

Regarding the ITC's exclusion order against Apple - thomholwerda
http://www.osnews.com/story/27234/Regarding_the_ITC_s_exclusion_order_against_Apple

======
josephlord
I disagree strongly with at least parts of this article. Offering no cash
alternative but instead demanding a cross license to non-FRAND patents is by
definition discriminatory as not every licencee will have patents and no one
else will have the same patents.

~~~
hga
Nothing in this article implies that Samsung wouldn't be willing to do a deal
in cash with such a no/not enough patents company.

For that matter, did Apple make a cash counteroffer?

~~~
sgift
Not stated, but if I read the article correctly Samsung made a money or patent
offer:

"Notably, the Commission dismissed Apple’s arguments that (1) Samsung’s
initial offer was so high as to show bad faith, and (2) Samsung’s attempts to
get a cross-license to Apple’s non-SEPs violated its FRAND commitments."

This reads to me like they offered Apple an cash deal and an alternative
patent deal. Sounds fair to me.

