Apple Counter-Sues Nokia Over Patents 137
adeelarshad82 writes "About two months ago Nokia sued Apple for infringing Nokia patents in its iPhone. The 10 patents in the lawsuit, filed in the US state of Delaware, relate to technologies fundamental for devices using GSM, UMTS and/or local area network (LAN) standards. The patents cover wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption and are infringed by all Apple iPhone models shipped since the iPhone was introduced in 2007. In the latest development to the case, Apple said Friday that it had filed its own suit against Nokia, countering Nokia's claims of patent infringement with its own."
CEO Battle (Score:5, Funny)
Re:CEO Battle (Score:4, Funny)
If Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo (CEO of Nokia) wins does he really want to eat Steve Job's liver in front of the angry mob? Given Mr Job's medical history that is kind of gross.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why not? It's WAY newer than the old one, and I'll bet it would taste much better. Also should be much healthier for you (vs eating the old one)...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, and we could present it as a music video for Frankie Goes to Hollywood, entitled "Two Tribes 2009".
That would mean glorious times ahead for Nokia (Score:4, Interesting)
There's one quite likely reason why Nokia CEO would possibly...destroy most corporate opponents:
Well into the mid-20th century, academic degrees remained important factors for politicians asking for the electorate's confidence. Likewise, one's military rank in reserves has been a decisive factor on selecting leaders and managers both in the public and the private sector. Even today, most Finnish managers are amongst those who have attained either an NCO (non-commissioned officer) or a reserve officer rank during their conscript tour of duty.
(emphasis mine, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Grand_Duchy_of_Finland [wikipedia.org] )
Re:That would mean glorious times ahead for Nokia (Score:4, Funny)
Re:That would mean glorious times ahead for Nokia (Score:4, Informative)
That quote is not surprising, considering that military service is compulsory in Finland. It's tantamount to being surprised that there is a strong correlation of people who do well in business performed well in school.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but you have to consider little details.
For example, in most post-soviet countries, where military service is theoretically compulsory, people with good education, coming mostly from rich homes, have the ways to weasel themselves out (with good reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Russia#Russian_Federation [wikipedia.org] it wasn't that bad at my place (where conscription was recently abandoned), but gives good overview). Essentially, the ones who end up serving are from the so called "bottom" of the
Re: (Score:2)
In that case Jobs is likely screwed. Kallasvuo is an asshole (I used to work in Nokia till that douche came to power) but he's fit: works out and does lots of sports. Jobs, well, his body has seen better days.
I'm rubber and you're glue... (Score:2, Funny)
I wish they'd all grow up...
Re:I'm rubber and you're glue... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm rubber and you're glue... (Score:5, Funny)
You fight like a dairy farmer!
How appropriate, you fight like a cow.
Re:I'm rubber and you're glue... (Score:4, Funny)
How appropriate, you fight like a company that MILKS its customers out of all their money and then spend half of it on pointless patent debates!
Re: (Score:1)
How appropriate, you fight like a cow!
I heard you where still wearing diapers!
Re:I'm rubber and you're glue... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's Apple supposed to do? Just eventually lose the patent case and pay up? The MAD patent defense is considered one of the "necessary evils" of the tech world.
When someone punches you, you punch back. Even if your principal is one of those idiots who, instead of trying to find out who thew the first punch, or who provoked who, just suspends both students.
Re:I'm rubber and you're glue... (Score:5, Insightful)
> When someone punches you, you punch back.
I think you're kind of missing the point. We shouldn't be behaving like cave-men in the first place.
True, the corporate environment that all companies currently exist in tends to encourage this behavior. But the nature of this corporate environment is hurting everyone (except the lawyers), so how long will it be before we can all evolve and pursue better things?
Reminds me of an anecdote concerning the game Mule [wikipedia.org]. I played this game with my brothers, and we always competed against each other. When I mentioned the game to a friend of mine, she said "That's a great game. What was the richest your colony ever got?" I responded with some score I remembered at the time. She said something to the effect of "Why so low? We usually got 10x that!" It had not even occurred to me that one might try to play the game cooperatively, thus benefiting the colony as a whole, rather than the individual player.
Somehow, mankind as a whole needs to make a similar observation.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're kind of missing the point. We shouldn't be behaving like cave-men in the first place.
No, I see the point very clearly. The fact is, we *ARE* cavemen. You're right that we shouldn't act like them (in general), but when someone takes that first caveman act against you, often your only response is to sink to their level. To remain "above the fray" and not revert to cavemanism yourself just lets them have their way with you, which is exceptionally stupid.
But the nature of this corporate environment is hurting everyone (except the lawyers), so how long will it be before we can all evolve and pursue better things?
This isn't about nurturing the caveman-prone corporate environment, it's about what you do *within* the caveman-prone corporate environment.
Ag
Re: (Score:1)
We are arguing different points.
You are focusing on the specifics of this particular case. I have made no comments about whether Apple's actions are "good" or "bad," but rather that the whole situation is kind of ridiculous.
I'm trying to see beyond this particular case and envision what set of conditions would allow for companies in general to focus on "progress" (whatever that means) instead of in-fighting.
This particular case revolves around patents. These days, patents are kind of like weapons. Compan
Re: (Score:1)
"Best defense is to attack" is not just non-sense.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was picked on a lot when I was a kid. My teachers told me to ignore it, and the other students would get bored and leave me alone. They didn't.
One day I got fed up, grabbed one of the bullies by his shirt collar and threw him down the hallway. Boy, did I ever get in trouble, but it did have one major benefit: nobody picked on me again. Ever.
Like it or not, we are cave men. Looking back, both the teachers and students taught me more about human nature than academic material.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"We are watching the landscape," Cook told financial analysts. "We like competition, as long as they don't rip off our IP, and if they do, we're going to go after anybody that does."
(see here [informationweek.com])
Apple has been building up for a patent war [reghardware.co.uk] and so Nokia has no choice other than to strike before their N900 phones [nokia.com] make them vulnerable. Remember Apple's lawsuit happy history was what caused the League for Programming Freedom [progfree.org]. I guess the fact that so many seem to believe that Nokia is the agressor here (remember, they've been trying to Negotiate for years be
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lighten up Francis. This type of patent 'show' is common when these types of lawsuits happen. They basically give each company a good bargaining chip, and then they take it offline and settle out of court. This is about as 'by the book' as it gets.
Re: (Score:2)
This type of patent 'show' is common when these types of lawsuits happen. They basically give each company a good bargaining chip, [...]
And with that I have little problem. However any presentation of either Apple or Nokia as innocent little flowers being picked on by a big bully I do have a problem with. They are both big corporations which know how to look after themselves. Apple has a history of copying other people's innovation (the Mouse & Windows based interface - from Xerox) and then accusing others of stealing it (Microsoft); Apple is also running around threatening everone in the phone industry with lawsuits. In this case I
Re:I'm rubber and you're glue... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is not doing this "because someone sued them". Apple made it clear that they were out to block Nokia from touch screen phones:
Nonsense. Nokia *has* touch screen phones. Apple did not sue them.
Apple has been building up for a patent war
Defensively, as evidenced by the fact that they did not sue first.
Nokia has no choice other than to strike before their N900 phones make them vulnerable.
That doesn't make any sense. How does initiating a suit about completely different technologies change anything with regards to touch screen patents? Nokia did not stave off a suit by their preemptive strike. In fact, they *brought it about*.
Remember Apple's lawsuit happy history was what caused the League for Programming Freedom.
Uh, that's a suit from twenty years ago, and one in which their partner (Microsoft) took proprietary knowledge from Apple to create a copy of their prized OS. This wasn't some sort of patent-troll style suit.
I guess the fact that so many seem to believe that Nokia is the agressor here
Because *they are*. They struck first. How is that so difficult?
(remember, they've been trying to Negotiate for years before this suit came out)
So, again, Nokia went after Apple first?
really does show that Apple can distort reality.
Those clever Apple folks! They can distort reality so completely that it wraps completely around on itself to where it started. Nokia struck first. Apple has been able to twist things so thoroughly that it even *looks* like Nokia struck first. Astounding!
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Defensively, as evidenced by the fact that they did not sue first.
Indeed... Apple did not sue first... it just stole Nokia's patent technology first.
Uh, that's a suit from twenty years ago, and one in which their partner (Microsoft) took proprietary knowledge from Apple to create a copy of their prized OS. This wasn't some sort of patent-troll style suit.
You mean the lawsuit that Microsoft won, by proving that their product was built differently from Apple's and did not duplicate or resemble any Apple code? It is widely known that Apple and Microsoft both borrowed their windowing OS concepts from Xerox.
Because *they are*. They struck first. How is that so difficult?
Apple was the initial aggressor. Apple made use of patented technologies built around the standardization of GSM and WCDMA. Apple did not participate in the creation of the
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm rubber and you're glue... (Score:4, Informative)
Uh, no. Apple /purchased/ what they got from Xerox with stock.
It's kind of time this urban myth died.
Re: (Score:2)
Since Apple did not invent the touchscreen, just patented some specific thing, those patents might not yet apply to existing Nokia phones with touchscreen.
Nokia is in fact the "agressor" here, but not in any bad sense. Since they only filed the lawsuit after their talks broke down. (Imagine, you being called bad guy just because you filed a suite against your neighbour, because
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's Apple supposed to do? Just eventually lose the patent case and pay up?
Most of what is responsible for the success of the iPhone--Mach, Objective-C, the GUI, MP3 players, multitouch, the app store, song recommendations, phone cameras--was invented elsewhere and simply copied ("stolen") by Apple. So, yes, maybe Apple should just lose the patent case and pay up; there's a good chance that they really do owe the money.
Do please elaborate on the *actual* parties from whom Apple stole these technologies, and what grounds they'd have for a suit against Apple.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
You can look that up yourself; the actual source of those technologies can be found mostly under those wikipedia entries.
I put the term "stolen" in quotes because that is the term Apple fanboys like to use when other companies adopt technologies that Apple has popularized; the actual term is "copying", and that's OK. It is particularly OK because most of what makes the iPhone what it is didn't even come from Apple.
Re:maybe they should just pay up (Score:5, Informative)
Mach: It's open source. So long as Apple abides by the license (which they do), there is no possible way they can "steal" it.
Objective-C: Apple is far from the only ones to have an Obj-C language. And the funny thing is that NeXT was the first company to license it, which Apple later purchased. Yep, obtaining a license certainly equates to theft!
MP3 Players: Are you fucking serious? Apple was far from the first to make an MP3 player. They were simply the most successful. Holy crap, Sony ripped off the inventor of the wax cylinder by making the Walkman!
Multitouch: Apple purchased Fingerworks, who had developed a number of multitouch technologies and interfaces. Again, buying is stealing?
The App Store: You can't possibly be fucking serious.
Song recommendations: See above. You mean they can recommend something based on something else you bought? WOW, they stole that...from the rest of the ENTIRE FUCKING INDUSTRY.
Phone cameras: Holy. Fucking. Shit. I'm not even going to address this.
Words cannot describe just how incredibly stupid you really are.
Re: (Score:2)
Just to add some details, NeXT in 1995 ended up buying the Objective-C trademark and rights from Stepstone.
Just a small part (Score:4, Insightful)
Uhhh...so like the whole frickin' thing...
Re:Just a small part (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. Apple has only been in the cell phone business for a few years... Nokia is a granddaddy. If you look at the patents Apple is saying that Nokia is infringing, they're comparatively minor. Let's look at the patents...
No. 5,555,369: Method of creating packages for a pointer-based computer system
No. 6,239,795 B1: Pattern and color abstraction in a graphical user interface
No. 5,315,703: Object-oriented notification framework system
No. 6,189,034 B1: Method and apparatus for dynamic launching of a teleconferencing application upon receipt of a call
No. 7,469,381, B2: List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display
No. RE 39, 486 E: Extensible, replaceable network component system
No. 5,455,854: Object-oriented telephony system
No. 5, 379,431: Boot framework architecture for dynamic staged initial program load
No. 5,634,074 : Serial I/O device identifies itself to a computer through a serial interface during power on reset then it is being configured by the computer
No. 5,915,131 : Method and apparatus for handling I/O requests utilizing separate programming interfaces to access separate I/O services
No. 7,383,453 B2: Conserving power by reducing voltage supplied to an instruction-processing portion of a processor
No. 5,848,105: GMSK signal processors for improved communications capacity and quality
No. 6,343,263 B1 : Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data
Mostly we're talking fluffy software patents. The last few are potentially meaty, but given how little time Apple has been in this business, and how recent these were filed and granted, they're probably pretty specific (although I don't have the time to pick through the actual claims). Worst case scenario for Nokia is probably, they pull their smartphones from the US market for 6 months while they work around them. And the US smartphone market is a minor part of Nokia's business.
But Nokia... Nokia has patents on just about every wireless technology known to man. Worst case scenario for Apple is they can cancel the iPhone and put an ethernet jack in the next MacBook Air.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I looked through some of those patents. What a joke, Themes, Serial device detection, VNC/RD/BBS. Out of the ones I read, not one of them really should have been granted a patent... I thought the patent office was lousy before; wow -- talk about bogus patents.
Re: (Score:1)
Only one of these patents seems to be an actual "iPhone patent".
No. 7,469,381, B2: List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display
I understood this one to be basically scrolling a document with your finger on touchscreen (instead of hand cursor and mouse). It was applied for in december 2007 so I would be surprised if it didn't also have prior art.
Apple's rhetoric seems
AM I reading the subtext right? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Nokia contributed greatly to the development of those standards. As I understand you expect they hand it over for everybody to use without, say, expectation of mutual recognition?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the issue is "Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory."
Let's say I make boring cellphones and I pay Nokia $0.25 for every cellphone that I sell. I really have nothing of value for Nokia except for money, so that's what they take. And that's fine.
Now let's say I have a patent on a method of turning lead into gold and I use this to make golden cellphones. Now that patent is worth potentially more than $0.25 for every cellphone that I sell. So should Nokia be able to say, "Hey, cross-license that patent and
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds fine at first glance, but remember that Apple is the one who eagerly states they are ready to fight for their patents.
Si modifying a bit your scenario, the method of turning lead into gold is actually quite straightforward and obvious, with Nokia also arriving at it. But then the small company starts to bark; this Nokia sees as an entity not willing to "Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory" relations (remember any relations involves two entities, works both ways...)
Re:AM I reading the subtext right? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would agree. But, again, the idea that Nokia can hold up the patents that Apple needs in order for Nokia to get the patents that they want is certainly not "Non-discriminatory."
To go with my previous example, if Nokia says, "it's $0.25 per cellphone, but we'll cut it if you cross-license these patents," that's one thing. But to say "You must cross-license these patents" is something else.
This gives Nokia an incredible advantage over Google, RIM, Microsoft, and anyone else who makes a cellphone operating system. Nokia makes a cellphone operating system but they also have patents which Google, RIM, and Microsoft—Nokia's competitors—must license in order to work with GSM networks. So you have to license technology from your competition if you want to work on GSM networks.
Nokia is definitely taking advantage of the situation by trying to use these must have patents in cellular telephony in order to improve their own cellphone operating system which is used on the phones that they sell.
That's definitely non-discriminatory.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple can just "pick a different cellular technology" if they don't want to license from Nokia. I don't see anyone demanding Apple allow third parties to make computers that run OSX... The response is "well you can run windows or linux instead". Well Apple can make a phone that ru
Re:AM I reading the subtext right? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd agree, except for the fact that these patents are part of a standard which Nokia has agreed to license in a "Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory" fashion. They can't suddenly decide to charge Apple more because Apple competes with them. That is discriminatory.
Apple is not saying that they shouldn't have to pay to use those patents. They are saying that they shouldn't have to pay more or give up valuable IP to use those patents since other companies don't have to pay as much or give up IP. Making Apple do that is discriminatory.
There is no double standard. If Nokia had not agreed to license the patents in a "Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory" fashion, I'd agree with you. Of course, their patents probably would not have been used.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there some factual documentation to back this up, or is it yet another "apple can do no wrong" assumption?
Re: (Score:2)
I keep giving examples. From above:
They are saying that they shouldn't have to pay more or give up valuable IP to use those patents since other companies don't have to pay as much or give up IP.
What part of this is confusing?
Suppose HTC gets charged $0.25 per cellphone. Why should Apple have to give up IP worth millions to use the same patents?
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia's suit is all about setting the price and based on that requiring backpay based on that price. Now imagine how hard it will be to calculate the price, because most other licensing contracts had not on
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Bastards! How dare they say that they will license in a "Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory" fashion and then turn around and charge their chief competitor more than anyone else?
Suppose I release something GPL. Then I decide not to and, furthermore, sue all the people who downloaded and used it under the GPL. Obviously, that would be a breach of contract.
So if Nokia agreed to be non-discriminatory, that means they can't charge Apple more than they would charge anyone else. That means they can't go aft
Re: (Score:2)
It stated that in the lawsuit that nokia wanted a patent cross-license agreement with apple for the rights to the GSM patents.
While I can't comment on the other patents yet, I find this one particularly crazy, since last I saw Apple does not manufacturer nor design nor sell GSM chips...
It would be like you buying a car from the dealer, then get sued for violating someones patent because the car manufacturer did just that.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
It stated that in the lawsuit that nokia wanted a patent cross-license agreement with apple for the rights to the GSM patents. That's not reasonable and nondiscriminatory.
Unreasonable, no. Discriminatory, possibly. If Nokia's patents are part of the specification, Apple should be allowed to license them under the same terms that others get.
What it sounds like is Nokia is trying to parlay their GSM patents into a license to use Apple's touch screen technology or some other patented item used in the iPhone. This is a very reasonable request, but Apple should have every right to consider the two licenses separately rather than cross licensing.
I can't tell whether that's what's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. Nokia offers the patents to everyone under 'Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory' terms, since they're essential for implementation of several wireless technologies. Literally everybody else in the industry licenses them. But Apple doesn't want to pay.
Resolution (Score:5, Insightful)
A classic example of patents being used defensively by Apple to counter Nokia's offensive use.
Re: (Score:2)
And, for bonus points: A classic example of what is wrong with the U.S. patent system -- sort of.
the lawyers always win (Score:4, Insightful)
There will still be a winner in this case... the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a crazy idea: in-house lawyers.
It IS crazy! (Score:5, Funny)
Here's a crazy idea: in-house lawyers.
Do you know how hard it is to potty train a lawyer?! It's not like a dog or better a cat that makes a bee line for the litter box. Nooooooo!
Lawyers need a big office if they don't have one, they'll shit all over everything. They need an expensive car or they'll pee over everything. And as for food! Oh God!
Just gimme a cat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not so; Pasteur was not entirely correct. Lawyers spontaneously generate out of the muck. (That's why muck-rackers so frequently have lawyers around them.)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
M. Pasteur was concerned about the origin of lifeforms. Not lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the in-house guys "manage" all the litigation but don't do much besides draw a nice salary.
They hire outside counsel to do the actual litigation and the other tedious BS.
Re: (Score:1)
Just like there's always a winner when someone has cancer... the doctors.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Resolution (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple's multitouch patent is ridiculous, and it's one I don't think they want to license. While Nokia is doing the suing, I think this is a reasonable pre-emptive strike. That patent strangles smartphone competition.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
It's a defensive patent. In case someone like another Creative sured them for multi-touch this or that. It's an unfortunate reality of doing business in tech.
So far, I haven't seen Apple sue based on patents pre-emptively. I could be wrong though.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
For the bazillionth time... Apple didn't patent multi-touch. The patented certain multitouch gestures
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately it doesn't work against patent trolls because they have no product to sell.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the fact that they agreed to license them on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis when the technology they held patents for became the GSM standard.
I think we have a [citation needed] on that one. And whilst your digging out, remember that agreements to standards only apply to essential patents which the company agrees to contribute or fails to declare when actively aware of the patent during standardisation. You might also want to have a look at this [tdc.co.uk]
IPR owners are only required to declare whether, or not, licenses are available, i.e. either by filing licensing declarations in respect of their Essential/potentially Essential IPRs, or declaring the non-availability of such IPRs;
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any interesting patents Apple actually holds on phone technologies? Based on the list I saw earlier, there was nothing that was particularly interesting.
Maybe Nokia wants licenses for the multitouch patents. I think Nokia, Google, and Microsoft should just get together and have Apple's multi-touch patents invalidated since there is prior art.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A classic example of patents being used defensively by Apple to counter Nokia's offensive use.
You make it sound as if Apple is the aggrieved party here. But Apple has been pilfering other people's ideas and products liberally in order to create the iPhone. Apple's contributions have largely been in excellent packaging, but they have innovated fairly little. Nokia, on the other hand, has produce innovative phones with bad user interfaces. I think the "offender" here really is Apple, and Nokia deserves a
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So someone who has put in the work to do proper human interface design, market analysis and HCI should just roll over and show their collective jugular to a competitor that can't do any of these things, in fact, hasn't been able to do any of thes things despite a huge headstart, and is now looking like an also-ran in the marke
Re: (Score:2)
Full text of Apple countersuit + patents (Score:4, Informative)
Digital Daily has posted a list of the patents at issue here and the full text of Apple's counterclaims [allthingsd.com] -- which are pretty brutal. "Excerpt: In 2007, Apple introduced the iPhone a ground-breaking device that allowed users access to the functionality of the already popular iPod on a revolutionary mobile phone and Internet device. The iPhone is a converged device that allows users to access and ever expanding set of software features to take and send pictures, play music, play games do research, serve as a GPS device and much more.The iPhone platform has caused a revolutionary change in the mobile phone category.
In contrast, Nokia made a different business decision and remained focused on traditional mobile wireless handsets with conventional user interfaces. As a result, Nokia has rapidly lost share in the market for high-end mobile phones. Nokia has admitted that, as a result of the iPhone launch, “the market changed suddenly and [Nokia was] not fast enough changing with it.
In response, Nokia chose to copy the iPhone, especially its enormously popular and patented design and user interface."
Re:Full text of Apple countersuit + patents (Score:5, Informative)
I don't trust that site for unbiased analysis of anything Apple, though to be fair -- at times his product reviews have been honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity, exactly what Nokia device is Apple (or allthingsd.com) claiming to be a copy of the iPhone? Nokia has had touchscreen-based (though not multi-touch) devices, both with and without phone chips, since before the existence of the iPhone, and while most if not all such devices could play music, none of them (in my experience) could be said to have copied the iPhone's or iPod's user interface. Many of these devices have also had installable applications available, though again I don't know of a
what a bunch of hypocrites (Score:3, Informative)
Apple introduced the iPhone a ground-breaking device that allowed users access to the functionality of the already popular iPod on a revolutionary mobile phone and Internet device. [...] In contrast, Nokia made a different business decision and remained focused on traditional mobile wireless handsets with conventional user interfaces.
Nokia had smartphones and touch screen devices long before the iPhone even existed. Much of the iPhone is basically derived from the Palm Treo, the Danger Hiptop, Symbian, and
Re: (Score:2)
Meaning that iPhone is not a technological advance, but just "repackaging". That implies that they used someone else's technology. Nokia holds most of GSM patents, so Apple must have had to use some of them.
On the other hand, Nokia never did hide the fact that they would copy good ideas. But not all ideas are patentable, while most technology is.
Patent fight!!! (Score:2)
[grabs popcorn]
One actor is missing (Score:2)
What would rock at this point is: MS getting into fight and suing BOTH of them :)
Do you think I am joking? I expect anything from MS regarding mobile operating systems since it is only Windows Mobile not going anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
meh, microsoft would not get directly involved.
now that SCO have crashed and burned, what proxies do they have left that can be deployed?
Nokia sues Apple for infringing technology patents (Score:5, Funny)
And Apple sues Nokia for what? The process for creating black shiny things?
but we patented the wheel! (Score:1)
Has Apple essentially admitted that they are infringing on Nokia's patents by not stating exactly which patents they're counter-suing for?
Maybe Apple thinks it can level out the playing field by saying 'we patented the ${x}', where ${x} can be any one of 'portable computing device', 'portable multimedia player', 'portable touch device', 'portable internet', 'portable camera', 'portable transistor', 'portable wheel', ... , etc.
but we patented the portable media wheel ... see? ... [click-click-click-click]
I wish them good luck (Score:3, Insightful)
... and hope they hurt each other as much as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
It can be even worse (Score:2)
What if Judge orders to remove lots of features from both Apple and Nokia devices? It will be a total mess, a comedy like newer devices having less features.
These days, the devices get monthly firmware updates. "It is built into chip, we can't change." is not an excuse anymore. As both companies are playing with justice system, system can play with them in very evil way too.
Re: (Score:2)
"If Apple and Nokia just hurt each other, they will take it out on consumers"
Yeah, but since I'm not a customer of either, and think they deserve to lose all their customers to other parties, I don't particularly mind that. Come to the light side, we have better cookies anyway.
My Mistake. But nokia's patents are equally dumb (Score:2)
Also, it is inconceivable that Nokia wants to collect a percentage of the handset prices when, except for the cellular radio and related software, the iPhone is basically an iPod Touch and you don't see them going after Apple
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Nuke Delaware from orbit (Score:4, Insightful)
A lot of banks are headquartered there. Wait... good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
And news corporation...
Re: (Score:1)
And Evony
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nokia is making a mockery of all Finns (Score:4, Informative)