Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Apple sought $30-40 per device from Samsumg | 188 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

Apple sought $30-40 per device from Samsumg

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 09:49 AM EDT

Read the pertinent court filings. Apple *does* want to take a license. They
just don't feel that the offers which have been made fulfill the Fair,
Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) requirements. They're in court not
to determine whether or not they need to pay for a license, but to determine how
much that license is actually worth because the two parties haven't found a
common ground.

They may be arguing about whether they need to license a few of the patents in
particular, but that seems to be coming down to the contention that certain
patents flagged as 'necessary' for the standard either aren't (as in Apple is
practicing the standard without (they believe) practicing that patent), or
potentially invalid in the first place.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )