3 ms·
The OP blog post does nothing to clarify the substance of "Ericsson's 5G complaint" which prevents readers (e.g. me) from determining whether they would support
by mistersquid 4y ago
The OP blog post does nothing to clarify the substance of "Ericsson's 5G complaint" which prevents readers (e.g. me) from determining whether they would support or oppose.
What the post does do is complain that Apple refuses to cooperate with government requests for information which, to my understanding, is legal and largely to be expected.
The blog post also insinuates Apple has been astroturfing which in this context is also legal, though certainly disappointing if true.
In sum: the OP blog post throws shade on Apple's motives without clarifying the stakes of the larger determining context. I'll stop short of calling FUD.
- nceqs3 4y agoHe links to his previous coverage of the dispute. It's just a typical FRAND SEP dispute. This is a USITC case, and the ITC staff is effectively a party to the dispute, they have certain discovery rights. Hence the reason why they are moving to compel.
- kmeisthax 4y agoFOSSPatents has blogged extensively about the litigation in question, but I'll summarize: Apple is trying to short Ericsson on standards-essential patent (SEP) fees that every smartphone manufacturer has to pay. Ericsson has tried to get an iPhone import ban to compel Apple to a licensing discussion. Apple has argued such a ban shouldn't be imposed because iOS users can't just "get an Android". In other words, the exact opposite argument they used about sideloading mobile apps. Apple's position is basically that they shouldn't have to pay for licensing SEP, but app developers should have to pay for being on iOS. In other words, they have a right to licensing fees but Ericsson doesn't. This is hypocrisy, and Apple is trying to have it both ways because Apple is culturally tainted by Steve Jobs.