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 539578
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Incredible
by phoudoin on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 18:53 UTC 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