Linked by nej_simon on Sat 11th Aug 2012 12:10 UTC
Legal "[...] tonight Apple entered into evidence in its trial with Samsung a document showing that it offered the South Korean company a licensing deal on some of its key technologies. Specifically, Apple offered to license the portfolio of patents if Samsung would pay $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet." $30-40 per device is a lot of money for some trivial features (rounded corners, slide-to-unlock etc). No wonder Samsung declined.
Thread beginning with comment 530676
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Tactical blunder?
by darknexus on Sat 11th Aug 2012 14:42 UTC
Member since:

I can't help but wonder if Apple is making a tactical mistake in emphasizing this rather outrageous licensing deal. It strikes me that, if they get a judge who has some background in the tech industry (although not all that likely considering our court system), this might actually do some damage to their credibility. It's fairly obvious that this deal was offered precisely so that Samsung wouldn't accept it. I'm not saying Samsung is the good guy nor am I saying Apple is the bad guy (those labels are too simplistic for this matter) but this bit of evidence could seriously backfire on Apple. If it doesn't turn out to be a mistake, filing this is at the very least a gamble.

Reply Score: 9

RE: Tactical blunder?
by Nelson on Sat 11th Aug 2012 14:46 in reply to "Tactical blunder?"
Nelson Member since:

Apple has no obligation to be reasonable or fair in their licensing. They can charge whatever they'd like. Hell, they can flat out refuse to license at all.

They are not bound by FRAND commitments.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Tactical blunder?
by grahamtriggs on Sat 11th Aug 2012 16:01 in reply to "RE: Tactical blunder?"
grahamtriggs Member since:

Rounded corners? Slide to unlock?

As a 'style', these either should be bound by FRAND, or better yet, not patentable.

For example, rounded corners are just a sensible bit of design - sharp corners are uncomfortable and/or dangerous. Having rounded corners is not innovative, and preventing anyone else from having them is unfairly anti-competitive.

Now, if Apple have a particular manufacturing technique, where other means to create rounded corners are available, than that technique is patentable.

But there are an awful lot of patents out there that are not genuinely protecting R&D investment, but are just being used to restrict competition.

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE: Tactical blunder?
by Windows Sucks on Sat 11th Aug 2012 14:47 in reply to "Tactical blunder?"
Windows Sucks Member since:

Thing is they don't have to offer a license. To make any kind of offer is above and beyond what they are required to do.

Reply Parent Score: 1