Thy should be happy with a charge of 30% of gross sales, it is their industry standard.
Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees
121–130 of 188 posts
Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even as a Brit, I don’t feel that I understand the British system, though from everything post 2016 I’ve reached the conclusion that neither does the current British government, and therefore they may well censure the judges even though the judges are supposed to be independent. Or they might do nothing, because Apple isn’t a British company and they want to help Amstrad take over its market share.
The judiciary isnt supposed to be independent. That is the american system. In the UK all power is held by parliament and extends from parliament.
I don't know why this is being downvoted; compared to the US system, the UK system doesn't implement anywhere near the same amount of separation of powers. As you can read about in sources like [1]
While judges in the UK have life tenure and aren't allowed to stand for parliament, judges are constitutionally subordnate to parliament - they can't challenge the validity of acts of parliament.
And separation of executive and legislature is essentially nonexistent: Getting the support of a majority in parliament makes you the prime minister - and the first-past-the-post system makes it very common that a single party will control a majority of the seats.
[1] https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06...
Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
The judiciary isnt supposed to be independent. That is the american system. In the UK all power is held by parliament and extends from parliament.
I don't know why this is being downvoted; compared to the US system, the UK system doesn't implement anywhere near the same amount of separation of powers. As you can read about in sources like [1] While judges in the UK have life tenure and aren't allowed to stand for parliament, judges are constitutionally subordnate to parliament - they can't challenge the validity of acts of parliament. And separation of executiv…
To add to your comment,
The executive is staffed by members of the lower house.
Until recently the head of the courts were from the upper house. So the lower house provided the executive, and the upper provided the courts.
Compared to constitutional systems like the US, the UK is basically still in the same position.
There is no "constitution" that the legal system forces parliament to adhere to. Our courts simply enforce acts and "send them back" to parliament only when there are inconsistencies.
I actually regard the creation of the supreme court here in the UK a pretty silly thing, it should've reminded with the upper house.
Either way, it isnt independent in the US sense.
Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees
#124When a quasi-monopolist threatens to exit your market ... perhaps the reason why isn't really all that important.
Cute but you forget that countries and municipalities are in competition with each other over attracting business, trillion dollar companies should make good on these threats more often because then they get to come back later for pennies on the dollar
> countries and municipalities are in competition with each other over attracting business
What's the point in attracting a business that doesn't pay any tax... further, I (and many others) would argue Apple has a far less positive impact on it's users than it used to, it has turned into more of a money extracting machine and vehicle for consumption.
In other words, if not having a quasi-monopoly operate in your country is a net positive for society, then who cares if they threaten to leave.
Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple sells 7 million iPhones a year in the UK, Google tells me. Even at just 100 profit a unit, should be way more than 50 million in profit. Ignoring income from other things like accessories, the store etc.
Not to mention, the complementary effects. Someone buying an iPhone today is more likely to choose an Apple device as their laptop. Someone buying an iPhone today is more likely to buy another iPhone in a few years, over an Android phone.
If it's only 7 million, then Apple would definitely leave.
I had no idea it was that low. I would have thought it would be from 10 to 14. To put it in perspective, Apple sells 4 times that many in China. With China and the US being their bread and butter. Also, their marketshare in China and the US has way more upside. (Room for growth.)
I can understand now. You definitely don't want to pay money to stay in a market that has less upside than your money makers. That would mean you're using money from your money makers to fund customers who are not your money makers. From a much smaller businessman's perspective, I'd file that under, "There are some customers out there that are too much trouble."
Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the interests of demonstrating a harsh penalty for judicial overreach, I would like to see this case made, and Apple abandon the market. I don't know the British system well enough to understand what reaction public opinion would have on members of parliament, but some censure of the judge and reversal of the patent decision could happen.
In any of the British jurisdictions, neither parliament nor the government can dismiss judges. Nor can anyone else. If they displease the government, then they might not be chosen to head lucrative judicial inquiries - I think that's the only sanction that government can inflict on them. Neither government nor parliament can "reverse" a patent decision. Government and parliament have been known to "censure" (criticis…
> neither parliament nor the government can dismiss judges
This is wholly untrue. Parliament can do what it pleases, including disestablish the judiciary and the executive.
Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cute but you forget that countries and municipalities are in competition with each other over attracting business, trillion dollar companies should make good on these threats more often because then they get to come back later for pennies on the dollar
> countries and municipalities are in competition with each other over attracting business What's the point in attracting a business that doesn't pay any tax... further, I (and many others) would argue Apple has a far less positive impact on it's users than it used to, it has turned into more of a money extracting machine and vehicle for consumption. In other words, if not having a quasi-monopoly operate in your coun…
Then let Apple leave the UK.
The UK should be better off.
Both sides are happy.
Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A patent is a government-sponsored monopoly which shouldn't be "pooled" by "patent companies" whose only purpose is to use the state to extract money from companies actually producing goods. Devil's advocate: If the original holder of a patent is a small fry, and does not have the resources to go after the big fish if they take advantage of the patent, shouldn't the original inventor have the right to sell the pate…
If we want that to be the case then we need to start differentiating between patents still owned by the original inventor and those transferred through whatever means. Making it so transferred patents lose their protection unless they are actively being used by their new owner would eliminate patent companies being a law office and nothing else while still allowing for people who want to just run a Bell Labs-esque in…
There's probably some complications to that, not that I don't think it's a good idea. I say, if so, address them.
For instance heirs. Inventor invents, dies while they would and should still have all rights, say it's the day after being awarded, patent is transferred.
Inventor recieves a patent, but later that asset or all their assets are seized by the government as part of a criminal process, or awarded to someone else as part of a legal action.
There's probably lots of odd situations I can't even imagine where a patent like any other preoperty or asset (or debt or liability or responsibility) is transferred, without it being a sale and without the recipient deserving to be penalized or put under any extra burden.
Even fully business transactions like a company buys an entire other company, rather than specifically a patent. I'm not sure in that case the assets should evaporate or lose their "first sale" extra value. Maybe they should, but also maybe it's just as fair to consider the new owner still the originator, since the originator is a company which still exists. Maybe it should be considered a transfer if the purchasing company closes the original company as a distinct entity and simply ingests the assets.
Maybe this is all pretty easily handled and it's no problem by just having some sort of legal metadata where the patent has a property flag that says if it's considered to be in a state of being before or after first sale, and any legal process that performs a transfer records whether this transfer constitutes a sale or not.
Another gotcha, it probably also means somehow identifying and disqualifying some "gifts" and allowing others.
Anyway I do like the idea.
Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees
#129When a quasi-monopolist threatens to exit your market ... perhaps the reason why isn't really all that important.
How is Apple a 'quasi-monopolist'?
Re: Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable' patent fees
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the fee is 20x on their profits from iphones, personally, I'd leave -- for a few years at least. The opportunity cost is very high: leave for 2+ years and prompt the UK gov to act. Then return And loose the customers base who would otherwise be locked into iOS/Apple ecosystem? It’s not just profits from iPhones they would be loosing.
E.U. countries are very close by. Apple products would likely be in duty free in force. Trade in used devices would be brisk, fed in part by what is brought in. Then, Apple begins running ads for sympathetic members of parliament, with astonishing levels of cash.
the devices that infringe identify themselves to cell towers don't they?
would be easy enough for the patent owner to obtain an injunction preventing new devices being used on major cellular operators