Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Red Badger; marajade
Apple and "Efficient Infringement"

"In sum, Apple is engaging in a practice now called “efficient infringement,” which is increasingly common today, especially among high-tech giants like Apple and Google. This occurs when a company chooses to infringe another’s patents given its calculation that it will pay less money in a court-ordered judgment than in a properly negotiated license agreement—after years of fighting the patent owner in court and before regulatory tribunals at the Patent Office and after forcing the patent owner to pay millions in legal fees. Too often, companies like Apple really think they can just get away with infringing others’ patent rights because they have the resources to outlast patent owners in these legal challenges."

48 posted on 05/13/2019 11:19:24 AM PDT by Pelham (Secure Voter ID. Mexico has it, because unlike us they take voting seriously)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Pelham
“"In sum, Apple is engaging in a practice now called “efficient infringement,” which is increasingly common today, especially among high-tech giants like Apple and Google. This occurs when a company chooses to infringe another’s patents given its calculation that it will pay less money in a court-ordered judgment than in a properly negotiated license agreement—after years of fighting the patent owner in court and before regulatory tribunals at the Patent Office and after forcing the patent owner to pay millions in legal fees. Too often, companies like Apple really think they can just get away with infringing others’ patent rights because they have the resources to outlast patent owners in these legal challenges."

Unlike Microsoft which has always used this practice from its founding, Apple has always attempted to license or own the IP it uses, not steal it. The case your linked article uses in prime is the Qualcomm case which in every case brought around the world in many venues, Apple has won. Apple sued Qualcomm due to their insistence on charging royalties on the entire completed device instead of the industry standard practice of charging royalties only on the components that Qualcomm provides that are included in that device. Qualcomm also ignores the concept of patent exhaustion, which holds that once they’ve sold their product, a chip, to a company which incorporates into their final product and its functionality, Qualcomm’s patent is exhausted and its royalty has been satisfied. Qualcomm demands royalties on the subsequent full value of every device their product is ever installed in. For example, if a 25¢ Qualcomm chip is installed in a $25 billion aircraft carrier, even though the function of the Qualcomm chip remains the same, Qualcomm demands the same percentage of the value of that aircraft carrier as they do for a $16 Android phone with the same chip in it. That is why Apple was suing Qualcomm. AppleID won in every venue in the world and only settled here in the US when Intel dropped out of the 5G development race.

55 posted on 05/13/2019 1:18:20 PM PDT by Swordmaker (My pistol self-identifies as an iPad, so you must accept it in gun-free zones, you hoplaphobe bigot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson