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.
Thread beginning with comment 539522
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Dubious argument
by flypig on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Dubious argument"
flypig
Member since:
2005-07-13

I cared about the FRAND stuff, though

Yes, same here. Although Apple's patents aren't technically FRAND (I don't think), the discrepancy between what they were demanding, and what they claim is fair, does seem hypocritical.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Dubious argument
by jared_wilkes on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 15:17 in reply to "RE[2]: Dubious argument"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

They aren't "technically" FRAND nor are they FRAND in fairyland either.

The comparison is nonsensical, not hypocritical.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Dubious argument
by flypig on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 15:35 in reply to "RE[3]: Dubious argument"
flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

They aren't "technically" FRAND nor are they FRAND in fairyland either.

The comparison is nonsensical, not hypocritical.


Well, I agree with the first, but the second is a matter of opinion in my view. This isn't a legal question (Apple are perfectly within their rights to ask as much as they want). The question of whether it's consistent for them to demand more for their essential patents than they're willing to give for FRAND patents is dependent on whether the requirement is by virtue of them being FRAND (making it nonsensical), or them being essential (making it hypocritical).

Reply Parent Score: 2