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 539558
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Dubious argument
by jared_wilkes on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 17:07 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Dubious argument"
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

I do not derive the implication that these are essential whatsoever. The only implication I derive is that Apple believes it has a broad range of patents covering a number of areas, that some in the industry are already violating some number of them, and if those companies would like to license them as a portfolio, it would cost them a pretty penny.

Valuable and/or popular is not synonymous with essential.

Groklaw is choosing to distort the picture by claiming they are de facto standards or essential. But neither view is being presented by Apple. Groklaw is making it up.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[10]: Dubious argument
by flypig on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 17:27 in reply to "RE[9]: Dubious argument"
flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

I do not derive the implication that these are essential whatsoever.

That's fair enough, of course, but it might not be an unreasonable way to interpret the slides. For example, at the bottom of slide 8 it states that "an iPhone advanced mobile class device would require all 3 licences". The implication is that a licence would be required (and is therefore essential).

I wasn't impressed by the Groklaw article, and clearly there's a lot of interpretation going on. However, since I didn't look at the patents in detail myself, I really can't judge whether they could be considered essential or not. I appreciate you've made up your mind on the matter though!

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[11]: Dubious argument
by jared_wilkes on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 17:33 in reply to "RE[10]: Dubious argument"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

No, that is a foolish conclusion. A patent license is required to use the patent, yes. This does not make the patent essential. You aren't defining "essential"; you are merely restating the definition of "patent."

Reply Parent Score: 1