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.)

Mac vs PC: Choose a Vista: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

http://techmoran.com/will-huaw...
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 of a percentage of revenues, Ericsson spent 14.4% of its revenues on research, compared to 13.7% by Huawei."

So likely over $5 billion for each company for just 2013?

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 and not just the telephone company owned network part. Phones and the fixed antennas need to be able to communicate with each other.

Not that I know the details but I assume they are irrelevant when it comes to phone patents. ... especially since they went after Xiaomi for them ..

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.

Well there are rules unions and other legal precedents. Police officers are not "at will" employees.

However by any reasonable standard an officer who commits extreme misconduct (falsifying evidence to hide their own culpability) that officer should be fired and charged with a crime. Unfortunately an unreasonable standard has become the de-facto standard at least in many big cities (I have no idea how widespread this is)

Apparently good cops are victims as much as innocent citizens when the police force is corrupt: http://thefreethoughtproject.c...

national guard

+ otherwise.

As in if they wasn't depending on Chinese decision on the matter. And didn't made such a deal.

[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 on fundamental patents will last indefinitely; the promise on non-fundamental patents for eight years."

Concerns Microsoft and not Nokia.

And I guess it make some sense considering the position Nokias mobile phones where in relative where they were on the patents front.

Also it was something China asked for to accept it. I don't know to what extent they can enforce that but I guess there was a situation of accepting that or not. Not given Chinese companies would just be able to use it for nothing and not risk anything.

yeah good luck with that strategy. This lady was "lucky" that:
1) she wasn't killed or fatally injured (she may have lasting permanent damage though)
2) the police were not successful in destroying her evidence. They appeared practiced. Who is to say they won't do a better job next time.
3) The police fabricated (and witnessed by other police stories) was an obvious fabrication thanks to her evidence. They accused her of trying to run over the police and had other police officers to back them up. They would have been "justified" in killing her to "defend themselves". It sickening the amount of power that corrupt police officers can have.

I have met plenty of good (or so I believed) officers, but now I am terrified of them.

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?

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.

My other post:

R&D % of GDP PPP:
(Not all countries in the world - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...)

#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%
Etiopia 0.17%
Indonesia 0.07% .. 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 somewhat to that ...

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.

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 ..