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 539621
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Incredible
by jared_wilkes on Mon 22nd Oct 2012 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Incredible"
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

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?



Is that supposed to be one sentence? Is it supposed to make sense?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[7]: Incredible
by phoudoin on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 06:29 in reply to "RE[6]: Incredible"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

English not being my native language, I really can't answer that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Incredible
by phoudoin on Tue 23rd Oct 2012 06:34 in reply to "RE[6]: Incredible"
phoudoin Member since:
2006-06-09

Let's try shorter:

a) full touchscreen device = discount on apple patents license

b) not full touchscreen device = no discount on apple patents license

By which logic you could conclude Apple is NOT claiming no touchscreen device is possible without licensing their patent!?

Reply Parent Score: 2