I'm afraid that this particular claim had me snorting in derision:
Apple says Samsung patent royalty demands unfair
Now it is true that the particular patents under discussion here are standards essential. Therefore they must be offered on RAND (or FRAND to us Europeans, fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms to all and sundry. They must also be offered on the same terms to everyone. So what is at issue here is not how much Apple pays other people for access to other patents. Rather, it's how much is Samsung charging other people for access to those same patents?
Whether Apple thinks that is a fair number or not really isn't something that should be considered.
But what has me snorting with derision is that at the same time Apple is trying to demand the following from Samsung:
As a result, anyone who tries to build hardware using the same shapes and functions as an iPad or iPhone will have to pay what is effectively a tablet tax. Patent-watching corporate consultant and commentator Florian Meuller says that the court filings show that Apple is seeking a future royalty scheme that would add over $30 per tablet for the privilege of using Cupertino's intellectual property.
This breaks down to $24 per unit for the basic tablet design, $3.10 for its scrolling API function, and $2.02 apiece for using tap to zoom and navigate, and "overscroll bounce" feature – that is, if Judge Koh can be persuaded that Apple has reasonable claim.
Yes, this is about a different set of patents, ones which do not have to be licensed on FRAND terms. But do look at what Apple is claiming for: "basic tablet design" is a bit of a stretch there. There were tablets before the iPad notably from Microsoft and Q Pad. The Apple patents are more about this specific implementation of a tablet design: including such things as rounded corners. For this they want $24 per $500 device.
Samsung on the other hand own standards necessary patents. That is, patents necessary to get an iPhone working at all (more specifically, communicating with the internet and mobile phone network). And they want to charge $12 on a roughly $500 piece of kit.
OK, yes, the logical answer probably is a pox on all their houses.
But that still leaves us with the following: Apple wants $30 in patent royalties per box and Samsung wants $12. Yet it is Apple claiming that it is Samsung being unfair in their pricing?
You see why I snort with derision. Apple might even be correct that Samsung is charging more than they ought to but that specific claim of "unfair pricing" rings a little hollow when it's put as I have above.
