Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th Jul 2012 10:48 UTC
Legal Groklaw nails it: "In other words, [Apple and Microsoft] want to disarm the companies that got there first, built the standards, and created the field, while the come-later types clean up on patents on things like slide to unlock or a tablet shape with rounded corners. Then the money flows to Apple and Microsoft, and away from Android - and isn't that really the point of all this, to destroy Android by hook or by crook? The parties who were in the mobile phone business years before Apple or Microsoft even thought about doing it thus get nothing much for their earlier issued patents that have become standards. Apple and Microsoft can't compete on an even field, because the patent system rewards the first to invent (or now, after the recent patent reform, the first to file). Neither Apple nor Microsoft got there first. Samsung was there, since the '90s." To illustrate: Apple is demanding $24 (!) per Samsung device for design patents, while at the same time, Apple also demands that Samsung does not charge more than $0.0049 per standards essential patent per device. This is absolutely, utterly, and entirely indefensible. And then Apple and its supporters have the nerve to claim Samsung is ripping them off. Yes, this pisses me off, and no, that's not because it's Apple doing it (Microsoft is just as guilty). It's because this is plainly, utterly, clearly, and intrinsically unfair.
Permalink for comment 528935
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by El_Exigente
by itanic on Mon 30th Jul 2012 16:12 UTC in reply to "Comment by El_Exigente"
Member since:

Evidently Groklaw thinks that because Apple uses Samsung's FRAND-encumbered standards-essential patents, that Apple is somehow obligated to let Samsung use Apple's patents at the same royalty rate. Where could such an idea have possibly come from? It certainly has nothing to do with reality.

In return for having their patents made part of the standard, Samsung agreed to FRAND royalties, and if that is no longer sufficient, then that's Samsung's own fault, and possibly they will think longer and harder before getting into a similar situation again.

The standard FRAND licensing fees are for companies who cross-license. Apple either needs to cross-license, or pay a higher rate; they shouldn't have it both ways.

Reply Parent Score: 2