Steven Musil for CNet:
Apple proposed a reciprocal patent agreement to Samsung in the months leading up to their landmark trial, but the two could not arrive at a deal acceptable to both companies.
The deal would have enabled Apple to license from Samsung its 3G/UMTS patents. Samsung disagreed with the terms of the license, suggesting that it was owed a lot more than Apple was willing to pay.
And the beat goes on…
So Apple wanted to pay $.33/unit for essential tech but requested $35/unit for UI/design patents.
😀 Yep…makes sense.
You are aware of what Standard Essential Patents are and how they differ from non-FRAND related patents?
Yep.
Yes, it does make sense. Design sells the phones – people don’t know/care who is the owner or licensee of a standard essential patent.
If you don’t want to pay $35/unit to use another company’s design, you can make a new design. You can’t get a new standards essential patent.
What I don’t understand is why Apple, or any handset maker, should have to pay FRAND royalties to Samsung for UMTS that is implemented in the baseband chipset. It seems to me that the chip supplier should pay Samsung the FRAND royalties for implementing UMTS. Apple, and everyone else, are just buying parts.
The system is screwed up.
People don’t know who owns design patents either. lol. Normal users don’t know or care who owns what patent.
I’m just pointing out the disparity between an essential patent being 33¢ and for some eye candy they wanted $35.
Of course I expect them to want more than they are willing to pay. It is just quite funny to see it be such a huge gap between the two.
And without any of that “eye candy,” you can have one of these:
http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page
Standards patents are worth less because every phone has to have them. You are paying for the right to use basic building blocks.
Standards patents don’t sell one phone over another. Design does. What you refer to as eye candy is what made the iPhone succeed.
Buying a hammer is $10. Hiring an architect to design a house is a lot more.
All that said, I think design should be covered under copyright and trade dress, not patents. I’m just explaining why good design can be worth more than technical patents.
We disagree. Without the standards patents the phone features are less so they are “essential” to selling the phone. 🙂
Bounce back doesn’t sell phones. 😉
Hardware design does sell phones though.
lmbo. I’m not downplaying design just saying Apple’s design isn’t worth $35/phone; not interested in re-debating the court decision.
Samsung apparently disagrees with you too, as they lost a billion dollars defending that they needed Apple’s UI to sell their phones.
Samsung agreed to FRAND-level fees when he submitted to standard organization.
Deleted. Posted in the wrong spot.
My thoughts exactly.
lulz
Yep.
It’s Samsung attempting to double dip.
When you shamelessly rip off Apple’s design work then you have to fight back with anything you have to defend yourself.
So not only did they infringe on the Fair, and Reasonable part of FRAND, they also, by telling companies like Qualcomm not to sell Apple chips (or rather telling Qualcomm that the license they had to make chips with Samsung’s IP in would not be passed on to one specific customer – Apple) it sounds like they shafted the Non-discriminatory part as well.
It doesn’t matter what you think it’s worth. If a company (Apple) has a popular product that is protected by patents and someone (Samsung) copies their product and that copy infringes Apple’s patents then they have to pay them whatever Apple wants. Either you work out a licensing deal with Apple or Apple takes you to court and you end up paying $1 billion with the possibility of treble damages for willful infringement.
Apple can set whatever price they want. And as they are not Standards Essential Patents (SEP) other companies can choose to either pay up or work around them (i.e. not copy Apple). If you don’t pay up and don’t work around them then you get taken to court.