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 539577
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Incredible
by jared_wilkes on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 18:49 UTC 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[4]: Incredible
by jared_wilkes on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 19:47 in reply to "RE[3]: Incredible"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

I find zero logic in this post, sorry. Unclear how you'd like me to respond.

Yes, if your device doesn't include a full touchscreen, the patent portfolio is discounted. If you are using Windows or some other technology that may have a sublicense to some of the patents, you may receive a discount. I don't see any logic in claiming that these discount statements means that any and all touchscreen devices utilize Apple patents.

Edited 2012-10-22 19:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2