Apple Seeks To Ban Nokia Imports To US 374
Hugh Pickens writes "Cnet reports that the ongoing patent battle between Apple and Nokia has escalated, with Apple moving to block imports of Nokia cell phones to the US by filing a complaint with the International Trade Commission, an independent federal agency that examines issues including unfair trade practices involving patent, trademark, and copyright infringement. In December, Nokia filed its own complaint with the USITC alleging that Apple infringes seven Nokia patents 'in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players, and computers' and sought to ban imports of Apple's iPhone, iPod, and MacBook products. Responding to Apple's latest move, Nokia spokesman Mark Durrant told Bloomberg that 'Nokia will study the complaint when it is received and continue to defend itself vigorously. However this does not alter the fact that Apple has failed to agree appropriate terms for using Nokia technology and has been seeking a free ride on Nokia's innovation since it shipped the first iPhone in 2007.' An ITC investigation is a lengthy process, but it's possible that Apple and Nokia might reach some sort of settlement as suits continue to escalate between the two companies."
Sue first, ask questions later (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it really cheaper to sue for peace? I mean, can't the legal teams for both companies see this down the road and come to some sort of mutual agreement in advance? It'd sure save a lot of time and money, not to mentioning freeing the courts a bit. Why is it acceptable policy to sue instead of discussing?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lawyers need to get paid, and this is the process by which they are paid.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They need to just fucking cross license the patents like they always end up doing. Stop feeding the animals (Lawyers).
Re:Sue first, ask questions later (Score:5, Insightful)
They need to just fucking cross license the patents like they always end up doing. Stop feeding the animals (Lawyers).
That is exactly what Nokia has been trying to do, but Apple doesn't agree to the terms (which are same for every other manufacturer too). And since Apple is infringing patents and doesn't agree to the standard cross licensing, they can't do other than sue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And since Apple is infringing patents and doesn't agree to the standard cross licensing,
What's your evidence of this? Nokia alleges that its patents are being infringed, but that doesn't mean it's true. Same in reverse. Does the fact that Apple has alleged that Nokia is infringing its patents mean it is true?
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the case will decide?
Nokia has a good history when it comes to patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Because every other company has agreed to Nokia's terms. I doubt that this would have happened if their claims were without merit. In addition, Nokia has no history of patent trolling. They spend massive amounts of money to research and are responsible for many of the most important inventions related to mobile data transfer. In addition, they license all their patents rather reasonably to all the competitors. Companies like Nokia are why the patent system exists.
So, when Apple suddenly decides not to pay any licensing fees, I trust Nokia a whole lot more.
Re:Nokia has a good history when it comes to paten (Score:4, Interesting)
Because every other company has agreed to Nokia's terms.
And Apple wanted to agree to the same terms every other company agreed to - but suddenly Nokia wanted more.
Re:Nokia has a good history when it comes to paten (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nokia has a good history when it comes to paten (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple does not deliver fundamentally new technology like Nokia; well not during the last 10 years anyways, the Newton was new, original Mac was new, etc.
Applie meditates upon existing technology and works out how to present the technology so that the average user will benefit most. Incremental backups like Time Machine have existed forever, ala rsync, but Apple slapping on a gui with a starscape has saved thousands of users from losing irreplaceable data.
Apple will need to pay royalties for the underlying technology they are using. Indeed, they'll owe Nokia massive damages for the past 3 years, possibly exceeding the total value of all iPhone's sold thus far. Nokia was extremely forgiving by offering merely a cross licensing deal.
Re:Nokia has a good history when it comes to paten (Score:5, Insightful)
Evidence would be nice in an accusation.
That's like asking for evidence that WWII happened. Go read up on Apple corporate history.
Also, I guess he is saying that Apple does not "spend massive amounts of money to research"
Apple used to do research and collaborate with universities, but they stopped in the 1990's.
Today, Apple spends virtually no money on research, as you can see from their non-existent research output (=publications, citations), from their lack of hiring in computer science research, and from their lack of interaction with computer science departments. Furthermore, the iPhone and almost all its fundamental technologies were invented elsewhere.
and is not responsible for shaking up the mobile phone market
They are definitely responsible for that.
and giving more power to the consumer.
With what? Lock-in not only to a carrier but to Apple products as well? By disabling such commonplace technology as tethering? By not allowing me to install software on my phone? By having a crippled Bluetooth implementation that doesn't talk to standard devices? Do tell, what power does an iPhone give me that I didn't have before?
Don't get me wrong: Apple does great product design and their products are decent (if premium priced). And Apple's impact on the industry has often been positive overall by getting other companies out of their ruts. But Apple is not the great innovator or inventor they are made out to be, and they deserve neither the credit nor the monopoly that their fanboys want to give them.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the amount of patents granted nowadays and their scope, I think it's almost certain that any product infringes on at least some of them, the only question being which ones specifically. This rises some interesting questions about the viability of the patent system itself, as we approach singularity and technological progress goes ever faster.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The patents Nokia is complaining about are required to be licensed under reasonable and not discriminatory terms. Nokia wanted to charge Apple more for licensing than they were charging other companies. Apple was happy to pay the standard fees, but weren't happy to be gouged. Nokia needs to lose this to make sure no-one tries to shut down the possibility of competition again.
Re:Sue first, ask questions later (Score:5, Informative)
RAND terms are only available for GSM association members. Apple hasn't joined the association so RAND terms don't apply for them.
Re:Sue first, ask questions later (Score:4, Interesting)
that's just it Apple shouldn't have to pay a dime for Nokia's patents as they cover the hardware which apple purchases from people who have already paid Nokia for access to those patents.
Nokia wants to double dip charge the hardware manufactures who make the chips, and charge apple to use those chips. Until people realize this then Nokia is going to look like the good guy in this mess.
apple has to pay the manufactures extra to use those patents as they pay nokia already. or do you think Qualcomm who makes the iphones GSM chipset doesn't pay nokia?
Re:Sue first, ask questions later (Score:4, Informative)
It really depends on the terms Qualcomm has with Nokia to make them, doesn't it? They might have an arrangement where paying license fees for parts is the responsibility of the end user device manufacturer. Pure speculation obviously... just like yours.
Re:Sue first, ask questions later (Score:4, Interesting)
That's right, nobody here knows how much they charge, so no need to rant.
Re:Sue first, ask questions later (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you mean is there is a cabal of companies working together to limit competition [...]
No. What I am saying is that there is a 'cabal' of companies who encourage competition by sharing, and encourage sharing, of patents so that the entire global market stays healthy and Apple went "Fsck you, we are not going to cross license our patents".
So when Apple 'evolved' the market with multi-touch, they said: Nobody but can have multi-touch and thus limit competition.
Re:Sue first, ask questions later (Score:4, Interesting)
And Nokia said "give us multi touch for essentially free or we will make it very difficult for you to operate a cellphone because we control the patents on talking to celltowers"
"you can roll your own cell towers of course..."
This is not just all Apple. Both companies are slugging it out here - neither one playing nice. It's not really in Apple's interests (or Nokia's) to have this out in court if they could come to a cross licensing agreement. The only obvious result of this is that they simply don't agree on what each other's patents are worth.
It's cheaper to just cross licence; that is has got this far is an indication that they are fundamentally disagreeing on some serious points, mainly financial ones.
It's not easy to be a new player to a big game that has been sewn up by other companies, especially if you come in with a new product that has some things that the big boys haven't seen before. Now they want that tech for themselves as the price of admission to the game for much less than Apple really want to give it up for. On the other side, the big boys have put together a big cell network with a lot of invested R&D and by nature of the design, Apple needs to use patented tech to be able to make a phone in the first place, so now it comes swanning in, late to the party after the heavy R&D is done with a flashy phone ready to start taking sales away from the big boys....
You can see it from both sides. They both have a case here, and it's just a matter of working out what each other's patents are worth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not "essentially free" when they get something very valuable for it. Now if Nokia or Apple was paying hard cash for the others patents, but then gave a license for theirs then would the other party have something for free. In the scope of the existing patent system Nokia isn't asking for anything for free.
Re:Sue first, ask questions later (Score:4, Insightful)
I fear that Multitouch is worth quite a bit less than the R&D the phone device companies have pitched in here. It's a nice, nifty feature, but if Bilski is upheld or made more stringent by the SCOTUS, it's worth QUITE a bit less as it's a software patent- not to mention that it's not in the same scope and scale as the stuff Nokia, Qualcomm, and a few others have come up with in this space.
Apple'd be better served by playing ball here on this one as they've quite a bit more to lose than Nokia does in the big-picture sense of things here.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Apple clearly and knowingly infringed upon GSM for several years. So the courts will eventually award Nokia massive damages, those damages could exceed the total value of all iPhones sold thus far. Nokia was extremely generous to offer merely cross licensing plus royalties going forward to cover this. Nokia presumably offered this based upon Apple being "one of the big boy who are not supposed to sue one another". Apple then started fight. Apple would never have had this problem if they'd merely licens
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sue first, ask questions later (Score:4, Insightful)
That is exactly what Nokia has been trying to do, but Apple doesn't agree to the terms
That is exactly what Apple has been trying to do, but Nokia doesn't agree to the terms.
Disagreement works both ways, unless you believe a priori that one side is right, and we're not going to be able to tell from some news story (on Slashdot, no less!) whether the many patents in question are valid. Good excuse for a flamefest though.
Re:Sue first, ask questions later (Score:4, Insightful)
Other companies didn't seem to have issues with Nokia's terms, though ?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft big enough for you?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Again, I'm being up-front and telling you I'm ignorant here: Is Microsoft even spending in the neighborhood of the same amount of money, or are they spending less on licenses because they're not actually making phones? Not to make a pun here, I'm just trying to make sure it's an apples-to-apples sort of thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft, Vodafone, Cisco, Intel, Samsung Electronics...
Re:Sue first, ask questions later (Score:4, Informative)
But apple buys it's GSM chips from qualcomm who charges extra to cover the patent licensing they have to pay Nokia for.
NOKIA wants to charge not only the people who make the devices but every company who sells a products with that uses those devices.
If Dell started selling a GSM adaptor for their laptops and bought those adaptors already made so all that had to be done was to solder it into the motherboards, Nokia wants the to charge Dell for selling those adaptors too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They have been "discussing" this for some time now, if you had not noticed.
Further, Apple and Nokia are not tying up normal or federal courts with this issue: The filings are with the ITC (International Trade Commission).
The mission of the Commission is to (1) administer U.S. trade remedy laws within its mandate in a fair and objective manner; (2) provide the President, USTR, and Congress with independent analysis, information, and support on matters of tariffs, international trade, and U.S. competitiveness [usitc.gov]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Won't someone please think of the lawyers?
Re:Sue first, ask questions later (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you not think Nokia has been negotiating with Apple from the moment they released the iphone (3 years), they finally got sick of the delay tactics and went to the courts. This is a bit of tit for tat on Apple's part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is it really cheaper to sue for peace? I mean, can't the legal teams for both companies see this down the road and come to some sort of mutual agreement in advance? It'd sure save a lot of time and money, not to mentioning freeing the courts a bit. Why is it acceptable policy to sue instead of discussing?
Yeah, you know what this is REALLY about? The fact that Nokia has just released a few iPhone-class devices that dramatically undercut the inflated prices Apple is asking while providing 99% of the value. Take the 5800 XM for instance, I recently got one and it does about 80% of things just as well as an iphone and the rest it does better. And it's $29/mo where I live compared to $89/mo for an iphone. They're trying to scare competitors out of their marketplace, nothing more nothing less.
Re:Sue first, ask questions later (Score:4, Insightful)
FWIW, I've an 5800 XM too. It sucks balls. It's so slow, that just flipping the mobile over to rotate the screen takes seconds in some cases. Nothing is instant on this phone, you have to wait for everything. If this is even remotely comparable to the iPhone...
Seriously, not a joke: Flip the phone on its side, open the applications folder. Wait 7 seconds, and they show up. At least on my 5800. Did I mention that it hangs, occasionally?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I love my 5800. Sure, there may be some things that the Iphone does better, but then there are things the Iphone does worse. Hell, even my 5 year old cheapo Motorola V980 had things that the Iphone models couldn't do, and in some cases still can't do.
And anyhow - the 5800 is a fraction of the price of the Apple phones (about half price on UK PAYG prices), so what do you expect? It's not going to have as fast a processor at that price. There are higher end Nokia models - and they've been making "iPhone-class
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally like this improvement. Slashdotters aren't called fanboys anymore, but shareholders. Sounds a lot more classy and like everyone on slashdot is rich.
Apple Counter files against Nokia not files (Score:5, Informative)
In all fairness, this is a response to Nokia's filing last month to ban Apple imports. So so far it has been:
Nokia sues Apple
Apple counter sues Nokia
Nokia seeks to ban Apple Imports via ITC
Apple responds by seeking to ban Nokia imports via the ITC
info from Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=ao_5HVbD_IRM [bloomberg.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, just like the summary says on the second line...
The thing is, Nokia has all the rights to do that since Apple keeps infringing their patents and doesn't even agree to cross license patents like every phone manufacturer does. This is just Apple being childish and trying to kick back in tears.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Other than the part where Nokia wanted more money and more patents from Apple than from other manufacturers, of course. Somebody might be acting childish, but it sure isn't Apple.
can people declare if they own shares (Score:2)
Every single pro or anti post needs a declration stating if they own either apple or nokia shares.
Otherwise youre statements of "Apple is god, they are inocent" are defensive and self interest based.
I own neither.
Re:Apple Counter files against Nokia not files (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, that's what Apple claim. There are two problems with this.
The first one is, how does Apple know what other companies are required to pay? This article [eweek.com] claims the agreements are secret and I see no reason to disbelieve that, it'd be standard for this sort of thing.
The second problem is that Apple have sadly established a track record in the last few years of being flexible with the truth, whereas Nokia have not. For example, covering up issues with Jobs' health and playing cute with the FCC over Google iPhone apps. In constrast the only time I read about Nokia in the news is when they've done something cool, like launching a new product.
Simply put, some companies have more credibility than others, and Apple is on the losing side in this one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am with Nokia on this issue, but don't make the mistake of thinking they are good guys. Nokia has traditionally been the Microsoft of the cell phone industry. Ignoring standards, making their own incompatible standards and even making phones with severe security issues. They had SMS viruses at one point! Also Nokia has been pushing for software patents in Europe, making them a sworn enemy of many geeks.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My point was that Greenpeace nailed Apple for all sorts of things that Apple very easily and demonstrably proved were not the case, while HP and Dell were giving good marks by Greenpeace for much less.
It's only relevant in regard to the way people scrutinize Apple. Greenpeace heavily criticised Apple for BFRs, and awarded HP a higher score for "planning make a plan to eliminate BFRs" (ie, not even actually doing much) where Apple had already removed the bulk of BFRs from their products several years before
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm also pretty sure that multitouch is not a technology that is necessary in the mobile phone market. I've seen plenty of new phones with keypads and no touch screens lately for a large market of users that don't need an all-in-one device. And as Apple has shown, multitouch devices are expansive beyond the cell phone/telephone marketplace.
If Nokia is infringing, it is violation of Apple's patents, end of story.
If Nokia is holding back Apple (and any other entry) due to tower communication technology lice
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You obviously don't understand how Patents work in the first place.
If I hold a patent I can bar damned near ANYONE from implementing it as a manufacturing endeavor- even with people not doing it for profits. Now, in the act of doing so, I might run afoul of certain anti-trust laws in some countries- but in most cases, I will not.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The thing is, Nokia has all the rights to do that since Apple keeps infringing their patents and doesn't even agree to cross license patents like every phone manufacturer does. This is just Apple being childish and trying to kick back in tears.
You could also point out that Nokia has been a major player on the mobile phone market for a long time. According to wikipedia their share of the device market was 38% in Q3 2009. Alluvasudden some upstart invades *their* mobile phone market, steals a big chunk of *their* share of the smartphone market, with an innovative new media-player/smart-phone this competitor succeeds in selling apps and music hand over fist where Nokia has had only mediocre success and to make matters worse no matter what they do No
Re:Apple Counter files against Nokia not files (Score:5, Insightful)
While I also think Nokia's phones haven't been up to quality in recent years (I switched to HTC and love it), they have a long history in developing phones and the technology behind it. They have spend millions on R&D. They fairly cross license patents with other manufacturers, like every one else does (theres not so many manufacturers anyways), but Apple refuses to do this.
Even if their phones aren't as good as some competitors currently, Nokia is one of the companies that actually deserve to be paid their patent royalties.
While patent laws are on Nokia's side too, they aren't even lowering to patent trolling - they're just asking Apple to behave good and like everyone else on the small industry and cross license their patents and pay the small share like everyone else does (3-4% per phone sale if I remember correctly, and Apple gets the same back if Nokia uses their patents). Is this too much to ask?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
According to wikipedia their share of the device market was 38% in Q3 2009. Alluvasudden some upstart invades *their* mobile phone market, steals a big chunk of *their* share of the smartphone market
A few percent is big? Well, I suppose it is a loss to Nokia, even if it's only a few per cent - but why aren't they going after RIM, as they're a company gaining even higher share than Apple?
and to make matters worse no matter what they do Nokia can't seem to beat the Apple iPhone even when they practically copy
Re:Apple Counter files against Nokia not files (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, that sums it up quite well. Apple has done absolutely nothing to develop the current standards used for mobile communication, while Nokia is responsible for much of the work that went into the GSM evolution standards. The iPhone is a good implementation, but it is building heavily on the work of others. Compared to other phones, the only thing that is novel is the interface, and you will find papers describing almost all of the interface elements in the iPhone written by people outside Apple in HCI journals and conference proceedings over the last decade - some even by Microsoft Research (which I find particularly amusing since they haven't put them into Wince).
You will find no papers by Apple employees. Apple does not do research. They do product development. There is a big difference: every company in the market benefits from research, while only the funding company benefits from development.
Re:Apple Counter files against Nokia not files (Score:4, Informative)
I think you mean "the single GSM chip that gets bolted on to the iPhone to make it talk with the cell tower" where you say "builds heavily on the work of others". The rest of the phone is not the GSM chip.
Also, that chip us manufactured by Qualcomm, who already licences the patents involved from Nokia and and sells a turnkey chip solution to third party manufacturers so they can make phones. Didn't Apple already pay Nokia by proxy? Or does the cost of buying the chips not include the patent cost, that the chip manufacturer has already paid?
The "only thing novel is the interface" is *everything* about the phone - there are only so many ways you can make a candybar phone. You can't really innovate there (well, Nokia has tried with that cube phone that folds out and looks odd, but generally you are limited in what you can do). The interface of most phones is *awful*. If you've ever tried to use some of these phones you wonder who on earth designed it. So Apple comes along with a large touchscreen UI with gestures and multi touch and is simple to operate. It is by no means the first, but in a similar way to the iPod (again, not the first mp3 player) it is one of the first UIs to really work well and is actually pleasant and intuitive to use. Again, it is not the only good UI, but it is a very good one.
If people have already come up with these interface ideas before (and I have no doubt people have thought of them) then why didn't we see them in widescale use on phones and portable electronics (or personal computers) before the iPhone? I'm not disputing that someone in Redmond thought up some cool new UI trick, but if you are suggesting Apple copied it then fair play to them. Some guy describes it in a journal that is open to read (and presumably patents it), and Apple decide to use it. If it's patented, they pay royalties. Isn't that how it;s meant to work?
If creating really good UIs (note: not perfect, I am not saying that OS X and iPhone UI are perfect, just really good) then why don;t we see more of them, if there are so many people innovating in this area? Apple are very good at combining and refining and making things work and it is disingenuous to claim that they do no innovation of their own.
Their track history of products suggests otherwise - if these things are trivial and easy, where is the competition?
Incidentally, the creation of firewire, usb and a few other standards would like to have a word with you about "no research".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Apple also contributed to the USB protocol as part of the USB-IF, and were active in the creation of firewire right up to its current inception, not just in 1986 when it was first proposed (Sony and TI also featured heavily in the creation of what eventually became the 1394 standard).
I know you said it was a good implementation, you also claimed that Apple does "no R&D", which is demonstrably false.
Mmm, Nokia should sue Apple (Score:2)
For copying it's legal moves.
What is wrong with patents (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary is a good example of a situation when patents really shine at what they are: a handbrake on innovation. Consumer has nothing to gain if a capable competitor is excluded from the marketplace like that. Leading companies will invest in RnD, patents or not, mostly just to keep up with the state of the art, but also because when (by chance), their engineers invent something truly novel and useful, they will have weeks, months, or may be even years before competitors reverse-engineer their product and learn how to build it cheaper. It is clearly not worth for the public to pay the patent enforcement and monopoly taxes unless the patent law strongly boosts the rate of innovation (and even then, is there really a point?).
And we have no evidence whatsoever that the patent system of any kind increases the rate of innovation (the technological leap of the last 400 years is probably mostly due to the fossil fuels, and we are in for another boost, due to the Internet, the holy Grail of communication). We but we have clear examples of monopolistic behaviors, where the cost to consumer can be directly calculated, like in every case when a cheaper competing product is barred from the market.
The reasonable thing to do would be to start decreasing the patent term, while measuring how it affects the rate of innovation. I would not be surprised to see that it doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
You must not understand where all the radios in your cell phones were designed. The fact that most companies don't have to think about designing their own radios frees them up to do other things (a la the iPhone).
Re: (Score:2)
They bribed, bought, stole and rigged elections in the US until they got the laws passed and got biology/pharma added too.
The little creative person is shut out. Multinationals seal up an area for their tech for many decades. They then swap amongst their peers and supply fabs.
Apple is just trying not to appear weak (Score:5, Insightful)
Going to the USITC is simply the next step in this legal tit-for-tat. The seven patents at issue in Nokia's filing to the USITC (involving camera, antenna and power management technology) were different to the original ten patents it sued for in October (involving GSM and wireless technology). Apple countersued in December for thirteen patents. I have yet to see if Apple's USITC filing involes the same thirteen patents. If it does, Apple's USITC filing could be thrown out to avoid a situation of double jeopardy. If it doesn't it would be interesting to see what patents are in Apple's USITC filing.
It seems that Apple is trying to force a settlement out of Nokia, but Apple have for more to lose in this situation. Sure, there is a possibility of a ban on Nokia phones in the US, but most of Nokia's market lies outside the US. It is hard to tell what will happen next, but if a settlement is going to happen it won't be soon. I wouldn't be surprised if Nokia's next step is to take the fight international, with a filing in the EU. I can't help feeling that Apple may come out of this battle worse off.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Shouldn't the company that produces the GSM chip sets be paying?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if they are contractually obligated to pay for GSM licensing fees. Most likely not, they let the customers to take care of these issues. In any case that debacle would be between Apple and GSM chipset manufacturer, Nokia isn't concerned about how Apple phone is made.
are you kidding? (Score:2)
Nokia might have more employees and sell more phones, but Apple makes more money - in fact they could buy a controlling interest in Nokia with their cash-on-hand and fire Durrant's ass on the spot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You forget that Apple has fanboys, and Nokia does not. Nokia might as well settle now, apologise, pay an undisclosed sum and retreat from the American market again.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Nokia has more employees, but Apple makes more money. Nokia sells tons more phones, but Apple has a hell of a lot of other lines. Overall, Apple looks to be in better shape. It's fairly hard to compare companies using a general metric like size since there are so many factors. Seems like Apple is healthier in general, although Nokia is "bigger" for whatever that means.
Looking at valuation, Apple could probably buy Nokia if they decided to, but that's not in the least bit likely. Apple's not big into the l
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at valuation, Apple could probably buy Nokia if they decided to, but that's not in the least bit likely. Apple's not big into the low end.
Nokia is as big as apple in terms of total assets. They are equal in terms of annual income and bigger in terms of revenue. Nokia equally matches Apple in terms of finances and has more employees. Just because Apple has more presence in US, doesn't mean it can just buy it out.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Your view is stereotypical US worldview, which downplays market stability the company has acquired, especially on non-domestic markets, to quite a bit. This illusion is also the reason why Apple stocks are so overvalued and Nokia stocks are not doing very well. US investors, with their understandably but still pointlessly narrow worldview affect both companies' value more than it would make sense.
I think future of Apple is actually very much more unpredictable than that of Nokia. It's also a giant gamble to
Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak (Score:5, Informative)
Biggest reason why Apple has so much money to throw around is the fact that Apple doesn't pay any dividends and lets the money sit on low interest accounts. Nokia has been a good dividend payer for years and will do so, as any mature company should. Right now market cap for Apple is huge, but it's based on future prospects with no dividend policy. I really don't know how the investors are going to get their money out of Apple. Are Apple investors waiting for LBO or liquidation? I mean regular buy and hold investor should get money back somehow from a successful company, right?
Haha. (Score:3, Funny)
Standing ground (Score:2, Insightful)
know the courts (Score:2)
Oh, please. This is standard procedure in a lawsuit. Since the judges almost always try to get the parties to settle, you don't start with a reasonable demand, you start with the maximum the law allows for, because the other party does the same. Then you meet in the middle.
IANAL but I've done a number of corporate lawsuits, on both sides (suing and being sued). This is just how it works. If you actually get your initial demand, you'd be as surprised as everyone else.
Apple are the bad guys here. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just a feeling I have, but somehow the evil American corporation is more likely then the evil Finnish corporation.
Here is how it will end: (Bug circumvented now.) (Score:3, Funny)
<Nokia> HEY APPLE
<Nokia> INSULT
<Apple> LAWSUIT
<Nokia> COUNTER-LAWSUIT
<Apple> QUESTIONING OF SEXUAL PREFERENCE
<Nokia> SUGGESTION TO SHUT THE FUCK UP
<Apple> NOTATION THAT YOU CREATE A VACUUM
<Nokia> LAWSUIT
<Nokia> ADDON LAWSUIT
<Apple> COUNTER-LAWSUIT
<Nokia> COUNTER-COUNTER LAWSUIT
<Apple> NONSENSICAL STATEMENT INVOLVING PLANKTON
<FTC> RESPONSE TO RANDOM STATEMENT AND THREAT TO BAN OPPOSING SIDES
<Apple> WORDS OF PRAISE FOR BRIBERY
<FTC> ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ACCEPTENCE OF TERMS
Re:Worthless patents (Score:5, Informative)
Because patents actually do spur innovation and research. The US patent system is broken, do not assume that patents are useless because people use them wrong. It's like saying a car is useless because some people cant drive properly. Nokia is at the forefront of cellular hardware R&D, they are hardly the patent trolls Apple fanboys are making them out to be.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Worthless patents (Score:5, Informative)
The idea behind patents is that you will release the knowledge behind your product or design to the public ("patent", being the opposite of "latent" means something along the lines of "out in the open") in exchange for a temporary monopoly during which time you can recoup the costs of development. Taking the risk of developing a new technology is thus incentivized because you can be assured that your product won't be ripped off and sold for cheap, preventing you from making any profit (or just breaking even) off of what could have been a potentially expensive period of R&D beforehand. That's why it makes sense to have patents.
It doesn't make sense to patent trivial things, or have patents that take a long time to expire. These squash innovation because they prevent *others* from using new technologies to make even newer technologies. There has to be a balance between slowing innovation slightly and making sure that innovation is not a huge risk.
Re:Worthless patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Which brings up a question of how to measure innovation objectively. Should one count inventions per year (what is an "invention")? Products per year? And then there are other factors, some of which can easily make the impact of patents insignificant. A war, an economic crisis, an ecological disaster, or a bad educational system may slow down the research or halt it altogether. An easy access to natural resources, the main one being energy, or a political system which protects free speech will probably greatly increase the rate of innovation. If one cannot adequately measure how the rate of innovation changes with respect to the patent term, then there can be no rational argument for having a patent system at all, since the costs are real and can be calculated directly.
Re: (Score:2)
Innovations per person-year. One person, working for one year, to produce one innovation, is a single "point." This accurately reflects the costs of employing multiple inventors and also the time it takes to produce the innovation.
Using this as a baseline for calculation, you can compute revenue per share per innovation point, which, for a privately held company, is proportional to revenue / employees / ( innovation / employee / year ) == revenue * year / innovation. Assuming that a year's worth of developm
Re: (Score:2)
That's why it makes sense to have patents.
Eh, no, that's just the patents proponents theory.
Developing new technology always carries an incentive in and of itself, as it (presumably) cuts costs or offers desirable features, thus spurring revenue. The fact that it'll get ripped off is irrelevant; either you do it, or someone else does it and your product won't get sold as it's always a step behind. As long as you keep release cycles short enough and matched with R&D you recoup your investment through fir
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but the people patenting a specific technology usually aren't the same people that put in the hard work to make that specific technology possible - all that hard work is actually an ecosystem of countless technologies to create an environment for that one further step forward. And most of the truly foundational work was done by governments and universities that didn't patent their work (at least until recently, because of patent trolls such as yourself).
Re:Worthless patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Nokia is at the forefront of cellular hardware R&D, they are hardly the patent trolls Apple fanboys are making them out to be.
Nobody is accusing Nokia of being a patent troll. Everybody knows that Nokia is an actual company that does actually sell products.
Nokia's alleged abuse of patent law comes from them trying to charge Apple more than the going rate that it charges to Motorola or Samsung or RIM for the same tech. That's just anti-competitive, plain and simple.
Re:Worthless patents (Score:5, Interesting)
More than likely the percentage talks broke down and they are taking it to court. Nokia just went thru this with another big cell player Qualcomm (who nokia accused of charging more than the going rate). It has nothing to do with one or the other using the other inventions. It is just about money. They settled with qualcomm for a big chunk of money going to qualcomm. Which means 'we could go to court and drag it out for years but would loose in the end'.
Apple is playing a shaky game. As Nokia is one of the 800 pound gorillas in that market. It sounds like Apple is trying to get a 'favored' status rate. These guys will not do that as it ends up costing them with other people they charge. They have things in the contracts like 'if someone else gets a lower rate you get the same rate'. Nokia will fight tooth and nail not to go below a certain rate. This magic number is never said outside of boardrooms but everyone knows who is paying what anyway...
Re:Worthless patents (Score:5, Informative)
1) If nokia is an 800lb gorilla, Apple is King Kong – Nokia's market cap is $50bn, apple's is $190bn.
2) Apple isn't trying to get favoured rates, they're trying to get the same rates as everyone else as dictated by RAND terms.
Re:Worthless patents (Score:5, Insightful)
If nokia is an 800lb gorilla, Apple is King Kong – Nokia's market cap is $50bn, apple's is $190bn.
True. But when it comes to phones, Nokia is the 800lb gorilla and Apple is Zippy the Chimp. [zippythetvchimp.com]
Why do I say this?
Nokia can conceivably stop Apple from selling a GSM phone, if they are successful. Apple will have to change the iPhone to run on CDMA networks, such as Verizon's here in the US. But the world-wide market for GSM phones is much larger than the market for CDMA phones. This will limit how well iPhones will sell outside of the US and hurt Apple's revenue dramatically.
In short, Nokia can do a fair amount of damage to iPhone sales.
In return, what can Apple do to Nokia? Stop them from selling phones? I doubt it. Nokia sells plenty of different kinds of phones. They may be able to lop off the top-end phones, but that's about it. I also assume Nokia makes plenty of money off of their patents, so Nokia wouldn't be hurt too badly if Apple stopped them from selling the N97. So if Apple prevails, Nokia may have to make some minor changes to their products, but that's about it.
That's why Nokia is the 800LB Gorilla.
That said, much like Apple licensing the Mac UI to Microsoft, Nokia's "mistake" was agreeing to RAND terms.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's why Nokia is the 800LB Gorilla.
Not when your "Zibby the Chimp" has enough cash on hand to buy a controlling interest Nokia and fire the gorilla.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless of this particular tissy, the idea that Apple would be interested in owning any significant portion of Nokia is laughable. Unless the iPhone starts making up an ENORMOUS chunk of their business, it just isn't explainable to the shareholders why Apple, a computer company ever since its inception, has become a major owner of a company whose purpose is the manufacturing of a wide variety of wireless phones. It doesn't make sense (although it could in the future, I don't think we're anywhere near tha
Re: (Score:2)
Despite the best efforts of the UK, there is actually some regulation of that kind of thing here in Europe.
Re:Worthless patents (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem is, Nokia holds patents on CDMA and general phone concepts as well. No way Apple will be able to sell a CDMA phone without licensing Nokia IPR.
In fact, this fight is not over only the mentioned 10 patents, but covers hundreds of patents. But due to the cost of fighting about all patents, a few key ones are selected for the legal fight. This is standard practice.
Apple has no choice other then creating a licensing agreement with Nokia or leave the market.
Some mentioned 'fair' agreement. Problem is, how much is the value of your patent portfolio. Take for example Ericsson, they hold key patents in cellular technology. 10 of their patents have more value for Nokia then 10 of Apple patents. Apple patents do not apply to e.g. their low end, PC-card/module and network product. (Assuming here Apple patents are in majority covering the field of UI)
Re:Worthless patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, it's not anti-competitive. What it is though, is in violation of RAND terms, which nokia signed up to when they let their patents become part of the GSM standard.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue is about a lot more than just about GSM standards. Among others, theres patents about usability and interfaces, not just about GSM.
Re: (Score:2)
The proper questions are "by how much?" and "what is the benefit to consumer, in dollars?", and the answer better include some sound statistics.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The 10 patents it accuses Apple of violating are related to making phones able to run on GSM, 3G, and Wi-Fi networks
which sounds like a trivial thing to patent to begin with. How again are patents really contributing to the general good?
Trivial? Wow? You realize Nokia originally developed all this technology. You wouldn't have mobile phones without Nokia today.
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia wants the patents for multi touch cross licensed. These patents are even more trivial than GSM, 3G and Wi-Fi.
Really. They may be trivial to implement now because others have done the work to produce them, but designing the transmitter and logic board to accurately connect a cell phone to a cellular network is not trivial. Neither is a multitouch capacitive screen. Go design something and when I copy your design scheme or buy a prefab piece of equipment don't come whining when I call the implementation trivial.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Care to explain how these patents are trivial? I would say that they are the most central patents you can imagine in the field...
Re:Arrogant Apple Strikes Again! (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree that they should take it to the EU, not that I usually support the EU's special brand of crazy that gives them liscence to print money from other peoples accounts (Intel, Microsoft) but it would be fantastic to finally see Apple being held to the same standard as everyone else.
Fining companies for harming the market and consumers is the exact opposite of 'crazy'. Such fines have long-term benefits for everybody big and small alike.
Price fixing, collusion, anti-competitive practises. They are bad. They hurt companies. They hurt consumers in both choice and price.
And if you're alluding to the notion that the EU only fines non EU-based companies: the meme is false. Dozens of other EU companies have been fined on precisely the same grounds. You never heard of it because as far as the US media is concerned, things that don't affect the USA don't exist. That goes for Slashdot too.
Re:Arrogant Apple Strikes Again! (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course Apple want to play by the rules - they are not simply saying "nah nah we don't have to licence Nokia's patents". They are arguing about the nature of Nokia's strong arming (that under the rules that Nokia agreed to when their patented tech became part of the GSM standard they would not be discriminatory in their cross licencing or charging of fees). Apple are claiming that Nokia are breaking those rules and are after far more from Apple than anyone else they licence their patents to. Nokia are, of course, saying that it's all fair and fine. The two don't agree, thus courts get involved. It's not rocket surgery. They will eventually settle and the patents will be cross licenced. Apple aren't seeking to just *not pay* - they just don;t want to be bullied into paying much more than anyone else Nokia has dealt with (and while that in itself is not ordinarily something they can moan about, it is when Nokia created the GSM standard with their patents).
I'd be interested to hear how Apple have "lawyer mobbed" their way out of playing by the rules - do you have any specific citations? I am genuinely curious, although since you seem to think are not held to the same standard as any company in the eyes of the law, I suspect it's just biased ranting.
Disclaimer: I am not rabidly "pro-apple" or "anti-anyone-who-goes-against-apple" - I just tend to actually look at what is being discussed and try not to make sweeping generalisations based on my own bias. I have no idea which way this one will come out - clearly Nokia has put a great deal of R&D into GSM and mobil tech and obviously Apple needs to pay to use that tech. We do not know Nokia's terms though. Apple are claiming that they are (contractually enforceable) unfair - are they? Who knows. That's what the courts are for, as well as some unpleasant grandstanding from both sides.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.digitaltrends.com/international/missing-prototype-iphone-leads-to-chinese-workers-death/ [digitaltrends.com]
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/14/211242 [slashdot.org]
http://timecapsuledead.org/ [timecapsuledead.org]
Apple has a long history of threatening decenters against its 'grand vision', there have been multiple instances where large chunks of their own support forums have been purged because users were critisizing Apple for their laptops keys melting (suspend issue) or their ipo