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 539592
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

Apple has the right and should protect things that make their device stand out. However, they have taken a lot of steps that do not defend the most definitive elements of the iPhone; in addition to the one's that do defend the elements that make iPhone an iPhone.

One example is the broadening of swipe to unlock patent. Specifically because most of those patents are implemented in WP7/WP8/Win8, this ceased to be the defining patent for the iPhone. Demanding $40(or whatever they were demanding) for swipe to unlock, tap to zoom and rubber banding is a "robbery".

Reply Parent Score: 3

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Demanding $40(or whatever they were demanding) for swipe to unlock, tap to zoom and rubber banding is a "robbery".


Please don't be childlike because the entities you are talking about, gigantic corporations whose businesses are counted in the tens and hundred's of billions of dollars, are very far from childlike. Childlike companies don't grow that big.

Charging a license fee is not robbery it is a business. If you have the ownership of something that someone else wants to license you can charge what you want or you can decline to even offer the possibility of a license. It's your choice, it's your property. You can be challenged as to the validity of your claim to ownership but if the courts decide you do indeed own the thing then you are free to dispose of it however you want and at whatever price you choose and the market can bear. That's just how the world works, and has always worked.

Some companies, Motorola are a good example, voluntarily entered into binding agreements that governed and limited the way they could license some of their property. They did that completely voluntarily and because at the time it seemed in their best interest to do so. Circumstances changed and now it is not in their best interest to abide by the agreements they signed but that's just unfortunate for them. Once you sign up to a legal commitment you are committed.

When people whine about how "Apple's 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" what the fuck do you expect? That Apple would go about things in a way that would facilitate their competitors to better compete with them? What company, especially any big successful company, ever does that?

This endless regurgitating of the same old litany of complaints about how big bad Apple is gunning for Android are just stunning in their naivety. There is possibly a trillion dollars at stake here. This is a game for the fully adult. It's not going to be a tea party. There will be blood.

Reply Parent Score: 1

andydread Member since:
2009-02-02

" Demanding $40(or whatever they were demanding) for swipe to unlock, tap to zoom and rubber banding is a "robbery".


Please don't be childlike because the entities you are talking about, gigantic corporations whose businesses are counted in the tens and hundred's of billions of dollars, are very far from childlike. Childlike companies don't grow that big.

Charging a license fee is not robbery it is a business. If you have the ownership of something that someone else wants to license you can charge what you want or you can decline to even offer the possibility of a license. It's your choice, it's your property. You can be challenged as to the validity of your claim to ownership but if the courts decide you do indeed own the thing then you are free to dispose of it however you want and at whatever price you choose and the market can bear. That's just how the world works, and has always worked.

Some companies, Motorola are a good example, voluntarily entered into binding agreements that governed and limited the way they could license some of their property. They did that completely voluntarily and because at the time it seemed in their best interest to do so. Circumstances changed and now it is not in their best interest to abide by the agreements they signed but that's just unfortunate for them. Once you sign up to a legal commitment you are committed.

When people whine about how "Apple's 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" what the fuck do you expect? That Apple would go about things in a way that would facilitate their competitors to better compete with them? What company, especially any big successful company, ever does that?

This endless regurgitating of the same old litany of complaints about how big bad Apple is gunning for Android are just stunning in their naivety. There is possibly a trillion dollars at stake here. This is a game for the fully adult. It's not going to be a tea party. There will be blood.
"

You say what giant successful company?
Hmm I don't see Google suing Microsoft for Bing? I don't see Google suing ANYONE over products that compete with them. Filing for patents of trivial software features that has been around in other iterations and suing world+dog over trivial software features is a farce. I do not support that behavior in the marketplace and will work to inform anyone who needs tech advice to stay far from Apple's products until the quit abusing the patent system.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Tony Swash,

Don't be pretentious. Patents were *supposed* to promote inventions which would not have otherwise been viable to develop without patents, yet I somehow doubt there's a single patent in apple's "FRAND" portfolio that you could claim this to be the case for. Apple are as guilty as everyone else in abusing the patent system and intentionally using it as a weapon to harm competitors. They *all* deserve to share the blame for the patent mess we're finding ourselves in.

Fanboys need to quite playing favouritism. While individual cases will be won and lost, everyone should recognise that we *all* loose in the long run because the costs of all this BS gets passed on to consumers as either higher prices or lost features. These lawsuits today have squat to do with innovation.

Reply Parent Score: 7

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

That Apple would go about things in a way that would facilitate their competitors to better compete with them? What company, especially any big successful company, ever does that?

I don't expect anything other from Apple, Microsoft or even Google. That does not change the fact that Apple is actively abusing USPTO process of continuations to broaden swipe to unlock patent.

Reply Parent Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Since you are defending patent owners(Apple) so adamantly, you must agree with Lodsys that app devs have to pay up. That patent is not invalidated and is not FRAND'ed.

Reply Parent Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

the entities you are talking about, gigantic corporations whose businesses are counted in the tens and hundred's of billions of dollars, are very far from childlike. Childlike companies don't grow that big.

Yeah, "childlike" barely starts to describe it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation_(film)

Edited 2012-10-30 00:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2