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 539576
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Incredible
by phoudoin on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 18:32 UTC in reply to "Incredible"
phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

Apple does not have to license their non FRAND patent in a fair, reasonable, and non discriminatory fashion.


Oh, nice tautology!

Question is does some Apple patents are enough essentials that competitors can't avoid them to compete with Apple on some marketfield?

Apple's own lawyers are answering this in these slides:
- slide 4 : "Operating system, applications, user interface, and services are the key to a differentiated customer experience"
- slide #6 : "Mobile Computers rely upon several key technologies principally developed in the computing industry [...] Touch interface / gesture recognition"
- slide #7 : "Advanced iPhone Technologies needed to create an *advanced* class device (e.g. Touch, GUI, apps, music, etc.)"
- slide #8 : "Apple's iPod and iPhone innovations have defined the standard for modern high-end consumer devices"
- slide #16 : "non-touch device - 20% discount"
- slide #17 : "Full touch screen device - No discount"

It appears there quite clearly that, from all examples given, the key, the standard defining, the needed technology that trigger a distinctive rate is full touch screen device.

The only logical conclusion here is Apple consider that for making a touch screen device one MUST license their patent.
And by their own claim, Apple has defined a standard for high-end customer devices with iPod and iPhone, two devices with features a touch screen.

I really failed to understand how that's not making automatically touch screen patent falling under FRAND policy. Except if one accept that Apple is free to block every competitor to access high-end customer devices by asking unfair, unraisonable and/or discriminatory license rates (see: no tautology here...).
Avoid this kind of abuse is the main reason FRAND exists in the first place.

And if touch screen interface is essential to make a advanced mobile device, aka FRAND, then why Apple asked $30 when they found $6 too much for as much essential FRAND license to access advanced mobile networks like 3G/4G!?

What justify these $24 difference per unit!?
How an user interface technology making user experience more friendly can worth more than a mobile network technology making a mobile device being, well, mobile in the first place!?!

If a technology required to have a 3G mobile device worth no more $6 per unit, a technology required to have a touch user interface on that same 3G mobile device can't worth more, simply because without the former you don't have any salepoint for the later...

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Incredible
by jared_wilkes on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 18:49 in reply to "RE: Incredible"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

When I read "iPhone advanced mobile class device," I read a device including specific patents that are exclusive to the iPhone, not any and all touchscreen-based devices.

From there, you are just describing patents. Yes, patents grant exclusive rights to the owner. If you don't own the patent, you may be able to license the patent from the owner or you can avoid using technologies which infringe on the patent.

This absurd and unsupported notion that Apple is demanding patent licensing on any and all touchscreens is easily disproven. Even amongst all of its litigation, not everyone is being sued for touchscreen-related patents. When touchscreen patents have been involved, they have been clearly quite specific, not general (i.e. using a different gesture to scroll an iframe within another scrollable region, or the zooming-centering behavior of double-click to zoom, etc.)

The only thing that falls under FRAND policy are international standards that contractually require FRAND policies. What international standard is there for touchscreens, and when did Apple submit their patents to be governed by FRAND terms?

Just because these patents may be desirable, this does not mean they are essential or that Apple should be compelled to do so (there certainly is no law or contractual obligation that requires this).

Edited 2012-10-22 18:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Incredible
by phoudoin on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 19:30 in reply to "RE[2]: Incredible"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

When I read "iPhone advanced mobile class device," I read a device including specific patents that are exclusive to the iPhone, not any and all touchscreen-based devices.


The re-read the slides. It's perfectly clear there that NOT having a full touch screen is one criteria that trigger one discount: it's given multiple times as an example (when you read "Ex:" what do you read instead?).

Second, I also think that Apple patents aren't actually that essentials to make a full touch screen mobile device. Several suits show that these patents were not infringing by competitor as Apple's lawyers were claiming, making them, indeed, not absolutly essential ones.

But these slides clearly present the exact contrary: the rate is clearly presented as 20% higher on the sole basis that the device is full touch screen one. It's in several slides. That claim was clearly used to increase the license rate per unit for any touch smartphone sold by Samsung on the sole point that it's a full touch screen device.

Also, can anyone give a list of "Apple licensed processor"?
A5 ? How one can have that 20% discount in the first place?!


I personnaly found slide #12 the most telling one: it's written black on white that :
- the full rate, $30 per smartphone, applied to "touchscreen devices based on" Android, Symbian, Bada (except for non touchscreen, aka physical keyboard form factor).
- the full rate for touchsceen devices based on "Windows, others" must be discussed.

Why this distinction? Let's consider that's due to the already-licensed OS discount. Which OS fall there, actually?
Windows Phone, okay. What else? iOS is not an option here, as it's not available for OEM licensing.
So, what's the "others" choice here?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Incredible
by phoudoin on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 18:53 in reply to "RE: Incredible"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

The only logical conclusion here is Apple consider that for making a touch screen device one MUST license their patent.


Which, BTW, was proved false in several european suits, which ruled that Android's multitouch features were not infringing the Apple's patents that Apple's lawyers were throwing it the suits.

Hence an alternative question: if Apple's multitouch patents are not that essential that somes judges find that Android multitouch don't infringe them, why Apple consider that the simple fact that an unit sports a full touch screen device make the %20 discount disapear!? If it's not essential, there is no point to put *all* full touch devices falling under their touch patents. If it's essential, there is no way for every full touch devices to fall under them, making them FRAND ones.

Apple can't have them both ways.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Incredible
by jared_wilkes on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 18:55 in reply to "RE[2]: Incredible"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

The simple answer is: Apple doesn't claim that it is either way.

You are continuing to foist your misinformed understanding of what essential is upon Apple and then making bad arguments from that initial bad premise.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Incredible
by jared_wilkes on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 19:02 in reply to "RE: Incredible"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Question is does some Apple patents are enough essentials that competitors can't avoid them to compete with Apple on some marketfield?


That is not the question at all, but it is at the center of many people here misunderstanding.

If Apple has patents that competitors need in order to successfully compete, they can either pay what Apple asks or they can not compete. There is no law that requires they give access to other competitors so they can successfully compete with Apple.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Incredible
by phoudoin on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 19:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Incredible"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

If Apple has patents that competitors need in order to successfully compete, they can either pay what Apple asks or they can not compete. There is no law that requires they give access to other competitors so they can successfully compete with Apple.


*Successfully*, of course not.

But could try, I really think there is.
Otherwise, Apple could just ask $100 billions per unit for touchscreen patents and rule the touchscreen devices marketfield until the world's ending.

Touchscreen is presented as an unavoidable technology increasing the smartphone license rate in quite every slides here. It's clearly an attempt to raise 20% the enter price in hope that would make the Windows Phone 40% discount more interesting for Samsung.

The target in these slides is not Samsung.
It's Android. It's written everywhere : drop Android.
Without any proof that Android actually infring Apple patents beside the usual "it use our technologies".

No wonder Samsung don't buy it.
If Apple was not that hangry, asking for a $5-10 rate, maybe they would have.
Instead, they reject it and goes full straight. They may lost in suits, but they win far more in marketshare.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Incredible
by darcysmith on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 21:35 in reply to "RE: Incredible"
darcysmith Member since:
2006-04-12

The only logical conclusion here is Apple consider that for making a touch screen device one MUST license their patent.
And by their own claim, Apple has defined a standard for high-end customer devices with iPod and iPhone, two devices with features a touch screen.


Wait, what?

FRAND patents relate to standards, a standard being something that is set by an organization (such as the ISO or ITU).

Saying that Apple has defined a "standard" is NOT at all the same thing as a standard such as 3G technologies.

You cannot use the same word (standard) with two totally different meanings (required to conform to a specification -vs- what consumers expect) and then try to claim they are the same sort of thing.

Apple may hold patents to technologies that people expect to be implemented in products for them to be marketable, but that is not the same thing as saying that the IP is required for companies to make a product that can work with a specification.

Apple is perfectly within its rights to not license their IP at all, or under whatever terms they choose. FRAND patents have specific obligations that they must confirm to.

Reply Parent Score: 1