Sony are doing much better since it dumped the lame duck Ericsson .
nic jr., 11 Dec 2014I think patents should only be valid for a certain period of time, then it should be free for ... morePatents are valid for a period of 20 years in most countries..
It is not political nor a move by competing brands. If xiaomi had replied to the legal notices rather than ignoring them, it would be in court like Micromax or Gionee and no injunction would have been brought on sales.. They could have continued sales till a settlement was reached..
I think patents should only be valid for a certain period of time, then it should be free for the public, how much can one squeeze from it, by stalling creativity. If some bigger companies are using it, those who've a certain sizable turnover should put a percentage towards CSR.
Sure the phones might be a bit buggy and the flash sales through flipkart might suck; but banning there sales is kind of a political move now, anyone could tell and identify that - Some don't like there growth, major brand dominated market has changed to a quality specs oriented build with meekly cost and minimalistic repair, which turned many heads on many coperate tables, and the Christmas-New year sales statistics might topple the square status.
It's a temporary ban. If Xiaomi wants to continue doing business in India, they have to pay royalities to Ericsson. That would mean Xiaomi increasing the price of their products in India. Ericsson is a reputed brand having lots of patents on networks which represents the phone part in smartphone and this company has sued Samsung, Micromax, Intex, Gionee and has won the battles and now enjoying some royalities. Xiaomi must abide by the laws or simply say goodbye to their business in India.
AnonD-340552, 11 Dec 2014This is really unfortunate. I wanted to buy this mobile for my wife. Because this was cheap a... moreI agree that the cheap but it's too much to say BEST. This is worst mobile that I have seen while iam working in flipkart. Most of the device have returned and refunded.
This is really unfortunate. I wanted to buy this mobile for my wife. Because this was cheap and best!
Torero, 11 Dec 2014Because they have spent hundred if not thousands of hours and tons of money developing the tec... moreActually I wasn't defending Xiaomi. By "big companies" I was referring to them too. (I doubt that Xiaomi is a small fry).
Maybe small companies aren't fully aware of the licensing issues, but I'm sure that Xiaomi, Samsung, Apple, Microsoft and whoever else had such problems, were fully aware of what they were doing. The thing I hate is that they get cocky, and instead of just coming to an easy agreement and paying what they need to pay, they drag the battle to court, wasting time and money.
It's actually funny to see most of you who probably never wrote a piece of software for commercial purposes complaining about how Ericsson is trolling Xiomi.
You use a piece of technology/software/code developed by someone else you license it unless it's open source, simple as it gets.
AnonD-318966, 11 Dec 2014I am so freaking tired of all these patent wars... Hey, big companies, why can't you all get t... moreBecause they have spent hundred if not thousands of hours and tons of money developing the technology or code for whatever Xiomi is infringing. It's not just about trolling by the big companies. You use a piece of technology, you license it. Simple.
Vader, 11 Dec 2014http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/349008/Patent/Indias+Overview+On+Standard+Essential+Patent+SEPs
... moreAnybody who knows anything about patent licensing and royalties knows it can be either a fixed fee per unit or a percentage of sales. Although the article claims the percentage model is discriminatory there is actually nothing wrong with either system.
In this case the percentage system allows manufactures to sell for less since they pay less royalties where as the premium brands pay more because they're making more and that would otherwise screw the patent owner out of a fair royalty.
AnonD-324879, 10 Dec 2014It's too late take action against Xiaomi, they have already become the world's 3rd largest sma... moreIts never late. There are still at 3rd largest & they have a long road ahead. This will surely hit them hard.
I am so freaking tired of all these patent wars... Hey, big companies, why can't you all get the fuck along? You all know you'll end up in court when you try to pull stupid stunts like this. So just save yourselves the trouble (and the huge lawyer bills) and do things properly!
Since becoming fully functional in October of 2009, the CCI has brought two investigations involving SEPs, one in November 2013, and the other in January 2014, both against Ericsson based on allegations that it violated its FRAND commitments by imposing discriminatory and "excessive" royalty rates and using Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). According to the CCI, "forcing a party to execute an NDA" and "imposing excessive and unfair royalty rates" constitutes "prima facie" abuse of dominance and violation of section 4 of the Indian Competition Act, as does "imposing a jurisdiction clause debarring complainants from getting disputes adjudicated in the country where both parties were in business."
In both matters, the CCI stated that "prima facie the relevant product market" is "'the provision of SEP(s) for 2G, 3G and 4G technologies in GSM standard compliant mobile communication devices,' in India, in which "prima facie it is apparent that Ericsson was dominant." The investigations allege that Ericsson "seems to be acting contrary to the FRAND terms by imposing royalties linked with cost of product of user for its patents." Thus, "for the use of GSM chip in a phone costing Rs 100, royalty would be Rs. 1.25 but if this GSM chip is used in a phone of Rs. 1000, royalty would be Rs. 12.5." According to the CCI, "charging of two different license fees per unit phone for use of the same technology prima facie is discriminatory and also reflects excessive pricing vis-à-vis high cost phones." Furthermore, contends the CCI, "transparency is the hallmark of fairness, and" alleging that, Ericsson's use of NDAs "is contrary to the spirit of applying FRAND terms fairly and uniformly to similarly placed players."
The second investigation further alleges that, although Ericsson publicly claims that it offers a broadly uniform rate to all similarly placed potential licensees, its refusal to share commercial terms and royalty payments on the grounds of NDAs is "strongly suggestive of the fact that different royalty rates/commercial terms were being offered to the potential licensees belong to the same category."
AnonD-324879, 10 Dec 2014It's too late take action against Xiaomi, they have already become the world's 3rd largest sma... moreSamsung was one of the largest manufacturers of phones when Ericsson sued them.. They pay royalty now.. Size has nothing to do with it..
I think its the bad time for xiaomi as it is only 4 yrs old, it will handle this in a right way. And will provide value for money devices to the people all over the world.