Of course they didn't! Why on earth would Apple be interested in "agreements" when they could just as easily get what they want out of a trial?  

To what advantage is it to Apple to offer concessions, especially at this very point in the company's amazing performance?  Apple is set to own the next 5-7 years in consumer tech. There is no reason to not push their legal concerns as hard as possible. Consumers are on board, Apple has the money and the experience, etc.  Why bother negotiating with the competition? Just so you can chip away at your own level of differentiation? Differentiation is the rarest commodity in this turkey of an industry that Apple has turned on its head. To give *any* of that away via patent concessions or licensing agreements is madness. The only reason Apple is a force today (and a key reason for their unparalleled success) *is* a level of differentiation that no one else has employed or has been able to.

Time to carry out Steve Job's wishes of "going nuclear"?

Wow. What a surprise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadra 610 

Of course they didn't! Why on earth would Apple be interested in "agreements" when they could just as easily get what they want out of a trial?  

 

To what advantage is it to Apple to offer concessions, especially at this very point in the company's amazing performance?  Apple is set to own the next 5-7 years in consumer tech. There is no reason to not push their legal concerns as hard as possible. Consumers are on board, Apple has the money and the experience, etc.  Why bother negotiating with the competition? Just so you can chip away at your own level of differentiation? Differentiation is the rarest commodity in this turkey of an industry that Apple has turned on its head. To give *any* of that away via patent concessions or licensing agreements is madness. The only reason Apple is a force today (and a key reason for their unparalleled success) *is* a level of differentiation that no one else has employed or has been able to.

Couldn't have put it better.  Be it a Kia or a few years back, Lexus / Toyota copying a BMW or Mercedes design or some cigarette lighter maker in Japan 40 years ago copying Ronson's design I am personally sick and tiered of this Asian MO of simply making what the west designs only cheaper (which easy in many cases if you are just copying).  It's about time some company stood up to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quadra 610 

Of course they didn't! Why on earth would Apple be interested in "agreements" when they could just as easily get what they want out of a trial?  

 

To what advantage is it to Apple to offer concessions, especially at this very point in the company's amazing performance?  Apple is set to own the next 5-7 years in consumer tech. There is no reason to not push their legal concerns as hard as possible. Consumers are on board, Apple has the money and the experience, etc.  Why bother negotiating with the competition? Just so you can chip away at your own level of differentiation? Differentiation is the rarest commodity in this turkey of an industry that Apple has turned on its head. To give *any* of that away via patent concessions or licensing agreements is madness. The only reason Apple is a force today (and a key reason for their unparalleled success) *is* a level of differentiation that no one else has employed or has been able to.

Well put. There may be agreements and compromises to be made on such things as wireless transmission technology, but when it comes to hardware and software design (as in the aesthetic qualities and the resultant user experience), it is a different story. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


There's really nothing to agree to on wireless transmission technology. Those patents are FRAND. The negotiation doesn't need to be any longer than this.
Samsung: We demand payment for our wireless transmission patents
Apple: OK. What is the amount you are charging everyone else?
Samsung can easily get the amount they're charging everyone else. They can not get more from Apple. So the discussion on that issue shouldn't take long.

Yep, those FRAND patents are supposed to be like 90% of what Samsung is trying to use against Apple. The other 10% are patents of questionable validity. Apple would want them slammed in court on the FRAND issue because Samsung deserves it. And would want the other bits invalidated in court to avoid going through this again at any point. 

Just like they want their design patent validated by the courts because once a court says yes it is valid it will make it easier to get other courts to say the same, especially if they get it up to a higher level that would have precedent setting authority over lesser courts. One victory in the right court and Apple could move and get summary judgment on a good dozen similar cases. 

Also as I have heard it, Apple isn't fussing over the actual fee being asked for as much as the form of payment. Samsung is basically refusing to take cash for those FRAND patents but wants it paid in access to Apple patents that are vital to the uniqueness of the iOS lineup and are not FRAND (so Apple doesn't legally have to license them to anyone). That it seems is Apple's major issue even before the issue of the actual fee comes into play. 

Samsung has a huge amount of IP, unfortunately most of it is FRAND or related to their semiconductor business. Samsung literally has thousands of patents related to manufacturing of semis, DRAM, Flash and processors. Unfortunately, when someone buys components (like Apple) the IP is included so there's no way this huge cache of IP can be used in any way in their legal battles.

I find it funny that out of all the legal wrangling so far, the only thing Samsung has achieved is to get an official antitrust investigation from the EU for using FRAND patents to seek injunctions against Apple. It's one thing to file a suit and get denied (this has happened to Apple as well), but wuite another to have a suit denied and then be faced with the possibility of substantial fines.

Exactly who was doing the talking in this?

Was in Tim and Samsung's CEO and possible a translator involved with lawyers to advise and nothing more? Or was it their lawyers doing the talking with the two there to merely observe and give a thumbs up or thumbs down?

If it was their lawyers then its obvious it would've failed. those guys have no interest in a resolution. Long drawn out battle = more money for them.