Apple 'offered Samsung $30-per-mobe' patent licence truce
Apple offered Samsung a patent licensing deal at $30 per smartphone after warning the South Koreans they were infringing its fruity designs, a court heard. One of the iToy maker's witnesses revealed the snubbed settlement in public on Friday when he mentioned it during the companies' patent trial. Samsung stands accused of …
This topic is closed for new posts.
Re: I see the resident Fandroids wouldn't recognise a negotiating position
I see Mr. Todd has probably never been involved with a contractual or otherwise serious negotiation before.
Say I walk into the pub and ask how much a pint costs. The barkeep fires back "I'll offer you 30 quid". Anyone with half a brain - IMHO - would turn and walk out if the price in their head, and the initial offer were so far apart that meeting in the middle was still an order of magnitude beyond what they felt was their limit.
What's the point of entertaining a negotiation when you're certain the two sides will never be able to come to terms? What if the offer was for $100... there has to be a line somewhere.
Re: I see the resident Fandroids wouldn't recognise a negotiating position
The only information I saw of Samsung "admitting" they copied the iPhone were just slides sizing up against the iPhone. If they admitted to outright copying (and I still don't see the resemblance beyond basic shape...), why bother fighting it?
Re: I see the resident Fandroids wouldn't recognise a negotiating position
Samsung did give them an offer that was an excellent valuation of the "patents" that Apple was claiming: Zero. If they had so much as offered them a single cent they would have given this nonsense credibility. As for copying: "their own internal documentation says that they've been copying" is again utter nonsense. All they show is that Samsung studied the iphone and took inspiration from Apple and then went on to build a better phone. This is exactly what Apple did when designing the iphone as can be seen by their Sony inspired prototypes, app centre (linux and symbian) and grid icon interface (Palm & Sony with their clio).
Apple never expected Samsung to agree to this. They wanted to scare Samsung away from Android and to stick with Bada and windows mobile because they could see Samsung had the clout to become a serious competitor to the iPhone. All Samsung did was call their bluff.
Re: We can all agree on that?
> Apple offered Samsung a licensing deal, Samsung ignored it/wouldn't negotiate so they got sued. We can all agree on that?
I think you will find Samsung do not believe there is anything to negotiate. How about you give me £10000, we could negotiate if you think that is too much. Apple on the other hand dismissed Samsungs initial offer with nothing but a court case for a license that covers patents that Apple use in their devices.
This could only happen in the US. When they tried their ludicrous design copying strategy in the UK the court threw it out of court made them apologise to Samsung, can't wait until the appeal is over, looking forward to reading their apology in the press and on their uk website.
Re: I see the resident Fandroids wouldn't recognise a negotiating position
"... there has to be a line somewhere."
There is an implicit assumption in your post that the seller (APPL) has an interest in or indeed a requirement to sell. It is clear that APPL are quite happy NOT to license "copying of their products" but might do so if the price is high enough. APPL have given a pointer to what "enough" is.
Re: I see the resident Fandroids wouldn't recognise a negotiating position
"... and took inspiration from Apple" - comprehension skills required. You need to read the court documents more closely.
"...Sony inspired prototypes" - there is a distinction between "inspiration", an "copying". Courts make a determination on such matters on a regular basis, as will Ms. Koh's court.
"All Samsung did was call their bluff." - since there is ongoing litigation, apparently Apple were not bluffing.
However ... your last point may be closer to the truth than most of the blather on this forum. Samsung have alternatives, WP7/8, Symbian (Samsung was an original partner in Symbian), Bada, Tizen etc. In the long run Apple ARE gunning for Android as you observe, and Samsung is going to be the first victim of SJs "thermonuclear" assault.
Dweeb
@AC 13:44
So why do Apple want money from Windows Phone models, as mentioned earlier in these comments?
Re: I see the resident Fandroids wouldn't recognise a negotiating position
"Samsung were free to make a counter offer"
Which they did: "fuck off".
It's Apple that's dragged this into court on the basis of what they must know is a pack of lies. You're saying that people should negotiate with their muggers.
Re: I see the resident Fandroids wouldn't recognise a negotiating position
Nice try "You need to read the court documents more closely" - other than Apple's claim there is not a single reference where Samsung states they copied or intended to, so I think the reading comprehension class is something you could do with, but then I can't really blame you, those apple shaped, rose tinted glasses you are clearly wearing obviously make it hard to read.
"Apple were not bluffing" - that is why they are doing sooooooo well in all the courts outside of the USA whenever they try to assert their claim to the rounded rectangle? (obvious oversimplification, I know, but stated to make a point)
Re: I see the resident Fandroids wouldn't recognise a negotiating position
I don't think Samsung have 'admitted' copying anything although it seems fairly clear to me that they have been copying many elements of Apple devices (especially following the recent internal comparison document). However while copying on such a large scale may be bad form and not be good for the reputation there is in general no law or rule against it.
However if Apple have patents that are infringed by the copy (or even not by the copy but it looks much worse in court if you copied it and it would be harder to claim it is obvious if you only did it after seeing Apple's version) or if the copy falls under the 'design patent' (would be registered design in the UK) then Apple can bring an action as they have.
The court will look at whether the patents are infringed and valid. I don't pretend to be able to make a judgement there.
Re: I see the resident Fandroids wouldn't recognise a negotiating position
Yogi B.'s often quoted "it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings" seems to be the correct response.
Apple were not bluffing, they think they are holding the winning hand. Apple may be right. We have courts to adjudicate on such matters and the court will speak in due course - no matter what you or I think or say/write.
@ZeroP
Apple want money for the Windows Phone models as they are claiming that the shape "rectangular with rounded corners" is patented by them, so any mobile phone shaped that way infringes their patent.
Re: @AC 13:44
Could someone point me to a reference for this? (Apple claiming payments from WinPhones manufacturers). I have not seen any reference to this, but that doesn't mean it's not true. Is it true or is it a troll?
@AC 12:50
There's a phrase involving piss-ups and breweries that I think applies to you.
If you go into a bar and ask for one pint you haven't got much of a negotiating position. If you go in and ask the price for 500 pints and renting their function room then there's room for negotiation. The bigger the numbers are the more scope there is for flexibility.
@ZeroP - what, 130+ pages all saying basically
"this is how we do it, this is how Apple do it, make the Galaxy phone more like the iPhone" doesn't count as copying?
Re: Re: @AC 12:50
You completely missed my point... and Apple already knew the volumes so it's not like Samsung could negotiate based on volume discount - that was already contemplated in Apple's offer.
Let's say, *hypothetically*, that Samsung was willing to pay $5/unit to settle Apple's complaints... then Apple comes in and starts the conversation with $50. It would be advisable at that point for Samsung to break off the conversation because: a.) Apple's starting point and Samsung's bottom line were so far removed from each other, b.) neither party was probably too keen to compromise much anyway (Apple feels Samsung is counterfeiting, and Samsung seems to think that Apple's complaints are bullshit), and c.) Samsung yielding, or even appearing to yield in the negotiation could come back to haunt them later if the negotiations fell through - "[See judge... they said right here it was worth X]".
There was a guy on here a while back who thought, quite fantastically, that Microsoft only charged $5 per Windows license to OEMs because the volumes were to so high - despite reference after reference to the contrary. I find it quite odd that there seems to be this line of thinking that high volumes will somehow magically make per unit license rates more or less disappear. It can reduce them, sure, but at the end of the day Apple wanted Billions and Samsung probably would have settled at best to settle its FRAND complaints against Apple in return - there is no meeting in the middle on two intractable positions like that.
The behavior by all parties seems quite rational. Why you seem to think this was anything more than normal, everyday negotiating table drama is, on the other hand, somewhat befuddling.
Re: I see the resident Fandroids wouldn't recognise a negotiating position
"Samsung were free to make a counter offer "
Samsung did make a counter offer, it was f**k you - seems an appropriate counter offer for a company trying to claim royalties because your phone has a vaguely similar geometric shape, like all the other rectangular screen phones out there.
I still fail to understand...
Why Apple is not targetting google. Well, I do, because Google also sits on a large pile of cash (or whas that a large cache of piles ?) and they're a US outfit, which would give the presiding judge an identity crisis. But that's beside the point.
I'm in engineering. If I licence a technology from - say - Company K., and buid a plant for a client, an subsequently Company L opines that their patent has been infriged upon, thay would first have to prove this in court in CL vs. CK.
IF they are succesful in defending their claim a licensing deal would have to be brokered between CL and the client, possibly involving damages from CK to CL.
I would have to show I did not infringe knowingly (i.e. defraud) and the client would simply wave it's arms in the air claiming they know nothing and are from Barcelona (if such were the case).
So could someone explain the workings of this claim ?
Re: I still fail to understand...
Up until they bought Motorola Google weren't selling infringing devices so it was hard to sue them directly. Things are likely to change now they are selling their own hardware.
Re: I still fail to understand...
Um all the UI bits on the Nexus line are stock Google and the phone design etc is decided by Google as are the spec.
Samsung etc only make what they are told on a Nexus, so Apple should be going after Google if the nexus is infringing their UI patants.
Re: I still fail to understand...
Google were receiving licence fees thanks to their arrangement on including the Google apps with devices from manufacturers.
And where are the.....
Posters who berated Motorola for asking 2.25% of the device selling price for all the patents they own that are needed.
OK its still to be decided whether they are right or wrong on the charge they want to make but hey, who was shouting loudest about the extreme rate of the charge?
Thats right it was Apple, so 2.25% for patents without which your device won't work or 10% for the right to sale something that looks a bit like your kit.
Quite simply all the frand patent holders should get together and demand sence from Apple or they will all charge each other a flat fee of say 20%, that way they offset each other but leave Apple stuffed until they play like grown ups.
Re: And where are the.....
1) Motorola was asking for that for FRAND patents, you know, patents that were necessary to the 3G standard and that they'd promised to license at fair and reasonable rates. If everyone involved in 3G tried to get a percentage of the list price there'd be nothing left. As it is the trade-off with FRAND is that the holder gets a small, fixed fee for each device sold, but there will be lots of them.
2) Apple were asking for a flat fee, and chances are that fee was negotiable. Their patents were not part of a standard and it was possible for competitors to engineer their way around them.
Re: And where are the.....
OK to a degree, but how do you engineer your way around some of the broad patants Apple have?
Yes its a bit simplistic saying its a rectangle with round corners, but thats what it is basically, and even the iphone/pad is not an exact copy of the design patant so how can Samsung be breaking it?
This $30 or $40 charge is simply a way to get the frand patants for free plus get say $10 each from everyone with frand patants. just think, $10 from Samsung, $10 from motorola $10 from Nokia $10 from ...... soon they could cut the cost of an iphone/pad by $100 or more and still make the same profits as a business as a whole.
Steve Jobs dream of destroying Android would be on the way.....
Re: And where are the.....
I can name 50 phones/tablets that will never be the subject of a suit from Apple.
Start with the Sony S tablet, or the Moto Xoom?
How about the Moto RAZRRX (or whatever it's called) or the Sony Xperia range of phones?
Only blind, irrational bias combined with an ability to disregard "proof by existence" enables you to write such codswallop as "but how do you engineer your way around some of the broad patants Apple have?"
Everyone else has managed it, but Samsung went the alternative route and found itself in court.
Re: And where are the.....
I went and found this so I could compare the original Galaxy S and the iPhone 4 visually withou the Apple in-court comparisons, knowing full well that there's a massive difference in the iPhone 4/S (girlfriend has the former) and the S2 (having owned one before), Nexus (having played with a coworkers) and the S3 (currently selling them). They're not even the same bloody size. The back looks textured compared to the aluminium of the previous models and the glass on the 4 series. There is no way anyone handling this could mistake it for an iPhone.
Apple are a bunch of scam artists.
Re: And where are the.....
So by your logic, if I knocked on Apple's door and told them that their devices were infringing on my patent for the colour green,(I like the colour green, and people say it looks good on me, so ergo I should be the only one to use it) by using the RGB colour spectrum in their displays, but I would be happy to license it to them for only $50 per iPhone and $45 per iPad, Apple would be at fault if they booted me (deservingly) to the curb. So how much should Apple offer me in negotiation?
Re: And where are the.....
And if Samsung loose this they will be targeted as well. Last time I checked, Motorola use the same grid icon layout and a green rounded rectangle icon with a phone symbol as Samsung, so they would be open to the same lawsuit.
As a matter of fact Apple have already tried to sue Motorola but failed to get an injunction as the judge wasn't from California. Apple have also sought an injunction against HTC this year as well. And last year Apple sued Motorola for the Xoom's design. Samsung aren't the only ones getting hit by the fruity bunch.
Re: And where are the.....
"if Samsung loose" - really, I wish that techno-nerds would learn the difference between "loose" and "lose", I really do.
"..they would be open to the same lawsuit." - I doubt that, Moto's phones don't look anything like an iPhone, and IIRC they have not modified Android to mimic iOS functionality, or any of the other trade dress grievances Apple has. Correct me if that is not the case.
"Apple sued Motorola for the Xoom's design" - and Moto promptly changed it to a non-infringing design? (just guessing mind you, but there seems to have been a cause-effect there).
Troll feeding over ...
Re: And where are the.....
"I can name 50 phones/tablets that will never be the subject of a suit from Apple.
Start with the Sony S tablet, or the Moto Xoom?"
Why not?
Motorla & Google too big?
Re: And where are the.....
Perhaps because they have squared corners, wedge shaped bodies and other things that distinguish their design as unique? Are you tone deaf as well?
And on the flip side
Some nice El Reg commentard said to keep an eye on Groklaw for coverage of the trial as they really know their stuff when it comes to tech trials etc. I've found the coverage really interesting as it just looks at it from a law perspective. They had this interesting link: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518
Basically Apple are saying that if they *are* found guilty of any patent infringement of Samsung's patents (3G ones etc) then......
"To The Extent That Samsung Is Entitled To Any Remedy, its FRAND Damages Cannot Exceed $0.0049 Per Unit for Each Infringed Patent"
That doesn't really sound fair when they are asking for $30 per device in return...? Unless Samsung are infringing on 6122 and a half Apple patents? Can't they both just call it quits instead and spend their time and energy making new and better phones?
I'm still waiting for one outraged person who bought a Samsung product thinking it was made by Apple and/or vice versa.
Re: And on the flip side
@AndyDude. Read the posts on this forum, in this and many other threads, that explain quite clearly where your thinking is muddled due to a misunderstanding of the concepts and rules involved. Your notion of what is "fair" is irrelevant based on these misunderstandings. And it is about law and contract - not about vacuous notions of "fair" anyway.
Re: And on the flip side
massive difference between standard essential patents and those which you can work around (not standard essential ones). read a bit...
Re: And on the flip side
Check the link in my post - it's not my opinion it's Groklaws and they know "law and contract" a hell of a lot better than you and I: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120726121512518
They are providing some truly interesting analysis from a point of law. You should go have a read. Unless of course all their thinking is muddled due to a misunderstanding of the concepts and rules involved as well. Must be all that law stuff they keep reading.
"I'm still waiting for one outraged person who bought a Samsung product thinking it was made by Apple and/or vice versa."
Fat chance. Blind people don't usually buy smartphones.
But blind people ask...
"Can I have a Apple Phone" or "Can I have a Samsung Phone" and get the one they want respectively.
However they can use phone. :)
I have a legally blind friend with an iPhone 4, granted he can only see it if it's right up to his face, but he gets along. Apple got their precious sale there, but I may ask him if he initially asked for something else, for poops and giggles.
I know somebody who is legally blind that uses an iPhone 4s, reason for buying, the superior intergration of support for people with access problems
My blind (at least registered blind) did buy a smartphone, or a few. First Blackberry (because it looks so much like an iPhone, obviously), then Android and now Windows Phone.
But yeah, failed to have come across anyone yet who bought a Samsung in error yet. They are both black, but hey so are many Samsung (and other manufacturer) phones that pre-date the iPhone. The shape isn't exactly original either; there are plenty of rectangular phones with rounded corners that pre-date the iPhone.
There's as much chance of it happening as there is: "Oops, I meant to buy a Nokia 6030 and not an iPhone."
Good description of FRAND in that Groklaw article
"Companies who like to get patent royalties from competitors, like Apple and Microsoft, and who use patents aggressively, have noticed that if everyone who was in the mobile phone business before they were sues them over their patents, they won't be able to make a phone anyone can afford, so they want to get the courts to force folks like Samsung and Motorola to accept less than a penny per handset for their standards patents, while still charging the regular price for their own later-issued patents."
Android should stop using multi-touch
There were rectangular touch screen smartphones with rectangular icons before the iPhone. What did not exist was multi-touch smartphones with the ability to pinch to zoom, ignoring unintentional touches, and the rubber banding effect when scrolling through lists.
If Android stops using those features, I am sure Apple will drop their lawsuits. It is not about rectangular objects at all.
Re: Android should stop using multi-touch
"It is not about rectangular objects at all."
It is actually. The US legal term is "Trade Dress".
Re: Android should stop using multi-touch
Except Samsung should have counter-sued Apple initially on the grounds APPL was already infringing rounded rectangle touch smartphone patents Sammy was sure to have already owned
Re: Android should stop using multi-touch
Have you researched multi-touch? Why should they stop using it? It has been around since at least 1982 and theorised long before that. Wow, what a surprise that it made it into phones. And look up Jefferson Han (funnily enough, from a Korean family). In fact, research capacitive screens, multi-touch, pinch, etc, and you'll find that it's all nothing new (it's iBA - Before Apple).
Re: Android should stop using multi-touch
What the hell is with this APPL crap, are you too lazy to write Apple? If you are trying to be clever and use the NASDAQ code then that is AAPL.
OK
What does this actually mean to the consumer?
If apple win will they be reducing the price of their overpriced kids toys?
This topic is closed for new posts.
