
Ericsson, Apple Settle Patent Dispute - snogaraleal
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ericsson-apple-settle-patent-dispute-1450700464
======
FlyingLawnmower
HN Feature that might be helpful: you can click the "web" link underneath the
article title that will launch a web search for the article. Clicking through
from the search results will normally let you read an article without the
paywall.

~~~
amelius
In Chrome, you can also drag-select any text, right-click and select "Search
Google for ..."

~~~
2Pacalypse-
Or drag-select text to the New Tab button. It will open a new tab and search
your selected text (unless it's an URL, in which case it will open it).

~~~
szatkus
On Linux you can also just select text and middle click on New Tab button.

------
pavlov
Ericsson actually made the world's first full touchscreen smartphone in 2000,
seven years before the iPhone:

[http://www.gsmhistory.com/ericsson-r380/](http://www.gsmhistory.com/ericsson-r380/)

This model R380 had a plastic flip in front of the touch screen. With the flip
closed, it looked like an average chunky Ericsson phone (the keys on the flip
pressed the touchscreen). With the flip open, it became essentially a
widescreen PDA with mobile data access (although browsing the Internet on GSM
data sure wasn't fast or cheap).

The successor model P800 had a color screen and was more pocketable. It was so
far ahead of its time that "Steve Jobs was heard raving about it" [1].

Patents aside (I'm not qualified to comment), it's not quite so far-fetched
that Apple's iPhone project does actually have a spiritual debt to Ericsson.

[1]
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/04/sony_ericsson_p990i_...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/04/sony_ericsson_p990i_review/)

~~~
xenadu02
Everyone stands on the shoulders of those who came before. Furthermore if you
have a good idea the odds are extremely high that someone else has had the
same idea. "Inventions" are almost never worth the name. Things generally
follow a natural progression (at least in technology):

1\. Some wild-eyed visionaries (sometimes from academia) come up with crazy
visions of what computing might be like in the future. This vision is usually
highly impractical, requiring vastly more compute power or vastly cheaper
components than exist. Further the software is the quality you'd expect from
academic professors (garbage) and barely works for a few minor demos. This is
the pre-prototype phase.

2\. Someone brings a more realistic version to market. Sometimes the first to
market fails badly because they arrive too soon. The product is too limited or
the market isn't ready yet.

3\. Finally someone brings a version of the invention to market that is a
sellable product.

What matters is execution.

Ericsson had a touch screen phone? So what. In high-school in the late 90s I
had a PocketPC predating the Ericsson phone; it was fucking obvious back then
that they'd add a cellular radio to it as soon as it became practical (I know,
I carried a Windows Mobile phone for a while). They were all garbage. They
took no risks. They didn't have the animation or feedback systems that made
iOS so pleasant to use. None of them even pretended to offer a real web
browser - it was WAP if anything. Everything before the iPhone was
qualitatively and quantitatively inferior, even if it happened to have a janky
plastic touch screen. They sure as hell weren't running slimmed down desktop
operating systems with fully-featured frameworks. They ran whatever software
your carrier deigned to offer at vastly inflated prices.

There's a good reason the engineers at Blackberry thought the iPhone was a
faked demo. There's a good reason Apple waltz in and completely upended and
transformed the cellular industry.

Of course this all ignores that Apple had the Newton because it doesn't matter
who had something first. It matters who can productize that thing and sell it
to customers for money.

~~~
Nullabillity
> They didn't have the animation or feedback systems that made iOS so pleasant
> to use.

Yay, glitter is the only thing that matters!

> None of them even pretended to offer a real web browser - it was WAP if
> anything.

Worked fine from what I remember.

> Everything before the iPhone was qualitatively and quantitatively inferior,
> even if it happened to have a janky plastic touch screen.

At least it wasn't the capacitive junk that all of them are now.

> They sure as hell weren't running slimmed down desktop operating systems
> with fully-featured frameworks.

iOS is definitely not a desktop OS. Where are the files? Multi-user support?
Terminal?

> They ran whatever software your carrier deigned to offer at vastly inflated
> prices.

As opposed to whatever software Apple deigns to offer at vastly inflated
prices?

~~~
sbuk
>> They didn't have the animation or feedback systems that made iOS so
pleasant to use.

> _Yay, glitter is the only thing that matters!_

That's not what that statement says at all. Modes of interaction need
refining. Apple have been doing it for a while. When it was released, it was
leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.

>> None of them even pretended to offer a real web browser - it was WAP if
anything.

> _Worked fine from what I remember._

Confirmation bias in full right there. WAP was/is terrible.

>> Everything before the iPhone was qualitatively and quantitatively inferior,
even if it happened to have a janky plastic touch screen.

> _At least it wasn 't the capacitive junk that all of them are now._

You are probably the only individual alive that is going to argue for
resistive, probably because Apple...

>> They sure as hell weren't running slimmed down desktop operating systems
with fully-featured frameworks.

> _iOS is definitely not a desktop OS. Where are the files? Multi-user
> support? Terminal?_

So the early versions of Windows/Mac OS/Amiga etc weren't desktop OS's? Now
you are being ridiculous.

>> They ran whatever software your carrier deigned to offer at vastly inflated
prices.

> _As opposed to whatever software Apple deigns to offer at vastly inflated
> prices?_

Really? Arguably, Apple sell software at a low price to attract users to it's
hardware!

~~~
Nullabillity
>>> Everything before the iPhone was qualitatively and quantitatively
inferior, even if it happened to have a janky plastic touch screen.

>>At least it wasn't the capacitive junk that all of them are now.

>You are probably the only individual alive that is going to argue for
resistive, probably because Apple...

Have you ever used a resistive screen? But of course, who would ever use a
stylus to hit ridiculously small targets without having to zoom in...

>>> They sure as hell weren't running slimmed down desktop operating systems
with fully-featured frameworks.

>>iOS is definitely not a desktop OS. Where are the files? Multi-user support?
Terminal?

>So the early versions of Windows/Mac OS/Amiga etc weren't desktop OS's? Now
you are being ridiculous.

Why does it matter that it's based on something that's ran on a desktop
machine, if all the features that define _modern_ desktop OSes are
hidden/removed? Other than that it's just a form factor and a meaningless
label.

>>> They ran whatever software your carrier deigned to offer at vastly
inflated prices.

>>As opposed to whatever software Apple deigns to offer at vastly inflated
prices?

>Really? Arguably, Apple sell software at a low price to attract users to it's
hardware!

They sell an arbitrary pick of software at a ridiculous markup. But of course,
that's great when Apple does it, and terrible when anyone else does!

~~~
sbuk
Yes I've owned Newtons, Palm Pilots/Handsprings, Treos and XDA/SPVs all at
launch. All had resistive screens, all were universally awful. The stupid
styluses were rubbish.

You are confusing what is merely a paradigm (in this case WIMP) with what
_you_ think is a modern OS. Tell me, why do I need file system access? Do I
really need to manually file away thing in this day and age? Why can I see MP3
files when I'm trying to open JPGs? A phone is a _personal device_ , why does
it need multi-user access? Why does it need terminal access, a relic of the
pre GUI era? Any counter argument that you come up with I can pretty much
guarantee will be an edge case.

Are you referring to the 30%? Go to any other retailer and see if you get that
deal. Approval is arbitrary? Perhaps, but it does keep the malware count down.
You do know that Google do it to, right? So do Microsoft. Other than that,
running your own content delivery and payment system isn't cheap, and neither
is managing it, but hey, you keep clutching at those straw men...

~~~
Nullabillity
> Yes I've owned Newtons, Palm Pilots/Handsprings, Treos and XDA/SPVs all at
> launch. All had resistive screens, all were universally awful. The stupid
> styluses were rubbish.

I haven't tried any of those in particular, but they're all from pretty far
before The Capaciting.

> You are confusing what is merely a paradigm (in this case WIMP) with what
> you think is a modern OS.

A modern _desktop_ OS, which I'd define as following WIMP. If you have another
definition then I'd be very interested. iOS (and Android!) might be remotely
based on desktop OSes, but with all the defining features stripped out it's
not really a useful or applicable label anymore.

> Tell me, why do I need file system access? Do I really need to manually file
> away thing in this day and age? Why can I see MP3 files when I'm trying to
> open JPGs?

Because files are a very useful abstraction if you use more than one
application, or for moving between them. I don't want to use Okular in
particular, I'm just trying to read this document. I should be able to take a
piece of data, and the OS should find something that can open it.

> A phone is a personal device, why does it need multi-user access?

It was just an example of something that _could_ be used to differentiate it
from something that wasn't "based on a desktop OS". I'm still very curious
about where you got that from in the first place, btw.

> Why does it need terminal access, a relic of the pre GUI era? Any counter
> argument that you come up with I can pretty much guarantee will be an edge
> case.

Because the terminal programs already exist, and nobody has bothered to make a
GUI equivalent. For example, I would use my old N900 to repartition SD cards
when needed, just like I could on my desktop machine. Niche? Sure, but it was
useful to have the escape hatch when needed.

> Are you referring to the 30%? Go to any other retailer and see if you get
> that deal.

Why should I have to go through a retailer at all?

> Approval is arbitrary? Perhaps, but it does keep the malware count down. You
> do know that Google do it to, right? So do Microsoft. Other than that,
> running your own content delivery and payment system isn't cheap, and
> neither is managing it, but hey, you keep clutching at those straw men...

As opposed to when service providers ran it? Besides, just because all of them
do it, that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

~~~
sbuk
The last resistive screen I tries was in 2011 and it was still vastly inferior
to capacitive. Please display art to the contrary.

 _Your_ definition of a modern desktop OS is just that, _your_ definition. iOS
and Android _weren 't designed to be desktop OS's_. The were designed
specifically for touch. A modern interface is going to be somewhere in between
and, IMHO, closer to Android/iOS.

You still haven't explained _why_ an exposed filesystem is necessary. Apps are
aware of what files they can or cannot open and should display only those.
Layers of nested directories are completely unnecessary and from experience
supporting end users, confusing.

For a personal, single user device, multi user support isn't particularly
useful. I suppose a "guest" mode might be. The question stems from this
comment

> _iOS is definitely not a desktop OS. Where are the files? _Multi-user
> support?_ Terminal?_

As I said, terminals are an edge case and are ill-suited to the mobile form
factor.

You don't have to go through a retailer - the choice here is to not develop
for Apple. Also, consider the costs of what Apple/Google provide and ask
whether it offers _value_ to you, a consideration that arguments like this
rarely (if ever) take into account. FYI, bricks and mortar vendors and those
prior to the App Store we asking for between 70% and 90%.

Ah, the "moral imperative"...

------
marknutter
The entire patent system has become so absurd. You know what protects your
profits? Delivering actual value to customers. It's something you can't
patent, and you can't simply corner the market on. You have to fight for it
every day and anybody can take those customers from you without recourse.

~~~
adrr
Without patent system, what would stop someone from just cloning the IPhone
and coming out with a lower cost version which doesn't factor in all the r&d
that apple put into the development of the phone?

~~~
jcliff
a giant head start, brand, trade secrets (hardware and software), strategic
supplier & manufacturer relationships, strategic partnerships (app developers
& carriers)

~~~
throwawaykf05
Yes, which is why Apple has such a market share lead over Android.

Being the "first mover" is more often than not a disadvantage, and being one
entails taking huge risks. ("Copycats" by Oded Shenkar is supposed to be a
good book about this. Google "first mover fast follower" and "copycat
innovation" to find additional relevant references. )

------
vmarsy
Is there another source than wsj? Not because of the paywall, but because I
can't find the 0.5% number in here:

 _Ericsson said that under the agreement it will be paid an undisclosed amount
by Apple, along with ongoing royalties over seven years._ ... _Details of the
contract are confidential_ ... _Including the new settlement and business with
other licensees, Ericsson estimates its revenue from intellectual property
rights will be [around]$1.53 billion_

What was the estimation of revenue before the settlement? It could have been
$1.52 billion or $1 million.

EDIT:

From the Verge article[1]: _but an estimate by investment bank ABG Sundal
Collier pointed out by Reuters has Apple paying out 0.5 percent of its iPad
and iPhone revenue._

[1] [http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/21/10633084/apple-
ericsson-p...](http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/21/10633084/apple-ericsson-
patent-deal-iphone-ipad-revenue)

------
benmarks
And here's a non-paywall link!
[http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2015/12/21/ericsson-
si...](http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2015/12/21/ericsson-signs-patent-
deal-with-apple/)

------
Arjuna
_" In January, Apple, which is based in Cupertino, Calif., filed a lawsuit in
a U.S. district court seeking a ruling that it wasn’t infringing on seven of
Ericsson’s patents._"

For those curious, I believe that these are the 7 patents in question:

1\. 6445917 - _Mobile station measurements with event-based reporting_ [1]

2\. 6985474 - _Random access in a mobile telecommunications system_ [2]

3\. 7660417 - _Enhanced security design for cryptography in mobile
communication systems_ [3]

4\. 8023990 - _Uplink scheduling in a cellular system_ [4]

5\. 8036150 - _Method and a device for improved status reports_ [5]

6\. 8169992 - _Uplink scrambling during random access_ [6]

7\. 8214710 - _Methods and apparatus for processing error control messages in
a wireless communication system_ [7]

[1]
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US6445917B1/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US6445917B1/en)

[2]
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US6985474B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US6985474B2/en)

[3]
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US7660417B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US7660417B2/en)

[4]
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US8023990B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8023990B2/en)

[5]
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US8036150B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8036150B2/en)

[6]
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US8169992B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8169992B2/en)

[7]
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US8214710B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8214710B2/en)

~~~
gnarbarian
I'm not a big fan of patent trolling but I do like to see apple get a taste of
their own medicine after what happened with samsung.

~~~
__jal
Schadenfreude may amuse, but what we have here is not even a casino. It is a
massive negative-sum (to the non-lawyer participants) game where winning
usually turns on procedural points having nothing relevant to do with the
actual conflict. (If you disagree, then kindly explain the Eastern District
Court of Texas.)

The result is this huge coercion machine that pretty much randomly chews up
small companies and rewards attorneys and (somewhat randomly) large ones.

~~~
magicalist
> _It is a massive negative-sum (to the non-lawyer participants)_

To be fair, in this case Ericsson is a practicing entity and they probably
have a salaried legal staff, so your specific criticisms don't really apply
here.

More just general patent criticisms: ease of acquisition, non-specificity,
valuation on market and legal leverage instead of marginal value, (if any of
the above patents are software patents) software patents in general, etc

~~~
__jal
> Ericsson is a practicing entity and they probably have a salaried legal
> staff

I didn't say anything about NPEs.

Ericsson may have a stable of in-house patent litigators; it is one enterprise
where that probably makes economic sense (I know Google has their own IP
litigators). But most patent litigation that makes it to trial is handled by
specialist firms.

------
rayiner
Better article without the paywall:
[http://www.rcrwireless.com/20151221/business/ericsson-and-
ap...](http://www.rcrwireless.com/20151221/business/ericsson-and-apple-settle-
patent-dispute-tag17). This is for Ericsson's LTE patents. The number is big
because Apple rejected an FRAND license and so willful infringement was on the
table.

------
zinghaboi
Full unrestricted WSJ article:
[https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Fa...](https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fericsson-
apple-settle-patent-dispute-1450700464&btnI=I)

------
makecheck
It's frustrating that sales of a _product_ can somehow be up for grabs over
disputes in a mere _component_ of that product.

No matter how good your idea or, ahem, sorry, "intellectual property" is, if
you don't know HOW to turn it into a multi-billion dollar product or you don't
have the means to do so, WHY should you be able to sledgehammer your way into
lots of money when somebody else becomes successful? If anything, years of
inaction on your "idea" proves that the idea has NOT been worth all that much
to you.

Meanwhile, there could be literally thousands of unique components in an iPad,
the products of tens of thousands of brilliant minds, many of whom get
virtually nothing. Heck, I give more credit to the tertiary industries such as
the people delivering the iPhone packages to my door, than I do to any owner
of a patent for a product that they didn't build.

~~~
HiLo
I couldn't disagree with you more.

If you don't know HOW to build a multi-billion dollar product without stealing
prior work that isn't yours, WHY should you be able to sledgehammer your way
into lots of money by preventing somebody else from getting paid for what they
did?

Furthermore, a current lack of sufficient resources to pursue an idea does not
mean that you never intend to do anything with it. The poster seems to think
that the arbitrary amount of "a few years" discredits any prior work, as if it
doesn't take people much longer periods of time to get their life in order and
bring their life's work and ideas to fruition.

~~~
makecheck
One big reason is because the whole _world_ runs on prior work. We have cities
full of things built before we were born. We are only able to do what we do
now because of massive amounts of work by millions of people who probably did
not foresee what all their efforts would lead to. Should we be forever obliged
to funnel millions of dollars to the estates of the dead because they
contributed (like _so many others_ ) to the success of today's products?

The current system unreasonably rewards _arbitrary_ subsets of the total group
of people responsible for making useful things. It also manages to include
essentially middlemen in the rewarded set.

~~~
HiLo
Something of a straw man when speaking of paying off people who are long dead,
versus people are were actively trying to get their products to market at the
same time as you.

You also assume that there is an alternative to having arbitrary subsets.
We're dealing with the law, which is almost by definition an imperfect
compromise that we put up with simply because it's better than the
alternative.

Kind of like how some people are arbitrarily thrown in jail, under the same
legal system. Without rambling, I feel like you are just assuming an
impossible and nonexistent counterfactual.

Furthermore, in this case, we aren't talking about paying off the guy who set
up the sewer system 100 years ago, we're talking about paying off the people
who had a patent 7 years before you, and you decided to say "screw them" and
use it anyways. As if Apple didn't know it was violating those patents? Come
on. Why should companies be allowed to operate outside of the system we, as a
society, set up?

------
biot
As it comes up for every WSJ article, scroll to the top of this page and click
the "web" link. It's there to allow you to bypass the paywall for sources
which allow Google search traffic.

------
choward
> This agreement ends investigations before the U.S. International Trade
> Commission, lawsuits pending in the U.S. courts for the Eastern District of
> Texas ...

Eastern District of Texas? Shocking!

------
rdancer
Considering Ericsson revenue/profit was on the order of 30/1.3 billion USD in
2014, and the iPhone only revenue will be somewhere between 100 and 150
billion for 2015 only and going up, this is great news for Ericsson.

~~~
gjm11
Just to be clear: it's _Apple 's_ iPhone revenue that's on the order of
$100-150B for 2015. So Ericsson would be getting something like $500M or so.

~~~
Someone
Given that there was a license agreement on the same technology earlier, I
think it is a reasonable guess that about a third of Ericsson's profits came
from Apple in 2014.

~~~
rdancer
That's not a very useful way to look at it. (1) If Ericsson overall costs were
just 4% bigger, you would be saying: "10000% of Ericsson profits came from
Apple", (2) R&D that led to those patents likely had staggering costs, which
may or may not have been fully amortized. It's not just the engineer salaries
of those who filed the patents either, likely the whole company structure,
buildings and all, were instrumental in getting those technologies developed.
So while the cashflow is mostly free, it is not pure profit.

------
ksec
Every company can negotiate the terms themselves, unlike H,.264 where there is
a patent pool with MPEG, can a clear set prices.

So what is there to prevent company x paying for 1% of of the whole sale
price, while another company only paying 0.1%?

Some speculated Apple is now paying a much smaller %. Which is fine by me
because they are like the ONLY player on the market selling premium
smartphone. And the total amount will likely still be much larger then other
players.

I thought the system using % is kind of unfair, Anyone knows why the telecom
industry is doing such practice?

~~~
jethro_tell
I'm not sure what you're using to decide apple is the only one making
'primium' devices but everyone in my family is using a $700+ non-apple phone.
So it can't be price.

And premium feature set is subjective at best.

------
teh_klev
Actual, actual article sitting behind the paywall for people like me who are
paywall avoiding-inept:

[https://archive.is/wrIyX](https://archive.is/wrIyX)

------
datashovel
The patent system would be a lot better if it didn't protect "obvious"
technologies (which in general is pretty much all of the useful technology).

One of the largest problems with the patent system is large corporations try
to position themselves as the go-between on some obvious and useful
technology. It's not about protecting real innovation to them, it's about
stifling competition.

None of the major corporations (technology or otherwise) are innocent here as
far as I can tell.

------
melted
I wonder how much Ericsson is paying Apple for _their_ portfolio, though.
These patent deals usually imply reciprocity, including licensing fee
reciprocity.

~~~
sangnoir
I'd guess not much, unless Apple has a bunch of cell-tower patents lying
around. Ericsson divested from the handset business after pulling out of the
SonyEricsson joint venture.

~~~
xenadu02
Apple isn't stupid... the only way to protect yourself from the patent
minefield in cellular/mobile is to make sure you are involved deeply in the
standards process and creating your own cellular radios, etc. Then you too can
have a huge portfolio of patents to make sure none of the other large players
can hassle you.

~~~
sangnoir
I hope you're also assuming Ericsson isn't stupid either. Ericsson have
several (compounding) advantages: since it's their core-competence, they have
more people working on RF tech, they also have been in the game for longer[1]
which allowed them to get the low hanging fruits and time to get their tech
into more standards. I'd guess Ericson has more cellular patents by at least
an order of magnitude; likely more.

1\. Ericsson has been in the telecoms business since 1876

------
invaliddata
Does anyone know if all (or a majority of) android device makers have
licensing agreements in place with Ericsson for said patents?

------
marknutter
To get around the paywall just paste the link into google search and click the
link to the article from there.

~~~
erichurkman
If you're logged in, just click the 'web' link under the headline on the
comments page.

~~~
joblessjunkie
It would be nice if this link also appeared when you are not logged in.

------
iDemonix
Non-paywall source?

~~~
temuze
Copy and paste this bookmarlet into your toolbar:
javascript:location.href='[https://www.google.com/webhp?#q='](https://www.google.com/webhp?#q=')
\+ encodeURIComponent(location.href) + '&btnI=I'

Basically, it allows you to go to a site as if you came from Google. This
avoids most paywalls.

------
Hermel
It would be interesting to know how much Apple knowingly copied and how much
is just coincidence.

~~~
jonknee
> Mr. Alfalahi described the agreement with Apple as “quite broad” and
> covering a number of patents that are necessary for 2G, 3G and 4G
> technologies to work, such as the LTE technology that enables fast video
> downloads on smartphones.

It was basically a licensing agreement that went poorly and delved into IP
lawsuits. It wasn't about Apple copying anyone.

------
forrestthewoods
Gross. Standards should be open. One if the most expensive pieces of a mobile
phone is the wireless chipset. That shouldn't cost more than the cpu/gpu. We
live in a silly world.

~~~
choward
This is pretty gross: "Ericsson has more than 100 patent licensing agreements
and holds about 37,000 patents for mobile communication."

~~~
tormeh
The expectation at HN is that anything that's standardized is a cheap
commodity. Normally that's sensible as standards standardize already existing
methods of solving a common problem. However, this case is different as the
standard is also the development. I don't know the details, but Ericsson is
widely regarded as the technology leader in telecommunications. I'd guess that
Ericsson has put a lot of work into all the mobile networking technologies
that are standardized and that they expect to get paid for that work.

~~~
forrestthewoods
I'd be more sympathetic if there weren't laws requiring adherence to
standards.

~~~
wolfgke
So you just lobby that a meta-law is generated that disallows creating laws
that requires adherence to a standards containing patents.

------
shmerl
Will it teach Apple to avoid patent trolling themselves, or they'll never
learn?

~~~
jonknee
What? Apple and Ericsson were having a disagreement over licensing fees. There
was no trolling.

~~~
shmerl
Was it a hardware patent? All software patents aggression is basically patent
trolling.

~~~
MichaelGG
What's special about hardware patents?

~~~
shmerl
Hardware patents can be valid.

