Refusing to cross-license does not give the essential patent holder the right to deny a license or that the cross-license had to do with paying a lower price. They could still be overcharging Apple even without the cross license compared with other competitors.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Samsung Negotiating Agreement to Settle Patent Disputes Out of Court
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Refusing to cross-license does not give the essential patent holder the right to deny a license or that the cross-license had to do with paying a lower price. They could still be overcharging Apple even without the cross license compared with other competitors.
Not gonna lie, this ending kinda bothers me.
I think most would agree that Samsung has made 10's of billions in profits already because of things they stole from Apple. They also have the potential to make hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, in future profits because of this theft. The timing of the theft was at such a critical time in the maturity of the market that the value here is truly massive. Samsung successfully connived their way into a leadership position.
I know many of you will think this is utterly ridiculous but I don't think a ruling in the realm of 20+ billion in damages would have been out of line here. In fact, it may have still been worth it for Samsung to willfully infringe even paying that much.
The most amazing thing to me is that Android fans will defend this when it's hurt the other Android vendors even more than its hurt Apple. Samsungs tactics have basically killed companies like HTC, Motorola, and LG. They have killed the variety and choice that is the greatest strength of Android. Weird that people who "hate the iPhone" are unanimously choosing Samsung (the closest thing to iOS that Android has to offer).
Now don't get me wrong. I think at this point Samsung has, to some extent, been able to differentiate itself. That being said, the stealing at such a crucial time, the marketshare gained at such a crucial time, and more importantly the mindshare gained at such a crucial time, has created value well beyond anything they had to pay in court. Basically Samsungs immoral strategy worked and it kinda bums me out.
I think most would agree that Samsung has made 10's of billions in profits already because of things they stole from Apple. They also have the potential to make hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, in future profits because of this theft. The timing of the theft was at such a critical time in the maturity of the market that the value here is truly massive. Samsung successfully connived their way into a leadership position.
I know many of you will think this is utterly ridiculous but I don't think a ruling in the realm of 20+ billion in damages would have been out of line here. In fact, it may have still been worth it for Samsung to willfully infringe even paying that much.
The most amazing thing to me is that Android fans will defend this when it's hurt the other Android vendors even more than its hurt Apple. Samsungs tactics have basically killed companies like HTC, Motorola, and LG. They have killed the variety and choice that is the greatest strength of Android. Weird that people who "hate the iPhone" are unanimously choosing Samsung (the closest thing to iOS that Android has to offer).
Now don't get me wrong. I think at this point Samsung has, to some extent, been able to differentiate itself. That being said, the stealing at such a crucial time, the marketshare gained at such a crucial time, and more importantly the mindshare gained at such a crucial time, has created value well beyond anything they had to pay in court. Basically Samsungs immoral strategy worked and it kinda bums me out.
You don't think if Apple asked for a fair price Samsung would try to get the price lowered way below that? Thats how bargaining works. Start high, then it gets negotiated to the price you are expecting.
because just as the article said, SAM does not want to be labelled by a thief. Them paying apple will generate huge negative publicity which will far outstrip any positive spin their paid minions in countless forums will put
A sad day for lawyers everywhere....
Not really. The same groups of lawyers are doing the negotiating.
because just as the article said, SAM does not want to be labelled by a thief. Them paying apple will generate huge negative publicity which will far outstrip any positive spin their paid minions in countless forums will put
And why wait until 2014 when the big trial ended on 2012 and there are no more trials.
And why when they have not lost anything outside USA?
----------
Perhaps many think that because is ridiculous
because just as the article said, SAM does not want to be labelled by a thief. Them paying apple will generate huge negative publicity which will far outstrip any positive spin their paid minions in countless forums will put
There is no such thing as bad publicity. Certainly not in a case like this, where 99,9 % of the population couldn't care less and probably has never even heard of such patent litigation.
A sad day for lawyers everywhere....
A sad day for MacRumors [ad revenue] too. Good day for the rest of the world.
apple deal with so many lawsuits the lawyers are just paid to do their jobs. Samsung and apple should just settle up because they only have so many people and many more lawsuits to get through.
It's just a waste of money but it's better to pay it back to someone and keep it in the system than lock it up in some tax avoidance scheme like every single company on the planet.
It's just a waste of money but it's better to pay it back to someone and keep it in the system than lock it up in some tax avoidance scheme like every single company on the planet.
Interestingly, the ETSI FRAND rules appear to allow requiring a cross license.
We do know from history books, that in the early days of cell phones, Motorola refused to take any cash and would only allow full cross-licensing as payment.
Perhaps, but as the ITC noted, just claiming it's too high, is not enough:
Yes, exactly. Start high, negotiate lower. This obviousness is something that... along with the legitimacy and common use of cross licensing offers (to lower the rates)... had to be pointed out to Apple by the ITC:
Last edited:
Apple to Samsung:
Hey Samsung, Google is our friend now. Want to talk anti-cloning?
----------
Samsung: Anti-cloning? Sure.
----------
Apple: This and that and this is cloning.
----------
Samsung: No it isn't.
----------
Apple: Yes it is.
----------
Samsung: That's benchmarking.
----------
Apple: No it isn't.
----------
Samsung: Yes it is!
----------
Apple: Benchmarking is the process of comparing one's business processes and performance metrics to industry bests or best practices from other industries.
----------
Samsung: Doesn't have to be.
----------
Apple: Yes it does!
----------
Samsung: No it doesn't. Benchmarking can be just doing what someone else is doing.
----------
Apple: No it can't!
----------
Samsung: Yes it can!
----------
Apple: Oh, this is futile!
----------
Samsung: No it isn't.
----------
Apple: I've had enough of this!!
----------
Samsung: No you haven't.
Hey Samsung, Google is our friend now. Want to talk anti-cloning?
----------
Samsung: Anti-cloning? Sure.
----------
Apple: This and that and this is cloning.
----------
Samsung: No it isn't.
----------
Apple: Yes it is.
----------
Samsung: That's benchmarking.
----------
Apple: No it isn't.
----------
Samsung: Yes it is!
----------
Apple: Benchmarking is the process of comparing one's business processes and performance metrics to industry bests or best practices from other industries.
----------
Samsung: Doesn't have to be.
----------
Apple: Yes it does!
----------
Samsung: No it doesn't. Benchmarking can be just doing what someone else is doing.
----------
Apple: No it can't!
----------
Samsung: Yes it can!
----------
Apple: Oh, this is futile!
----------
Samsung: No it isn't.
----------
Apple: I've had enough of this!!
----------
Samsung: No you haven't.
Here is my issue with this, why does it bother you so much? You're not losing money over this
Maybe essential standard patents perhaps. But even if that was so, was it cross licensing Apples essential patents or was it patents that protected Apples intellectual property only?
As far as I can tell, I don't know of any essential patents that Apple holds in the phone industry as they did not get into it until 2007.
Here is some more info regarding something simular:
http://www.ipeg.com/european-commission-renews-investigation-on-essential-patents-licensing/
Now it would make sense if both companies had essential patents that both wanted, and then made a deal.
Last edited:
The juxtaposition of your comment and the one above it (kdarling) is a perfect example of "old" MR and "new" MR.
because just as the article said, SAM does not want to be labelled by a thief. Them paying apple will generate huge negative publicity which will far outstrip any positive spin their paid minions in countless forums will put
The irony being that Apple has actually received more "damage" during the trials than Samsung. Meanwhile Samsung sales are doing quite well despite any "negative" publicity.
Truth is - most people outside of forums/tech world don't even care.
Before the iPhone, tehre were devices like the Nokia n770 (out in 2005, 2 years before the iPhone) that had a full screen on the front (with some buttons) and an on screen keyboard, web browser, email, etc. The only thing missing was a cellular radio but that was added to the Nokia n900. Don't even try to say that the iPhone was the first hand held device with a large screen on the front.
What Apple did was create great marketing and a slick UI that was fun to use and illustrated what the technology, going forward, could do. However, I think some people also forget that AT LAUNCH, the iPhone was rather "crippled" (IE - many true (then) smartphone traits were missing) and that the iPhone was not selling like hotcakes for quite some time.
What a shallow response...
It bothers me because I like to believe that the world is a good place. That people want to do the right thing. It bothers me because I'm a generally optimistic person and this goes against my worldview... cognitive dissonance?
Things that don't personally affect me still bother me because I'm a compassionate person who cares about people other than myself. You're the person in that movie "The Box" who presses the button and gets a million dollars even though someone dies. I mean who cares who's affected as long as you aren't "losing any money."
Well that explains absolutely nothing at all. If you're going to make an argument then make one.
Subjective. They sold a million in less than a week. What other phone was doing that around that time?
700k
eta: Monday morning, a little more than two months after the much-lusted-after gadget went on sale, Apple said in a brief press release that it had sold its 1 millionth iPhone.
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-1-million-iphones-sold/
Just how many hands the iPhone actually is in at this point is a little unclear, Apple's ballyhooing of 1 million sold notwithstanding. If Apple sold 270,000 or so in the waning hours of June, as it claimed, and then 220,000 in July, as market research iSuppli reported last week, that's 490,000 units. Which means the company would have needed a sales surge of more than a half-million iPhones in the six weeks or so since August 1.
Why?
It was massively beneficial for Samsung to steal. What if the penalty for stealing thousand dollar rolex's was 10 cents? Part of the point of punishment is to discourage the bad behavior.
For example I know a couple that was dealing insane amounts of weed. They were flying to Colorado and bringing it back to Florida. They were making over 200K a year working 2 days a week. The problem is they got busted, went to jail for several years, and every literally every dime they made got taken.
Now if I ask them if they'll ever do it again they both say no. Why? Because the crime wasn't worth the punishment.
The point I'm making is that the value that Samsung created by stealing was way more than any punishment they were going to get. As a result of this they basically said "f it, who cares." And like I said I think that even 20B may have still been too low. They may have still not worried about it because the value created may have still been well worth the penalty. A fair system can't function that way.