Guest post by “[…] tonight Apple entered into evidence in its trial with Samsung a document showing that it offered the South Korean company a licensing deal on some of its key technologies. Specifically, Apple offered to license the portfolio of patents if Samsung would pay $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet.” $30-40 per device is a lot of money for some trivial features (rounded corners, slide-to-unlock etc). No wonder Samsung declined.
That is incredibly greedy, considering the ARM licence is only a few cents per device.
Do you really think that Apple thought that this was a good money making opportunity?
Do you think Apple needs to make money from this sort of license?
According to the actual sales figures that the court action forced Samsung to release Samsung sold 37,000 tablets in the USA last quarter. That means if Samsung had paid the $40 dollars per device that Apple asked then they would have paid Apple $1,480,000 last quarter, let’s round that to $1.5 million. For three months worth of US sales.
To put that demand for a license payment of $1.5 million in perspective in the same period that Samsung sold those 37,000 tablets Apple sold 5.7 million iPad in the US for a total revenue of $2.9 billion revenue.
Apple’s license demand is to enforce a deterrence against copying Apple’s designs or using Apple’s patents. Apple is not interested in license income as a revenue making strategy and this legal action is not being pursued by Apple because it see it as a revenue generating strategy.
Apple’s motives fro pursuing this action have always been absolutely clear.
To stop Samsung from copying Apple designs.
Why compare profit to revenue? You surely don’t need to use such dirty tricks to make your point.
It’s always fun to hear the fanboys’ interpretation of Apple’s desires/motives.
But the designs are not Apple’s — the designs did not originate at Apple.
Yes they are, and yes they did.
All of the design elements together form a distinct iconic look. It is uniquely iPhone and they are afforded a legal protection for it.
So no rounded corners on their own are not uniquely Apple, same goes for a grid of icons, or a phone icon or whatever. But put them all together, use the same colors, the same icon arrangemnt, shapes, and colors, and you have an iPhone.
Its akin to someone using the Apple logo, inverting where the bite is, and saying that Apples have prior art in fruit. Its ridiculous.
If they didn’t then why is Apple not being sued the same by those who did create them? Why is Sony not in court to Samsungs defense or Nokia or all these other companies that Apple stole from??
Because that is just opinion. The fact is Apple patented all their stuff, others didn’t. That’s not Apples fault. As they say in rap music “Protect yo neck” or CYA. Apple CYAed their self.
Apple is a company like any other company, out to make money! The thing that bugs me is everyone is acting like Apple is evil any more then Google or MS or Intel or IBM. They all do or have done stuff to protect market share, MS was almost split apart for it.
Just give a little more balance. If you gonna point out Apple, point out Samsungs faults also!
Edited 2012-08-11 17:34 UTC
Windows Sucks baited…
Why? Because clearly this whole thing was never about making money, it was about destroying competition. Steve Jobs made it clear before his death bed that he was willing to take the current patent standoff of MAD and make it hot nuclear war if that was what it would take to destroy the competition. Thanks to a dead man we now have almost every tech corporation engaged in a patent war no one can win but the lawyers.
–bornagainpenguin
? patent stand off? What patent stand off?
If you look Apple has always done this! Come to market first or better if not first then sue those who copy!
Sorry but if the CEO of the company that wasn’t even in the software business at the time you are about to come out one of your most popular products ever, is on your board or directors and all of a sudden they doing the same thing, the same way as you!! There is a problem!
I would sue everyone also.
On top of that MS is doing the same thing, they just got everyone to pay them so they didn’t really have to go to court like Apple.
Probably not surprising Jobs was in such poor health. Getting so agitated over Android can’t have been good for him.
Oh come on, he was in poor health simply because of having one of the nastier cancers.
Are you saying that Samsung did not copy Apple’s products even though we now have internal Samsung documents showing them doing exactly that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9aW1atFLMM
No. Imprecise fanboy reasoning is the culprit here (as it is in almost all issues involving Apple).
As I said, the designs did not originate at Apple. Whether or not Samsung copied the unoriginal Apple design is another issue.
However, the fanboys can’t seem to understand that one issue makes the other moot. If the designs did not originate at Apple, then Apple has no rightful claim to the designs. So, it doesn’t matter whether or not Samsung “copied” Apple, because they are actually emulating prior, non-Apple art.
Now, the issue of Samsung copying Apple is hardly an “open-and-shut” case. Internal Apple documents show that Apple copied Sony, yet fanboys dismiss that.
Furthermore, just because Samsung tried to emulate Apple with one product, it does not mean that they did not already have designs that were identical or very similar to what they sought. Samsung’s own prior art was extremely close, with only very minor differences.
Of course, there is also the issue of obviousness. Everything about the design of Apple’s (and its competitors) touchscreen products is obvious. This obviousness is reinforced by very early prior art in movies, product mock-ups, and old sketches. If the fanboys really believe that it is original to combine rounded corners with icons grids and a shiny, flush black bezel, etc, I suggest that they spend some time actually researching and looking at the vast, vibrant industrial design world that is, and was (and will be) out there, of which Apple is only a mere unremarkable speck. Truly great, inspired designs always appear on a regular basis.
Interesting because that is not what the courts are saying. Apple seems to be slowly racking up wins all over the world!
And again if Apple is such a big thief, then why don’t the companies Apple did all this stealing from sue??
I am confused here why 5 years later Apple has not been sued left and right like Android companies are, since according to you Apple is the thief??
Sorry but the Apple theft idea is not panning out in reality.
The most funny part of it is people will say “Well Android is the bigger target!” interesting because in the mobile market Apple is making more then 50% of the profits. You would think they would be the target since they Apple is making all the money.
What courts are these?
Not really, but only the fanboys and the very naive blindly believe that court rulings are based on truth and actual justice.
Not really. Apple has had major defeats, especially in Europe.
Who claimed that Apple is a thief? Apple is derivative, bland and obvious in almost all of their products, but that doesn’t make Apple is a thief.
Furthermore, Apple HAS been sued — A LOT!
Judging from posts in this forum, Apple fanboys must get most of their exercise from jumping to conclusions, because it is hardly a workout to lean on the Genius bar or to sit and fawn over the simple, banal design of their electronics enclosures.
As you address me personally, I will return the courtesy to you.
It’s not surprising that you are confused.
Do you refer to the Android companies who are getting “sued left and right” by Apple?
Also, it is according to YOU that Apple is a “thief.” To me, Apple is just a highly overrated manufacturer of mediocre, derivative electronics that has a made a lot of design/engineering blunders, but that has nevertheless recently gotten rich off of its retarded user base.
Well, the prior art is historical fact.
Probably should verify that profit statistic, but the truth is that Apple started the huge patent lawsuit war in which we currently find ourselves. All of the counter suits are (of course) defensive.
1. You say Apple started this patent mess, actually Nokia sued Apple in 2009 which was the first main lawsuit over Smartphones, tablets etc.
2. I am not talking about Android companies being sued by Apple, I mean Android companies being sued by EVERYONE. From Nokia to BT to Microsoft to Apple to so many other companies its not even funny! And Microsoft is making more off Android then Windows Phone 7 which goes to show how ripped off it is, everyone running from Microsoft.
3. Yes Apple like ANY company has been sued a lot. But besides Nokia, Apple has not been sued by anyone big! And for sure none of the companies that people claim Apple copied off like SONY.
4. Apples “Defeats” have been on preliminary injunctions not in full out lawsuits. Apple though has won more injunctions and initial determinations then they have lost.
5. And you talking about the retarded user base? So what do you use? Android??? Talk about retarded and stupid. Apple is mediocre and derivative? Please show me an Android company including Google (Especially Google) who is not the same if not worse.
Show me ONE thing Google has done that is original?? Search?? Something AOL, Lycos, Yahoo and Ask.com were doing in the early 90’s really? Thats part of the reason Google has like a handful of patents, they have to license from everyone else because the only thing original they have done is figure out how to monazite search better then anyone. Android?? Which is Linux and bootlegged Java… Really.
How about Samsung who we are seeing from their own documents copied the iPhone point for point. You say Apple was making mockups, please show me where they went through Sony’s products point for point copying even how the shadows from the icons fall. Hahhaaha.
Talk to me, I really want to see who out there is so much more creative then Apple. Apple is not the most creative company on earth but for sure not the least.
6. In the end there will be Apple haters like you everywhere, there are always those who hate #1, its just in your nature. Get over it. One day Apple will not be #1 anymore and you can hate someone else. In the mean time, us retards are having a good time laughing at you Android jokers and your whining.
Uh, no. The full lawsuit in NL – exact same material as in the US right now – Apple was literally obliterated. They lost in the UK too. They lost in Australia (not sure about that one). They eventually lost in Germany, as Samsung made some minor changes and was done.
So No.
Interesting, at last count there were 50 different suits in 10 countries around the world just between Samsung and Apple alone. You name 4 . Hummmmm. And that doesn’t include Moto, HTC and others Apple has sued!
So ummmm YES would be more appropriate.
Uh, no. Only very few cases have reached verdicts, and all of those have been in favour of Samsung (haven’t been following HTC closely). Those outcomes will surely be used by Samsung next week when it mounts its defense.
These kinds of comments exists because somewhere in the back of the commenter’s mind, they think Apple are scouring the forums for devotees who they will lift out of their crappy lives* into some cushy marketing/design position at Apple.
* Proof: defending corporations for “great products” and overall dedication to impulsive consumerism.
Lol. Interesting. Funny cause that same consumerism is what keeps a company like Google alive. Same consumerism that keeps a site like OSAlert running and that makes the Internet viable.
If you didn’t have the billions apon billions of dollars coming in from ads for products that people buy the whole Internet would be dead.
I bet the person who wrote this thinks that some kind of open source, ultra ~A 1/4 ber friendly Kumbaya group of people who love fruit bars and granola, being buddies and saving the world is what keeps this all running. Lol. Please!
Classic cult behaviour – interpret criticism of your views as being the same as automatically supporting the opposition. You miss my point. I wasn’t dissing consumerism. I was making fun of you and every other Apple/Microsoft/Google fanboy whose life goal is about consumerism.
If you like a thing, buy all means buy it. But it’s not a lifestyle. It’s not like if you stop defending Apple (with myopia) that somehow your supply of shiny white rectangles will disappear.
Chill out.
Some say that the internet was better before the whole corporate thing happened. Furthermore, the Internet is not reliant on ads, but on people with phone lines and servers.
You have made the classic mistake of confusing the Internet with Google.
Like it or not, the world does keep running because people do work towards goals that help everyone else. Defending a corporation for making “great products” is just a sad exercise.
Back in the early days, being a nerd or a geek is about technology and progress. Now it’s just about products and marketing and a manufactured, imagined us vs them mentality.
Would it be very naive to blindly believe that those court rulings are based on truth and actual justice?
Because those companies aren’t idiotic to sue for obvious design ideas like rectangular or circular shapes which don’t need anyone to “invent” them. Those companies used them before Apple, yes. But these ideas are older than even those companies.
That’s silly. Sony and Nokia are both going broke. Nokia for one sues so you can’t say that about them.
If they could sue they would sue.
This has been dismissed, because it wasn’t the case.
Of course it was the case. Apple even made a mock-up of the Sony design.
Yes, they did. But they made a lot of prototypes and apparently this one done as a fun side project, but it doesn’t really matter as they didn’t use this design for their released products.
Furthermore the Sony product that apparently was used as inspiration was itself modeled after an Apple product.
But again it doesn’t matter what you design behind closed doors, what matters is what your market and what people pay money for.
Samsung came with something crappy and improved it by trying to make their product look as much like an Apple product as they thought they could get away with. Now it was still crappy, but at least more people bought it.
No, genius, it is all about money. Why doesn’t Apple want samsung to copy it? M-O-N-E-Y. With large cooperations, its always about money.
Perhaps they didn’t really want them to accept it. Instead of making an offer the couldn’t refuse, they did the opposite. .. .. or they were just being greedy.
Probably being greedy.
This is not about greed – greed with Apple comes from exploiting its customers. This is about using the legal system to prevent Samsung from competing. Apple know with competition they wouldn’t be able to keep screwing their customers.
Poor price fixing Samsung is being kept from competing. How about they try to design something which isn’t a blatant ripoff.
You know, I hear a lot about Apple “screwing” its customers. Let me ask you this: If I buy a product that I want that provides me both the software and the features I like to have, how precisely am I getting screwed? Apple is getting my money, I’m getting the product I want. Granted, I do not like everything that Apple does. I don’t like the closed ecosystem of iOS. There are things about every company and/or platform that I don’t like. I dislike the fragmented state of Android for example. The thing is, I knew that going in and had to weigh that in conjunction with other features I require, and I got an iPhone anyway. Explain to me how I’m getting screwed, please, without bringing f/oss ideology into the picture. Please explain to me how I’ve been screwed by Apple when, after weighing in all the factors, I purchased an Apple product that fit my needs better than the other products on the market.
See these headlines from Apple insider
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/07/27/apples_iphone_twice_a…
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/24/apple_may_make_more_p…
Just imagine how much more Apple would have made per unit if they had managed to ban HP from selling PCs on the grounds they had monitors or mice or something.
If Apple had had their way the personal computer, the smart phone would never been for the masses just a small privileged clique and they would have always made 60% or more profit per unit.
Apple make me feel all warm and cuddly about Microsoft and if you buy its products you support probably the nastiest company in the technology sector. If you care about openness, the freedom,to produce software open-source or proprietary, hardware, why you would by anything from this company beats me.
It’s funny, but by saying you weigh in all the factors before buying a product, you’re simply saying you choose whom you will pay to screw you. Apple.
Apple gloats about you being screwed, openly boasting having the highest margins …and, the most perplexing of all: strangely many buyers seem to cherish that.
And then, we might also ponder how much of that satisfaction is about buying into positional goods (or even veblen goods, & http://news-service.stanford.edu/pr/2008/pr-wine-011608.html – overall, not very positive phenomena), or PR in general (where Apple often, well, lies: like the whole “I’m a Mac, I’m a PC” campaign)
Edited 2012-08-19 00:07 UTC
The best thing to do, never ever buy anything from Apple.
Or microsoft or Google or Sony or Nintendo or Redhat or LG or Samsung or Coca cola or Nestle… greedy bastards…that was sarcasm by the way.
Forget justice… fairness, whatever.
The name of the game is an opposite, as everything is reversed. Patents (what they had become) are an excuse.
After all, patents were created to protect inventors.
Not now, as now it is the opposite where brands seem to own inventors, when they are…
Brands do not invent anything… but patent that nothing and steel an inventor that happens to work with them (they own him 24 hours a day? Or his life since he was born?).
If extortion was not the name of the game…
… madness would. A global one!
Should I laugh or cry?
As always Apple is the bad guy. I find it very interesting that there wasn’t a major story on here about how Samsung has been lieing about it’s sales big time! (At least in the US) to the point that actually they may not be the number one smart phone seller that everyone says they are.
Nope not a peep on that! Oh but Apple is greedy. Wow.
Uhm, Samsung doesn’t give out sales numbers. Analysts do.
Oh yeah I forgot they started hiding numbers after they got caught lying about the original GTab numbers. My bad.
Thanks for the reminder.
Oh but then here we see posted stories like this on Osnews:
The Galaxy Note confirms it: people want larger screens
http://www.osnews.com/story/25750/The_Galaxy_Note_confirms_it_peopl…
With little nuggets like this: “Keep that in mind when you read Samsung’s latest little communiqu~A(c): the Korean giant has sold (not shipped, sold) more than 5 million Galaxy Notes. Which has a 5.3″ screen.”
That does not sound like it came from an analyst?? Or am I reading that wrong and it was posted as fact when its not??
Anyway, as shown again Samsung lies about its numbers. interesting its not a bigger topic then any negative (Or spun negative) Apple story.
Ever eager to jump to Samsung’s defence I see.
Do you think Samsung should issue actual sales figures?
The trial has not forced Samsung to release it’s global sales figures but those US sales figures make previous estimates of global sales look like they have been, with Samsung’s encouragement, wildly exaggerated.
Philip Elmer-DeWitt August 10, 2012 FORTUNE —
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/10/apple-sold-5-7-million-table…
Not really. Asymco noted that the figures from the court case amounted to 4% of Samsung’s estimated total sales. The United States population is 4.4% of the world population. Seems pretty plausible to me, especially when you take into account that Apple is popular in the US, but far less so in the rest of the world.
Edited 2012-08-11 16:29 UTC
But not 4.4% of the population willing and able to buy a tablet..you can’t be forreal.
Edited 2012-08-11 16:33 UTC
If you take into account how the scales are tipped in other western countries, it suddenly becomes a whole lot more plausible.
http://www.telecompaper.com/nieuws/samsung-behoudt-koppositie-in-ne…
The Netherlands market share: 10% iPhone, 19.6% Samsung (based on independent research). If the rest of Europe has similar figures, it’s not at all weird.
The world is not just the US, you know. I know Apple fanatics have shifted the goalpasts from world market share to US market share, but considering the US is only 4.4% of the world, it’s really not all that important. China, India, Europe are by far the most lucrative markets, especially over the coming years. being big in just the US is irrelevant in the long run.
My point is that Samsung lies about something simple as numbers of tablets sold (Even after being caught lying) why would I believe anything else that is said by them??
It would be one thing if the numbers were just a little off or you could easily say for example “We sold 100 into the channel but only 80 got sold to consumers.” But in this case the numbers are off by millions.
Boo hoo, Samsung lied about their sales numbers. Terrible, lets hang them. And btw also everybody who likes to put a little nuance into the story … Let’s hang them too.
Disclaimer: i do not know anything about if they lied or if a analist company put those numbers out …
Just you guys trying to hammer down this point make you look so desperate.
Boooo hooooo every Android company from Google down is being sued for something! Everyone else is wrong and Google is the white knight!
Right! Lol!
The fact that Google only gives activation numbers and it’s so called biggest vendor lies about their numbers is mighty funny to me! Pattern of lies and deception.
That looks like desperation to me.
As I said, trying to hammer down a point about sales numbers. That’s really desperate.
What are you talking about? … Do you want to say Android is not that popular?
Yes, that is what I am saying. Googles convient “Activation” numbers are not sales.
When you look at the reality of it the facts I see are:
Sammy lies about their sales numbers and they are the “#1 vendor”
HTC is going bankrupt
Moto isn’t growing much still posting losses
LG isn’t growing much still posting losses
Sony isn’t growing much still posting losses.
So you telling me ZTE and Huawei are selling 100’s of millions of Android devices?? Lol. Really.
Cause when you look at actual useage (Devices online) the numbers are not there like Android fan boys and analysts say.
Profits don’t show it ether. 100’s of millions of Android devices sold and Apple making over 70% of mobile device sale profits?? How is that even close to possible??
Sorry, but you sound a little to much obsessed … have a nice day. … lol.
That tends to happen when the truth starts to settle in, people run for cover. LOL!
Take care.
Based on documents revealed in court and now public Apple sold 5.7 Million iPads in the USA last quarter. We know Apple sold 17 million iPads in total in the same period from their publicly announced quarterly results where they (unlike Samsung) do give total sales figures for the products such as the iPad.
That means Apple sold just over 33% of it’s iPads in the US market last quarter. Samsung sold 37,000 in the same period.
I know Apple has a bigger network of retail Apple stores in the US compared to other parts of the world but I cannot believe that this would skew the tablet market to such an astounding degree such that Apple would sell 33% of it’s tablets in the US but Samsung can only manage to sell 1.5% of it’s total sales.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is utterly implausible. Isn’t the simple explanation the more likely. Samsung global tablet sales are much lower than they have tried to suggest and much lower than analysts estimates.
That would also tally with tablet date from web usage where reports like this:
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/08/01/report-ipad-accounts-for-85-…
which show the iPad at 85% of global tablet web browsing. Note the continental breakdown in this article showing the proportion of iPad to non-iPad tablet use in in the USA is very similar to the breakdown in Europe and and only slightly worse (77% to 79%) in South America, Africa and Asia.
I guess all those sales in Somalia really add up
Why not just accept the obvious, that Samsung exaggerated it’s sales and never actually releases any actual sales figures but should.
Right. I mean if they lied about us sales why would we believe their other numbers?
And yes Samsung (When it’s positive for them) does themselves as shown on OSAlert put out numbers.
Who says Samsung has not intentionally and extensively copied Apple is delusional. Even Google warned Samsung. Their internal documents admit to wanting to be more Apple like.
The issue at hand here is largely trade dress, the look and feel of the Galaxy series is undeniably Apple. A lot of people here like to pick apart single facets of it and say Apple is ridiculous for saying they invented “black rectangles” or a “grid of icons”
However such people miss the forest for the trees. The Galaxy line does an almost wholesale copy of the iPhone. Its appalling that people defend this. Might as well be a Chinatown knock off maker on trial.
Edited 2012-08-11 14:35 UTC
I can’t help but wonder if Apple is making a tactical mistake in emphasizing this rather outrageous licensing deal. It strikes me that, if they get a judge who has some background in the tech industry (although not all that likely considering our court system), this might actually do some damage to their credibility. It’s fairly obvious that this deal was offered precisely so that Samsung wouldn’t accept it. I’m not saying Samsung is the good guy nor am I saying Apple is the bad guy (those labels are too simplistic for this matter) but this bit of evidence could seriously backfire on Apple. If it doesn’t turn out to be a mistake, filing this is at the very least a gamble.
Apple has no obligation to be reasonable or fair in their licensing. They can charge whatever they’d like. Hell, they can flat out refuse to license at all.
They are not bound by FRAND commitments.
Rounded corners? Slide to unlock?
As a ‘style’, these either should be bound by FRAND, or better yet, not patentable.
For example, rounded corners are just a sensible bit of design – sharp corners are uncomfortable and/or dangerous. Having rounded corners is not innovative, and preventing anyone else from having them is unfairly anti-competitive.
Now, if Apple have a particular manufacturing technique, where other means to create rounded corners are available, than that technique is patentable.
But there are an awful lot of patents out there that are not genuinely protecting R&D investment, but are just being used to restrict competition.
Trade dress is not just rounded corners. Its a combination of all their design claims.
Rounded corner, icon shape, design, color. Design of the front. Etc.
Essentially Samsung piggybacked off of an iconic design, to the point where they advertised the Galaxy series with the app drawer opened so it’d look more like an iPhone to consumers. The packaging was similar, the design ethos was essentially the same. Their internal documents show attempted iPhoneification.
Its easy to sit here and say “well rounded corners are ridiculous” but looking at the big picture, it is clear Samsung engaged in egregious copying. You squint your eyes and you can’t even tell the difference.
ipod / iphone / ipad are not iconic designs, they are butt ugly…
The big danger in all this, especially for these whose vision is impaired by Apple hatred, is to not see the wood for trees. If you copy another product’s look and feel and packaging to such an extent that it might be considered illegal then by it’s nature such copying will be made up of lots of small design features which if removed from context and presented in isolation can be made to seem silly or trivial.
But the fact of the matter is that what is at stake is the deliberate cloning of the design of entire products, and when you look at the entire product you can see that Samsung tried to copy Apple’s product design. Their conscious aim to copy Apple’s designs is clearly and explicitly revealed in their internal documents released as part of this court action.
The fact that Samsung set out to copy Apple products is not in dispute anymore. Neither is it disputed that Samsung released several products that looked uncannily like Apple’s products. Nor is it impossible to avoid creating a product that looks like an Apple product because others have done just that.
The only issue here is do you or do you not think it was wrong for Samsung to clone Apple’s products?
uhhh….tablets are tablets. you are almost defacto saying that only apple is allowed to sell tablets. Really stupid. There’s not much you can do with a slab and touchscreen wth connectors. the ONLY THING Apple should be possibly allowed to patent is probably their lame proprietary connection, if there’s anything mechanically revolutionary about the connector that is.
Apple under steve jobs always has been anti competitive. It’s just a shame the lame legal system built around maximizing law firm profits is involved in this.
I guess that these FRAND terms for licence came at a time when everybody played nicer with each other and were more willing to cross licence their patent in equivalent terms.
Apple decided not to play nice with the other major player of the industry, disrupted the market (probably in a good way), and probably raised hell as well concerning the problem of patent ligations.
FRAND is an obligation you submit to by having your intellectual property included in the standard setting process. Apple is not bound by such things.
Yup, if only Apple ever paid FRAND terms for standards they use. Nokia had to take them to court to get royalties, now Samsung has to counter^aEURsue to get *their* FRAND terms. Its pretty clear Apple doesn^aEURTMt follow its obligations.
Apple avoids publishing standards ^aEURTMcept for the minor tweaking of existing standards, and even when they do contribute to things like W3C standards they leave it til candidate recommendation before declaring patents on them^aEUR| arsehats.
Thing is they don’t have to offer a license. To make any kind of offer is above and beyond what they are required to do.
I refuse to believe this.
I refuse to believe Apple forgot to add an extra zero at the end of both numbers.
Interesting how companies will avoid paying $30 dollars for a license yet will happily pay the millions in legal fees in avoiding them…
It probably not to late to retrain as a patent lawyer!!!!
30$ per device that could translate into billions of $ in the case of samsung. Even Microsoft is not that greedy with only a 16$/device licence for long file name over FAT.
Plus it applied on windows mobile based phone (I guess that it could not be applied to other OS in these terms) and applied a discount of 20% if samsung cross licence some of its patent ( which I guess that samsung though that they were worthing more than 6-8$ per device ).
Apple only went after WP7 as an inclusive means of leverage, and it discounted them all the way to $6 a device.
Would Samsung offer purely WP7 devices, Apple wouldn’t have the gall to demand such a thing, especially not with the cross licensing agreements Samsung and Microsoft entered.
Adurbe pondered…
Maybe you should just practice your math a bit first and see how many millions it comes out to when you factor in $30 dollars per phone and $40 per tablet? Then subtract the estimated numbers from people who would chose not to buy the devices at the newly inflated prices…
I imagine the numbers would be interesting.
–bornagainpenguin
feel free to assist me… what are the numbers?
I’m glad I don’t have an opinion either way. I’d hate to be labeled a “fanboy” for either company. Some people just won’t let you agree or disagree with something without screaming “fanboy!”, really it’s pathetic.
the whole design-crap around the iphone (media-device, brick with rounded corners, extremely minimalistic design) allways reminded me of an old walkman i had back in the late 90s
and today i finaly didn’t forget to dig it up again:
aiwa PX557
great device that helped me through some boring hours in school
Samsung should kick Apple hard for this.
So…Apple approached Samsung with an outrageous offer that had the implication that there will be trouble if they don’t accept.
Am I the only one getting flashbacks to The Godfather?
Apple lost this case. They went after MS in the 80s for the same type of crap and they lost. I don’t know how we got here from there, but I am entirely sick of it.
This is so boring it makes me want to shoot myself.
Can we just have an Snapple free week this week, please? (if you don’t know what Snapple is, cf the Verge Cast, hint – not a drink.)
That’s a bit hypocritical coming from someone who submitted a grand total of five (5) stories on this very subject over the past few days, don’t you think?
Edited 2012-08-12 16:06 UTC
He’s trying to kill you by overdose, no doubt.
That was before it became clear that was futile.
So, it’s not the amount of posts you dislike, it’s the fact they do not fit in your world view.
Good to have that cleared up
.
No, it’s that no matter what, you can only see a single tainted viewpoint. You, not me. Please don’t project your inadequacies on to me. No ones perfect and text is an imperfect medium to express nuances of meaning. My biggest issue is trying to sound neutral in a way where you don’t jump to the incorrect conclusion that I lean in one direction. But you certainly don’t have that defence now, do you Thom?
“+1 insightful”
He now whining about the amount of posts about this subject seems indeed hypocritical; which is the opposite of integrity
About integrity he said: you did have a lack of.
“Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one’s actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy, in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs.” -wikipedia
The problem here is this : feed Thom stories with reporting that support his argument and he gushes about how large his ego is, feed stories that oppose his straw man arguments, he uses them as opinion pieces to push forward his slanted agenda. Feed Thom stores that prove issues with his position because the actual premis can be proven flawed, he questions translations and accuracy. Well, he can’t have it both ways. Either all evidence from the trial is infallible and accurate, or it is flawed and purposefully slanted on both sides. Realty tells us the latter is true for both parties.
This is my current position : the court will decide the case. Thom can shit gold bricks and it won’t make any difference. But if all he is going to do is talk about how right Samsung is and how wrong Apple is – well we’ve done that to death, and it’s boring beyond belief.. Moreover, every fcuker here has an opinion one way or another – is there anything really worthwhile left to discuss? Is anyone gaining any real insight? Is anyone’s opinion being swayed? All I see is the usual suspects come out on every story. One side hates Apple, one side hates Samsung. Some drifters float to either side, and some radicals sit on the fence in the middle. Same arguments. Same penis waving. Same ill informed opinions on both sides. Tired, boring, shoot me.
The most repeated arguments, penis waving, ill informed opinions, and generally boring comments are those that whine on and on about a lack of variety and the presence of bias in content from people who merely consume and don’t produce.
You’re not forced to read the articles on the lawsuits. You can also write your own.
How many articles have you submitted to OS News? Zero. How many have I? 5. Funny you should complain about my complaint then. No I haven’t submitted an original article, because I don’t have a compelling topic to write about.
Fuck you Apple
I cant help but notice how in that offer, apple also wants to get paid for devices that they admit are not thing like their devices – and they get a cross license of Samsungs patents in return.
In fact, only 20% of the proposed fee was for “proprietary” (by which I assume apple patented) features.
Edited 2012-08-13 18:27 UTC