[NewsPoster]

In its ongoing trial with Apple, Samsung is planning to call two witnesses known for arguing for high patent royalties, according to FOSS Patents. The most notable of these may be David Teece, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who recently testified on behalf of Motorola Mobility against Microsoft over the matter of H.264 video codec patents. Teece argued that a single standards-essential patent could be equal or greater in value than a large number of other patents relating to a standard, since it "takes only one bullet to kill."

A US International Trade Commission judge ultimately blocked Motorola attempts to get a US import injunction against Microsoft for failing to pay a demanded 2.25 percent royalty on products like Windows 7 and the Xbox 360. The ruling stated that "the royalty rate offered by Motorola of 2.25%, both as to its amount and the products covered, could not possibly have been accepted by Microsoft," and also claimed that the evidence suggested Motorola "was not interested in good faith negotiations and in extending a [F]RAND [fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory] license to it [Microsoft]." Samsung has sought out high royalties from Apple in the past, for instance asking for a 2.4 percent royalty in a Dutch lawsuit over chip technology. That case was thrown out, however, since the demanded royalties were seen as excessive, and Samsung was ruled to have not negotiated in good faith or complied with FRAND requirements. The company is in fact calling for a 2.4 percent royalty in the current case as well, which could potentially backfire. Teece should testify on Friday. The other witness is a Swedish consultant, Eric Stasik, who has made similar statements on the value of patents; writing about GSM, for example, he has argued that "the relationship between the number of patents and the total royalty rate is not linear." He remarks that "a license to a single ESSENTIAL patent may be 2.5%, a license to two ESSENTIAL patents may be 3.5%, and a license to three ESSENTIAL patents may be 4%, while a license to ten or more ESSENTIAL patents rarely exceeds 5%."

[Eldernorm]

WOW, Samsung either just does not get it or gets it and believes that it is immune to reality.

Standards Essential Patents get to be standard essential by agreeing to an international body to be sold or licensed at a FAIR AND REASONABLE price. 2.4% of the chip its used on (not 2.5% of the whole unit) .

Motorola and Samsung both have been suing with their SEPs and its failing in Europe and in the USA.

Just a thought.

[azrich]

Thanx for the insight on how FRAND works. I would hope that Samesung knows what they are doing, but then again...


Also, I want to point out that ANY time you start a legal action you should hear 'Be careful what you ask for!' in your head. That goes for all parties.

[freudling]

Originally Posted by Eldernorm 

WOW, Samsung either just does not get it or gets it and believes that it is immune to reality.
Standards Essential Patents get to be standard essential by agreeing to an international body to be sold or licensed at a FAIR AND REASONABLE price. 2.4% of the chip its used on (not 2.5% of the whole unit) .
Motorola and Samsung both have been suing with their SEPs and its failing in Europe and in the USA.
Just a thought.

Wow are you people delusional. Just last week we learned Apple wanted from Samsung $30 in licensing fees PER DEVICE over stuff that they mostly had ZERO patents over. The arrogance of Apple.

Let's put it into perspective. A $500 smartphone... that's 5.5% in royalty fees over just a demand! Not much in the way of patents. But Samsung sucks and is unfair because they're asking for essentially have of this amount from Apple over what are at this point still valid patents.

Unreal people.

[lamewing]

Originally Posted by freudling 

Originally Posted by Eldernorm 

WOW, Samsung either just does not get it or gets it and believes that it is immune to reality.
Standards Essential Patents get to be standard essential by agreeing to an international body to be sold or licensed at a FAIR AND REASONABLE price. 2.4% of the chip its used on (not 2.5% of the whole unit) .
Motorola and Samsung both have been suing with their SEPs and its failing in Europe and in the USA.
Just a thought.

Wow are you people delusional. Just last week we learned Apple wanted from Samsung $30 in licensing fees PER DEVICE over stuff that they mostly had ZERO patents over. The arrogance of Apple.

Let's put it into perspective. A $500 smartphone... that's 5.5% in royalty fees over just a demand! Not much in the way of patents. But Samsung sucks and is unfair because they're asking for essentially have of this amount from Apple over what are at this point still valid patents.

Unreal people.

And this is why Koh is telling the CEOs to meet one last time because BOTH companies are being completely unreasonable. She realizes that a jury is a fickle thing and it really doesn't matter who was right and who was wrong. Apple could be considered "right", but the jury could turn on them due to them asking for such a HUGE payout per smartphone. Samsung shouldn't be asking for the amount they are asking for either. I actually would like both companies to slapped down for this nonsense. Why? Because in the end, the only people that win are the lawyers and the customers will be screwed over by potentially LESS choices and most likely HIGHER prices.