Apple Wanted $30-$40 Per Samsung Device Sold To Avoid The Courtroom

rated by 0 users
This post has 20 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 26,150
Points 1,185,180
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Sun, Aug 12 2012 12:50 PM
The Samsung vs. Apple patent trial is leading to some seriously juicy findings. Findings that no doubt would have never, ever been made public if this had not come down to a jury. In fact, it's crazy to us that both Samsung and Apple let it get this far. Why not settle outside of the courtroom instead of having secrets spilled to the public that can never be erased from our memories? Did both Samsung and Apple feel so intently that they would win, that neither could see the real truth? At this point, it's pretty clear that things are tilted in Apple's favor, for better or worse, but in wrapping up week two of the trial, something really impressive surfaced: actual financial details regarding a potential licensing deal.

All this time, it seems that Apple was actively trying to avoid the court system by having Samsung pay a supremely hefty licensing fee per device for Samsung's gratuitous use of Apple trade dress on its products. How much? According to new evidence shown in court, Apple was willing to not sue Samsung if it would pay $30 per smartphone sold and $40 per tablet sold to Apple. That means billions upon billions in new revenue for Apple, and billions in lowered revenue for Samsung. It's now becoming very clear what was at stake for both companies.


But it gets crazier. Apple also offered a 20% discount if Samsung would agree to cross-license some of its patents back to Apple; think of it as a hand-shake offer instead of a punch. Apparently, Apple wanted to be able to legally use some of Samsung's patents as well. Also, Apple longed for royalties on Samsung's Windows-based phones, in addition to Android-based phones. All told, Apple figured that Samsung would have owed it one-quarter of a billion dollars in 2010. Yikes!

Of course, none of this matters now; the court is in session and fits are flying. But you'll no doubt have to look at the eventual outcome and then back at this, only to find if Samsung would've been better off just taking the deal.
  • | Post Points: 170
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 257
Points 3,190
Joined: Aug 2012
Jaybk26 replied on Sun, Aug 12 2012 1:40 PM

That's a pretty hefty pricetag and would have made a huge dent in Samsung's revenue. I love Apple, but I'm really looking forward to getting a Samsung tablet. I hope they both come out on top:D

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 501
Points 4,625
Joined: Dec 2011
Location: centennial park az
AKnudson replied on Sun, Aug 12 2012 2:30 PM

Your a better person than me, i want samsung to bleed and pay for every phone they sell. they made me angry with alot of their earlier products and their scrupulous dealings with the likes of Sony, Microsoft, IBM and Apple.

Maybe i am a fanatic but its good to see samsung pay for breaking the rules.

Samsung creates good products, and the fine would only apply to the samsung phones that use the features apple has patented, such as slide to open. muti-touch display. and so on.

If samsung re does their phone line they might be able to improve on apple instead of just blatantly copying them.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 385
Points 3,845
Joined: Jun 2011
RTietjens replied on Sun, Aug 12 2012 2:44 PM

Apple is engaging in douchebaggery in an attempt to prevent honest and fair competition. Only a stupid, self-centered, egotistical douchebag would buy Apple products since all of this has come to light.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 1,011
Points 9,450
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: LA, CA
sevags replied on Sun, Aug 12 2012 3:48 PM

Who would want Samsung to bleed?! I'm an iPhone user but a PC guy, I wantAapple to bleed, fester, and rott. I want them to lose, be embarassed, have to pay out their a$$, lose major market share, and become a 3rd/4th string player.

On a side note what's going on with the hothardware website? Now when I use a mobile device it ALWAYS sends me to the mobile version that I absolutely hate and I have to click on Full Version every single visit. It's starting to keep me from visiting the site more than once a day and if I can't change that I won't be coming here anymore :(

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 1,011
Points 9,450
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: LA, CA
sevags replied on Sun, Aug 12 2012 3:52 PM

AKnudson.... You are assuming that not only did Apple create (which it didn't) those features that Samsung used but that the patents are actually valid and theirs (which they aren't).

Samsung shouldn't have to pay just because the likes of microsoft etc won't stand up for them and prove prior art AND patents that would invalidate apples. Apple needs to bleed, not Samsung.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 191
Points 1,750
Joined: Aug 2012
Location: Canada
InsideSin replied on Sun, Aug 12 2012 4:59 PM

I hate how Apple sees itself on such a high step. They are the ones that need to be brought down a notch.

I agree with this guy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0

"You can't just ask customers what they want and then try to give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,359
Points 48,655
Joined: Apr 2000
Location: United States, Connecticut
ForumsAdministrator
MembershipAdministrator
Marco C replied on Sun, Aug 12 2012 6:03 PM

"If samsung re does their phone line they might be able to improve on apple instead of just blatantly copying them."

I love how delusional Apple fanbois can be. The Galaxy S II was superior to the iPhone 4S in almost every way. And the Galaxy S III is leaps and bounds more advances than the 4S. What is there to redo?

Marco Chiappetta
Managing Editor @ HotHardware.com

Follow Marco on Twitter

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 4,830
Points 45,790
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Kennesaw
rapid1 replied on Sun, Aug 12 2012 8:22 PM

Yeah; Marco this is what I see when I look at Apple, Jordache jeans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv_Bk68zDz4 ) from when I was in middle school to 9th grade. Just to note I am 41, 42 in October that would be important for you to get this. You might need to have had a sister or friends with sisters at that time as well (we are talking early to mid 80's (Duran Duran, Billy Idol new wave etc)! There image is the only thing really advanced about them now. Yes back in the day they were the Graphic design modulation machines. That also ended in reality quite a few years back now in computer strength terms.

OS:Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit
MB:ASUS Z87C
CPU:Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 4770 ***
GPU:Geforce GTX 770 4GB
Mem:***ingston 16384MB RAM
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 290
Points 2,255
Joined: Aug 2012

Im pretty sure that apple copy some of nokias features like video chat and they call it face time. Had nokia since its haydays and i believe they came up with that and acamera on the phone. And sony ericson in my opinion started the touch screen. What is apple talking about. And you are right marco, slll is far superior than that apple. But toget back to the topic i think apple is doing this because samsung has been eating up a big chunk of their revenue which was once dominated everything.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 33
Points 270
Joined: Jul 2011
OmniDeus replied on Mon, Aug 13 2012 1:53 AM

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

btw I'm not a mac-boi. I read and re-read your post, and I still cannot fathom the logic you used. It's almost as if you smashed your face against your keyboard and miraculously generated English words that have no context or purpose.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 5
Joined: Aug 2012
wangli replied on Mon, Aug 13 2012 4:17 AM

If you are interested to know about the Bluetooth Headset, then you can find it out inside the internet. If your search the internet on this topic, you will get a good deal of details and a Monster Diddy beats deal of connect. You will get to know all about the item by reading those contents. If you want Dre Monster Beats scientific and technical explaining the whole thing in minuet details, you will have that, if you want Monster Beats By Dre simple and interesting, you will get that too.

All these contents will tell you that Bluetooth Headset is an item that allows you to listen to music without bothering others or getting into the complication of wires and headphones and such. If you have this Monster Beats By Dr , you can now listen to music, talk to Monster Beats By Dr and even listen to FM without creating any disturbance or problem of any sort.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 653
Points 5,925
Joined: May 2008
Location: Stockholm
mhenriday replied on Mon, Aug 13 2012 10:20 AM

Apple has shown itself to be quite competent in «borrowing» - generally speaking without the developers' knowledge or permission - ideas and concepts from others and packaging and marketing them in a manner which appealed to a certain section of the public willing to pay inflated prices for shiny things. I have no problem at all with this - let consumers decide how they want to spend their money - but what I do find deeply problematic is that Apple then has gone on to «patent» the «borrowed» (Saint Jobs was less mealy-mouthed than yours truly and referred to the practice as «stealing») items. Yes, a great deal of responsibility does lie with the USPTO which has granted and continues to grant these absurd patents, almost all of which are vitiated by the concept of «prior art», and not least, the US Congress, which passes the absurd laws on which these decisions are based, but Apple cannot escape responsibility for the manner in which it has profited from the situation. Unfortunately, the US legal system seems to a large degree unable to correct these injustices - cf the farce currently taking place in Lucy Haeran Koh's court - so it seems as if the only recourse would be a general boycott of Apple's products until such time as the company comes to its senses and decides to allow consumers, rather than the courts, to decide which products are to remain on the market. Alas, the chances of such a boycott taking place are minimal, at best....

Henri

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 272
Points 2,170
Joined: Jan 2012
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
karanm replied on Mon, Aug 13 2012 8:39 PM

Hahaha Henri you made me laugh pretty hard there, boycott apple products!! There would be millions off apple fanboys dead in the streets in a matter of hours (hmmm now I'm not laughing and trying to figure out a way to make this happen)

Also since we're posting you tube links here's mine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njos57IJf-0

Hal totally wins!!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 653
Points 5,925
Joined: May 2008
Location: Stockholm
mhenriday replied on Tue, Aug 14 2012 4:27 AM

Well, karanm, I must confess that I, too, was rooting for Hal at the end....

 

Henri

Top 100 Contributor
Posts 1,101
Points 11,165
Joined: Jun 2010
Location: Pennsylvania
CDeeter replied on Wed, Aug 15 2012 7:16 PM

I take it you weren't alive back then OmniDeus, huh? I certainly got the Jordache reference - they were more about image than substance, it's all about the eye candy.

Btw such rants won't get you very far here. Keep it civil. No problem voicing your opinion, but leave the personal attacks out..

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 7
Points 65
Joined: Aug 2012
enprim22 replied on Sat, Aug 18 2012 10:58 AM

If your search the internet on this topic, you will get a good deal of details and a Monster Diddy beats deal of connect. You will get to know all about the item by reading those contents

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 257
Points 3,190
Joined: Aug 2012
Jaybk26 replied on Sun, Aug 19 2012 11:33 AM

Wow, AKnudson, you really unleashed a lot of resentment in the online community.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 653
Points 5,925
Joined: May 2008
Location: Stockholm
mhenriday replied on Sun, Aug 19 2012 1:33 PM

With regard to Apple's desire for 30 or 40 USD for each and every Samsung smartphone or tablet sold, respectively, HH readers might find it interesting to note that Motorola Mobile is now taking Apple to court and seeking a ban on the import of, among other things, iPhones, iPads, and Mac computers to the USA because of the latter's refusal to negotiate license term acceptable to both parties (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-17/google-s-motorola-files-new-patent-case-against-apple-at-itc.html). Wonder how much Motorola Mobile (Google) is asking per device ? 30-40 USD ? «For 'tis the sport to have the enginer: Hoist with his own petar; and 't shall go hard: But I will delve one yard below their mines: And blow them at the moon....»

Henri

Not Ranked
Posts 38
Points 400
Joined: Aug 2012
LKnudson replied on Sun, Aug 19 2012 1:56 PM

Apple has definitely taken other peoples ideas, but they normally improve and better the idea before putting it into their own products. What Apples is doing with the "licensing fee" is an intelligent way to get back some the income they were losing to Samsung. Apple just didn't expect Samsung to take it to court

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 653
Points 5,925
Joined: May 2008
Location: Stockholm
mhenriday replied on Sun, Aug 19 2012 3:34 PM

Not quite sure, LKnudson (any relation to AKnudson ?) to what event you are referring when you end your posting above with the following comment : «Apple just didn't expect Samsung to take it to court». My understanding, which would seem to be confirmed by this detailed time-line constructed by Charlie Osborne at ZDNet (http://www.zdnet.com/apple-v-samsung-timeline-the-guide-to-whats-happening-7000002625/), is that the original lawsuit was filed by Apple against Samsung in April 2011. Samsung then counter-sued. Perhaps you possess other and more authoritive information on just which company sued first ? If, however, the source I cite above is correct in that Applelaunched the original suit, then not expecting Samsung to respond in kind would be a degree of sancta simplicitas of which I should be loath to accuse Apple's attorneys....

Henri

Page 1 of 1 (21 items) | RSS