Comments on: Apple vs. Samsung – The weakness of essential (Part VII)

By: Tatilsever

Tatilsever — Wed, 19 Mar 2014 02:57:58 +0000

I doubt it would be that difficult to credibly say “our customers are paying us hundreds of dollars more because of our UI patents.” Good luck with shooting down that theory in “flames” after showing the jury pictures of pre-2007 smartphones and the post 2008 ones.

Besides, Samsung is free to sue with its own non-FRAND patents on the same playing field and using the same theories, so troll label just does not fit unless you change the definition completely.

By: windsorr

windsorr — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 06:36:18 +0000

It hurts credibility because it has left itself wide open to have its expert shot down in flames. When that happens Apple will look more like a profiteering troll than a company with a genuine complaint. It will lose some or all of the sympathy of the court which will hinder its case.

By: windsorr

windsorr — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 06:34:40 +0000

I thik handset profits will drop this year…the commoditisation squeeze is on

By: tatilsever

tatilsever — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 15:08:59 +0000

The judge effectively did not allow Apple not to license its patents by refusing an injunction, so it had to put a price on them. The lawsuit is only allowed to ask for compensation. I am not sure why you think it hurts its credibility, just because it is asking for a high price. If I sell Photoshop clones at $5 a pop at street corner, I should not be in a position to complain when Adobe starts asking for compensation that exceeds my selling price. If you cannot afford the price of something, don’t use it. You don’t just go ahead and take it just to complain about the price when the seller comes knocking your door.

Your “blindly following” comment is unnecessarily offensive. What makes you think Apple is the one refusing a settlement? It has settled with just about everybody else. No need to mar serious analysis with fanboyish comments.

By: Tim Nash

Tim Nash — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:19:38 +0000

Apple wants a ‘no cloning’ provision which Samsung has not been willing to accept, probably because it would reduce the attraction of the Galaxy and Note ranges and therefore significantly cut profits. If Samsung cellphone profits drop this year, because of the pressure from low cost producers in China, India etc., we may see some movement next year.

By: windsorr

windsorr — Fri, 14 Mar 2014 08:08:19 +0000

I totally agree with that view. The issue is that trying to make a case for this level of royalties is stupid and bound to result in a loss of credibility. Apple would do much better to simply to refuse to license the patents in the first place as it is perfectly within its rights to do so. The problem is enforcement which you eloquently say is almost impossible. This is why its best for it to settle rather than blindly follow the wishes of a man who has passed on.

By: Tim Nash

Tim Nash — Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:36:56 +0000

The $40 royalty demand is a result of the US federal legal decisions so far. If Judge Koh had agreed to an injunction in the initial case, then Apple would likely have settled for that plus reasonable damages for further infringed patents. As she made it clear that an injunction would not be granted without a causal nexus, which is extremely difficult to prove, Apple is trying another route to stop Samsung from using Apple’s patent portfolio.

As is, Apple gets to try to enforce a maximum of 6 patents per year in the US. So it may as well try to inflict the maximum amount of pain on Samsung from those patents. So far Samsung has had free use of Apple’s patents and until it is forced to pay substantial royalties and/or is subject to an injunction, why should Samsung settle? From Apple’s perspective, each lost iPhone sale costs an average of at least $300, so why should Apple settle for derisory royalties? Apple will keep going after Samsung until the Supreme Court comes to a decision about when an injunction should be granted and Apple wins or loses on those grounds.