When the bitter dispute between the two mobile computing giants entered its third week, Apple revealed how it sued its Korean rival for damages of $2.75 billion. These included design patents that were filed and which covered the appearance and feel of the iPhone and iPad. Teksler told jurors last week that he could count on “on one side” cases where Apple authorized these patents. Samsung disputed its evidence and suggested that the damage estimate was too high because Apple was unable to meet the demand for the iPhone 4 for the period July-October 2010, so it could not have achieved additional sales of its own successes. The Untouchables Teksler noticed that while Apple first approached Samsung and accused it of copying its products and violating a wide variety of its patents, Apple would not be licensinging any of its main patents directly to another company. A Silicon Valley court heard that Apple and Microsoft have cross-authorized their technologies, provided that Windows phones do not resemble iOS devices known as the “anti-cloning provision.” Terry Musika, an accountant who acts as an expert for Apple, said $8.16 billion of Samsung`s smartphone and tablet sales came from allegedly copied products like the Galaxy S. This revenue generated a gross margin of 35.5 per cent. A Reuters reporter, who reported the Apple-Samsung study, just tweeted that Apple had authorized its look-and-feel patents as part of an anti-cloning deal at Microsoft. . Apple PatentLizenzDirector Boris Teksler made the disclosure during testimony in the company`s lawsuit against Samsung, which could be completed as early as next week. It is not known how long the cross-licensing agreement he mentioned will last or how long it will last. Apple said a quarter of Samsung`s $30.4 billion in smartphone and tablet sales in the U.S. are due to illegal copying of the iPhone and iPads.
Teksler told the court that Apple had tried to strike a similar deal by banning “cloning” with Samsung again in 2010, but that negotiations failed and put the rivals on the court`s way. First of all, colour tuning implies global patent coverage for both the technical characteristics of software (utility patents) and the aesthetic elements of hardware and software (design patents). It is not known in what capacity Microsoft uses the patents it has licensed from Apple, other than that they are covered by the broader licensing agreement of Apple and Microsoft. The consequence, of course, is that if Samsung seriously wanted to grant Apple patents, Cupertino would have been accessible until they had released cloning material. However, as Samsung intended to do, no agreement could be reached. Microsoft does not present its own phone hardware, but chooses to license its Windows Phone platform to hardware manufacturers. However, earlier this year, the company went in a new direction with tablets and opted for the introduction of the surface. This tablet, on which Windows 8 is running, is Microsoft brand hardware and has been developed in-house. “The publication of such information would put these third parties in a weakened trading position in future negotiations, thus providing a considerable advantage to their customers and competitors,” Koh said in its ruling last week.
In a ruling last week, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh decided to ignore the most important details of licensing agreements between Apple, Samsung and others (including Microsoft) from the public. In October 2010, Apple offered Samsung to license some of its patents for 30 $US per smartphone and 40 $US per tablet. But just like the agreement with Microsoft, the offer was limited. “We knew we weren`t offering a license for everything,” Teksler said according to CNET.