More from the Apple (AAPL)-Samsung (SSNLF.PK) fight: Considering that Samsung was a supplier,...


More from the Apple (AAPL)-Samsung (SSNLF.PK) fight: Considering that Samsung was a supplier, Apple had offered to license its patents for $30/smartphone and $40/tablet, according to a presentation that AllThingsD is publishing. The (clearly unsuccessful) 2010 talks might have headed off today's jury trial. But Apple subsequently took a more hard-line stance: in July, the company was reported to be asking Samsung for $31.14/unit in royalties for its design IP and just 3 software patents, along with $2.5B in damages.

From other sites
Comments (34)
  • edemikat
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    This could probably provide more future revenue than the $2.5B it was seeking from Samsung in the jury trail
    10 Aug 2012, 10:45 PM Reply Like
  • gensearch2
    , contributor
    Comments (1556) | Send Message
     
    Or Samsung could decide to not pay the unit royalties and steal someone else's IP.
    11 Aug 2012, 07:09 AM Reply Like
  • edemikat
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    This may provide more long term revenue than the $2.5B if was seeking from Samsung in the jury trail.
    10 Aug 2012, 10:46 PM Reply Like
  • montblanc2000
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    You're right, but Apple isn't after money. These are aggressive defensive tactics. While legal, they are an example of a dominant market player attempting to suppress competition. I think it will come back to bite Apple in the proverbial arse. Antitrust regulators have been extremely lax with Apple thus far, and bullying behavior might bring about increased scrutiny. (I am not saying that either Apple or Samsung are right regarding their respective claims of patent infringement, just commenting on the situation)
    10 Aug 2012, 11:00 PM Reply Like
  • ebeuu
    , contributor
    Comments (382) | Send Message
     
    I tend to agree with your statement; at some point its a risk decision and those are not usually the strong suits of executive leadership people. The poker players in the executive suite better be correct.
    11 Aug 2012, 01:54 AM Reply Like
  • gensearch2
    , contributor
    Comments (1556) | Send Message
     
    Regulators aren't gong to go after Apple because they aren't anywhere close to a monopoly on any product including the iPad. MSFT had 95%+ of the OS market. That's a monopoly.

     

    The regulators aren't/can't go after Apple for protecting their own IP. Where they could come down on Apple is for their restrictions like having Safari the mandatory default browser.

     

    I can't think of a single instance where regulators came down on any company for monopolizing their IP. That's what patents are; a legal monopoly.
    11 Aug 2012, 07:06 AM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (34809) | Send Message
     
    It makes no sense to think they'll be able to patent rectangular smartphones. Companies were making rectangular smartphones and phones for years before Apple put out the iPhone. Same for touchscreens, phones having CPUs, etc.

     

    The only part of Apple's claims which sound realistic, are those on concrete UI elements, and then that's only true for the elements where Samsung can't show existed before the iPhone came out.
    11 Aug 2012, 07:14 AM Reply Like
  • montblanc2000
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    You misunderstood me. Please re-read my comment carefully. I suggested that bullying behavior is going to draw the attention of regulators. I did not say or suggest that protecting their IP was illegal, though the judge in the Motorola case seemed to think their claim verged on frivolousness.
    11 Aug 2012, 08:28 AM Reply Like
  • raincity
    , contributor
    Comments (236) | Send Message
     
    Apple's argument is over much more than the rectangle shape of the phone. Samsung is using the rectangle shape argument as their proof they didn't infringe because they have no other argument. Apple is suing Samsung because they infringed on the look and feel of the phone, the UI elements, the packaging, the way the UI responses to user touch. They made a fortune on the coattails of Apple and it's time they're called out on it.
    11 Aug 2012, 12:32 PM Reply Like
  • gensearch2
    , contributor
    Comments (1556) | Send Message
     
    Patenting "rectangular smartphones" is an oversimplification and misrepresentation of the case....

     

    "As the second week of the Apple-Samsung patent trial kicked off, Apple brought an expert witness to the stand whose testimony bolstered Apple's case. Associate University of Pennsylvania professor Peter Bressler, called by Apple to the stand as an expert witness on design, testified that the Samsung Galaxy S handset infringed on a pair of Apple's design patents. Bressler, who owns his own design firm, said that Samsung's device shared a rectangular front with the Apple iPhone along with other design features such as its transparency, black color, a display centered on the face of the phone, and a lozenge-shaped slot for the speaker.

     

    The expert witness also ripped apart Samsung's claim that a prior patent for the design proved Prior Art. Bressler said that there were too many differences between the two patents for Samsung to make that claim. Bressler had more than a dozen different variations of the Samsung Galaxy S in front of him and told the jury that all of them infringed on the design patents held by Apple covering the design for the face of the iPhone. Bressler also testified that the Samsung GALAXY Note and the Samsung GALAXY Tab both infringed on design patents for the Apple iPad and said the biggest difference between the three devices is the color used on the back of each model.

     

    On cross-examinaton, Samsung tried to show the differences between its products and Apple's including a raised bezel seen on some Samsung models, and the difference in the radius of Samsung phone's rounded corners compared with the devices produced by the Cupertino based tech giant. During cross, Samsung attorneys showed Bressler old design patents and had him go through the similarities to Apple's design patents. All of the models are rectangular with big screens and some have lozenge shaped earpieces. All of the models have similarly sized borders. The goal is to show the jury that there were older patents that covered the same design as the Apple iPhone.

     

    The witness ended up telling the jury that Samsung's analysis is incorrect as he held to his premise that consumers get the same impressions looking at Apple's products and the devices from the Samsung Galaxy line. Next up will be former Apple designer Susan Kare, famous for designing the "Happy Mac" logo. Ms. Kare is expected to testify that the UI on the Apple iPhone is a unique solution to the problem of building a smartphone UI and that Samsung copied it for their own phones.

     

    http://bit.ly/NvQtIw
    12 Aug 2012, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (34809) | Send Message
     
    Rectangular, transparency, black color, centered display, lozenge speaker. eheh
    12 Aug 2012, 10:06 AM Reply Like
  • Dreamer5794
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    What then is the purpose of a patent?
    I thought that it was to give the innovator a period where they can profit from all the time, money and energy spent on innovating.
    I for one will refuse to ever buy a Samsung phone as long as it looks and acts like an iPhone.

     

    If every company behaved like Samsung, an innovators are not rewarded, where will future innovation come from?

     

    It is clearly more profitable to let the 'other guy' spend all the money on research and development and then just rip of his inventions. Makes better business sense, but is not better for the greater good of society.

     

    If Samsung comes up with something unique and better, great for them, but if they persist in copying then I won't be supporting them.
    12 Aug 2012, 05:34 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (34809) | Send Message
     
    Well, a patent isn't for claiming rectangular form, black, centered whatever are yours for a few years regarding some kind of product.
    12 Aug 2012, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • gensearch2
    , contributor
    Comments (1556) | Send Message
     
    Paul,

     

    The patents were issued. Why is that a difficult concept for you to understand?

     

    This trial is not evaluating the validity of the patents. It is going to rule on whether Samsung violated those patents.
    13 Aug 2012, 09:28 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (16361) | Send Message
     
    Latest market figures show 68% share for Android and 17% for Apple. This speaks volumes about who is selling more phones these days. Then, you add cutting out Google Maps and, now, YouTube, fighting defensive patent battles and launching what is rumored to be a way-too-small, 4"-screen iPhone5, and this looks like a company becoming less sure of its direction and ability to influence customers. To me, the absence of Steve Jobs' certainty, execution and aggressiveness is almost palpable.
    11 Aug 2012, 12:24 AM Reply Like
  • idkmybffjill
    , contributor
    Comments (1911) | Send Message
     
    Jobs was the one who was "willing to go to thermonuclear war" with Google. Maps getting removed was inevitable
    11 Aug 2012, 01:17 AM Reply Like
  • idkmybffjill
    , contributor
    Comments (1911) | Send Message
     
    You forget that's phones. iPad takes 68% of tablet market, and I don't see that changing anytime soon
    11 Aug 2012, 01:21 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (5199) | Send Message
     
    Correct. Jobs could care less about the financial windfall
    11 Aug 2012, 01:41 AM Reply Like
  • 153972
    , contributor
    Comments (1266) | Send Message
     
    Samsung will appeal. This will take years to settle. This is a classic reason why corporate taxes ought to be raised. The litigious American is in reality the corporation.
    11 Aug 2012, 12:55 AM Reply Like
  • consultnick
    , contributor
    Comments (377) | Send Message
     
    Many of these comments are not germane, and do not reflect well on their authors--did anybody actually scrutinize the referenced presentation? Its almost as if they are addressing some other topic.

     

    Clearly Apple laid out a pathway for a rationally-based agreement whereby both could be in the marketplace with contemporary offerings, and of course Apple wanted to be compensated for its intellectual property and 25 year history of innovation! Samsung is an opportunistic supplier that got behind the curtain just enough to slavishly copy successful design, and in rather typical Korean fashion, just toughed it out until drug into court--stonewalling all the way.

     

    Well, it got harder and harder for them--and now its getting really hard! What else was Apple to do? This presentation is evidence of forthright dealings and goes straight to the issues of credibility--whereas Samsung has destroyed thousands of emails directly subpoenaed! By now, Samsung should be toast, from a juror's point of view.

     

    And of course they will appeal--but does this make America a bad place? On the contrary--our Rule of Law is the foundation of everything else--including this very website, which could not exist in China today, for example! And Samsung is here on American soil--battling an American corporation--in open and transparent court. You should be proud--not dismayed, and if it is expensive, the corporations will battle each other over who will foot the bill. That's what court costs, awards, and damages are all about.

     

    Apple is not about trying to suppress market competition--it's about an unsurpassed user experience, and whatever creativity it takes to make that happen--and not putting up forever with getting ripped off. Its a little bit like a farmer going out to his field of expensive hybrid crops, only to discover that his neighbor has harvested them--and is selling them as his own!

     

    However, as an Apple investor, long-term, I remain perplexed, and simply cannot understand why Apple has not taken the initiative to fabricate their own components, especially in view of having $117 billion in the bank! They must have their reasons--but I'll bet they are thinking real hard about it these days!
    11 Aug 2012, 01:51 AM Reply Like
  • Gil G
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    I agree with all but your last paragraph. If Apple were to fabricate their own components they would be a manufacturing entity instead of a creative/design company. The investment in what would inevitably become obsolete manufacturing machinery would influence future decision making; "legacy" hardware investment would depress Apple executives eagerness to create new and disruptive technology, changing the very DNA of the company.
    11 Aug 2012, 06:37 AM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (34809) | Send Message
     
    Samsung is Korean, and besides, "design IP" probably won't fly except with stupid jurors. It's like patenting the shape of an automobile and it having 4 wheels in the corners.
    11 Aug 2012, 06:50 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Dirnfeld
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    South Korea lives by the protection the USA gives it from north Korea.
    11 Aug 2012, 08:31 AM Reply Like
  • rubicon59
    , contributor
    Comments (1503) | Send Message
     
    >>I remain perplexed, and simply cannot understand why Apple has not taken the initiative to fabricate their own components,

     

    Fabricating own components will kill the attractive economics of the current business, unfortunately, and thus the market valuation.
    28 Aug 2012, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  • Gary Bushwacher
    , contributor
    Comments (543) | Send Message
     
    It's called - Stick to the knitting, Core competencies, etc

     

    Virtical integration is unnecessary and costly. There are far better uses of your capital
    29 Aug 2012, 08:49 AM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3130) | Send Message
     
    Anyone else take a look through those slides. Wow! Apple appear to want an exclusive on touch screen user interface, are prepared to go after every other smartphone vendor using a touch screen, and will battle anyone who uses an industrial design similar to an iPhone, apparently as determined by Apple.

     

    http://bit.ly/NtwIRL

     

    I had to look up Touch Screens on Wikipedia, because the slides there imply that Apple created them. Several references to SciFi movies long before Apple existed, plus some interesting devices.

     

    It's interesting in that the jury is not extremely technical, yet that Apple presentation document makes it seem that none of the technologies in use in the iPhone and iPad existed before Apple released those devices. It reminds me a bit of when QCOM had their great run-up in share price levels, then decided to sell-off their mobile phone division to pursue a licensing revenue model. If Apple is completely successful in court against Samsung, then they would be the only authorized smartphone vendor, meaning they could completely control what every other smartphone vendor manufacturers, and control the price levels. I see now why there is some issue of possible anti-trust action that could haunt Apple after all this. It would be easy to label them as a cartel, if their arguments are fully accepted.
    11 Aug 2012, 03:14 AM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (34809) | Send Message
     
    It might be that AAPL might be playing on the jurors being stupid.
    11 Aug 2012, 06:52 AM Reply Like
  • Joe Dirnfeld
    , contributor
    Comments (1124) | Send Message
     
    Nonsense, you can't handle the truth.
    11 Aug 2012, 08:30 AM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3130) | Send Message
     
    What "truth" would that be?
    11 Aug 2012, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (34809) | Send Message
     
    Those slides are an assault on everyone's intelligence ... eheh. Virtually everything that AAPL claims as its own existed previously.
    11 Aug 2012, 07:02 AM Reply Like
  • Dialectical Materialist
    , contributor
    Comments (5080) | Send Message
     
    Everything that goes into a Coke existed previously, too. But they are still able to patent the recipe. That's how patents work. Combine something in a new way, patent it, and force others to pay up or do their own innovation.

     

    I know I can't convince you if you have really bought the line about how this is all about a rectangle.
    11 Aug 2012, 03:58 PM Reply Like
  • Paulo Santos
    , contributor
    Comments (34809) | Send Message
     
    It's not about a rectangle, but smartphones with touchscreens, CPUs and icons existed prior to the iPhone as well. Sure, the iPhone put it all together in a nicer fashion, and others evolved in that direction later on, but nobody actually produced a straight copy of the thing - there are no iOS compatible phones out there.
    11 Aug 2012, 04:48 PM Reply Like
  • Gary Bushwacher
    , contributor
    Comments (543) | Send Message
     
    Of course wasn't going to pay $30-$40 per unit. That's outrageous.

     

    . . . and I'm an Apple fan

     

    I have to laugh at those that say "it's not about the money" yeah right

     

    Again, I'm a huge AAPL fan, my virtual financial adviser (me) reminds me that I'm too heavily invested AAPL, but I don't see how you can patent a rectangle, even it is it pretty damn slick. If we're talking about sw (or even hw), that would be different
    11 Aug 2012, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • moneyTalksBSWalks
    , contributor
    Comments (194) | Send Message
     
    I looked at the slides and can only hope for aapl's sake that they have much more convincing evidence to present to defend their claim. The slides were basically a pos, they did squat to convince me that Aapl has a coherent story here.
    11 Aug 2012, 11:20 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs