独家
对智能手机品牌在行业调用艾德在行动“合法”特许使用金
印度手机和电子协会(ICEA)致信财政部长吧Sitharaman,商务部长总裁Goyal而且Ashwini Vaishnaw 5月30日,对手机品牌最近指责艾德行动涉嫌违反外汇规定机构的“缺乏理解版税支付专利持有者的过程”。
印度手机和电子协会(ICEA)致信财政部长吧Sitharaman,商务部长总裁Goyal而且Ashwini Vaishnaw 5月30日,对手机品牌最近指责艾德行动涉嫌违反外汇规定机构的“缺乏理解版税支付专利持有者的过程”。
之后,该机构询问小米印度高管今年4月,通过了订单冻结公司的银行资产价值超过5500卢比涉嫌停车钱的幌子下的版税违反外汇管理行为(FEMA)。
工商东亚寻求干预部长给清晰的执法机构,因为“有深度和不必要的恐慌在业内机构的行为对特许使用金”。
信中称,案件正在ED对特许使用金,由印度法律正式承认。“专利实现者双重四面楚歌,繁重的皇室一方面,面临和担心的执法行动行动,”它说。
公司支付版税的知识产权(ip)用于印度不是非法的,不是任何印度法律或规定,禁止ICEA补充说,这是一种常见的做法被很多企业采用实现SEPs(标准重要专利)或其他专利——小米也声称在法庭文件中。
工商东亚信还声称,公司如诺基亚、爱立信、和高通已经开发出一种商业模式要求版税的知识产权(知识产权)和从事诉讼公司迫使他们签署许可协议。
如果不支付的版税,这些公司会起诉这些全球遗产专利持有者,它说。
印度调查中兴,体内随着越来越多的中国公司正在接受审查
公司事务将审查审计报告和已收到匿名来源的信息表明潜在违反包括欺诈,根据文档。
这封信提醒印度和国际智能手机公司已经在过去“伤痕累累”,这些诉讼,导致了货物,工厂在封锁,和众多的禁令。这也有一个潜在的影响使印度的计划,信中说,开创了智能手机行业。
ICEA说专利持有者像高通收取版税的发票价格完成设备,而不仅仅是技术的组件驻留,造成有害影响创新创建一个不可逾越的障碍在印度的印度开发商和创业生态系统。
令状的小米在卡纳塔克邦最高法院的请愿书,该公司表示84%的版税,艾德认为非法的,已经支付给高通的两家子公司,注册在美国。
小米澄清它自2015年以来一直支付版税,并被认为是一个值增加的所得税。该公司告诉法庭,其在印度的业务中断了ED秩序。
最高法院允许说小米利用银行透支进行日常活动和支付的进口来确保其业务,直到进一步听力除了特许使用金。
![\"Industry](\"https:\/\/st.etb2bimg.com\/Themes\/Release\/images\/responsive\/ettelecom-default.jpg\")
<\/figure>NEW DELHI: An industry association representing companies like Apple<\/a> and Xiaomi<\/a> has written to the government about Enforcement Directorate\u2019s (ED<\/a>) recent actions against smartphone brands\u2019 royalty payments on intellectual property, saying the move has sent \u201cshivers through the industry\u201d.India Cellular and Electronics Association<\/a> (ICEA), in a letter to finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman, commerce minister Piyush Goyal and IT minister Ashwini Vaishnaw dated May 30, blamed recent ED action against handset brands for alleged violation of foreign exchange rules on the agency's \u201clack of understanding the process of royalty payments to patent holders\u201d.
The agency, after interrogating senior Xiaomi India executives in April, had passed an order freezing the company's bank assets worth over Rs 5,500 crore for allegedly parking money out of the country under the guise of royalties in violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA).
<\/div><\/div>The action has since been stayed by the Karnataka High Court, on Xiaomi\u2019s appeal, till the next hearing on Wednesday.
ICEA has sought intervention of the ministers to give clarity to the enforcement agencies, since \u201cthere is deep and unnecessary panic in the industry around the agencies\u2019 actions with respect to royalty payments\u201d.
The letter claimed that a case is being built by ED against royalty payments, which is duly acknowledged by Indian law. \u201cPatent implementers are doubly embattled, paying onerous royalty on one side, and facing and fearing enforcement actions on the action,\" it said.
Companies paying royalties for intellectual properties (IPs) used in India is not illegal and not prohibited by any Indian law or regulation, ICEA said, adding it is a common practice adopted by many companies that implement SEPs (standard essential patents) or other patents \u2013 something that Xiaomi has also claimed in its court filings.
The ICEA letter also alleged that companies like Nokia, Ericsson, and Qualcomm have developed a business model of demanding royalties on their intellectual property rights (IPRs) and have engaged in litigating companies to coerce them to sign licensing agreements.
ICEA has sought intervention of the ministers to give clarity to the enforcement agencies, since \u201cthere is deep and unnecessary panic in the industry around the agencies\u2019 actions with respect to royalty payments\u201d.
The letter claimed that a case is being built by ED against royalty payments, which is duly acknowledged by Indian law. \u201cPatent implementers are doubly embattled, paying onerous royalty on one side, and facing and fearing enforcement actions on the action,\" it said.
Companies paying royalties for intellectual properties (IPs) used in India is not illegal and not prohibited by any Indian law or regulation, ICEA said, adding it is a common practice adopted by many companies that implement SEPs (standard essential patents) or other patents \u2013 something that Xiaomi has also claimed in its court filings.
The ICEA letter also alleged that companies like Nokia, Ericsson, and Qualcomm have developed a business model of demanding royalties on their intellectual property rights (IPRs) and have engaged in litigating companies to coerce them to sign licensing agreements.
<\/div><\/div>Considering this inescapable ground reality, ICEA said, smartphone brands would not have been able to use mobile technology without these royalty payments, and that \u201csmartphones<\/a> sold in India would be nothing more than toys\u201d.
If the royalties were not paid, these companies would have been sued by these global legacy patent holders, it said.
If the royalties were not paid, these companies would have been sued by these global legacy patent holders, it said.