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 539698
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Apples and oranges
by majipoor on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Apples and oranges"
majipoor
Member since:
2009-01-22

But Non Discriminatory means that the fee should be the same or at least similar for every licensee.

For 3G standard, Qualcomm and Intel have a license with all FRAND patents holders which cover their customers: the license fee is included in the price of the 3G chip.

Problem is that both Motorola and Samsung did explicitely exclude Apple when renewing their licensing contract with Qualcomm and Intel.

Can you explain how this could be non discriminatory?

EDIT: Link

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/03/samsung-suffers-second-and-even-...

"Furthermore, the court held that Samsung cannot assert 3G/UMTS patents against the iPhone 4S due to patent exhaustion: Apple is licensed by extension since it purchases baseband chips from Qualcomm, and Samsung's attempt to terminate its license agreement with Qualcomm as far as third-party beneficiary Apple is concerned failed because Samsung had make a commitment to ETSI, the standards body in charge of 3G, that it would grant irrevocable licenses to its 3G/UMTS-essential patents.

On those grounds, a French and an Italian court had previously denied Samsung preliminary injunctions against the iPhone 4S."

Edited 2012-10-23 13:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2