Samsung declined the opportunity to license Apple's patents in 2010
0. phoneArena 11 Aug 2012, 00:50 posted on
The latest from the Apple v. Samsung patent trial is that the Korean based manufacturer received an offer from Apple in 2010 to license the use of the Cupertino based firm's patents and would even offer Sammy a 20% discount if they decided to cross-license their patents to Apple...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
42. sudhar131998 (Posts: 63; Member since: 06 Sep 2011)
did you notice that the iphone in the picture doesn't fit the name of the iphone 4 given below
69. Hammerfest (Posts: 322; Member since: 12 May 2012)
Those prices would be TOTALLY REASONABLE... if Samsung charged hand over foot for its devices like Apple does...
When you make over 50% profit in sales to the carrier alone, your greedy, ergo Apple.
77. smartphone (Posts: 160; Member since: 21 Oct 2011)
Even then $30 per handset for using a rectangular design and black colour would be unjustified.
Patent licensees should be of genuine innovation.
And who on the earth had bought an iPhone and realised its a galaxy S when he got home.
3. doejon (Posts: 282; Member since: 31 Jul 2012)
dont do it sammy!
i can not describe how much i hate apple
who the f**k gave apple these design patents
such ordinary shapes must dont alowed to patent..
sorry 4 my bad english
8. denied911 (banned) (Posts: 361; Member since: 31 May 2012)
LG have to sue apple for prada phone design !!!!
15. kunyuk (Posts: 56; Member since: 29 Jun 2012)
Tim cook is addicted to rectangular design, lol
20. android_hitman (Posts: 569; Member since: 07 Jul 2010)
what??? to pay 30-40$?? for something that apple stole?
25. Nikolas.Oliver (Posts: 1260; Member since: 01 Jul 2012)
why apple doesn't sue xperia s since it has rectangular design too
31. HiddenStones (Posts: 5; Member since: 03 Aug 2012)
It's just the beginning.... more patent wars are coming after this if Apple wins.
38. ahomad (Posts: 121; Member since: 15 May 2012)
no way, xperia design are not smooth rounded corners. its actually the farest anyone could get from apples stupid design.
don't forget apple is making loads of money from selling entertainments from itunes which is originally got from sony. in addition, sony has far more stronger patent protfilio compared to samsung (sony has great history compared to samsung, sad they not doing well recently). thats why you have never heard anyone sued sony especially apple
45. Nikolas.Oliver (Posts: 1260; Member since: 01 Jul 2012)
then how about oppo finder ?http://briefmobile.s3.amazonaw
it looks identical with iPhone 4, it has a smooth rounded corners
90. kunyuk (Posts: 56; Member since: 29 Jun 2012)
It's similar but it's different, just like cars if you know what i mean
57. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 2439; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
How is that crying? It would have been easier for Samsung to just do the license and avoid the legal fiasco of copying many of Apple's designs and patents.
63. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 2439; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
Proved what? There was an article PA did that flat out confirmed it.
65. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 4487; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)
Does the court have proved that Samsung is (as you say) "copying many of Apple's designs and patents" ?
84. joey_sfb (Posts: 1477; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
Even if Apple do get that $30 to $40 dollar from Samsung.
What will you as Apple user get? Nothing.
I am an Apple product user and i still pay their premium price tag recently brought lower due to competition. Android competition to be specific.
Apple iPhone will be getting their 4" screen and that thanks to what?? I am very surprise that iFan don think for their self interest but choose to be trap in Apple Reality Distortion Field.
66. willard12 (Posts: 375; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)
Let's see...Microsoft gets about $5 on some android phones sold in the US. Microsoft makes more on Android than its own WP devices. Apple wants $30-$40 dollars per hand set! You and Alan F are as crazy as Apple and Lucy Koh.
79. D.Aceveda (Posts: 301; Member since: 30 Jun 2012)
Apple is crying because they are making the most money. Yet you are suing Samsung because? Wake up.
5. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4727; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
If the $30/unit license fee is for all Apple patents, Sammy made a bit of a boo-boo. It will be interesting to see where the license fee gets pegged. MS is getting somewhere in the range of $10 to $15 per unit, that number certainly will be floated by Sammy as to why Apple was over-reaching.
12. Lucas777 (Posts: 2115; Member since: 06 Jan 2011)
i think microsoft has fewer patents however… and they are against android itself i believe, so samsung decided it would be harder to deal with than the design patents from apple… i guess they saw apple as a pushover in 2010-- and who knows they might have counter offered and apple refused, but at least we know apple was trying
17. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4727; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
The problem for Sammy (in the absence of testimony on any counter-offer by Sammy) is that Apple is setting Sammy up for willful infringement, which carries a treble-damages penalty. They story line runs basically as follows: Hey, we offered you a deal on licensing our patents and you gave us the middle-fingered wave. Now we should be paid treble damages to teach you a lesson for giving us the middle-fingered wave.
The un-answered question is whether the license offered was for all of Apple's patent portfolio, or whether it was for just the design patents. I suspect it was for the entire portfolio, but don't know for sure.
27. doublehammer (Posts: 75; Member since: 07 Aug 2012)
no, it would never be for the whole portfolio. That would give them free liscence to make a full KIRF
More than likely it was a "design patent" or a patent for the kinetic bounce/ pinch 2 zoom. Though considering how mad SJ got that anyone else had those features, It might not have even been for that. Who knows. Apple's demands are always astronomical and unrealistic.
30. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4727; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
If the license was for only design patents, I expect Sammy will want to clarify that detail. Most of the responses to this article are basing their response on the premise that Apple was offering a license to only their design patents. I tend to doubt the license was limited to only the design patents. One reason for my doubt is the offer of a further 20% reduction if Sammy were to license their patents to Apple. Sammy's patent portfolio is weighted more toward utility patents.
At the end of the day, if Sammy loses, they will have to write a big check to Apple and make some changes to their code. But a sales ban ain't gonna happen.
Given the opportunity to license Apple's entire patent portfolio, Sammy's decision to pass (and apparently not even make a counter offer) may be one of the more bone-headed decisions. A license is certainty. Not licensing is a roll of the dice.
56. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4727; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Some of Apple's patents are clearly bullsh*t (aka invalid). Some may be valid. Do the valid patents command a royalty of $30/unit? I doubt it, but then there is the potential treble damages if Sammy blew off the license offer. The document that has been presented is more of an internal straw model than an actual proposal.
Net-net, I am waiting to see Sammy's case. Expect Apple to claim that Sammy used up their 25 hours in cross-examining Apple's witnesses. That is the kind of chickensh*t stuff that Apple pulls that has alienated me about them.
6. speckledapple (Posts: 873; Member since: 29 Sep 2011)
I would have easily told Apple what they could do with their offer and proceeding to defend as that is completely outrageous for a company that only has the gile to go up against companies like Samsung but when it comes to companies like Nokia, Motorola, RIM, and Microsoft, they cannot win because they lack those industry leading patents. I dislike any company that performs in such a way no matter how they are.
9. Levon (Posts: 33; Member since: 09 Aug 2012)
it's simple. Look for money! Now Apple realised that the real threat for him is Samsung, so Apple sued them, to protect herself. There are many chinese-made iPhone clones in the market but Apple sues only Samsung.
13. XPERIA-KNIGHT (Posts: 2375; Member since: 08 Aug 2012)
indeed.......samsung poses the biggest threat to apple, but the funny part about it is, samsung supplies apple with pretty much all its hardware to make the iphone, and once the contract is up samsung could end its partner ship with apple if they want to, andif apple continues to bash on sammsung in the court they might just wanna do that!
10. mukrenol (Posts: 90; Member since: 03 Sep 2011)
Why they keep showing the inaccurate ho?me screen and size of the two devices? That's faults presentation of the devices
18. Levon (Posts: 33; Member since: 09 Aug 2012)
seems that it's not enough to be safe from apple )))
14. Levon (Posts: 33; Member since: 09 Aug 2012)
I don't think that Samsung is so naive to copy "product", knowing that the Apple can make a claim.
19. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4727; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
It is probably more along the lines of Sammy thought Apple's patents were not valid, which is something that we shall see if that is in fact the circumstance. If Apple's patents are valid, then Sammy will be writing a check with a bunch of zeros after the 1.
16. Levon (Posts: 33; Member since: 09 Aug 2012)
So, it is time to patent a circle, a triangle, hexagonal, pentagonal and other odd-shaped designs. Maybe it can be proftable in the future. Or Apple already patented: \?
23. kunyuk (Posts: 56; Member since: 29 Jun 2012)
Lol, great comment dude!!! great comment.
That's very hilarious
70. -box- (Posts: 3470; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
I'm going to patent the pentagon and sue the U.S. Government and Milotary for making my shape into a building. If they refuse, I'll tell them their own Patent office to allow a company to patent a round-cornered rectangle.
Not really, but I think it illustrates the point.
21. ardent1 (Posts: 1863; Member since: 16 Apr 2011)
And all this time the android fanboys kept lying about Apple doesn't share its technology. I recall remixfa leading the charge on PA by bad-mouthing that Apple doesn't license its technology.
Look whose got egg on his face again!!
26. doublehammer (Posts: 75; Member since: 07 Aug 2012)
here you go calling out someone again.
Im sorry ardent, but 40 bux a phone to licence a rectangle is RIDICULOUS. MS gets what.. 5+ bux per set with ACTUAL patent licencing? That's fair.. they are real patents.
1) this article doesnt mention at all what exactly they tried to cross liscence
2) they could NEVER accept that deal. It would have eaten every penny of profit they made. The article straight up says for one year they would have paid more in fees to Apple than they get PAID from apple for all the chips in the iphones.
3) apple's demands for licences are BEYOND what anyone would pay. Basically its extortion. "Give us all your profits in cross licence or we will sue the crap out of you and try to take them through the courts"
You say your an "inventor" and you know about all this stuff. Would you swallow a licencing deal that is 800% higher than the next biggest deal? Especially when your talking about a company that thinks it owns a patent on rectangles with rounded edges. No.. you wouldnt. You would laugh at them and give them the finger. Yet, you think that somehow its news when a big company doesnt want to just give away hundreds of millions to billions in an extremely over bloated patent offer?
Quit being such a stupid troll and calling people out. You look like a fool with egg on your face all the time. Actually, on second thought, dont. I'm sure this "Remix" will have a lot of fun reading this stuff when he is unbanned.
29. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
This being my first official post back from my week vacation that PA paid for, I'd like to say....
thanks for continually calling me out all week Ardent. You looked like a fool every time. I've been reading it all week and have been being told of it. lol. It gave me a lot to laugh at.
40 dollars is an extreme amount. For that they should be giving them nearly free liscence to hundreds of actual patents. But you know this is Apple. If it was for both kinetic scrolling and for "similar icons" I would be surprised. More than likely it was just for "the look and feel" BS that they are suing for now.
NO reasonable person would take a patent offer like that. NO ONE. When you factor in how much MS makes for actual patents per device compared to Apple's demands for patents, which I would bet money are way less usefull than MS's, the only thing you CAN do is laugh at them.
Anything else you wish to call me out for Ardent? I'm back. You cant call me out without a response now.
32. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 4727; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
I wonder what ardent has actually invented? Any patents for his inventions? Care to share patent numbers?
82. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
You notice after a week of calling me out left n right knowing I couldnt respond, he has failed to respond since I've been back. Its cowardice to try to fight someone who isnt allowed to fight back... then run when they can.
I dunno what he "invented" but he has claimed many times to be an "inventor" of some sort and to have "patents" under his name.
Yet, somehow, he thinks 40 per phone is "fair" for patenting a rectangle with a green phone button...
kinda makes you wonder.
44. joey_sfb (Posts: 1477; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
I think this posting needs a new heading. How about, 'Apple Design Patent Extortion!!!'
28. p0rkguy (Posts: 671; Member since: 23 Nov 2010)
It's hard to say whether Samsung was offered Apple's whole portfolio or just a few relating to design.
I were Samsung and was offered just the patents on design, I would've ignored them. $5-10 would've be more rational.
35. tedkord (Posts: 3409; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)
Firstly, a shape is not technology, not is a pattern on s screen. Almost nothing Apple is suing over us actual technology.
Second, to claim that Apple "shares" based on this is a joke. $40 per device? That's not a serious offer. They made an offer they knew nobody would accept, which is even more ironic considering they believe that the value of patents on actual tech, without which s phone wouldn't even work, is just one tenth of a penny per unit.
$30-40 for shapes and patterns, 1/10th of s penny for the radio that makes your phone work. Yeah, sounds like Apple were bargaining in good faith.
55. Aeires (unregistered)
C'mon ardent, please respond to doublehammer. Show us that great big brain of yours is smart enough to have an intelligent conversation. Don't just drop an off base comment and hide from rebuttal.
83. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
I'd just like him to respond to me, since he decided to call me out... again. I'm back. DH made excellent points in defense of me. I'd like to see Ardent's defense to that and me.. pronto.
85. Aeires (unregistered)
He won't though. He comes in, looks down his nose at people, drops snarky comments, then never responds, like we are beneath him.
87. remixfa (Posts: 13882; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
Now if only his snarky comments were correct... hmm.. what an improvement that would be.
22. kew01 (Posts: 15; Member since: 28 Jul 2012)
I'm sick and tired about Apple showing shooped pictures of the products and having Galaxy S with its App Drawer open just to look like the home screen of it's Iphone line. That just confuses the normal phone users and the juries (in this case). And the SAME hight of the phones doesn't help either.
I don't know why Sammy didn't object about how Apple is making people perceive the Galaxy S and so forth. Is really evident that Apple is a playing dirty and is using those same marketing skills that they made people think smartphone = iphone and tablets = iPad. Which is really wrong and judges shouldn't accept statements as "But costumers though they were buying an Apple product!". NO! Most PEOPLE asociate Ipad with Tablets and Iphone with smartphones without even knowing why. And they are using that brainwash to try and get monopoly of the markets.
PS: those licences for those so called "patents" are a major rip-off and everyone with a working neuron in their brain knows it.
"According to Apple, had Samsung gone ahead with the licensing deal, it would have cost them $250 million for 2010 which was less than the amount Apple was paying Samsung for components at the time."
From this statement I gather Apple just wanted Free Supplies. Requesting too much for nothing just so they can get -almost- free parts and in turn make more marginal profit on the Iphone. In a sense, trying to exploit Samsung's good will and trust as a partner. Sickening...