Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 29th Jul 2012 10:48 UTC
Legal Groklaw nails it: "In other words, [Apple and Microsoft] want to disarm the companies that got there first, built the standards, and created the field, while the come-later types clean up on patents on things like slide to unlock or a tablet shape with rounded corners. Then the money flows to Apple and Microsoft, and away from Android - and isn't that really the point of all this, to destroy Android by hook or by crook? The parties who were in the mobile phone business years before Apple or Microsoft even thought about doing it thus get nothing much for their earlier issued patents that have become standards. Apple and Microsoft can't compete on an even field, because the patent system rewards the first to invent (or now, after the recent patent reform, the first to file). Neither Apple nor Microsoft got there first. Samsung was there, since the '90s." To illustrate: Apple is demanding $24 (!) per Samsung device for design patents, while at the same time, Apple also demands that Samsung does not charge more than $0.0049 per standards essential patent per device. This is absolutely, utterly, and entirely indefensible. And then Apple and its supporters have the nerve to claim Samsung is ripping them off. Yes, this pisses me off, and no, that's not because it's Apple doing it (Microsoft is just as guilty). It's because this is plainly, utterly, clearly, and intrinsically unfair.
Thread beginning with comment 528893
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by El_Exigente
by lemur2 on Mon 30th Jul 2012 04:56 UTC in reply to "Comment by El_Exigente"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

In return for having their patents made part of the standard, Samsung agreed to FRAND royalties, and if that is no longer sufficient, then that's Samsung's own fault, and possibly they will think longer and harder before getting into a similar situation again.

Is it really the case that the ideologists at Groklaw do not understand the purpose and economic rationale for there even being such a thing as a standard-essential patent? It's hard to believe.

As for Apple demanding $24 per device for its design patents: well, they can demand anything that they want. A jury will decide how much they should actually get. And if the jury decides that $24 is what the per device royalty should be, then that's what it should be.


I think you just don't get it, or perhaps you don't want to get it.

Apple are being asked to pay the same royalty rate for Motorola & Samsung patents as everyone else already pays. Apple alone have NOT paid. The "ND" part of FRAND means "non-discriminatory" ... that means that Apple must pay the same as everyone else has paid.

http://www.muktware.com/4029/apple-stole-iphone-design-sony-patente...

Even as Apple has carried out a coordinated campaign of dragging Samsung‘s name through the mud in this lawsuit and in the media, it has used Samsung‘s patented technology while flatly refusing to pay for its use.


Also, Samsung have identified prior art for Apples supposedly "original" design patent for the iPhone. Apple stole this design from Sony. From the same page as linked above:

http://www.muktware.com/sites/default/files/images/applications/son...

So in effect, Apple are trying to say that they alone have to pay only half a cent per device for Motorola and Samsung's IP, but Motorola and Samsung apparently allegedly owe Apple $24 per device for a purely cosmetic "design" which Apple stole from Sony in the first place.

How is that Fair?
How is that Reasonable?
How is that Non-Discriminatory?

Answer ... it simply isn't. In any reasonable outcome, Apple will get squashed utterly in this lawsuit, a bit like Oracle before them and their Java lawsuit against Android.

Edited 2012-07-30 05:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[2]: Comment by El_Exigente
by viton on Mon 30th Jul 2012 09:29 in reply to "RE: Comment by El_Exigente"
viton Member since:
2005-08-09

Apple stole this design from Sony.
The photo you're referencing has been designed by Apple in "sony-style".
It is not a Sony product.

Edited 2012-07-30 09:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by El_Exigente
by cdude on Mon 30th Jul 2012 14:19 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by El_Exigente"
cdude Member since:
2008-09-21

You mean in the same way Samsung has designed its black boxes with rounded corners in the "Sony Style" but yet gets sued by Apple?

Reply Parent Score: 2

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

I don't know if it had merit or not, but it won't affect the Apple/Sony case, so the Apple bashers might have to find another argument. The "Apple stole from Sony" stuff is just whistling in the wind at this point.
http://allthingsd.com/20120730/samsung-thwarted-in-bid-to-show-appl...

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by El_Exigente
by darcysmith on Wed 1st Aug 2012 04:55 in reply to "RE: Comment by El_Exigente"
darcysmith Member since:
2006-04-12

FRAND doesn't mean that you have to give the same terms to licensing as you get. Apples patents are not FRAND. Perhaps a little critical thinking before you post?

Reply Parent Score: 2