If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bloomberg)   Judge: Apple, would you be willing to accept my judgment? Apple: No, not really Judge: Case dismissed, have fun paying Google for each iPhone you make   (bloomberg.com) divider line 60
    More: Interesting, Apple Inc., Google, Motorola Mobility, patent portfolio, iPhone  
•       •       •

14209 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Nov 2012 at 12:34 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-08 01:27:20 AM  
Pardon my air travel weakened brain, but wouldn't the justicibility requirement prevent the district court from having the power to even hear the case? Or has fatigue set in and done scrambled me noggin'?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-08 10:07:02 AM  
starsrift

Suppose there are 200 essential patents covering a $200 phone. The patents can't be worth more than $1 each on average, even though each is essential to the product.
 
2012-11-08 10:16:44 AM  

ZAZ: starsrift

Suppose there are 200 essential patents covering a $200 phone. The patents can't be worth more than $1 each on average, even though each is essential to the product.


Then it isn't a 200 dollar phone, is it?

That was an easy one. You don't set a price and work backward to figure out what it cost to make an item, and that holds true for physical parts as well as intellectual.

None of that means the patent isn't worth more or less than a dollar. On that I don't know, but you can't determine that a patent IS worth a dollar because heck you plan on selling the phone for 200 bucks and you want to make it a phone that includes another X dollars in patents and Y dollars in materials.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-08 11:21:25 AM  
Smackledorfer

But each of my 200 hypothetical patents is worth as much as the entire phone, no matter where the price ends up, because you can't make a phone without a big pile of patents. So this is effectively a monopoly type situation. The disagreement up at top of thread was over whether we (a) break the monopoly on public goods by eliminating the legal barrier to entry (my view), or (b) let the industry get protectionist against round-cornered intruders without necessarily allowing "unfair" behavior (zedster's view).

(Unfair in quotes because it has a meaning in this context beyond the common one.)
 
2012-11-08 11:26:25 AM  
Apple and Microsoft raised the breach-of-contract claims based on demands for royalties of 2.25 percent on the retail price of each product, which Motorola Mobility has said was its standard opening offer. The company has said neither Microsoft nor Apple would negotiate.
If Motorola won't negotiate, isn't 2.25% a final rather than opening offer?
 
rpm
2012-11-08 11:32:07 AM  

joeshill:
Mac OS X - not to be confused with NEXT


Yeah, I bet the founder of NeXT is really pissed at Apple. His name is on the tip of my tongue, damn it.

Oh yeah, Steve Jobs. Bet he can't stand Apple.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2012-11-08 11:34:23 AM  
Forgot to comment on this earlier: which Motorola Mobility has said was its standard opening offer.

My other problem with the industry practice is the "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" terms are not. If there is an "opening offer," as opposed to a fixed price, then the terms are discriminatory.
 
2012-11-08 11:55:50 AM  

rpm: joeshill:
Mac OS X - not to be confused with NEXT


Yeah, I bet the founder of NeXT is really pissed at Apple. His name is on the tip of my tongue, damn it.

Oh yeah, Steve Jobs. Bet he can't stand Apple.


The question was on Apple innovations. If the technology is developed outside of Apple (while Apple is suing the developer for "nefarious schemes"), and then later bought by Apple, is it really Apple innovation? Or is it Steve Jobs and a bunch of people who left Apple (because they didn't want to innovate?) who innovated and then Apple just bought some existing tech, and decided to claim it as their own?
 
2012-11-08 12:28:48 PM  

ZAZ: Smackledorfer

But each of my 200 hypothetical patents is worth as much as the entire phone, no matter where the price ends up, because you can't make a phone without a big pile of patents. So this is effectively a monopoly type situation. The disagreement up at top of thread was over whether we (a) break the monopoly on public goods by eliminating the legal barrier to entry (my view), or (b) let the industry get protectionist against round-cornered intruders without necessarily allowing "unfair" behavior (zedster's view).

(Unfair in quotes because it has a meaning in this context beyond the common one.)


You said it was a 200 dollar phone and the 200 patents were a buck each. So no, "each" of the 200 patents are not worth as much as the entire phone. ALL of the 200 patents are costing the company as much in total as the phone they WANT to sell for 200 dollars. Assuming the phone then costs X bucks to make for the physical parts and labor, they are selling the phone at a loss.

To that I say: they have priced their phone improperly.

You cannot start by imagining a phone that you want to market for X dollars and then complain that you cannot produce it for less than X dollars. My problem with your argument isn't that you think it should be more or less in total for any given patent usage. My problem is that you base it on an imaginary preset price of the widget to be sold. If widgets have to be 250 dollars, then they have to be 250 dollars - patents should be no different than other aspect of the cost of producing a product.

You wouldn't agree that manufacturers of plastic should cut prices so phone company A can sell it at the price they want to, would you?

ZAZ: My other problem with the industry practice is the "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" terms are not. If there is an "opening offer," as opposed to a fixed price, then the terms are discriminatory.


Hypothetical: if company A has a widget patent that company B can't sell their superior widgets without, while company B's widgets are so awesome due to their originality that they would dominate company A in the widget market, then company A should be forced to let B steamroll them in the market and company B should be allowed to decide how much they want to pay for the patent usage?

I don't see how your solution does anything except create an unfair advantage in the opposite direction of the unfair advantage you are against.

Personally I've never been convinced that millions, sometimes billions, need to be a possible gain in order for creative minds to work with and improve technology, but then you get into another monopoly issue wherein creativity gets completely trumped by infrastructure and the big company will always win over something new, which is also bad. I don't have a solution, but I still don't see why anyone should be allowed to make the argument that product X shouldn't pay more than Y dollars for a patent simply because they want to sell it at price P. At some point the too damn bad rule comes into play, and ffs we are talking about apple here: the company pissed off that they might be forced to reveal profit margins and costs of creating iphones.
 
2012-11-10 02:27:52 PM  
Seems to be some on this thread that know their shiat so I'm going to ask what is probably a stupid question.....

We all know what Moore's Law is. Is it so insane to require that certain types of technology patents have a life of only 2 or three years before they are made available to the public? It just seems to me, in the Tech world, 20 years before common use would put most technology well beyond obsolete anyway. 20+ years just seems like an insanely long time for a company to be a sole profiteer from patents it, as likely as not, bought from another company. At the very least I could see the current model costing us technological advances due to the non-sharing nature of most corporations and Apple specifically. Then again I could just be very ignorant of patents and patent law....

/am very ignorant of patents and patent law
 
Displayed 10 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report