To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
1. That is an Apple document, and should be viewed as being written to be in their favor (obviously).
2. That document taken at face value is of little interest without knowing exactly what Apple is offering versus what the want Samsung to give up. Its seems fair on face value, until you consider that most of the IP Samsung holds is hardware based and part of this agreement, and much of what Apple is using to get injunctions is software patents NOT covered in this proposed agreement.
3. Patent law does not set any kind of standard on what FRAND is and specifies that the interested parties work out the details. Samsung does not give up any rights when adding patents to a standard.
4. One proposal that came to light during this trial also had Apple asking more for its patents than even Samsung is asking.
5. The jury found that Apple had NO proof that Samsung was negotiating in bad faith or refusing to negotiate.




Member since:
2009-08-22
The plot thickens.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/108832665/12-04-30-Apple-Samsung-Teksler-...
One of the more notable documents filed with Judge Lucy Koh's court in the Apple versus Samsung post-trial motions is a letter from Apple intellectual property licensing director Boris Teskler to his equivalent at Samsung, Seongwoo Kim. The letter outlines a reciprocal patent agreement more in line with actual fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, rather than Samsung's proposed 2.4 percent rate of the entire device's purchase price.
Apple offered to license its FRAND UMTS patents, provided that Samsung "reciprocally agrees to this same, common royalty base, and same methodological approach to royalty rate, in licensing its declared-essential patents to Apple." Apple's estimates placed the price at $0.33 per device per royalty for use of the Apple patent portfolio, with the rate applied "to all Samsung units that Apple has not otherwise licensed." Apple requested a response by May 7, 2012, and no agreement was made.