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 530704
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Tactical blunder?
by dvhh on Sat 11th Aug 2012 16:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Tactical blunder?"
dvhh
Member since:
2006-03-20

I guess that these FRAND terms for licence came at a time when everybody played nicer with each other and were more willing to cross licence their patent in equivalent terms.
Apple decided not to play nice with the other major player of the industry, disrupted the market (probably in a good way), and probably raised hell as well concerning the problem of patent ligations.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Tactical blunder?
by Nelson on Sat 11th Aug 2012 17:02 in reply to "RE[3]: Tactical blunder?"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

FRAND is an obligation you submit to by having your intellectual property included in the standard setting process. Apple is not bound by such things.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Tactical blunder?
by Beta on Sat 11th Aug 2012 20:27 in reply to "RE[4]: Tactical blunder?"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

FRAND is an obligation you submit to by having your intellectual property included in the standard setting process.


Yup, if only Apple ever paid FRAND terms for standards they use. Nokia had to take them to court to get royalties, now Samsung has to counter‐sue to get *their* FRAND terms. Its pretty clear Apple doesn’t follow its obligations.

Apple is not bound by such things.

Apple avoids publishing standards ’cept for the minor tweaking of existing standards, and even when they do contribute to things like W3C standards they leave it til candidate recommendation before declaring patents on them… arsehats.

Reply Parent Score: 6