Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Seeking $2.5 Billion from Samsung in U.S. Patent and Design Infringement Trial

LordVic said:
Apple has repetively in the past paid for FRAND based licencing agreements to use other companies patents and ideas. Many of the concepts and ideas that we credit apple for "innovating" on by putting in the smartphone, are patents that were nvented or owned by others.

Apple has a long history of patent lawsuits for and against. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._litigation

It's a very long list.

Apple has absolutely no problem with paying for licenses (or buying companies who own those patents). They have done it in the past and continue to do it.

However, Apple refuses to license out their technologies in return.

In this case, Apple is paying Samsung 2.5% of the revenue generated from each iPhone for 3G patents that samsung has. They entered into this agrement with samsung.

1/2 of this claim apple is making is that they believe it's too high, and that instead of renegotiating directly with samsung, they're looking for a court mandate to force samsung to change it to 1.25%.

But on the flip side, instead of trying to negotiate with Samsung a fair and reasonable price for a licence for the 'stolen' use of patents, they're suing and hopeing the courts mandate a few billion dollar settlement, Completely bypassing initial negotiations for Fair and reasonable costs.

I'd be willing to bet that if Apple went ot samsung with open negotiations, Samsung would be likely willing to pay for them. With the ability to use licensed patents, you could develop new technologies and actually innovate instead of spending most of your time avoiding stepping on those same patents.

This "thermonuclear war" which we all like to reference by apple has probably had an even worse affect on innovation and design than if apple willingly opened negotiations for license agreements. R&D when trying to come up with something "new and cool" need to try and sidestep and avoid infringing on so many patents because of fear of lawsuits that it's damn near hard to come up with something new.

And Apples purposeful patent trolling has only made it harder. Apple has put in patent requests for some of the screwiest patents. The sad thing is they're being awarded. Patents for completing tasks that are 'common' are being awarded, Not based on the technology of the task, but just completion of the task.

For Example of a joke Patent: Apple has patented using NFC to check in at Airports. Not the NFC technology. Not the software, Not the checkin booths nor the server and software infrastructure. The CoNcept of "checking in using nfc technology". NFC was designed for doing this. ti's a standard, yet somehow apple now has a patent for this. Any other company who uses NFC trying to use NFC for checkin systems at airports nwo violate apples patent, a patent in which they don't even have an active technology in place to use.

So this is why when Patent and lawsuits come up with Apple, People get angry and frustrated. Apple is now being seen as the biggest barrier to innovation, rather than pioneers of it. They're using the patents to slow down competition instead of trying to be better at it then everyone else.

I love the apple products I do have. They're great device. But apple as a company leaves a sour taste in my mouth
Click to expand...

It's completely possible that Apple is simply trying to reduce their licensing fees with Samsung for various technologies, including 3G. My question or comment is - which I assume is what Apple is arguing - how much is Samsung charging other competitors for the same thing? If it's less, then Samsung is in the wrong, if they are charging Apple the same or even less, then I agree that Apple is arguing for argument's sake (and billions of dollars they don't deserve).

If you think the issue is Apple and what they're patenting, then you have to say it's not Apple's fault, but rather the patent system that is the core of the problem. Samsung was awarded more patents last year than Apple. I'd be willing to bet that a bunch of their patents are also what you would consider to be a joke.

And as far as companies getting patents on things they are not or can't make again has nothing to do with Apple, but everything to do with the patent system. I've told this story before - how my company produces a wood product that no other company in the world can make. A customer (who happens to be a big retail chain known for patenting things) takes our product and gets a patent for an idea that we were pitching its use for. They can't make the product without us and in fact they didn't even give us any credit for the invention (it was in part our suggestion for using the product this way). Now they have the ability to threaten other customers from using this "patented" product that they themselves can't make without using our product and it is hampering our ability to sell others. So then we create a whole new product and one of the companies, another customer of ours, who we used a piece of equipment of theirs (not exclusive to their piece of equipment) to make the product is now applying for a patent on the new product we created. Clearly they are not the creators of the product and they will lose in court as we fight them on this - but that sets up a negative situation as they are our customer first whom we are selling product to - so we have to walk a fine line between telling them to f off for trying to patent our invention and keeping them happy buying our products.
 
jmgregory1 said:
It's completely possible that Apple is simply trying to reduce their licensing fees with Samsung for various technologies, including 3G. My question or comment is - which I assume is what Apple is arguing - how much is Samsung charging other competitors for the same thing? If it's less, then Samsung is in the wrong, if they are charging Apple the same or even less, then I agree that Apple is arguing for argument's sake (and billions of dollars they don't deserve).

If you think the issue is Apple and what they're patenting, then you have to say it's not Apple's fault, but rather the patent system that is the core of the problem. Samsung was awarded more patents last year than Apple. I'd be willing to bet that a bunch of their patents are also what you would consider to be a joke.

And as far as companies getting patents on things they are not or can't make again has nothing to do with Apple, but everything to do with the patent system. I've told this story before - how my company produces a wood product that no other company in the world can make. A customer (who happens to be a big retail chain known for patenting things) takes our product and gets a patent for an idea that we were pitching its use for. They can't make the product without us and in fact they didn't even give us any credit for the invention (it was in part our suggestion for using the product this way). Now they have the ability to threaten other customers from using this "patented" product that they themselves can't make without using our product and it is hampering our ability to sell others. So then we create a whole new product and one of the companies, another customer of ours, who we used a piece of equipment of theirs (not exclusive to their piece of equipment) to make the product is now applying for a patent on the new product we created. Clearly they are not the creators of the product and they will lose in court as we fight them on this - but that sets up a negative situation as they are our customer first whom we are selling product to - so we have to walk a fine line between telling them to f off for trying to patent our invention and keeping them happy buying our products.
Click to expand...
I also agree 100% with all of this :eek:

The system from the patent office, to how companies abuse it,e specially in the states is in need of a serious examination.

It'll never happen. The Companies who are getting these patents will continue to pay and lobby to be able to get these open ended Patents to continue this business.

But then we can start blaming the Government for the whole thing by extension of the patent office, and then start blaming the sheer corrupt nature of the USA political world and lobby groups, and hey, Why not blame it on the constitution :p (i'm purposely making a logical fallacy, don't take it seriously please)

I'm just saying, that yes, the system makes it possible for such patent trolling and for abuse. Doesn't mean that I have to like the companies who participate in it.
 
jmgregory1 said:
It's completely possible that Apple is simply trying to reduce their licensing fees with Samsung for various technologies, including 3G. My question or comment is - which I assume is what Apple is arguing - how much is Samsung charging other competitors for the same thing? If it's less, then Samsung is in the wrong, if they are charging Apple the same or even less, then I agree that Apple is arguing for argument's sake (and billions of dollars they don't deserve).
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what others are charged Frand doesn't mean that, there is no set price. Nokia might get charged nothing as they contribute something Samsung need.
If apple don't contribute then they would pay more
 
TMay said:
Apple's patents are not FRAND encumbered. Apple doesn't have to provide licensing to Samsung.
Click to expand...

That they don't "HAVE" to do it doesn't mean it isn't the smart move (*doh*)

Providing Samsung (and others) with access to those patents (for a reasonable fee) means:

- more $ for Apple
- more choice for costumers
- less bad PR for Apple
- less R&D spent on circumventing lame patents
- (therefor) more R&D to be spent on real innovation
- less $$ for the lawyers (now if that isn't the best part of it all :p )


The only downside is that the chances of this broken patent-system ever getting some sanity is even more reduced.


And don't forget, that soone or later Samsung,Google or else WILL find a patent that Apple really needs and they might not be in the mood for playing nice that time.
 
Well aren't you happy?
Apple is saying that people are blind and or completely idiots,morons etc.
or thats what is trying to make the courts believe :D.

Or else who in his right mind would go to buy a phone or tablet and confuse apple with samsung... seriously?

I like apple products but i feel like throwing up whenever i see such a move from apple , yes the tap etc cost bilions but 3g patents half a cent...... way to go apple.
 
TMay said:
Google not Samsung has the legal fees paid by Oracle. Samsung and Oracle have no lawsuit pending.
Click to expand...

In Oracle vs Google. Oracle lost big time. They got $0 and have to pay Google's legal fees.

Replace Oracle with Apple and Google with Samsung and then I hope the same results happens.
 
slattery69 said:
It doesn't matter what others are charged Frand doesn't mean that, there is no set price. Nokia might get charged nothing as they contribute something Samsung need.
If apple don't contribute then they would pay more
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing - but Apple will make the argument they shouldn't pay any more than anyone else is paying. It's a common thing - years ago when I was selling to Wal-Mart, I had to sign off on an agreement that we wouldn't charge Wal-Mart any more than what we charge any other company. And if we did and Wal-Mart found out, they would charge us back the difference times whatever volume of product they purchased was. Apple is just going for this type of deal.

It's really easy to see why companies get into "creation of patentable technologies" given the payoff can be so staggeringly huge if they create something everyone else has to use - even if they don't "manufacture" the actual product.
 
gnasher729 said:
And where do you get that number from?
Click to expand...

From the article:

While Samsung has been requesting a royalty rate of 2.4% on Apple's sales of 3G devices, Apple argues that the amount should only be one-half cent per unit based on Samsung's small share of essential 3G patents and a belief that the royalty should be calculated on the cost of the baseband processor rather than the entire device.
Click to expand...


----------
jmgregory1 said:
I'm not disagreeing - but Apple will make the argument they shouldn't pay any more than anyone else is paying. It's a common thing
Click to expand...

Others companies don't pay only money
 
You need to look beyond the numbers. This has become personal between
Tim and Choi Gee.

What ever happened in that May 2012 meeting between them started the fuse.
This will never end.

Apple is gonna win this trial people, and they should have asked for $3 Billion.:apple:
 
Bug-Creator said:
That they don't "HAVE" to do it doesn't mean it isn't the smart move (*doh*)

Providing Samsung (and others) with access to those patents (for a reasonable fee) means:

- more $ for Apple
- more choice for costumers
- less bad PR for Apple
- less R&D spent on circumventing lame patents
- (therefor) more R&D to be spent on real innovation
- less $$ for the lawyers (now if that isn't the best part of it all :p )


The only downside is that the chances of this broken patent-system ever getting some sanity is even more reduced.


And don't forget, that soone or later Samsung,Google or else WILL find a patent that Apple really needs and they might not be in the mood for playing nice that time.
Click to expand...

Apple makes a pile of money on its devices: licensing would dilute that...except in the case of another company having some superior tech to offer. Hence why Apple and MS have patent cross licensing agreements.
 
LordVic said:
The sheer fact that it was apple who now holds this patent (on something that shouldnt be patentable IMHO) absolutely terrifies me.

Are we going to start seeing lawsuits against every tech company featuring multi touch displays?

Could you imagine? Why else woudl apple go after htis patent?
Click to expand...

Exactly. And lord know what other patents they are going after "from the archives" to wage their war.
 
cocky jeremy said:
About time that the ripoffs have to pay up for stealing Apple's IP.
Click to expand...

Hum, the "ripoffs" don't have to pay up. This story is about what Apple is asking for, doesn't mean they're going to get it. In Oracle vs Google, Oracle was also asking for Billions. Guess how much they got ? :p
 
Last edited:
lovely

I love how apple created nothing but copying &upgrading from other company stuff to make better stuff and call themselve "the revolutionary."

even what they call "retina" couldn't happen if samsung& LG didn't help them.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
well it is not like Apple's cases have been going that well for them. They have lost and had their patent invalidated left and right.
Click to expand...

That they have. But, they have also stopped the sale of some products as well.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/apple-wins-eu-wide-ban-on-galaxy-tab-7-7-tab-10-1n-not-covered/

They have forced Samsung to make changes to there devices so that they don't infringe either. So, it may not be a big heaping win every time out the gate for Apple. But, they haven't been shut out and lost each time out either.

Now this $2.5 Billion on the other hand. If they win that. Then well. Yeah. That's a big win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back