Separately, Apple showed a video deposition with Samsung’s lead
licensing executive, Seungho Ahn. In the video Ahn generally answered
all questions with a "no" or "I don’t know," perhaps in an effort to
give Apple no traction with his testimony. But the net impression the
video left with the jury could be damaging.
For example, when
asked if he had made any specific efforts to make sure Samsung
understood and practiced FRAND licensing as required by standards groups
such as ETSI, he said, “I am the head of the IP center, and I have
Later, asked if Samsung made important contributions to telecommunications he answered, “I do not know.”
today, a former patent counsel from Texas Instruments testified for
Apple that Samsung’s proposal to license the two patents for 2.4 percent
of the cost of an iPhone--or about $14--violated FRAND terms set by
Richard Donaldson suggested Samsung should charge about
2.4 percent of the price of the baseband controller that executes the
functions—or about $2.40.
“Samsung has about five percent of
2,000 patents on 3G,” the former TI lawyer said. “If other companies
took the same approach as Samsung the total royalty of an iPhone would
be about 50 percent [of its market price]—that’s not fair or reasonable
because you could not be successful in the market,” he said.
In the concluding minutes of testimony Friday, Samsung called an expert witness who disputed the points Apple argued, saying Samsung's practices regarding ETSI and FRAND licensing are in line with industry norms.
Considering Samsung has the Patent for The "Retina" display used in the ipads and the fact they manufacture most of Apple's hardware can backfire for Apple. If Apple wins, say goodbye to the Ipad 2,ipod,mac,etc. Also Apple is suing samsung because their tablet is too "square", Apple actually has patented the square with rounded edges. That is the worst judicial allowment ever.Come sue me too Apple, my table is a square. Also Apple's slide to unlock feature is a metaphor. And in Apples 1988-1994 court battle, it was decided illegal to patent a metaphor. Yet another judicial error/ law breaking streak in apple. Die Crapple die!!!
Love ya Samsung
Refer to Wang vs Mitsubishi*. The original DRAM SIMM patent, JEDEC standardization and Wang's attempt to claim royalties. 1983.
Wang lost both the jury trial and on appeals.
The obligations of Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) are becoming more and more clear with every court case. If you participate in an SDO, disclose your patent applications, or don't expect royalties.
More recently, a well-known DRAM IP firm spent hundreds of millions in an effort to defend itself. But it finally lost its latest case against an Idaho memory company re: key synchronous DRAM patents. The IP firm failed to disclose key patent applications to standards committees, while it was a member of an SDO in the mid-1990's.
* Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Electronics America, Inc. and Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, 103 F.3d 1571; 41 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
standards rules do not trump law patent or otherwise.
What is a "timely manner".
If this were to be upheld in court it could only allow for the untimly time for relief. All other times would require a royalty payment. Or swapping royalty payments.
It's being tried in the US because the issue is US issued patents. Take the tin foil hats off folks. Or suspend the fan-boi attitudes. What Rick has reported has irked me both ways, that means he's doing his job.
The trail is going on. What will happen after the judgement? Suppose Apple wins will Samsung will bring another new model to sell in USA? or if Samsung wins will Apple going to pay royalty to Samusung? or if both win in their respective patents Apple and Samsung will continue to sell their same products world wide?
Greg.Dee and SiliconAsia, can it. Rick is doing a great job covering this trial. Geez...lighten up. Apple's attorneys are obviously well coached in the "marketing message" and in the end Apple wants to make sure their "message" is communicated even through this trial. Mr. Merritt is just reporting the facts clearly and I for one appreciate his work. It is fascinating to read. BTW - I am not an Apple "fan boy" - I work for Fujitsu. I do, however, have an iPad and I love it. I use a BlackBerry for my phone - just in case anybody is interested :)
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.