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 539521
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Dubious argument
by flypig on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Dubious argument"
flypig
Member since:
2005-07-13

I wouldn't be quite so upset if I actually could see some harm from Google being #1. Google spends an enormous amount of money creating maps. Why should they not get to dominate the market.


But that's exactly the point. Competition law isn't supposed to prevent companies dominating the market. It's to prevent them from exploiting this position and creating unfair barriers to others entering markets. If Google takes advantage of their Web search position to promote their mapping products (say), then this might be an example. If their mapping product is popular based on its own merits, then there's nothing wrong with that.

Also, to be clear, the law isn't just intended to protect you now: it's to protect you in the future. Once Google has driven/bought all of the other innovative companies (by which I don't necessarily mean Apple, Nokia or Tom Tom) out of the market, they can stop investing the millions they've been doing up until now.

Reply Parent Score: 4