Why licence when you can steal?

Grammar police.

I think you mean "was much less"

I was just reading on CNET the details of Apple's original attempt to get Samsung to see reason. The bulk of the problem then was Android not hardware design. So I assume Apple are not going to let Google off the hook so this hardware design fight is just phase one in a larger thermo nuclear war it seems.

Foolish Samsung. They could easily have increased their ASP by $30 and not worried about looking as bad as they currently do.

This has ALWAYS been about getting Google.

Samsung didn't back down because Google promised to support their licensees.

Apple intends to force Google to back up their promise, thus coming to blows directly with Apple, or destroy their business model by scaring all of their licensees away thus achieving the same goal ...

Wow if Samsung paid Apple $30, and pays Microsoft a little less, this would make Android expensive indeed.

Since this is from 2010, I wonder if Nokia is paying a patent royalty for each WinPhone sold?  Does Apple and Microsoft have a cross license deal?  This document raises even more questions.

This offer could come back to bite Apple.

Firstly, offering 20% discount for cross licensing Samsung's patents means that the value of Samsung's patents is set at approximately $6 to $8 per device - a lot higher than the numbers Apple is offering now.

Secondly, it looks like these numbers could be looked at as being way too high - remember, Samsung prices its devices about 15-20% cheaper than Apple - so a $30 fee could be as high as 7-8% of the device cost.

Thirdly, though Apple's patents are non-SEP, these prices make it look like Motorola's 2.25% for SEP patents are not ALL THAT EXCESSIVE. They are excessive, but not as excessive as they looked at first glance.

Most importantly, I believe it is these prices that make Samsung believe that it has lesser exposure at a legal trial - a jury is unlikely to cost them much more than agreeing to Apple's rates. Even though the numbers for 2010 look low at just $250 million, the numbers for today will be a lot higher - at 50 million phones a year, the cost for Samsung would be $1.5 Billion for just the last 12 months! Apple is just asking for $2.5 Billion today, which means Samsung is not exposed to much risk. I think even if ALL of Samsung's profits from mobiles and tablets are disgorged, it would be less than $30 per device - remember, not all manufacturers have the kind of profit margins Apple has! Samsung is probably making only 10% margins on its devices.

Of course, if they get hit with treble damages for wilful infringement, then the math could be totally different for Samsung. I think Samsung would be smarter to just pay Apple $2.5 Billion today, and get back about $0.5 Billion in their own licensing. At a net cost of $2 Billion, it is quite cheap for Samsung on a per device basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by macarena 

This offer could come back to bite Apple.

 

Pun intended? 

Good catch - no, though I would like to believe I thought of that one before!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by macarena 

This offer could come back to bite Apple.

 

Firstly, offering 20% discount for cross licensing Samsung's patents means that the value of Samsung's patents is set at approximately $6 to $8 per device - a lot higher than the numbers Apple is offering now.

 

Secondly, it looks like these numbers could be looked at as being way too high - remember, Samsung prices its devices about 15-20% cheaper than Apple - so a $30 fee could be as high as 7-8% of the device cost.

 

Thirdly, though Apple's patents are non-SEP, these prices make it look like Motorola's 2.25% for SEP patents are not ALL THAT EXCESSIVE. They are excessive, but not as excessive as they looked at first glance.

 

Most importantly, I believe it is these prices that make Samsung believe that it has lesser exposure at a legal trial - a jury is unlikely to cost them much more than agreeing to Apple's rates. Even though the numbers for 2010 look low at just $250 million, the numbers for today will be a lot higher - at 50 million phones a year, the cost for Samsung would be $1.5 Billion for just the last 12 months! Apple is just asking for $2.5 Billion today, which means Samsung is not exposed to much risk. I think even if ALL of Samsung's profits from mobiles and tablets are disgorged, it would be less than $30 per device - remember, not all manufacturers have the kind of profit margins Apple has! Samsung is probably making only 10% margins on its devices.

 

Of course, if they get hit with treble damages for wilful infringement, then the math could be totally different for Samsung. I think Samsung would be smarter to just pay Apple $2.5 Billion today, and get back about $0.5 Billion in their own licensing. At a net cost of $2 Billion, it is quite cheap for Samsung on a per device basis.

I don't think the offer of 20% was just for Sammy's FRAND patents but additional patents Apple may look at without stealing like Sammy does.

yes, but Moto's 2.25% is more, on a monetary scale, than what Moto charges LG or others. 2.25% of Apple's $600 > 2.25% of LG's $200 phone. That is discriminatory.