• Samsung Believes Apple Owes $422 Million in Royalties

    by
    Akshay Masand
    Published on 2012-08-17 10:04 AM
    15 Comments Comments


    Samsung recently rested its case in the Apple vs. Samsung trial concluding its phase of the trial with a pair of expert witnesses who believe Apple could owe $421.8 million in royalties over five patents owned by the South Korean company.

    The first witness called to the stand was expert Vincent O’Brien, who testified that his calculations show Apple owes the Galaxy maker $22.8 million based on three patent infringement claims according to Bloomberg. The patents in question were presented on Tuesday and cover mobile device usability features regarding photos, email attachments and playing music in the background. The $22.8 million figure was arrived at by estimating reasonable royalty rates based in part on previous Apple payouts. The South Korean company can’t claim its lost sales to the alleged infringement so royalties are the only avenue of calculating damages.

    The second witness, who followed O’Brien’s testimony, was University of California, Berkeley professor David Teece. While on the stand, Teece said Apple’s alleged infringement of two separate Samsung patents relating to standards-essential UMTS patents could bring damages in the range of $290 million to $399 million. Royalty rates were calculated as 2% and 2.75% though how Samsung arrived at those numbers was unclear. In his cross-examination, Teece was presented with a letter from Samsung dated July 25, 2011 where the company proposed Apple pay a 2.4% royalty rate to license technology from any of 86 patents. Since the patents in question are deemed standards-essential, they should be licensed under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms, but the 2.4% rate was never before levied to a licensee.

    Samsung noted that it offered a fair and reasonable rate to “virtually every major player in the mobile phone industry,” but Apple rejected the terms and “to this day has not paid Samsung a dime for Apple’s use of Samsung’s standards-essential technology.” Apple claimed that the proposed royalty rate was “unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory” in a pre-trial filing.

    The Apple vs. Samsung trial continues with testimony from Apple witnesses intended to rebut the arguments that Samsung has asserted over the past week.

    Source: Bloomberg
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Samsung Believes Apple Owes $422 Million in Royalties started by Akshay Masand View original post
    1. Categories:
    2. iPhone,
    3. iOS,
    4. Apple
    Comments 15 Comments
    1. soidroidios's Avatar
      soidroidios - 2012-08-17, 12:42 PM
      They will be in deeper trouble if Apple wins. They get to charge billions instead. Good luck to the loser of this case
    1. NakedFaerie's Avatar
      NakedFaerie - 2012-08-17, 02:40 PM
      but Apple rejected the terms and “to this day has not paid Samsung a dime for Apple’s use of Samsung’s standards-essential technology.”
      See, Apple have never played nice where Samsung have tried. Apple is just a big bully in the phone industry.

      I really hope the judge throws the book at Apple and makes them pay for their stupidity.
    1. primalscream.40's Avatar
      primalscream.40 - 2012-08-17, 02:52 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by NakedFaerie View Post
      See, Apple have never played nice where Samsung have tried. Apple is just a big bully in the phone industry.

      I really hope the judge throws the book at Apple and makes them pay for their stupidity.
      Then it will be charged back to the end user of all Apple products
    1. Carvensno's Avatar
      Carvensno - 2012-08-17, 03:34 PM
      From the last couple of paragraphs? Yes Samsung made a offer, but sounds like they wanted more that what was fair, Apple saw the patents being under the "FRAND" Lic fee, but Samsung wanted more. Almost sounds like Samsung was maybe getting greedy and Apple said no were not paying that. Its should be under FRAND. That's about what it sounds like to me.
    1. steve-z17's Avatar
      steve-z17 - 2012-08-17, 03:45 PM
      Just give Apple the win already, its obvious Samsung copied them. End it already!
    1. NakedFaerie's Avatar
      NakedFaerie - 2012-08-17, 05:29 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by Carvensno View Post
      From the last couple of paragraphs? Yes Samsung made a offer, but sounds like they wanted more that what was fair, Apple saw the patents being under the "FRAND" Lic fee, but Samsung wanted more. Almost sounds like Samsung was maybe getting greedy and Apple said no were not paying that. Its should be under FRAND. That's about what it sounds like to me.
      To me it sounds like everyone else paid but Apple didn't want to. They are the ones not playing fair.
      Samsung noted that it offered a fair and reasonable rate to “virtually every major player in the mobile phone industry,” but Apple rejected the terms and “to this day has not paid Samsung a dime for Apple’s use of Samsung’s standards-essential technology.”
    1. Carvensno's Avatar
      Carvensno - 2012-08-17, 05:48 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by NakedFaerie View Post
      To me it sounds like everyone else paid but Apple didn't want to. They are the ones not playing fair.
      And how do you know that everyone else paid? So your telling me if i had a POS 76 Pinto and i wanted you to pay 4k for it you would? Because i think its a fair price? LMFAO :P
    1. iPhonePutz's Avatar
      iPhonePutz - 2012-08-17, 06:44 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by NakedFaerie View Post
      To me it sounds like everyone else paid but Apple didn't want to. They are the ones not playing fair.
      Ummm... Did you miss the part where it said the 2.4% was never levied against against licensees?
    1. pakitos's Avatar
      pakitos - 2012-08-17, 06:56 PM
      Yeah, keep dreaming
    1. Airwaves182's Avatar
      Airwaves182 - 2012-08-17, 07:12 PM
      When did apple turn Jewish?
    1. MetallicaFan1991's Avatar
      MetallicaFan1991 - 2012-08-17, 08:43 PM
      Without Apple, Samsuck is nothing!
      The quicker Apple move away from components Samsuck make, the quicker Samsuck can disappear. Without Apple's iPhone, Samsuck wouldn't have anyone to copy and wouldn't be dominating the Android market. I find it funny how Samsuck's devices are very similar to Apple's iDevices and they have huge a base in the Android market.
    1. PAKIS-RULEZ's Avatar
      PAKIS-RULEZ - 2012-08-17, 09:20 PM
      Quote Originally Posted by Airwaves182 View Post
      When did apple turn Jewish?

      lol +1 & Like
    1. izzy1990's Avatar
      izzy1990 - 2012-08-18, 12:25 AM
      Should be interesting to find what rate samsung charged other FRAND lisencees
    1. domenicp's Avatar
      domenicp - 2012-08-18, 02:56 AM
      Quote Originally Posted by NakedFaerie View Post
      To me it sounds like everyone else paid but Apple didn't want to. They are the ones not playing fair.
      No, Samsung never charged any other licensee a 2.4% fee, hence Apple's unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory claim.
    1. shortysos7's Avatar
      shortysos7 - 2012-08-18, 03:01 AM
      Quote Originally Posted by MetallicaFan1991 View Post
      Without Apple, Samsuck is nothing!
      The quicker Apple move away from components Samsuck make, the quicker Samsuck can disappear. Without Apple's iPhone, Samsuck wouldn't have anyone to copy and wouldn't be dominating the Android market. I find it funny how Samsuck's devices are very similar to Apple's iDevices and they have huge a base in the Android market.
      Lmfao I was dying every time I saw Samsuck. Lolol

  • Connect With Us

  • Discord

    Join our Discord

  • Twitter Box

  • Facebook