A couple of historical notes:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Samsung somehow managed to convince the ITC that Intel's license was only valid in the United States, and that Intel's American sales of Infineon chips to Apple in California was not a transaction it recognized to be in the United States.
Right, the patent exhaustion defense is only applicable to sales conducted INSIDE the US.
Apple has bent over backwards to make sure most of its business is legally done OUTSIDE the US, in order to avoid paying US taxes.
Unfortunately, a company cannot always eat its cake, and keep it too. Saying that sales are based overseas in places like Ireland, comes with both pros and cons.
Most egregiously, however, Samsung wasn't just demanding a double-dipping royalty for questionable patent claims on the baseband chip. It was demanding a royalty percentage of the full retail price of the finished product.
As noted many times before, that rate method has long been standard for ETSI patents, has some good reasons behind it, and was even approved by the US DOJ back in 2002:
So no, that was hardly "egregious". It's quite common. For example, Qualcomm's market value is greatly based upon what their current per-device percentage rates are.
Many things that might not make sense to the layman, have been policy for decades.
That's why it's not been fair to either side, that rule changes are being applied in the middle of cases.
The good thing that's coming out of all this, is that various agencies might just finally get their act together, and come up with a modern, cohesive set of rules that everyone will know ahead of time, and be applied across the board.
Edited by KDarling - 8/5/13 at 8:24am