Apple v. Samsung: Surprises in Latest Court Documents

Post by justinschuh » Sat, Jul 28, 2012, 11:28 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #27

justinschuh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's try that question the other way. Is it fair that Apple is trying to extort $27 per device out of Samsung (many times more than Samsung is asking for on its FRAND patents)? While we're at it, is it fair that non-iPhone users in the US subsidize Apple's huge profit margins? Because, Apple demands such a high subsidy (and competitive pricing on-contract) that the carriers make the difference up on other customers.…

Non-US iPhone users aren't subsidizing anything. While the carriers in the US do subsidize phones, carriers don't just absorb that cost, it gets passed along to the end user. These arguments are kind of similar to those presented by people wanting higher corporate taxes without realizing that those costs are ultimately paid by the consumer.

Post by spiralpolitik » Sun, Jul 29, 2012, 12:33 AM UTC

justinschuh wrote: post #19

gareim wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how Apple ignored FRAND obligations entirely? Qualcomm already licensed the patents in its chips that they sold to Apple, but then Samsung wanted more because it was Apple. That itself is violating the "non-discriminatory" part of FRAND. How is this Apple's fault?

This kind of misinformation is the problem. Qualcomm never had a license for Samsung's FRAND patents. If they did, there wouldn't be an issue here. What Qualcomm had was a contractual agreement protecting their customers from Samsung pursuing FRAND patent fees, but that contract expired in early 2011. So, now Samsung is using their FRAND patents in defense against Apple's thermonuclear patent war.

Post by justinschuh » Sun, Jul 29, 2012, 1:41 AM UTC

josephlord wrote: post #32

justinschuh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's try that question the other way. Is it fair that Apple is trying to extort $27 per device out of Samsung (many times more than Samsung is asking for on its FRAND patents)? While we're at it, is it fair that non-iPhone users in the US subsidize Apple's huge profit margins? Because, Apple demands such a high subsidy (and competitive pricing on-contract) that the carriers make the difference up on other customers.…

Fair, I don't know if the patent is valid Samsung could just work around it. If Apple have a valid patent as I understand it they can license it for any price that they want OR completely refuse to license it provided they haven't made any agreements or commitments to the contrary. That is the normal case with patents, exclusive rights. When you step into a standards body and offer your technology you give up those r…

    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.

Post by josephlord » Sun, Jul 29, 2012, 2:55 AM UTC

justinschuh wrote: post #35

josephlord wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair, I don't know if the patent is valid Samsung could just work around it. If Apple have a valid patent as I understand it they can license it for any price that they want OR completely refuse to license it provided they haven't made any agreements or commitments to the contrary. That is the normal case with patents, exclusive rights. When you step into a standards body and offer your technology you give up those r…

Your argument doesn't hold. Samsung has already shown that the rates they're asking of Apple are consistent with other licensees; Apple is just refusing to pay. I think this quote sums it up: 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 pa…

Post by justinschuh » Sun, Jul 29, 2012, 4:18 AM UTC

spiralpolitik wrote: post #36

justinschuh wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument doesn't hold. Samsung has already shown that the rates they're asking of Apple are consistent with other licensees; Apple is just refusing to pay. I think this quote sums it up: 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 pa…

It is possible to build a viable smartphone without Slide to Unlock or making it look like an iPhone (Palm did it, Nokia did it, even Samsung did it with the Galaxy S3). It isn't possible to build a viable smartphone without the various UMTS patents. That's the key difference here. Also the rates that Samsung is asking aren't consistent with other licensees as Samsung is tying the rate to the device rather than the b…