Apple and HTC ordered by Judge Koh to reveal which patents are covered by their agreement
Judge Koh did say that information like royalty rates agreed to and device pricing will remain sealed for competitive reasons. Meanwhile, the judge said that other information in the pact will not cause competitive harm if released. Therefore, we expect to see Taiwan based HTC and Cupertino based Apple to reveal which patents are covered in the agreement.
Samsung had wanted to see if some of the patents covered in the agreement were part of its lawsuit with Apple, including the '381 and '915 patents which deal with the rubber band "bounce back" effect and zooming and scrolling respectively. Samsung might have wanted to see if Apple's rarely licensed "user experience" patents was included in the deal with HTC. Apple has referred to these patents as their "untouchables" since they are usually not licensed to other companies.
4 December Apple and HTC ordered by Judge Koh to reveal which patents are covered by their agreement
21 November Apple and HTC offer to show agreement to Samsung, but heavily redacted
20 November HTC Peter Chou says media reports on the Apple patent deal fees are "baseless"
17 November Samsung shows interest in Apple's deal with HTC
10 November Apple and HTC reach 10-year licensing agreement; deal will settle all lawsuits between the two
1. networkdood (Posts: 6267; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
"Apple has referred to these patents as their "untouchables" since they are usually not licensed to other companies"
Sorry, APPLE, not this time.
8. metalpoet (unregistered)
Oh god not this chick again!
28. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 3510; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Yes she is the face of true justice.
9. Nadr1212 (Posts: 741; Member since: 22 Sep 2012)
The judge's eyes look like they're stocking U!!!!!!
11. AnTuTu (limited) (Posts: 804; Member since: 14 Oct 2012)
Mxyzptlk :- Get a life again :p u dont even know a bit and start commenting without any reason.
29. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 3510; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Speaking the truth is living a life.
16. lyndon420 (Posts: 1733; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
Sammy was sued over a billion bucks for something vague that had to do with the UI and a common shape. I think they have all the right in the world to see what the other guy is paying to see who is being treated fairly or not.
23. someones4 (Posts: 619; Member since: 16 Sep 2012)
because no one needs them cr@p anyways..
25. tedkord (Posts: 4714; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Because they stole them first, fair and square.
2. Mxyzptlk (limited) (Posts: 3510; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
I said it before, Samsung should just sign a license agreement and make it easier on themselves.
5. networkdood (Posts: 6267; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
blame apple and their closed system....they want to patent and own EVERYTHING.....even the market
10. metalpoet (unregistered)
Be careful networkdood, Apple may patent the "comment" then the word "patent" and then the symbole "" haha!
6. lyndon420 (Posts: 1733; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
No...they shouldn't. If they can disclose a per device price for some patents, talk crap about FRAND, they should be revealing this as well. Personally...I think something is up with this secrecy. If one company is paying a certain rate for something, it should be even across the board.
21. xtremesv (Posts: 209; Member since: 21 Oct 2011)
Yeah of course and then Samsung customers are to pay Apple indirectly for rubber band effects, green icons, rounds and squares. Someone must face Apple and stop them and Samsung is the only company in Android camp that can.
24. someones4 (Posts: 619; Member since: 16 Sep 2012)
I said this before as well... you and Apple can just dream on because it's not going to happen.
26. tedkord (Posts: 4714; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
I'm sure that if and when Apple offers serious and fair agreement, Samsung will sign. But as long as Apple's stance is, "We get $20 power device for shapes, colors and patterns, and you get $0.001 power device for the actual tech that a phone won't work without, then no, there can't be a deal.
4. lyndon420 (Posts: 1733; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
Bring it out in the open...let us have a look at your untouchables.
14. lyndon420 (Posts: 1733; Member since: 11 Jul 2012)
Lol. I wish the word 'apple' was unmentionable.
12. JohnnyBravo (Posts: 105; Member since: 02 Dec 2012)
Sh&t is about to get real...
Im really interested in reading this agreement and I think samsung is smart to enquire about this deal that all of the suddden took place a few weeks ago. Caught me by surprise to be honest...I never thought HTC would sleep with Apple.
13. prakesh (Posts: 92; Member since: 13 Sep 2012)
if you are innocent then show it, if they cant means they are guilty.
15. rusticguy (Posts: 2828; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
She will rule in favour of Apple come what may. The whole case is stage (or state) managed.
20. networkdood (Posts: 6267; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)
What judge out there has ties to APPLE? I forgot...was it KOH?
22. Reluctant_Human (Posts: 854; Member since: 28 Jun 2012)
She will get painful herpes and have to pass this trial along to more a competent judge while on medical leave.. Wishful thinking
27. wando77 (Posts: 282; Member since: 23 Aug 2012)
I wonder if HTC and Samsung have set this up to screw apple........ I'd like to think so :-)