Judge to Apple: You WILL tell Samsung what you got from HTC A US judge has told Apple it had better cough up its whole unredacted licensing agreement with HTC in the fruity firm's case against Samsung, a move that could help the Korean company fight a potential sales ban in the country. Apple had said that it would give Samsung's lawyers access to the document, but it would be blacking …
It is a bit odd: Samsung's *lawyers* (who are apparently from an outside firm, not Samsung employees) will get to see the figures, but not show them to their client. If they can't show the figures to the client, how can they use the information for anything?
If HTC are paying as much as Apple claim Samsung should, it might fatally weaken the case - at which point, the lawyers will say "sorry Samsung, we lost because of stuff we're not allowed to explain"? If it's much less, they say "well, Samsung, we've got a really strong case for knocking the price down from $1bn to a number we're not allowed to tell you"? Later, "great news! Instead of $1bn, you just have to pay them a secret amount of money you'll never know! Just give us a blank cheque and we'll fill in the secret amount for you later..."
The whole system needs an overhaul, but in the current context I suppose how much HTC paid for the patents is very relevant to the legal question of how much Samsung should pay for them - letting Samsung's lawyer see them, but not Samsung themselves, is a bit odd but probably the best they can do.
It's about the sales injunction, not the level of payment. Apple want to keep an injunction that stops Samsung selling products. They claim that the patents are for stuff that Samsung shouldn't be allowed to do irrespective of what they pay Apple. If Apple allow HTC to pay to use those patents but not Samsung then it's relevant to the injunction as it exposes the lie in Apple's claim that they're not prepared to license those patents. I think....
This is why you could never be a lawyer.
Samsung's lawyers will defend their client in court by simply making a reference to what they - and the judge - saw in those documents in order to counter act Apple's claims, without the need to mention any specific details (the judge and Apple already know what is all about). You didn't think of that, did you ?
Funny, you could say the same about Google, Microsoft or any big company.
They all dodge tax, lobby hard for law changes that act against the rights of voters and they would all love a monopoly.
If Apple's tech is so shit then why is their tablet's screen resolution class leading? why are ultrabooks made with much more inferior screen resolution?
Whilst you a correct that the technology, screen or otherwise is manufactured by other companies, its the design expertise that makes it happen. Whether that is simply throwing money at said companies to make it work or Apple supplying their own staff, or designing in house, its still Apple getting the technology to market.
I don't think we would have the very high res screens we all enjoy in our mobile/tablet devices today if Apple hadn't pushed that approach forward.
"Whilst you a correct that the technology, screen or otherwise is manufactured by other companies, its the design expertise that makes it happen. Whether that is simply throwing money at said companies to make it work or Apple supplying their own staff, or designing in house, its still Apple getting the technology to market.
I don't think we would have the very high res screens we all enjoy in our mobile/tablet devices today if Apple hadn't pushed that approach forward."
Right, because its really difficult to design a square/rectangular slab that takes a similar shaped screen? Or is it that it is difficult to pixel double so that the image fills the screen?
Perhaps it is more to do with the fact that hardware tech is moving forward at a blistering pace, and Apple are usually early adopters. "Retina" class or high dpi screens are a natural evolution - my first computer had a display resolution of 320x200 and could display 128 colours. My current PC has a resolution of 1920x1080 and millions of colours. My first mobile had a low resolution monochrome screen - My current mobile has a WVGA Super Amoled screen and each generation in between has been better than the one preceding it.
Don't be so gullible in thinking the sun shines out of Apples backside - most of the "new" tech they have introduced has been acquired from other companies.
Because it's made by Samsung...
Neither the ipad or ipad mini are highest resolution. And anything above full hd seems pointless anyway - do you have the gpu power to drive complex AAA pc games at that resolution? How many full hd movies - let alone higher res - can you fit on that 16gb ipad anyway? That's why ultrabooks have lower res, because no one wants it, and it's a pointless marketing point.
Apple are doomed!
Really, we've been reading about that since the 1990s, or was it the 1980s?
If you can't make rational, reasoned, comments please don't add to the noise.
There are a number of possible outcomes to this. It's quite possible that the patents involved in the HTC case are not the same ones as the Samsung ones. If this is the case then the deal with HTC is not at all relevant to the case.
If they are the trade dress patents then those are up to Apple to decide whether the license them at all. Apple hold the patent, they aren't FRAND patents whereby there is an obligation to license at a fair and reasonable price, so can decide whether to license or not and at what rate.
HTC have made a number of patents available to Apple as part of the deal. It could be that each of these cross-licensing deals is subject to a large cost but that the costs, pretty much, cancel each other out. In which case its quite possible that as far as Samsung is concerned, without a similar non-FRAND patent portfolio to negotiate with, they will be worse off for seeing the agreement.
Rather than view the fanboi/samboi speculation and invective I'd rather like to see how this plays out.
I think Apple are doomed by fashion to be honest, over exposure makes it the norm and therefore you dont stand out any more if you own one.
Few highlights from discussions in the lift and meeting prewarmers;
Samsung -> looks really cool I'll get one of those next.
Samsung -> flip around screen protector thats a really clever idea. Though shame it doesnt have a space for the camera when its opened.
Samsung next to an iphone the other day, the iphone suddenly looked really dated.
BTW I dont own either, I have a nokia 6021 so dont care either way. But its certainly true the iphone has lost its street cred.
That may be true, but, if Apple are claiming that, by infringing its patents, Samsung cost them $x per unit sold, they have to justify that value. If the HTC deal shows that Apple consider the value of those patents to be a fraction of the value in the lawsuit against Samsung, they will be shown to be lying to the court over the true impact of Samsungs alleged infringement.
The point is that if they are willing to licence their patents to HTC they can't claim that importing Sansumg goods in to the USA would cause them irreparable harm, as Sansumg can always pay them later, even if it is several times what HTC pays.
And if there no irreparable harm then there is no reason for an importing ban.
Because fanboys act like the demented followers of a satanic cult and up close can be really scary when they go into full rant mode, frothing at the mouth occasionally.
Don't believe me? Go into any Apple store and just say 'Macs are overpriced crap'. 2 seconds later they are building the fire for the sacrifice to St Jobs
This post has been deleted by its author
"hexx
don't get the headline here, apple doesn't really need to care, it's HTC he didn't like the idea of sharing this stuff with samsung, not apple"
Apple have said they want Samsung's alleged infringing products banned from the USA as Apple will not licence the technology at any price. By being forced to show what technology they have licensed or exchanged with HTC and at what price is therefore potentially relevant.
The fact that neither Apple or HTC want anyone to know suggests that it may well be relevant.
The judge has seen what technologies are involved and has instructed Apple to give the figures. So they MUST be relevant.
> So they MUST be relevant.
No, they *may* be relevant.
The Judge has already said he's not asure about what Samsung are doing here, but he's being scrupulously fair; the rules of discovery permit Samsung's lawyers to know the content of this deal, and he's damn well going to let them know, even if he doesn't think it will help.
Maybe he's right, maybe he's wrong. None of us know, because we haven't seen the HTC agreement. If it does contain what Samsung thinks it does, it will scupper Apple's "irreparable harm" claim. But it might not contain any such thing.
Vic.
If you as a company design some new fan dabby dozzy hardware then you take it to who will pay the most for it and in the case of the retina screens it was Apple it could well have been HTC or Samsung had they paid more dosh.So as they say the shoe may have been on the other foot by now but as it is its not.
Apple to their credit are good at doing a Lord Alan Sugar technique of bringing several low cost items together and selling them at a premium.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
