonable to assume that because.? 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.

01-03-2015, 11:12	#35
slattery69 Forum Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 204	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie 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

01-03-2015, 11:38	#36
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by slattery69 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.

01-03-2015, 12:28	#37
sdduk 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.

01-03-2015, 12:58	#38
kidspud Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 11,501	Quote: Originally Posted by sdduk 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.

01-03-2015, 12:59	#39
slattery69 Forum Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 204	Quote: Originally Posted by sdduk 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. 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.

01-03-2015, 13:03	#40
slattery69 Forum Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 204	Quote: Originally Posted by kidspud Not sure why you think anyone is complaining. It seems fairly standard practice to let the court arbitrate in these cases. 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

01-03-2015, 13:06	#41
swordman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,342	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie 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. You didn't say changing you said Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie It seemed reasonable to assume........ that the proposed new rate was (significantly) higher, which they had an issue with. 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

01-03-2015, 13:07	#42
kidspud Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 11,501	Quote: Originally Posted by slattery69 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 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.

01-03-2015, 13:13	#43
slattery69 Forum Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 204	Quote: Originally Posted by kidspud 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

01-03-2015, 14:39	#44
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by swordman You didn't say changing you said If I'm talking about two different prices, then of course its changing. 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. 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 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.

01-03-2015, 16:03	#45
swordman 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

01-03-2015, 16:26	#46
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	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?

DS Forums

Ericcson sues Apple and wants iPhone ban

01-03-2015, 16:59	#47
swordman Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 6,342	Ok yes ericsson then

02-03-2015, 04:29	#48
tdenson Forum Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 4,214	Quote: Originally Posted by Everything Goes 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 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.

02-03-2015, 10:46	#49
calico_pie Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 9,428	Quote: Originally Posted by slattery69 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 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.

02-03-2015, 11:07	#50
slattery69 Forum Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 204	Quote: Originally Posted by calico_pie 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)