Apple Apparently Offerd Samsung Patent Licensing Deal Before Trial

We have heard previously that Apple and Samsung had been in discussion over their various patent disagreements, this was before the trial between the two companies took place in the US. Licensing

The outcome of the trial was that Samsung was ordered by the court to pay Apple over $1 billion in damages, and yesterday we heard that Samsung are trying to have the verdict overturned.

According to a recent report by Cnet, Apple proposed a reciprocal patent agreement to Samsung before the trial, but the two companies could not come to an agreement that they were both happy with.

A letter on the 30th of April was sent to Samsung from Apple, where Apple offered to license Samsung’s 3G/UMTS patents for what Apple though was reasonable and not the 2.4 percent Samsung wanted from Apple, you can see part of the letter below.

Apple is willing to license its declared-essential UMTS patents to Samsung on license terms that rely on the price of baseband chips as the FRAND royalty base, and a rate that reflects Apple’s share of the total declared UMTS-essential patents (and all patents required for standards for which UMTS is backward-compatible, such as GSM)–provided that Samsung reciprocally agrees to this same, common royalty base, and same methodological approach to royalty rate, in licensing its declared-essential patents to Apple.

Apple estimates that this approach, which implements the true meaning of and requirements imposed by FRAND, results in a $.33 (thirty-three cents) per unit royalty for the Apple patents. Apple will today license its declared-essential UMTS patents to Samsung at that rate, provided Samsung reciprocally agrees to the FRAND principles that result in that rate. This rate would be applied to all Samsung units that Apple has not otherwise licensed. Samsung would likewise need to agree that it would only charge royalties on Apple units that Samsung has not otherwise licensed.

Obviously Samsung decided that the terms propose by Apple were not acceptable, although it isn’t clear what Samsung thought would be acceptable to come to an agreement.

Source Cnet