Apple's filing reveals DOJ investigation of Samsung's use of its FRAND patents
U.S. antitrust regulators have agreed the FTC will focus on Motorola Mobility and the Justice Department will scrutinize Samsung Electronics Co.’s handling of industry-standard patent claims." By making a statement like this on a filing that will stay forever in the public record, Apple takes some of the heat off itself and turns it on Samsung.
Samsung replied by filing a public interest statement on Monday saying that it's request for a 2.4% royalty for its FRAND patents is fair. As pointed out by Florian Mueller, if all holders of SEP ask for 2.4%, no one would make any money selling handsets. And if both Apple (as claimed by Google) and Samsung are both quick to use the courts to force their FRAND rates on companies willing to pay royalties to license these patents, what good is the FRAND structure?
source: FOSSPatents via AndroidAuthority
2. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Only when companies stop violating patents.
12. Savage (unregistered)
Correction - Only when Apple stops suing their biggest competitors over childish, trivial and troll patents.
3. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 3224; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Should have figured Samsung's patents were FRAND. Just can't go out and sue a company for something that's fair and reasonable.
7. bayusuputra (Posts: 941; Member since: 12 Feb 2012)
still, if you compare the patents, one has industry essential patents, the other one only has patents that includes shapes resembling my toast in the morning and gesture that is similar to unzipping my pants..
just can't go out and sue a company for something that's so stupid and unreasonable..
9. rusticguy (Posts: 2819; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
Which gesture is like unzipping which is patented by Apple? ... ... aah is it slide to unlock ?:D :D :D
4. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5536; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Sounds like a desperation move on Apple's part. If you can't get the patents invalidated, get them determined to be subject to FRAND rules.
BTW, just because DOJ is investigating, doesn't mean Sammy is guilty. What is that principle - Innocent until proven guilty?
14. cheetah2k (Posts: 768; Member since: 16 Jan 2011)
Agreed, I can't see why Sammy would be in trouble over seeking what's only fair for its FRAND patents.
I'm sure Apple asked Samsung for more than that for the gallery bounce patent, which has just been invalidated anyway (lol)
5. Naitto (Posts: 44; Member since: 15 Sep 2012)
I think people should just stop buying products from the both of them untill they grow up. Yeah it might mean giving up the best of both worlds for a year; but they will lessen to your wallet.
8. rusticguy (Posts: 2819; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
Simple solution is all SW patents should be free for all in 2 years from date of being alloted. 2 years bis big time to recover your so called expenses on R&D. Grow up.
10. someones4 (Posts: 618; Member since: 16 Sep 2012)
the problem which i see here is no one seems to actually know which terms are fair and which are not.
Maybe samsung feels that 2.4% is fair but apple does not.
This scenario is similar when someone tried to sell me homemade cookies for 10 dollars. She feels it is fair but i certainly don't
11. rusticguy (Posts: 2819; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)
Actually Samsung i guess had quoted that others are paying so what's the big deal with apple why can't they pay. On that note the judge wanted all the deal papers between to be tabled and that made M$ and some other company shiver so both started lobbying not to let that happen. This whole patent, licensing and cross licensing deals are more murkier than we all know. I think Reuters was pressing hard for the deal details to be tabled but both M$ and some otehr company were wanting it avoided. No one is a SAINT in all this.
13. tedkord (Posts: 4286; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Fair and reasonable would be the same rate others pay. Is that 2.4%? I don't know. But that's the only way a rate can be fair and reasonable.
However, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that Apple didn't want to pay the same as others.
Ironically, if Apple were to price their iPhone fairly and reasonably (with a 20% profit margin), they'd probably pay less than others at the same 2.4% royalty rate.
15. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6141; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
FCK U APPLE AND FCK U ITC HAVE NO RIGHT TO BAN THE COMPETITION. JUST ADMIT YOU'RE SCARED AS FCK. there's no piece as long APPLE pays the court system and judges