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 539576
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Incredible
by phoudoin on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 18:32 UTC in reply to "Incredible"
phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

Apple does not have to license their non FRAND patent in a fair, reasonable, and non discriminatory fashion.


Oh, nice tautology!

Question is does some Apple patents are enough essentials that competitors can't avoid them to compete with Apple on some marketfield?

Apple's own lawyers are answering this in these slides:
- slide 4 : "Operating system, applications, user interface, and services are the key to a differentiated customer experience"
- slide #6 : "Mobile Computers rely upon several key technologies principally developed in the computing industry [...] Touch interface / gesture recognition"
- slide #7 : "Advanced iPhone Technologies needed to create an *advanced* class device (e.g. Touch, GUI, apps, music, etc.)"
- slide #8 : "Apple's iPod and iPhone innovations have defined the standard for modern high-end consumer devices"
- slide #16 : "non-touch device - 20% discount"
- slide #17 : "Full touch screen device - No discount"

It appears there quite clearly that, from all examples given, the key, the standard defining, the needed technology that trigger a distinctive rate is full touch screen device.

The only logical conclusion here is Apple consider that for making a touch screen device one MUST license their patent.
And by their own claim, Apple has defined a standard for high-end customer devices with iPod and iPhone, two devices with features a touch screen.

I really failed to understand how that's not making automatically touch screen patent falling under FRAND policy. Except if one accept that Apple is free to block every competitor to access high-end customer devices by asking unfair, unraisonable and/or discriminatory license rates (see: no tautology here...).
Avoid this kind of abuse is the main reason FRAND exists in the first place.

And if touch screen interface is essential to make a advanced mobile device, aka FRAND, then why Apple asked $30 when they found $6 too much for as much essential FRAND license to access advanced mobile networks like 3G/4G!?

What justify these $24 difference per unit!?
How an user interface technology making user experience more friendly can worth more than a mobile network technology making a mobile device being, well, mobile in the first place!?!

If a technology required to have a 3G mobile device worth no more $6 per unit, a technology required to have a touch user interface on that same 3G mobile device can't worth more, simply because without the former you don't have any salepoint for the later...

Reply Parent Score: 6