Apple, Samsung resume negotiations over patent royalties
Global electronics heavyweights Apple and Samsung are said to have renewed efforts to peacefully resolve their years-long legal battle over Samsung's infringement on Apple patents before the parties head back to court next year.
The talks do not yet include Apple CEO Tim Cook or Samsung mobile chief Shin Jong-kyun but are progressing, according to the Korea Times. Apple reportedly wants more than $30 per device from Samsung, while the Korean conglomerate prefers a patent cross-licensing agreement that would grant access to Apple's deep portfolio of design and technical patents.
After Apple's landmark victory in a case that resulted in damage awards of nearly $900 million, the two companies are set to meet in U.S. Federal Court again in March, and presiding Judge Lucy Koh has urged both sides to come to an agreement before that trial begins. Samsung believes Apple's current request is "too much," according to the paper, but Apple is said to be flexible in its demands.
An official at Korea's Fair Trade Commission told the Times that "as far as I know, the companies recently resumed working-level discussions toward the signing of a potential deal. They are in the process of narrowing differences over royalty payments."
Apple and Samsung have been attempting to settle their differences and end their extensive worldwide legal battle for nearly two years. Cook has expressed a preference for resolving the disputes amicably, saying that he has "always hated litigation" and that "if we could get to some kind of arrangement where we could be assured that [a guarantee against future patent infringement is] the case, I highly prefer to settle versus battle."
Last year, Apple and Taiwanese smartphone maker HTC settled their own patent dispute with a 10-year licensing agreement said to cover all current and future patents. "We are glad to have reached a settlement with HTC. We will continue to stay laser focused on product innovation," Cook said then in a succinct statement.
The talks do not yet include Apple CEO Tim Cook or Samsung mobile chief Shin Jong-kyun but are progressing, according to the Korea Times. Apple reportedly wants more than $30 per device from Samsung, while the Korean conglomerate prefers a patent cross-licensing agreement that would grant access to Apple's deep portfolio of design and technical patents.
After Apple's landmark victory in a case that resulted in damage awards of nearly $900 million, the two companies are set to meet in U.S. Federal Court again in March, and presiding Judge Lucy Koh has urged both sides to come to an agreement before that trial begins. Samsung believes Apple's current request is "too much," according to the paper, but Apple is said to be flexible in its demands.
An official at Korea's Fair Trade Commission told the Times that "as far as I know, the companies recently resumed working-level discussions toward the signing of a potential deal. They are in the process of narrowing differences over royalty payments."
Apple and Samsung have been attempting to settle their differences and end their extensive worldwide legal battle for nearly two years. Cook has expressed a preference for resolving the disputes amicably, saying that he has "always hated litigation" and that "if we could get to some kind of arrangement where we could be assured that [a guarantee against future patent infringement is] the case, I highly prefer to settle versus battle."
Last year, Apple and Taiwanese smartphone maker HTC settled their own patent dispute with a 10-year licensing agreement said to cover all current and future patents. "We are glad to have reached a settlement with HTC. We will continue to stay laser focused on product innovation," Cook said then in a succinct statement.
Comments
$30 seems reasonable. What design patents does Sammy have that Apple wants? Oh maybe they mean Sammy's copy machine.
As of January this year, Samsung owned the most US patents of any company (approximately 40,000), and they've come second on the yearly list for number of US patents registered every year since 2006. Apple owned about 6,500 at the start of the year. It sounds like quantity over quality, but in spite of that I'd be very surprised if they didn't have anything that was directly or tangentially of interest to Apple, particularly with regard to potential upcoming Apple TV or iWatch projects.
http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=8820aab8-dde9-4bfa-ae77-8a5faed14220
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_top_United_States_patent_recipients
Samsung gets the tar beaten out of it in multiple countries (including South Korea), they've now spent hundreds of millions in court only to owe Apple almost a cool billion, Apple is renewing motions to ban their products, and now they want to negotiate again? WHAT A TWIST!
Apple are interested in negotiating too. Samsung paying license fees is easier for everyone, even Apple. Litigation has risks (losing the case, appeals, time-consuming, counter-suits), doesn't really punish the companies involved and is an expensive pain in the ass for everyone concerned. It's not surprising Apple would prefer to license.
Not sure of the timing but the lawsuit may pre-date Google's purchase of a small little company called.....Motorolla. Which has alot of intellectual property on a little invention called the CELL Phone.... So if you want that music player to work like a cell phone, they best get their acts together. What was the first thing Google did after buying Motorola.?... they gave some patents to Samsung. So you apple apparatchiks better watch what you wish for. The IPod may be coming back as highest tech feature in your iPhone5...6 and 7....
... Samsung owned the most US patents of any company (approximately 40,000) ... Apple owned about 6,500 at the start of the year. It sounds like quantity over quality, but in spite of that I'd be very surprised if they didn't have anything that was directly or tangentially of interest to Apple, particularly with regard to potential upcoming Apple TV or iWatch projects.
That is correct, most of Samsung's patents are related to manufacturing equipment and processes which are of no use to Apple.
WTF are you talking about. Do you know what an iPhone is, troll?
Not sure of the timing but the lawsuit may pre-date Google's purchase of a small little company called.....Motorolla. Which has alot of intellectual property on a little invention called the CELL Phone.... So if you want that music player to work like a cell phone, they best get their acts together. What was the first thing Google did after buying Motorola.?... they gave some patents to Samsung. So you apple apparatchiks better watch what you wish for. The IPod may be coming back as highest tech feature in your iPhone5...6 and 7....
"Apple gained two favorable court decisions in its patent battles with Google's Motorola subsidiary today, one in Germany and other at the U.S. International Trade Commission."
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/08/apple-scores-back-to-back-wins-vs-googles-motorola-in-german-itc-patent-cases
As for Microsoft vs Motorola:
"Jury gives Microsoft victory over Motorola in patent trial"
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Jury-gives-Microsoft-victory-over-Motorola-in-patent-trial_id47108
There is something I failed to understand what patent Samsung own that Apple could infringe since all radios technology used in the iPhone comes from of the shelves parts made by third party suppliers like Qualcomm and Broadcom. All patent and licensing fees regarding Wifi and cell phone technologies should be already addressed by those parts supplier, not from Apple.
Actually the patent was for the mobile phone, and it expired long ago. Please educate yourself before posting things that you don't know about.
The OP probably did a search for Motorola patents and when he saw that they invented the cell phone erroneously thought that the patent which was issued about 40 years ago was still valid.
There is something I failed to understand what patent Samsung own that Apple could infringe since all radios technology used in the iPhone comes from of the shelves parts made by third party suppliers like Qualcomm and Broadcom. All patent and licensing fees regarding Wifi and cell phone technologies should be already addressed by those parts supplier, not from Apple.
Potentially? Software or design patents would be my guess, since as you've said, off-shelf parts are dealt with by the manufacturer. I guess the only other possibility would be if some element of the A7 or their custom chips infringed on a technical patent - anyone know if that's possible? Software / design still seems the most likely, though.
Potentially? Software or design patents would be my guess, since as you've said, off-shelf parts are dealt with by the manufacturer. I guess the only other possibility would be if some element of the A7 or their custom chips infringed on a technical patent - anyone know if that's possible? Software / design still seems the most likely, though.
I found pretty doubtful that Samsung has any valuable software assets. Apple is one of the few tech company who has 100% ownership of the software they use on their product, which isn't the case for Samsung. About the A7 design, Samsung is not an ARM architectural licences like Apple, who is one of the original founder of ARM holding and have access to all ARM licences,
it will be great if apple starts to make flip phones...motorola/google don't have anything of use ...google tried that and lost...so what could samsung have from google...0
As of January this year, Samsung owned the most US patents of any company (approximately 40,000), and they've come second on the yearly list for number of US patents registered every year since 2006. Apple owned about 6,500 at the start of the year.
In this story from 2012, they say Apple held (at that time) 15,500 patents, including 8500 in the US. Not sure if that includes the 6000+ Nortel patents that Apple has cross-license to in the Rockstar consortium.
Samsung does indeed patent a lot, but IBM patents even more, and those don't seem to do Big Blue all that much good, other than bragging rights, which may be why they let many of them expire after a year or two.
The OP probably did a search for Motorola patents and when he saw that they invented the cell phone erroneously thought that the patent which was issued about 40 years ago was still valid.
Cell phones were invented in 1947 by AT&T Bell Labs and the work on real systems, in the late 70s, was done by AT&T. Motorola's primary innovation was to miniaturize the car phone into handsets.
And the reason why Motorola's patent is for the 'mobile' phone. Thanks for the history refresh.
Samsung tried to sue Apple over the patents Qualcomm already paid royalties on. This was part of the trial in California and Samsung lost 100% of it's case.
I remember those mobile phones of 40 years ago. They were more like car mounted mobile walkie talkies with terrible background noise suppression. Most of the patents of the time were for technologies that have long since been surpassed and were all analog-based.
This is probably the patent the OP thinks is still valid.
US Patent 3,906,166: Radio Telephone System
Dr. Martin Cooper, et al.
Two years after inventing his first mobile phone, Dr. Martin Cooper, a former general manager for the systems division at Motorola, patented the precursor to the world of Blackberries and iPhones. In 1975, he listed his new invention as a “a portable duplex radio telephone system [which] includes at least one base station transmitter having a predetermined base transmission range, and a plurality of portable or mobile units each having a predetermined portable maximum transmission range predeterminately shorter than the base transmission range.”
Two years earlier he made the first mobile phone call to his rival, Joel Engel of Bell Laboratories. As the news of his amazing invention spread like wildfire, companies began snatching up the idea of a portable phone that the average man could carry around and use for normal phone calls. Nevertheless, it would take almost 40 years for Cooper’s invention to become commercially available in the United States.