Court Bans Sale of Xiaomi Smartphones In India 40
hypnosec writes The Delhi High Court has banned Xiaomi and India online retailer Flipkart from selling any handsets that Ericsson claim are violating patents. The court has also asked Xiaomi and its agents to refrain from making, assembling, importing or selling any devices which infringe the patents in question. Xiaomi says: "We haven’t received an official note from the Delhi High Court. However, our legal team is currently evaluating the situation based on the information we have. India is a very important market for Xiaomi and we will respond promptly as needed and in full compliance with India laws. Moreover, we are open to working with Ericsson to resolve this matter amicably."
Translation... (Score:4, Insightful)
"We haven’t received an official note from the Delhi High Court. However, our legal team is currently evaluating the situation based on the information we have. India is a very important market for Xiaomi and we will respond promptly as needed and in full compliance with India laws. Moreover, we are open to working with Ericsson to resolve this matter amicably."
Translation: Now that we have infringed all of your patents we are willing to come to an agreement with you but only because you have finally got us by the short and curlies after a long court battle and not because we feel bound by international treaties signed by the Peoples Republic of China since those are only binding for people infringing on our patents.
Re: (Score:2)
In real life on the other hand, Erikson lost to Nokia and had to sell out to Sony.
This appears to be straight forward patent trolling, as Erikson's phone business is owned by Sony now.
Re: (Score:2)
*Ehum*
Ericsson value: 40 billion USD
Nokia value: 30 billion USD
Sony: 23.6 billion USD
Motorola Solutions (sold network part to Nokia): 15.6 billion USD.
(All stocks counted using Google finance?)
Ericsson P/E: 23.18
Nokia P/E: 60.30
Motorola Solutions P/E: 26.80
It's true Nokia was the biggest of them all in phones. It's true Ericsson started to make phones with Sony and later let them take over all of it.
And as for Nokias phone business I guess we all kinda know where they are now and how much wealth that genera
Re: (Score:3)
That's not how large aquisitions work.
Eriksson, like most early mobile companies had two major arms - networks and mobile phones. This is because early development work was mostly in developing both network and phone side elements.
It's mobile phone arm was a massive loss leader, largely crushed by Nokia Mobile Phones unit in early 2000s. They first fused it with Sony's tiny one, forming a co-owned Sony-Eriksson unit. Then in 2012 Sony bought Eriksson out of the business, at which point Eriksson focused on m
Re: (Score:1)
How are they trolling?
Swedish companies spend a lot on R&D.
We innovate a lot. The companies innovate a lot.
Sure they charge for their innovations. So what?
You're free to spend billions in R&D too.
Re: (Score:1)
My other post:
How are they trolling?
Swedish companies spend a lot on R&D.
We innovate a lot. The companies innovate a lot.
Sure they charge for their innovations. So what?
You're free to spend billions in R&D too.
R&D % of GDP PPP:
(Not all countries in the world - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org])
#1 South Korea 4.36%
#2 Israel 3.93%
#3 Japan 3.67%
#4 Sweden 3.3%
#5 Finland 3.1%
#6 USA 2.7%
#7 Austria 2.5%
#8 Denmark 2.4%
#9 Switzerland 2.3%
#10 Iceland 2.3%
#11 Germany 2.3%
#12 Taiwan 2.3%
#13 Singapore 2.2%
#14 China 1.97%
Saudi Arabia 0.25% .. so in case you wonder why the world is as it is with successful tech companies .. Maybe the amount of money they pour into R&D relate som
Etiopia 0.17%
Indonesia 0.07%
Re: (Score:2)
Patent trolling refers to non-producing entity going after producing entities, shielded by the fact that they have no manufacturing so no danger of counter-suit.
Re: (Score:1)
I know?
But Ericsson has been or is a market leader in mobile phone equipment and has researched, spent and made developments as one.
Xiaomi is more or less irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia was even more of that. In spite of it, Nokia and Microsoft had to make significant promises to Chinese, Indian and Korean authorities at least (and likely EU and US authorities as well) that Nokia would not patent troll other companies after sale of mobile phones division to Microsoft.
Re: (Score:1)
[citation needed]
For both I guess.
Though the other I guess I can easily search for.
"particular, Chinese regulators are concerned Microsoft could use its patents to gain an edge in the local market. Over 80 percent of Chinese smartphones run Android, which Microsoft claims contains certain technologies on which it holds patents."
"In cases involving less important patents, Microsoft can seek a product ban if the vendor conducted "negotiations not in good faith," according to the ministry. Microsoft's promise
Re: (Score:1)
+ otherwise.
As in if they wasn't depending on Chinese decision on the matter. And didn't made such a deal.
Re: (Score:2)
No, concerns Nokia. Not sure about the source you used that would claim otherwise, as it was very widely known and posted even here on slashdot that MS didn't actually get the patents with purchase, but license to use patents. Most of relevant patents stayed with Nokia.
And yes, they did depend on Chinese. You cannot buy a unit with significant presence in China without getting acceptance from pro-competition parts of bureaucracy. Same goes for other large countries. The deals made are usually agreements wit
Re: (Score:1)
Anyway. If Ericsson can sue successfully for it I would take that as them being able to and not having signed such a deal.
Both Ericsson and Nokia have real innovations, have made real products, have spend billions (?) in R&D and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is irrelevant to the topic at hand, as a lot of patent trolls spend a large amount of money either researching or buying necessary patents.
And as noted, Eriksson that spent "billions on R&D" and Eriksson that you have today are two different companies that merely share the same name. Eriksson that actually did the development is known today as "Sony". Just like the unit that developed Nokia phones is now known as "Microsoft".
Re: (Score:1)
Source?
I don't know what the deal was at either time, saw nothing in the merge part at first (that was a 50/50% thing.)
When Sony bought out Ericsson from that they paid little over 1 billion for Ericsson 50% share part, they cross-licensed their patents and Sony got _FIVE_ crucial patents.
Ericsson still do radio communications / mobile phone network equipment. They likely still hold a bunch of mobile phone patents and chances are they have got new ones / the research and developments carries into phones to
Re: (Score:1)
http://techmoran.com/will-huaw... [techmoran.com]
4 July 2013:
"Li Yingtao, the head of Huaweiâ(TM)s R&D has said that Huawei is in the plan to increase its investment on R&D and could outspend Swedish Ericsson, which is the worldâ(TM)s largest telecom equipment seller, this year."
"The company spent US$4.9 billion in 2012 on research and development, but it is looking to increase that in order to convince customers that it isnâ(TM)t just a vendor that competes on price, but also on quality."
"In terms o
Re: (Score:2)
Source: anyone who actually follows the industry. Eriksson has been one of the leaders of mobile networking gear since the times of NMT. It has also been the leading phone manufacturer back in the days of NMT and GSM.
It hasn't been a major phone manufacturer since early 2000s however, when its mobile phone unit got crushed by Nokia. That's why they had to do the join venture with Sony.
When that mostly fell through, they sold the unit to Sony, while getting to keep most of the patents and licensing them to t
Re: (Score:2)
Do you even understand that you're talking about building mobile networks, while the story talks about patent fight over mobile phones?
These are two separate businesses with their own mostly separate patent pools, R&D and production units and so on. All the relevant old time giants - Nokia, Eriksson, Motorola etc all had separate units for networks and phones because of this.
You seem to keep confusing the two because they are both about "mobile". In reality, two businesses have about as much commonality
Re: (Score:1)
I make the assumption the phones communicate with the base stations and that there's standards and common ideas developed for the two.
And just because Ericsson don't make any phones any longer they don't necessarily have abandoned developing the technologies / hardware for the purpose (not that I know they do so, well, except their ARM chips.)
Re: (Score:2)
In other words that's billions in phoney baloney market expectation of what Ericsson is worth. The same market which said WhatsApp and Facebook were worth what?
Re: (Score:1)
Guess it's unmannerly to call you stupid.
So I'll call you yellow instead.
No yellow.
Ericsson has a business where they make money.
Some of the money will reach to the owners of the company.
As such people are interested in owning the company to get hold of that money. And because of that to get ownership of a part of the company cost money.
P/E for for Ericsson was 23.25.
For Apple 17.67.
For Google 27.16.
For Nokia 59.84.
For Facebook 74.47.
Facebook purchased WhatApp for 16 billion USD. I don't know what people th
Re: (Score:1)
Ericsson is 138 years old.
1876 They started with telegraphs.
1877 Showed of the telephone.
1878 Started repairing telephones.
1881 Started making telephone equipment.
1882 Made a wall-mounted telephone.
1896 They produced over 25 000 telephones.
1907 They started to produce telephones in New York.
1909 Set up telephone station in Mexico.
1918 Merged with SAT.
1923 Televerket pick their 500 switch.
1932 Kreuger buys a controlling stake of Ericsson and sell it to biggest competitor ITT.
1946 They start some funds.
1950 T
Re: (Score:1)
Meanwhile the history of Xiaomi:
2010 Founded, make custom Android ROM.
2011 Launches a phone.
Sell phones, smart TVs, routers and is looking to launch a tablet.
So.. Chances are Ericsson have innovated more over the years and spent more on R&D and made more money and ..
Re: (Score:1)
Regardless of what have happened Ericsson have developed both the equipment and technology.
Xiaomi have used it without paying.
What is there to be upset about?
Re: (Score:1)
That's a weak and pathetic excuse.
If someone has the same technology as you, you're on a level playing ground. The fact of the matter is Ericsson weren't innovative, didn't have strong products, and they lost.
Now they're a patent troll puppet for Sony - I hope Xiaomi just get a hit out on the people at hand, using patents on math/software/genetics deserves no less than a swift and decisive physical response.
Re:Translation... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's this http://www.ericsson.com/thecom... [ericsson.com]
that is, the network ericsson, splitted away from the phone biz long time ago. they sell networks to network operators.
basically, it's pretty probable that you can't do a 3g phone without infringing. that's kinda shitty of course, since if you want to make a mobile phone that works on standard networks.... but its not just a patent troll as such. however, the india court probably should have just said that they're standard essential and fucked them over.
and all the big traditional players have cross license agreements, so this shit doesn't apply to them. it's only to keep new manufacturers away from the markets.
Re:Translation... (Score:5, Interesting)
"We haven’t received an official note from the Delhi High Court. However, our legal team is currently evaluating the situation based on the information we have. India is a very important market for Xiaomi and we will respond promptly as needed and in full compliance with India laws. Moreover, we are open to working with Ericsson to resolve this matter amicably."
Translation: Now that we have infringed all of your patents we are willing to come to an agreement with you but only because you have finally got us by the short and curlies after a long court battle and not because we feel bound by international treaties signed by the Peoples Republic of China since those are only binding for people infringing on our patents.
More like the court issued a ruling that's not even remotely legal:
Therefore, it appears that this order of the Delhi High Court’s injunction order is not in conformance either with international practice or domestic case law.
http://spicyip.com/2014/12/bre... [spicyip.com]
Ericson filed suit, incorrectly, with the highest court. In india, it appears this is not legal, they need to file with a lower court and it get escalated. Xiaomi did not reply to this suit, because they rightly judged it to be out of its jurisdiction. Several other companies were included in the suit, and the replied. The court issued the injunction ex parte, because Xiaomi didn't appear. But the court was wrong to hear the case in the first place so, even its injunction is no legit.
And that's before we even get into the merits of the case, which haven't even been considered yet. So your suggestion that they infringed at all is completely baseless. All we have proof of is that Ericson filed suit in a court with no jurisdiction and Xiamoi ignored it.
Re: (Score:2)
Calls come in and calls go out.
You can't explain that!
Normally, I'd figure (Score:1)