1. Apple’s early vision for the iPad [...] were extraordinarily chunky and included a kick-stand
2. Google told Samsung that its devices looked “too similar” to Apple’s iPad. Google demanded “distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.”
3. Apple made 23 to 32 percent on gross margins for iPads sold between April 2010 and March 2012.
4. The iPhone design was inspired by a Sony designer talking about "portable electronic devices that lacked buttons and other ‘excessive ornamentation,’ fit in the hand, were ‘square with a screen’ and had ‘corners [which] have been rounded out"
5. Apple researches consumer sentiment on existing products in order to optimize future designs.
Apparently, Apple argues that FRAND patents should be effectively free, estimating that Samsung's standards patents are worth less than 1¢ per device. Whereas, Apple thinks its design patents are worth $24 per device, and their utility patents are another $3 on top of that. Were that to hold, it would eliminate Samsung's profit margin. So, it's hard not to read this as Apple trying to cage viable competitors entirely out of the market through legal maneuvering.
FRAND patents of the like Samsung are complaining about are usually patents on the individual component chip. Manufacturer of said chipset license the patent when they make the chipset then sell the chipset to downstream integrators like Apple. Given the cost of the chipset is far cheaper than the overall cost of the device 1c per chip is reasonable, especially when said chipset may require the licensing of hundreds of other patents as well and devices requiring several chipsets. If Samsung wins here they will effectively kill FRAND licensing and costs will increase significantly as everybody will now want $25 per device for their patents.
As part of the standards process Samsung has committed to licensing these patterns under Fair, Reasonably and Non-Discrimartory terms, which means they can't ask Apple for a different rate than they give say Motorola or HTC. Because Apple's Design patents are not FRAND they are under no obligation to give anything to Samsung.
Because Samsung's patents are standards essential you can't build a cellphone without needing them (hence the FRAND licensing), while its certainly possible to build a cellphone that doesn't violate Apple's design patents (RIM, Nokia et al don't seem to be getting sued for example). This doesn't mean that Apple is right for suing companies for violating them, but what Samsung is doing is far far worse.
I'm sorry, but I'm tired of seeing this blatantly disingenuous argument parroted everywhere. The fact is that Apple started this mess by ignoring FRAND obligations entirely--standards that make the entire iOS ecosystem possible. Now, I'm totay fine if Apple wants to make the argument that the existing patent system is unreasonable. But what Apple did instead is pure, self-serving hypocrisy.
Apple launched into a rampage trying to sue every other viable competitor out of the market for supposed infringement. In defending themselves from these attacks, Apple's victims are responding aggressively with their FRAND patents and whatever else they have (and even then, they're asking for a tiny fraction of what Apple is). Put simply, if you engage in the kind of anti-competitive and bullying behavior that Apple does, and subsidize your own profit margins on the backs of everyone else, then you shouldn't be surprised when everyone else starts swinging back.
Can you explain how Apple ignored FRAND obligations entirely?
Qualcomm already licensed the patents in its chips that they sold to Apple, but then Samsung wanted more because it was Apple. That itself is violating the "non-discriminatory" part of FRAND. How is this Apple's fault?
This kind of misinformation is the problem. Qualcomm never had a license for Samsung's FRAND patents. If they did, there wouldn't be an issue here. What Qualcomm had was a contractual agreement protecting their customers from Samsung pursuing FRAND patent fees, but that contract expired in early 2011. So, now Samsung is using their FRAND patents in defense against Apple's thermonuclear patent war.
Can you provide a source for that? If this is true, that changes quite a lot.
Also, how do you feel about Samsung asking for 2.4% of the chip price for a single patent when there are so, so many patents that go into making a device like the iPhone? Is that fair?
Edit: Forget about the source, I found some very easily (Google "samsung frand qualcomm"). But still, I think it's quite discriminatory to demand from Apple 2.4% for each patent, especially when these patents are seen as standards for cellphones.
The agreement didn't just expire, Samsung terminated it with the express purpose of counter-suing Apple. Note that Samsung to date has not gone after any other Qualcomm customers for increased patent license fees they can hardly claim they are being non-discriminatory.
Not sticking to the FRAND terms it agreed to is a pretty bad move on Samsung's part. I believe the EU not happy about this development and is already looking into this so the move could blow up in Samsung's face.
Also, as I recall Apple moved to Qualcomm chips from another chipset provider after they got sued by I think Motorola because neither they nor the chipset provider had come to any kind of licensing or contractual deal over the FRAND patents.
So if Samsung builds ground breaking technology that is so important that it gets included in every smartphone, they can't charge more than 1c per chip. However, if Apple builds trivial "slide to unlock", they can charge $25 per phone and block devices from entering the market? What is the incentive of doing research and developing important wireless technologies if you'll be less rewarded than the company who developed "slide to unlock". Shouldn't important techs get the most rewards? I'm against software patents, but if the law's going to support them at least it should be coherent.
If Apple charge $25 for a patent that isn't worth that much then people won't licence it and will find alternatives. If Samsung charges a high rate for one patent (of hundreds) people have to either completely drop the standard or pay.
I don't know if the Samsung patents are groundbreaking or not. It could be that there were other similar options the standards committee could have selected but with Samsung in the room the choice with the Samsung patent was made so all implementers need a license.
Big companies often want to get their technology into the standard as that enables them to get a small per unit license fee across large numbers of devices. I know that was the case when I worked at Sony. If Samsung didn't want to make that patent FRAND they could have made it clear during standardisation and I'm sure it would have been left out. If patents in this area don't get into standards they are effectively worthless.
Remember that the a group of competitors sitting in a room discussing future terms of business is either a standards committee or an illegal cartel. The difference is the rules under which they operate to give others access to the market which include the FRAND commitments.
I'm not sure that really is the case. Nokia, Sony Ericcson, Palm and MS had touchscreen handhelds for years before the iPhone. Either that should have generated clear prior art or there are other options that aren't silly. If Apple came up with something new that really makes all the old ways seem silly maybe it really is a valuable technology that they can charge high prices for.
If the Apple patent is shown to be invalid they won't get anything and Samsung won't have to work around it but whatever the situation there is no value in comparing prices between FRAND and non FRAND patents.
I don't recall any of the tech giants including Google and Samsung campaigning to get rid of whole categories of patents of for other major reforms. I would like patent reform but The law as it exists should be enforced.
Edit: Note that in this and my earlier post I am not commenting on the validity of either sides patents or what exactly the damages or license fees for either should be BUT that there is little value making a comparison between FRAND committed prices and those for any non FRAND prices.
FRAND patents are going to be more widely used and seen as more "essential". Slide to unlock is not exactly "essential" and more of an option. It's more optional than a FRAND patent would be.
Not good when your own designers are saying "too bad it looks like an iPhone". The Sony concept is interesting; it would be interesting to do a courtroom test (can the lawyers differentiate when the judge holds them up). I don't think it would e a problem with the original iPhone, but the iPhone 4 might be. Of course, Sony never created that product.
Now, of course one can say that the consumer should have paid more attention to the branding, but I think that's missing the point. It seems that for a few (?) people the Galaxy tab looked similar enough to the iPad to cause confusion and that the big box retailer conveyed the message to Samsung.
That data point doesn't mean much. Many people who aren't into tech will just lump a whole category of devices together with the most prominent member of the group. I suspect it's impossible to design a tablet-like device with any commercial potential at all that someone won't confuse for an iPad.
For example, I've had someone call my original Eee Transformer an iPad. And here we're talking of a device that's a different color (brown), different texture (smooth vs. crosshatched), different shape (16:10 vs. 4:3), and much thicker. Oh, and of course attached to a keyboard...
If I understand your point correctly, you are referring to the fact that some products by being first-to-market or by popularity start to define a category of products. For example, vacuum cleaners in the UK are mostly called "Hoovers", or say "Coke" represents a cola soft drink etc.
In those cases, people won't buy a product and return it. Although they refer to a vacuum cleaner as a "Hoover", they go in knowing fully well that they are buying a product that does what a "Hoover" does, i.e. pick up dust. Here people didn't go in wanting an iPad-esque product and buying a product in the same category, but rather they mistook it to be the iPad.
Pardon me if this seems a little circuitous, having trouble with words today :)
Is "revelation" really too tough a word for the authors of this article or the readers of Wired?
I really don't appreciate this linguistic trend in the tech community to turn verbs into nouns in a non-standard, ad hoc way when perfectly fine nouns exist. I (unfortunately) hear it with "ask" fairly frequently at work, and it makes me feel like Jules from Pulp Fiction ("Use 'ask' as a noun again, I dare you...")
Can anyone shed some linguistic light on this trend?
Hey Falling. You've been hellbanned. Your comments are not appearing to anyone except those who have "turn dead comments on". You may have been hellbanned for daring to defend Apple on HN, who knows since they never say, but they are really active at censoring people for having diverse opinions.
Just thought I'd share this in case you're still reading the thread... I can't even reply to your hellbanned comments alas.
Maybe it was for another offense? Something like appearing like a voting bot? Maybe falling wrote a script that was scraping the site too quickly? I guess only pg or rtm know for sure.
1. Apple’s early vision for the iPad [...] were extraordinarily chunky and included a kick-stand
2. Google told Samsung that its devices looked “too similar” to Apple’s iPad. Google demanded “distinguishable design vis-à-vis the iPad for the P3.”
3. Apple made 23 to 32 percent on gross margins for iPads sold between April 2010 and March 2012.
4. The iPhone design was inspired by a Sony designer talking about "portable electronic devices that lacked buttons and other ‘excessive ornamentation,’ fit in the hand, were ‘square with a screen’ and had ‘corners [which] have been rounded out"
5. Apple researches consumer sentiment on existing products in order to optimize future designs.