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 <i>zero</i> innovation, research, development, etc.<p>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.<p>All people holding patents need to be innovating with them, or otherwise, lose them after a short period.
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.<p>>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.<p>From my limited reading I <i>think</i> 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.<p>There is no way that $7B was made solely on the iPhone sold in UK. The numbers just dont add up.<p>>> 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.<p>This is not a threat. But a valid argument, which is so rare from Apple. It is not the first time Apple has <i>threaten</i> to leave the market in numerous other occasions such Australia, Germany, or EU.
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 £39m 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.<p>Assuming that their reported profit wasn't just a massive lie to avoid tax, obviously.
It seems like this is the part that most offends Apple:<p>“* 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.*”<p>If every country took that approach that the UK Court seems to be taking, international trade would suffer greatly.
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:<p>> 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.<p>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.
When I read "patent company" I can't help but understand it as "patent troll".<p>A company specialized in making money from patents can't be any good...
I'm not a fan of patent trolls, and I don't generally like intellectual property or how it is implemented, but this is a bad look for Apple. A court does "justice" according to it's own law and a party in the court tries to throw it's weight around to get the country to not enforce it's own law on them. This is a huge company trying to be above the law.
I suggest register patents -- so that they become public knowledge<p>Then anybody can implement it; there is no restriction<p>Then there is a preset scale, partly set by the value the inventor gives to the invention, but also set by supply and demand. So the inventor cannot price themselves out of the market, but still has incentive to publish. Possibly a market place where companies make non exclusive bids<p>Patent '''trolls''' are a separate issue<p>Probably the best solution is for litigants who loose; to pay a more realistic evaluation of damages for the court case to those who successfully defend themselves. This would include paying above damages, because presumably those who defended themselves should be paid for the extra work forced on them, etc<p>Alternatively for low to zero value patents, where a few years have elapsed, the onus first falls on the patent holder to demonstrate its worth
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.<p>Alas, the money is too sweet and hard to say no to...
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.
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.