Apple: Sure, here's the HTC patent pact. WITH numbers blanked out
Apple has told Samsung that it will provide a copy of its agreement with HTC to a US court, but only if it's heavily redacted and all monetary terms are blanked out. Samsung filed on Friday to try to get Apple to produce the settlement and patent license agreement with HTC, claiming the document is relevant to its own patent …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Apple filed yesterday saying that Samsung's motion was "moot"
And that "Moot" was now a registered trademark of the innovative Apple 4Chan division.
Apple want to charge Samsung more than they charge HTC?
Sounds like Apple want to charge different prices to different companies. As Samsung is a big competitor I would expect them to want to charge Samsung more. It's not illegal and it's quite normal to do this.
It's also the manufacturer of various rather important parts of the shiny-shiny.
In game theory, you don't defect in a Prisoner's Dilemma.
Doesn't it depend on what it is you are licencing?
charging different prices for your IP may be normal in some cases, but i think that for certain key technologies (i.e. standards that you have rights over, but form the basis of a widely accepted standard, like the GSM spec) you have to licence them on a FRAND basis. Companies accept this as the "cost" of getting their tech accepted as the standard.
FRAND stands for Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory. So if these patents are the ones in question, and Samsung can prove that Apple are discriminating against them (by offering a cheaper rate to HTC) then i would think that Apple would be in serious trouble...
Re: Doesn't it depend on what it is you are licencing?
I don't think Apple have any FRAND (I may be wrong) encumbered standards patents (3G or 2G) - most of these are in the chips purchased from other manufacturers who pay the patent fees, extinguishing Apple's (or whoever puts the end device together) liabilities for those patents. Apple wants others to stop copying the proprietary stuff that makes their "toy" unique and better - thus the Samsung suit.
Re: Doesn't it depend on what it is you are licencing?
FRAND on rounded rectangles? Have they attempted a trademark or a patent on rounded rectangles?
apple offered samsung licensing deal prior to this mess, samsung rejected
Perhaps you'd like to go that weeny step further and post the requested amount Apple wanted per device rather than trying to make it sound like Samsung were being unreasonable.
And maybe..
Samsung could have come up with its own damn design without copying Apple, its amaxing how the S3 does not look like an iPhone 5, I thought the apple design was ineitable or some such bollocks!
@hexx
And if Apple wanted $250 per device that would be a reason to simply accept? (not that they did but the offer has to be financially acceptable to Samsung [and apple] for it to be accepted).
Silly boy - 0/10 for making a comment without backing it up with figures.
Re: And maybe..
Samsung could have come up with its own damn design without copying Apple.
Samsung did not copy Apple -- The UK Courts.
Samsung did come up with its own damn design without copying Apple
http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/
:) all these fandroids, I just stated fact that Samsung has been approached by Apple and was trying to come up with a licensing deal. Samsung didn't like it and got sued - which bit of that isn't clear? I'm not talking about specifics, details and so on (I don't have them), what I'm pointing out is the fact that Samsung wasn't willing, HTC in the and was and managed to get 'sweet' deal with Apple.
Re: And maybe..
Samsung could have come up with its own damn design without copying Apple
Samsung did not copy Apple - The Apple website (http://www.apple.com/uk/legal-judgement/)
Re: @Paul
Cool, so you have info :) but do you also know the scope of the deal?
@hexx
"details and so on (I don't have them)"
Which is strange because everyone else knows about the $30/device MINIMUM Apple demanded. Which only included the claims they were prepared to license... which would still have left Samsung devices banned.
Re: @Paul
nope, what you're stating here is the outcome of the legal battle between those two. what I thought you're stating here is the pre-battle proposal from Apple - I haven't seen any numbers anywhere.
Re: @hexx
Correct. They can accept and pay, or not use the patented technology. Samsung seem to have got confused about how it works
Re: @hexx
Tell Apple to pay what they owe then instead of declaring that they know they owe it but won't pay more than $1 and want everything.
@hexx - Re: @Paul
Here you have it, lad!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102594503/Samsung-Apple-licenses
It's 30$ per phone and 40$ per tablet with 80% discount if it runs Windows.
HTC became irrelevant to Apple
Apple settled with HTC because HTC stopped being a competitive threat after effectively falling out of the Android market. The Apple/MS 'secret' deal also protects HTC WP7/8 sales from Apple interference.
With the stakes so low risking a possibly catastrophic trip to court no longer makes sense for Apple, having lost almost every case that reached court (and they've not even actually won against Samsung *yet*). Probably some attempt to hobble the weakened HTC in the deal but for Apple this was just closing down an pointless side war.
I share the opinion this was a catastrophic tactical error by Apple that will end their attempts to obstruct competition much faster.
Nokia
I was using my N9, which aside from the lack of Apps since Elop killed it (another issue) is a brilliant smartphone. I much prefer it to my iPhone which I have offloaded to my gf. I notice that things "bounce" and that I can "multi-touch" zoom and various other things. Since I have been led to believe here in these forums that Apple has these features patented, can I assume Nokia simply said wow, these are cool ideas we need them and stumped up the cash to Apple?
The N9 and it's children (all Lumia phones) bear about as much resemblance to an iPhone as my dog does. So much for the bollocks about the inevitability of all phones looking like iPhones.
Dweeb
Re: Nokia
The daddy of the N9, the N900 also has the bouncy bouncy interface when scrolling through stuff. I wonder how Nokia got away with it. Maybe they shoved it into the deal when Apple payed them a bunch for using Nokia tech?
Re: Nokia
nah, even the dog's produce is better than an iApple. iApples don't even make useful fertiliser or cooking gas if fermented
Samsung were a key supplier with privileged access to Apple and got greedy and started making them themselves - they should just pay up the 1Bn and agree a cross licensing deal. The fact that they want to see what HTC are paying is almost evidence / admission that they are going to have to pay and just want to pay as little as possible. Let's move on.
Time for a Winston Churchill analogy.
Winston Churchill to woman : Would you sleep with me for a million pounds.?
Woman: yes
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for 10 pounds?
Woman; Of course not. What sort of a woman do you think I am.
Churchill: We've already established that. We're just haggling over the price.
I like you optimism but
even if Apple wins on appeal, the amount they will get will be much lower. Oh, and you're not a lawyer and even if you were, Samsung's are the meanest on this side of the galaxy.
Re: I like you optimism but
Oh, and you're not a lawyer and even if you were, Samsung's are the meanest on this side of the galaxy.
Nuh-uh, that honour belongs to the Nazgul - otherwise known as IBM's Legal Representation
Dear heaven, what a load of cobblers.
(A) No, the bit of Samsung that supplied stuff to Apple is not the bit that makes the phones, and Samsung has been making phones far longer than Apple anyway.
(B) No, the fact that they want to see the HTC deal is ammunition in their battle against Apple's preposterous attempt to ban Samsung devices, on the basis that Apple claims that some of their souper-douper IP (like the rounded corners or the invalidated bounce-back) is so souper-douper that they (Apple) wouldn't license it at all. Yet they apparently already have licensed it. Conclusion: Apple has been telling the count untruths.
(C) Even if the jury verdict stands (which it won't, because the jury foreman has proudly boasted of his misconduct), the amount of damages won't stand because (i) one of the patents is being invalidated, so Samsung can't have infringed it, and (ii) it makes no numerical sense anyway, in that the rationale for the amount is entirely inconsistent with the amount [the jury found feature X did or did not infringe, yet included both phones with and without that feature in the calculation of the damages].
Whenever...
...I hear Apple bleat about how Samsung or HTC or whomever stole their ideas, all I can think of is this.
Re: Whenever...
horses for courses. I think about this
http://www.gsmarena.com/google_had_warned_samsung_from_copying_apples_designs-news-4569.php
Re: Whenever...
And that just carries on the same point. A copied B who copied C who copied D who copied A who...
The only people to get rich are the lawyers, the companies lose focus in the various spats and ultimately the consumer pays for it all.
This topic is closed for new posts.
