Delenda est Pupillam
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 …
the 3G patents cost a a very small amount to license, because they are FRAND, and the value of FRAND patents is determined by their value PRIOR to inclusion in the standard. Samsung, Moto, NOK etc all have a dog in the fight, owning FRAND patents that are part of 3G. They all pay each other something like 1 cent/device per patent. Small potatoes, except with "a billion or two" sold, it adds up.
Samsung actually asked for an extortionate amount from APPL, which APPL have refused to pay (rightly so IMHO), and court documents reveal that no other company is paying the Samsung extortion price. That being the case, APPL will not be required to pay it either. The dollar per device is probably the going rate, in any case it will come out in court I suspect.
Non-FRAND patents are different, the owner can charge whatever they like, or in fact simply refuse to license.
1.Make (a hole) in something, esp. with a revolving tool: "they bored holes in the sides"; "the drill can bore through rock".
2.Make (someone) feel weary and uninterested by tedious talk or dullness: "he'll bore you with all the details".
In this case I do believe he used the right spelling. Your starting to look like an ass with your hiding behind the mask and insults that make your out to not know language. You should take a minute and read number 2.
If you are going to correct people you really should try to ensure you use the correct spelling yourself.
As an example, it's "You're starting to look"
I'm not saying that he has used the word bore incorrectly as he hasn't but the incorrect use of you're drives me nuts.
I think you meant to direct that comment to the other guy. You know, the one who doesn't know the difference between a verb and a noun, whose comment you quoted and who demonstrably couldn't spell.
By the way, I agree about the "Your", "You're" homonym problem. I did not mention it though I could've done so.
I originally "objected" to the fact that he spelled boor wrongly. While you apparently think he did use bore correctly, you would be wrong. bore != boor, verb != noun. Wrong usage or wrong word, wrong either way.
Anyone can do the engineering, that's pretty easy and the computer can do much of the layout work now. You can do tests for RF interference, crosstalk and other problems.
Visual design is a much trickier skill, if it was easy then Linux desktops would look amazing when they don't look as good as OSX or Windows.
Good fonts make a huge difference too and they cost a lot to design properly.
"Anyone can do the engineering, that's pretty easy and the computer can do much of the layout work now. You can do tests for RF interference, crosstalk and other problems.
Visual design is a much trickier skill, if it was easy then Linux desktops would look amazing when they don't look as good as OSX or Windows.
Good fonts make a huge difference too and they cost a lot to design properly."
I'm a graphic designer and I do wish people in the tech industry would realise that there's a lot of skill and experience needed to make something look good and and communicate the required information. Psychology, Biology (specifically that of the eye), Sociology, Material Science, Social History, IT. A good designer needs to have at least a working knowledge of all these things. It's not just 'trying to stay inside the lines with your crayons'.
That said, suggesting that a bit of UX design is more difficult than engineering the hardware for a phone is just complete bollocks.
"Visual design is a much trickier skill, if it was easy then Linux desktops would look amazing when they don't look as good as OSX or Windows."
And iOS would look as good as the latest Android release, Jelly Bean. And not appear in comparison all slow and jerky the way, say, the iPad does next to a Nexus 7.
If they can make as much profit from a Samsung sale as they do from an own sale, then why not?
It's like the landlord in your pub offering that you can bring your own beer as long as you pay him the same amount per glass.
Does it make sense for Samsung? No.
Well, it's like the landlord in the pub next door offering that you can sell beer in your own pub, as long as you pay him per glass, because he invented round glasses five years ago.
As you say, it's entirely reasonable from the point of view of a landlord wanting to put their own profits above all else. But for the rest of us - no.
Face it if you wan't to have a round corner rectangle with a bezel for a smartphone, then why shouldn't you pay about 10-20% of the cost to manufacture it to Apple to be allowed to do so.
They aren't being unfair or unreasonable at all - not like those nasty Asians that created actual technical innovation that became a fundamental part of phone design but wanted an extortionate 2.25%.
Then again Apple will allow you to cross licence their patents and not use any of their IP and they will give you an 80% reduction in the tax. Can't say fairer than that?
Yet another profoundly ignorant and incoherent rant - AC. You should try and learn the terminology and what those terms actually mean. Then you could try constructing sentences that make logical sense within the context of the technical meaning of the words and concepts.
For example, "fair and reasonable" in this discussion means RAND (aka. FRAND) patents and you reference poorly frames the following text, because it is intentionally unclear to what you are referring.
Another example. 2.25% of the retail price (that was what you meant to write, but didn't, due to ignorance or malice) for a single patent is an amount that no corporation on the planet pays for FRAND patent royalties. (a) because there are a large number of 2.25% patents in a single device, which would mean the cost of the device would reach some number very large indeed (need to do some advanced math which I cannot be bothered to do) and (b) because it leads to the absurdity, that if Boeing fit a 3G phone to a 747-8, then the patent is worth 2.25% of 300 million dollars (I didn't check the sticker price) - for 1 phone. Clearly not going to happen.
We could live without your diatribes here.
Here endeth the "feeding of the troll" for today.
Like you say, no one else is paying that percentage. But that is a percentage (true a high one) for this particular device. A 3G phone on a plane is obviously an insignificant part of the plane functions. If you made the simplest of phones and banged it out at £10 then I'd guess a fair percentage would work out higher than 2.25%
Pot, Kettle etc.
Then you could try constructing sentences that make logical sense within the context of the technical meaning of the words and concepts
You then give us
For example, "fair and reasonable" in this discussion means RAND (aka. FRAND) patents and you reference poorly frames the following text, because it is intentionally unclear to what you are referring.
Sorry, I haven't a clue to what you referring to
He is missing one letter from making that comprehensible. Are you really busting his balls because he missed an 'r' off 'your'?
For example, "fair and reasonable" in this discussion means RAND (aka. FRAND) patents and your reference poorly frames the following text, because it is intentionally unclear to what you are referring.
Try substituting "your reference" for "you reference".
Characters randomly disappear if you type fast enough, so a missing character is common. Mea culpa, but had you engaged your brain for a nano second you might have made the correct reading. Feel free to disagree though.
You may be correct on that detail, and I need to read up on it again.
It is however the notion of FRAND licence fixing based on a retail price for a specific licensee's (Apple) products, which is going to end with Samsung and Moto being in the poo.
There are other patent holders in the 3G pool, so if Samsung slip this through it is open season for the rest of the pool to start pricing on retail prices, which would in turn derail the whole FRAND model of standards patent licensing - which IMHO would be a bad thing. Moto have tried a different, but similar tactic. It is never going to fly.
So, where is your evidence that Samsung would ask for a percentage of the price of the whole plane if they used 3G? Would you not think they would ask for the percentage of the unit that delivers the 3G signal. It's not like a hotel would be asked for a percentage of the price of the hotel if they built a 3G repeater into the building when it was built, would it?
Maybe you think it is a valid argument to suggest that Apple paying a FRAND fee for using the tech to build their phone is wrong as it may cost Boeing lots of money? Doesn't hold water really.
Apple also have a choice to use 3G or not. It is highly desirable but not essential - their early phones didn't use it. But it is desirable for sure - about as desirable as making a phone that is rectangular, with a bevel and rounded corners - i.e. the only way it is practical to make a slab phone. But, because that is not covered by FRAND then they are allowed to run an extort money out of people?
Still doesn't make sense does it?
So we have Samsung asking for $12 (2.4%) per phone for their tech and Apple asking for $30 for their, highly prior-arted design. Both of which are necessary for a modern smartphone.
There was an option for Apple - which the other large phone manufacturers all choose to take - cross licence. It works, yeah might be a bit socialist and all, but hell it makes good sense. Everyone gets to get on with making better tech, the consumers of all manufacturers win out, there are no lengthy court case, injunctions and public bitching. Everyone's a winner, even Apple with their patents that are, quite frankly, crap (please try and argue that they aren't, please)
But Apple decide they want to cross licence and charge $24 per phone - not exactly fair and in the spirit of things is it? Especially as they want this for devices that aren't even covered by their patents.
However, Mr Lewis head back over to FOSSpatents and grab your next argument off Florain's shelf - I'm sure it'll be a corker.
I don't need evidence, but Samsung do.
1: The Samsung patents in question are 3G standards required FRAND encumbered patents. This is not in dispute, it is an established fact.
2: Samsung contends that a fair and reasonable non discriminatory price for their patents is 2.x% of the retail price of the salable unit in which they are used. In this case, an iPhone. If this is incorrect, please direct me to the original source of this widely repeated piece of information.
3: No evidence has turned up in the courtroom that any of the other 3G manufacturers are paying licence fees for the FRAND patents in question based on the unit selling price of their products (direct me to this evidence if I am in error).
4: In the absence of the existence of the evidence mentioned in 3 above, the licensing being asked of Apple by Samsung is ipso facto discriminatory, something expressly forbidden by the FRAND agreements.
5: The courts are unlikely to allow discriminatory pricing in the FRAND arena as it would be logical nonsense, resulting in "discrimnatory fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" pricing.
6: Were the courts to allow "end unit sales price" licence fixation, my admittedly bizarre example would become perfectly logical. Boeing make aircraft. A 747-8 costs 350 million plus change. My example would be the logical consequence of the courts allowing "end unit sales price" as a basis for FRAND patent licensing. I do not need evidence for Samsung's intent in order for my argument to be sound.
It's a Pandora's box and the courts are unlikely to open it.
I cannot deal with the rest of your post at this time. Your post is not really coherent, and therefore time consuming and ultimately unrewarding to deconstruct.
I should add though, that I have never read an original Florian Müller post anywhere, though I have seen him quoted, disparaged and personally attacked all over the technical forums of the internet. I have no opinion of him, his qualifications or his posts, and none of my posts have any direct or indirect relationship with anything he might have written. Your attempted "idiot by association" play is flawed.
Let the downvotes begin ...
I think you are intentionally missing the point. The patents that Samsung wanted 2.5% per patent for are patents that Samsung must license on fair and reasonable terms, as part of their membership of the 3G patent pool. Apple are contending that these are not FRAND terms, and they won't pay non FRAND terms.
The 'patents' that Apple wanted Samsung to license covered the device and UI. Apple are under no obligation with these patents to offer them on fair and reasonable terms. Samsung cannot content that the terms are not FRAND, so they must contend that the patents aren't valid.
Samsung are on shaky ground here, as not licensing FRAND patents in a FRAND manner is a big no-no. Even if they get all of Apple's design and UI patents thrown out, they still going to get one for pulling that shit.
..........then Apple's "offer" was in effect a demand that Samsung get out of the smartphone business. If Apple wins this one against Samsung, the most heavyweight of the Android OEMs, then they will simply repeat the same tactic against all the rest. If we did need any more evidence that Cupertino want to use the current appalling state of patent law to ensure that they basically own mobile tech space then we need look no further than this offer.*
*Another point that occurs is that the cross-licensing deals that MS has been signing with world+wife+dog may have additional reasons than solely their fairly obvious desire to take a bite out of Google's lunch. It is entirely possible that they are also concerned that the degree of hubris now evident in Cupertino's behaviour may lead to attempts to attack OEMs making Win 8 tablets - one possible reason for collecting as much IP as possible.
Just to be pedantic on your title, note it wasn't the only significant rival - check out the sales: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#Historical_sales_figures
Symbian was #1 until 2011 (when it was overtaken by Android, *not* Iphone), and other platforms like Blackberry were significant rivals.
Although yes, from Samsung's point of view, telling them they couldn't use Android wouldn't leave them much choice. Although I suspect that Apple would be making demands whatever OS they used on their flagship (and someone else comments that Apple have gone after their WP phones too).
"..........then Apple's "offer" was in effect a demand that Samsung get out of the smartphone business. "
More akin to blackmail, but at an unreasonably high cost.
Like someone asking me for a cool million or they'll leak those pics of Paris and I.*
FRAND only definitively means the same deal should be on offer to everyone (non-discrimination). IPR only has to be offered on FRAND if there is a prior commitment to do so - normally as part of a contribution to a standards process.
The 'fair and reasonable' part is ultimately up to a court challenge as it is not defined. So they may well be there anyway.
This post has been deleted by its author
Page 25 "Since even the feature phones rely on apple innovations, e.g. java processors and the smart phones relies on Modern OS"
So not only do they claim they innovated rounded corners, now they adding java, cpus and operating systems to their list. Hope this is a poor translation.
Indeed, talk about revisionist history.
Feature phones always have been smartphones by any sensible objective definition - "feature" vs "smart" is simply a marketing term, usually to distinguish vaguely between low and high cost.
Apple released a dumb phone in 2007 (couldn't run apps), but marketed it as a smartphone. Now they've got fanatics (including much of the media) believing that they invented smartphones and software ("apps"). Now they have the cheek to suggest that feature phones - also commonly available since around 2004-2005 - made use of Apple's inventions.
Perhaps Apple invented the time machine too, it would be the only way to actually explain this.
You anti-Apple people are just as bad as the rabid Apple fanbois.
I don't recall Apple ever having claimed to have "invented" the smartphone, or many of the products they sell.
They do claim at the bottom of all their press releases that they "re-invented" the mobile phone, and have said similar things about other product categories they have entered (music players, tablet computers etc.). Most companies are constantly "re-inventing" and trying to come up with better ways of doing the things these devices do.
Apple just has an uncanny knack of taking something already existing and drastically overhauling many user-orientated aspects and physical design to the extent that other companies suddenly feel they should've been doing it that way all along, and popularising it with the general consumers in the process.
Yes, there were MP3 Players before the iPod, tablet computers before the iPad and smartphones before the iPhone, but everyone here must see that Apple's re-inventions have re-defined what people expect such devices to be like.
"but everyone here must see that Apple's re-inventions have re-defined what people expect such devices to be like."
Nope. All the Apple walled-garden people bought each iDevice that was released (a phone in this case) regardless of how groundbreaking (or not) it was, and then used /that/ as the "definition" of what people should expect, be it better or worse than alternatives out at the time. I could hold the torch of an Acer laptop up as the pinnacle of invention, but that doesn't make it true.
Why do the Apple h8ters always bring up the old chestnut that Apple iPhone users "bought each iDevice that was released"?
It cannot possibly be true. I don't know even 1 person that has had every model of the iPhone. May daughter went from a 2G (first edition) to a 4S, but that was only because someone half inched the 2G phone and the 4S is what is in the market now. Me, I am still on my 3GS, the 1 and only iPhone I have ever owned. And I don't see me upgrading any time soon. Some people change gadgets like they change underwear, but they are a trivial minority.
I conjecture, that the Apple h8ters who constantly claim "bought each iDevice that was released... blah blah blah" are themselves of the variety of induhvidual for whom new gadgetry is an imperative, and that they are thus unable to "see" that the large majority of the population of the planet are in fact somewhat different. YMMV.
I didn't say that Apple claimed they invented smartphones (though to be fair, I can see my wording might have been misread that way), I said that's what fanatics believe. I didn't mean to imply that this was due to Apple - just that it's a rather state of affairs anyway.
"Apple just has an uncanny knack of taking something already existing and drastically overhauling many user-orientated aspects and physical design to the extent that other companies suddenly feel they should've been doing it that way all along, and popularising it with the general consumers in the process."
Just like many other multinational companies do too.
"Yes, there were MP3 Players before the iPod, tablet computers before the iPad and smartphones before the iPhone, but everyone here must see that Apple's re-inventions have re-defined what people expect such devices to be like."
What - rectangular with rounded corners?
Again, the same can be said of any of the companies in these markets. There's no reason to focus on Apple, nor is any of your Apple advertising relevant to anything I said in my comment. Companies like Nokia, Google, Samsung, Sandisk, Asus, Microsoft, ARM, NVIDIA and Intel have redefined what people expect devices to be like, and have done so for far larger numbers of customers. But that doesn't mean I can get away with claiming MS invented computers or Samsung invented phones.
Iphone is just a brandname for a product family, same with Ipod and Ipad. Same with Galaxy. I love my Samsung Galaxy, which has sold in the hundreds of millions and revolutionised smartphones, but so what.
Apple are like the kid in the family that comes 3rd in the egg and spoon race at school. For some reason people like you give them endless praise, as if that was special or anything different to what many other multinationals are doing. And anyone who disagrees, or is tired of hearing it, is branded "anti-"Apple. (And I like how you say "rabid Apple fanbois" as if referring to other people, then go into a big speech about the wonders of that one company, even though no one requested it.)
"Iphone is just a brandname for a product family, same with Ipod and Ipad. Same with Galaxy. I love my Samsung Galaxy, which has sold in the hundreds of millions and revolutionised smartphones, but so what."
Wow, I bet those sales figures comes as great news for the Samsung CFO
This post has been deleted by its author
So your claiming quarterly figures in a cyclical market characterised by substantial volume swings directly connected with product release cycles reflect something useful and can be extrapolated to "100s of millions"? In this specific case immediately after a major product launch by Samsung versus immediately prior to a product launch by Apple. Hmmm ... a journalist on The Register Channel was soundly spanked by the forum posters for a similarly broken analysis.
Sarcasm aside, your claim is also that the "galaxy brand" meaning all Galaxy branded devices has sold over 100s of millions of units. I don't know actually, I am not sure anyone lumps devices in a market group by their name alone, so it would be unsurprising that actual numbers are hard to come by.
Apply for your job on Wall Street now, an analyst position is awaiting you and your profound understanding of markets.
The quarter before that it was 40m, and around 30m the quarter before that. So that's already over 100m. And Samsung have been making smartphones for years.
Yes, the Galaxy brand is arbitrary, as is "Iphone", so it would be better to compare on something concrete, like the sales from each company as a whole. And Samsung's performance is excellent. Sorry, what's your point? It seems like a hit a sore spot when I pointed out that Samsung sell hundreds of millions, I'm not sure what your point is here.
"I am not sure anyone lumps devices in a market group by their name alone,"
The media do it all the time for "Iphone".
"In this specific case immediately after a major product launch by Samsung versus immediately prior to a product launch by Apple."
Q2 figures were April to June. And there's still no sign of the mythical Iphone 5 in Q3 - so "immediately prior" isn't true. This vaporware product has been rumoured for well over a year now. Also the Samsung Galaxy S3 was only released towards the end of Q2. And if Apple's excuse is that a new product release *6 months away* is causing low sales, then that's a problem for them. Samsung have no trouble - their sales hold up all year round. In Q1, just one quarter before their S3 release, they still sold 40 million smartphones - yet your excuse for Apple's 25m is there's a new release two quarters away? And you have the cheek to question my analysis of markets?
Not in order ...
1: Apple is on a yearly release cycle more or less, and have been since they entered the market. Samsung for their Galaxy phone range are, I think on a similar cycle. (I really cannot be arsed looking up all the release dates). YoY comparisons are the only valid metric, sorry. Choose any 4 consecutive quarters that include 1 major release from both manufacturers and limit yourself to devices in the same market. Apple doesn't consider an iPad a competitor to an iPhone. I doubt Samsung consider the Galaxy Tab a competitor to their SIII either, and neither should you.
2: "I don't know actually" is pretty clear. The rest of my statement is true anyway. Your notion that "the press" lumping all iPhones together is the equivalent of lumping galaxy branded devices (galaxy phones, galaxy notes and galaxy tabs - is that all of them?) together is specious. Using this argument one could lump all iPods and variants, iPads, iPhones together in one lump and compare them to all the Samsung Galaxy branded devices combined. I know some enlightened wonder did that to prove some point, but few if any serious analysts have done so.
3: Apple released the 4S. For reasons only they know they decided a "speed bump" was enough. I suspect Apple were waiting for some technology to mature enough to use in a new version, sufficient to warrant the "5" moniker. I don't think Apple are too worried about 4S sales or what rabid fan-boy journalists invent in all the free time they have between Apple product releases.
4: I am in no way voicing "Apple's excuse", seriously, they very definitely do not need one.
5: I was basically calling BS on your 100s of millions comment. "I love my Samsung Galaxy, which has sold in the hundreds of millions and revolutionised smartphones," which I took to mean "hundreds of millions of Galaxy smartphones", you may have intended something else, but it's hard to read it otherwise.
Samsung sell a lot of BADA phones, and Android phones which aren't Galaxy phones, so they don't count. I am willing to be swayed by independent references, but "100s of millions means" >= 200,000,000 Galaxy phones
"There's no reason to focus on Apple"
" I like how you say "rabid Apple fanbois" as if referring to other people, then go into a big speech about the wonders of that one company, even though no one requested it."
The WHOLE ARTICLE is about Apple you ignoramus. That's why my reply focussed on Apple. DUH!
You're the one suggesting Apple are claiming they invented things they've never claimed to invent. And I didn't praise Apple's "re-inventions" at all - I simply said they've redefined what consumers expect. (Again,
referring to Apple specifically - not the other companies who also do it - 'cos the article is about them).
You might want to consider learning to read what people write before replying. It's an useful skill to have, and avoids making you look like an idiot when you quote and reply to things that were not said.
And so is this where the copy claim falls apart?? so if it's licenceable patented tech, then it's a patent infringement NOT a copy? unless your patents wont stand up and you know it, and hence are unwilling to claim infringement. Surely then this licensing evidence does not affect the original claims?
What, precisely, did Apple patent? They appear to be claiming ownership of Processors (every phone has had one for a very long time), Graphical User Interface (I'm not sure there's been a phone that didn't have one, again, for a long time), Graphics (oh, f*** off), Apps (not seen any Symbian phones then?), Touch (no, there were no touch screens before the iPhone... <that was sarcasm in case you missed it>), Music (again, every phone I've owned since the 80's), Video (see Graphics), Gaming (see Apps).
The problem here is that it's in a US court and it's a US company vs a (fairly evil, let's face it) Korean company so it's likely to get a favourable hearing. If this gets through it will make any other phones very difficult to market in the US (since Apple will just wave their "we own computing" judgment and sue competitors off their patch).
I'm not surprised Samsung refused to pay the "licence", I'm surprised they didn't report Apple for racketeering!
No, Apple are not claiming broad ownership of any of the things you list. Your frothing at the mouth seems to be affecting your ability to read and digest.
Apple, just like many other tech companies have patented specific functions, actions and methods WITHIN those broad topics.
Yes, there were TOUCH screen phones before the iPhone, but how many CAPACITIVE MULTI-TOUCH screen phones were there before the iPhone launched in 2007? Zero. And how many now?
Who had the first phone with Wifi? With 3rd party apps? With an operating system? With 3G? With GPS? With maps? With sat-nav? With video calling? With voice recognition? With a web browser? With email? With multitasking? With a touchscreen? With a camera? With a video camera?
I find it interesting that you remember the one thing that Apple did first, and portray it as the be-all-and-end-all of phones. Yet I bet you don't have a clue on who was first with a wide range of features that are standard in phones today, including your beloved Iphone.
(And if you're going to tediously come back and say "But the Iphone popularised those things", please look up the actual sales figures of platforms, before showing yourself up.)
"how many CAPACITIVE MULTI-TOUCH screen phones were there before the iPhone launched in 2007? Zero." In early 2005 one become part of a scanner interface for operating theatres, it also had an optional capacitive Z-mode allowing it to work without actually touching it. Apple "acquired" the technology from the two companies involved and did what they do best and marketed it to the ignorant masses in a shiny package.
There is nothing 'innovative' about capacitive touch sensing. It's been around in various forms for decades. Similarly there is nothing clever about multi-touch. As soon as you have X/Y recognition it is boringly obvious that you can matrix this. FFS I invented a guessing game as a kid that relied on matrixed drawing pins and a buzzer - that was around 1960.
Once the technology was available it was equally obvious to anyone with any technical ability at all that touch screens would become pretty much standard fare. Apple didn't even do it first, they just did it a bit more prettily than some others (although that's a matter of opinion).
Finally, don't get hung up on CAPACITIVE touch, it's actually pretty crap. There is a far better and greatly more reliable method slowly appearing in industrial stuff.
Another person who reads what they want to read, rather than what has been written.
"There is nothing 'innovative' about capacitive touch sensing."
Did anyone here say there is?
"Similarly there is nothing clever about multi-touch."
Where's the person stating otherwise?
" touch screens would become pretty much standard fare. Apple didn't even do it first"
Again, nobody is claiming they did do touch screens first.
"Finally, don't get hung up on CAPACITIVE touch, it's actually pretty crap. There is a far better and greatly more reliable method slowly appearing in industrial stuff."
Nobody here seems to be getting hung up on capacitive touch, except you. However, this now "slowly appearing" better tech in "industrial stuff" is totally irrelevant to the tech available 5 years ago, when capacitive touch was the best, most cost effective solution for the newest mobile phones at the time.
If it stepped up and hit them over the head with a brick.
Samsung were free to make a counter offer and negotiate a price that they could live with rather than drag the case to court. They think that they can get away with the copying that they have done (their own internal documentation says that they've been copying, the jury will decide if its too much) so they chose not to negotiate.
The important question is what Apple would have been prepared to come down to, as $30 per phone is roughly what they are asking for in damages.
Totally back to front.....
Apple dragged Samsung to court, Samsung counter sued because Apple still arn't paying for Samsungs frand patents.
The inportant question is how anyone in their right mind would pay Apple without it going to court over something so rediculous when compared to the asking price......
Then again its what I would expect from a Fanbois biased post.
Apple offered Samsung a licensing deal, Samsung ignored it/wouldn't negotiate so they got sued. We can all agree on that?
Samsung's own internal docs show they were copying the iPhone. The question before the jury is were they copying too closely or not. Apple say they were, Samsung are betting they aren't. If they lose they may have to pay more than Apple's opening offer. What we don't know is the price Apple were prepared to come down to.
> 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.
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.
"... 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"... 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.
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)
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.
"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.
"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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
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.
This post has been deleted by its author
"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 ...
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?
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.
@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.
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.
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."
"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."
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.
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).
This post has been deleted by its author
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? ...
It is rather "ego circumspecto" and "Tu es", since or shorter "es". The verb esse - to be has the following declension:
I person sum sumus
II person es estis
III person est sunt
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!)
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021