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 539686
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
cyrilleberger
Member since:
2006-02-01

Do you even have the slightest shred of evidence that "everyone prior to Apple" willingly provided reciprical licensing to non-FRAND patents in exchange for FRAND patents, or do you not even mind just making crap up now?


Most patents licensing deals are secrets, so it is impossible to find such proof. But it sounds likely, since most lawsuit seems to involve Apple with an "old" manufacturer (Samsung, Motorola, HTC...), and no in-fighting between those manufacturers.

(Last I checked: this started with an Apple and Nokia dispute that was resolved amicably with Apple resolving to pay for FRAND patents at a reasonable rate with no reciprical licensing of non-FRAND patents. And it's only Google and Samsung demanding absurd rates on FRAND patents.)


A spokesman for Apple said: "Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a licence covering some of each other's patents, but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique." (source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent...)

It does hint that Nokia got a license for some of Apple patents.

And, even if you had any evidence of such behavior, this is still a violation of FRAND: FRAND Standard Essential Patents should not be used as levers to gain access to other IP. Ultimately, this butts up against non-discriminatory (i.e. companies with useful IP get FRAND patents cheap; companies without useful IP pay more for FRAND patents than others).


Where does it says that FRAND should not be used to gain access to other IP ? It says you can ask for a "Reasonable" payment, cross licensing non-FRAND with FRAND might be considered as "Reasonable" payment. And apparently, in case of Nokia, Apple thought it was.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And apparently, in case of Nokia, Apple thought it was.


If I recall correctly, the Apple/Nokia case got settled after Microsoft took an interest in the company. Apple and Microsoft are very close partners, so that most likely played a key role.

Reply Parent Score: 2