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 post has been deleted by its author
Oh, ffs, get your facts right at least. Apple bought Fingerworks. Fingerworks did a lot of the basic development of multi-touch gesturing between 1999 and 2006 so Apple have a bunch of patents on the application of multi-touch. If the demo system is single touch then it can't POSSIBLY be prior art for that.
Apple: We don't like the price you're asking for your FRAND patents, so we refuse to pay it. But here, we're charging you $30 per phone for our patents. We'll reduce it if you offer your patents to us for free.
Samsung: You can't refuse to pay and infringu our FRAND patent just because you don't think our pricing is fair and your so-called patents will never stand up in court even if we were infringing them, which we're not.
Meanwhile the public is getting sick and tired of the pissing match.
"Meanwhile the public is getting sick and tired of the pissing match."
My mom didn't even know the suit was happening (she has a Samsung Bada phone)
My daughter never heard of it either (she has an iPhone)
My straw poll of 2, indicates Jill Public does not give a Tinker's about the suit.
It's only interesting (and perhaps even relevant) for technical people like the El Reg. readership because it infringes upon our domain. We are a vanishingly small minority!
Paris: A minority of 1
OK - I get that peoples opinions are that ~2.5% is expensive for FRAND licensing. However, most FRAND licensing is met by cross licensing. Both Motorola and Samsung have asked for 2-2.5% for licensing of their FRAND patents sans cross licensing - perhaps this amount is considered fair?
Lemme put it this way - Say Motorola and Samsung have FRAND patents relating to the 3G standard. They have both invested huge amonts of money in the research that defined these standards. Individually, Moto ask for 2.25% for access to their portfolio, Samsung ask for 2.5% for theirs. Under a cross licensing deal, Moto might only end up paying 0.1-0.2% after negotiations
Enter Apple - who have contributed nothing to the R&D behind these patents and have nothing to offer (or refuse to offer) in a cross licensing deal. Why should they not pay the asking price of 2-2.5%? The rest of the market offers their own patents as payment - making the asking price for Apple fair since they have nothing further to offer.
Lets put this in terms of physical goods, just to be clear. I have sacks of potatoes for sale for £10. Peter has baskets of tomatoes for sale for £6. I want some tomatoes and Peter wants some potatoes. We come to an agreement that Peter can have a sack of potatoes for £3 and a basket of tomatoes. Both parties win. John (Apple) enters the market and I ask for £10 for my potatoes - this is not unfair or discriminatory since John has nothing else to offer. Similarly, Peter will ask John to pay £6 for his tomatoes - this is also perfectly fair and reasonable. John then turns around and tells me I can't use my cart unless I pay him £30 because he thinks all wheels belong to him - despite clear evidence that carts had been moving towards using wheels for years, even though nobody had quite perfected the idea until John.
Unless someone can show me some evidence that FRAND patents are offered from Samsung at significantly lower prices where there is NO cross licensing, I don't see how Apple can complain at the asking price at 2.5%. The fact is, they decided not to pay and simply stole the technology used in the patents and are now trying to claim that the price is unfair even though every other player in the market uses their own patents to offset the cost!
The FRAND patent holders could decide between them that the FRAND patents are worth £200 per device, but still only charge each other pennies to each other due to cross licensing. Offering those patents to a third party at full price would still be fair - it would simply force that third party to bring something other than money to the table.
This is exactly the battle which is going on at the moment. The old guys, which made mobile phone's possible in the first place don't like the fact that the new kid eats into there market share using what they created. The new kid with all the cool stuff thinks the old guys should be using his shiny ideas to create better phones as well. All I can say is something about a pot and a kettle.
IT Director for an oil company in Alberta Canada, No Apple phones or laptops or PCs.
we use blackberry and now going to Android phones.
We use Dell for all workstations, Laptops, Servers.
I have a Samsung S3, never ever have I or heard from any user that they mistaken any other phone for an Apple or other wise.
I have not seen Apple do anything innovative in about 10 years.
I would say how does Apple stack up against all other PC/Cell phones not ask how other compare to Apple.
If anything I am surprised that someone has not taken Apple to task like so many have taken Microsoft for unfair competition and hampering competition.
Apple is holding back Tech advancement by these law suits.
I see nothing innovative or adventitious from Apple with the exception of their advertizing physiology.
If I had more time and money I would do everything in my IT world to prevent Apple sales.
I hope and want Apple to die, im so sick of Apple, I never want to read another new article about them.
They have don't nothing for the IT money making industry.. even their Asian employees jump from buildings.
who does Apple employ?
low minimum wage US sales employees working in Lame stores..
Every day I do my part to kill Apple..wont you?
try listing on paper why and how you can like Apple products..
Now list why and how you like another Tech product other than Apple..
So many reason to like others and so many reason to hate Apple.
Do your part, Juice an Apple a day..
"IT Director for an oil company in Alberta Canada, No Apple phones or laptops or PCs."
Former IT director of a NYSE listed health care company (that gets the pissing contest out of the way)
"we use blackberry and now going to Android phones."
Your choice and I am sure it works for you as for millions of others
"We use Dell for all workstations, Laptops, Servers."
We use HP blades because (and I really hate to say this) the HP manasgement software and infrastructure is better. YMMV
"I have a Samsung S3, never ever have I or heard from any user that they mistaken any other phone for an Apple or other wise."
I have, at least 1 person in my current field of vision. Her: "Oh, is that the new iPhone?" Me: "errr. No, it's a Samsung Galaxy" Her: Wow, it looks just like an iPhone". Honestly, I am not making this up.
"I have not seen Apple do anything innovative in about 10 years."
That is an opinion you are entitled to hold. There are a large number of people who disagree with you apparently.
"I would say how does Apple stack up against all other PC/Cell phones not ask how other compare to Apple.
If anything I am surprised that someone has not taken Apple to task like so many have taken Microsoft for unfair competition and hampering competition."
Microsoft was/is a monopoly. Apple, is not and there have not, and are unlikely to be "unfair competition" cases against Apple until Apple magically become a monopoly or can assert monopoly power in the market place. Companies without monopoly power are entitled to do whatever is not illegal. Monopolies have to play a slightly different, more limited game.
"Apple is holding back Tech advancement by these law suits."
That is an opinion you are entitled to hold. Personally, I think the most important part of the suits is Apple derailing Samsung and Motorola's attempts to undermine the FRAND system for standards essential patents. I do not see that as "holding back technical advancement".
"I see nothing innovative or adventitious from Apple with the exception of their advertizing physiology."
The IT industry tried to peddle the "tablet" to the populace at large for over a decade without any noticeable success (fact). Apple expended an enourmous effort to design, devlelop, and market what has become an iconic product, the iPad running iOS. Apple single handedly created a multi-billion dollar business from it. Maybe something else happened, but that's what it looks like from the rear stalls.
"If I had more time and money I would do everything in my IT world to prevent Apple sales."
That says quite a bit about your character. Not buying something is a luxury afforded us by virtue of the deocratic society and free market we live in. Actively sabotaging an active participant in the market would be both hypocritical and likely illegal.
"I hope and want Apple to die, im so sick of Apple, I never want to read another new article about them."
That says quite a bit about your character as well.
"They have don't nothing for the IT money making industry.. even their Asian employees jump from buildings."
I don't understand the first part, and the second part refers to people who are employed by a supplier of components and finished product, which supplied many other companies aside from Apple. What is your point? That industrial relations in China is different than in Canada? That is hardly news, and hardly Apple's responsibility.
"who does Apple employ?
low minimum wage US sales employees working in Lame stores.."
Apple employ people, all of whom have lives and precious few of whom have done anything to invoke your rabid vitriol. You don't have to like Apple's stores, don't enter them. You are free to make that choice. I have no idea what Apple pays their store employees, and I suspect you haven't either.
"Every day I do my part to kill Apple..wont you?"
No. Are you admonishing us to break the law? In any case, your anthropomorphisation of the corporate entity Apple reflects on the quality of your thinking. You are starting to lose it.
"try listing on paper why and how you can like Apple products.."
Why? What purpose would that serve.
1: My iPod plays music and sounds good and is dead easy to use.
My list of 1. And?
"Now list why and how you like another Tech product other than Apple.."
1: My Samsung dumb phone is small, light has great call quality and has a battery life of 3 weeks on standby
"So many reason to like others and so many reason to hate Apple."
I think your logical progression is missing something. A lot actually.
"Do your part, Juice an Apple a day.."
I have always liked Apple juice and will continue to do so.
By the way, I really doubt point 1 in your post, as I find it unlikely that anyone so intellectually challenged with such poor writing skills could hold a senior position at a large corporation. Just my opinion, mind you, but then again in Canada? ...
Dweeb
It is rather "ego circumspecto" and "Tu es", since or shorter "es". The verb esse - to be has the following declension:
<pre>
sing pl
I person sum sumus
II person es estis
III person est sunt
</pre>
Very close to other Indo-European declensions of this verb.
@ El Reg, where is the <pre> tag? Quousque tandem, Catilina????
Et ceatera (καὶ τὰ ἕτερα UTF8 works!)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
