Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Iphone Patents The Almighty Buck The Courts Apple

Apple To Pay Ericsson Patent Royalties On iPhones and iPads (cio.com) 75

Posted by samzenpus from the pay-up dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple To Pay Ericsson Patent Royalties On iPhones and iPads More

Apple To Pay Ericsson Patent Royalties On iPhones and iPads

Comments Filter:

  • Erickson actually crreated (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 21, 2015 @04:15PM (#51161439)

    Erickson actually paid for the R&D to create something new, unlike curved edges and a single button that Apple patented. Fuck Apple.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by frnic ( 98517 )

      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)

      by dissy ( 172727 )

      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?

      • 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)

          by dissy ( 172727 )

          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

        • 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.

    • 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)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        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.

        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)

      by drolli ( 522659 )

      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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

    • FWIW, the Apple design patent on the round edges and single button on the iPad was invalidated during the Samsung trial. Their design patent of the same on the iPhone was invalidated earlier this year [androidpolice.com], although curiously almost none of the mainstream press covered it.

      • 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.

    • 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?

    • Erickson actually paid for the R&D to create something new

      Or maybe they have excellent patent lawyers

  • http://www.ibtimes.com/apple-e... [ibtimes.com]

    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.

    • 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!

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close