Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 61 posts

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#51

Post by tooltalk »

cbanek wrote: post #6
cbanek wrote: post #4

So this article talks all about pricing, and how the case might affect the price of an iPhone, but gives no numbers. Have to give it to them on mentioning 5G posturing though, which I think is what this is. From another recent article ( https://www.cnet.com/news/qualcomm-apple-iphone-patents-roya... ): In Apple's case, the iPhone maker pays Qualcomm's licensing fee through its manufacturers. Apple doesn't have a dire…

Here's another article that says the royalty is about $15 per phone. http://fortune.com/2017/01/23/qualcomm-royalty-apple-under-s...

is that after rebate or before?

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#53

Post by heisenbit »

gcb0 wrote: post #37
Declanomous wrote: post #5

Given how important standards are in the realm of computers, I think the degree of protection patents provide is ludicrous. Patents ostensibly exist to benefit society while allowing the inventor to benefit from their invention. I feel like in the digital world the balance has tipped too far in favor of the inventor. If we look to the industrial revolution for example, we have the conversion of linear motion to recip…

it will only help apple, not you. the article convenietly leaves out the pricing rules being disputed. remember that there is already regulations for std patents to be priced reasonably and non discrimatory. what apple is hunting here, is a discount. nothing else.

What is reasonable and non discriminatory is a question of interpretation.

At the heart is the argument that only part of the iPhone value is wireless and putting a tax on the whole is not reasonable. Imagine the iPhone software and chip embedded into a car. Would it be reasonable for the car manufacturer to pay the same percentage to Qualcomm as Apple? Where do you draw the line?

There is a huge amount of innovation in the iPhone: Mechanical engineering, materials, sensors, camera, screen and software. None have anything to do with Qualcomm.

The value Qualcomm adds is equivalent to a very fast portable, wireless hotspot. A great thing to have and worth paying for.

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#54

Post by logicallee »

Retric wrote: post #38
logicallee wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh I see, by "indefinitely", where you wrote, >it's easy for a cluster of bad patents to block progress indefinitely you meant like from 1959 to 1987. Sure is indefinitely. Imagine, if the world had ENDED in 1988 or 1989, then the world never would have gotten a patent-free laser. /s - nothing else to reply to you. get some perspective before throwing words like indefinitely around. I remember when I was 12 I thought…

Gould was issued U.S. Patent 4,161,436 in 1979, covering a variety of laser applications including heating and vaporizing materials, welding, drilling, cutting, measuring distance, communication systems, television, laser photocopiers and other photochemical applications, and laser fusion.[25] So 1979 + 20 = 1999 - 1959 = 40 years which is twice the nominal 20 year patent terms. Critically the original patent was ove…

As a member of the public believe it or not I don't actually benefit from every invention scrawled anywhere in some notebook.

I do benefit from having a precision component in my mouse that cost its manufacturer pennies. Which is the end game of the patent process.

So it's just not a great example. Overturned or not, the public has come out very strongly ahead.

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#55

Post by Retric »

logicallee wrote: post #54
Retric wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gould was issued U.S. Patent 4,161,436 in 1979, covering a variety of laser applications including heating and vaporizing materials, welding, drilling, cutting, measuring distance, communication systems, television, laser photocopiers and other photochemical applications, and laser fusion.[25] So 1979 + 20 = 1999 - 1959 = 40 years which is twice the nominal 20 year patent terms. Critically the original patent was ove…

As a member of the public believe it or not I don't actually benefit from every invention scrawled anywhere in some notebook. I do benefit from having a precision component in my mouse that cost its manufacturer pennies. Which is the end game of the patent process. So it's just not a great example. Overturned or not, the public has come out very strongly ahead.

What did you gain? Remember the chain of people leading to your mouse had nothing to do with this guy as he did not disclose his idea before people started making lasers.

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#56

Post by logicallee »

Retric wrote: post #55
logicallee wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a member of the public believe it or not I don't actually benefit from every invention scrawled anywhere in some notebook. I do benefit from having a precision component in my mouse that cost its manufacturer pennies. Which is the end game of the patent process. So it's just not a great example. Overturned or not, the public has come out very strongly ahead.

What did you gain? Remember the chain of people leading to your mouse had nothing to do with this guy as he did not disclose his idea before people started making lasers.

I gained the laser. There are lots of ideas in notebooks all over the world that I have zero access to. Their inventors don't know about or use the patent system. They have no incentive to prototype, research, and publish their findings, license them to manufacturing partners, or go through the tens of thousands of steps that the laser went through to become a component that costs pennies, available to everyone in a variety of applications.

Sketches in notebooks don't help me. Inventors going through the patent process do.

It's that simple.

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#57

Post by Retric »

logicallee wrote: post #56
Retric wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did you gain? Remember the chain of people leading to your mouse had nothing to do with this guy as he did not disclose his idea before people started making lasers.

I gained the laser. There are lots of ideas in notebooks all over the world that I have zero access to. Their inventors don't know about or use the patent system. They have no incentive to prototype, research, and publish their findings, license them to manufacturing partners, or go through the tens of thousands of steps that the laser went through to become a component that costs pennies, available to everyone in a…

But the guy who got the patent was the guy with the notebook who never showed it to anyone. Then when someone else got it to market he showed the patent office his notebook and then got a lot of money.

Note: We changed to a first to file in part to avoid this issue. But, now someone else can publish or even sell something, then after reading it you can submit a patent using their idea which is arguably far worse.

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#58

Post by [deleted] »

Retric wrote: post #57
logicallee wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gained the laser. There are lots of ideas in notebooks all over the world that I have zero access to. Their inventors don't know about or use the patent system. They have no incentive to prototype, research, and publish their findings, license them to manufacturing partners, or go through the tens of thousands of steps that the laser went through to become a component that costs pennies, available to everyone in a…

But the guy who got the patent was the guy with the notebook who never showed it to anyone. Then when someone else got it to market he showed the patent office his notebook and then got a lot of money. Note: We changed to a first to file in part to avoid this issue. But, now someone else can publish or even sell something, then after reading it you can submit a patent using their idea which is arguably far worse.

[deleted]

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#59

Post by logicallee »

Retric wrote: post #57
logicallee wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gained the laser. There are lots of ideas in notebooks all over the world that I have zero access to. Their inventors don't know about or use the patent system. They have no incentive to prototype, research, and publish their findings, license them to manufacturing partners, or go through the tens of thousands of steps that the laser went through to become a component that costs pennies, available to everyone in a…

But the guy who got the patent was the guy with the notebook who never showed it to anyone. Then when someone else got it to market he showed the patent office his notebook and then got a lot of money. Note: We changed to a first to file in part to avoid this issue. But, now someone else can publish or even sell something, then after reading it you can submit a patent using their idea which is arguably far worse.

:)

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#60

Post by aey »

Declanomous wrote: post #5

Given how important standards are in the realm of computers, I think the degree of protection patents provide is ludicrous. Patents ostensibly exist to benefit society while allowing the inventor to benefit from their invention. I feel like in the digital world the balance has tipped too far in favor of the inventor. If we look to the industrial revolution for example, we have the conversion of linear motion to recip…

These patents aren't cheap to develop or obvious. Of all the tech patents that are out there, high bandwidth and low latency communication is the hardest to develop. Apple is sitting on a mountain of cash, Qualcomm is absolutely in their right to charge them at the threshold it would take to develop an alternative.

In terms of "good to society" it's hard to say what expiration date is the optimal one at maximizing innovation over all possible futures. I think it's probably greater then 0, but below 100 years.

Post reply on HN