November 15, 2024

Patent Case Has Potential to Give Apple the Upper Hand

But if a final ruling in a case against Samsung goes Apple’s way on Friday, Apple would clearly hold the momentum in the patent disputes engulfing the mobile market.

The federal International Trade Commission is expected to say on Friday whether it will uphold a preliminary finding that Samsung mobile products violated a handful of Apple patents. A decision against Samsung by the commission could result in an import ban on some of the company’s mobile devices.

A decision for Apple would be its second major legal win against Samsung in less than a week. On Saturday, the Obama administration vetoed the federal commission’s ban on Apple mobile products in a separate case brought by Samsung.

That rare move — the first time for such a veto since 1987 — was a major victory for Apple and other companies that had argued that disputes over a class of patents known as standards-essential patents should not lead to import bans by the trade commission.

Carolina Milanesi, a Gartner analyst, said that if Apple were to score a second victory with the International Trade Commission this week, the company would climb to a significant position of power in patent feuds — not just against Samsung, but against other companies as well.

“Apple can use that as a warning and say, ‘Look, if it hasn’t worked with Samsung, why would it work with you?’ ” she said. “It’s not real power. It’s more like a mind game.”

The patent disputes have led to a possible political skirmish between the United States and South Korea, where Samsung is a celebrated hometown legend. The decision on Saturday vexed the South Korean government, which issued a statement expressing concern that the ruling may have violated Samsung’s patent rights. The government pledged to watch the commission’s ruling on Friday in the separate case for fairness.

Essential patents, like those at the center of the dispute in Saturday’s veto, cover basic technologies that companies have to support in their products to comply with industry standards. In the case between Apple and Samsung, the standard involved wireless communications. The Obama administration said it overruled the decision on Saturday partly because it feared essential patents, which holders agree to license on reasonable terms, were being used in ways that could hurt competition and consumers. Apple and Samsung disagreed on whether Samsung was offering to license it essential patents on reasonable terms.

The decision on Friday is not over essential patents. But if the commission hands Apple another victory, Robert P. Merges, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said the Obama administration could again overrule any import ban the commission puts in place, as part of a strategy to diminish the power of patent litigation as an industry weapon.

“I think there are a lot of political implications,” he said, referring to the possible reaction by other governments. “You’ll have the obvious favoring-the-home-team problem. But I would be shocked if they didn’t think this through carefully.”

Kristin Huguet, an Apple spokeswoman, declined to comment on the case before the commission’s decision. David Steel, an executive vice president for Samsung, declined to comment.

Already, Apple has scored the biggest legal victory by far, by winning against Samsung in a federal court last year. In that case, a jury awarded Apple $1 billion in damages for violations of mobile patents related to the iPhone and iPad. That award was later reduced to $599 million by a judge, though the figure could go back up as the case drags on in court.

Although the case was a decisive win for Apple, the judge overseeing it denied a request by Apple for a permanent injunction against the sale of some Samsung mobile products. A Federal Appeals Court is expected to hear arguments on Friday from Apple about why such an injunction should be granted.

In another positive development for Apple, a Federal Appeals Court sent a patent case that Apple brought against Motorola Mobility, which is owned by Google, back to the trade commission this week. The ruling gives Apple another shot at winning an important ban on Motorola mobile products after the commission dismissed Apple’s complaint.

Apple has long argued that companies making smartphones based on Google’s operating system, especially Samsung, are copycats that have swiped many of the technical innovations that, at one point, gave the iPhone and iPad a huge edge.

But the wheels of justice grind along slowly, and as Apple’s suits have snaked their way through the courts in the last several years, the popularity of Android phones has continued to grow, swallowing much of the mobile market. In the second quarter of the year, Android phones accounted for almost 80 percent of global smartphone shipments, up from just under 70 percent the year before, according to IDC, the research firm.

The iPhone accounted for 13.2 percent of smartphone shipments in that same period, while Samsung’s share was 30.4 percent, IDC estimated.

It is unclear whether a series of legal setbacks would be more than a speed bump for Samsung, now the world’s largest mobile phone maker. Samsung has argued that it can modify the software in its phones so they steer clear of Apple’s patents, which could allow it to dodge sales bans.

Still, if the tide of legal battles begins to shift decisively in Apple’s favor, the company could extract a juicy financial settlement from Samsung and put the distraction of fighting its biggest rival behind it.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/09/technology/patent-case-has-potential-to-give-apple-the-upper-hand.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Trying to Wean Britons From Unlimited Mobile Data

But whether EE, a joint venture of Deutsche Telekom and France Télécom, will succeed by marketing fiat alone in killing off access to unlimited wireless data in Britain remains to be seen.

The country’s mobile market is one of the most competitive in Europe, with four network operators, as well as resellers like Virgin Mobile and Tesco Mobile.

With the switch in network technologies from the decade-old 3G service to LTE, or Long Term Evolution, EE raised the price of subscribing to wireless broadband about £5, or $7.60. That increase was on packages starting at £41 a month for a service the company said was five times as fast as 3G. (LTE, a so-called fourth-generation technology, is a computer-based method of sending data, eliminating the mechanical bottlenecks of older grids.)

One in four EE customers in the new network’s coverage area have subscribed to the LTE service since Oct. 30, Olaf Swantee, the chief executive of EE, which stands for Everything Everywhere, said during a recent interview. In the United States, LTE is much more expensive, he noted, approaching or exceeding $100 a month.

U.S. companies usually charge more, but also tend to give consumers the option of sharing the data allotment on multiple devices. Verizon Wireless, the U.S. market leader, offers unlimited voice and text plus 2 gigabytes of monthly downloads on any device for $100.

The LTE packages from EE, most of which also include unlimited voice and texts, cost as little as £41 for 3 gigabytes of data downloads a month with a two-year contract.

“We have the most attractive 4G pricing in the world in the U.K.,” Mr. Swantee said on the sidelines of the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona.

But the decision by EE, the biggest mobile operator in Britain, to phase out unlimited packages has drawn blunt criticism. The online journal Endgadget said British customers would have to “sign away a kidney” for the company’s LTE plans.

Reading the public mood has been difficult, and most of EE’s competitors seem unsure whether Britons, already coping with a government austerity plan, are ready to embrace new limits on mobile surfing as well.

The second- and third-largest operators in Britain, O2 and Vodafone, declined to say how they would sell LTE when they started service. Simon Lloyd, a spokesman for O2, said by e-mail that his company, owned by Telefónica of Spain, would commence LTE service in the summer.

“It is too early at this stage to talk about our pricing, but the plan is to ensure that as many people as possible can enjoy 4G,” Mr. Lloyd said. “Pricing will be competitive — certainly not prohibitive.”

A Vodafone spokesman, Richard Wray, said by e-mail that the company would turn on its LTE network by June 21 and would publish details on pricing closer to the debut. Vodafone is the largest mobile operator in Europe by market value and sales.

With consumer reaction uncertain, even EE appears to be keeping its options open, continuing to sell some unlimited 3G plans through its T-Mobile and Orange brands.

James Barford, an analyst with Enders Analysis, a research firm in London, said he expected O2 and Vodafone to follow EE and sell 4G data in distinct chunks, increasing the momentum to price wireless data in new download dosages. Mr. Barford said he would not be surprised if EE had phased out its remaining unlimited 3G plans by next year.

Mobile operators simply cannot afford to give consumers free unlimited access to wireless data at any speed in an industry where revenue fell 4 percent last year in Britain and was down 6 percent on average across Europe, Mr. Barford said.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/technology/trying-to-wean-britons-from-unlimited-mobile-data.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Mexico’s Planned Telecoms Shake-Up Threatens Slim, Televisa

The long-awaited plan seeks to shake up the telecoms sector by allowing increased foreign ownership of media and phone companies, and giving regulators the power to force asset sales by players controlling more than 50 percent of the market.

“The purpose of these measures is to free up the sector’s potential, and do it as quickly as possible,” President Enrique Pena Nieto said as he presented the plan on Monday.

Flanked by the leaders of Mexico’s main political parties, Pena Nieto said the reform would allow companies to grow, but added they would have to do so with innovation and investment, by improving prices and the quality of their service.

Previous governments have failed to curb the power of Mexico’s telecoms and media tycoons, and fostering more competition in the industry is seen as a crucial yardstick of the new government’s ability to unlock the economy’s potential.

“To build a prosperous Mexico, we must boost competition in all sectors and bring our telecommunications up to date,” Pena Nieto said.

His government, which took office in December, negotiated the reform bill with leaders from the main opposition parties after the two forged an accord with the president in December called the Pact for Mexico.

However, the planned reform may still face a tough road in Congress, where Pena Nieto lacks a majority.

Slim, the world’s richest man, dominates Mexico’s telecommunications market, controlling about 70 percent of its mobile market and 80 percent of its fixed phone lines.

Televisa TLVACPO.MX, controlled by tycoon Emilio Azcarraga, has about 60 percent of the broadcast market.

The bill stipulates that any company with a market share exceeding 50 percent will be deemed dominant.

A dominant player may be subject to sanctions including possible forced asset disposals, it said. It also seeks to curb the ability of companies to suspend legal rulings against them while they appeal decisions.

It aims to increase competition in the television market by auctioning rights to run two new television channels, a process that will not be open to the two most powerful broadcasters, Televisa and TV Azteca.

The bill could also open the door for Slim to the television market, which he has been kept out of so far, but it is unclear whether he will be able to take part in the new auction.

WEALTH DIVIDE

The bill proposed introducing a new telecoms regulator, the Federal Institute of Telecommunications (IFT), along with specialized courts for settling competition disputes.

Mexico’s peso strengthened to its highest point in 18 months early on Monday with traders saying the currency had benefited from optimism about the country’s reform drive.

Pena Nieto has pledged to ramp up economic growth to six percent a year, from about four percent in 2012 and has said that a shake-up of state oil firm Pemex, broadening the tax base and increasing competition will be key.

Asked how much telecoms reform could help Mexico’s economy, Finance Minister Luis Videgaray said some analysts estimated the bill could add up to 1 percentage point to annual growth.

The benchmark IPC stock index slipped 0.7 percent, dragged down by a tumble of more than 3 percent for America Movil and nearly a 1 percent fall for Televisa.

Slim’s companies have not yet responded to requests for comment on the reform.

Televisa’s chief executive, Emilio Azcarraga, said on his Twitter account that Mexico was entering a period of great challenges and opportunities. “Welcome competition,” he said.

The bill also aims to underline Pena Nieto’s commitment to reducing the divide between rich and poor Mexicans. Around half the population lives in poverty, while much of the country’s economic power is concentrated in the hands of a few families.

POLITICAL FIGHT

Some worry that Congress could water down the plan, but lawmakers in Pena Nieto’s centrist Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) are confident the bill will succeed.

PRI congressman Hector Garcia said he expected it to pass the lower house of Congress by the end of next week and get Senate approval by the end of the current session on April 30.

“We’re certain it’ll be voted on in the Senate this period,” he said. “The Pact for Mexico stipulates this timeframe.”

While the outline of the bill presented on Monday prompted investors to dump shares in the large incumbents, America Movil and Televisa, smaller companies benefited from the announcement.

Shares of Mexican phone companies Maxcom MXCMCPO.MX and Axtel AXTELCPO.MX, which has waded deep into debt to compete with Slim’s fixed line giant Telmex, gained about 7 percent apiece. Shares in cable firm Megacable MEGACPO.MX rose 2 percent while TV Azteca shares were nearly flat.

“It’s obvious the reform will benefit the companies with the least market share,” said Jorge Nevid, head of trading at brokerage Accival in Mexico City.

Purely in terms of revenue, America Movil could be much harder hit by the reform than Televisa.

Slim’s companies had 67 percent of the 414 billion pesos ($32.99 billion) in total revenue from Mexican phone and television companies in 2012, while Televisa’s cable companies had just 8.5 percent, according to data from market research group The Competitive Intelligence Unit.

(Additional reporting by Elinor Comlay, Alexandra Alper, Lizbeth Diaz and Noe Torres; Editing by Kieran Murray, David Gregorio and Edwina Gibbs)

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/03/11/business/11reuters-mexico-telecoms.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

DealBook: Google’s Big Bet on the Mobile Future

Sanjay Jha, the chief executive of Motorola Mobility, who has been responsible for turning around the company, will remain as the division's top executive.Tim Boyle/Bloomberg NewsSanjay Jha, the chief executive of Motorola Mobility, who has been responsible for turning around the company, will remain as the division’s top executive.

Google, Motorola and Mobile

Both companies have met with both successes and struggles as they adapt to and influence a changing market for mobile phones.

Google made a $12.5 billion bet on Monday that its future — and the future of big Internet companies — lies in mobile computing, and moved aggressively to take on its arch rival Apple in the mobile market.

The Silicon Valley giant, known for its search engine and Android phone software, rattled the tech world with its announcement that it would acquire Motorola Mobility Holdings, allowing it to get into the business of making cellphones and tablets.

The acquisition, Google’s largest to date and an all-cash deal, would put the company in head-to-head competition with its own business partners, the many phone makers that use Android software, as well as with Apple.

The deal, which requires regulatory approval, would also give Google a valuable war chest of more than 17,000 patents that would help it defend Android from a barrage of patent lawsuits.

“Computing is moving onto mobile,” Larry Page, Google’s chief executive, said in an interview. “Even if I have a computer next to me, I’ll still be on my mobile device.”

The effect of a Google-Motorola Mobility merger on consumers is unclear. But in the past, Google has shaken up the mobile industry by pushing cellphone carriers to open up their networks, and by licensing its Android system at no charge, increasing competition. With the Motorola deal, analysts said, Google may be able to accelerate innovation in smartphones and tablets.

“For Google, it’s important for them to make sure that the mobile space is not dominated by one company, that being Apple,” said Steve Weinstein, an analyst at Pacific Crest Securities. By acquiring Motorola, he said, they “can drive down costs and create a product that is pioneering with Google services around it.”

The proposed deal would have ramifications across the tech industry, giving strength to Motorola at a time when Research in Motion and Nokia are faltering.

Google said it would continue to license its Android system to other smartphone makers, like HTC, Samsung and LG. “Many hardware partners have contributed to Android’s success, and we look forward to continuing to work with all of them,” wrote Mr. Page in a company blog post announcing the deal.

Nonetheless, while many of Google’s partners issued positive statements on Monday, analysts suggested that the acquisition would create tension because Motorola would be in an obviously favored position. That could push other phone makers into the arms of Microsoft, which offers a rival operating system.

“If you woke up today and you are one of Google’s hardware partners, the hair just set up on the back of your neck,” said Colin Gillis, an analyst with BGC Partners. “If you’re an Android partner, you may start considering the Windows platform.”

Mr. Page addressed those concerns by saying that Motorola would effectively operate as a stand-alone business. Sanjay Jha, the chief executive of Motorola Mobility, who has been responsible for turning the company around, will remain as the unit’s top executive.

Federal regulators are already investigating Google’s dominance in several areas of its business, and the planned merger will prompt additional antitrust review. But legal experts said it seemed unlikely that the deal would be blocked because the two companies are in separate, if related, businesses so a combination would not increase Google’s share of either market.

Phones running the Android system have become increasingly popular, accounting for 43.4 percent of smartphones sold in the second quarter, according to Gartner research. But many customers have complained that the phones can be confusing to use.

That is because Google works with 39 phone makers that use different versions of Android across their platforms, resulting in variable performances, said Richard Doherty, research director for Envisioneering Group, a market research and consulting firm.

Apple, by contrast, controls its entire product — device and software. With the Motorola acquisition, Google, too, could exert greater control over its products.

But it is far from clear that Google, a $179 billion business largely built on sophisticated search algorithms and online advertising, can transform itself into a device maker. The business is costly, and the margins are slim, said Jordan Rohan, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus.

“If you have the best-selling phone, you can make a lot of money,” he said. “What’s not clear to me is whether phones that sell a few million units make a lot of money.”

The chief of Android, Andy Rubin, even proclaimed, in 2009, that the company was simply “not making hardware.”

By becoming a phone maker, Google may be able to increase its clout with wireless carriers, which control pricing and distribution of cellphones.

“This is an opportunity for Google to jumpstart the market, in pricing and innovation,” said Avi Seidmann, an information systems professor at the University of Rochester.

Google’s deal for Motorola comes just weeks after it lost a bid to a consortium led by Apple and Microsoft for 6,000 patents from Nortel, a Canadian communications company that filed for bankruptcy in 2009. For Google, which faces an increasing number of patent infringement claims against its Android system, the loss was a major blow.

David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer, later accused the winning bidders of engaging in anticompetitive behavior, describing the deal as “a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents.” Patent fights are common in the technology industry and come with high stakes. Companies are often required to pay licensing fees to continue using technology after losing infringement claims and are sometimes blocked from selling their products.

But while Mr. Drummond was complaining, he and other executives were working on the Motorola deal.

“The best way to fight a big portfolio of patents is to have your own big portfolio of patents,” said Herbert Hovenkamp, a law professor at the University of Iowa. “That appears to be what Google is doing here, arming itself with patents to be able to defend itself in this fast-growing market.”

Google’s bid for Motorola is an extension of what Eric E. Schmidt, the company’s former chief executive, said last year was a “mobile first” strategy. Following that approach, Google has expended millions of dollars and considerable engineering power into developing a broad array of mobile-centric services. But the bid for Motorola is its strongest move in that area.

“This is an emphatic exclamation point that Google is a mobile company,” said Ben Schachter, an analyst with Macquarie Capital. “It shows how important Android is to Google.”

Under the terms of the deal, which is expected to close by early 2012, Google will pay Motorola Mobility’s shareholders $40 a share, a 63 percent premium to Friday’s closing price. Although Motorola had casual talks with prospective suitors earlier this year, the sale of the Nortel patents at a $4.5 billion price tag encouraged Motorola’s directors to pursue a sale more actively, according to people briefed on the matter. Last week Google, led by Mr. Page, emerged as the frontrunner, and by Sunday, Motorola’s board gave the green light.

Shares of Google fell 1.16 percent on Monday, to $557.23, while shares of Motorola Mobility added 55.78 percent, to $38.12.

Shares of Nokia and Research in Motion surged, too, amid speculation that they are takeover targets as well. Nokia, which recently entered a comprehensive partnership with Microsoft, led the gains, with shares rising more than 17 percent.

Steve Lohr, Verne G. Kopytoff and Michael J. de la Merced contributed reporting.

Article source: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/googles-big-bet-on-the-mobile-future/?partner=rss&emc=rss