Posts by Steve Todd

Re: Kudos to the author

Apple's PE is in the middle of the normal range (you expect a companies PE to be between 10 and 20, Apple's is 15.59) and less than Google's (20.11). What were you saying again?

Re: unlicensed music illegally on iTunes?

Looks like a case of suing the wrong party. Apple only ever sell music as middle men. A record company provides them with a batch of tracks and says "sell these for this price". The artist in question is claiming that the record company didn't have rights to these tracks. Must be all Apple's fault right?

Why did Apple sue MS?

Because the bits of the GUI that Apple had invented (and weren't part of Xerox's design) somehow found their way into Windows. Xerox thought that they could get on the bandwagon by suing too, and were told by the courts to get lost.

Re: Apple better becareful

They won't license any of their IP, except for the stuff in h.264, oh and OpenCL (which they gave away for free), and the complete cross license they have with Microsoft, plus numerous other examples. They license their IP where they think it is in the companies interests to do so, just like every other company out there.

Please take some time to learn what FRAND is, and why standards bodies like the ETSI and 3GPP won't include patents in their standards that haven't been committed to FRAND. It might make your next post look less foolish.

Re: What did Samsung supposedly copy?

@Tom. Utterly and completely wrong. There is evidence that, during the design process, Apple asked the question "what would the iPhone look like if Sony designed it" but the resulting phone didn't look much like the finished iPhone, and other prototypes (created both before and after the Sony inspired model) looked much more like it. For that reason the judge held that it wasn't relevant.

It's a bit like you claiming "that Ford designer sketched out a design based on Ferrari while he was working on the Focus. The Focus is a Ferrari rip-off!"

Re: "creates confusion for these buyers"

The stupidity is strong with this one. The jury said that 3 of the 20 odd devices being considered infringed Apple's design patent. The job of Apple's lawyers is to try and get the broadest interpretation possible of their patents. Samsung's lawyers were out to get them found invalid or have the narrowest interpretation. Now that they have a court ruling under their belt Apple have a much better idea of what is or is not going to be ruled in their favour. At no time have they ever shown signs of going after devices other than phones or pads with them and you've got to be insane if you think the ruling will encourage them to do so.

Re: I completely disagree

Are you trying to say that Symbian devices (the whole package, not just the OS) looked like iPhones? Samsung's lawyers seem to have missed that one (odd that, given they are just about the most famous IP law firm in the US)

Re: @John Brown (no body)

Did you bother to read that Reuters article? It wasn't a case of the Forman giving the others instructions, it was a joint decision based on the evidence provided, testimony and examination of the devices in the jury room. They honestly thought as a griup that the prior art claims were't valid so threw them out.

It doesn't set any precidents for the forman's own patent so there is no benefit to him.

Re: Hope Apple has a new supplier.

You want Samsung to try for a breach of contract suit next? They make quiet a lot of money supplying parts to Apple, and they aren't the sole suppliers of those parts. They'd be cutting off their own nose to spite their face if they broke their supply contracts, and Apple wouldn't be inconvenienced much as most of the parts come from multiple suppliers anyway.

Re: I completely disagree

Buyers are used to seeing the same device with different brands on it (everything from cars to kitchen appliences). They reason that if it looks the same it must BE the same, never mind the logo.

You've always been able to play non-DRM'd music on the iPod

Anything you acquired elsewhere or ripped from CD using iTunes wasn't DRM'd. Only stuff you bought from the iTunes Store, and that was a condition of sale by the record labels. It wasn't even that hard to scrape off.

@soldinio - move the goalposts much?

Your original claim that it wasn't a valid comparison because Dyson hadn't claimed to invent the vacuum cleaner. When it was pointed out that Apple weren't making an equivalent claim you moved the goalposts.

Dyson didn't claim infringement on their design patents not because they didn't have them, but because Hoover didn't copy them.

The point of the trial is to determine if Apple's designs are protectable and infringed. Best let the jury, who have heard all the evidence, work that out.

Re: Fair trial?

An exactly valid comparison since Apple aren't claiming to have invented the smart phone and tablet PC either. In case you hadn't noticed the trial was about copying cosmetic designs, packaging and certain technical patents. Non of that prevents others from designing phones or tablets, just like others can design vacuums.

@pordzio

I've never understood this fetish for MMS. What's wrong with sending photos or videos via email, where you don't get charged extra by your cell company.

As for iTunes, pre iOS 5 you had to connect it once to activate (that you could do at the store) and once for each version upgrade (again which you could do at the store). As of iOS 5 you need never touch it.

Comprehension problem much?

He was saying that its certain that they copied, should they be allowed to get away with it.

Re: too easily shocked @Toothpick

The original iPhone had two things going for it, firstly it had a really excellent web browser, one that would work with normal web sites, rather than the cut-down WAP rubbish the mobile operators were trying to foist on the world. The original idea was that all apps would be web apps and there would be no need for a central store to sell them (devs screamed hard for binary local apps and the rest is history).

The other thing that Apple managed was to strong-arm the cell companies to provide unlimited data rather than charging silly money per megabyte. This encouraged people to actually use it rather than worrying about charges.

About that time I had an LG Viewty. On paper it was a match or better than the iPhone (it was 3G while the iPhone was only 2G EDGE for example). The software was however rubbish, and its the smoothness and polish of Apple software which built Apple's following.

You might want to talk to the directors of RIM

They didn't believe that Apple could meet the claims that they made when they launched the iPhone. Android changed its design direction. There was quite a large upheaval in the mobile business following its launch.

When companies commit patents to FRAND

They do so knowing that what is considered reasonable in FRAND terms is much less than normal patents, but in doing so they will get much more total income. Someone charging 10 cents per device on 3G patents would have made over 100 million last year. They'll keep on making that or more until their patent expires, easily over a billion dollars total, not bad considering that they only have to collect it, not make anything.

The standards setting body will deliberately try to remove or engineer out any patent that is considered too expensive. The technology is also in competition with other patents, the prize being to be included in the standard. The result is that what's on offer must be both cheap and good. Part of the objection here is that Samsung were late in declaring that part of the 3G spec was covered by one of their patents, making it hard to remove in favour of competing technology. This was a breach of the rules also.

Someone is very bad at history

Apple didn't try to sue over the ideas they got from Xerox (bought and paid for in pre IPO stock lest we forget), but for the ideas they had then built on top. Star didn't have the concept of an explorer/finder app, it didn't repaint uncovered sections of window etc. Xerox had their case tossed out of court.

Re: Not the way that accountants think

Even if you assume that Apple charge $100 for the 3G chip (wildly inaccurate, the BOM shows a mark-up of about 3x on cost, which would put the 3G chip at around $30-50) then Samsung would only be due $2.50 per phone. They are asking about $15, i.e. they are basing their prices on RRP.

Re: Funny

You missed out Reasonable. If the two are charging 10% royalties then they have to show that 10% is reasonable and its similar to the amounts charged by others in the patent pool. There are about 30 companies in the pool, so if each asked 10% then anyone not in the pool would have to pay 300%, which manifestly ISN'T reasonable.

Re: Funny

That's about normal. I point out what is ACTUALLY written in the article & who is claiming what, and the fandroids go mad and down vote it. Carry on with the RAAAGE chaps, you clearly have no logical arguments to the contrary.

That whooshing noise ...

it's the idea of FRAND going right over your head. The idea is to DELIBERATELY prevent cartels of incumbent companies from using their patents to block new entrants to the market. What did Samsung or HTC bring to the table when they first started in the 2G market? Sod all, but FRAND allowed them to enter and become major players. It's one of the reasons that GSM was such a global success, it was easy for companies with new ideas and products to bring them to the market and compete.

Re: Funny

RTFA. The argument is that EVERYONE with a 3G patent wanted the same kind if deal then 50% of the cost would be taken up by patents, not that Samsung alone wanted 50%

Re: 2.4% is unfrandly?

I don't think Samsung managed to show anyone was paying 2.5% of the RRP of a completed device. Most companies get their license as part of the cost of their baseband chip. These sell for about $10. I'm sure Apple would have no problems with paying a fixed 25 cents per phone (they were getting this via Qualcomm until Samsung cancelled their cross-licensing deal with them), but the idea that anything with 3G needs to pay Samsung 2.5% of RRP is against FRAND principles.

Re: @Aaron Em

Apart from the fact that you're changing the subject, the current Tesla home charging rig can charge at a rate of about 60 miles range/hour. That's from a standard 240 volt domestic supply.

It doesn't matter that fission based power is cheap, you'll still need a lot more of it to supply hydrogen as a fuel than charging batteries (the methods discussed were suitable for a fuel tank, but not bulk distribution, you'd still need tankers full of high pressure or liquid hydrogen to deliver it to fuel stations).

@Aaron Em

"Can't go more than 50 miles on a charge"? So the Tesla series (with models rated at between 160 and 300 miles on a charge) are a myth then? IBM's plans for a Lithium-Air battery with a 500 mile range is all pie in the sky?

You don't just have to electrolyse hydrogen, you need to cool it to a liquid or highly compress it for shipping, which needs lots of energy too. More than the power loss from grid transmission and charging, The moment that people can do what they want to do in en electric car for less money then you'll have to beat them off with a stick.