decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
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

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Touch screen history needs looking at | 354 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The Corrections Thread
Authored by: ais523 on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 08:35 AM EDT
In case PJ made a mistake. It helps to put the correction in the title of your
post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Touch screen history needs looking at
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 08:40 AM EDT
They were around long before there was an Apple. The earliest publication (of a
working system) that I know about was in 1965. Given where E A Johnson worked, I
suspect the development was much earlier. I don't see how Apple can justify
their 'everything infringes' ideas.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The News Picks Thread
Authored by: ais523 on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 08:40 AM EDT
For discussing the links in the sidebar of the front page. Link to the pages
you're talking about in your comment, so that we know what you're talking about
once they scroll off the front page.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OFF-Topic
Authored by: soronlin on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 08:47 AM EDT
Not at all on-topic

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes Here Please
Authored by: soronlin on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 08:49 AM EDT
Thanks for all your hard work.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A question to ask every WP Developer
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 08:54 AM EDT
to ask every WP developer:

How do you feel that MS has but both money and legal efforts
in betting on Android succeeding instead of WP ecosystem and
tools? Scared about your livelihood yet relying upon MS?

Also notice that FairSearch members are all supported by MS
investments...should we ask about RICO?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Jokes about PJ vs PJH Here Please
Authored by: soronlin on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 08:54 AM EDT
So she can ignore, or maybe delete them, easier.

:-)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Standards Essential and FRAND
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 09:12 AM EDT
Quoth PJ:
I have some questions after viewing the slides. Is there a difference between licensing standards essential patents and licensing de facto standards patents? I ask that because Apple, if I've understood its slides, seems to believe that it is not possible to make a touch screen device without infringing Apple's patents. If that were true, ought there not to be a limit on the rates for patents that block an entire field like that, if there are to be limits on FRAND license rates? What's the difference?
There is a difference, and it's an important one. Patents in general are barriers to entry. Patents allow you to shut other people out of a market for building something similar unless they take a license. It's precisely what they're designed for.

So, for example, if Apple had invented the multi-touch capable touchscreen (they didn't, but they were the first to bring it successfully to market), they'd be within their rights to charge whatever they want for someone else to use it. Other people like it? Great! People can't live without it, and every decide needs it? Great! But they have to pay, and pay what the inventor chooses. To argue against this is to argue against patents as a general concept.

"People like the patented technology" isn't a reasonable argument for something to not be patentable. This would remove many of the incentives the patent system was designed to provide (i.e. the right of an inventor to control and receive maximum revenue from their invention). There's no REQUIREMENT to license to anyone under the patent system. FRAND is NOT an exception to that.

FRAND is different. FRAND is a bad solution to a technical problem. The problem is that most participants in the industry want there to be common standards for interoperability between various devices. Someone making cell phone towers needs to be able to talk to cell phones using an expected common format. And having a global standard allows useful things like voice and data roaming internationally. The point is that ALL market participants agree a standard is needed.

Standards aren't per se necessary - a company could invent its own competetor to LTE in the 4G space, and if you want to build all the hardware to implement it, you could. It's just not terribly practical - cell companies don't want to lock into a single-vendor network that only supports single- vendor handsets. So in practical terms, every vendor benefits from standards.

To have a standard, it NEEDS to be implementable by anyone. Otherwise, it's not a standard. It's not a standard if the cell phone companies can implement it but the cell tower companies can't.

The problem is that there's a lot of patented technology out there in telecom-land. Which means standard makers need to make a choice.

They COULD require all standards to be patent-free - standards must avoid using any patented technology or concepts. This would allow a truly patent-free standard, but would really limit effectiveness of the developed standard - it would be slow, buggy, and have coverage issues.

Or, they COULD allow patented technology into standards, and in fact did so. The challenge is what to do with the patents.

IMO the thing they should have done was insist on a free universal license - if you propose something as part of a standard, or sit in review of a standard that contains your patented tech, you've agreed to a free license for anyone to implement that patent specifically as part of the standard.

The problem with that approach is that the people with patents don't get any revenue from the patent (at least from implementing that specific standard, though they can get revenue from any other uses). People kicked and screamed, and the standards bodies folded and created FRAND, which in theory provides similar protection to an open free license, but in practice doesn't. The theory is companies maintain the patent, but agree to license the patent to anyone who asks at a "reasonable" rate, and at the same rate for everyone.

Note that FRAND is a VOLUNTARY agreement between the participants in creating the standard. They each individually agreed to license their technology under FRAND terms in exchange for their patented technology being incorporated into the standard. FRAND is a CONTRACTUAL requirement, not a patent requirement.

It's the "reasonable" part of FRAND that's the problem - companies are free to interpret it however they want. Once you've added a "judgement call" to the requirement (i.e. what's "reasonable"), you've created an issue for the courts, and created exactly the problem you were trying to avoid (standards someone can freely implement without a drawn-out court battle with patent holders).

The court battles around FRAND are precisely the reason why FRAND was a terrible idea. FRAND is not the answer. FRAND is the problem. Please don't argue for more FRAND.

The solution to the problems that are tying up the telecom space (and the software space) are two-fold:
  • Eliminate FRAND and for all future standards, require participants to grant a free open license to anyone implementing the standard
  • Have a major overhaul of what can actually be patented, and remove all the trivial and frivolous patents out there in the world.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google news.
Authored by: ThrPilgrim on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 09:33 AM EDT
I didn't even know that Google news existed until this article. But then I'm in
the UK where even with the current scandal hitting the BBC we still get better
news reports from them than the Murdoch owned press.

---
Beware of him who would deny you access to information for in his heart he
considers himself your master.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Nextag
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 10:02 AM EDT
One of the first things I learned when searching for stuff, was to ignore any
results from a web site called nextag. Nextag have the most absolutely, totally,
completely, uncompromisingly useless web pages. Search is SO much better now
that nextag is bounced way down in the search results.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Nextag - Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT
    • Nextag - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2012 @ 03:34 AM EDT
"Not using proprietary features"???
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 10:02 AM EDT
I may be jumping to conclusions here, but it sounds like
Apple is demanding royalties calculated on the basis of the
number of phones Samsung ships, *including* phones that don't
infringe any of Apple's patents (though those ones get a
discount).

Reminds me of railroad barons last century, Microsoft and the
PC makers, and in general of why I more or less gave up on
antitrust law a long time ago.

[ Reply to This | # ]

One possible explanation
Authored by: pem on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 10:52 AM EDT
I am the last person to defend Apple -- I think their actions in all this are
despicable -- but...

There may be good reasons for licensing Windows phones at a lower rate than
Android, that have to do with (legitimate) Apple and Microsoft cross-licensing,
and patent exhaustion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Controlling the Internet
Authored by: JK Finn on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 11:12 AM EDT
It's about the Internet, trying to suppress it and all it makes possible. And that's a message that seems to appeal to governments these days, the idea of controlling and regulating the Internet.

For some reason, the governments these days seem to assume that removing the uncontrollable aspects of the Internet would result in them having the control. 'Twould be laughable were it not so sad.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is utterly frustrating
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 11:16 AM EDT
What is most frustrating about this whole mess is that no government entity can
step in and restore decency and common sense.
These old tech giants have spun way out of control and their money and influence
means there are no restraints on their behaviour.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Corruption - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 07:40 PM EDT
Apple's Licensing Offer To Samsung Raises Questions About FRAND Rates and What's Behind the Attacks on Google ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 11:38 AM EDT
I do not believe that things will change for the good of
the majority of citizens. The US government is too much
composed of and controlled by citizens that believe that
only the wealthy have the correct beliefs to decide how the
nation must operate. So much of the entrenched wealthy
require that the citizentry be controlled and have no
siginificant free choice or options, otherwise they will
loose their undeserved and obscene income streams.

It is the adage of the Golden Rule: Those that have the
gold, make the rules.

[ Reply to This | # ]

$40 per tablet
Authored by: JamesK on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT
A couple of months ago, I bought a Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7" tablet for $250.
That license fee would be 16% of the retail price. Seems a bit steep to me.
Also, there are many tablets under $100. With those, at least 40% would go to
Apple.


---
The following program contains immature subject matter. Viewer discretion is
advised.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • $40 per tablet - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 07:05 PM EDT
  • $40 per tablet - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 02:04 AM EDT
FRAND Rates and What's Behind the Attacks on Google ~pj
Authored by: Gringo_ on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 11:48 AM EDT

PJ - I am so impressed with how well this article presents the situation. I really hope it is viewed broadly. The main stream press presents a fragmented view of the situation at best, but here you have it in a nutshell.

One thing that particularly irks me is how they (the press) pick up memes planted by Microsoft without realizing it. They do their readership a big disservice that way. For example, the meme about the insanity of "this patent war between smartphone companies". They imply with a few careless words that they are all the same and equally to blame. That view, as you have clearly demonstrated, couldn't be further from the truth. There is no "war" in that sense. Instead, there is Microsoft and Apple ganging up on Google, and Google backed into a corner trying to defend Android and our freedom from Apple's prison and Microsoft's predation. Now the courts are trying to emasculate Google by taking away their ability to fight back with FRAND patents. Meanwhile, the enemy is working full time to establish the meme that companies shouldn't be able to use FRAND patents this way.

I would suggest that it is the duty of journalists and writers of tech blogs to be properly informed so they don't end up being used as unwitting mouth pieces to spread propaganda from either Apple or Microsoft. This article would give them an excellent foundation on the issues in one go.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Petition at Whitehouse.gov
Authored by: pem on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 12:17 PM EDT
This petition is not by any means perfect, but they only give you 800 characters to press your case. I used all of them.

If 150 people sign up, the petition becomes "public" -- available on the front page of the site. Obviously a high bar to overcome, given the few petitions that are public.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Licensing Offer To Samsung Raises Questions About FRAND Rates and What's Behind the Attacks on Google ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 12:27 PM EDT
Question...

...Nokia do not pay Apple license fees as decided by the Apple-Nokia patent spat
a while back. The outcome of which was kept more or less secret (anyone know the
exact details?). We DO know what Apple is paying something to Nokia per device
sold...

I know that this is a "private" deal between Nokia and Apple, but does
it have bearing here? It seems that Apple chose to give up the fight (Nokia is
believed not to be a competitor anymore or that Nokia has far too many patents
in its portfolio that something would stick against Apple?)

Would any of this have any possible bearing later on with regards to
Samsung-Apple?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google's privacy policy change
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 12:28 PM EDT
Regarding the uproar about Google's privacy change to allow all its services to
share data, i recently read somewhere that ms had changed it's policy to do the
same.
Will look for the news item i read on this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fairsearch
Authored by: MDT on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 12:45 PM EDT
I just noticed, that the travel site I use (Orbitz) wasn't on the list PJ put
up. I hope that means they aren't part of Fairsearch at all. I did notice that
Kayak and Expedia were, and I don't use either of those sites. Not because they
are part of Fairsearch, but because they weren't good sites. I don't use
Google's travel site (if they have one). I like Orbitz, it is intuitive, and it
works for me.

Maybe if the Fairsearch groups learned that lesson, this could all go away.

---
MDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Fairsearch - Authored by: PJ on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 04:48 PM EDT
  • Fairsearch - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 05:19 PM EDT
  • orbitz - google tech user - Authored by: jrl on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 05:57 PM EDT
  • Fairsearch - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 04:49 AM EDT
Is $9 vs $24 fair? Depends what was paid for license
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 04:02 PM EDT
How would that work out in real life? Samsung would only pay $9 per Windows phones to Apple (still $3 more than the $6 rate Apple and Microsoft are whining to regulators about FRAND patents) but $24 per unit for Android devices. Does that look even plausibly fair?
I can't say if its fair without knowing what Microsoft paid for their license. $30x40%=$12 & $40x40%=$16. IF Microsoft's license payment included $120M or $160M to license Apple's technology for 10M units, then the discount would be fair within that context. Of course, the base fee seems excessive and that's not fair to either Android or even Microsoft (if they actually paid something worth the discount).

[ Reply to This | # ]

How do Microsoft feel
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT
That their partners have to pay a licence fee to apple to
implement WP?

Obviously commercial software can incorporate some patent
licensing cost into the sticker price.

Open source free software cannot be subject to patent
licencing without destroying it.

This is purely about destroying open source software and
ensuring that it can't be viable in the market. Apple and
Microsoft would rather you pay money for software from their
competitor than get it for free, because free software
strikes at the heart of all they hold dear.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I don't understand Example 2
Authored by: gfim on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 12:02 AM EDT
I don't understand Example 2. You've got a picture of an iPhone and an iPad, but
it talks about running Android.

What, sorry?? You're telling me that they're actually Samsung devices? Gee, they
really look alike don't they.


/sarcasm

---
Graham

[ Reply to This | # ]

why?
Authored by: Tufty on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 12:35 AM EDT
If it is FRAND then why should Windows and Android have different rates?

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Licensing Offer To Samsung Raises Questions About FRAND Rates and What's Behind the Attacks on Google ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 03:30 AM EDT

.. but I *would* argue against patents as a general concept.

We have academic research in hand proving that patents as a general concept to promote innovation is a failure.

Theoretical evidence - mathematic proof! - and practical evidence (research into the historic effects of patents on innovation).

Given this evidence, given *all* the evidence, I feel simply divorcing patents from software isn't enough. If software patents are disallowed the battle will just move to a new field, where all the problems we see today will just repeat themselves. Patents are no solution. Patents are a problem.

So we need to abolish patents entirely. Doing so in one fell swoop would be unwise, but it does need to be done.

The only real question left to me is how: How? How do we deal with fields where they fill a need? (However imperfectly...) As an example, the medical industry by necessity needs to be weened off this patent drug (it's causing harm there as well), and adjusting their processes to a new (contest based?) system will take years. For software it's a lot easier - getting rid of them right away will mitigate a lot of harm...

[ Reply to This | # ]

When is Google going to leverage its reach and put some pressure on Washington?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 04:46 AM EDT
Reading this article made me wonder why Google does not use
its powerful leverage more to back up the politicians
in washington against the wall. Especially those that are
subworkers for the MPAA & CO.

In the last year or so I have often thought that Google
should startup their very own editorial department for
publishing own brand of news using their vast infrastructure
to reach out to their own Google Audience. That would
definately shake up some folks in high places and even Obama
would get a case of jitters, right now before the elections.

This Article also raised some questions in my mind about
conspiracy issues and whats going on around the MPAA and
their political interest groups. Its beginning to become
obvious and it smells. Its a good thing that there are still
at least some investigative jounalists around interested in
publishing the truth.

Thanks Groklaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

They are not complaining about indexing...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 05:28 AM EDT
Yelp and co are mostly not complaining about indexing. The
problem is that Google present in the result, link to its
own services that do not come from indexing. For instance,
if you search for "smartphone", the third link is "Shopping
results for smartphone" (from Google Shopping), and if you
search for a town, then you get a link to Google Map in a prominent position
(either third link or on the right side,
depending on your local Google service). And those links are
not results of the "fair" indexing algorithms, but they show
up because Google actively place those link there.

You might think that it is convenient that they provide this
information, and I would agree with you. However, this is
borderline in light of the anti-trust law. As you said, it
is fine that Google has a near-monopoly in the search space,
but it is not fine that they abuse this monopoly to expand
into other domains, and by putting those links to their own
Shopping/Map services, it is actually what they are doing.

For sake of completeness, they do indeed complain about a
change in google indexing that reduce the ranking for page
with duplicated content, which was very good at taking down
website "mirroring" wikipedia, but it had the side effect of
taking down contents aggregator as well. But they know that
this argument cannot fly for anti-trust laws.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Licensing Offer To Samsung Raises Questions About FRAND Rates and What's Behind the Attacks on Google ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 05:33 AM EDT
Quote:
The one source said the FTC commissioners have given weight to other
complaints that Google refuses to share data that would allow advertisers
and developers to create software to compare the value they get on Google
to advertising spending on Microsoft's Bing or Yahoo.
End quote

I find this to be bizarre. I have extensive developement experience in this
area and I cannot understand what they are talking about and never heard
anything like this. If anything google gets more ad spend because the rest
are relatively incompetent both in terms of building business and in terms of
making it easy to get information into and out of them. It is laughable that
they accuse google of putting up barriers like this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Yep - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 03:41 PM EDT
Author's Google Bias
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 09:10 AM EDT
Well I suppose it's useful for your bias to be blatant, makes it easier to
evaluate your articles. To my mind Google aren't the white knights you paint
them to be, they've used their dominant position in search to muscle into many
areas and become dominant. The idea that they should be allowed to put google
maps at the top of searches for maps because "you don't want to find worse
products" are ludicrous and draw parallels with Microsoft's bundling of
Internet Explorer with Windows. (At the time it could easily have been argued
that IE gave the best browsing experience). If a better mapping solution was
out there, how would you know?
Google have no respect for people's privacy, and use personal data to make a lot
of money for themselves. Implying that google are doing good or fighting for
freedom is incredibly naive. Stick to the analysis of the law and stop
cheerleading for massive corporations, they don't deserve it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Licensing Offer To Samsung Raises Questions About FRAND Rates and What's Behind the Attacks on Google ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 11:47 AM EDT
Yay! Hope this remains invalidated! apples-rubber-band-patent-invalidated"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Licensing Offer To Samsung Raises Questions About FRAND Rates and What's Behind the Attacks on Google ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 02:02 PM EDT
<blockquote>Where's the harm in a service that is free and
that we can simply avoid if we don't like it?</blockquote>

And thus PJ admits that she has been wrong for over a decade
in regards to Microsoft bundling IE with Windows.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Apple's Licensing Offer To Samsung Raises Questions About FRAND Rates and What's Behind the Attacks on Google ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 03:33 PM EDT
Google rivals specializing in travel, shopping and entertainment have accused Google, the world's No. 1 search engine, of unfairly giving their web sites low quality rankings in search results to steer Internet users away from their websites and toward Google products that provide similar services.
A Google search for "travel sites" returns:
KAYAK, Expedia, Hotwire, orbitz, priceline, travelzoo, kiplinger, travelocity, online-travel-sites-review, and travel-nytimes
... on the first page of results

These are very predictable results and not a single one of them are google services. Every single one of them (well at least the first 8) are well known travel sites. if i did a search on travel sites and saw these results, i would be happy with the results.

A Google search for "map of las cruces, nm" returns:
A google map of las cruces, mapquest, lascrucescvb, yahoo-maps, tripadvisor, reenwichmeantime, city-data.com, and again city-data.com
...on the firs tpage of results

Yelp's complaints as i understand are that the Google Map data comes at the top. first. before everything else. But is this really even a valid arguement?

if i searched for a map, the first thing i want to see is a map. not a dozen links to another webpage that MIGHT show me a map of what i want. I fail to see the arguement.

A Google search for "hotels in las vegas" returns:
expedia, hotels.com, vegas.com, and google results for [Places for hotels near Las Vegas, NV]
...on the firs tpage of results

I still don't see anything wrong here. The top three travel sites information is listed first, ABOVE, the google links. The google links are not links to their own services. They are links to hotels that are in their maps database with the tag "hotel"

"flight to fiji":
expedia, tripadvisor, airpacific, cheapflights, skyscanner, jetstar, flightcentre, webjet...

I am really failing to understand why any of the travel sites on that list are angry with what Google's search results produce.

"men's rolex watches":
rolex.com, overstock.com, ebay.com, tic-tock.com, yahoo, other random shopping results... etc


Yes, there is the results for shopping.google.com on the right hand side of the screen. They are allowed to do this. They are allowed to put ads for whatever they want, wherever they want. But they are not polluting the search results. i did a similar search for "smartphone" and not a single mention of android in the results: wikipedia, cnet, att, amazon, blackberry, t-mobile,engadget, htc, about.com, computerworld, then news relating to smartphone

htc made the list. but one could argue they make phones with varying operating systems, not just android. Again, there are the shopping.google.com results on the right hand side of the screen, completely separated from the website search results. Are these the results that have everyone so worked up?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Apple discount structure
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 10:21 PM EDT
PJ wrote:

So Samsung's patents gave it a 20% discount, plus it could get an additional 40% discount if it made Windows phones or tablets, since Windows has an Apple license, according to Apple, and an additional 20% if the phone was QWERTY instead of touch. So, 80% off if Samsung sold that kind of a Windows phone:

So, is Apple a licensing agent for Microsoft? And is Apple admitting collusion with Microsoft? I fail to see any economic reason for Apple to offer Samsung a discount to use an alleged competitors (MS) product.

The whole discount structure reeks of an attempt to hamstring Samsung.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

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 )