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.

+ 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.

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 ..

Ericsson is 138 years old.

1876 They started with telegraphs.
1877 Showed of the telephone.
1878 Started repairing telephones.
1881 Started making telephone equipment.
1882 Made a wall-mounted telephone.
1896 They produced over 25 000 telephones.
1907 They started to produce telephones in New York.
1909 Set up telephone station in Mexico.
1918 Merged with SAT.
1923 Televerket pick their 500 switch.
1932 Kreuger buys a controlling stake of Ericsson and sell it to biggest competitor ITT.
1946 They start some funds.
1950 They start going international.
1956 They make their first mobile phone!! And a phone where everything is in the handle.
1970 Ericsson and Televerket join each other in developing switching equipment.
1976 AXE station.
1977 Computer controlled AXE.
1978 Ericsson and Philips receives a large order from Saudi Arabia.
1982 Ericsson Information Systems was launched and their PC.
1992 World leader in mobile phones with over 100 000 employees.
1996 Radio communication large share of their business area, mobile system and telephones grow by 50 percent.
2000 Ericsson response - Emergency assistance.
2001 Cell division merge with Sony.
2003 Returns to profits.
2006 "Ericsson received the Best Access Technology recognition for its VDSL2 solution for fixed broadband access at the Broad World Forum."

Why should the company be free?

Guess it's unmannerly to call you stupid.
So I'll call you yellow instead.

No yellow.

Ericsson has a business where they make money.
Some of the money will reach to the owners of the company.

As such people are interested in owning the company to get hold of that money. And because of that to get ownership of a part of the company cost money.

P/E for for Ericsson was 23.25.
For Apple 17.67.
For Google 27.16.
For Nokia 59.84.
For Facebook 74.47.

Facebook purchased WhatApp for 16 billion USD. I don't know what people thought it was work but 16 billion isn't something I would sneeze at.

As for Facebook valuation you can say what you want.
But the reality is that they ARE making money. And they are increasing the amounts they make quickly.

I don't know how much you've actually looked into it. Guess you may make your statement out of the IPO relative what the stock traded at later.

IPO price of Facebook was $38 18 May 2012.
In August 2012 it traded at around $18.
Mid July 2013 at $26.
And then it lifted to $54 in mid October 2013 and to $70 early march 2014.

Currently (15 min delay?) valued at $78.45 with a recent peak just above $80.

It was priced very high relative profits and yeah it did fall from $38 to $18. But it's up at $78 now at a better price relative their currents profits. So profits will have risen a lot over these 2.5 years.

You're free to argue it should be worth nothing. But considering they make billions that would be pretty stupid and I for sure would take a chunk of Facebook if it was given to me for free. (Currently valued at 216.79 billion.)

*Ehum*

Ericsson value: 40 billion USD
Nokia value: 30 billion USD
Sony: 23.6 billion USD
Motorola Solutions (sold network part to Nokia): 15.6 billion USD.
(All stocks counted using Google finance?)

Ericsson P/E: 23.18
Nokia P/E: 60.30
Motorola Solutions P/E: 26.80

It's true Nokia was the biggest of them all in phones. It's true Ericsson started to make phones with Sony and later let them take over all of it.

And as for Nokias phone business I guess we all kinda know where they are now and how much wealth that generated lately ..

I assume Ericsson or Huawei are the largest players in the Network field.

Ericsson may have lost its phone business to Sony:
31 Oct 2014:
"PlayStation profits up but Sony on course for £1.2 billion loss", metro.co.uk
Ericsson seem to be the more healthy company ..

31 Juli wsj.com:
"But Sony's mobile-phone unit, which a year ago had been the company's most profitable electronics division, posted an operating loss amid sagging sales."

Not that I've looked into it a lot. But I'm not sure you're giving Ericsson enough credit.

https://www.google.com/finance...
Says 3.7 billion for Huawei but I don't know whatever it's all the stocks and if it's of any use.
Likely not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Says $3.46 billion in profit 2013.