

Google Wants $1.7 Billion from 'unfair' iPhone Royalties - hoi
http://www.hoista.net/post/17365252561/google-wants-1-7-billion-from-unfair-iphone

======
bluelu
Apple is running a disgusting campaign here in Europe against it's
competitors. They even managed to get the European Union to start an
anticompetive investigation against Samsung, even though they should be
investigated and not their competitors. No wonder Google, Motorola, Samsung
fight back. And they should.

Apple even managed that the galaxy tab couldn't be sold anymore here for a few
weeks and had to be modified. When a trial ordered the same fate to their
ipads, they managed to remove the ban (and Motorola even had to make a deposit
of 100 Million Euros) in one day while complaining that banning a complete
product because of one violating patent wouldn't be fair.

Is it "fair" to have a phone/tab banned because it has round corners? They
didn't complain there and are still trying to ban all sales of Samsung's
Galaxy phones on design patterns or trivial patents.

~~~
MrScruff
I'm not really sure what's so disgusting about it. Anyone with a pair of eyes
can see that Samsung have been systematically pushing the boundaries of what
you get away with in cloning a design. If Apple didn't show willingness to
push back they would be allowing a competitor to dictate where that boundary
should be set. Since they spend a great deal on design and branding it's
perfectly acceptable that they wish to protect that investment.

~~~
Gustomaximus
Really? I see plenty of differences in the popular Samsung phone models. And
there is only so much a designer can do with a slim touch phone to make it
significantly different.

~~~
MrScruff
Clearly that's a judgement call on both our parts and neither of us is going
to convince each other to think otherwise.

As an anecdote though, I was walking down Oxford St this morning and passed by
a mobile phone shop that had two large displays in the window, one for a large
black touch screen phone and one for an otherwise identical white version. As
my eye passed over them my brain registered 'iPhone' since that is what they
looked like. It was only when I looked a little closer I saw the Samsung text
under the display.

This is clearly what concerns Apple execs, not merely rounded rectangles.

------
Bockit
Does anyone have any thoughts on if making patents non-transferrable would
help the current patent situation?

I'll admit I have barely begun to think about the implications so it may be
dumb from the outset but I think:

* No transferring to patent trolls

* No situations like the link

I haven't really thought about the opposite side of things, was kind of hoping
people here would have strong opinions on the matter.

~~~
nkassis
I'm not sure how that could be done. If I understand correctly it's the person
with his name on the patent that is allowing these companies to use his patent
in anyway they see fit. Their name is still on the patent so it wasn't exactly
transferred.

Can someone clarify the mechanics of this?

~~~
markokocic
There is a difference between inventor and assignee.

Typically, inventor is a person or group of people that acutally invented
something, while assignee is "the owner" of the patent that can use it fro
protection, lawsuits, etc.

Noone can change inventor, but assignee can sell patent and reassign it to
someone else.

~~~
nkassis
Ah I see how that works now, so it would be possible to make the assignee a
one time thing too but in the end what would prevent a "inventor" from
assigning the patent to a troll in the first place and some troll create their
own patents so that's an issue too.

Buying companies for patents would also leave another loophole. This issue
isn't simple I guess.

------
hoi
I updated it to include the relative shares of the patent pool for LTE to give
a better perspective comparing the amounts they ask for compared to Qualcomm.

