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 539615
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Incredible
by darcysmith on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 21:35 UTC 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