Got any citation for your claim that Samsung wanted a higher royalty from Apple than anyone else? I missed that one.
Why don't you read the Dutch judge's comments that the royalty being demanded by Samsung was too high.
"At a hearing on September 26, it turned out that Samsung was seeking a royalty of 2.4% of the chip price for each (!) of its asserted patents. In today's ruling, the Dutch court says that Samsung's offer was so far out of the FRAND ballpark that, in the court's opinion, Samsung has failed to honor its obligation to make an offer on FRAND terms."
Why don't you read the Dutch judge's comments that the royalty being demanded by Samsung was too high.
"At a hearing on September 26, it turned out that Samsung was seeking a royalty of 2.4% of the chip price for each (!) of its asserted patents. In today's ruling, the Dutch court says that Samsung's offer was so far out of the FRAND ballpark that, in the court's opinion, Samsung has failed to honor its obligation to make an offer on FRAND terms."
I'm well aware of what the court had to say. I even mentioned it myself, questioning how they arrived at that conclusion. Is that supposed to be proof that Samsung was asking a higher royalty rate from Apple than anyone else? It isn't.
When you find a citation that does, please do post it.
What a surprise...Apple's stock could plummet by 50% tomorrow, and you would still claim it was an "Apple victory"
In regards to Samsung not accepting Apple's licensing offer, I was always under the impression that it was because Apple wanted to license the patent under FRAND and maintain the option to challenge the patent. Samsung's assertions was that those were unacceptable terms, and that Apple would need to forfeit their right to challenge the patent as is typically done under FRAND licensing. Apple declined to accept that offer, and proceeded to use Samsung's IP anyways without a licensing agreement. Where are you coming up with the idea that Samsung was trying to charge more from Apple than anyone else???
The reason it isn't a victory for Samsung is that they wanted injunctive relief, which they didn't get.
They lost a lot of the bargaining power they wanted to use in trying to get Apple to cross-license.
On top of that they have also opened themselves to anti-competitive behaviour investigations.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3
I can already see the headlines
"Oracle successfully obtains injunction on Nintendo 64"
"Apple succeeds is obtaining ban on Motorolla Startac"
"Samsung wins patent dispute over Apple Newton"
The courts are slow, but not that slow.
It takes years for these things to be resolved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Got any citation for your claim that Samsung wanted a higher royalty from Apple than anyone else? I missed that one.
Why don't you read the Dutch judge's comments that the royalty being demanded by Samsung was too high.
"At a hearing on September 26, it turned out that Samsung was seeking a royalty of 2.4% of the chip price for each (!) of its asserted patents. In today's ruling, the Dutch court says that Samsung's offer was so far out of the FRAND ballpark that, in the court's opinion, Samsung has failed to honor its obligation to make an offer on FRAND terms."
http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/samsung-loses-dutch-case-against-apple.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Why don't you read the Dutch judge's comments that the royalty being demanded by Samsung was too high.
"At a hearing on September 26, it turned out that Samsung was seeking a royalty of 2.4% of the chip price for each (!) of its asserted patents. In today's ruling, the Dutch court says that Samsung's offer was so far out of the FRAND ballpark that, in the court's opinion, Samsung has failed to honor its obligation to make an offer on FRAND terms."
http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/samsung-loses-dutch-case-against-apple.html
I'm well aware of what the court had to say. I even mentioned it myself, questioning how they arrived at that conclusion. Is that supposed to be proof that Samsung was asking a higher royalty rate from Apple than anyone else? It isn't.
When you find a citation that does, please do post it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by e_veritas
What a surprise...Apple's stock could plummet by 50% tomorrow, and you would still claim it was an "Apple victory"
In regards to Samsung not accepting Apple's licensing offer, I was always under the impression that it was because Apple wanted to license the patent under FRAND and maintain the option to challenge the patent. Samsung's assertions was that those were unacceptable terms, and that Apple would need to forfeit their right to challenge the patent as is typically done under FRAND licensing. Apple declined to accept that offer, and proceeded to use Samsung's IP anyways without a licensing agreement. Where are you coming up with the idea that Samsung was trying to charge more from Apple than anyone else???
The reason it isn't a victory for Samsung is that they wanted injunctive relief, which they didn't get.
They lost a lot of the bargaining power they wanted to use in trying to get Apple to cross-license.
On top of that they have also opened themselves to anti-competitive behaviour investigations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Yep just like the iPad huh?
Too bad this came from 2006
I think your clipboard is broken or you hit repost.
That crappy beige plastic edged picture frame with the fat plastic back with buttons and a kickstand, which is nothing like an iPad, is back.
Same as yesterday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
I think your clipboard is broken or you hit repost.
That crappy beige plastic edged picture frame with the fat plastic back with buttons and a kickstand, which is nothing like an iPad, is back.
Same as yesterday.
Yep and your glasses still need adjustment and it still looks like a iPad, just like it did yesterday and the day before that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
When you find a citation that does, please do post it.
Why?
This is an opinion based forum, I'm not writing a thesis.
No, but you thought you were answering my question apparently since you quoted me.
Funny how you never post any other image of that thing. Because you're hiding the actual shape in the image's perspective.
Also, 2006, you say? This is from 2004. Oops!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Funny how you never post any other image of that thing. Because you're hiding the actual shape in the image's perspective.
Also, 2006, you say? This is from 2004. Oops!
Yes 2006. http://www.dailytech.com/EDITORIAL+Apples+Patent+Didnt+Look+Much+Like+the+iPad++or+Samsung+Tab+101/article22685.htm oops!
http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/09/samsung-digital-picture-frame-stores-pics-movies-music/
So what if the back is different?
Does this look like the back of a iPad? Didn't stop Apple from suing them.
It's sort of the entire point… Can't just cherry pick here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It's sort of the entire point… Can't just cherry pick here.
Exactly, Samsung released their device first and the ipad looks very similar.
Thanks for continuing to get it wrong. I knew we could count on you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Thanks for continuing to get it wrong. I knew we could count on you.
Prove it
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Yep just like the iPad huh?
Too bad this came from 2006
1. Samsung marketed above digital photo frame in 2006
2. In 2010, Apple marketed Ipad with remakably similar design with the Samsung photo frame.
3. In early 2011, Samsung introduced Galaxy Tab with the same design with their 2006 digital photo frame.
4. Later, Apple started saying Samsung copied Ipad design in Galaxy Tab. (!@#$%^&*)
And some of us are still beleiving Samsung copied Ipad design in GT? (!@#$%^&*)