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

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

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



81. networkdood

Posts: 6330; Member since: Mar 31, 2010

apple could not produce a better product so they grew mad and are now suing samsung: That should be alan's next article.

78. xplayer

Posts: 14; Member since: Feb 11, 2012

That's not the iPhone 4, how can apple get through the judge and court with fake evidence!? They even photoshoped Galaxy S1 to look to reduce its size!

67. pikapowerize

Posts: 1869; Member since: May 03, 2012

that is really a big cash... microsoft hets $12 on every android phone samsung sold but in apple's case its a woopping $30... wow... android isnt as free after all! whats up with this patents wars?! makes me sick... i hopethey could just innovate and make more awesome products!

58. gallitoking

Posts: 4721; Member since: May 17, 2011

so far is not looking good for Sammy and on Monday.. Samsung lawyers will mistake the not cool Galaxy Tab for the ipad..

61. kew01

Posts: 15; Member since: Jul 28, 2012

You should take your c00L Pad and go somewhere where it will not be unc00L like say... Antartica? North Pole? Just because a FAN (judge w/e, doesn't matter, a fan is a fan) of a product said that the competitors product is "not cool" it doesn't make it true. You can spin if every way you want it. Doesn't matter who said it, people have thier own opinions, so don't try to make it like EVERYONE IN THE WORLD is saying that. Seriously... it's like that "SWAG/SWAGGER" s**t kids those day spew about... or however is spelled. Just finished watching "Idiocracy". Omg that movie should have been a documentary, because it show how stupid and f**ked up the world is and will continue to become.

62. gallitoking

Posts: 4721; Member since: May 17, 2011

and you are part of that world.. enjoy it happy

74. Non_Sequitur

Posts: 1111; Member since: Mar 16, 2012

I hate it when retards go around yelling "SWAG" and "YOLO" and crap. It makes them look like idiots. Swagger used to be a word and now it's just a part of god damn pop culture. I hate my generation of stupid pop music.

73. Non_Sequitur

Posts: 1111; Member since: Mar 16, 2012

I gave my friend a simple glance at my Android tablet the other day. Showed him around the UI. "Okay, yeah. You're right, that's way better than an iPad." EXACT quote. He just got an iPad because it's cool and everyone has one. Apple products are cool, shiny, and simpler. Good for people that just want something lightweight for media consumption. I agree with that. But don't try to say that it's better than an Android tablet, because everyone knows Android is more powerful.

88. gallitoking

Posts: 4721; Member since: May 17, 2011

whta good are those "powerful" tablets when they are collecting dust in shelves,.. i mean other than the ipad the only other tablet is the Kindle Fire wich is not an Android full blood

89. Non_Sequitur

Posts: 1111; Member since: Mar 16, 2012

Gallito. I JUST answered this with my last comment. "He just got an iPad because it's cool and everyone has one."

91. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

you act like there is a stock room filled with millions of tablets somewhere gallito. they are not "collecting dust". They are still made regularly, just at a slower pace than the ipad.

53. Aeires unregistered

Isn't this essentially the same amount Apple is suing for? And even back then Apple underplayed how much Samsung's hardware patents were worth. Some things never change, Apple demands are too unreasonable.

52. MartyK

Posts: 1045; Member since: Apr 11, 2012

Alan F, Are you serious? (According to Apple); you want us to believe what Apple said after SJ (their GOD) said he did not want anything from Android, except for it to be remove from the market! You and allthingD, right along Apple, must think people don't have a memory. According to the live blog of the trial, Samsung is doing VERY WELL, and they have alot of stuff to go to the appeal court on; Maybe you should try reading the live blog from court instead of from AllthingsD and Florian Mueller ..hahah Go here if you want to read the live blog:

48. Lwazi_N

Posts: 205; Member since: Jun 23, 2011

What Apple fails to realise is the fact that not everyone wants an iPhone. There are many alternatives out there and Samsung happens to be one of them. It would make Apple very happy if they secured a ban against "offending" Samsung products, but that does not ensure all those people who were going to buy Galaxy's, will buy iGadgets.

47. som

Posts: 768; Member since: Nov 10, 2009

Paid licensing fees on everything will cost each phone about $100, Samsung wanted to save American consumers money while Apple ripping off American consumers with higher price Made in China.

41. ftyler223

Posts: 140; Member since: Aug 06, 2012

Lol Samsung keeps f**king up. They should've just thought of they're own design. Instead they copy apple in every aspect and think they can get away with it. Idiots now sleep in your defeat and be prepared to lose big time when the iPhone 5 releases.

43. PapaSmurf

Posts: 10457; Member since: May 14, 2012

Your comment makes me lol on how it seems you didn't read the article. If Samsung would have taken the deal, they would have made no profit in 2010. Apple would have gotten $250 million but pay Samsung less than that for the parts of their iPhone. $30 charge for each phone for Apple's patent is bulls--t and everyone knows it, well except you of course. And do you think is fair if Apple keeps photo shopping the Galaxy S to make it the same size as the iPhone 4, (its the 3GS on the picture) when its not? If you disagree to anything I just said, you are naive and only support Apple.

54. MartyK

Posts: 1045; Member since: Apr 11, 2012 -apple-samsung-patent-trial-experts-say-consumers- confused?source=most_viewed Since you claim Samsung is Fing for yourself they have from the beginning to this past friday posted; Also this person was there in the courrt room!.

68. willard12 unregistered

Hate to rain on your parade, but the f700 was being sold well before Steve Jobs marched across the stage in his black turtle neck to show the iPhone. Now, tell the audience if Samsung thought of their own design.

72. -box-

Posts: 3991; Member since: Jan 04, 2012

As you can see from other articles, apple had no clue about what shape they wanted until they realized they wanted a more Sony-esque design, thus coming up with a not-unique design which, not surprisingly, looked really similar to previous phones like the LG Prada

40. ghostnexus

Posts: 96; Member since: Mar 07, 2012

ohh Samsung, that was stupid! Well I hope you like your fine

37. salam-joseph

Posts: 4; Member since: Jul 14, 2012

samsung didnt ! google android did !

36. ddeath

Posts: 170; Member since: Apr 14, 2012

If Apple ever win, this will spell doom to all manufacturers that ever had a black rectangular phone or tablet.... and that's basically most of them out there. You guys see the absurdity of this?

39. loken

Posts: 462; Member since: May 09, 2012

Apple wont win... God wont let them.. maybe Judge Koh will with a bit of $$$$

33. tedkord

Posts: 17532; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Hey, Apple was even willing to shave that $.001 off the price in exchange for Samsung's patents. What a generous company.

24. SGSatlantis

Posts: 227; Member since: Jul 20, 2011

So Alan, you are blaming Samsung not only for this lawsuit but for every mobile lawsuit out there. And remember that this patents are not "functional" in a sence that they are not about 3G radios, or whatever something that you can prove but are "design related" and can be very vague and can be interpreted in different ways. You cannot simply say the galaxy S has black front, round edges and the screen is centered in the center, the earpiece is horisontal and sue someone for designing the phone in that way. And than friendly request the "Apple Parters Fee" of just 30$. For what exactly? 5$ for the edges and 5$ for the button placement... jesus. And once you give in to this deal whos to say Apple wont pressure Samsung for royaltis for the next N of generations of galaxy s phones. The 250M number that you so easily write off as "apple gives them more than they require" is not accurate in that sence. This article is way to byased and ruined my day. No objective person will read: rejection of a 30$ on a single phone for design patent, Samsung you should have taken it, Apple was so cool to offer this chance

22. kew01

Posts: 15; Member since: Jul 28, 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...

21. ardent1

Posts: 2000; Member since: Apr 16, 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: Aug 07, 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: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

Ha! Well said. 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.

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

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.
FCC OKs Cingular's purchase of AT&T Wireless