Active Topics
-
The N900 is now 15 years old! (9)
to Nokia N900 by Arno_11 - 4 hrs, 3 mins ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (4)
to SailfishOS by Maemish - 5 days, 16 hrs ago - more...
Rauha |
2009-10-29
, 21:15
|
|
Posts: 1,400 |
Thanked: 3,751 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Arctic cold of northern .fi
|
#141
|
Originally Posted by mikec
(IIRC) Nilay Patel has background in corporate law. Really shows in that article.
|
|
2009-10-29
, 21:34
|
|
Posts: 367 |
Thanked: 176 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
|
#142
|
Originally Posted by Rauha
Hello Samsung!
Engadget has posted in-depth analysis about the case. Well worth reading. http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/29/n...epth-analysis/
Includes this interesting chart:
Interesting to see Motorola as third largest patent holder. I allways thought it was Nokia-Ericsson-Qualcomm.
(It's nice to see that it's possible to make some good phones without legacy issues, despite of the lack of any patents... **cough** Apple **cough**)
|
|
2009-11-12
, 15:24
|
|
Posts: 1,400 |
Thanked: 3,751 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Arctic cold of northern .fi
|
#143
|
There's a lawyer for that Sorry couldn't resist
Couple of new tidbits. Apple has hired same lawyer who represented Broadcomm in it's case against Qualcomm. Apple has gotten time extension for response. It's now due 14th December.
Have to start stocking popcorn for this litigation drama.
Links:
Intomobile
Law.com
Legal papers for time extension ((PDF)
Last edited by Rauha; 2009-11-12 at 15:27.
Couple of new tidbits. Apple has hired same lawyer who represented Broadcomm in it's case against Qualcomm. Apple has gotten time extension for response. It's now due 14th December.
Have to start stocking popcorn for this litigation drama.
Links:
Intomobile
Law.com
Legal papers for time extension ((PDF)
Last edited by Rauha; 2009-11-12 at 15:27.
| The Following User Says Thank You to Rauha For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|
2009-11-20
, 10:27
|
|
Posts: 1,400 |
Thanked: 3,751 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Arctic cold of northern .fi
|
#144
|
New info from Benstein Analytics. Apple is effectively also dodging Qualcomms patents.
"Apple pays an estimated 1.6% of iPhone revenues to QCOM, most OEMs pay about 4%, giving Apple “a unique profitability edge. Given that iPhone gross margins are ~60%, Apple is effectively paying royalties on just 40% of the iPhone’s average wholesale ASP, vs. 100% for its handset OEM peers."
"The Bernstein analyst notes that the implications of this are material, adding by his estimates more than $280 million in operating profit for Apple in FY 2009, and over $400 million in FY 2010, “ostensibly at Qualcomm’s expense.”
Bernstein Analytics doesn't know know what Qualcomm will do to "address the situation", which I assume is american corporate talk for whetever Qualcomm will sue or not. Those fat iPhone profit margins are starting to make sense now.
Also, I realise that this is sort of off-topic for Maemo.org, and will stop posting updates to this thread if mods think that it's not suitable for Maemo.org.
Last edited by Rauha; 2009-11-20 at 10:30.
"Apple pays an estimated 1.6% of iPhone revenues to QCOM, most OEMs pay about 4%, giving Apple “a unique profitability edge. Given that iPhone gross margins are ~60%, Apple is effectively paying royalties on just 40% of the iPhone’s average wholesale ASP, vs. 100% for its handset OEM peers."
"The Bernstein analyst notes that the implications of this are material, adding by his estimates more than $280 million in operating profit for Apple in FY 2009, and over $400 million in FY 2010, “ostensibly at Qualcomm’s expense.”
Bernstein Analytics doesn't know know what Qualcomm will do to "address the situation", which I assume is american corporate talk for whetever Qualcomm will sue or not. Those fat iPhone profit margins are starting to make sense now.
Also, I realise that this is sort of off-topic for Maemo.org, and will stop posting updates to this thread if mods think that it's not suitable for Maemo.org.
Last edited by Rauha; 2009-11-20 at 10:30.
| The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Rauha For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-11-20
, 10:36
|
|
Posts: 3,159 |
Thanked: 2,023 times |
Joined on Feb 2008
@ Finland
|
#145
|
i suggest that unless nobody objects, go ahead with updates.
__________________
Want to know something?
K.I.S.S. approach:
wiki category:beginners. Browse it through and you'll be much wiser!
If the link doesn't help, just use
Google Custom Search
Want to know something?
K.I.S.S. approach:
wiki category:beginners. Browse it through and you'll be much wiser!
If the link doesn't help, just use
Google Custom Search
| The Following User Says Thank You to ossipena For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
|
2009-11-20
, 13:55
|
|
Posts: 861 |
Thanked: 734 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
@ Nomadic
|
#146
|
Originally Posted by Rauha
Now that's really, really interesting. Could Apple be gaming the very system they've revolutionized? A lot of times change happens because of things like this - but Apple will not want to play in this fight if this is the case and these facts hit the right eyes/ears.
New info from Benstein Analytics. Apple is effectively also dodging Qualcomms patents.
"Apple pays an estimated 1.6% of iPhone revenues to QCOM, most OEMs pay about 4%, giving Apple “a unique profitability edge. Given that iPhone gross margins are ~60%, Apple is effectively paying royalties on just 40% of the iPhone’s average wholesale ASP, vs. 100% for its handset OEM peers."
"The Bernstein analyst notes that the implications of this are material, adding by his estimates more than $280 million in operating profit for Apple in FY 2009, and over $400 million in FY 2010, “ostensibly at Qualcomm’s expense.”
Bernstein Analytics doesn't know know what Qualcomm will do to "address the situation", which I assume is american corporate talk for whetever Qualcomm will sue or not. Those fat iPhone profit margins are starting to make sense now.
 |
|
2009-11-20
, 13:57
|
|
Posts: 1,559 |
Thanked: 1,786 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Boston
|
#147
|
I must say, i didn't expect that the reign of the iPhone in the US would be ended by litigation, but by competing products. Now, i'm not so sure.
Wouldn't it be ironic if the legendary iPhone killer turned out to be Apple?
Wouldn't it be ironic if the legendary iPhone killer turned out to be Apple?
__________________
Unofficial PR1.3/Meego 1.1 FAQ
Unofficial PR1.3/Meego 1.1 FAQ
***
Classic example of arbitrary Nokia decision making. Couldn't just fallback to the no brainer of tagging with lat/lon if network isn't accessible, could you Nokia?
|
|
2009-11-20
, 14:08
|
|
Posts: 1,255 |
Thanked: 393 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ US
|
#148
|
Nokia probably has Apple on this and is using this as leverage, since these issues have been around for awhile.
Quesion is, leverage for what? Besides cold hard cash
added:
This might explain why Apple is kissing up to the government so much lately
Last edited by Rushmore; 2009-11-20 at 14:15.
Quesion is, leverage for what? Besides cold hard cash
added:
This might explain why Apple is kissing up to the government so much lately
Last edited by Rushmore; 2009-11-20 at 14:15.
 |
|
2009-11-20
, 15:20
|
|
Posts: 600 |
Thanked: 742 times |
Joined on Sep 2008
@ England
|
#149
|
Originally Posted by Rushmore
Leverage for patent cross-licensing so that Nokia can use multi-touch in Maemo 6, presumably.
Quesion is, leverage for what? Besides cold hard cash
Regards,
Roger
|
|
2009-11-20
, 15:35
|
|
Posts: 1,400 |
Thanked: 3,751 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Arctic cold of northern .fi
|
#150
|
Managed to find longer snippet from the Bernstein Analyst report (the full report is pay-to-read). It explains how Apple manages to pay so less fees to Qualcomm than other manufacturers. Nice little loophole they found instead of outright stealing.
Apple uses its manufacturer as middleman (Foxconn). Foxconn pays the license fee to Qualcomm using the price it uses to charge Apple. Apple then buys iPhone from Foxconn and sells it at full price.
According to Sacconaghi, this reflects the fact that the company itself is not a Qualcomm licensee - its buys baseband chips from Infineon - while using a licensed contract manufacturer - Foxconn - to make 100% of its handsets. Sacconaghi explains that Foxconn pays QCOM its standard royalty based on the transfer price to Apple. By contast, he says, essentially all other handset vendors are Qualcomm licensees and pay royalties based on the wholesale price of their phones.
http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/rea...msgid=26112706
Apple uses its manufacturer as middleman (Foxconn). Foxconn pays the license fee to Qualcomm using the price it uses to charge Apple. Apple then buys iPhone from Foxconn and sells it at full price.
According to Sacconaghi, this reflects the fact that the company itself is not a Qualcomm licensee - its buys baseband chips from Infineon - while using a licensed contract manufacturer - Foxconn - to make 100% of its handsets. Sacconaghi explains that Foxconn pays QCOM its standard royalty based on the transfer price to Apple. By contast, he says, essentially all other handset vendors are Qualcomm licensees and pay royalties based on the wholesale price of their phones.
http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/rea...msgid=26112706
| The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Rauha For This Useful Post: | ||
 |
| Tags |
| apple, intellectual property, lawsuit, nokia, nonsense magnet, patent infringement |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:45.