The Apple v Samsung courtroom battle continued on Friday with revelations that Apple had offered to license its patents to Samsung back in 2010.
Apple revealed on Friday that Late CEO Steve Jobs and then COO Tim Cook offered Samsung a licensing deal back in October 2010.
In August 2010 Apple had prepared a document identifying instances where they believed Samsung was using – or encouraging others to use - its technology. The company identified dozens of patents it believed were being infringed by Samsung. (Most of these patents are not part of the current litigation).
Apple arranged to meet with Samsung in August 2010 to discuss the infringements, and was prepared to offer Samsung a “royalty-bearing license for this category of device”. In return they wanted $30 per smartphone and $40 per tablet for the first two years, then reducing to $30. Apple offered a number of options to lower this $30 to 20%, including a discount if Samsung allowed Apple to license Samsung’s patent portfolio, a discount if Samsung granted access to processors, and a discount if Samsung didn’t use “Apple’s most proprietary features” and “mitigated its industrial design away from the iPhone/iPad”.
Fortune notes that the $30/$40 request per device is a 5% royalty rate. With regards to its own disputed patents, Samsung had requested Apple paid it 2.4% per device. (And according to Business Insider, Microsoft gets around $12-$13 in patent royalties from Samsung for its Android phones.)
Apple director of patent licensing strategy Borks Teksler said: "We didn't understand how a trusted partner would build a copycat product like that."
Foss Patents notes that the fact that Apple was willing to extend a license at all could be used as an argument against Apple's claim of irreparable harm and the inadequacy of monetary compensation.
Teksler’s testimony came at the end of proceedings on Friday. He will finish his testimony on Monday.
Friday’s session began with Samsung's lawyers finishing their cross-examination of market-research firm ORC International’s Hal Poret. Poret’s research suggested that many customers could identify the iPhone and iPad when the icons and home button weren’t visible. He said this is because of the look of the devices, and suggested that a high percentage of consumers had confused Samsung’s products for Apple products.
Samsung’s lawyers suggested that the consumer’s ability to identify the iPhone and iPad had only come about recently.
Next to the stand was market-research expert Kent Van Liere who claimed that a survey suggested one survey showed that consumers were likely to be think a Samsung device was an Apple device if they looked at the device while someone else was using it. Samsung's lawyers weren’t happy that the consumers couldn’t see the back of the device.
Rasvin Balakrishnan was called up to discuss Apple’s bounce-back patent. He showed a number of Samsung phones that violated that patent, Samsung responded with phones that it claims don’t violate that patent.
However, Samsung’s live demonstration of a 7in Galaxy Tab that didn't incorporate the bounce-back feature didn’t mention which operating system or skin it was running. And the video that Samsung claimed proved the Galaxy Tab 10.1 didn't use the feature was of a user who wasn't actually scrolling to the end of the web page, which is necessary to trigger the feature, notes The Verge.
John Hauser spoke about a study into how much consumers would be prepared to pay for the features at issue in the patent case. He claimed that his research lead to the conclusion that customers would spend an additional $100 on a smartphone or $90 for a tablet that incorporated the three features at stake.
Samsung’s lawyers questioned his research, suggesting that the research is flawed because the customers did not actually have to spend money. AllThingsD notes that Hauser frequently found himself cut off by Samsung’s attorneys as he tried to give lengthy answers.
Samsung and Apple were called in for detention on Sunday by the judge in the ongoing Apple v Samsung trial. Judge Koh told the attorneys in the case to meet up and go through the jury instructions.
She told them that they should agree on a final list of jury instructions by 8am on Monday (today).
Apple blamed Samsung for the fact that the two companies hadn’t agreed on the jury instructions, claiming that “Samsung has stymied those efforts”, according to a filing.
Samsung disagreed, claiming that it had “agreed to more than twenty revised instructions proposed by Apple and is continuing to review Apple's remaining disputed instructions for any common ground.”
Also on Sunday came a ruling that Apple couldn’t use its iPhone and iPad as evidence. Samsung had made two objections to the inclusion of the adverts. The second time the Court agreed with Samsung’s argument that the clips were "cumulative" and "allowed only the indices into evidence," according to Foss Patents report.
On Monday Samsung’s first witness will take the stand. Adam Bogue and Clifton Forlines will discuss Apple’s "pinch to zoom" and '381 "rubber-banding" patents.