Calif. Judge Orders Apple to Share Details of HTC Settlement with Samsung
November 22, 2012 10:50 AM
comment(s) - last by
Disclosure could give Samsung leverage when bargaining with Apple, help it stay ahead
When it comes to sales only one Android OEM
has passed Apple
, Inc. (
) in U.S. sales. In fact, Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (
) has left Apple far behind in sales; in some quarters its top handset
(the iPhone). Meanwhile Samsung is the only Android OEM to
be strongly profitable
, although it still trails the lower volume Apple in profits.
Given that state of affairs, it perhaps makes a bit more sense why Samsung has been Apple's number one target in court. So far Apple and Samsung are one and one. In the UK
Apple lost a major case
to Samsung and was forced to
print an apology ad
; meanwhile in the U.S. a jury went the opposite way finding Samsung
guilty of $1.05B USD in "willful infringement"
(that case is being appealed).
Now even as Apple and Samsung
lock horns for a second trial
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
's San Jose courtroom
Judge Paul S. Grewal
has made a key ruling which may give Samsung leverage at the bargaining table. In a court order on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, Judge Grewal
[PDF] that Apple had to disclose the terms of its intellectual property cross-licensing agreement with HTC Corp. (
Apple will have to give fiscal details of its licensing agreement with HTC to Samsung.
[Image Source: Gizmodo]
Apple and HTC
earlier this month, with Apple reportedly getting
less than half what Microsoft
) gets in Android licensing fees. The licensing deal is set to last for 10 years.
The Cupertino company, despite having a stacked, high-power litigation team likely settled with HTC in part because HTC is
struggling in sales
and isn't much of a threat. Now it may regret cutting a relatively reasonable deal with the Asian OEM, as it may look unfair and uncooperative to the judge and jury, should it reject a similar statement by Samsung.
According to reports while Microsoft squeezed
only $10 USD
per handset from HTC, it
gets 50 percent more
-- roughly $15 USD per handset -- from Samsung.
The document in question has been labeled "Attorneys-Eyes-Only", so it is unlikely the media will get their hands on the exact licensing details; particularly after Samsung was already admonished in the last round for allegedly leaking Apple court filings to the press.
An injunction hearing will be held on Dec. 6, at which point a California district judge will decide on whether to temporarily ban U.S. sales of Apple's iPhone 5 and/or Samsung's Galaxy S III, in addition to other Samsung "Jelly Bean" products.
Judge Grewal via SBNation [The Verge]
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: Extremely bad
11/23/2012 2:08:16 PM
If you think I was insulting the previous poster, and that was not my intent but rather to cast his post in the context of not knowing how businesses really work, then you have no little knowledge of what an insulting post really is (but for an example see the last line of your own post). Clearly you have no personal knowledge of the flame wars that used to erupt many years ago and virtually are non existent today. A bit of context might be helpful.
And, actually, I have run a business (actually, I've done a couple of start ups) and I have been an advisor to a few of businesses that I didn't start. And even the startups are/were not little businesses. In one the largest funding from a single source was $1.5 billion and the largest single contract, so far, was $500 million.
I'd say I know how to run a business.
The issue is not as simple as the situation you portray. The issue is that shop X has been granted a legal right to be the only one to sell products with specific features/capabilities -- that it has never pledged to share with everyone. (I'm not going to get into whether I think shop X should have been granted that legal right in the first place. I think I've made my stance on that quite clear in previous threads: virtually all systems and methods patents should be killed.)
Shop X legally could (and in some cases has) been able to stop both shop A and shop B from selling products with those features. Then for some reason, a reason that both shop B and shop X are willing to share with shop A, shop X is willing to license those features with shop B. The financial dealings of that sharing is purely between shop X and shop B.
So the court has said that the details of the agreement between shop X and shop B must be 100% shared with shop A. My question comes to this... and
is ignoring it in an effort to bash shop X -- where does this stop? Does shop A get to demand copies of every even remotely similar agreement between shop X and anyone else? Does shop A get to demand copies of every even remotely similar agreement between shop B and everyone else?
In my case both of my two biggest startups have critical patents. Patents we have not licensed to anyone. Right now, no one can build what we build. Other companies has tried to get the rights to do it and have lost. They've even tried to invalidate the patents and have lost.
However, if we licensed those patents to Lockheed Martin, and only Lockheed Martin, to build similar products, do Orbital Sciences, Space Systems Loral, Raytheon, Arianespace, etc. get the right to see all the details of that patent license agreement?
And bye-the-bye, I've been called an idiot by much better people than you.
"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs
HTC Slams Rumors, Hints Apple is Getting Less Than Half Microsoft's Licensing Fee
November 20, 2012, 9:04 AM
Apple Allowed to Pursue Jelly Bean, Galaxy S III Ban, Samsung Can Target iPhone 5
November 16, 2012, 12:15 PM
Apple and HTC Organize a Truce, Sign 10-Year Licensing Pact
November 11, 2012, 3:31 PM
Samsung Galaxy S III Pushes Ahead of the iPhone 4S in Q3
November 8, 2012, 9:42 AM
Quick Note: Apple's Rewritten Apology to Samsung Appears in UK Newspapers
November 2, 2012, 9:38 AM
Google's Proposals for Search Antitrust Settlement Shot Down by European Commission
December 20, 2013, 8:52 PM
E-Cigarettes Included in NYC's Smoking Ban
December 20, 2013, 4:00 PM
BlackBerry Partners with Foxconn for BB10 Devices
December 20, 2013, 10:43 AM
3D Systems Acquires Xerox’s Solid Ink Teams in Oregon
December 18, 2013, 7:54 PM
While FCC Debates Allowing In-flight Voice Calls, Delta is Already Saying “Nope”
December 18, 2013, 12:11 PM
New Mac Pro Launches Tomorrow, Starts at $2,999
December 18, 2013, 10:56 AM
Most Popular Articles
China's Moon Rover Lands Safe and Sound, Starts Snapping Pics
December 16, 2013, 1:22 PM
Top Microsoft Graphics Genius Defects to Google
December 17, 2013, 4:27 PM
Report: Fusion Fail? Softbank Wants to Merge Sprint and T-Mobile
December 15, 2013, 6:12 PM
NSA Debates Granting Snowden Amnesty if He Keeps His Mouth Shut
December 16, 2013, 1:17 PM
Harvard Undergrad Busted by Wi-Fi after Making Bomb Threat to Avoid Finals
December 18, 2013, 10:37 AM
Latest Blog Posts
Justice Leaks Details of Next HTC One Two Flagship Phone
Dec 5, 2013, 4:04 PM
Global Cyber Espionage Concerns Reveal Growing Cyber Armies
Nov 29, 2013, 11:04 AM
Is The Period Becoming an Expression of Anger?
Nov 26, 2013, 2:02 PM
NSA and Congress -- You Will Never Kill the Constitution, It's an Idea
Nov 10, 2013, 2:00 PM
AT&T Explores $100B+ USD Deal to Acquire Vodafone's European Operations
Nov 4, 2013, 7:34 AM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information