+ Reply
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.


Thread: Samsung Believes Apple Owes $422 Million in Royalties

is a discussion within the

iPhone News

forums, a part of the

General iPhone

section;
...
  1. #1
    MMi Staff Writer Akshay Masand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,130
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 103 Times in 89 Posts

    Default Samsung Believes Apple Owes $422 Million in Royalties


    Samsung recently rested its case in the Apple vs. Samsung trial concluding its phase of the trial with a pair of expert witnesses who believe Apple could owe $421.8 million in royalties over five patents owned by the South Korean company.

    The first witness called to the stand was expert Vincent O’Brien, who testified that his calculations show Apple owes the Galaxy maker $22.8 million based on three patent infringement claims according to Bloomberg. The patents in question were presented on Tuesday and cover mobile device usability features regarding photos, email attachments and playing music in the background. The $22.8 million figure was arrived at by estimating reasonable royalty rates based in part on previous Apple payouts. The South Korean company can’t claim its lost sales to the alleged infringement so royalties are the only avenue of calculating damages.

    The second witness, who followed O’Brien’s testimony, was University of California, Berkeley professor David Teece. While on the stand, Teece said Apple’s alleged infringement of two separate Samsung patents relating to standards-essential UMTS patents could bring damages in the range of $290 million to $399 million. Royalty rates were calculated as 2% and 2.75% though how Samsung arrived at those numbers was unclear. In his cross-examination, Teece was presented with a letter from Samsung dated July 25, 2011 where the company proposed Apple pay a 2.4% royalty rate to license technology from any of 86 patents. Since the patents in question are deemed standards-essential, they should be licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, but the 2.4% rate was never before levied to a licensee.

    Samsung noted that it offered a fair and reasonable rate to “virtually every major player in the mobile phone industry,” but Apple rejected the terms and “to this day has not paid Samsung a dime for Apple’s use of Samsung’s standards-essential technology.” Apple claimed that the proposed royalty rate was “unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory” in a pre-trial filing.

    The Apple vs. Samsung trial continues with testimony from Apple witnesses intended to rebut the arguments that Samsung has asserted over the past week.

    Source: Bloomberg

    Twitter: @AkshayMasand

  2. #2
    iPhone? More like MyPhone soidroidios's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    102
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    They will be in deeper trouble if Apple wins. They get to charge billions instead. Good luck to the loser of this case

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In the shadows
    Posts
    798
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 74 Times in 47 Posts

    but Apple rejected the terms and “to this day has not paid Samsung a dime for Apple’s use of Samsung’s standards-essential technology.”
    See, Apple have never played nice where Samsung have tried. Apple is just a big bully in the phone industry.

    I really hope the judge throws the book at Apple and makes them pay for their stupidity.

  4. #4
    My iPhone is a Part of Me primalscream.40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    grenada,ms
    Posts
    781
    Thanks
    663
    Thanked 642 Times in 360 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by NakedFaerie View Post
    See, Apple have never played nice where Samsung have tried. Apple is just a big bully in the phone industry.

    I really hope the judge throws the book at Apple and makes them pay for their stupidity.
    Then it will be charged back to the end user of all Apple products

  5. #5
    Livin the iPhone Life Carvensno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,603
    Thanks
    2,479
    Thanked 1,592 Times in 660 Posts

    From the last couple of paragraphs? Yes Samsung made a offer, but sounds like they wanted more that what was fair, Apple saw the patents being under the "FRAND" Lic fee, but Samsung wanted more. Almost sounds like Samsung was maybe getting greedy and Apple said no were not paying that. Its should be under FRAND. That's about what it sounds like to me.

  6. #6
    Livin the iPhone Life steve-z17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    2,194
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked 140 Times in 120 Posts

    Just give Apple the win already, its obvious Samsung copied them. End it already!

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    In the shadows
    Posts
    798
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 74 Times in 47 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by Carvensno View Post
    From the last couple of paragraphs? Yes Samsung made a offer, but sounds like they wanted more that what was fair, Apple saw the patents being under the "FRAND" Lic fee, but Samsung wanted more. Almost sounds like Samsung was maybe getting greedy and Apple said no were not paying that. Its should be under FRAND. That's about what it sounds like to me.
    To me it sounds like everyone else paid but Apple didn't want to. They are the ones not playing fair.
    Samsung noted that it offered a fair and reasonable rate to “virtually every major player in the mobile phone industry,” but Apple rejected the terms and “to this day has not paid Samsung a dime for Apple’s use of Samsung’s standards-essential technology.”

  8. #8
    Livin the iPhone Life Carvensno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,603
    Thanks
    2,479
    Thanked 1,592 Times in 660 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by NakedFaerie View Post
    To me it sounds like everyone else paid but Apple didn't want to. They are the ones not playing fair.
    And how do you know that everyone else paid? So your telling me if i had a POS 76 Pinto and i wanted you to pay 4k for it you would? Because i think its a fair price? LMFAO :P

  9. #9
    Green Apple
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    77
    Thanks
    6
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by NakedFaerie View Post
    To me it sounds like everyone else paid but Apple didn't want to. They are the ones not playing fair.
    Ummm... Did you miss the part where it said the 2.4% was never levied against against licensees?

  10. #10
    iPhone? More like MyPhone
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    108
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts

    Yeah, keep dreaming

  11. #11
    iPhone? More like MyPhone Airwaves182's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    242
    Thanks
    165
    Thanked 13 Times in 12 Posts

    When did apple turn Jewish?

  12. #12
    Previously Known as A.T MetallicaFan1991's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Posts
    1,582
    Thanks
    188
    Thanked 111 Times in 94 Posts

    Without Apple, Samsuck is nothing!
    The quicker Apple move away from components Samsuck make, the quicker Samsuck can disappear. Without Apple's iPhone, Samsuck wouldn't have anyone to copy and wouldn't be dominating the Android market. I find it funny how Samsuck's devices are very similar to Apple's iDevices and they have huge a base in the Android market.

  13. #13
    iPhone? More like MyPhone
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    _4rM_Pk_
    Posts
    145
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by Airwaves182 View Post
    When did apple turn Jewish?

    lol +1 & Like
    No signature links or spam... only warning

  14. #14
    Green Apple
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    32
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Should be interesting to find what rate samsung charged other FRAND lisencees

  15. #15
    iPhone? More like MyPhone
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    163
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by NakedFaerie View Post
    To me it sounds like everyone else paid but Apple didn't want to. They are the ones not playing fair.
    No, Samsung never charged any other licensee a 2.4% fee, hence Apple's unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory claim.

  16. #16
    iPhoneaholic shortysos7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    438
    Thanks
    424
    Thanked 236 Times in 132 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by MetallicaFan1991 View Post
    Without Apple, Samsuck is nothing!
    The quicker Apple move away from components Samsuck make, the quicker Samsuck can disappear. Without Apple's iPhone, Samsuck wouldn't have anyone to copy and wouldn't be dominating the Android market. I find it funny how Samsuck's devices are very similar to Apple's iDevices and they have huge a base in the Android market.
    Lmfao I was dying every time I saw Samsuck. Lolol

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts