You are assuming things. It is perfectly reasonable that apple wanted to pay less and Ericsson wanted nothing to do with that.

Why do you always assume apple are blameless and its always everyone else at fault in discussions?

1. Given that Apple were previously happy with the cost, it seems more likely that Ericsson are seeking to increase the cost. Especially if they share EB's view that they should perhaps pay more simply because they currently have healthy profits.

2. I am not assuming "Apple are blameless", I am simply assuming what is, IMO, the most likely scenario. If it turns out that Apple do simply want to pay less, then that doesn't automatically make them the bad guys either - simply that they are questioning how much Ericsson want to charge.

If Apple are "to blame" simply for trying to negotiate as good a deal as possible, then why exactly is that even noteworthy? Isn't that what any company does?

3. Why do you always take me up for always assuming Apple are blameless, but seem to have no problem with other people always assuming (as is the case here) that Apple are to blame?

4. Given that I said this earlier:

"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."

I would say that seems a pretty neutral, objective view to take. Compared to, say, the OP, which seems to suggest that Apple should suck up whatever Ericsson want to charge on the grounds that "Apple are struggling to make a healthy profit you know "

I have tried to ask what the relevance of any connection between how much one company makes as profit, and how much another company should charge for something, is - but that has yet to be clarified.

At the end of the day it is simply a renegotiation on the price of something between two companies - does it even have to be about a good guy and a bad guy?

Holy god......

When you say "Holy god....", did you mean "yeah - fair enough"?

Still, easier than replying to, or even acknowledging, any of that, huh?

Sorry, my bad - I thought when you said the issue was about how the payments were worked out, that suggested the way they had been worked out in the previous contract differed to how they wanted to work it out in the new contract.

In which case it probably is Apple wanting to pay less. I still don't see what the big deal really is, as its just two companies trying to get the most favourable price, and if it goes to court will likely be somewhere between the two figures.

As much as anything, I just thought the suggestions in the OP were full of spin, i.e. about how Obama will decide something that suits Apple, and that Apple should pay whatever Ericsson want because of their healthy profits.

Apple have already turned down the chance to go to court and let the court decide the rate. This is why Ericsson have gone to the itc to get an import ban.
It will end up in court at some point and will be sorted but like the Nokia case it will drag on a while I suspect.

No, i mean is there any way you can be any more boring if you tried?

I long for the day you can answer a question in a normal manner, instead of the normal inane drivel that accompanies an answer from you.

The fact remains, from what we know, its apple causing this issue. Not the other way round. Of course, you will find a way to find apple faultless as always.

How was it "inane drivel" exactly? Seemed to answer your points fairly reasonably - so I'm sorry if it took up so many words that made it boring for you.

I long for the day you can actually have a sensible discussion, instead of always going off on one, and just being your typically rude self.

It is what it is - two companies trying to get the best deal. If the price is too high, then arguably its Ericsson causing the issue.

As I've said before, the chances are it'll end up being somewhere between the two figures.

That seems a lot more objective than reducing it to Apple bad, Ericsson good.

And more objective than the OP, with the comments about Obama and Apple's profits, that you seem to have no issue with, but take issue with my posts instead. I'm sure you have your reasons for that.

Aren't Apple seeking resolution via the courts by suing Ericsson?

Basically Apple think the price Ericsson are asking for is too high, so are suing Ericsson.

And Ericsson think that what Apple are offering is too low, so are suing Apple. (or rather are suing Apple for patent infringement as no current agreement is in place.)

My view is that from that we cannot infer which party is in the right, or in the wrong. And that in all likelihood the fair price is somewhere between the two, which will eventually be decided by the courts.

Apple are suing Ericsson for abuse of patent power. Ericsson aren't suing as such. They offered Apple the chance to go to court to let a court set a fair price. Apple turned this down and sued Ericsson.
Ericsson then went to the itc to ask for them to ban imports of the infringing products till it's sorted.
You are correct from this one it's pretty hard to blame either party or say who is right or wrong.

OK - there's a to of stuff about it. My understanding was that Apple were seeking to take it to court because of Ericsson's (in their opinion) unfair price. And Ericsson are now suing Apple for patent infringement.

Reading into it some more, the jist seems to be that it is about a change that Ericsson want to introduce, i.e. the payments should be based on a percentage of the cost of the entire device, rather than be a set price for the use of the technology. (or a percentage on the parts making use of the technology).

So you could have two products both using the same technology, but the more expensive product would require a larger payment to Ericsson.

Bearing that in mind, and unless I have misread that, then I can absolutely see Apple's argument. Why should they pay a higher a royalty on a device which is more expensive than another device, when the difference in cost has nothing to do with anything licenced by Ericsson?

Ericsson aren't looking to change anything frand has always been a percentage of the wholesale cost of the handset. What has reduced the cost is patent sharing. Apple are not happy with this and think frand should just be based on the wholesale cost of the component or components the patents relate it.
Apple are the ones looking for change but again doesn't make them wrong or right

If you have two device, one costing $300 and one costing $600, both making the same use of the same patented technology, then surely that patented technology is contributing the same value to each device.

So it doesn't seem fair or reasonable that the $600 device should be subject to a higher licensing fee.

We don't even know if any of the patent is fair, or the prices.

But Ericcson is said to be asking for payment on a similar basis to what Apple saw winning fair against Samsung.

We know that Ericsson want to charge a company more for a $600 device than a $300 device for making the same use of the same technology.

What was the Apple case against Samsung? Was it the original "your phone looks a bit like our phone" case? In which case it was quite different to this case, so not sure if its a good comparison.

No different to paying income tax. i pay the same rate as someone who earns twice as much as me.
don't forget these rates are generally based on the wholesale cost of the phone so in apples case they won't be paying on £600 more like £250-£300
Though we don't know the rates the £300 device may have a lower or higher % rate than the £600.
Plus the £300 device might not make use of all the patent offers it may be missing features i.e. 4g etc.

no we don't know that BIB they could pay the same percentage they could pay less these rates very rarely become public knowledge
they could charge both 1% which is the same rate to both the fact that they make more on 1% of £600 doesn't mean they are charging more

OK, I just read it as that from this article on Bloomberg.

At the core of the dispute is Apple’s contention that Ericsson wants Apple to pay royalties based on percentage of the price of the entire device. Apple argued it should be set on a smaller base and called Ericsson’s demands unreasonable.

“Under Ericsson’s approach, by incorporating its own unique technologies, Apple is subjecting its products to higher royalty demands than other companies’ products that do not incorporate such features and functionalities,” according to the complaint.

Doesn't that suggest that a $600 device would be liable for higher payments than a $300 device?

A breakdown cost of the iPhone had Apple supposedly paying Qualcomm a crazy $30+ for some of its patented stuff.

Is that a per selling price type payment too then ?

It's what I've been saying all along Apple disagree with the traditional frand working out. There not paying a higher price % necessarily than others don't confuse how much they pay with the percentage.
Apple were offered the chance to let a court decide the rate they turned it down.
Frand is tough to work out as a lot of other companies share patents this reducing there costs. I'd bet Nokia pay barely anything due to the number of patents they put in the pot

Just to add Apple will have been paying a % on the wholesale cost of the handset for the last 5 years to license the patents

One thing is always for sure, 'Apple' and anything pertaining to lawsuits and legal action (primarily suing) always provokes arguement in forums such as this, that usually gets called 'debate'.