Apple's answer should be to open their own EE labs and start inventing things and getting their own patents. Instead, they complain and go to court.
Of course, that assumes the patents are good ones.
Apple's assertion is that the pricing is not Fair or Reasonable, which Qualcomm agreed to as a concession to make their patents part of the cellular network standards.
> Apple's answer should be to open their own EE labs and start inventing things and getting their own patents. Instead, they complain and go to court.
Apple cannot simply invent their own cell technology and have it work with the cellular networks that actually exist.
And no, under FRAND, Qualcomm can refuse license.
There really isn't a clear definition for "fair" or "reasonable", which is why this ends up in court.
> And no, under FRAND, Qualcomm can refuse license.
No. That's the "non-discriminatory" part. This one is actually pretty clear.
The purpose of the ETSI IPR Policy is to facilitate the
standards making process within ETSI. In complying with the
Policy the Technical Bodies should not become involved in
legal discussion on IPR matters. The main characteristics
of the Policy can be simplified as follows:
• Members are fully entitled to hold and benefit from any
IPRs which they may own, including the right
to refuse the granting of licenses.
USITC 337-TA-794 (Samsung) http://www.essentialpatentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/...
Apple alleged that Samsung violated FRAND terms in the following ways:
1)
Apple argues that Samsung was obligated to make an initial
offer to Apple of a specific fair and reasonable royalty
rate." (p.60)
The evidence on record does not suppmt Apple's position.
Apple's witness on ETSI policy and practice testified the
ETSI IPR Policy document has "no precise definition ofFRAND" and that
it is expected that parties arrive at a FRAND license through
negotiation." (p. 60)
2)
Apple also criticizes Samsung's attempt to negotiate a cross-license of
both parties' mobile telephone patent portfolios."
We cannot say that Sam sung's offers in this regard are unreasonable.
The record contains evidence of more than 30 Samsung licenses that
cover the '348 and '644 patents. See RX-173C, RX-178C, RX-188, RX-189C,
RX-191C, RX-193C to -209C, RX-421C, RX-423C. All of those licenses
include a cross-license to the licensee's portfolio. That evidence
supports a conclusion t~at a portfolio cross-license offer is typical
in the industry and reasonable. ...
Apple has offered no evidence to suggest that such portfolio cross-
licenses are atypical in the industry. 19 In fact, Apple's own witness
on ETSI policies affirmed that ETSI anticipates cross-licensing may be
part of the process of negotiating a FRAND license between two parties.
3)
Apple also complains that Samsung's offer is unreasonable because [some
redacted terms Apple claimed was unreasonable]
Apple's argument lacks merit for several reasons. First, as has been
articulated in comments to the Commission from Qualcomm, Ericsson, and
Samsung, a FRAND license could encompass a range of reasonable terms. A
reasonable cross-license with one competitor may involve a
balancing payment to Samsung while a reasonable cross-license with
another competitor may involve Samsung making a balancing payment. Both
types of agreements may be reasonable, depending on the two portfolios
at issue and each party's respective volume of sales. F"
I could go on and on and point out Apple's willful ignorance on FRAND. And, yes, Apple's appeal to ignorance or your ridiculous claim that "There really isn't a clear definition for "fair" or "reasonable"," is not much of a sensical arguement.
That’s not a definition of FRAND, legal or otherwise. This is a statement of the ESTIs view on IP rights. The only reference to FRAND in that section is at the end, where it talks about non-FRAND IP.
> Conclusion: Apple's own witness testified that Samsung is under no obligation to make a FRAND "initial offer." Apple and their own expert clearly knew about it.
You literally just quoted an expert witness who says that there’s no definition of FRAND in that doc: Apple's witness on ETSI policy and practice testified the ETSI IPR Policy document has "no precise definition of FRAND"
You’ve provided no evidence for your claims about FRAND and I’m very uninterested in discussing whether Apple is playing dumb, because I really don’t care.
I assert Apple's markup on products is not fair or reasonable. Perhaps Qualcomm's demands are in line with the true value of the device and not the pie in the sky numbers Apple wants.
You can’t just arbitrarily apply it to something that’s not under a contract (Apple’s device prices) and say that because you don’t like that due to a non-legal system definition of FRAND Qualcomm is off the hook.
You don't get to agree to parts of it just because the company you are licensing to has more money to spend.
Qualcomm sounds a lot more fair and reasonable than any of the other multi-billion dollar companies I know of.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/10/28/apple-rd-spending-...
If I own a company with 100K revenue and spend 5K on R&D that doesn't make me more innovative, relevant or noteworthy than Apple.
It's all about the amount and quality of R&D that is important.
Qualcomm spends an average of 1.325B per quarter, and peaked in 2014 with 1.429B.[0]
Apple spends an average of 1.959B per quarter, but that has been steadily rising to 2.937B last quarter.[1]
[0] https://ycharts.com/companies/QCOM/r_and_d_expense [1] https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/r_and_d_expense
Apple is late to the wireless game and now they are trying to find a way to pay as little as possible while not contributing virtually nothing to it and being one of the largest benefactors of the tech.