Samsung declined the opportunity to license Apple's patents in 2010

posted by Alan F. / Aug 11, 2012, 12:50 AM

Samsung declined the opportunity to license Apple's patents in 2010

"Many more Apple patents are relevant to the Android platform. Apple has not authorized the use of any of these patents."-Apple

When opportunity knocks, you must answer the door. If you don't want to answer the door, at least look out that little peephole to see what the deal is. The latest word from the Apple v. Samsung patent trial is that Apple had given Samsung an opportunity as far back as 2010 to license some of its patents, which might have eliminated some of, if not all of, the current legal bickering that has permeated the industry. While Apple would have preferred to be approached by Samsung for the licenses, Apple gave Samsung a chance to license the patents because it is a strategic supplier to Apple.

The deal offered by Apple would have Samsung pay $30 per smartphone produced by the Korean manufacturer and $40 for each tablet. If Samsung was willing to cross-license to Apple some of its patents, Apple said it would cut the licensing fee by 20%. By August 2010, the Cupertino based tech titan had begun to suspect that Samsung was infringing on Apple's design patents for its iconic smartphone. On October 5th 2010, Apple made a presentation to Samsung which included the licensing deal.

The cover of Apple's October 5th 2010 presentation to Samsung

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. The presentation was mentioned during the testimony of Apple patent licensing director Boris Teksler, who was on the stand Friday. Talking about the Samsung Galaxy S handset, Teksler told the jury, "We didn’t understand how a trusted partner would build a copycat product like that." The licensing director told the court that both Apple CEO Steve Jobs and COO Tim Cook had spoken to Samsung about the alleged infringement of Apple's design patents for its Galaxy S handset.

Other than the talk of the presentation, Friday was a quiet day in the courtroom as Apple continued to parade its expert witnesses in front of the jury. Apple used the testimony of its experts to introduce to the jury two internal Samsung studies that showed that the Korean manufacturer needed to follow the Apple iPhone with its own similar model. The studies are similar to another Samsung document put into evidence that shows a feature-by-feature comparison between the Samsung Galaxy S and the Apple Phone and in the document,. Samsung executives suggested that it makes its products more like Apple's. Highlights of the study were read by Apple during the direct examination of some of its witnesses on Friday morning..

Meanwhile, Samsung has spent more time on cross examination of Apple's witnesses than the latter has spent on direct examination itself. As a result, Samsung appears to have already exceeded the 25 hour limit on questioning witnesses that Judge Lucy Koh has given both sides. And that is before Samsung starts presenting its case to the jury on Monday.

source: AllThingsD

Samsung would have had to pay $250 million to Apple in 2010 to license its patents

FEATURED VIDEO

Options

92 Comments

1. sid8911

Posts: 54; Member since: May 29, 2010

aww cmon sammy :(

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 1:03 AM 8

2. sid8911

Posts: 54; Member since: May 29, 2010

nvm disregard what i said

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 1:06 AM 4

42. sudhar131998

Posts: 63; Member since: Sep 06, 2011

did you notice that the iphone in the picture doesn't fit the name of the iphone 4 given below

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 6:47 AM 12

69. Hammerfest

Posts: 384; Member since: May 12, 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.

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 12:59 PM 2

77. smartphone

Posts: 160; Member since: Oct 21, 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.

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 2:51 PM 0

3. doejon

Posts: 411; Member since: Jul 31, 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

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 1:07 AM 34

8. denied911

Posts: 361; Member since: May 31, 2012

LG have to sue apple for prada phone design !!!!

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 1:53 AM 23

15. kunyuk

Posts: 56; Member since: Jun 29, 2012

Tim cook is addicted to rectangular design, lol

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 2:13 AM 8

20. android_hitman unregistered

what??? to pay 30-40$?? for something that apple stole?

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 3:18 AM 24

51. monkeytown

Posts: 125; Member since: Jul 26, 2012

i pity you :(

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 9:29 AM 2

25. Nikolas.Oliver

Posts: 1574; Member since: Jul 01, 2012

why apple doesn't sue xperia s since it has rectangular design too

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 4:14 AM 12

31. HiddenStones

Posts: 5; Member since: Aug 03, 2012

It's just the beginning.... more patent wars are coming after this if Apple wins.

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 4:56 AM 8

38. ahomad

Posts: 175; Member since: May 15, 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

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 6:14 AM 3

45. Nikolas.Oliver

Posts: 1574; Member since: Jul 01, 2012

then how about oppo finder ?http://briefmobile.s3.amazonaws.com/images/article s/2012/07/oppo-finder.png it looks identical with iPhone 4, it has a smooth rounded corners

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 7:57 AM 1

90. kunyuk

Posts: 56; Member since: Jun 29, 2012

It's similar but it's different, just like cars if you know what i mean

posted on Aug 13, 2012, 8:09 AM 0

60. PhoneArenaUser

Posts: 5498; Member since: Aug 05, 2011

It smells like ban is coming...

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 10:42 AM 3

4. D.Aceveda

Posts: 430; Member since: Jun 30, 2012

Quit crying Apple

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 1:18 AM 24

7. XPERIA-KNIGHT unregistered

.....lol

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 1:52 AM 7

57. Mxyzptlk unregistered

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.

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 10:14 AM 3

59. PhoneArenaUser

Posts: 5498; Member since: Aug 05, 2011

Does the court have proved that ?

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 10:24 AM 2

63. Mxyzptlk unregistered

Proved what? There was an article PA did that flat out confirmed it.

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 12:02 PM 2

65. PhoneArenaUser

Posts: 5498; Member since: Aug 05, 2011

Does the court have proved that Samsung is (as you say) "copying many of Apple's designs and patents" ?

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 12:19 PM 2

84. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 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.

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 8:09 PM 1

75. stealthd unregistered

Does you have English?

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 1:17 PM 0

76. PhoneArenaUser

Posts: 5498; Member since: Aug 05, 2011

English what?

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 1:26 PM 0

66. willard12 unregistered

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.

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 12:45 PM 6

79. D.Aceveda

Posts: 430; Member since: Jun 30, 2012

Apple is crying because they are making the most money. Yet you are suing Samsung because? Wake up.

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 3:30 PM 3

5. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 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.

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 1:19 AM 6

12. Lucas777

Posts: 2137; Member since: Jan 06, 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

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 2:04 AM 4

17. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 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.

posted on Aug 11, 2012, 2:28 AM 3

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

view all comments