Apple might be getting $10 for every Android device sold

[mercurial]

Kevin Rivette, the managing partner at intellectual property firm 3LP Advisors LLC, shared his professional opinion on the ongoing legal wars in the smartphone world. In a chat with Bloomberg, the expert revealed that he believes Apple could be earning some good money if it was to stop with all the court action and instead concentrate on licensing.

Rivette believes that the Cupertino-based company owns patents that could secure it as much as $10 for every Android device sold if it licensed them. That's twice the amount Microsoft receives from their current licensing contracts with Android manufacturers.

Yet, Apple doesn't seem interested in renting out its technology and prefers to try and ban as many Android products as possible from as many markets as it could manage. And while a potential triumph in this crusade will certainly bring in lots and lots of cash, it seems highly unlikely that it will ever be achieved.

Instead Apple will probably force the companies to find workarounds for their technology (as HTC and Samsung did after the two minor victories that Apple had) and while that certainly wins time for the iOS products on the market, it deprives the company of the revenue that could be had if a licensing contract has been signed instead.

Not to mention that all those lawsuits aren't helping Apple make friends and now it's facing a few patent infringement lawsuits itself. Maybe it would be much wiser if Apple just listens to Rivette and end this whole legal battle, while it is still in a somewhat favorable position.

Source

 

[sand_man]

If it's true one would have to say Apple is being incredibly daft.

 

[Elimentals]

If it's true one would have to say Apple is being incredibly daft.

From general knowledge I can believe this to be true, if I just look at the past court cases I can see that Apple refuse to license out tech and rather want the offending products removed from the market.

Joke is they have to pay some of Android's OEM's for tech they use, like the recent case in Germany where Motorola won and could insist on a ban on the iOS products but instead requested license fees.

What I would love to see, is a breakdown on how much of each product goes to manufacturing vs licensing as I know that even Microsoft pay patent licenses to some OEM's like Motorola.

 

[TJ99]

Apple is being incredibly daft.

So what else is new?

 

[noxibox]

Apple's model relies on real and perceived uniqueness. I don't think they know how to compete against similar products.

 

[Speedster]

Wow - this is a seriously sensationalistic headline. You've taken the opinion of one lawyer and all of a sudden this might be happening? As a matter of fact, the article clearly contradicts this by stating

Yet, Apple doesn't seem interested in renting out its technology and prefers to try and ban as many Android products as possible from as many markets as it could manage. And while a potential triumph in this crusade will certainly bring in lots and lots of cash, it seems highly unlikely that it will ever be achieved.

eish wena...

 

[bwana]

From general knowledge I can believe this to be true, if I just look at the past court cases I can see that Apple refuse to license out tech and rather want the offending products removed from the market.

If you look at recent court cases you'll see that Apple has in fact licensed tech to other manufacturers.

 

[Elimentals]

If you look at recent court cases you'll see that Apple has in fact licensed tech to other manufacturers.

Sorry must have missed one then?

Would you be so kind as to point out where they opted to licensing out instead of banning an offending Android product?

 

[bwana]

Sorry must have missed one then?

Would you be so kind as to point out where they opted to licensing out instead of banning an offending Android product?

.

Until now, it's been assumed that Apple's playing absolute hardball in its various patent lawsuits around the world — that the company has no interest in licensing its patents, especially patents that cover fundamental parts of iOS. Turns out that that's not entirely true: Apple's licensed at least one iOS software patent related to scrolling functionality to Nokia and IBM, and offered a license to Samsung during failed settlement negotiations in November 2010.

 

[Elimentals]

.

Intresting read, thanx. Would sure love to know more about it ie: is Apple changing its ways now that Steve is no more or is it simply a glimpse of some laywer tactic. None the less one patent that was discussed some time in the past does not a pattern make.

Will watch it closely in the future to see what happens.

You might remember that Apple confirmed it cross-licensed some patents to Nokia when the two-year conflict between the two was settled this past summer, so we'd assume '381 was among them. What's interesting is that at the time Apple said it had retained "the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique," but it's hard to think of features in iOS more distinctive than its scrollback behavior. (Stock Android and Motorola's skin use a different pulsing highlight behavior to indicate that you've reached the end of a list.) What's more, Apple's sued Samsung, Nokia, and HTC over '381, which would usually indicate that Cupertino thinks it’s a strong patent, and the court agreed that Apple was likely to prove Samsung was infringing with its Galaxy devices. Offering up a distinctive software feature covered by a strong patent indicates a level of willingness to negotiate that we simply haven't heard from Apple in the past — it's a far cry from Steve Jobs telling his biographer that he was willing to go "thermonuclear war" on Google and Android OEMs for infringing Apple's patents.

What we don't know is how or why those November 2010 settlement negotiations fell apart: Apple could have been asking for exorbitant rates on a patent license, Samsung could have refused to pay because it thought the patents were invalid, or Jobs could have simply called the whole thing off. We also don't know if the two parties are still holding settlement negotiations or if things were put on hold as various courts around the world reached injunction rulings, and we don't know how Apple's inability to get injunctions to stick outside of Germany and the Netherlands — and Samsung's ability to quickly work around those injunctions — will affect another round of settlement talks. We'll see what happens next.

As for the Nokia/IBM licencing out I know Apple is more than willing to licence some of its tech to other products like Microsoft and Symbian as part of cross licensing deals but it is also well known that they would want to see Android dead instead of competing against it on equal ground

As per Steve's own words:

Our lawsuit is saying, ‘Google, you ****ing ripped off the iPhone, wholesale ripped us off.’ Grand theft. I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go to thermonuclear war on this. They are scared to death, because they know they are guilty. Outside of Search, Google’s products — Android, Google Docs — are ****

 

[Ockie]

As per Steve's own words:

I seriously HATE that company! I really hope that the merger happens between Google and Motorola so that they can give it to the bully straight! Urg.

 

[mercurial]

Apple’s latest iOS patent application aims at face unlock

Another day, another patent to talk about, folks. Apple has applied for a fresh new iOS patent at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. This time, it involves face unlock and presence detection.

In case this function rings a bell for you, you are most likely right – face unlock is a function, which is already embedded into Google’s latest Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich OS, albeit far from perfect. It appears however, that Apple wants to add a new twist to it.

According to Apple’s patent application, its solution will utilize the location and distance between the user’s eyes, mouth and nose tip. It will then determine whether or not, the person involved is the owner of the respective device. Support for more than one user is also included in the filing. You can read the full scoop on it by hitting the source link below.

At a first glance, the feature which is subject to Apple’s patent application appears to be strangely familiar. Of course, we will need to see it in action before digging into further reflections.

 

[Elimentals]

Apple’s latest iOS patent application aims at face unlock

Well problem is Google did not apply for immediately as it was seen as prior-art esp seeing that Windows as well as other applications allowed you to do this on other platforms. Sadly Apple applied 1st so if granted will win court cases, does not matter who did it 1st. Its about who filed 1st thanx to Obama's new Patent reform laws that now gives full ownership to he who filed 1st.