What Apple’s 2010 licensing proposal to Samsung means for Android in 2012 and beyond

“On Friday afternoon, AllThingsD’s Ina Fried was first to publish a presentation of a licensing proposal Apple made to Samsung on October 5, 2010 — six and a half months months prior to suing,” Florian Mueller reports for FOSS Patents. “This is the most spectacular revelation of the ongoing trial.”

“The structure of what Apple proposed in 2010 is pretty straightforward. Depending on the type of device, Samsung would need to license more or fewer patents. Apple was primarily interested in working out a solution for devices of the “mobile computer” category: iPhone-like smartphones and iPad-like tablets. For this device category, Apple proposed a $30 per-unit royalty, except that for the first two years, the per-unit royalty per tablet computer would have amounted to $40,” Mueller reports.

“Apple’s October 2010 proposal to Samsung provides previously-unavailable insights into Apple’s strategic approach to these issues. It also serves to show that analysts who claimed that companies like HTC could get a $5-per-unit deal done with Apple were completely off base,” Mueller reports. “I believe many financial analysts will now also be more cautious about the royalty levels they assume for other deals, also as far as Microsoft’s royalty-bearing license agreements are concerned. Finally, the publication of Apple’s proposal supports my long-standing theory that Apple is primarily interested in market share, not patent royalties.”

Read more in the full article here.

Related article:
Steve Jobs offered iOS licensing deal to Samsung for $250 million; stupid Samsung declined – August 11, 2012

20 Comments

    1. iHaters like to make assumptions without knowing the facts. Most of us don’t know what Apple does internally, so we just make up stuff in our minds. Even after hearing about the licensing, the iHaters still thought the high cost of licensing fees were a ripoff. Apple can’t win against the iHaters.

      1. You hit the nail on the head. Coming from a trial article post and the iHaters are out in full swing.

        Apple features are not important so why care.
        Android spec features are all important.
        Being able to do anything with your phone is critical to ALL.
        Anything a user of Apple says is just Fanboyism.
        bla, bla, bla.

        I thing the key things will win out. Now just what those are is still to be determined, but Apple seems to be heading the right way as their lead and profit margins seem to be making progress. Time will tell.

        In the mean time, I plan to just enjoy my Apple gear. LOL

  1. Apple’s licensing terms were pretty stiff. However, Apple could and does make a lot more per unit selling its own hardware, not to mention the residuals with search, the App Store, etc.

    Besides, this was a somewhat “forced” offer in the sense that Samsung had already chosen to infringe on Apple’s IP, and Apple was simply attempting to find a graceful, if slightly punitive method, of avoiding the courts.

    I remain very interested in the way that the current Apple-Samsung lawsuits will conclude. By all accounts, Apple has a strong upper hand at the moment. But there is no certainty with respect to the final verdict.

    1. Apple’s Closing Statement will be very strong ……

      Additionally Apple’s innovation continues to shine in the trail material ……

      Next two- three will be interesting, especially when we go full time, five days a week!

  2. A few disparaging things going around that Apple did not address and should start to address PDQ.

    1. During fridays court session Apple witness said he had done a study that found people would value Apples patents at $100. Apples lawyer disparaged this by saying that what people SAY they will pay is not what they DO in real life. thereby making the study of little value.

    This is what the Apple witness should have said: When the iPhone was released a $600 price for a phone was unheard of mainly because all phones were dumb phones selling for hundreds of dollars below the iPhone price. In fact, most competitors said it was way too expensive and had ‘touch keyboard’ instead of a mechanical keyboard.
    <<<>>>> Then of course we all know the iPhone go’s on to become what it is today. YOU CAN’T GET ANY MORE REAL WORLD THAN THAT!!

    2. Some guy did a talk on TED Talk. If any of you saw this, you can tell how deceitful the talk actually was. This was my reply on that talk……..

    “This guy is being quite deceitful.

    When SJ said “…..Great Artists Steal” he was quoting Picaso. It does not mean to “literally” steal. What it really means is that you can see an idea that someone has had and you CAN use it and make something COMPLETELY different. That is….TRANSFORM it. In the case of Android, it was a “literally” stolen idea. That is why Jobs had so much resentment to that.

    Jobs is not here to defend himself, but I know he would say….”Go ahead use our ideas and make something that pushes humanity forward, but don’t just come out with an exact same device and claim it as your”.

    Just look at the Samsung device…….it is exactly the same……now look at the packaging…..it is exactly the same. That is not exactly pushing humanity forward. Now be honest!

    It is quite disconcerting that the audience in that TED talk, which I assume to be ‘well educated’ were so easily manipulated. We need our educated people to be a little more analytical, don’t you think?”

    Bottom line, Apple needs to get the TRUTH out on these kinds of issues.

    1. What did Steve Jobs mean when he used the word “steal”? Did he clarify his statement when he was alive or are you simply making up an interpretation based on your own biases

      1. Most commentary assumes the quote means ‘great artists copy’ other artists i.e. Apple copies other’s work.
        Steve (and Picasso) could not have meant this since then the quote would be the equivalent of “Good artists copy, Great artists copy”, not making sense. The quote must mean copying then changing somehow to make it your own. If I make a copy, someone else has the original, but if I steal something I make the new artwork mine alone.

        Apple ‘steals’ because they take the genesis of ideas then make them their own new artwork.

      2. You are showing how illiterate you are. The quote is Picaso’s. His quote was “Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal”. It is quite well known….ahem, except to you I guess. Picaso’s art looks like no others, yet he did a lot of ‘stealing’.

        “Now STFU before you hurt yourself”. Thaaaaat, by the way, is a quote I just ‘stole’ from Lion King, but I modified it enough to make it my own.

  3. The stuff I had between angled brackets disappeared!!

    Here is what was between the angled brackets…

    “Insert here the quote by Steve Ballmer…..”….$600 dollars?! blah blah blah….and it’s not a very good at email…blah blah blah….we like our strategy, we like it a lot.”

  4. I personally don’t think the court can just let dozens of patents get copied by Samsung, ignore a reasonable license offer and then get away with just ripping Apple’s develoment efforts for free.

    To do that would have serious consequences for US businesses both big and small

    1. Just ask judge POSner, the great legal asshole authority who everyone loves.

      People, don’t get your hopes up. We live in a society where theft is a way of life and nobody gives rats ass about anything.

    2. The way I look at it, if you buy anything from Samsung (excluding devices that have Samsung chips and parts), you are helping fund the exit of jobs and money from the US to Korea, for the sole purpose of copying all our hard earned innovations. You will guarantee people you know will end up being hurt by the loss of jobs, wealth and income out of the country.

      Maybe even you or one of your close family members will be the direct victim of this.

  5. The last sentence says it all. Apple is interested in market share. The problem is that the public has been accepting market share numbers from the same analysts who constantly miss their predictions on Apples numbers and from evidence released in the trial, have a big miss on Samsung’s numbers, as well. All the talk about Samsung’s 40,000,000 smartphones shipped worldwide appears so off. Even if the court numbers are US numbers, these can be extrapolated to the world in general. Samsung doesn’t supply numbers, Amazon doesn’t supply numbers. It is all a guess by the worst guessers we have ever seen. Furthermore, how many of the Samsung smartphones are actually “smart” and how many are using some version of Android. It is amazing how little attention this gets, i.e. real market share by sales figures vs pulled out of the ass market share by consistently wrong analysts. Samsung has pulled off the PR coup of the 21st century by having these stupid and clearly wrong guesses accepted as the vernacular. Behind all of this hocus pocus is Google, the champion of an open web, building their numbers on incompatible upgrades, stolen Apple IP and shadow numbers from “partners.” They post huge activation numbers, but why would anyone believe a company for which stealing is their DNA?

  6. From Samsung’s point of view, they saw that everyone else was copying Apple and getting away without paying anything, so why should they have to pay.

    Now they know.

  7. great artists steal is the equivalent of standing on the shoulders of giants. steve jobs had much reverence for those who came before him and much irreverence for his contemporaries.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.