Seeking Alpha

Apple's (AAPL) 2010 licensing offer to Samsung (SSNLF.PK) didn't include certain "unique user...

Apple's (AAPL) 2010 licensing offer to Samsung (SSNLF.PK) didn't include certain "unique user interface" patents the company views as "untouchables." Nonetheless, Apple was demanding a smartphone royalty roughly 3x as high as what Samsung is paying to Microsoft, which also has a valuable software patent portfolio. It was also above what Samsung is paying Qualcomm, the biggest holder of 3G/4G patents. The takeaway: Apple's offer probably wasn't expected to be taken seriously, much like an even harsher 2012 offer.
From other sites
Comments (11)
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3083) | Send Message
     
    It is one thing to ask for a licensing amount, and a different matter to actually get that amount. AAPL does not have prior mobile phone licensing experience, so they may not have known what starting point was expected in negotiations. While Samsung is so far silent on the specifics of licensing, these articles suggest the amount was so far out of line that Samsung did not take them seriously. The "R" of FRAND licensing is "Reasonable", though that is not a good guideline, and the court may likely set a level, in the event that AAPL prevails in this lawsuit.
    13 Aug 2012, 02:35 PM Reply Like
  • sawchain
    , contributor
    Comments (130) | Send Message
     
    The patents in question are not part of any standard, and therefore are not covered under FRAND. Apple is under no obligation to license them.
    13 Aug 2012, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3083) | Send Message
     
    So why did they offer a license?
    13 Aug 2012, 02:58 PM Reply Like
  • gensearch2
    , contributor
    Comments (1480) | Send Message
     
    Since Apple pays licensing fees to others, including Samsung, it's a good bet they knew exactly what they were asking for.

     

    A better interpretation was that they weren't interested in the money. The offer was merely for appearances ... "We tried." but they expected and wanted to be turned down.
    13 Aug 2012, 05:01 PM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    Some things, they may be forced to license at a reasonable price....others are at their discretion....

     

    Whatever the case, if I have something you want, but my price is too high, do you just take it?

     

    Shouldn't they negotiate, then you go to litigation on things that they could....on the things that they can't....well, it isn't their IP....
    13 Aug 2012, 07:41 PM Reply Like
  • Herr Hansa
    , contributor
    Comments (3083) | Send Message
     
    The court did try to push them to resolve the issues on their own. It's a really odd situation, almost like stubbornness has taken over, and each company is trying to prove some point. It will be interesting to see what the jury eventually decides.
    14 Aug 2012, 01:28 AM Reply Like
  • Ronin.
    , contributor
    Comments (1487) | Send Message
     
    The offers for licensing were a couple of years ago, where Jobs made offers to Samsung, not the recent precedings.... I can't tell if Samsung just decided to take what they wanted, rather than negotiating....
    14 Aug 2012, 01:58 AM Reply Like
  • Stockgal87
    , contributor
    Comments (355) | Send Message
     
    Agreed, not a standards issue, this is Samsung ripping of IP.

     

    Samsung has no problem paying Microsoft for much, much less than what they stole rom Apple.

     

    Review the patents and you will see why Apple is asking what they are asking. Not at all unreasonable, imho.
    13 Aug 2012, 02:59 PM Reply Like
  • jswieter
    , contributor
    Comments (177) | Send Message
     
    Agreed. Samsung is from a culture that copies. And has no respect for IP, patents, copyright laws, etc. So they steal or get by on the other cultural divide of "cheapa" "cheapa" "cheapa". They get by on the cheapest and easiest way to compete. Fact.

     

    Good design and innovation are the keys to the castle and where Apple stands alone. Without great design, great UI and an incredible designed experience, you have mediocrity. That includes great product design, technology design, architectural design, fabrication design, packaging design, retail design, software design, etc. Apple is about a designed life. However, with mediocrity you get Microsoft, Samsung, Dell, Nokia, MSNBC, Cadillac, Bob Costas, Delta Airlines, Walmart and the whole middle tier of existence. BORING AND UNINSPIRING.

     

    So protecting your castle and asking for top tier licensing fees makes complete sense. Why drop down to everyone else's level? Have them come up to Apple's level. You have to pay to play with the big boys.
    13 Aug 2012, 03:20 PM Reply Like
  • pirota
    , contributor
    Comments (150) | Send Message
     
    Don't forget that Steve Jobs first phone was Samsung!
    13 Aug 2012, 06:40 PM Reply Like
  • kmi
    , contributor
    Comments (4088) | Send Message
     
    Interesting how many point the finger at Samsung while failing to realize that most of the issues are software, and thus Android, related.

     

    Samsung losing would be merely the first in a string of dozens of Android vendors to follow.
    13 Aug 2012, 08:26 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