Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study: Royalty Charges Almost On Par With Component Costs For Smartphones

Comments Filter:
  • by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @07:22PM (#47124629)

    and then they won't pay any royalties just do all the R&D for the thousands of patents that cover antennas, modulation, encryption, LTE, beam forming the signal and everything else it takes for a modern phone to work

    And yet if they did reinvent the wheel, they'd get sued into oblivion by these companies nontheless. With the speed at wihch technology progresses increasing as drastically as it has been, we need to rethink the we we grant patents. Software patents need to pass the CS201 stink test (if a CS201 student can figure it out, it ain't novel), and important hardware patents should have a shorter lifespan.

  • by ReekRend (843787) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @07:34PM (#47124719)
    They have no place in the modern world, if they ever had a place at all. Creating art is a privilege and invention is the nature of intelligence, they will happen just fine without greed as the motivation. Down with unfettered capitalism, live like rational humans instead of psychopaths.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29, 2014 @07:48PM (#47124869)

    You seriously think that a company could keep secrets for more than a product cycle? The spying-security arms race would be won by the spies in a matter of minutes.

  • by king neckbeard (1801738) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @07:51PM (#47124911)
    You do realize that 'standing on the shoulder of giants' is far more of an anti-patent notion than a pro-patent one, right?
  • by Sarten-X (1102295) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @08:01PM (#47125005) Homepage

    That depends on whether you consider yourself the one being stood on.

  • by Yakasha (42321) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @08:15PM (#47125093) Homepage

    With the speed at wihch technology progresses increasing as drastically as it has been, we need to rethink the we we grant patents. Software patents need to pass the CS201 stink test (if a CS201 student can figure it out, it ain't novel), and important hardware patents should have a shorter lifespan.

    Part of the problem is the complexity of the product being built, which naturally increases the number of technologies, and therefore the number of patents being included in the product.

    Invent a plow today and you need... 1 patent. Its a sheet of metal for cutting the earth. Throw on a yoke and use a new alloy and may be a couple more for hooks and leather straps and you're still around 5 patents. Granted I'm not a plow engineer so I really don't know everything that goes into one, but how complicated can one plow really be... when compared to a modern smart phone?

    We're no longer standing on the shoulders of giants, we're standing on the shoulders of giants who are standing on the shoulders of giants who are standing on the shoulders of giants... and every single one of them wants to get paid for holding us up. (Atlas shrugged cause he wasn't getting paid).

    I'm having trouble linking royalty costs to "stifling innovation" though. Getting paid via royalty payments is a pretty good reason to innovate: invent something, get paid. Increases in the amount people are paying in royalties just increases the incentive to invent something and get paid. In fact, it is doing exactly that. Companies invent stuff, or buy inventions, just to use those inventions as collateral to get access to other inventions. That $120-$150 estimate they put on there is not cash payments, it is $120-$150 of something... such as their own inventions.

    I don't particularly recall that many "Cant afford royalty payments so our product is cancelled" stories. I do see Apple's $160 billion bank balance though, which to me says there is no problem with royalties or lawsuits over royalties or profit margins. In fact that tells me the royalties have saved Apple quite a bit of money in R&D costs.

  • by ifiwereasculptor (1870574) on Thursday May 29, 2014 @08:57PM (#47125437)

    It's not really pro- or anti-patent, unless you believe the absence of patents would cause most companies to resort to trade secrets, in which case, it's a pro-patent notion.

    Trade secrets were a more charming concept. You could see what a competitor was achieving. So you could look into their product and reverse engineer their results - often coming up with a completely different solution. It was based on effort and merit. Whoever implemented it first had a head start, and if it was simple enough to copy quickly, then your invention wasn't so revolutionary anyway.

  • by houghi (78078) on Friday May 30, 2014 @04:22AM (#47127155)

    To be clear: patents are to stiffle or hinder or prohibit the competition from making the same prodiuct to you will have a monopoly on that product. (like the lightbulb)
    Next to it is copyright, which does the same, but for things you create and not so much products. (e.g. the decleration)
    Then there also is trademark, which protects your brand. (e.g. Linux)

    Where it went terribly wrong was that these three expanded untill something extremely unreasonable.

    Talking about the invention of the lightbulb: It was Swan [coolquiz.com]

    The danger is further not only with the patent trolls. Take e.g. IBM who have so many patents that if they decide to build a Dyson like vacuum cleaner, Dyson could sue them, but the counter sue would prevent him from doing any business anywhere in the world. So he can either give in a give IBM the rights to buil a likewise machine, which goes in against what patents are intended are for or he is not really proteced by his patent a shmans see it (not the law)

    Even if patents, copyrights and trademarks are made by the best intentions, we see that they NOW do not work anymore as they were intended.

    The least that should happen is to go back to the original state. Copyright 14 years. Patent only on machines for 14 years. Trademarks only on company names and product names in production.

The degree of technical confidence is inversely proportional to the level of management.

Working...