Apple To Pay Ericsson Patent Royalties On iPhones and iPads (cio.com) 75
itwbennett writes: In settlement of a long-standing dispute over patents that Ericsson considers essential to the implementation of a number of mobile communications standards, including GSM, the 3G standard UMTS and LTE, Apple has agreed to pay Ericsson royalties on sales of iPhones and iPads. While the companies would not disclose further details of their agreement, Ericsson gave a hint about its value. For the full year 2015, Ericsson predicts its intellectual property rights revenue will amount to between 13 billion and 14 billion Swedish krona ($1.64 billion). In comparison, it reported IPR revenue of 10.6 billion krona for the full year 2014, including a 4.2 billion krona lump sum in settlement of a similar global dispute with Samsung Electronics.
Erickson actually crreated (Score:4, Insightful)
Erickson actually paid for the R&D to create something new, unlike curved edges and a single button that Apple patented. Fuck Apple.
Re:Erickson actually created (Score:1, Insightful)
https://www.bing.com/search?q=... [bing.com]
Re:Erickson actually crreated (Score:4, Interesting)
They also patented the "bounce" effect of the picture gallery app when you reach the end.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Erickson actually crreated (Score:4, Insightful)
That is the point, 1200 patents, name 3 off the top of your head that aren't trivial, or would not have been invented otherwise. I can't think of 1.
Just coming up with an idea, has now become a legal minefield, patents are probably more detrimental it innovation than helpful.
Don't get me wrong apple have brought together technology in very stylish manner, by doing so made it mobile devices popular with consumers, but they really have not made that many significant technological innovations.
Re: (Score:3)
In addition, it is not even clear what real benefit Apple got from all those patents. The iPhone was copied by Samsung and Chinese manufacturers within a few years of release, but eight years on it is still creaming the lion's share of profit in the industry. Even in China, the land of knockoffs and a complete disregard for intellectual property, they are winning among those who can afford to pay for hipster value.
Apple has proven that you can fend of the competition in a highly competitive market much bett
Re: (Score:2)
That is the point, 1200 patents, name 3 off the top of your head that aren't trivial, or would not have been invented otherwise. I can't think of 1.
How does the fact that you have no clues about Apple's patent portfolio proof those patents aren't innovative?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like you would expect more people to talk about, "Oh Apple invented this," or "No one has this on their phones because Apple invented it." Since he doesn't hear that kind of thing what was innovative?
As opposed to people talking about how Ericsson invented - what exactly did they invent? Not even "rounded corners". Probably nothing, because according to you the fact that nobody ever talks about them is more then proof enough that can't have invented anything. Thanks for the confirmation.
Re: (Score:2)
I asked, what the community to enlighten me which ones, are innovative, clearly you don't either otherwise you would have come up with examples. Instead you said nothing, I admit I have not read through 1200 patents, and have no intention of doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
I asked, what the community to enlighten me which ones, are innovative,
All of them, apart from the ones you know to not be innovative. IOW, well, all of them still.
Re: (Score:2)
I've filled over 400 BS patents personally, non of them actually were for new inventions, just different wording of existing patents. At an average cost of a million in legal fees to invalidate 1 parent, I've got a warchest of bullshit
You forgot to mention you paid a war chest full of actual money to get that war chest full of bullshit. But I'm sure you'll make it up with all the license fees you get from the people implementing your bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't understand your point, Apple doesn't have to invent, it refines, that is ALL it does, and in refining it makes products that YOU hate and the rest of the world LOVES.
Sucks to be you.
Re: (Score:2)
Erickson actually paid for the R&D to create something new
Erickson was also PAID for that something new, by Qualcom to make the GSM radio chip that Apple bought from them.
There is no justification Erickson should be paid multiple times for a single license.
Or if there is, why isn't it the responsibility of us end-users to pay Erickson, since we haven't paid for what the cell phone maker paid for and the radio chip maker also paid for?
Re: (Score:2)
ahem. Are you aware that Qualcomm (it has two m's), had nearly nothing to do with the development of GSM as they were pushing their CDMA technology?
Regards
A former Ericsson engineer.
Then why is the Qualcomm name on the transceiver chip in the iphone 6?
Infineon is the name on the chip in the iphone 3.
Why is Ericsson's name no where to be found? Sounds like your company got paid by Qualcomm / Infineon and now want to double dip.
If they can legally go after 3rd hand parties to the purchase, then nothing is stopping them from suing me as a 4th hand party as well.
This action also harms me directly since I can't resell or even give away any of my phones, since even someone receiving it for
Re: (Score:1)
Why can't you sell a phone? the license goes with the hardware.
So you finally admit Apple is fully licensed to use these patents (you just said the license goes with the hardware Apple purchased to put in their phones)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe this has to do with indemnity clauses in the contracts between Qualcomm and Erickson. If Qualcomm isn't given sublicense rights in their agreement, then Qualcomm's customers are fucked. Which means that Qualcomm would be fucked just after, as nobody in their right mind would want to buy into the losing end of a licensing lawsuit.
I really don't understand this one at all.
Re: (Score:2)
End users pay for it when they buy the product. Usage is free for end customers. Selling products containing a patent is not allowed and yes you must pay all patent holders for it - even if the patent was included in the product by a
Example: Companies makes a produkt and sells it for $100 and the patent owner P demads 5% or $5 per unit.
Company B makes the product itself and pays $5 per unit to patentowner P.
Company A wants to make similar produkt as B and buys some items from B for $10 (containing the pate
Re: (Score:2)
That still isn't self-consistent and makes no sense.
If "A" has a patent and licenses it to "B" to make a product using said patent, why does "C" who buys the product from "B" need to pay anyone other than "B"?
Also where does it end?
You say if "C" buys a product from "B" who licensed a patent from "A", you claim both "B" must pay "A", and somehow "C" must pay both "B" and "A".
If "D" buys that product from "C", now "D" must pay both "C" and "A".
If "E" buys that product from "D", now "E" must pay both "D" and
Re: (Score:2)
Should really patent owner P only get $0.50 per produkt from B when A pays $5 per unit in patent fees ?
Yes, because they decided it would be better to charge a percentage than a fixed sum, or a combination.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here isn't that a company patented something; it's that there is a patent-encumbered standard. Patents on implementations are fine, but patents on protocols or interfaces (even connector geometry and signal definition, in my opinion) should be disallowed.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much every standard out there.
Standards aren't seeking the best technical solution - a standards committee is actually a gathering of all the movers and shakers who go about and make side deals trying to incorporate as many patents
Re: (Score:2)
You dont understand it. The round edges are the more important feature on the iphone than a working GSM/Mobile connection.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Strange that this is considered insightful.
Apple was paying Ericsson royalties for LTE related patents for some time, and when renewal came up in 2014, Ericsson jacked up the price.
Apple didn't consider this FRAND, and went into dispute with Ericsson.
They've apparently now negotiated rate lower than what Ericsson was asking at the renewal point, and paid them a lump sum for the period in which they weren't paying anything.
This kind of thing happens quite frequently with standards related patents - i.e. its
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Erickson actually crreated (Score:1)
because there are more apple fans than android fans (even tho there are more android users than apple users)
and they get very cranky when those of us who don't really care that much about branding point out their "team" is in terminal decline.
Re: (Score:2)
Erickson actually paid for the R&D to create something new, unlike curved edges and a single button that Apple patented. Fuck Apple.
If Apple's patents are worthless, why did Ericsson want cross-licensing deals to them?
Re: (Score:2)
Erickson actually paid for the R&D to create something new
Or maybe they have excellent patent lawyers
IPR [Re:Figures?] (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know what "IPR Revenue" is
"Intellectual Property Rights" revenue.
From the summary: " For the full year 2015, Ericsson predicts its intellectual property rights revenue will amount to between 13 billion and 14 billion Swedish krona ($1.64 billion). In comparison, it reported IPR revenue of 10.6 billion krona for the full year 2014,..."
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. "You're holding it wrong". We remember.
So you read your phone manual: http://dontholditwrong.tumblr.... [tumblr.com]
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple was buying chips from Qualcomm that used ericdons tech. Qualcomm already pays ericson for the patent. Now Apple has to pay twice for the same product
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Qualcomm had paid for them to use the patent, not for others to use the patent. Just because I have some windows software that does 8.3 to long name conversion on VFAT does not mean that I have the patent license to write that up in some code and give that code away for everyone else to use, despite the cost of the software including the cost of licensing the patent.
And equally, neither did Apple have the right to make a product and sell it using the patented tech they did not have a license to.
Re: (Score:2)
Qualcomm had paid for them to use the patent, not for others to use the patent.
Kids, look up "patent exhaustion doctrine" for your homework.
But lets look at it objectively: why would Qualcomm pay Ericsson any license fees to use the patents if they didn't actually use the patents? They certainly don't sell any end user products only chips implementing the patent. Which are useless if you don't put them into a phone. Or did they instead pay to use cell phones made by other companies inside Qualcomm? But that would also be double dipping, not to mention it would mean all companies woul
Re: (Score:2)
Wait.
So you're saying that Qualcomm negotiated end use rights for a radio standard that only they could use, and anyone they resold chips based upon that standard is fucked? In effect, you're saying that Qualcomm negotiated with every one of their chip customers in bad faith to purchase rights from Qualcomm for something they did not own, and could not sublicense, and set them all up for a legal shit show with Ericsson?
Or, do you think it's more likely, that you don't know what you're talking about? I thi
Re: (Score:2)
"Kronor"? Sounds Borgish. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:1)
"Kronor"? Sounds Borgish.
That's because we are. You will be assimilated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
You're welcome!
Re: (Score:2)
And anyone that had a brain would know that Apple *was* paying Ericsson for these patents under the FRAND terms that are required for the standards of which they are a part. Then Ericsson tried to change the license fees, which violates the "and non-discriminatory" bit of FRAND. Apple told them to get fucked, Ericsson sued, they settled it on something that Apple and Ericsson agreed to. Apple then paid up for past out-of-license use during the period of lapse.
This shit happens all the time. The only rea
And soon other companies will have to pay Apple (Score:2)
Apple and Ericsson will work together to develop 5G technology, the next generation of mobile data communication, having signed a global patent agreement that ends lawsuits in Europe and the U.S. The deal will see Apple being allowed to use Ericsson's standard essential patents as well as certain other patents held by the Swedish company while both parties have also agreed to end all ongoing litigation between them. Looking to move away from court room battles, Apple and Ericsson will now look to work more closely together collaborating in "multiple technology areas," which include 5G development, video network traffic management, and wireless network optimization. "We are pleased with this new agreement with Apple, which clears the way for both companies to continue to focus on bringing new technology to the global market, and opens up for more joint business opportunities in the future," Kasim Alfalahi, chief intellectual property officer at Ericsson, said in a statement accompanying the announcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so you mean the trolls are wrong and this isn't some huge victory against the goliath that is big bad Apple, stealing ALL THE PATENTS?
It's almost like this is the course of regular business!