Court Exhibit·21 JUL 2017
Conditional Payments: How Google Kept Samsung Honest on Defaults
The real deal isn't the revenue share — it's what you have to give up to earn it.
Source document — Email from Ruth Porat to Jamie Rosenberg Re: Samsung Search Agreement Status · United States v. Google LLC (Search) · 1:20-cv-03010 (DCD), Trial Ex. UPX1108 — DOJ public archive (page 1)
Excerpt · In Ruth Porat & Jamie Rosenberg's own words
From: Ruth Porat To: Jamie Rosenberg CC: Sundar [Pichai], Matthew Bye, Philipp Schindler, Hiroshi Lockheimer, Jim Kolotouros, Cristina Bita Subject: Re: samsung search agreement status
"thanks for the update and good luck getting to final!"
— Ruth Porat
---
From: Jamie Rosenberg (Thu, Jul 20, 2017, 1:32 PM)
ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGED (with Matthew for legal advice)
Ruth, Sundar, Hiroshi asked that we provide you with a quick summary of where we are with the Samsung search revenue share deal, in case you need it as context for earnings.
Status & Timeline: - We have verbally agreed to terms with Samsung (consistent with the terms in the deck). - We expect to send them a draft contract next week, and hope to have counter-signature by end of August. - We lost some time when the Samsung deal team pivoted its priority to completing a license agreement with us for our search backfill feed for the Bixby Voice Assistant, which launched on Tuesday. Back on track now.
Financials: - The revenue share is [confidential] after deducting [confidential] for expenses (for both new devices and the installed base). - We eliminated the [confidential] several months ago because Samsung could not commit to Chrome in the hot seat, and/or dedicating the -1 screen to the Google Feed. - Projected payments are [confidential] over the next [confidential], which is an increase of [confidential] over their current revenue share rate.
The daily letter · Free
This edition is for members — but the daily letter is free.
One real corporate email, and the lesson it teaches, in your inbox every weekday morning. Free. Unsubscribe in one click.
How this surfaced
- Source type
- Court Exhibit
- Case / record
- United States v. Google LLC (Search)
- Citation
- 1:20-cv-03010 (DCD), Trial Ex. UPX1108 — DOJ public archive
- Date authored
- July 21, 2017
- License
- Public domain
- Original
- View the primary source →
More from Sundar Pichai
Don ·Google ·14 MAR 2023
Bundle Deals Across Divisions to Save a Weak Position
When one business unit can't justify the check alone, stack the strategic value across the whole company — or lose the partner entirely.
Tim Sweeney & Hiroshi Lockheimer ·Google ·22 JUL 2020
Why Platforms Refuse the 'Just One Exception' Ask
The moment a platform grants one developer a private deal, it loses the argument for every other developer.
Tom Oliveri & Philipp Schindler & Hiroshi Lockheimer & John Giannandrea & Sundar Pichai ·Google ·26 AUG 2016
Never Run an Experiment You Can't Measure
If you can't measure it before you ship it, you're not experimenting — you're guessing with revenue.
Shanna Velez & Mike Marchak & Purnima Kochikar & Alyssa Ablao & Josh Kim & Randy Gelber ·Google ·15 DEC 2021
Discounts Are Cheaper Than Exceptions to Your Pricing Rule
When you can't grant a carveout, invent a program — same economics, but the rule stays intact.
Don ·Google ·14 MAR 2023
Bundle Deals Across Divisions to Save a Weak Position
When one business unit can't justify the check alone, stack the strategic value across the whole company — or lose the partner entirely.
Karen Aviram Beatty & Lawrence Koh ·Google ·11 DEC 2019
Bundling Deals Can Backfire When Your Counterparty Wants Simplicity
When you stack asks to justify a payment, the other side sees complexity — and offers you a simpler exit.