Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: Apple's iOS 7 to be "black, white and flat all over"
Home › News › Mobile Computing
Microsoft licensed Apple tablet patents, Samsung refused
According to the latest from Apple's testimony in the ongoing legal battle between Apple and Samsung, Microsoft struck a deal with Apple permitting the software-maker to utilize Cupertino's tablet design patents.
Apple claims it offered to license the same patents to Samsung for about $40 per unit (roughly $30 after discounts). However, the Korean manufacturer declined. Apple claims Samsung then continued to make their own mobile products which attempted to emulate the iPad's look and feel.
Presumably, this information indicates that Microsoft may pay royalties to Apple for every Surface tablet it stamps out. If the prices offered to Samsung are any indication, Microsoft may pay Apple between $25-$40 per tablet. Of course, this is a largely presumptive step in crude logic. This depends on whether or not those very same patents are applicable to Surface and what the Microsoft-Apple deal's fine print dictates. Those details may never be known.
Apple's patent case against Samsung has managed to elucidate a number of interesting but otherwise secretive bits of information. Thanks to legal documents made available through the trial, we've discovered old prototypes of the iPad and iPhone, showing that these concepts hail from ancient times -- well, 2002 anyway. Additionally, the case has revealed some solid sales figures for both companies while also shedding light upon a cooperative Apple who worked with Sony in order to flesh out their phone and tablet designs.
Apple claims that over $30.4 billion worth of Samsung's handset and tablet sales infringe on one or more of its iPhone or iPad patents.
Related Products from Product Finder
Apple iPad
The Apple iPad (3rd-gen) includes a Retina Display operating at a resolution of 2,048 x 1,536. Powering the new iPad is a dual-core A5X processor with quad-core graphics, it also gets upgraded optics in the form of a 5MP backside illuminated sensor that features a 5-element lens, IR filter and ISP built into the A5X chip. Apple claims The new iPad is good for 10 hours of battery life and nine hours when using 4G LTE.
Samsung SPH-D720 Nexus S 4G
Read expert reviews, pros & cons, and product information about Samsung SPH-D720 Nexus S 4G. There are 17 reviews available so far.
Sprint Nexus S 4G
Read expert reviews, pros & cons, and product information about Sprint Nexus S 4G. There are 17 reviews available so far.
AT&T GT-I9300 Galaxy S3
Read expert reviews, pros & cons, and product information about AT&T GT-I9300 Galaxy S3. There are 150 reviews available so far.
User Comments: 4
Got something to say? Post a comment-
I have a feeling these will be covered in the cross licensing and MS won't pay anything or a small amount for them. That little agreement they made seems to be helping MS quite a bit now, maybe they can see the future.
-
Lawyers claim....
...more twisted truth to suit an end ?
Here's a thought. If Samsung lose and it increases their costs, can they add it to the cost of the chips they sell to Apple ?
-
princeton said:
Lawyers claim.......more twisted truth to suit an end ?
Here's a thought. If Samsung lose and it increases their costs, can they add it to the cost of the chips they sell to Apple ?
Then Apple will just go to TSMC. In what world is making your biggest customer angry a good idea in any scenario?
On topic. Samsung's defense seems to be to try and prove that Apple's patents are invalidated by prior art/usage rather than to try and prove no wrongdoing. The issue is that they tried to claim Apple stole the idea behind their multi touch gestures from Mitsubishi and Apple showed how a company called Fingerworks that they now own came up with it four years prior to Mitsubishi, on top of Mitsubishi's patent not being in the same category as Apple's. If Samsung can't prove the patents are invalid it puts them in a bad position because it looks like they didn't feel they could be successful trying to prove they didn't copy in the first place.
-
patents scrap them absolute waste of progression as someone has stated before the only thing that should be able to be owned is brand names and may the best product win, if half as much effort went into products then they wouldn't even have to resort to these low desperate greedy methods and they might just come up with something that will better the other product.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.