Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 13:36 UTC
Legal "One of the exhibits Samsung has now made public tells an interesting tale. It's the slide presentation that Apple showed Samsung when it first tried (and failed) to get Samsung to license Apple's patents prior to the start of litigation. While some of the numbers were earlier reported on when the exhibit was used at trial, the slides themselves provide more data - specifically on the difference between what Apple wanted Samsung to pay for Windows phones and for Android phones. The slides punch huge holes in Apple's FRAND arguments. Apple and Microsoft complain to regulators about FRAND rates being excessive and oppressive at approximately $6 per unit, or 2.4%; but the Apple offer was not only at a much higher rate, it targeted Android in a way that seems deliberately designed to destroy its ability to compete in the marketplace." Eagerly awaiting the 45 paragraph comment explaining how this is completely fair and not hypocritical at all. Bonus points if it includes something about Eric Schmidt being on Apple's board, and, double bonus point if it mentions one of the QWERTY Android prototypes. Mega Epic Bonus if it somehow manages to draw a line from Edison, Tesla, to Jobs.
Permalink for comment 539519
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Apples patents are not FRAND
by vaette on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 14:48 UTC
vaette
Member since:
2008-08-09

This is hugely misleading, the Apple patents in question are not FRAND, they can charge whatever they want for them. There are many things wrong with the patent system, but this is not an example. It is not at all surprising that Apple offered an unreasonable deal, since what they really want is for Samsung to differentiate from the patents in question.

The difference between FRAND and non-FRAND is one of the things that isn't particularly broken about the patent system. Here other issues, such as broad and obvious patents, simply make it seem problematic.

Edited 2012-10-22 14:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2