Slashdot Mirror


Apple Demands $40 Per Samsung Phone For 5 Software Patents

An anonymous reader writes "Apple and Samsung couldn't agree on a patent cross-license even though their CEOs met recently. What could be the reason (or one of the reasons) is that Apple is asking for obscenely high patent royalties. At the March 31 trial an Apple-hired expert will present to a California jury (already the third jury trial in this dispute) a damages claim of $40 per device (phone or tablet) for just a handful of software patents. The patents are related to, but don't cover all aspects and elements of, functionalities like slide-to-unlock, autocorrect, data synchronization, unified search and the famous tap-on-phone-number-to-dial feature. Google says there are 250,000 patentable inventions in a smartphone. On average, Apple wants $8 per patent per device. That would add a patent licensing bill of $2 million to each gadget. So Apple and Samsung will be back to court again later this month."

7 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. Re:How are those kind of things patentable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    did you even use a so called smartphone phone before the iphone? yeah, someone else, like windows ce/mobile or palm os. those pieces of trash.

  2. Re:Ignorance... by whisper_jeff · · Score: -1, Troll

    You have utterly no concept of how FRAND patents work nor virtually any of the facts in this rather large situation.

    Thus the subject of my original post.

  3. Re:How are those kind of things patentable? by noh8rz10 · · Score: -1, Troll

    burrn!!!!

  4. Wow by thestudio_bob · · Score: -1, Troll

    How much did Samsung pay for this post?

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
  5. Re:The term of art is "obvious." by gnasher719 · · Score: -1, Troll

    You're not allowed to patent an obvious advancement.

    If it was so obvious, why didn't anyone use it before iOS demonstrated it? Many, many things are obvious _after_ you see them, but not at all obvious _before_ you see them.

    But then, on Slashdot Apple is evil and Google is good, therefore all Apple patents are evil and Apple is even more evil for enforcing evil patents, while Google patents are all good and Google is good for its defensive use of good patents (like in its failed attempt to blackmail Microsoft for four billion dollars), and likewise Samsung is good for trying to use FRAND patents for blackmail (even though the EU threatened them with a 13 billion dollar fine).

  6. Re:The term of art is "obvious." by the_B0fh · · Score: -1, Troll

    Please, you're getting in the way of a good "Apple sucks and is teh 3vil!!" narative! Do not start trying to make sense here!

  7. Re: The term of art is "obvious." by iamhassi · · Score: 0, Troll

    No, not like that at all.

    /. likes Tesla so they don't have to play by the rules but /. hates Apple so they must play by the rules.

    Make sense?

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone