Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 13:36 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 539589
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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
Yes, if your device doesn't include a full touchscreen, the patent portfolio is discounted.
I don't see any logic in claiming that these discount statements means that any and all touchscreen devices utilize Apple patents.
I don't see any logic in claiming that these discount statements means that any and all touchscreen devices utilize Apple patents.
Now that's me who don't see any logic in your!
If you doesn't include a full touchscreen, Apple agree to discount his "smartphone license" rate, but it doesn't mean that when you do, the fact that such discount is no more applicable anymore doesn't mean that Apple consider that all touchscreen mobile devices are using inevitably some of their patents on this area?
I will agree that patent and logic are not necessarily living in the same space, but your seems too as well...





Member since:
2006-06-09
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?