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 539573
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[12]: Dubious argument
by flypig on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 18:13 UTC in reply to "RE[11]: Dubious argument"
flypig
Member since:
2005-07-13

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."

To me, the implication from the slide is that, in order for Samsung to sell an "iPhone advanced mobile class device", all 3 licences would be required. If this is true, it follows that the patents are essential for such devices.

The text on the slide associates the patent licence with the device class, not the patents, so it's easy to interpret this as more than just a restating.

But this really is just about some very narrow points of interpretation. I'm happy to accept that you read it differently, and that my interpretation may not reflect reality.

Reply Parent Score: 3