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 539759
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Apples and oranges
by oskeladden on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 21:51 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Apples and oranges"
Member since:

I fail to see where you oppose my point.


My point is that:
a) Apple is unrestricted in relation to the price it can legally charge to license its patents.
b) Motorola is subject to severe restrictions in relation to the price it can legally charge to license its patents.

The size of the royalty Apple is demanding for its patents is therefore legally irrelevant to the size of the royalty Motorola is legally entitled to demand from Apple. Groklaw's complaint - that Apple is being inconsistent in claiming that Motorola is charging too much when it is demanding more - is therefore, in legal terms, totally incorrect. The fundamental flaw in it is that it is based on comparing a figure that is not subject to any legal restrictions with a figure that is - and the entire question is about whether the legal restrictions applicable to the latter have been complied with.

If you agree with all of this, then great - you did, however, start off claiming that Groklaw's complaint has substance.

Edited 2012-10-23 21:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1