In Venture Beat, Jeremy Horwitz reports Apple and Qualcomm offer billion-dollar sob stories at FTC antitrust trial.
The article gives more details on the negotiations leading to the FTC trial than what is described in Wired - The FTC Thinks You Pay Too Much For Smartphones. Here’s Why. For example, the article mentions initially Apple was willing to pay $7.50/phone in 2011 and meet other conditions including advocate against a budding wireless standard WiMax. Then Qualcomm decided to leverage the need for the CDMA chips used by Verizon on the sale of other chips and increase the patent license from $7.50/phone to $8-10/phone plus retain exclusivity. It looks like the "straw that broke the camel's back" as Apple had further developed Intel as a second source for the chips.
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label standard essential patents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standard essential patents. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Monday, January 14, 2019
Wired - The FTC Thinks You Pay Too Much For Smartphones. Here’s Why
In Wired, The FTC Thinks You Pay Too Much For Smartphones. Here’s Why, FTC is investigating if Qualcomm has committed an antitrust violation (a "tax" on cell phones that drives up prices and hurts competition) in demanding 5% of the value of a cell phone up to $20 max for licensing its patented wireless technology to Apple and Huawei.
From the article:
"Qualcomm charges companies like Apple a set percentage of the total price of a phone in exchange for the right to use its technology, according to the antitrust suit filed by the FTC. The percentages vary, but Qualcomm generally charges 5 percent of the value of a device, up to a maximum of about $20 per device, according to a legal brief filed by Qualcomm. Phone makers like Apple and Huawei argue that Qualcomm demands a larger cut of each phone sale than is fair, but that they pay because Qualcomm essentially threatens to cut off their supply of important wireless chips if they don’t. The FTC describes this as a "tax" on cellular phones that drives up prices and hurts competition.
In court Friday, Apple executive Tony Blevins accused the chipmaker of strong-arm tactics. Blevins said that during negotiations in 2013, Qualcomm president Cristiano Amon told him, "I'm your only choice, and I know Apple can afford to pay it,” CNET reports."
It appears Apple was able to buy its replacement chips from its second source Intel but incurred some delays as it scrambled to integrate the Intel chips to cover for Qualcomm's refusal to reduce its price. It sounds like the mobile computing patent wars have resumed.
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
From the article:
"Qualcomm charges companies like Apple a set percentage of the total price of a phone in exchange for the right to use its technology, according to the antitrust suit filed by the FTC. The percentages vary, but Qualcomm generally charges 5 percent of the value of a device, up to a maximum of about $20 per device, according to a legal brief filed by Qualcomm. Phone makers like Apple and Huawei argue that Qualcomm demands a larger cut of each phone sale than is fair, but that they pay because Qualcomm essentially threatens to cut off their supply of important wireless chips if they don’t. The FTC describes this as a "tax" on cellular phones that drives up prices and hurts competition.
In court Friday, Apple executive Tony Blevins accused the chipmaker of strong-arm tactics. Blevins said that during negotiations in 2013, Qualcomm president Cristiano Amon told him, "I'm your only choice, and I know Apple can afford to pay it,” CNET reports."
It appears Apple was able to buy its replacement chips from its second source Intel but incurred some delays as it scrambled to integrate the Intel chips to cover for Qualcomm's refusal to reduce its price. It sounds like the mobile computing patent wars have resumed.
Copyright © 2019 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Saturday, December 8, 2018
Bloomberg Law - Justice Department Exits Joint Patent Policy with PTO
If you own or deal with standard essential patents (SEP), you may want to read the Bloomberg Law article Justice Department Exits Joint Patent Policy with PTO:
"The Department of Justice has withdrawn from a joint policy with the Patent and Trademark Office on standard-essential patents.
The 2013 agreement, in which the two agencies said it should be difficult for patent owners to block sales or imports of products based on their use of patents in industry standards, no longer reflects the department’s policy on anticompetitive behavior, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Makan Delrahim said in a Dec. 7 speech in Palo Alto, Calif.
Delrahim, the department’s antitrust chief, said his division will work with the PTO to replace the policy."
Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
"The Department of Justice has withdrawn from a joint policy with the Patent and Trademark Office on standard-essential patents.
The 2013 agreement, in which the two agencies said it should be difficult for patent owners to block sales or imports of products based on their use of patents in industry standards, no longer reflects the department’s policy on anticompetitive behavior, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Makan Delrahim said in a Dec. 7 speech in Palo Alto, Calif.
Delrahim, the department’s antitrust chief, said his division will work with the PTO to replace the policy."
Copyright © 2018 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
Santa Clara University Law School - 2016 Corporate Intellectual Property Strategy Conference - November 17, 2016
Today, Santa Clara University Law School notified:
"The High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara Law is pleased to partner with Unified Patents, Inc. in hosting a 2016 Corporate Intellectual Property Strategy Conference at Santa Clara on November 17, 2016. The conference will focus on PTAB trends and updates, patent quality and validity data, the current status of patent pools and standard-essential patents, as well as the secondary market for buying and selling patents.
The conference will take place from 1:00 pm to 5:30 pm on November 17, 2016 and is complimentary but requires registration. For more information and to register online, visit the event page."
Copyright © 2016 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
"The High Tech Law Institute at Santa Clara Law is pleased to partner with Unified Patents, Inc. in hosting a 2016 Corporate Intellectual Property Strategy Conference at Santa Clara on November 17, 2016. The conference will focus on PTAB trends and updates, patent quality and validity data, the current status of patent pools and standard-essential patents, as well as the secondary market for buying and selling patents.
The conference will take place from 1:00 pm to 5:30 pm on November 17, 2016 and is complimentary but requires registration. For more information and to register online, visit the event page."
Copyright © 2016 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
National Law Review - IEEE Clarifies RAND Commitment for Standard-Essential Patents: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Tonight, I suggest reading the National Law Review article IEEE Clarifies RAND Commitment for Standard-Essential Patents: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, which describes the IEEE's policy change for patents relating to IEEE standards that was approved on February 8, 2015.
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2015 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Samsung Agrees To Not Seek Injunctions In Enforcing Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) In Mobile Communications for Five Years in Europe
ZDNet reports that Samsung waves white flag on patent wars. Perhaps a bit of hyperbole, but still a significant change in Samsung's strategy in enforcing standard essential patents (SEPs) in the mobile computing patent wars in Europe. Thanks to Suzie Lipton-Moll for passing on this article today.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Obama Administration Vetoes ITC's Ban of Older Apple iPhones and iPads
Today, the Obama Administration vetoed the International Trade Commission's (ITC) ban of Apple's infringement of Samsung's standard essential patent.
As background in June 2013, the ITC ordered a ban of AT& T's model of Apple's iPhone 3, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, the iPad 3G, and iPad 2 based on infringement of Samsung's U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348. Apple was faced with the ITC ban, an appeal to the Federal Circuit, or a request for the President to veto the ban. The last time a President vetoed an ITC order was in the 1980's so it seemed an appeal to the Federal Circuit was the likely next step.
However, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman decided to veto the ITC ban expressing the "concern that a ban on Apple's products would abuse Samsung's right to the essential patent, which involves encoding and decoding information on a CDMA cell phone network." Mr. Froman warned the ITC should carefully examine if a ban based on a standard essential patent serves the public interest before granting it. This is an unexpected setback for Samsung which now must seek a remedy in federal court.
For further details see Mr. Froman's letter explaining the decision and Older iPhones won't be banned as Obama Administration vetoes ITC decision.
Updated August 5: Obama administration may have overturned the ITC ban due to reasons presented in ITC commissioner Dean Pinkert's dissent. See CNN Money How the ITC forced a veto in the Samsung-Apple patent case. Also see FOSS Patents One ITC chief found Samsung to fail to offer Apple FRAND licensing terms to its UMTS patents.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
As background in June 2013, the ITC ordered a ban of AT& T's model of Apple's iPhone 3, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, the iPad 3G, and iPad 2 based on infringement of Samsung's U.S. Patent No. 7,706,348. Apple was faced with the ITC ban, an appeal to the Federal Circuit, or a request for the President to veto the ban. The last time a President vetoed an ITC order was in the 1980's so it seemed an appeal to the Federal Circuit was the likely next step.
However, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman decided to veto the ITC ban expressing the "concern that a ban on Apple's products would abuse Samsung's right to the essential patent, which involves encoding and decoding information on a CDMA cell phone network." Mr. Froman warned the ITC should carefully examine if a ban based on a standard essential patent serves the public interest before granting it. This is an unexpected setback for Samsung which now must seek a remedy in federal court.
For further details see Mr. Froman's letter explaining the decision and Older iPhones won't be banned as Obama Administration vetoes ITC decision.
Updated August 5: Obama administration may have overturned the ITC ban due to reasons presented in ITC commissioner Dean Pinkert's dissent. See CNN Money How the ITC forced a veto in the Samsung-Apple patent case. Also see FOSS Patents One ITC chief found Samsung to fail to offer Apple FRAND licensing terms to its UMTS patents.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
DOJ & USPTO Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to FRAND
The FTC and DOJ/USPTO have different opinions on what should trigger an injunction for infringement of a standard essential patent (SEP).
See the FTC press release: Google Agrees to Change Its Business Practices to Resolve FTC Competition Concerns In the Markets for Devices Like Smart Phones, Games and Tablets, and in Online Search.
See U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (DOJ) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments.
Also see McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP's article: FRAND and Injunctive Relief: Exploring a Standard-Essential Patent Owners Right to Injunctive Relief
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
See the FTC press release: Google Agrees to Change Its Business Practices to Resolve FTC Competition Concerns In the Markets for Devices Like Smart Phones, Games and Tablets, and in Online Search.
See U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division (DOJ) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments.
Also see McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP's article: FRAND and Injunctive Relief: Exploring a Standard-Essential Patent Owners Right to Injunctive Relief
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Academics Supporting Senator Leahy Questioning Injunctions on Standard Essential Patents
Here's an academic paper RAND Patents and Exclusion Orders: Submission of 19 Economics and Law Professors to the International Trade Commission that supports Senator Leahy Questions Whether Injunctions Should Be Granted on Standard Essential Patents.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Senator Leahy Questions Whether Injunctions Should Be Granted on Standard Essential Patents
Yesterday, I posted a brief article here that notes the FRAND issue has become pivotal in Apple v. Motorola Mobility.
Now as the ITC considers whether to ban importation of the Xbox and iPhone based on Google's Motorola Mobility's standard essential patents, Senator Leahy is questioning whether patent owners should be able to obtain injunctions for infringement of a standard essential patents. Senator Leahy notes the iPhone and XBox and called the FTC and Department of Justice to a hearing to "explore the competitive impact of ITC exclusion orders and whether more needs to be done to ensure consumers are not the victims of the tech patent wars." Since the ITC only affords an injunction, eliminating injunctions would remove standard essential patent disputes out of the ITC or require another remedy.
Now as the ITC considers whether to ban importation of the Xbox and iPhone based on Google's Motorola Mobility's standard essential patents, Senator Leahy is questioning whether patent owners should be able to obtain injunctions for infringement of a standard essential patents. Senator Leahy notes the iPhone and XBox and called the FTC and Department of Justice to a hearing to "explore the competitive impact of ITC exclusion orders and whether more needs to be done to ensure consumers are not the victims of the tech patent wars." Since the ITC only affords an injunction, eliminating injunctions would remove standard essential patent disputes out of the ITC or require another remedy.
See Ars Technica: As ITC mulls Xbox, iPhone import bans, Senators target patent system.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Microsoft and Google's Motorola Mobility Stay Litigation Until FRAND Issue is Resolved
Microsoft and Google's Motorola Mobility filed a joint motion to stay three U.S. patent lawsuits until the fair reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) issue is resolved. The court's decision on FRAND will be especially important to Google since Motorola Mobility was presumably bought in part for the value of the standard essential patents. It sounds like unreasonable high royalty demands (e.g., 2.25% for a standard essential patent) when hundreds of patents must be licensed to practice the standard are about to become even less popular.
See FOSS Patents: Microsoft and Google agree to stay three U.S. patent lawsuits until FRAND issues are resolve
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
See FOSS Patents: Microsoft and Google agree to stay three U.S. patent lawsuits until FRAND issues are resolve
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Apple CEO Tim Cook on Patents - D: All Things Digital Interview
Apple CEO Tim Cook is the first speaker at the D: All Things Digital Conference. He is being interviewed by Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher today.
Here are WSJ's Ina Fried's notes of Tim Cook's interview. The patent part of the interview runs from 6:51 - 6:58 p.m. Tim Cook notes Apple can’t afford to paint a painting and then have someone else sign their name to it." And it is important for Apple not be the developer for the world. We just want other people to invent their own stuff. Walter replied but lots of folks are suing Apple, too. Cook replied yes, and the vast majority of those are standards-essential patents and no one should be able to get an injunction based on those patents. This makes sense to me as the threat of an injunction reduces the probability that the parties can efficiently reach an agreement on what is a fair reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate.
If you read the interview, it is clear Walter Mossberg and Kara Swisher of The Wall Street Journal are the the right people for the job. See the New Yorker article Critical Mass - Everyone listens to Walter Mossberg. Although Walter is pro on Apple in recent years, I don't think he is willing to just accept whatever Tim Cook says. He does provide an opportunity for Tim to state his view, but questions him if it doesn't make sense.
I haven't attended but judging from the speakers the annual D: All Things Digital conference also appears to be a good choice for the interview. In the last decade Walter Mossberg has partnered with Journal columnist Swisher and they strike the right blend of empathy and skepticism in interviewing people. For example, their interview of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs is priceless.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Here are WSJ's Ina Fried's notes of Tim Cook's interview. The patent part of the interview runs from 6:51 - 6:58 p.m. Tim Cook notes Apple can’t afford to paint a painting and then have someone else sign their name to it." And it is important for Apple not be the developer for the world. We just want other people to invent their own stuff. Walter replied but lots of folks are suing Apple, too. Cook replied yes, and the vast majority of those are standards-essential patents and no one should be able to get an injunction based on those patents. This makes sense to me as the threat of an injunction reduces the probability that the parties can efficiently reach an agreement on what is a fair reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) royalty rate.
If you read the interview, it is clear Walter Mossberg and Kara Swisher of The Wall Street Journal are the the right people for the job. See the New Yorker article Critical Mass - Everyone listens to Walter Mossberg. Although Walter is pro on Apple in recent years, I don't think he is willing to just accept whatever Tim Cook says. He does provide an opportunity for Tim to state his view, but questions him if it doesn't make sense.
I haven't attended but judging from the speakers the annual D: All Things Digital conference also appears to be a good choice for the interview. In the last decade Walter Mossberg has partnered with Journal columnist Swisher and they strike the right blend of empathy and skepticism in interviewing people. For example, their interview of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs is priceless.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)