Apple experts have said that Samsung abused their ‘monopoly power’ over certain wireless patents and have demanded an unreasonable royalty from Apple for use in their iPhone.
Richard Donaldson, a former patents attorney for Texas Instruments told the court that a 2.4% royalty Samsung demanded on the price of the iPhone was ‘discriminatory’. He said that the patents in question enabled just a small fraction of the smartphones overview feature set.
This was supported by Janusz Ordover, a New York University professor. Ordover said that $14 per $600 iPhone was a ‘holdup’.
Ordover was a deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s antitrust division. He said Samsung’ conduct distorted the decision making process in setting standards.
He said “It enabled Samsung’s technology to be introduced, to become part of the standard. They have acquired holdup power.”
Apple have accused Samsung of copying the design and some features of their iPad and iPhone. Samsung say that Apple have infringed wireless patents and are licensed to Intel and other high profile companies.
The closing arguments and jury deliberations are set to begin this week, and they can be long drawn out, especially in a complex case such as this.
The Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom add “The court battle is a facet of a bigger war for supremacy in the mobile market between the two corporations, which sell more than half the world’s smartphones. The mobile market is one of fastest growing and most lucrative in technology sector.
In part, Apple’s aim is to limit Samsung’s explosive growth, which it has testified has seen it lose sales to the South Korean company – because, Apple’s witnesses said, of features copied from the iPhone, though Samsung countered with Apple data suggesting lack of iPhone availability was a key to lost sales.
But it is also part of a wider strategic assault on companies selling phones running Google’s Android software, which now make up well over half of all smartphones shipped worldwide.
If Apple can prevail over some elements of Android software, it could force handset makers to change certain features – which might cause a confusing diversity of features and implementations of some functions in Android.”
Kitguru says: It could go either way, and the ruling will be very important for future development.