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 539541
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Dubious argument
by flypig on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 16:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Dubious argument"
flypig
Member since:
2005-07-13

What makes them essential? NOTHING besides some butthurt Fandroids wanting free access to them. Half of the time they will argue that overscroll bounce is useless and not worthy of copying, the other half of the time you want to describe them as ESSENTIAL?

There are a number of different patents and people involved here. It wouldn't be inconsistent for some people to think some of the patents are essential, while others are useless.

But at any rate, the claim that Apple's patents are essential for making a full touchscreen device appears to have come from Apple (at least according to the article).

There's no doubt Apple (and companies they've acquired) have made important advances in touchscreen interfaces. Personally I don't have a problem with Apple benefiting from others using these ideas (with caveats). But I don't think their licensing terms should be unreasonable.

Reply Parent Score: 2