

Apple requested 40$ royalties for every samsung phone sold - bluelu
http://www.scribd.com/doc/102594989/Samsung-Apple-Oct-5-2010-Licensing

======
kristopolous
Apple already eats up 71% of the mobile profits. Looks like they never forgot
how to act like a monopoly in all these years and they like getting up on
stage and playing all their 20 year old tunes:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microso...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_Environment_Manager#L...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_Environment_Manager#Later_versions)

Buying their products is saying, with your actual wallet, and your actual real
money in completely unequivocal terms: "Yes, I fully support these blunt
litigious anti-competitive tactics. Please do this more."

It's almost like a more evil serpent version of the Windows tax:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_refund#The_.22Windows_t...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_refund#The_.22Windows_tax.22)

What if Apple spent all this lawyer money instead on making a superior product
that would beat their competitors, you know, because it was a better product,
and not just go around and be the corporate Tonya Harding?

~~~
czr80
A monopoly position is not defined by share of profits.

~~~
bickfordb
Pricing power is a signal

~~~
jonhendry
The Ritz-Carlton charges high prices, but that doesn't mean they have a
monopoly on hotel rooms.

~~~
bickfordb
A luxury vendor charging luxury prices is not necessarily high pricing power.

------
Someone
every? $30 for every _smartphone_, $40 for every _tablet_. Sounds decent for
me _as a starting point for negotiations_ , given that Microsoft is rumoredto
collect $1 to $5 per Andorid phone
(<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15427575>), with the $5 probably for
the higher end phones.

~~~
taligent
Shame you were downvoted for expressing a legitimate point.

Microsoft is charging $1 to $5 for I believe only 2 patents (FAT and Calendar
event creation). And they in the eyes of the user (based on the research)
aren't as 'valuable' as the UI patents.

Also Apple was proposing that royalty rate to be lowered by up to 100% in
exchange for cross licensing.

~~~
josephlord
Not 100% but 20% - read the presentation.

20% off for cross license.

40% off if OS developer already has a license from Apple (i.e. Microsoft OS).

20% off if not not a touch screen ('Not using proprietary features - specific
features to be discussed' - basically not like an iPhone).

20% off if using an Apple Licensed Processor - (I don't know what this would
be).

So realistically if cross license is assumed the real rate would be $24 for a
Galaxy S type product, $12 for a WP7 (I don't think that the calculations on
slide 18 are actually correct).

As mentioned this was the opening of the negotiation. I don't know the
strength of the patent portfolio but IF it really is hard to bring a
touchscreen phone to competitive level without those technologies these don't
seem ridiculous prices to me.

If I were Samsung and assessed the patents as strong I would probably try to
negotiate for:

1) Exclusion of lower end phones completely if no relevant patents applied.

2) Contractual commitment to get reduced rates if others get them.

3) Reduced rates or higher cross license discount.

------
mahrain
Microsoft seems to be charging anywhere between $7 and $15 per android device
for their patents. ( [http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/reality-check-
microsoft-...](http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/reality-check-microsoft-
charging-vendors-a-15-patent-fee-per-android-device/9944) ) So while Apple's
fee is much higher, it seems fair to me that given the many obvious
similarities a form of patent licensing would be in order.

------
oliwarner
They can _request_ whatever they like. Doesn't mean they'll get it.

------
michaelfeathers
The document lays claim to "Java, OS and OO" as Apple innovations?

~~~
cyberp
The iPhone popularized a lot of best-of-breed technologies. There were start-
ups trying to do what the iPhone did. Apple is claiming those as Apple
innovations. This is very similar to Apple popularizing the GUI invented at
Xerox, and suing Microsoft.

~~~
podperson
If it's similar to Apple "popularizing" the GUI "invented" at Xerox then all
power to Apple. Certainly, Apple took Xerox's ideas and ran with them, but the
results went far beyond what Xerox had made. Microsoft simply took Apple's
ideas and made a shoddy clone. See any similarity?

We -- at best -- stand on giants' shoulders. Making the facile argument that
Samsung got stuff from Apple just like Apple got stuff from Xerox is skipping
over very important details.

------
metatronscube
Sounds fair. Samsung's 'designs' are total ripoffs of the iPhone anyway.

------
rabidsnail
I don't think I've seen more bullshit graphs in one slide deck in my life.

------
josephlord
Sorry Off-topic for the royalty request but relevant to the link.

Is it just me that runs with Noscript and finds scribd a real nuisance?

The linked page wants to run scripts from:

www.scribd.com

fonts1.scribdassets.com

s5.scribdassets.com

s6.scribdassets.com

rc.rlcdn.com

resources.infolinks.com

tap-cdn.rubiconproject.com

www.bkrtx.com

And you have to register to do the direct download. I would have thought that
they could have rationalised their own use of domains to a single domain (plus
subdomains) that could be authorised if I wished. The other four domains I've
never heard of which makes me just want to get out of the site. Should I just
trust them because scribd says that they trust them?

~~~
quesera
It's common to use a different (not sub) domain for static assets, especially
when you use gigantic cookies in your web app. If the static assets aren't
under access control, you usually don't need session information, etc to serve
them properly. This saves time and bandwidth.

It's also common to spread assets across multiple hostsnames (typically
subdomains that resolve to the same server) to parallelize loading by
browsers.

So I try to give sites some leeway, but I agree about scribd. If I can't make
the site work by allowing the primary domain and a CDN domain, I generally
bail.

I never ever allow unknown domains like those above, especially on a site
where I'm coming to view user-submitted content.

I trust the JavaScript sandbox well enough, but if I get to the point of
having to wonder about the provenance of code delivered by a site I'm
visiting, I'm usually too disgusted to bother continuing.

------
Ihavenoname
The title is not particularly accurate. Starting bid of 30 per phone with
crops licensing discounts and discount for 'non infringing' phones. Non
infringing being ones that apple did not consider to be outright copy of the
iPhone trade dress and then quirky features.

Apple made enormous effort to differentiate the product and give it a
personality. Samsung did not just try to match the features the old ones
looked like copies.

