Isn't the issue that Apple doesn't believe it has to pay a license fee for products because the component maker has a license? I remember reading something about that when dealing with the FRAND patents.
No. That is incorrect.
There's actually two parts of the FRAND patents.
The first is that Apple is in arguments over exact fees for certain FRAND patents. Motorola and Samsung are quoting exorbitant fees compared to others. Some of the fees that Motorola and Samsung are quoting are laughably outrageous.
The second is that Apple uses components with licensed patents that is patented by someone other than who they are sourcing said components from. Specifically Samsung. Apple sources components from Qualcomm. These components contain patents licensed from Samsung. Samsung is arguing Apple still owes it royalties but Apple says that it is covered by Qualcomm's license. Clearly a case of double dipping.
Samsung's lawyers admitted that Samsung and Qualcomm had an agreement dating back to '93 not to sue each other (or customers that sources products from them) over the patents. Basically Apple would be covered because it is using licensed products from Qualcomm. Samsung said it terminated this agreement in April 2011. Clearly so it could sue Apple. It is still a gray area because Apple has a legitimate argument it is covered by patent exhaustion. Which way the court rules is still to be decided.
As sad as it is to have to agree with this, I think there is some truth to this. Samsung and Apple have patent battles all over the globe and it seems like many of them are draws. I think only in the US did Apple get such an overwhelming victory in it's favor.
Remember that different jurisdictions are governed by different laws. What's valid in the USA may not hold water in Germany or Australia.
Facebook
Twitter