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 539546
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Dubious argument
by flypig on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Dubious argument"
Member since:

What makes Apples patents "essential"?

This is a good question. The article suggests Apple claims they're essential for touchscreen devices: "Apple clearly believes you can't make one without infringing Apple's patents, making them de facto standards-essential in effect".

This belief may be coming from the slides, where Apple state that a "full touchscreen device" would not receive the 20% discount a QWERTY phone receives. I don't know whether Apple stated anything more explicitly elsewhere.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Dubious argument
by jared_wilkes on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 16:40 in reply to "RE[6]: Dubious argument"
jared_wilkes Member since:

Nope, just groklaw nonsense.

Reply Parent Score: 0

v RE[8]: Dubious argument
by gfolkert on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 19:40 in reply to "RE[7]: Dubious argument"