or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple tells Samsung it will only license out 'lower level patents'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple tells Samsung it will only license out 'lower level patents' - Page 2

post #41 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Point was they purchased it.

Do you understand that, in the real world where property rights might matter, 'buy' = 'own'?
post #42 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

And in a move certain to infuriate some of the regulars here, the leaders of both comanies showed civility to one another:

Samsung President Invited to Steve Job's Memorial Service
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/...101700661.html

Really? Who here would be infuriated by that, except the Android fanatics who regularly post here, bad-mouthing Apple and Jobs?

Here's a question that I hope you can honestly answer: Are you surprised by this invitation from Apple?
post #43 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Really? Who here would be infuriated by that, except the Android fanatics who regularly post here, bad-mouthing Apple and Jobs?

Here's a question that I hope you can honestly answer: Are you surprised by this invitation from Apple?

Not to mention Steve's collaboration with Samsung goes back 3 decades.
post #44 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

Point was they purchased it.

They purchased it and combined it with their own technology killing two birds with one stone.

They eliminated any legal issues with patents and the owners got wealthy while becoming important devs already at Apple within a very large ecosystem.
post #45 of 83
Seems like those ban in Australia isnt so successful.

People are buying passing the retailer all together and getting their Galaxy Tab online.

They are saying, in this internet age, what is the practicality of banning sales in one jurisdiction when consumers have the power to purchase anything on the internet from anywhere else? The only groups that is hurting is the local retailers and resalers.

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/t...017-1lsdg.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Here's a question that I hope you can honestly answer: Are you surprised by this invitation from Apple?

Yes.

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply

"Like I said before, share price will dip into the $400."  - 11/21/12 by Galbi

Reply
post #46 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

Any idea what those stocks would be worth now if Microsoft had held onto them?

Just quickly had a look at that. I don't know when in 1997 the deal was consumated, so I picked the middle of the year, Jun 27, 1997.
AAPL was $4.23, and the close last Friday 14th Oct, 2011 was coincidentally 100 times greater than that at $422.00.

$150M would have bought 35,460,993 AAPL shares.

Had MS kept those shares, they would be a $15B shareholder, nice "penalty" for losing/settling the case, but I understand they sold out a few years later. Great timing MS : )

I wonder if the new biography will throw further light on these type of things
post #47 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post

Apple better make sure they don't step on Samsung's patent-holding toes with any future product or they better be prepared to develop a new or different way to achieve or implement it. I know I'm making a generalized statement but there are so many patents to make so many CE products function that Samsung probably has oodles of key patents covering everything from TVs to cellular and general telephony technology to computers and chips. How does one establish where the line is drawn between low-level and high-level patents? Seems subjective to me, and I think it would be difficult for any given Judge to decide where the line is, also.

Apple has already infringed on Samsung patents and has de facto admitted to it. They are hung up on negotiating licensing fees. That is likely not enough for Samsung to get an injunction barring iPhone sales. But Samsung is trying.
post #48 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Apple has already infringed on Samsung patents and has de facto admitted to it. They are hung up on negotiating licensing fees. That is likely not enough for Samsung to get an injunction barring iPhone sales. But Samsung is trying.

And I think part of those negotiations include sharing each others patents. Obviously Apple think they have one up and are in the catbird seat, between the patents and the slavish copying, because they are getting favorable court orders. Are the Samsung patents Apple are infringing upon as strong and important to the UI and functionality of the iPad compared to the one's Samsung is infringing upon to use in the Galaxy Tab 10.1?

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #49 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Apple has already infringed on Samsung patents and has de facto admitted to it. They are hung up on negotiating licensing fees. That is likely not enough for Samsung to get an injunction barring iPhone sales. But Samsung is trying.

Well, that's one way to spin Samsung's loss last week.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79D2UT20111014

"A Dutch court on Friday turned down Samsung Electronics' request for an injunction against all of Apple's mobile products that use 3G telecommunications technology, denying it revenge over a similar move by Apple."

"On Friday, the Dutch court found that Samsung's 3G patents were part of essential standards which should be open to license under FRAND and that the two companies should negotiate an agreement."
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #50 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

That's a pretty anti-competitive statement. Oh well.

whats the point of having patterns if you have to sell them
post #51 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

That's a pretty anti-competitive statement. Oh well.

Perhaps. But so long as the refuse to license patents aren't FRAND items, like the ones Samsung sued over, the Apple isn't doing anything illegal
post #52 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

On the contrary. It's a very competitive statement.

Exactly. Letting other steal your technology is not a competitive move.

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply

Please update the AppleInsider app to function in landscape mode.

Reply
post #53 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

I can.

If you are following Foss's blog and AppleInsider articles you will know that Apple is a participant and key contributor to a number of open standards...

But it is becoming increasingly clear that Apple has some original IP around capacitive miltitouch....

Apple is absolutely and passionately committed to being Different. ...

Well stated.
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
Blindness is a condition as well as a state of mind.

Reply
post #54 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcompuser View Post

Try uploading that to Facebook and see how long it lasts.

Facebook analyzes the soundtrack on upload and if it matches another song's fingerprint, it's removed for copyright infringement.

Does anyone know what this technology is called? Who made it etc?
post #55 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by zindako View Post

Apple has never licensed out any patents its invented, not sure why they would start now.

Questions of anti-trust are always raised when one company owns more than 30% of a particular market. Apple owns arguably 75% of the tablet market. licensing might deflect some of the antitrust issues, as I understand things
post #56 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss the Dog View Post

]Had MS kept those shares, they would be a $15B shareholder, nice "penalty" for losing/settling the case, but I understand they sold out a few years later. Great timing MS : )

Those share were non convertible, non voting shares, and MS had to keep them for at least 5 years. IIRC, MS sold them pretty much as soon as they could, and made a very nice profit. Not as nice a profit as they would have gotten if they kept them until present day, but still
post #57 of 83
"off of"

Really, Appleinsider, really? Does it read as crudely as it looks. Maybe someone should change those two words to 'from'.
Switched permenantly! 12/08/2006
Unibody MacBook Pro ▪ 2.66Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo ▪ 4Gb Ram ▪ 500Gb 7200rpm HD ▪ Geforce 9600M GT ▪ Wireless Mighty Mouse ▪ Silver iPod Classic 160GB ▪ Black iPhone 3GS...
Reply
Switched permenantly! 12/08/2006
Unibody MacBook Pro ▪ 2.66Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo ▪ 4Gb Ram ▪ 500Gb 7200rpm HD ▪ Geforce 9600M GT ▪ Wireless Mighty Mouse ▪ Silver iPod Classic 160GB ▪ Black iPhone 3GS...
Reply
post #58 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Do you understand that, in the real world where property rights might matter, 'buy' = 'own'?

Context matters. I know Apple owns it and I know they put a considerable amount of time and money into it. My point was to counter those who act like Google is somehow the only company who buys something then improves it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

They purchased it and combined it with their own technology killing two birds with one stone.

They eliminated any legal issues with patents and the owners got wealthy while becoming important devs already at Apple within a very large ecosystem.

But no one acts like they're Nazis for purchasing the skeleton tech as opposed to making it 100% in house.
post #59 of 83
Well, this is my understanding.

Douth court basically dumped most of Apple claims (9 out of 10). Ok, they awarded an injuction but not really is it? So, Apple lost.

German court, yes Apple won based on the Community Design registered in 2004. Now, Samsung 1 : Apple 1. However, the Community Design would likely be invalidated by the court action by Samsung, IMHO.

Australian court, yes Apple won based on some multitouch jestures. Now Samsung 2 : Apple 1. I think the judge bought Apple claims that Samsung GT would likely kill Ipad, and Apple was very scared of it.

Two cases against Apple added. So, loooooooong way to go.

I do not wish Iphone 4s be banned by any other company, but I dont mind by Samsung as they have a cause. You dont bite feeding hands.

I realy like to have Iphone 5 with aluminum case just like Ipad, do you think this would be happening? Next year, Galaxy Note for my wife and this would be mine, hoping Apple settle with Samsung by then.
post #60 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

Microsoft also payed a settlement fee that have not been disclosed. Indirectly they admitted to do wrong things. (Like Intel paying AMD and so on...)

If Apple had not been near bankruptcy in 1997, they would not have accepted those terms. MSFT made a bargain. Especially since they sold the 150 million Apple stocks with a large profit.

Depending on just when you look at Apple in 1997, the company had a cash position of about US$1.2B, Microsoft about US$3.7B. Apple was hardly near bankruptcy but then, why upset one of the common myths. \
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
Where are we on the curve? We'll know once it goes asymptotic!
Reply
post #61 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

That's a pretty anti-competitive statement. Oh well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ltcompuser View Post

Try uploading that to Facebook and see how long it lasts.

Same with videos that have commercial songs as the soundtrack. Facebook analyzes the soundtrack on upload and if it matches another song's fingerprint, it's removed for copyright infringement.

So, I suspect that there could be more effective file screening on YouTube.

Actually, that's not how it works - at least on YouTube. If you upload a copyrighted soundtrack, they send you an email telling you that it's a copyrighted work and ask you to remove it if you don't have permission to use it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

While we wait for the AI staff to wake up tomorrow morning, some relevant tidbits from 'round the web:


Will diaper case help Samsung in battle with Apple?
...
Under the Federal Circuit's decision in the diaper case, Apple therefore might have difficulty meeting the standard set for obtaining a preliminary injunction.
...
http://tech2.in.com/news/general/wil...h-apple/249182

Note, however, that this applies only to the preliminary injunction. When it comes to the actual case, the patents are presumed valid unless Samsung can prove otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Online shoppers are ignoring Samsung ban
Australians are making a mockery of a Federal Court injunction banning the sale of Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablets in Australia by ordering them from online stores.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news...n/2326002.aspx

So? Who cares? Apple has been winning cases left and right. Samsung will eventually have to do the right thing and redesign their products.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

And in a move certain to infuriate some of the regulars here, the leaders of both comanies showed civility to one another:

Samsung President Invited to Steve Job's Memorial Service
http://english.chosun.com/site/data/...101700661.html

Why would that infuriate the regulars? You have some really strange ideas.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #62 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

Well, this is my understanding.

Douth court basically dumped most of Apple claims (9 out of 10). Ok, they awarded an injuction but not really is it? So, Apple lost.

German court, yes Apple won based on the Community Design registered in 2004. Now, Samsung 1 : Apple 1. However, the Community Design would likely be invalidated by the court action by Samsung, IMHO.

Australian court, yes Apple won based on some multitouch jestures. Now Samsung 2 : Apple 1. I think the judge bought Apple claims that Samsung GT would likely kill Ipad, and Apple was very scared of it.

Two cases against Apple added. So, loooooooong way to go.

I do not wish Iphone 4s be banned by any other company, but I dont mind by Samsung as they have a cause. You dont bite feeding hands.

I realy like to have Iphone 5 with aluminum case just like Ipad, do you think this would be happening? Next year, Galaxy Note for my wife and this would be mine, hoping Apple settle with Samsung by then.

FRAND Patents.

The iPhone 4S against which Samsung is seeking injunctions uses a Qualcomm chip.

Qualcomm show evidence of a license payment made to Samsung, BAM game over, the patent is exhausted Samsung can't double dip.

The big one is Oracle vs Google, Oracle is seeking an injunction against ALL android devices until Google brings Dalvik into compliance with Java standards.
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this webpage so it was reloaded.A problem occurred with this...
Reply
post #63 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

FRAND Patents.

The iPhone 4S against which Samsung is seeking injunctions uses a Qualcomm chip.

Qualcomm show evidence of a license payment made to Samsung, BAM game over, the patent is exhausted Samsung can't double dip.

The big one is Oracle vs Google, Oracle is seeking an injunction against ALL android devices until Google brings Dalvik into compliance with Java standards.

That is a check mate by Oracle over Google. It might explain Google's work in various other projects of their own making while they stall it in the courts so that they can release an Android with Dalvik ripped out.

Otherwise, they're screwed.
post #64 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss the Dog View Post

Just quickly had a look at that. I don't know when in 1997 the deal was consumated, so I picked the middle of the year, Jun 27, 1997.
AAPL was $4.23, and the close last Friday 14th Oct, 2011 was coincidentally 100 times greater than that at $422.00.

$150M would have bought 35,460,993 AAPL shares.

Had MS kept those shares, they would be a $15B shareholder, nice "penalty" for losing/settling the case, but I understand they sold out a few years later. Great timing MS : )

I wonder if the new biography will throw further light on these type of things


Did you forget the stock splits over that time?
post #65 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by hjb View Post

Well, this is my understanding.

Douth court basically dumped most of Apple claims (9 out of 10). Ok, they awarded an injuction but not really is it? So, Apple lost.

German court, yes Apple won based on the Community Design registered in 2004. Now, Samsung 1 : Apple 1. However, the Community Design would likely be invalidated by the court action by Samsung, IMHO.

Australian court, yes Apple won based on some multitouch jestures. Now Samsung 2 : Apple 1. I think the judge bought Apple claims that Samsung GT would likely kill Ipad, and Apple was very scared of it.

Two cases against Apple added. So, loooooooong way to go.

I do not wish Iphone 4s be banned by any other company, but I dont mind by Samsung as they have a cause. You dont bite feeding hands.

I realy like to have Iphone 5 with aluminum case just like Ipad, do you think this would be happening? Next year, Galaxy Note for my wife and this would be mine, hoping Apple settle with Samsung by then.

eh...I wish they'd both come to an understanding...

Also I wouldn't rank the cases so clearly as to gain a full point to any company.
post #66 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

That is a check mate by Oracle over Google. It might explain Google's work in various other projects of their own making while they stall it in the courts so that they can release an Android with Dalvik ripped out.

Otherwise, they're screwed.

that will most likely never happen...Oracle likely wants payment and then licensing fees...the injunction request is most likely a scare tactic.
post #67 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

that will most likely never happen...Oracle likely wants payment and then licensing fees...the injunction request is most likely a scare tactic.

Payment and licensing fees are going to be a big problem for Android going forward. These phones are already not as good as the iPhone - yeah, let's face it. It's true. I have plenty of friends with very nice Android phones which they like but will freely admit it's not as good a user experience, whatever the specs. The thing that was supposed to make the Android system so attractive was that it was offered for free. Start piling on licensing fees and it's free no longer. MSFT gets it's five bucks, who knows how much Oracle will get - the Android team made a conscious decision to infringe and deal with it later so we know there's a problem - and then throw in whatever Apple wants for it's low-level patents and this is no longer as attractive a phone OS as it seemed.

And yeah, youtube/Google are loathe to pay performance royalties to songwriters and force ASCAP and BMI to sue repeatedly. Google has as little respect for IP as it does for privacy.
post #68 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss the Dog View Post

Just quickly had a look at that. I don't know when in 1997 the deal was consumated, so I picked the middle of the year, Jun 27, 1997.
AAPL was $4.23, and the close last Friday 14th Oct, 2011 was coincidentally 100 times greater than that at $422.00.

$150M would have bought 35,460,993 AAPL shares.

Had MS kept those shares, they would be a $15B shareholder, nice "penalty" for losing/settling the case, but I understand they sold out a few years later. Great timing MS : )

I wonder if the new biography will throw further light on these type of things

You're missing something. Since 1997, there have been 2 two-for-one stock splits:
http://investor.apple.com/faq.cfm?FaqSetID=2

So Microsoft's investment would be worth $60 B at today's prices.

Of course, it's not as simple as MS underestimating the value of the stock. Owning a significant share of a competitor is a risky move when you're under investigation by the DOJ. Their attorneys may have felt that they had to sell.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #69 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by newbee View Post

I disagree. Apple is not against competition ..... but they are wary of spending their resources (time and money) to develop superior devices, only to watch lazy companies steal their designs and ideas under the guise of competition. If others want to compete ... do so .... but use your own ideas .... no?

We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.
Triumph of the Nerds (1996)
-Steve Jobs
@.@


on that point, android is a lot more than stealing great ideas, android is about making a copy of something that is more open, and less usable for about 99% of people (lol)

on that point, these low level patents might be stuff like "tap with 3 fingers at once to change default view to zoomed in" (this is a mode you can toggle on/off in settings)

that being said, don't license to anything involving Android....... please.... (Google needs to continue its failing spree in making non-search related things, at least an overall failure (Somethings succeed))

PC means personal computer.  

i have processing issues, mostly trying to get my ideas into speech and text.

if i say something confusing please tell me!

Reply

PC means personal computer.  

i have processing issues, mostly trying to get my ideas into speech and text.

if i say something confusing please tell me!

Reply
post #70 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by strask View Post

Payment and licensing fees are going to be a big problem for Android going forward. These phones are already not as good as the iPhone - yeah, let's face it. It's true. I have plenty of friends with very nice Android phones which they like but will freely admit it's not as good a user experience, whatever the specs. The thing that was supposed to make the Android system so attractive was that it was offered for free. Start piling on licensing fees and it's free no longer. MSFT gets it's five bucks, who knows how much Oracle will get - the Android team made a conscious decision to infringe and deal with it later so we know there's a problem - and then throw in whatever Apple wants for it's low-level patents and this is no longer as attractive a phone OS as it seemed.

And yeah, youtube/Google are loathe to pay performance royalties to songwriters and force ASCAP and BMI to sue repeatedly. Google has as little respect for IP as it does for privacy.

First a life lesson...you cannot say a subjective opinion is true. While I will openly agree that there are things iOS handles better than Android OS, I personally (me, my opinion) feel that Android is the better more complete experience. App selection is paltry in comparison, sure, but the app selection is still grand.

Secondly, don't count Google out yet. The case isn't as cut and dry as you make it seem.

Thirdly, Apple hasn't won anything official yet either. Except a design patent case in one jurisdiction.

You are making full assumptions on the future of Android based on cases that are murky as hell.
post #71 of 83
deleted
post #72 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolbolas View Post

We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.
Triumph of the Nerds (1996)
-Steve Jobs
@.@


on that point, android is a lot more than stealing great ideas, android is about making a copy of something that is more open, and less usable for about 99% of people (lol)

on that point, these low level patents might be stuff like "tap with 3 fingers at once to change default view to zoomed in" (this is a mode you can toggle on/off in settings)

that being said, don't license to anything involving Android....... please.... (Google needs to continue its failing spree in making non-search related things, at least an overall failure (Somethings succeed))

Hey guy...how are you?

I was wondering...could you tell me how these look a like?



I'll be waiting.

OH icons? not Apple's invention.

OH touchscreen? again, not Apple's invention

A centralized store for apps? Great idea by Apple but Apple cannot own a type of store.

Also Android is hardly unusable...but something tells me you've only used Android for at most 5 minutes and made a judgement based on something like the Motorola backflip or whatever.
post #73 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Precisely: No one cares. The temporary injunction may make for feel-good reporting in a venue like AI, but in the real world has close to zero practical effect.

Actually I would have thought that the injunction would have an effect. Even if they are available online, not being able to display them in stores alongside competitors is likely to impact overall sales negatively.
post #74 of 83
deleted
post #75 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

While we're waiting, let's remember some of the other phones Apple included in their suit.

According to FOSS Patents, the complete list is:



What do they look like?

Well, we all know about the only product Apple's been successful with an injunction against, but how many times has AI run a picture that shows both sides?:



Other allegedly-infringing devices include:





















slavish I say...slavish.
post #76 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacRulez View Post

Precisely: No one cares. The temporary injunction may make for feel-good reporting in a venue like AI, but in the real world has close to zero practical effect.

Unless you're trying to sell your product and can't because it has been banned.

How much money do you think it's going to cost Samsung to not be able to sell some key products for the back to school and Christmas seasons? Hint, there are a lot of zeros involved.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #77 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post

My point was to counter those who act like Google is somehow the only company who buys something then improves it.

While some people will love and hate companies in the same way sports fans do favored and and rival teams, intelligent people don't.
What really bothers people is (and here's where Microsoft, Google, et al come in) when a company *doesn't* buy or license another company's IP and then improves it and call it their own.
post #78 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQatEdo View Post

Depending on just when you look at Apple in 1997, the company had a cash position of about US$1.2B, Microsoft about US$3.7B. Apple was hardly near bankruptcy but then, why upset one of the common myths. \

@IQatEdo
I was trying to find old financial statements and was unsuccessful. Where does one go to get that info?
post #79 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Unless you're trying to sell your product and can't because it has been banned.

How much money do you think it's going to cost Samsung to not be able to sell some key products for the back to school and Christmas seasons? Hint, there are a lot of zeros involved.

Presumably not just zeros.
post #80 of 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde View Post

Did you forget the stock splits over that time?

He didn't

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You're missing something. Since 1997, there have been 2 two-for-one stock splits:
http://investor.apple.com/faq.cfm?FaqSetID=2

So Microsoft's investment would be worth $60 B at today's prices.

Of course, it's not as simple as MS underestimating the value of the stock. Owning a significant share of a competitor is a risky move when you're under investigation by the DOJ. Their attorneys may have felt that they had to sell.

Nope again.

When the stock is split the historic price is multiplied by the inverse of the split. This makes price comparisons, charting, financials, etc. easier to deal with. So his original post is correct. Although he states the price in August of 97 was $5 (or whatever he said,) and although it is listed as $5 (or whatever) in historical prices and charts, the actual price at the time was (2*2=4) 4 times that amount or $20 (a little under $20 actually.)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple tells Samsung it will only license out 'lower level patents'