Disclaimer: Jeremy Kessel has a J.D., but is still waiting for his (July 2009) California Bar Exam results. Thus, he is not (yet) a licensed attorney. Barry L. Cohen, who also shares some insights below, is a licensed attorney. Regardless, this post is not meant as legal advice or analysis and should not be construed as such.
As many of you are aware, Nokia filed a lawsuit against Apple last week in the Federal District Court in Delaware. Nokia’s complaint alleges that Apple has infringed on 10 of Nokia’s patents for various, “fundamental” GSM, UMTS and wireless LAN (WLAN) technologies. In particular, the patents cover wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption. Nokia believes that all 10 patents have been infringed by all Apple iPhone models shipped since the iPhone was introduced back in 2007.
This brings up the question: Why wait until now, Nokia, to sue Apple? Clearly, without speaking directly to Nokia’s legal team, all of the following is pure (albeit educated) conjecture. Nonetheless, with intellectual property (i.e. copyrights, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets) becoming increasingly important and relevant to (technology) companies around the globe, it is worth taking a few minutes to explore some of the possible motives/strategies behind Nokia’s latest legal muscle flexing.
As I am not yet a licensed attorney (I find out next month), we turned to Barry L. Cohen, Esq., who specializes in commercial and business litigation and intellectual property litigation and licensing at Thorp Reed & Armstrong, for his thoughts on the Nokia v. Apple matter at large. According to Mr. Cohen, because Nokia has been successful in licensing the patents at issue with dozens of other companies, the Finnish company most likely felt confident that it would be able to reach an agreement with Apple as well. When the negotiations reached an impasse, Nokia was essentially left with no other choice but to pursue legal recourse.
Filing the lawsuit against Apple is most likely, at least in part, a deliberate strategy to put more pressure on Apple to agree to the terms that Nokia has requested with regards to licensing the patented technologies. Because the 10 patents at issue include “fundamental” cellular technologies, the lawsuit may also have been motivated by some (or many) of the other companies who are already paying licensing fees to Nokia and want Apple to do the same.
Alright, now that we have explored (somewhat superficially) why Nokia has prompted the suit against Apple, this in turn leads to another question: Why would Apple refuse to license the technologies if they are imperative for the operation of its iPhone? Again, without speaking directly to Apple, we can only speculate. It is possible that Apple has licensed similar technologies from Ericsson (who, along with Nokia and Qualcomm hold some of the largest mobile technology patent portfolios in the world), thereby eliminating the need to license the patents at issue from Nokia. Or alternatively, Apple may believe that it is not infringing or that Nokia’s patents should be invalidated. However, considering that some 40 other mobile companies have licensed these key patents, this is extremely unlikely (possibly even impossible, depending on which company holds what patents).
According to Mr. Cohen, it is more likely a money issue. The longer that Apple goes without paying licensing fees, the cheaper Apple can sell its iPhone and the bigger market share it can build up. Alternatively, Apple may not have wanted to pay or could not agree on the amount of the royalty rate that Nokia was requesting. Given the scale (i.e. millions of devices), even a tiny discrepancy in price could result in hundreds of millions of dollars, going one way or the other.
Regardless of the actual motivation behind the lawsuit, considering that less than 1% of cases go to trial, it is most likely that Nokia is using the suit as a bargaining chip. Both companies, whether they actually like it or not, can afford to see cases like this through to the end, as the legal costs, even in the mutltiple millions of dollars, are relatively insignificant in the big picture for Nokia and Apple. Rather, suing Apple will provide Nokia more leverage in obtaining some variety of settlement (i.e. receiving royalties for its patents), and on the flip side, might even help Apple save a few bucks if a third-party mediator is brought in to help resolve the dispute.
Some may argue that Nokia is a total hypocrite, given its recent expensive and drawn-out legal clash with fellow mobile big shot, Qualcomm. But, as Mr. Cohen points out, Nokia is clearly no dummy (yup, that is a legitimate legal term). Nokia has clearly weighed the pros and cons of filing the lawsuit and what it will mean to their licensing strategy. Whether or not the strategy works, will depend in part on Apple, who is also not a fool.
Finally, I do not believe (as John does) that this suit was directly motivated by Nokia’s recent financial struggles. As someone who has studied intellectual property and has a general sense of the value that a company’s IP assets hold, I agree with Mr. Cohen and everyone else who thinks that this is ultimately a negotiation. Nokia is an enormously powerful mobile technologies company. Sure it is facing increased competition from the likes of Apple, HTC, Samsung, etc, but I do not believe this lawsuit signifies some sort of last gasp, or in the words of John (no disrespect, of course), a “mercenary approach, [a way to] cash in on some of the iPhone’s success.” For better or for worse, this is the new way of the technology road. Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing and obtaining IP assets, and at the end of the day, they will continue to do whatever it takes (i.e. sue each other on an endless merry-go-round) to protect and enforce their IP rights.
This is just another attempt on trying to get money from an innovative company when you cannot innovate. Are we to actually believe that Nokia holds the key patents to cellar technology and therefore no one can make a cell phone. That sounds like a monopoly to me. Nokia’s newest tablet product is a joke and overpriced. They see this and now have a new way to get revenue. Sue Apple! I hope Apple wins this. If not they should launch there own wireless satellite and take over the complete wireless cellular industry.
The whole point of a patent is to grant a limited monoply to the developer of a novel and beneficial product or process. It is a bargain between the developer and the government. You disclose your technology so others can license, develop off of, and eventually replicate and we will give you a limited monopy.
Hahahaha! Monopy–what is that exactly?????
Weak sauce. This guy isn’t even a real lawyer. Lawcrunch? Come on. Engadget has Nilay Patel, who is a real lawyer.
@Anonboard,
Does the engadget guy write any article, which shows any insight of being a lawyer. I don’t think so as i read engadget. So far he hasn’t written anything on this topic, and i am sure he will not, considering he is anti-Nokia which is very much prevalent in any of his post related to Nokia.
@Hary – earlier I linked to an engadget article about Apple v. Palm (very much related). Scroll down and you will see the bold orange link in the comments.
Losing money + No Press + No innovation = lawsuit
Lawsuit = More money + press + the allusion of innovation protection.
simple math really.
You are an idiot! You don’t know the first thing about innovation, patents, or business practices. Did you even read the article??? Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericcson – they ALL invented cellular technologies which are licensed to other makers. Nokia is actually HUGE in Europe and if you weren’t peeing in mommy’s face then, you remember everyone had a Nokia here in the U.S.A. in the early 2000’s. Just the fact that you think Apple has the means to launch a network of satellites and towers (except you think there is only one satellite) is godamn hilarious! hahaha what a tool you are.
Do you have to be so completely rude?
Yeah the guy might not know as much as you, the expert, but there is absolutely no cause to label him an idiot.
We aint all as clever as you, you know!!
“there is absolutely no cause to label him an idiot. ”
Honesty is the best policy, just calling a spade a spade,if the shoe fits [insert your cliche of choice here] etc…
@ MikeMc
Yeah honesty is normally the best policy, but not when it comes to personal insults against other people who may not be as clever as you geniuses.
I’m no genius but I agree with MikeMc. I know people who speak like ComputerDude and if you don’t jar them with (rude) reality, they don’t even listen to your point. Dull names like “idiot” and “tool” are hardly offensive. There is even a network TV show called “Tool Academy” – it’s totally lightweight. Same goes for “idiot”. Consider something personal that would really make you feel sub-zero and now consider some stranger calling you an idiot. I think you’d take “idiot” any day. There is really no excuse for ignorance other than being young.
@computer dude,
Seems it is hard for you to digest that a non-US company can hold patents to such important technologies that affects the entire world.
Nokia is not Apple, but it is one of the most innovative companies in the world as far as mobile industry is concerned and they are showing similar replication in their new venture into PC industry.
As much as SolidGoldstein likes to dominate this thread with name calling and overvaluing Nokia’s contribution, this is all about Nokia trying to piggyback off Apple’s innovation.
Apple is using the same cellular tech used in throwaway phones, especially with the original iPhone. All of what makes the iPhone expensive beyond that has nothing to do with Nokia. Yet Nokia want a percentage of the overall handset value rather than the actual tech it shares with cheap phones. This is why Apple aren’t willing to pay the amount Nokia are demanding.
Nokia have done bugger all to innovate over the last ten years apart from make incrementally faster networking. They were so void of innovation that they purchased a decent touch sensitive enabled OS and then stripped the touch sensitive part! They didnt even have the sense to enable touch on the communicator so it was more Psion like. So in short, Nokia pull a string of dumb design decisions, Apple caught them sleeping (actually, drugged up to their eyeballs with their feet up) and now Nokia want a cut of Apple’s success.
I hope Apple fight them to the end and win this one.
Totally agree with you sir!!
Did you two even read this article? Before you come off as completely ignorant once more, you need to read this article on the evidence of Apple using Palm’s patented designs: http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis
Apple is just becoming a greedy, bloated company and that is nothing new. The sad part is all you fanbois defending the slick liar. Oh wait, that’s nothing new either. *cough****Reagan/Bush****cough*
“this is all about Nokia trying to piggyback off Apple’s innovation.”
If I might take the opposite tack for a moment…this is all about Apple leeching off of Nokia’s R&D. It isn’t matter of if Apple will pay but how much. Do you really think Apple reinvented the wheel here? There’s a reason 40 other handset manufacturers pay licensing fees to Nokia, it’s their tech. Apple apparently feels Nokia wants wants too much so they just didn’t pay. It’s the same rationale file sharers use.
Hi MikeMc,
When you say that, “There’s a reason 40 other handset manufacturers pay licensing fees to Nokia, it’s their tech,” you are employing three logical fallacies:
Reverse logic
The appeal to overwhelming numbers
Appeal to a higher authority,
What you imply is that paying Nokia for the license to use its technology proves that it’s Nokia’s technology. No. It merely means that those other companies paid Nokia. Nothing more can be inferred from that. Now, while we can guess why, we don’t know why, so it’s not proof because a guess is not proof. You are using a form of reverse logic, hence a logical fallacy.
Here is an example of the illogic of appealing to overwhelming numbers:
“The Chinese Cultural Revolution was based on scientific principles because millions participated.”
Because millions of Chinese participated in the Revolution, it must have been truly scientific. No, the principles were not proven scientifically, but, instead, were cultish propaganda statements that were repeated as a conviction.
The following example appeals to a higher authority as well as to reverse logic, both being logical fallacies:
“The Bush administration would not have invaded Iraq had Iraq not had any WMDs.”
First, The reverse logic here is that the invasion itself proves the existence of WMDs., hence a logical fallacy. Evidence produced by the three weapons inspectors, including the last one, Blix, who was endorsed by Bush and actually believed that Saddam likely had WMDs which was based on his own reverse logic, finally concluded — based on observable evidence this time — that Saddam did not have them.
The statement also appeals to a higher authority: the Bush Administration. Just because a higher authority such as Vice President Cheney makes an authoritatively-sounding pronouncement, it does not mean that it’s true statement.
So, beware of using reverse logic, appeal to overwhelming numbers, or appeal to a higher authority, all logical fallacies; They throws suspicion on the argument presented.
@Anthony,
There are still not many details out abt this topic.
We will see how much your reasoning holds, when the details start coming out slowly and slowly.
Anthony, much as I am a rabid Apple fan (I have multiple Macs, iPods and iPhones and have developed a couple of fairly successful iPhone applications), a lawsuit is not a popularity contest, or a test of a company’s virtue or originality. Even if Nokia did not innovate at all in the last 10 years, it may well be that they have a patent from the time when they WERE innovating that Apple is infringing on. A patent is valid for 20 years, did you know that? I think patents are very useful devices (they help Apple too of course) and a patent owned by Nokia should be protected as much as anyone else’s.
That notwithstanding, there could be any number of reasons why Nokia is suing Apple now versus some other time, or at all, and any number of reasons why Apple has not agreed to pay licensing fees. Maybe Apple doesn’t think it is infringing. Maybe Apple knows it is infringing but prefers a long and drawn-out legal battle (sounds unlikely to me – did you know that willful infringement of a patent incurs a double monetary penalty? Besides Apple management is top-notch and quite ethical IMO, and I follow them very closely since I have around $100K invested in their stock). Maybe Nokia just found out about Apple’s infringement, or only now was able to find sufficient evidence for a lawsuit (proving that someone is infringing on your patent can be incredibly difficult sometimes – after all it’s not like Apple would advertise that fact on the back of each iPhone). In short, this whole article is rather pointless speculation IMO. Sorry, it was entertaining to read (especially the comments!) but I didn’t really learn anything new.
I agree with the Mac fiend. :)
OK, I’ll kind of agree that Apple makes a popular product, but I’ve heard that the U.S. regulatory body (the FCC) won’t allow most of Nokia’s products to be sold in the U.S. because of the amount of radiation they give off. Apple deserves some credit (which they already get) for putting together the pieces in a slick little package and marketing it well, but that doesn’t mean they invented every little aspect of the iPhone. Look at all the new Macs. They use Intel CPUs. Did Apple invent the Nehalem architecure? No. So why is it any different or harder to believe that Apple is using other companies technology in their iPhone?
“this is all about Nokia trying to piggyback off Apple’s innovation.”
Actually this is about Nokia seekign a return on the enormous amount of money it’s poured into R&D and for which it expects to be compensated when other companies enjoy the fruits of its labour.
“Yet Nokia want a percentage of the overall handset value rather than the actual tech it shares with cheap phones. This is why Apple aren’t willing to pay the amount Nokia are demanding.”
If those are Nokia’s conditions of usage then why shouldn’t they benefit from higher priced phones? Did you ever consider that they guaged their charging strategy this way rather than a flat fee deliberately? Lots of companies use this strategy like… oh Apple for the app store!
“Nokia have done bugger all to innovate over the last ten years apart from make incrementally faster networking.”
The N Series wasn’t innovative? You know, the series that actually introduced the smartphone to the mass market? I’m sorry, but that’s just utter nonsense.
“They were so void of innovation that they purchased a decent touch sensitive enabled OS and then stripped the touch sensitive part! They didnt even have the sense to enable touch on the communicator so it was more Psion like.”
Oh dear God. Just stop. Nokia’s strategy was very clearly a non touchscreen oriented one which is why they modified Symbian. It was obviously so unsuccseful that Symbian now runs half the smartphones sold on the planet.
” So in short, Nokia pull a string of dumb design decisions, Apple caught them sleeping (actually, drugged up to their eyeballs with their feet up) and now Nokia want a cut of Apple’s success.”
Yup. In the last two years. Not in the last decade.
This is not about Nokia piggybacking on Apples success, it’s basically just Nokia looking for Apple to pay them what they are rightfully owed for using the technology.
This is something that every mobile company out there has to do. Now typically there is nothing stopping any manufacturer out there from not paying, since the license fees are not tied with the purchase of the core code that runs on any mobile chipset (Qualcomm, STEMP, Broadcom etc). The structures are set up such that is you pay a percentage of the cost of the handset to each of the patent holders for the rights to use the technology.
And the real issue is that if Nokia does not take this action with Apple then what is stop every other manufacturer turning around to Nokia and saying, wait we’re not paying either… and then after that, well we’re not paying Nokia, so why pay Ericsson or Qualcomm either…. worst case situation all the major cellular developers collapse and we can say good bye to all future cellular innovation – that means no LTE people…
I think the author forgot to mention two key points.
First of all, the big players in the cellphone industry each include some of their own patented technology when they set industry standards. This collusion provides a barrier to entry for new companies: the existing companies cross license their patents. If this isn’t illegal, it should be.
Secondly, Apple’s iPhone technology is highly patented. If Nokia hopes to sell a competitive phone, they will probably want to license some Apple technology, which gives Apple leverage here.
ahm….another Apple fanboy blindly defending Father Jobs.
Companies like Nokia, Ericsson, and Qualcomm are the ones doing the innovation. They are rewarded for this innovation through licensing fees from other manufacturers that make equipment based on these innovations.
I would agree that Nokia’s handsets are garbage and Apple does make a much better product. But, they didn’t invent GSM, UMTS, or wireless LAN.
Which side of the Apple v Pystar conflict does ComputerDude take?
Why is Apple always seen as the underdog or victim? Just because Apple’s product are prettier and generally better than its competitors doesn’t mean that it is any less evil. Its a for profit corporation looking to make a buck.
Let’s not forget that Nokia is a communist company. I know that they call themselves capitalists, but everybody knows it is a joke. And like every communist, Nokia wants to use power of Government to destroy competition. I do not believe that Apple is infringed on anything, and even if it did, so what. Stealing from a communist is an honorable thing to do!
You must be an old man. That war on communism is over and done with. “communists” don’t matter one bit. Did you know there are more cultures today who allow polygamy than who don’t? Maybe you should worry about that too. Get with the program you antiquated old fart… Here is a question for you: If your company invents something, should you allow millions of people to use your product without paying you? What if you are a Christian and those millions of people using your product without paying are Jewish, Muslim, Atheist, or Agnostic? They think it’s OK to steal from you, since you are a Christian. So, is that how global trade works? You can steal from a group as long as your government has demonized that group in the past at some point… ??? Grow up.
Agree here. Copyrights and patents are not rights. They are privileges granted by society to people who actually create new works. There is no such thing as ‘intellectual property’ or ‘IP rights’. Neither Nokia nor Apple have any right to stifle innovation and success by their competitors. And as these priveleges are granted by society, society has the right to withdraw these priveleges when “innovators” fail to fulfill their part and innovate. Down with DMCA!!!
You’re a crackhead. Patents are legally actionable – enough said. Sure, society can remove heads of state if they had enough organization and determination but we don’t even need to go there…
So, DigitalShogun, you skipped European History. In World War Two the Finns used cross country skis to enter Russian camps at night armed only with their knives. One man was left alive in each tent to spread the word that if they slept too soundly the Finns would cut them a new smile. Don’t ever make your communist comment too close too any Finns. Stick to the anonymity of the web.
Dear DigitalShogun, you really should’ve taken the history classes back in highschool. I hope they do teach other than US history in schools over there too.
Nokia is a Finnish company and there is no other country in the world that has fought communism harder. Well, perhaps Germany but you guys helped the commies to beat the Germans so that you could replace one totalitarian rule with another (and a worse one at that and for 50 years). Please see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_war. My grandfathers fought the soviets so that we could have a free (and capitalist) country. Please learn history, it’s good for you in many ways.
Granted, Nokia is no patent troll, which in essence is a company set up with the sole purpose of leveraging patents to squeeze royalty payments out of competitors, as in the case of NTP, which a couple of years ago nearly brought RIM to its knees in a long-drawn-out legal tussle.
It is pretty common knowledge by now that both Nokia and Apple have been in negotiation over the fee to pay for these patents, but this escalation through the law courts is a thinly-veiled attempt to halt Apple’s charge into the smartphone market by means other than through the R&D lab. A plan cooked up in their legal department, so to speak.
The intention, I think we will eventually see, is not to receive what Nokia considers to be a fair payment for the use of its patents (rumoured to be with 1% – 2% of the price of an iPhone) but to obtain a restraining order through the courts which would in effect slow down Apple’s rapid evolutionary charge enough to enable Nokia and its partners to respond by playing R&D catchup, as it were…
+1
Possibly the best insightful commentary I have seen in this thread ..
I don’t think a pending lawsuit is going to shut down Apple’s R&D… lol catchy semi-conspiracy theory though.
you can’t be serious. i’m not even done reading all the comments here, although i do have some opinons about this and have been following the proceedings closely, plus techdirt posted about it a couple times before this, and i have to say that out of all the comments so far, including some of the trolls calling nokia communist and not innovative and people who clearly know nothing about nothing (like me), even i’m an idiot and i recognize that this guy shoots himself in the foot with his comment. if this is the most insightful comment you’ve read then that’s simply unfortunate.
“but this escalation through the law courts is a thinly-veiled attempt to halt Apple’s charge into the smartphone market by means other than through the R&D lab.”
Nonsense. The total cost of this exercise at $15 a unit, say, for 30 million units is $450 million. Even given penalty charges for late payment it’s not even going to register on Apple’s huge cash pile of over $30 billion dollars.
This will not affect iPhone sales because if Nokia did get an injunction or looke dlikely to Apple would simply pay up and raise the unit price to compensate.
This is very strange. Apple sues Psystar and shuts down Palm. They run a fairly closed system including a hardware software combo which they tightly control.
Why are they reluctant to pay licensing fees? They know they didn’t invent the technologies, and licensing fees are the cost of doing business.
They must truly believe that they have paid for the technology through some other licensing deal.
RE: Apple v. Palm – ” If you’re going to say that the Pre crosses the boundaries of Apple’s spring-back edge scrolling patent, you’re really not in a position to say that the iPhone doesn’t similarly [copy] Palm’s call-management patent — or the brightness patent, or the contacts patent, or the dim-during-sync patent, or… you get the idea. Apple might be the more infamous IP juggernaut, but Palm has literally hundreds of patents of its own, and we managed to dig up four that seem to directly implicate the iPhone in just a few hours of searching.”
source: http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/
Palm is not shut down… I think their faulty hardware is more at fault for their downfall than Apple’s lawsuits, but they’re still alive. Psystar is a completely different story, and we’ll see what happens in 2010 with Psystar.
There are a lot of cell phones manufacturers(Ex: samsung, lg, rim). Some make low margins and some high on a cellphone sale. Do these companies pay royalties too? If so, is it a percentage of the the profit or is it a fixed price per cell phone?
All the cellphone manufacturers possess patents and pay each other for their express use. The negotiations usually take place away from the public eye, except in cases where talks break down.
No doubt some of these companies are paying Apple as well for the use of multi-touch and other technologies that infringe on the patents that Apple holds.
I still maintain that cash is not Nokia’s aim or intention – a short history of how Apple entered into and crushed the established giants (Creative, Sony, Toshiba etc.) of the portable media player market with the iPod shows that from here on in, Apple will simply stay a step or three ahead of the competition in the smartphone market with each successive upgrade and model diversification – this move is intended to buy Nokia and its partners some breathing space, i.e. to hamstring Apple’s advance while they figure out a catch-up strategy.
how much better would the world be without patents ?
lets share our ideas, creations, and data – http://www.dataportability.org
Nokia to sue Apple is right.
The Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in MedImmune up-ended the former law regarding Declaratory Judgement actions. It’s much more risky for an IP owner to offer to license their IP to another party. So now, it’s file your lawsuit first or sell the IP to an NPE (nonpracticing entity) and let them handle it.
Until the courts provide a better balance to when DJ actions are triggered, the system will remain broken. The law should modified to encourage the parties to talk and take reasonable actions using a reasonable DJ actions and willful infringement standards as the sticks.
There’s a group on Linkedin (see Linkedin Groups) named:
“I am a Member of the State Bar of California”
Got the info from there
pretty cool,
Sarah
I don’t see what the hoopla is all about. Nokia thinks that they have legitimate patents that they indeed licensed to other companies before and so it is asking Apple to do the same. Apple is playing hardball in the hope that they will prevail, because that is how Apple always deals with that kind of stuff, even if they ultimately have to pony up. End of story.
Regardless, Nokia is freaking out because despite being #1 worldwide, the rate at which they are losing market share is a concern, and let us not even talk about profits compared to Apple. I went to the Apple Store in Palo Alto on Friday to play with the Magic Mouse and to see if I liked it. I was stopped at the door by two (absolutely charming) young ladies working for Nokia, who interviewed me on video on what it would take for me to switch from Apple to Nokia. I gave them all the reasons why I liked Apple better because I want Nokia to improve and keep Apple on the edge. Competition is good. Still, I do not see how anyone can touch Apple anytime soon. The rate at which people around me are switching away from Nokia to iPhone and away from PC to iMac or MacBook is incredible.
The world would be a better place without Apple.
Let Steve Jobs Die with all of his billions.
In the Big Picture. Steve Jobs is scum in comparison to the Gates Foundation.
Steve is interested in Parking his cair in Handicap parking while Bill Gates is thinking about the Future of our World.
Steve Jobs. Just die and quit stealing livers from deserving kids that need them.
It’s drugs, alcholol and bad living that made you what you are.
Take another hit of ACID and make the world a better place.
Hahahahaha – it sures seems true.
why Nokia not sue to Apple since a long time?
Nokia and Apple should share the technology,
I gotta to say the aside from making me think of what exactly the this suit is all about I didn’t learn anything from the article it self.
However there are a few things that crossed my mind that might be worth discussing:
1. I’m pretty sure that Apple isn’t making any of the radio/wireless hardware of the iPhone… which means that the lawsuit is about software, not hardware.
2. If indeed the patents are software patents, then where do Android stand on this? It is a free OS for mobile phones, and if you can’t make a mobile OS without infringing on patents then how is Android even possible?
3. If the patents are hardware related, how come Apple is the target of the lawsuit?
4. How come all those 40 handset makers paid? Probably because they are making hardware and not software, as opposed to Apple which is as much a software company as an hardware one. So Apple might think to it self that it can write it’s software different enough from Nokia’s.
The makers of the handsets are the ones that have to pay. This would be Apple, HTC, Samsung, LG, Nokia, Sony Ericsson etc etc… So Android doesn’t come in to from the SW perspective. Still have to pay the patent trolls if you make a phone with Windows, Symbian, Android, it doesn’t matter.
The patents probably a combination of SW/HW patents, but they are not so much in the UI experience, but instead in the core GSM/UMTS architecture of the device, meaning you have to follow the rules and implement them as is, no chance there for apple to innovate and write differently, since if they did the dam things wouldn’t work.
People switching from PC to Mac?
Ignorant fools duped by smug MAC vs PC ads.
Die, Apple. Die.
:) – ya know… I’d like to know which company it was that ignited this fire. Who operates under such an MO? :)
Best way to earn money :)
What makes me wonder in this case is how you can patent implementation of public standard? Public standard is for everyone who can look at the specs and build the damn thing. Something is very wrong if you can patent that implementation. I understand that there is IP in every implementation, but still. All well, if there’s another way(s), but if not and the one and only way to build a GSM phone is to use patented IP, then those patents should be invalidated (as obvious).
So, then there would be no iPhone. Apple doesn’t build the chips. Nor did they spend money to figure out how to make the chips used in the iPhone or Mac or …. The patents are there so that the people who spent the time and money to put an innovative product out there can’t be cheated. But, if you can do the same thing with a different design, then you can have a patent and make money off of licensing it, too. There isn’t really an issue here about “implementation of public standard”. It boils down to Apple using Nokia’s design and not paying the licensing fees. In other words, stealing (allegedly).
It is obvious that your reader base is mostly Apple fans, and call it innovative. But they forget that Apple is innovative in terms of product design not in cellular technology. Apple can sell as many ipods as they want, but if they want the cellular technology, they have to pay because they came to market very late and they did not spend any money on R&D. They have to understand that cellular is altogether different ball game as compared to media players.
Sure today Nokia handsets look clumsy to use. But all this time they focused more on the underlying technology and not fancy user interface. They deserve credit for that, or at least some payment.
@”Facebook Application Developer” :
Yes, they do want to share the technology. So, it has to pay for the technology developed by others. Nokia had developed the technology by investing billions of dollars and decades of effort. It would definitely not allow others to use it for free.
Believe me, I know this works. There is no way anyone can make a phone today without paying huge royalties to Ericsson/Nokia/Qualcomm (or spending billions of dollars in R&D which will make the cost of phone prohibitive).
@Ron : The patents are not just for the hardware or software, they are for the methods also. There is mention of encryption and speech coding technologies in the original post.
@Priit
This is a classic case of how the cellular business works differently. The “fundamental” patents owned by Nokia/Ericsson are sometimes the ones which tell how the signals have to be exchanged over air interface. And this patented design is included in specifications. So essentially the standards include some technology already patented by companies. That is why it is impossible to build a phone without paying royalties to these guys.
Only way out is to use different radio technology than GSM/GPRS/UMTS like China promotes: TD-SCDMA . With that they avoid paying fees to these guys. This is a totally different story not relevant here.
But this should wake up all the Apple fanboys. Apple may be an innovative company but they did not do innovation in all fields.
what i find amazing is that ‘journalists’ and normal people alike are completely, almost homogeneously discrediting that simple IDEA that nokia MIGHT have a case here. the common trend, the drift current if you will, is heavily biased on two opinions often labelled as facts:
1. nokia is going out of business because they’ve never invented anything good
2. apple is taking over because they invented everything good that is in the iphone.
neither of these are true.
nokia invented a huge amount of what we all take for granted in mobile phones today. apple? they invested into capacitive touchscreen tech, and tweaked the BSD operating system a little bit. overall, apple’s actual investment is tiny, ridiculously miniscule. smart, i’ll give you that, but over valued by some many people out there.
what about the HARD PROBLEMS? like actually getting the electrons to pulse just right across an antennae to generate an EM field encoding your voice that is strong enough to reach a cell tower? how about the work involved in handling that operation while driving 60mph on a highway and every 7 minutes having a soft-handoff to another tower? how about handling the near-field effects with multiple transmit and receive antenna’s within centimeters of each other?
basically, everything the separates the iPhone from the iTouch is IP that belongs to someone OTHER THAN APPLE. Most of that IP belongs to Nokia, and through long-established IP rights agreements Nokia is CONTRACTUALLY OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE FAIR AND PUBLICLY DISCLOSED IP LICENSING PRICES TO OTHER MOBILE MANUFACTURERS. right, so apple came, saw, copied, and refuses to pay. and nokia is the bad guy in the public eye.
FSCKING PI$$E$ me off. i’m a hardware developer and if you steal MY IP in the same manner you’d better expect to be sued by me!
Your first 3 paragraphs are accurate, but your vitreous denial of Apple’s R&D in paragraph 3 is rather unenlightened, given your clear knowledge is in vast excess of us less privileged.
Nokia did invent quite a bit of the technology used in mobile comms, but so did QualComm, Ericsson etc. Apple have provided us with a hugely innovative platform that brings these things together, with their own kernel, transparently offering handover from GSM/UMTS to WiFi amongst other innovations. Perhaps you see these things as irrelevant, but why is it that no one else provided these innovations until Apple came along.
Nokia did not invent GSM or UMTS. A European Committee invented GSM using existing technology packaged that Nokia (like others) used in their phones. Ericsson develops most of the back-haul technology thanks.
There is no such device called an iTouch. It’s an iPod touch.
Nokia has not “contractual obligations” as patent law has nothing to do with contract. It has everything to do with government agreement of an “ownership” for a limited time of something that is unique and adds to the human collective knowledge. A short-term, government agreed monopoly for an idea, if you will.
You assume Apple is refusing to pay. Clearly you know more than the rest of the world. My theory is that Apple doesn’t want to pay a percentage of a device selling price – why should it? Crummy, throw-away device will pay pennies for the IP, whilst Apple pays significantly more. Fair? No. We all agree that what is innovative about an iPhone has nothing to do with it’s RF tech, GSM, UMTS or otherwise, but everything to do with what Apple did to bring this together.
If you’re a hardware developer, I’d be surprised you’d know much about patent, or IP law. Jack of all trades…?
Apple is using chips and technologies from other vendors and is just packaging them into a mobile phone. Now can we say that to sell those chips and firmwares, those sub contactor of Apple must have paid a licence to Nokia (or any other big patent holder). If so, why would Apple pay the patent holders again?
The fees are calculated at the end device level not at the chip level.
Good to know.
Bravo Outsider – your comments are on the money, it’s as if many of these people think we were communicating with tin cans and string before 2000!
I used to think political sites had the most clueless responses but this is bringing it to a new level. To say this is a site of Apple fanboys would be doing fanboys an injustice. Apple hasn’t developed anything even close to a patentable technology, even the iPod was a marketing creation, and they’re going to have to pay for it. Apple is a marketing company, albeit a very good one, and at some point they can either afford the lawsuits or not and they’re simply not a technology company and don’t even understand what their in-house employees suggest when it’s something that’s already patented and fully developed.
“I.e.,” generally means “for example.” Use “i.e.,” when entering a list of examples, typically un-numered and usually one word each.
“E.g.,” generally means “in other words.” Use “e.g.,” when you want to restate the same thing using different words in the form of a sentence fragment or a full sentence.
It’s recommended that both be placed within parentheses but hardly anyone does it. I don’t; Parenthesis tend to diminish the importance of the ideas contained within them. I usually skip over anything in parenthesis; They tell me the author made the judgment to nearly equate them to a side note or foot note, hence the use of the phrase in lectures, “and, parenthetically speaking…” when wanting to, say, entertain the audience, rather than to contribute to the point of the topic.
You’ve got that wrong way around.
e.g. means example.
i.e. means “that is”, or as you put it, “in other words”.
The law suit appears to be based on infringement of patents used in industry standards. It would be interesting to find out whether Apple can mount a defense based on antitrust laws pertaining to standard setting.
I’m waiting for CSIRO to sue both Nokia and Apple for infringing its 802.11 patent. It will happen, it’s just a matter of when.
Steps for creating open standards ( GSM/3GPP )
> Continuous R&D by companies like Nokia, Ericcsson, Qualcomm ( CDMA). Several implementation/discoveries made during this R&D
> These implementation/discoveries are patented
> 3GPP meeting held to decide on open specifications
> Most patent holding companies try to push their solution in specification
> It’s a long tedious procedure when specs are made ready
> Most cases, the companies cancel out each others patent i.e the IPR portfolio of competing companies becomes equally strong and implementation of specification infringes each others patents
> Thats when companies sign a IPR sharing agreement – no license fee to be paid to each other
> e.g Qualcomm earns a lot for it’s CDMA patents – But now has IPR agreement with Nokia which is strong in GSM patents , to share the technology
> Creating a strong IPR portfolio takes a long time ( it took 15 years for Nokia to re-negotiate and reach agreement with Qualcomm, until then it was paying huge licensing fee to Qualcomm for CDMA technology)
> In the same way now, If Nokia attempted to enter IPR agreement with Apple , but Looks like Apple was arrogant enough not to pay for Nokia’s patents – Hence sued!
> 40 Licensees are not idiots to pay to Nokia
> Qualcomm is not idiot to revisit it’s IP rights sharing with Nokia
i hope Nokia wins this, because we here in Finland have cellphones in late 1980s and modern telephones first in the world, so i think Finnish most be only people that have exclusivity rights to made and development cellphones. (except nokia made these days cellphones in china and Ukraine). just as like Americans have right to made and development windows operating system.