[HN Gopher] Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unac...
___________________________________________________________________
Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable'
patent fees
Author : shrikant
Score : 119 points
Date : 2021-07-12 09:12 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (appleinsider.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (appleinsider.com)
| nickpp wrote:
| I wish more companies would have the guts to fight all these
| crazy government requests and regulations. Let the people choose
| if they want to lose the services they rely on so that some
| politician has a glory bulletpoint on his CV.
|
| Alas, the money is too sweet and hard to say no to...
| tpoacher wrote:
| Similarly I wish more democratic governments would have the
| guts to fight all these crazy corporate monopolies. Let the
| people choose if they want to allow unstifled innovation rather
| than rely on sneakily created monopolies, so that some CEO has
| another bonus this year.
|
| Alas, the lobby money is too sweet and hard to say no to...
| cma wrote:
| Thy should be happy with a charge of 30% of gross sales, it is
| their industry standard.
| amelius wrote:
| When a quasi-monopolist threatens to exit your market ... perhaps
| the reason why isn't really all that important.
| forty wrote:
| That indeed feels like a great opportunity to create something
| new :) though I'd rather it happening not because of patent
| trolls :/
| tpush wrote:
| How is Apple a 'quasi-monopolist'?
| petre wrote:
| They have nearly 50% of UK smart phone market share. The next
| big player, Samsung is at 28.7%. That's also probably why the
| judge said they are unlikely to leave.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| Sure. On the other hand, this will create societal backlash,
| not against Apple, but against the government. Tracy needs her
| iPhone.
| marak830 wrote:
| Maybe it's time Tracy grew up.
|
| Flippant answer aside, we need governments to learn to stand
| up more against the superlarge multinational companies that
| think they can bully their way over what a countries
| government thinks is good for the population. (I know a whole
| bunch of hand waving - elected by the people for the people
| that doesn't always work).
|
| We should applaud a government for standing up though.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| >We should applaud a government for standing up though.
|
| Don't get excited, it's just one Supreme Court justice, who
| has very little to lose either way. No one has even heard
| of these guys before. I don't believe that Johnson would
| have the backbone to do such a thing.
| fallingknife wrote:
| > what a countries government thinks is good for the
| population
|
| Sounds like China
| nomel wrote:
| Are you suggesting we stop thinking whenever large corporations
| are involved?
| vmception wrote:
| 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
| tomxor wrote:
| > 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.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Then let Apple leave the UK.
|
| The UK should be better off.
|
| Both sides are happy.
| vmception wrote:
| Jobs? Whether from the company directly or third parties
|
| Such as the market for accessories creation and trading
|
| All helps GDP and the local economy
| onion2k wrote:
| How much the fees should be and how Apple react to them are
| separate issues. Given the fact that Apple Retail UK posted a
| profit of just PS39m in 2020 though, it seems likely that they'll
| have to exit the market as they won't be able afford even a
| reasonably low patent fee.
|
| Assuming that their reported profit wasn't just a massive lie to
| avoid tax, obviously.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Bad global precedent can be far more expensive and damaging
| than a mere $39M.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Apple's profits fetch up in some tax-haven, as far as I'm
| aware. They have a problem, because they hold so much cash in
| tax-havens, that they can't repatriate without incurring
| enormous tax liabilities.
|
| So yes, the reported profit was just a massive lie.
| tudorw wrote:
| "An estimated 19,452 iPhones were sold every day in the UK in
| 2019", give them a break, obviously struggling to get traction.
| mhandley wrote:
| So that's around 7 million phones per year. Assuming around
| PS700/phone and 30% profit (very rough made up numbers), that
| should be PS1.5B/year profit. If the judgement is for PS3B to
| PS5B as the article states, I can see why they might decide
| to exit the UK market. But that only makes sense if they
| don't then lose the patent cases in other juristictions, and
| end up having to pay similar royalties anyway.
| gcthomas wrote:
| I'm not sure that leaving the market will absolve Apple of
| paying the judgement, so staying in the UK market will help
| them recoup the cost. Leaving would be unlikely to improve
| their bottom line, so the judge was right - no evidence
| Apple will leave. This is just posturing, which won't go
| down well in front of a High Court judge.
| willis936 wrote:
| Why would Apple pay the fine?
| throwawaycities wrote:
| Exactly, they don't seem to respect others' legally
| enforceable IP, the engage in tax avoidance schemes...why
| would Apple pay a court ordered judgment for damages?
| Wait is that not what you meant?
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| To avoid their executives going to prison.
| willis936 wrote:
| Their executives in the US? Going to trial in the UK,
| where the company would no longer do business? How does
| that work, exactly? Has the US ever extradited a white
| collar criminal?
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| They have executives in the UK.
| willis936 wrote:
| Why would they have executives in a country that they
| don't do business in?
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| They do do business in the UK, as you well know.
| willis936 wrote:
| They wouldn't if they were fined, as the headline and
| article clearly state.
| prepend wrote:
| I think the intent would be to avoid paying the fine.
| Without assets, revenue, or profit the UK wouldn't have
| anything to seize to pay the levy.
|
| The judgement holder could then attempt to go after Apple
| in other countries, but I think that would result in a
| court case about whether that's possible or not.
| onion2k wrote:
| The PS3-5bn fee is a one-off payment (I think..), so you
| can't really compare it to a single year's profit. It'd
| need to be amortized against the lifetime of all the iPhone
| products that are covered by the patent.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| The reported profit is probably a joke, since they devize ways
| to under-report to pay less tax.
| Zenst wrote:
| In 2020, the UK was still part of the EU and with that Apple
| could and did move much EU based sales to Ireland for tax
| purposes. So with that in mind, along with how companies game
| the tax systems, I take any figure with a pinch of salt.
|
| That said Apple postulating this as retaliation to a legal
| court case pertaining to a valid patent, does seem a bit
| purile.
|
| But the real question I have is - if these are core patents as
| they seem to be (not read the patents but mention of 3g and 4g
| connectivity mooted) then I would of thought FRAND would take
| presedense
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminat...
| gcthomas wrote:
| This _is_ a FRAND case, which is why the decision will cover
| global licence payments.
| dtech wrote:
| Even when outside of the EU, this is still very much
| possible. The cayman islands aren't part of the EU or US and
| still very popular tax havens.
| pabs3 wrote:
| Hmm, I wonder what the patents are about.
| chasil wrote:
| The article implied that it was for 3g and 4g radio-related
| patents.
| bell-cot wrote:
| A slightly-critical point, which seems 99.9% ignored here. I
| found an article - https://www.iphonehacks.com/2021/07/apple-
| threatens-exit-uk-... - saying "A UK high court judge has ruled
| that Apple has infringed on two patents of Optis Cellular.".
| But nothing more.
|
| If the 2 patents are "good quality" - really novel, not a bit
| obvious to actual experts in that niche (at the time), etc. -
| then the reasonable (morally, not legally) argument would be
| about what is a fair rate for Apple to pay to use them.
|
| If the 2 patents are "the usual patent system abuse crap" -
| vague walls of buzzwords, prior art but with "using
| $NameOfNewTechnology" inserted in a bunch of places, or such -
| then the reasonable argument (again morally) would be about why
| our wretched legal and patent systems are so badly infested
| with such toxic swill.
|
| But Apple's seeming threat to exit the UK market makes for a
| lot of drama, and that's mostly what people care about.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| Apple aint throwing away a multi billion pound market so cheaply
| (relatively speaking, of course and "aint" is a real word)
| tpoacher wrote:
| > Apple threatens UK market exit if court orders 'unacceptable'
| patent fees
|
| Yes, please.
| rio_de_mierda wrote:
| Brexit really helps the UK's leverage here. As the dominant
| economy in Europe, the UK can unilaterally set policies and
| reasonably expect multinational companies to comply with them.
| Their threats bear real weight. If I were Tim Apple, I'd be
| experiencing existential terror right now.
| ginko wrote:
| The dominant economy in Europe is Germany. The UK has more or
| less the same GDP as France.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_in_Eu...
| [deleted]
| mjburgess wrote:
| Let's be clear. This is a patent troll company engaged in anti-
| innovation rent-seeking behaviour. They're seeking billions in
| payouts and provide _zero_ innovation, research, development,
| etc.
|
| Just because it's targeting Apple doesn't make it right.
| Companies of this type should be illegal. 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.
|
| All people holding patents need to be innovating with them, or
| otherwise, lose them after a short period.
| throw0101a wrote:
| > _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 patent to get _something_ , and then the
| new holder can use their potentially larger resources to get
| licensing compliance.
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| 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 institute without dealing with manufacturing to still
| run a decent businesses. You could also extend this to
| disallowing licensing for non-original owner patents too,
| though I'm not as sure about the second-order effects on that
| one.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| 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.
| mjburgess wrote:
| Sure -- my conditions were on the holder of the patent, not
| whether it can be sold.
|
| In the case the patent owner isn't doing any R&D or engaging
| in economically productive activity (at all; nor esp. related
| to the patent).
|
| I think we need, even a very minimal, condition here:
|
| The government is only going to shake-down your competitor if
| you're actually in the same market. If you're just a guy hold
| a slip of paper, sorry, the government isn't your muscle.
| londons_explore wrote:
| > In the case the patent owner isn't doing any R&D
|
| But by licensing the patent to interested parties, they
| might be supporting R&D of people who might not otherwise
| be doing R&D in this direction.
|
| The ability to license some tech you know is likely to work
| in the form of a patent has some value.
| mjburgess wrote:
| They might be. All of this can be weighed by judges.
|
| I'd be inclined to say: sorry, licensing/selling to
| companies not in the market is now not possible.
|
| If you need to mitigate risk, insurance companies (etc.)
| can offer products against patents -- they still have
| value, just only now to companies actually operating in
| the relevant market.
|
| And of course, "relevant market" can be read broadly by
| judges.
|
| Either way, patent law is running amok over innovation,
| and goverment shake downs and money transfers from
| producers to rentseekers is a net loss for everyone.
| Kiro wrote:
| No, because patents shouldn't even exist to begin with.
| salawat wrote:
| What you're saying:
|
| >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 patent to get something, and then the
| new holder can use their potentially larger resources to get
| licensing compliance.
|
| Hits the crux of the issue. A patent is
| economically/politically/socially worthless to the inventor
| themselves without the ability to spend inordinate amounts of
| legal muscle to tell people they can't use it, and the
| effective exercise by a patent holder of a patent renders the
| patent valueless to society for the duration, and creates
| many perverse incentives and business models for non-
| practicing entities.
|
| In fact, at this point I'd argue the corpus of patents out
| there is nowadays less useful to the inventive than it is to
| the legal profession to keep themselves in work. The last
| time I read a patent to truly understand something was to
| figure out how a fire-alarm use casing went back together,
| and even then, that was of spotty levels of help.
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| How does that harbor fair trade? Neither the inventor nor the
| holder have made any attempt to bring a product to market.
|
| It should be the burden of the court to prove that the patent
| was actively being used (by the holder) to produce a product
| and that the infringement directly hurt the potential target
| market of the product in question.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| The patent may be too expensive for a small fry to convert
| into a product. Requiring them to do that turns the patent
| system into an instrument for incumbents to absorb
| inventions from others (who cannot afford to build the full
| product) while not having to release any of their own
| rights (because they can afford to build the product, so
| preserve the patent).
|
| A non-practising patent holder is also more likely to
| licence the patent to lots of other entities compared to
| one that makes products. This is one of the concerns around
| NVidia's proposed takeover of ARM, a non-practising entity
| that creates and licences computer processor designs.
| doublejay1999 wrote:
| Apple are a patent troll company, often using their size and
| weight to beat down competition. They have stolen functionality
| at will to make the product they want, and then fought it out
| in court.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation#Trademar...
| Taniwha wrote:
| How would this look different from someone holding a perfectly
| valid patent that Apple was using without licensing it?
|
| (I have no idea as to whether this one is valid or not, I'm as
| against patent trolls suing people with bogus patents as anyone
| else)
|
| Surely the patent IS the innovation, and a perfectly valid way
| to use that innovation is to license it to larger companies.
| _Understated_ wrote:
| It should be fairly trivial for a judge to ascertain whether
| someone owns a patent to use legitimately (tech company
| owning a tech patent for example, whether they are currently
| using it, invented it, bought it etc.) or whether they are a
| bunch of lawyers extorting money from legit companies by
| (ab)using the legal system.
| mjburgess wrote:
| The patent holder would be a company operating in the same
| market as apple, having a viable market for products
| _somewhat related_ to the patents they hold. Eg., an
| electronics company.
|
| If they can't meet that condition, sell the patent to a
| company who can. They'll actually innovate with it (ie., use
| the licence feeds to fund something useful).
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| I don't see how "operating in the same field" or even
| "somewhat related" can be determined or valid.
|
| Tons of technology is used in fields other than where it
| originated.
|
| Probably a lawyer didn't legitimately invent an important
| new chemistry for a glue, but a baker could, or a
| landscaper, etc. And math and process/logistics can come
| from anyone anywhere at any time, even a lawyer.
|
| This may be hard to define and be correct and fair about
| it.
|
| Then again... in that case they'd be the originator which
| could be a special status vs purchased as an asset. Maybe
| not so hard to manage after all.
| MikeDelta wrote:
| This is a great condition that would invalidate all patent-
| trolls.
| salawat wrote:
| This means all patents will eventually flow to a single
| holder over time (the one most able to offer a patent
| buyout pipeline). This is a terrible idea without strong
| anti-trust and forced break-up and anti-consolidation
| enforcement.
|
| I hate patent trolls too, but if your two outcomes are A)
| all you'll get is a bunch of umbrella companies coupling a
| legal firm to a modest widget mill. This is a great way to
| proliferate e-trash though and B ) The leviathan in town
| sets up a window to buy out every patent they can to save
| no long term litigation costs... Maybe your system is
| flawed to begin with.
| onion2k wrote:
| It shouldn't matter who owns a patent. If the person or company
| who registered it has decided to 'cash it in' and sell it to a
| company whose business is patent licensing is OK. Whether or
| not the patent is valid is the important issue. Optis 'won'
| $506m in the US as well, but the supreme court reverted the
| decision on Apple's appeal. The UK court has decided that it is
| valid (for now).
|
| Something _very_ important to note here is that the comment was
| made in regard to a case arguing whether or not Apple agree to
| be legal bound by another case next year to decide the patent
| license fee. Apple are arguing that they 'll leave the market
| if the fee is too high. The reality is actually that if they
| agree to a binding agreement in the current case, and then
| decide the fee is too high after the case next year and refuse
| to pay it, they'll be banned from selling iPhones in the UK.
| Their exit from the market won't be their choice.
|
| This remark is a scare tactic aimed at making the court agree a
| lower patent fee. No one believes that Apple will voluntarily
| leave the UK market, but if the court imposes a high fee Apple
| might be forced to. It's _highly_ improbable, but it 's not
| entirely impossible.
| snarf21 wrote:
| I think that is the material change we need. Patents must be
| used as an active and relevant part of your product or you
| don't deserve protection. The point is to encourage
| innovation and from someone from basically just reselling
| your idea. If you aren't selling it, then why do you deserve
| protection?
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| It makes literally no difference, as the parent comment
| already mentioned. You deserve protection for coming up
| with the technology, not for using it. These patent trolls
| are one of the methods to support a research program.
| Universities, for example, aren't set up to sell devices.
|
| As long as the patent is for some actual innovation, there
| is nothing wrong with this market structure, economically
| or morally.
| cmorgan31 wrote:
| And yet the patents are often not for innovation but are
| purposefully vague to capture iterative improvements
| under their umbrella and profit from it. It's nonsense in
| this actual case but the concept of patent protections
| would be fine if to your point it was actual innovation.
| How would you even decide what is or is not innovative
| though? Any idea not in the patent database already?
| Patents are going to become trickier as we abstract and
| build more complexity into the overall ecosystem.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Everyone keeps touting that in the future technology will
| solve climate change.
|
| Will it? Or will we have to wait for the patent period to
| expire of said technologies.
| dkersten wrote:
| > You deserve protection for coming up with the
| technology, not for using it.
|
| Why? Ideas are cheap, execution is everything and all
| that. You don't have to literally be the person executing
| on it, but whoever you transfer or sell the patent to
| should. I'd be ok with licensing or selling patents to
| others to build the technology, I'm not ok with licensing
| or selling the patent to others who will only use it to
| sue people who do try to build something similar.
|
| The concept of patents was to encourage innovation, not
| stifle it.
|
| Its also quite common that multiple people invent the
| same thing at roughly the same time. With these patent
| trolls, if one of these people gets the invention
| patented first, but does nothing but rent seeking with
| it, that will prevent others who came up with the same
| thing but were too slow to patent it to even try.
|
| Couple that with overly broad, vague or downright invalid
| patents and you end up with a system that discourages,
| hinders or puts a large cost on actual innovation. Even
| if a patent is provably invalid, it costs money in legal
| fees to get it overturned.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| The facts alleged here are that apple is using a patented
| technology, held by someone else, without licensing it
| first. And now that this is discovered, the remedy is to
| have Apple pay the licensing fees for the patent
| (including retroactively).
|
| Without the ability to sue people infringing on your
| patent, how do you ensure people will pay to license it?
| dkersten wrote:
| If whoever is holding the patent is not using it for
| anything other than sue people, then I really don't care
| that Apple infringed it without licensing.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| That sort of goes in the face of your "licensing or
| selling it to others" above though, right?
|
| Let's say you have a patent. You're trying to get someone
| to license it. They decide, no, we'd rather just use it
| for free instead. Now you have no buyers, and no
| licensors -- what is your option but a lawsuit?
| ip26 wrote:
| The whole point of the patent program is to give you a
| boost in using the technology (to encourage you to come
| up with it in the first place)
|
| A research program that only produces patents for patent
| trolls seems like a useless research program.
| sharken wrote:
| Useless to the general public, but a great way to collect
| fees from those infringing.
|
| I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that you need
| to actively use the patent in a product or forfeit all
| protection.
| Sanguinaire wrote:
| I'd say actively use _or pro-actively license to someone
| else_. If a company can 't show that their patents are
| generating revenue somehow other than lawsuits, the
| holder should be forced to give the clarinet to a kid who
| is gonna use it.
| IfOnlyYouKnew wrote:
| Split a company's research from its production and sales
| departments into two organisations, and one licenses its
| patents to the other.
|
| You have transformed a structure where one entities
| invents and produces to a market structure with one where
| those are separate roles.
|
| You like the former and abhor the later. But from the
| outside, this change is absolutely meaningless. It's no
| different than any other make-or-buy decision.
|
| (Note that "sells a license" is exactly the same as
| "patent trolling".)
|
| All these feelings you people have are based on the idea
| of "superficial" patents that aren't "real innovation".
| Which is, indeed, a problem. But it has nothing to do
| with the above. Assume some actually useful patent, and
| these objections fall apart.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| It is not meaningless. The split structure is actually
| better (if it is genuinely spun off, rather than created
| as a tax evasion mechanism) because it can licence the
| technology to multiple entities, which spurs competition
| among them.
| simonh wrote:
| That is no the whole point, and certainly hasn't been
| going back to the 18th century at least. It is routine
| for patent holders to license their patents to
| manufacturers for production. That would not be possible
| if inventors had to make the product for commercial sale
| by themselves. It would render novel inventions by
| independent inventors untenable. Only big corporations
| with manufacturing resources would ever be able to patent
| anything.
|
| Take James Watt for example, Matthew Boulton could just
| have told Watt to take a hike and started manufacturing
| improved steam engines by himself. Watt couldn't have
| afforded to make steam engines independently, and why
| would any investor bother supporting him with capital if
| they could just set up production without him too?
|
| The problem is with trivial patents, not patents in
| general.
| dantheman wrote:
| Your facts are completely false, and in fact it's easier
| to bring things to market than it's ever been.
|
| Watts held back progress significantly and steam engine
| development was hampered by his and others patents until
| the expired. The steam engine would have been built to
| pump water out of mines whether patents existed or not.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| I personally consider it morally wrong to deny people
| from implementing ideas of their own invention.
| cma wrote:
| This would mean only mega corporaions capable of funding
| hundred million dollar FDA trials could have drug patents,
| and people who came up with novel drug mechanisms would all
| have to work for these companies rather than specialize on
| early stage innovative research and sell to them.
| evandijk70 wrote:
| An example would we the Biotech/Pfizer vaccine - it could
| never have finished clinical trials so quickly if patents
| were not transferrable between companies
| 3mr wrote:
| Mega corporations capable of funding FDA trials buy
| patents and use them to create/produce drugs. Patent
| trolls don't create anything.
| cma wrote:
| > buy patents
|
| Whose non-existant patent would they buy under the new
| system where the non-practitioner can't have one to sell?
| Or I can see you could only let practitioners enforce,
| but what would be the details on that? The non-practioner
| could just threaten to become a practitioner or sell to
| one in exchange for a settlement from someone violating,
| or if prior violators were grandfathered in once
| practitioning from the holder began, it would be a race
| to violate as many as possible before they could be put
| into practice, in order to get them free through
| grandfathering.
| joshstrange wrote:
| > It shouldn't matter who owns a patent. If the person or
| company who registered it has decided to 'cash it in' and
| sell it to a company whose business is patent licensing is
| OK. Whether or not the patent is valid is the important
| issue.
|
| Disagree, fully, 100%. To believe this you have to first buy
| into the idea that the patent system is a good one and/or
| that people who are doing none of the actual work should be
| able to rent-seek the people who actually are. If you aren't
| using the patent you should not be allowed to force other
| companies to pay you for it, that's just a stupid system
| (even if it's the system we currently have). I don't care if
| it's Apple, Google, Facebook, Oracle, or an indie developer,
| none of them should have to put up with BS patents like this.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| > If you aren't using the patent you should not be allowed
| to force other companies to pay you for it
|
| Companies like ARM would not be able to exist under the
| system you propose. Their whole business model is creating
| patents and licensing them to others instead of using the
| patents themselves.
|
| Preventing companies like ARM from licensing their patents
| would only benefit incumbents like Intel who can afford the
| massive amounts of investment required to turn those
| patents into chips.
| joshstrange wrote:
| So I think we can all agree there is a big difference
| between the generic/basic patents we've seen trolls use
| over and over again (stuff like "an input device causes
| and output device to do something") and an instruction
| set/CPU architecture. Also I'd bet money ARM has multiple
| in-house processors for testing/R&D. That's a far cry
| from the patent trolls who do nothing but "own" a patent
| they do nothing with and didn't come up with in the first
| place most of the time.
|
| All that said: so what? My ideal world wouldn't have
| patents at all. They cause way more harm than good. And
| we've seen time and time again that the big companies
| will just straight up copy or buy up any competition, the
| system is broken.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| > Also I'd bet money ARM has multiple in-house processors
| for testing/R&D
|
| When I worked at ARM, we just used FPGAs to emulate the
| chips and waited for the customers to give us a board
| with the actual chips. Maybe another division did create
| their own hardware, but everything we worked with for
| testing in ours was from customers.
|
| > there is a big difference between the generic/basic
| patents we've seen trolls use over and over again (stuff
| like "an input device causes and output device to do
| something")
|
| If it is a generic/basic patent, why should it make a
| difference whether the enforcer is a practising entity
| (PE) or not? Unlike a non-practising entity (NPE), a PE
| would be less inclined to licence it because they want to
| keep competitors out. ARM is big enough that they can
| instigate litigation on their own against infringers.
| Smaller inventors have no chance of doing that, and
| patent trolls are often their only venue. Many times, the
| problem is with bogus patents that should never have been
| granted because of prior art or obviousness (supported by
| the authorities failing to perform due diligence before
| granting patents). And the other is the expense of
| defending against a valid patent that does not apply to
| the defendant's product. Patent trolls' portfolios are
| often full of such patents, but this is not limited to
| NPEs.
|
| > big companies will just straight up copy or buy up any
| competition
|
| An example that comes to my mind is Nuance, a practising
| entity that engaged in frivolous patent infringement
| lawsuits against a new competitor Vlingo. Nuance did turn
| their patents into products (Dragon NaturallySpeaking),
| so they are not considered a patent troll under the usual
| definition. Yet, their actions against Vlingo were the
| same as that of a troll, and even though Vlingo won, they
| were weakened enough to be bought out by Nuance.
| mjburgess wrote:
| Well as you say it's "leave the market for mobile phones",
| ie., it'll be iPhone which goes -- rather than Apple as such.
|
| 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.
|
| Also, my issue is exactly with "validity" conditions.
| Regardless of what they _are_ , my view is we need a change
| in the law to make cases of this kind non-starters.
|
| My initial stab is this: patents have to held by companies
| operating in the relevant market to be valid. The ensures
| licensing fees go towards companies capable of innovation,
| and limits patent trolling.
|
| I'd prefer, even, to add: those companies are _using_ those
| patents; or otherwise, have +10 years from their last _use_
| in a product (etc.).
|
| However, one step at a time.
| vinni2 wrote:
| > 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.
| chasil wrote:
| 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.
| pmyteh wrote:
| You're right about the imports. Not sure the lobbying
| campaign would go like that: party discipline in the UK
| is too strong for picking off sympathetic MPs to be a
| useful strategy, and political advertising is very
| heavily regulated.
| blibble wrote:
| 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
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Trying to blackmail the government by threatening to leave
| the market suggests phrases involving noses, faces, and
| spite. It's apple buyers that would be hurt by apple
| leaving the market -not the government, which would look
| weak if it capitulates to blackmail threats.
|
| The government doesn't care about apple users. They don't
| care about any citizens. And anyway, the apple users can
| always buy their devices in the EU.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Something very important to note here is that the comment
| was made in regard to a case arguing whether or not Apple
| agree to be legal bound by another case next year to decide
| the patent license fee. Apple are arguing that they'll leave
| the market if the fee is too high. The reality is actually
| that if they agree to a binding agreement in the current
| case, and then decide the fee is too high after the case next
| year and refuse to pay it, they'll be banned from selling
| iPhones in the UK. Their exit from the market won't be their
| choice.
|
| I'm having trouble seeing why this sequence:
| Court: pay $X fee or stop selling iPhones.
| Apple: OK, we'll stop selling iPhones.
|
| doesn't represent Apple choosing to stop selling iPhones.
| jsbdk wrote:
| Pay x or I'll break your legs.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| I think you've gotten your example backwards. If you tell
| me "Pay $X or I'll break your legs", and I say I'll take
| the broken legs, and you break my legs -- you really want
| to argue that _that 's_ the decision branch where I
| wasn't really making a choice?
| jsbdk wrote:
| Of course you were... You could've paid.
| jerf wrote:
| Common law has the concept of "under duress". I'm sure
| other legal traditions have something similar. It is also
| common sense in the US culture in general that you can't
| be said to agree to having your legs broken in a
| situation like that.
|
| While the mythical "homo econominus" may say that there's
| no difference between "give me $$$ or I'll inflict severe
| negative utility on you" and "give me $$$ or I'll reduce
| the positive utility you receive from selling goods by
| the same amount" by saying it's the same amount of
| utility in absolute terms in both branches, in practice
| nobody feels or operates that way, and that's _with_
| steelmanning this argument by declining to note all the
| obviously relevant ways in which this metaphor is a
| mismatch.
| [deleted]
| onion2k wrote:
| No doubt it's possible to reframe it so it looks like
| Apple's decision but it isn't really. It's more like;
| Court: Pay $x fee Apple: No
| Court: Your punishment is that you're no longer to allowed
| to sell iPhones
|
| The outcome is the same, but the reality is that Apple
| really don't want to stop selling iPhones and would never
| voluntarily stop, so they're not really _choosing_ to if
| they 're legally prevented from doing so.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| In your framing, did Apple not choose to say "No"? It's
| not like they're not aware of the situation -- you're
| commenting on them talking about it.
|
| The court is providing circumstances. Apple responds to
| circumstances. But the only way they can respond is by
| determining what they want to do, and then trying to do
| it.
|
| Note also that in your framing, unless you believe the
| court would respond to Apple attempting to pay the fee by
| saying "no, you had your chance, it's gone now, get out
| of the market", it's still Apple choosing not to sell
| iPhones.
| chasil wrote:
| 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.
| ben_w wrote:
| 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.
| arethuza wrote:
| "I don't feel that I understand the British system"
|
| Probably doesn't help that there isn't a single UK-wide
| legal system...
|
| Edit: There are 3 or 4 legal systems in the UK depending
| on how you count them:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_Kingdom#T
| hre...
| mjburgess wrote:
| 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.
| sofixa wrote:
| Judicial independence is a mainstay of most democratic
| countries ( separation of powers in general).
| zabzonk wrote:
| Parliament writes the laws - the judiciary interprets &
| implements them, as in all other democracies that I'm
| aware of.
| michaelt wrote:
| 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/documen
| ts/SN06...
| mjburgess wrote:
| 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.
| [deleted]
| ben_w wrote:
| The power may flow from parliament, but the judiciary is
| still (supposed to be) independent:
|
| * https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-
| judiciary-t...
|
| * https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/swearing-in-of-
| the-ne...
| M2Ys4U wrote:
| That's not strictly true. It's the Crown that is the font
| of all power.
|
| Parliament legislates as the Crown in Parliament - hence
| the mace must be present in the chambers while Parliament
| is sitting and all bills must receive royal assent to
| become Acts of Parliament.
|
| There also exist powers that are (currently) outwith
| Parliament - namely the royal prerogatives.
|
| The court system is similar, courts derive their power
| from the Crown, although, of course, they are subject to
| statute passed by Parliament.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| 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"
| (criticise) judicial decisions; usually that behaviour
| provokes a negative reaction among educated people and
| thoughtful newspapers. It doesn't happen often.
|
| The government can also appeal against sentence in crimnal
| cases, if they think the sentence was unduly lenient. This
| is fairly recent statute legislation, and controversial.
| mjburgess wrote:
| > 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.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| You're right, it can do what it pleases; it has been
| known to behead a monarch.
|
| But it still can't dismiss a judge, because Parliament
| doesn't employ the judges.
| pjc50 wrote:
| This is technically true but kind of irrelevant? If it
| comes down to that level of radical transformation, of
| abolishing the judiciary, the state is on its way to
| disintegrating. Rather like the Royal power that exists
| only as long as it's not used.
| dantheman wrote:
| Patents shouldn't exist.
| Spartan-S63 wrote:
| Curious: what might the unintended consequences be of making
| patents non-transferable?
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Only entities with the money to defend patents would bother
| to acquire them. Owning a patent would become useless to
| small-fry. So only large entities would own patents.
|
| The solution is to stop registering stupid patents, and (this
| would require a massive effort) invalidate all the stupid
| patents that are already on file.
|
| Or perhaps, change the law so that if an alleged infringer
| turns out to have "infringed" an invalid patent, all costs go
| to the alleged infringer. That would encourage people to
| fight patent trolls, rather than just roll over.
|
| [Edit] I suppose that would only work if the petitioning NPE
| were required to deposit a bond with the court.
| tut-urut-utut wrote:
| In this case, I'm glad it's actually targeting Apple. There are
| a bunch of small innovative companies targeted by patent trolls
| that don't have means of Apple to fight back and actually
| change the system to be more level-headed.
|
| But I'm afraid Apple will not fight for the reform of the
| patent system, but will just try to protect itself. In which
| case I don't care about the outcome, since Apple also uses the
| same patent trolling tactics elsewhere to suppress its
| competition, e.g. litigations against Samsung in Germany, to
| name one such case.
| rasz wrote:
| Apple is super pro patents, they never go for patent
| invalidation. Case in point they got sued by S3 for S3TC,
| despite S3TC being stolen Apple QuickTime Road Pizza patent
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26758884, and caved in
| without much fight.
| tooltalk wrote:
| Apple knows how to play the patent game and routinely
| petitions PTAB review to invalidate patents. I'm willing to
| wager that there are at least a few dozens of on-going
| reviews petitioned by Apple (and its proxy) at any given
| moment. Take for instance Apple's lawsuits with VirnetX
| which have been dragged out for several years appeal after
| appeal with multiple patent invalidations -- in one of the
| lawsuits, Apple ended up losing to the tune of $500+M,
| finally paid out in 2021. Apple is pro-patent -- and also
| one of the most egregious abuser -- insofaras it can game
| the system in their favor. Like many patent trolls, Apple
| also shops around for favorable legal outcome, aka, forum
| shopping, -- eg, Lucy Koh in Apple's backyard is one
| notorious example.
|
| And who can forget Apple's patent troll operation, Rockstar
| consortium, that crashed and burned as it was taking off.
| londons_explore wrote:
| > bunch of small innovative companies
|
| The smart move for the patent troll is to target some of
| these smaller companies and write license agreements in the
| form of "I agree to pay $20 per device sold to license this
| patent". $20 is nothing to a company selling Ships, Oil rigs,
| tunnel boring machines, etc.
|
| Then when it comes to apple, paying $20 per iphone is
| suddenly rather expensive, but the troll can show the court
| lots of licensees all agreeing to pay that rate, and it can
| then be established as a reasonable rate for this specific
| patent.
| Tenoke wrote:
| They are literally fighting it with this case, no? Exiting if
| they fail will also be great as it might become more clear to
| those who can change the system how much of a detriment it
| is.
| mjburgess wrote:
| If apple's UK _iPhone_ profits really are in the c. 50mil
| range, then a (5 to 10)bn fee to remain is commercially
| non-viable.
|
| Note that this is about Apple's ability to sell an iPhone
| in the UK, and as far as I can see, it wouldnt affect
| whether the entire company would remain in the UK.
|
| If I were apple, I would withdraw a product from a country
| which supported this kind of racketeering.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| > If I were apple, I would withdraw a product from a
| country which supported this kind of racketeering.
|
| Lol. If this is "racketeering" then Apple will have to
| withdraw from literally every Western developed nation.
|
| This case only didn't happen in the US because the court
| didn't find the patent to be valid, by a thin margin.
| inertiatic wrote:
| 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.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| 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.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| 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."
| Tsiklon wrote:
| There are 65 Million people in the UK, China and the
| United States are significantly larger both in terms of
| population. I haven't checked the numbers, but it is not
| unreasonable to assume that there is a similar amount of
| iPhones sold per year per capita in the UK as compared to
| those other two markets.
| denton-scratch wrote:
| Leaving the UK market won't save them licence fees.
| They've already been incurred. It would be less like
| relatiation, more like flouncing off in a huff.
| rchaud wrote:
| Doesn't seem to be that detrimental in China. Apple always
| manages to work something out over there.
| Black101 wrote:
| > All people holding patents need to be innovating with them,
| or otherwise, lose them after a short period.
|
| A patent only last 15 or 20 years... copyright is a much bigger
| issue (copyright protection lasts for the life of the author
| plus an additional 70 years).
| crossroadsguy wrote:
| What do you think of patents Apple owns?
|
| If some company decides to borrow those patents and Apple asks
| for money, who should set the price? Again, Apple?
| MR4D wrote:
| It seems like this is the part that most offends Apple:
|
| "* In 2020, the UK Supreme Court ruled a UK court can set the
| rate for patent payments worldwide, despite the court only being
| able to consider the infringement of UK patents.*"
|
| If every country took that approach that the UK Court seems to be
| taking, international trade would suffer greatly.
| gcthomas wrote:
| This is not for patent disputes in general, only disputes
| involving standard essential patents (SEPs), which these are.
| The court took standards setting organisation powers to decide
| fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms for
| global application. FRAND licences are global by their nature,
| so we shouldn't be surprised that the Supreme Court asserted
| this in its decision.
|
| This isn't UK over-reach, but an application of international
| standard approach, afaict.
| henearkr wrote:
| When I read "patent company" I can't help but understand it as
| "patent troll".
|
| A company specialized in making money from patents can't be any
| good...
| ben_w wrote:
| The quote in the article didn't read like a threat to me. I don't
| have the full context, but the quote from Apple's lawyer is:
|
| > I'm not sure that is right. Apple's position is it should
| indeed be able to reflect on the terms and decide whether
| commercially it is right to accept them or to leave the UK
| market. There may be terms that are set by the court which are
| just commercially unacceptable.
|
| Perhaps that's diplomatic lawyer-speak for "we're leaving and
| taking our ball with us" (any lawyers please do comment), but as
| an outsider I don't see it.
| benjaminjosephw wrote:
| The UK has a relatively strong chance of creating decent
| competitive challengers to Apple if the UK market opens up with
| their exit. Even if a few consumers are frustrated in the short
| term this could lead to a fantastic outcome for a competitive
| consumer marketplace over the long-term.
| Zenst wrote:
| Reading https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/apple-app-store-was-
| a-majo... I'd say it is not so much the consumers that would be
| impacted by such a hissy fit that Apple has mooted.
| sdflhasjd wrote:
| Of course, that's a claim from Apple in response claims of
| anticompetitive behaviour.
|
| I find it difficult to believe, as a mobile developer myself,
| that 330,000 jobs are being supported by the App Store in any
| meaningful way.
| ben_w wrote:
| Sounds about right to me.
|
| Fermi estimate:
|
| apps-not-abandoned * average-developers-per-app-this-year
| ~> 2 million apps * 2 developer-months ~> 333,000
| developers
| sdflhasjd wrote:
| _UK jobs_.
|
| I know "meaningful" isn't well-defined, but more than 1%
| of the entire UK workforce is not dependent on the App
| Store (that couldn't be replaced by any other app
| marketplace)
| ben_w wrote:
| Ah, I missed that. That does make a difference, and I
| could only justify it in the unlikely event of a decent
| percentage of those apps being for businesses
| specifically dependent on _iOS apps_ in particular rather
| than mobile phones and websites in general.
| wccrawford wrote:
| It would create quite a power vacuum, and it would scare people
| in other countries as well.
|
| But I'm not convinced that it would cause a new competitor to
| exist. I think it's more likely that existing companies will
| eat up that market instead, and I don't think there are any UK
| companies poised to take over that market segment.
| jowsie wrote:
| People will simply import iPhones from elsewhere, or buy
| Samsungs instead.
| PeterisP wrote:
| "People will simply import iPhones from elsewhere" is not
| an option - if there's a patent decision, then it would
| also mean that imports are a patent violation, all iPhones
| would have to be seized at the customs. Not-for sale items
| in personal luggage might be exempt, but bringing a new
| iPhone in a box for someone else would literally be
| contraband in this situation.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Fortunately the UK has an open land border with Ireland.
| Pop over to Belfast, train to Dublin.
|
| (Apple make EUR110bn profit in Ireland according to their
| accounts. There is no Dublin Apple Store.)
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Well yes but smuggling is a very old occupation for a
| reason. People won't follow a law they think is
| illegitimate when they feel they can get away with it. So
| it would work like the war on drugs. Cocaine is very
| common for a consumable "not an option" for importing.
|
| Hell that same circumstance of personal use is how the
| underground USSR blue jeans market came about!
| moshiv wrote:
| It will never happen. Just have to count the number of iphones
| and macs in the hands of people with power.
| paulcole wrote:
| Also it's a nearly free victory to anybody challenging the
| incumbents in power at the time. Imagine being one of the
| people on duty when Apple (a hugely popular consumer brand)
| pulls out of your country. Hard to explain that one to the
| constituency and come out looking good.
| deregulateMed wrote:
| Yeah Apple has a far bigger marketing budget than any
| politician.
|
| A politician could be correct that 1+1=2, but Apple will
| twist your emotions until you cave.
|
| Or at least that works on some people.
| bb101 wrote:
| We'd have new legislation within a week targeting patent
| trolls. I can't imagine anything that'd make a government
| more unpopular than taking away everyone's iPhones, iPads
| and Macs.
| LightG wrote:
| Please allow me a hearty, LOOOOOOOL.
|
| And I'm not really a fan of Apple either, but still.
| arcturus17 wrote:
| I don't know about your politics, but regardless, "the UK will
| be able to build an Apple competitor" sounds like a level 99
| brexiteer delusion.
| [deleted]
| benjaminjosephw wrote:
| Imagining a change in the tech landscape isn't that absurd.
| If there's a vacuum in the market, do you not think there are
| capable technology startups in the UK that could fill it?
| bencollier49 wrote:
| We have tons of opportunities in the UK to build a mobile
| firm. ARM is based here, for starters.
|
| Unfortunately with Brexit it has become fashionable in
| certain quarters to 'do-down' the UK's capabilities.
| arcturus17 wrote:
| Like I said in another comment, the high-end consumer
| mobile market outside of Apple is a red ocean and I
| seriously doubt the UK would be able to build a global
| scale corporation commanding ludicrous margins like
| Apple.
|
| > with Brexit it has become fashionable in certain
| quarters to 'do-down' the UK's capabilities
|
| It has also certainly become fashionable in other
| quarters to 'do-up' the UK's capabilities.
|
| I don't deny that the UK has technological clout beyond
| digital, with excellent universities, a great tradition
| in science and engineering, and a global hub in London.
|
| But a competitor to Apple? Come on.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Time for the great Dana Sibera
| (https://twitter.com/NanoRaptor) to make some wondrous
| alternate history pictures of a world where there was a
| BBC Micro smartphone, or a ZX tablet.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| > We have tons of opportunities in the UK to build a
| mobile firm. ARM is based here, for starters.
| Unfortunately with Brexit it has become fashionable in
| certain quarters to 'do-down' the UK's capabilities.
|
| The problem with building a mobile firm is that it's
| extremely expensive capital wise, and difficult.
|
| There has not been an effective new entrant in the market
| globally in quite some time. It is not "doing the UK
| down" to suggest that there is no opportunity here for
| someone who doesn't already do high end phone
| manufacturing, and it's worth noting that the margins for
| everyone else in the mobile market are pretty crummy
| actually.
| saati wrote:
| Apple only licenses the ARM ISA, ARM core designs are way
| behind the Apple ones.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Someone did try: https://wileyfox.com/
|
| Made in China, obviously, but British labelling and
| marketing. They lasted a few years before bankruptcy.
|
| I think if apple somehow did exit the UK the replacement
| would be (a) black market iphones and (b) all the other
| Android manufacturers.
| Mindwipe wrote:
| > Imagining a change in the tech landscape isn't that
| absurd. If there's a vacuum in the market, do you not think
| there are capable technology startups in the UK that could
| fill it?
|
| No.
|
| Samsung, Huawei and Sony would fill it.
|
| There is no UK company that has the scale to be able to
| deliver a competing product before those companies absorb
| all the available market share.
| ben_w wrote:
| I expect any change in the marketplace that a startup could
| fill is one where Apple is already non-dominant, and
| therefore not preventing a vacuum by occupying. Worse, in
| the hypothetical where Apple left the UK in order to not be
| bound by a UK-specific IP infringement judgment, Apple
| would be have _greater_ liberty to just fire up the
| metaphorical photocopier.
| arcturus17 wrote:
| I can certainly imagine the UK doing well in some tech
| niches, but not in high-end, global scale consumer
| electronics like Apple, no.
|
| The high-end mobile phone market outside Apple is a shark-
| infested red ocean to start with. Then there's the fact
| that even if Apple stopped operating in the UK, you'd still
| have to compete with them globally.
|
| I cannot foresee a Black Swan event like a random dude from
| the Midlands becoming the next Steve Jobs, but other than
| that I don't think it's worth entertaining that there will
| be a real British contender to the American trillion dollar
| mastodon.
| bb101 wrote:
| To be fair, a random dude from Essex designed the
| original iMac, iPod and most Apple devices thereafter.
| arcturus17 wrote:
| But Americans capitalized on it, and it's not a
| coincidence.
| OJFord wrote:
| Using a British chip architecture.
|
| I don't think a sudden Apple competitor is at all likely
| to appear either, but not from any country, nothing
| really significantly making it more or less likely from
| the USA or UK (or Germany or Canada or ...) IMO.
|
| With the exception I suppose that perhaps it _is_ more
| likely from China than anywhere, public perception really
| soured but you could imagine Huawei (or Xioami or
| whatever) phones could 've gotten popular. (They can
| never seem to get fonts and branding 'right' though? I
| don't understand why they don't hire 'western' branding
| consultants, even dirt cheap students, just to get some
| feedback on the way things look. It wouldn't take much to
| be able to charge a lot more for the obviously
| identifiable tat on Amazon (and also all over
| AliExpress).)
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| ksec wrote:
| For reference the King of all 3G/4G and 5G patents Qualcomm only
| charge ~$7-$15 per devices depending on how you count the rebate
| on Modem.
|
| >In 2020, the UK Supreme Court ruled a UK court can set the rate
| for patent payments worldwide, despite the court only being able
| to consider the infringement of UK patents. A trial in 2022 will
| determine how much Apple will have to pay.
|
| From my limited reading I _think_ and correct me if I am wrong
| that is why the numbers it so large at $7B. It is basically if a
| patent that is ruled valid in the UK, the company will have to
| pay the fees for it worldwide, i.e ~250M unit per year and all
| the past years of infringement. The only way to not have to pay
| would be to get out of the UK market so the company will have to
| have its patent on trial in court in every other country.
|
| There is no way that $7B was made solely on the iPhone sold in
| UK. The numbers just dont add up.
|
| >> I'm not sure that is right. Apple's position is it should
| indeed be able to reflect on the terms and decide whether
| commercially it is right to accept them or to leave the UK
| market. There may be terms that are set by the court which are
| just commercially unacceptable.
|
| This is not a threat. But a valid argument, which is so rare from
| Apple. It is not the first time Apple has _threaten_ to leave the
| market in numerous other occasions such Australia, Germany, or
| EU.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-12 23:02 UTC)