아래는 루리웹에서 트위터를 통해서 실시간으로
법정에서 양사 변호사들이 언급한 내용임..
(보다 보니 재밌네요..)
중간에 보면, 애플이 삼성측의 로얄티(기업비밀)에 대해 언급하면서,
스스로 자책하는 것도 나오고..
APPLE: we made very clear, we get our chipsets (including 3G chip) from Intel. That's it. no other suppliers.
Apple:Samsung wants to charge 2.4 percent of chip price for every patent.
Oops,
this percentage was confidential!!!!
Ouch. Apple counsel just revealed the percentage Samsung is demanding, but this
is strictly confidential
Apple: we basically have an agreement, based on the standard FRAND terms. Price is not set yet, but this is not legally essential
Apple: Samsung's royalties demands are simply excessive
Apple wants to put forward a expert which will declare 'the end of ETSI as we know it' when Samsung will have its way
But judge denies this, because would be a third party surprise show
Last Apple lawyer now focuses on antitrust
Apple: there is only competition during standardization, not afterwards
Apple: Samsung did push its tech in the standards *and* kept its IP rights silent. Clear abuse!
Apple: we have made a clear and complete offer, but Samsung simply refuses, demanding outrageous royalties
Apple: an injunction will fundamentally undermine ETSI and frustrate the consumer markets
Apple: at least postpone the case (and possible injunction) until FRAND negotiations are over/broken down
Apple: an injunction would be a huge black mail scheme to extort Apple
Samsung: we've exhausted talking. And by the way: Apple started litigating. Enough is enough!
Samsung: Apple claims its 'design crown jewels', versus a bunch of useless 3G patents of Samsung. This is not in touch with reality
Samsung: FRAND still needs negotiations between parties about the value of the IP portfolio
Samsung: almost all parties, inclusing Samsung, declared their IPR too late during 3G standardization. But this is very usual.
But this is not relevant, because when Apple entered the market these patents were already long declared standards-essential
Samsung: Apple has sabotaged serious negotiations, by breaking non disclosure rules
Samsung: Infineon did *not* have a license, so until begin 2011 at least infringement
this is important, because Intel supposedly has a license, but acquired Infineon only in january 2011
Before thatmoment, Apple bought chipsets from Infeneon
Samsung: we are no Rambus! ;-)
Samsung: Apple is only throwing mud by comparing us to Rambus
Apple: there is absolutely no urgency, so dismiss these summary proceedings
Apple counsels concedes basically: we're actually both being childish. So true!!
Apple: Samsung undermines SSO's. An injunction would shatter the trust of the whole industry in standards setting process
Apple: total royalty burden may not exceed 5 percent. Samsung want to add them all up and squeeze Apple
Apple: Samsung is far worse than Rambus!
Apple: Samsung has 'inevitable power' because of its essential patents. A clear antitrust issue
Apple: Samsung want to block new product [read: iPhone 5] from coming to marke
Apple: Samsung is even threatening with ex parte injunctions!
we're still outside, waiting to be let in again. I expect the parties to announce a worldwide cross licensing agreement any minute now ;-)
Ok, now the secret session is over, lawyers coming out. Hearing adjourned for 15 minutes...
judge will rule 14 th october at 1400 hours