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 539630
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Tony Swash
Member since:

Demanding $40(or whatever they were demanding) for swipe to unlock, tap to zoom and rubber banding is a "robbery".

Please don't be childlike because the entities you are talking about, gigantic corporations whose businesses are counted in the tens and hundred's of billions of dollars, are very far from childlike. Childlike companies don't grow that big.

Charging a license fee is not robbery it is a business. If you have the ownership of something that someone else wants to license you can charge what you want or you can decline to even offer the possibility of a license. It's your choice, it's your property. You can be challenged as to the validity of your claim to ownership but if the courts decide you do indeed own the thing then you are free to dispose of it however you want and at whatever price you choose and the market can bear. That's just how the world works, and has always worked.

Some companies, Motorola are a good example, voluntarily entered into binding agreements that governed and limited the way they could license some of their property. They did that completely voluntarily and because at the time it seemed in their best interest to do so. Circumstances changed and now it is not in their best interest to abide by the agreements they signed but that's just unfortunate for them. Once you sign up to a legal commitment you are committed.

When people whine about how "Apple's 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" what the fuck do you expect? That Apple would go about things in a way that would facilitate their competitors to better compete with them? What company, especially any big successful company, ever does that?

This endless regurgitating of the same old litany of complaints about how big bad Apple is gunning for Android are just stunning in their naivety. There is possibly a trillion dollars at stake here. This is a game for the fully adult. It's not going to be a tea party. There will be blood.

Reply Parent Score: 1