Nokia Claims Apple Does "Legal Alchemy" To Mask IP Theft 294
CWmike writes "Nokia asked a federal judge last week to toss out Apple's antitrust claims, saying the iPhone maker indulged in 'legal alchemy' when it tried to divert attention from its infringement of Nokia's intellectual property. The filing was the latest salvo in a battle that began in October 2009 when handset maker Nokia sued Apple, saying the iPhone infringed on 10 of its patents, and that Apple was trying 'to get a free ride on the back of Nokia's innovation.' Apple countered in December with a lawsuit of its own that not only claimed Nokia infringed 13 of its patents, but that Nokia also violated antitrust law by legally attacking Apple after it declined to pay what it called 'exorbitant royalties' and refused to give Nokia access to iPhone patents. 'These non-patent counterclaims are designed to divert attention away from free-riding off of Nokia's intellectual property, a practice Apple evidently believes should only be of paramount concern when it is the alleged victim,' Nokia charged in the motion. Apple is on a legal roll, having also recently sued the maker of Google's Nexus One, HTC, for patent infringement."
I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopefully the Bilski decision will come out and invalidate software patents. Then these companies can get back to competing on innovation.
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:5, Informative)
Hopefully the Bilski decision will come out and invalidate software patents. Then these companies can get back to competing on innovation.
Note that the patents Nokia are using against Apple are not Software patents, but real technology patents. The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:5, Funny)
That's a trade secret. For a patent, you have to show how it actually works. No one managed to dissect His Holiness Steve yet.
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I assumed they were killed after the procedure, kind of like killing the Pharoah's slaves after they finish building his pyramid so they can't compromise its secret chambers.
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:5, Funny)
His DNA is NDA
RDF patents (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope.
Chuck Manson got to it first.
Though some ancillary patents are held by the estate of Jim Jones.
There were even a couple filed afterwards by some guy named Khoresh in Waco Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.
Apple holds plenty of hardware patents, like the multi-touch feature of the iPhone.
Multi-touch prior art from 1985, more from 1991 (Score:4, Interesting)
Multi-touch has been invented many times. It was even publicly documented in 1985:Multi-touch prior art [swpat.org].
Re:Multi-touch prior art from 1985, more from 1991 (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple hasn't and can't patent an idea, which multitouch is. They have a specific implementation implemented, via buying up Fingerworks years ago which was started by two University of Delaware professors.
I have no clue if the implementation touches on prior art, but it's like saying engines have been designed many times before, hence an engine can't be patented. The idea of an engine can't be, but it could be a fundamentally new design that executes things different and perhaps better.
Re:Multi-touch prior art from 1985, more from 1991 (Score:4, Informative)
Apple hasn't and can't patent an idea. They have a specific implementation implemented
All software patents are patenting an idea. If it was an implementation what would be patented is the source code which is already covered by copyright. Show me one software patent that isn't patenting an idea but an actual implementation. If the patent was on the implementation rather than the idea I should be able to implement it in another language and not be liable under the patent.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I believe it does touch on prior art, in multiple places.
Re: (Score:2)
So is pinching an idea or an implementation?
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:4, Informative)
Except that Apple doesn't hold any multitouch patents. They *license* them from Synaptics
Re: (Score:2)
What about the patents they bought with Fingerworks?
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully the Bilski decision will come out and invalidate software patents. Then these companies can get back to competing on innovation.
Note that the patents Nokia are using against Apple are not Software patents, but real technology patents. The fact that Apple has nothing but software patents to respond with is a signal about how fragile Apple in fact is, with no real "valuable" intellectual property.
Another problem here is it says that when Apple counter sued for the 13 patents, they also admitted they are violating Nokia's patents because they didn't want to pay the royalty rates and cross-patent usage. Just because Apple didn't want to pay the rates and patent usages doesn't give them the legal right to use and profit from Nokia's work for free.
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:4, Informative)
They want to pay the *fair* rate - which Nokia is obliged to give them. They are claiming that Nokia is attempting to charge them more (in terms of cash and cross licenced patents) than they are allowed to charge.
They want to pay what other people pay. Nokia is not allowed to charge more to whoever it chooses.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to pay the *fair* rate - which Nokia is obliged to give them. They are claiming that Nokia is attempting to charge them more (in terms of cash and cross licenced patents) than they are allowed to charge.
They want to pay what other people pay. Nokia is not allowed to charge more to whoever it chooses.
What about the cross-patents they are licensing with other company's? The royal rates may work on a more sliding scale based on the usability of the patents included in the trade and since the iPhone is only 3 years old, its possible the patents they had to offer didn't add up financial as the could have meriting (in Nokia's eye) to a high royalty rate.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is what I suspect it is about. Nokia wants particular patents, and is claiming that they are worth the price of the GSM patents, Apple presumably is disagreeing and claiming they are worth more.
I'm just guessing, but it's going to be something like this.
I doubt that most of the deals to use the GSM patents from other phone manufacturers are pure cash payments to Nokia - it's always going to be about trading patents.
Re: (Score:2)
considering recent history with the two companies, i would default to trusting nokia unless they were shown to be dishonest.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know who to trust here. Apple may be litigious, but it's not stupid - if it was a simple case, they would have settled it by now. Their GSM hardware isn't even unique - they use off the shelf chips, which other phone makers have been using for a long time with no issues (unless they paid up over the odds under the threat of Nokia's legal stick and didn't tell anyone).
It shouldn't be this hard to pay up for the use of GSM and other wireless patents that are covered by RAND, and it's unlikely to be so
Re: (Score:2)
Apple may be litigious, but it's not stupid - if it was a simple case, they would have settled it by now.
I'm not convinced that's true -- sometimes the smart move is to play for time even though you'll ultimately lose.
In other words (assuming for the moment that Apple is in the wrong and knows they will lose, which isn't necessarily true, but for the sake of discussion I'll pretend it is), Apple might think they can make more money by growing their marketshare by infringing on Nokia's patents now, than they
Re: (Score:2)
Why not?
Eh, yes it is (Score:2)
Else Apple HAS to sell me in Holland music for 1 dollar and NOT 1 euro. Or are there different rules for companies then for consumers?
And Nokia doesn't sell the licenses, it uses cross-licensing which every other player in the industry does all well to ensure against patent cases like this. But Apple has no patents. So, Apple is not asking to pay what everyone else pays because nobody else pays with just cash.
Jobs reality distortion field seems to be fully in effect on you.
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:4, Informative)
Incorrect. Apple CLAIMS that Nokia has demanded unfair rates.
Since the only thing I've seen amounts to 1-2% royalties(and thats from the apple camp) and Nokias patents covers the vast majority of the tech thats actually used to make the the iPhone a, you know, phone, I don't think its too outrageous, do you?
From what I can gather the truth to the story is that Nokia, going about business as usual, decided to up their royalty rates by .5%(approximately). Certainly this decision could have been hurried because Apple was about to enter negotiations, but thats also business as usual for any company. Once it was in place with Apple they likely were going to institute it in their other agreements elsewhere once those agreements expired. Where the big problem seems to come in is the actual dollar figure of $6-$12 per every iPhone.
To make a long story short, for the most part, it seems to me that Apple is getting nailed by their own Apple tax and they're not fans of the feeling.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why?
Apple has brought nothing to the table, Nokia is only required to license out its patents, by no means are they required to let Apple eat mostly for free - I've seen a lot of people pointing to RAND without any of them actually bothering to read up on it, RAND just requires the licensing out to others at a reasonable price, RAND does not specify that everyone should get same discounts.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to pay the *fair* rate - which Nokia is obliged to give them.
Huh, this is an aspect of patent law I've never heard of. I was under the impression that the owner of the patent could simple tell everyone to fark off and not license it to anyone. Can you show me this "fair rate" clause? Who gets to determine what a "fair rate" is? In other words, I call BS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it does. As part of a standard, Nokia is bound to license these patents on fair and non-discriminatory terms. If it turns out they were charging exorbitant fees to Apple as opposed to other manufacturers, it would be illegal and they would face sanctions (from who and in what form, I'm unsure).
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:5, Interesting)
In a car analogy, Nokia is selling engines for cars. Everyone who wants to build a car has to buy a Nokia engine, and they all pay $5,000 for it. Since Nokia is the only company that can sell engines, they agreed to sell anyone who makes cars an engine for $5,000 (RAND). Apple comes along, builds the iCar, and wants to buy the Nokia engine. Nokia sees that the iCar has a nifty dashboard widget, and wants that for their cars. So Nokia charges Apple not just $5,000, but $5,000 plus the dashboard widget.
In this case, no one has clean hands nor is completely innocent.
Yes, but it's not just royalty rates involved in this case. Its patents and royalty rates. With your car analogy: Nokia is selling engines for cars, everyone who wants to build a car has to buy a Nokia engine up $5000 and offer up say $10000 worth of patents. Along comes Apple, a new comer to the field and wants to make the iCar with it's nifty dashboard widget. They only want to pay the $5000 everyone else pays but when it comes to the patent end, they only have $5000 worth of patents they can use, leaving a $5000 difference between what they want to pay and what everyone else is paying. (iPhone is only 3 years old so it's possible on that level). Now you have everyone paying a total of $5000 cash + $10000 patents value to make a total value of $15000. Apple offers only $5000 cash (like everyone else) + $5000 in patents = $10000, $5000 less then anyone else. That leaves Apple getting the unfair deal in their favor. Looking only at the cash value, yes that is horribly unfair of Nokia to want that extra $5000 from Apple, but it's only higher cash because the patent options lacked compared to what they normally charge.
Re: (Score:2)
And we can expect to see iPhone work-alikes in 3.. 2.. 1..
Seriously, I find this rather funny. We might soon be able to call it the tarnished halo effect?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, for those specific innovations. But R&D is an expensive, time consuming process that leads to many dead ends and few profitable results (if done in the Bell Atlantic method). So they do need to capitalize on the relatively few innovations that are profitable to pave the way for the vast number that are directly profitable (Consider that Bell invented basically DLP way back in the 1970's. Sure, it's a good innovation, but it never paid them profits, because it didn't become economically feasible for decades later).
I think personally software patents are stupid, because the barrier to entry into such a field are so small that it's very hard to realistically say "I'm the first one to ever come up with this idea" and prove it (After all, it could have been part of some student's senior research project in the 70's, but was never "published")... With technologies with a large barrier to entry (especially large barriers to research), patents offer some protection to companies that they can recoup their research costs. Consider the example of someone building computer algorithms for file system interaction. How many man-hours does it take to do that? Sure, there could be a fair number, but probably not man-decades... How many non-human resources are involved? Sure, you do have a few computers/servers/etc, but my guess is MAYBE $10k... Now, consider research into radio protocols for cellphone data. How many man-hours are involved there? Potentially many decades (if you have more 2 or 3 working for any significant amount of time). How many non-human resources? LOTS. FCC licenses, transmitting equipment, diagnostic equipment, potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions of dollars). All dedicated (for that particular time at least) to the research. That's why patents exist... To give companies an incentive to do non-trivial innovation... The fact of the mater is (IMHO) for a large number of the software patents that I've seen, the innovation is trivial at best (If not already common knowledge)...
Just my $0.02...
Re: (Score:2)
You're gonna have to pry my linked-list patent [google.com] from my cold dead hands!
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think Apple has actually invented much of the hardware in the iPhone? of course not, it's off the shelf parts. So why is Apple the target? it sounds like to me this is a software patent argument. The people supplying the chips to Apple are the people infringing.
Nokia may have a case if and when Apple produce their own cell silicon, the radio part of the phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think Apple has actually invented much of the hardware in the iPhone? of course not, it's off the shelf parts. So why is Apple the target? it sounds like to me this is a software patent argument. The people supplying the chips to Apple are the people infringing.
Nokia may have a case if and when Apple produce their own cell silicon, the radio part of the phone.
Patent law doesn't work that way, nor should it. Many of these companies who produce the low-level components (ICs, chipsets, etc.) in embedded electronics are based in Asian countries with little real-world IP enforcement.
If you import it and sell it, you're responsible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
R&D is an expensive, time consuming process that leads to many dead ends
Corporations seek to avoid expense. They don't engage in research if there is any other choice. They leach. Universities and government labs are the main hosts, and that's ok, that's one of the purposes of those organizations. But the leeches shouldn't be given exclusive rights to the work of others.
That's why patents exist... To give companies an incentive to do non-trivial innovation...
Yes, in an ideal world. In reality, the system works poorly, and even against the goal. Instead of more innovation, we get less competition, less diversity, and less innovation as companies use the system
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:4, Insightful)
Universities and government labs are the main hosts, and that's ok
Bull. Sure those institution work great for general scientific research, but when it comes to applying the science, private companies that profit from the result are the way to go.
Now, what happens when I spend 10 years and thousands of dollars tinkering in my basement to build a next-gen Thingy, and then, since patents don't exist, two weeks after I release my product to the market, company X with billions of dollars at it's disposal come out with an identical copy and a far superior marketing strategy? Well, I don't recoup my costs (not even close) and company X makes all the money. Would company X have developed this technology? No. Will I ever do it again? No. Will a university develop this? No, they have no interest.
Yes, the patent system is broken. Is the solution to completely abolish it? Hell no.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Abolish, and replace.
We could have a better system for compensating inventors. Monopoly is why the current system is so bad. More than that, the whole notion of owning an idea is toxic. It habituates our thinking. We have become accustomed to treating ideas and information as if they are material goods, of routinely overlooking the extremely important and cost saving ways they aren't. When we say "your idea", we mean that you discovered or invented it, and when we say "your car", we mean that you own
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that whether or not they've made their money back is entirely irrelevant to anything. It's Nokia's patented technology, and if someone wants to use it, they have to pay up.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And Apple want to pay up - they just don;t want to pay more than other cellphone companies to use the GSM patents. Nokia is obliged (not by Apple) to licence those patents equally to anyone who wants them, not to strongarm anyone it chooses if it fancies some of the IP the company holds. Apple here is claiming that Nokia is unfairly leveraging its GSM patents (the standards) to get more in return than it should really be asking for (by the terms of its obligation to licence them).
Apple isn't trying to *not*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure that's accurate?
My understanding was that basically all the major companies in the mobile space essentially "traded" use of patents to each other via agreements, and that it was generally considered that none of them would be able to make a profit in that space if they didn't do so.
In other words, what they're asking from Apple is essentially the same deal they have with everyone else.
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a myth.
Only specific patents. Those patents were offered at the same cost as everyone else. However Apple feels entitled to Nokia's entire patent catalouge which is not covered by agreements like RAND and have openly admitted to using these patents without paying fees.
Other manufacturers pay less because they have their own patent portfolio's which are of equal value, these are traded to Nokia for use of their patent portfolio in lieu of cash, Apple has no such patent portfolio so they have to pay cash like manufacturers that do not maintain heavy patent portfolio's like HTC.
Whoops, I said HTC. Apple is now using it's dubious software patents to sue HTC. This is being done entirely as a response to Nokia suing Apple over patents not covered by RAND in an attempt to artificially increase the value of it's own patent portfolio, which is far weaker then Nokia's.
And that is exactly what Nokia is suing for. Nokia spend years and millions developing this technology, Apple has no technology of equal value so why should Apple get a free ride.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Question A: Where is it required that Nokia allow Apple (who provided no help toward developing 3G, unlike other phone manufacturers) to license the relevant patents at the same price as another company that directly helped develop the technology? Citation needed.
Question B: Hypothetically, suppose you're right and Nokia was obligated to offer Apple the same pricing. In that case, which of the following options is legal for Apple to take:
(A) File a lawsuit against Nokia
(B) Sell their product using unlicens
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:5, Informative)
By RAND terms - in exchange for the GSM patents being included in the standard for cellular communication, Nokia agreed to licence them under RAND terms. Otherwise, they would not have been included in the standard: it's a way to ensure that there is still profit in allowing others to use your work, and enable a standard (which is handy for a large radio communication network)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_Non_Discriminatory_Licensing [wikipedia.org]
Read the wiki page - it even uses the GSM patents themselves as an example. Bonus.
It has nothing to do with licensing copies of Windows, which are not covered by RAND conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
You certainly aren't trolling but are you correct? I don't know whether Nokia is required to offer Apple reasonable license rates for GSM technology. I thought the whole point of patents is to allow inventors to have a time-limited monopoly to their idea. But as far as I know the only restriction to their invention is the time they are given exclusive rights to it--ie, there is no requirement that they sell rights to their invention to whoever wants to use it.
I'm certainly not a patent attorney so I don't k
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For the GSM patents, yes - they are a special case. In exchange for being accepted as part of the standard, Nokia agreed to put them under RAND conditions.
It's a good way to recoup costs of R&D, since the patent becomes a standard, and companies pay equally and fairly for the use of it, fostering compatibility between different systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_Non_Discriminatory_Licensing [wikipedia.org]
Re:Wow, troll mod for mere information... (Score:5, Informative)
Your post may not be trolling but it is definitely incorrect.
RAND only covers specific patents, Apple is trying to use RAND to get access to Nokia's entire patent portfolio including those covered by RAND. RAND exists to prevent one patent holder from prohibiting entry into the market by refusing to license patents relating to the GSM standards, this does not cover all of Nokia's patents.
Apple is only being asked to pay what other manufactures are paying, it is just that Apple has not got a large enough or valuable enough patent portfolio to make cross licensing an attractive or even fair deal for Nokia. Apple is not the only manufacturer that has been asked to pay cash to use Nokia's patents, they are just the only one who thinks they don't have to.
However your reply is a troll, you were incorrect and that does not constitute an anti-Apple conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. The purpose of patent law is to help with R&D ONLY.
The only relevant question is what helps improve the state of the art.
Anything else is irrelevant nonsense that people try to apply "big lie" tactics to.
What makes you think they're software patents? (Score:2)
Nokia has a huge R&D organisation. Everything from software down to silicon.
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:4, Insightful)
Hopefully the Bilski decision will come out and invalidate software patents. Then these companies can get back to competing on innovation.
Um, from what I've read of the patents, Nokia's patents seem to be (at least partially) for hardware while Apple's patents (in both suits) are about the software (frameworks and the like) on the phones. Nokia's patents seem to focus on the devices that implement standards. While it will reduce the number of patents covered for royalties, I don't think a negative Bilski decision will immediately cause all charges to be dropped ... rather they would just figure out a different angle of attack.
... that's heavy R&D to get the hardware on phones where it is today. You should get your reward for figuring that crap out. I think it's too long of a patent term but you gotta start somewhere.
Personally, I think software patents are complete and utter bullshit but you have to respect the hardware patents
This whole patent portfolio charade reeks of a prison scene where when you enter a market you either make someone your bitch or become somebody's bitch. You're telling me that these two companies couldn't have respected each other enough to have worked this crap out before they turned it into a public mud slinging spectacle? Grow up.
Re:I hope Bilski invalidates them all (Score:4, Interesting)
How is the hardware R&D any more valid than software R&D? I have a hard time figuring out this distinction. So far as I can tell, if you're against software patents, you're either against all patents, or you're a hypocrite.
In typical Slashdot form, I present a car analogy.
Software patents are like patenting the idea of an engine (I put gas in and it makes the wheels turn). Once you've patented your software, no one else can make engines without your permission.
Hardware patents are like patenting a specific kind of engine (I put gas in and it does this and that and the wheels turn). Other people can still make engines without paying you royalties as long as their engines don't work exactly the same way as your engine.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is often what software patents boil down to. Something interesting like a type of encryption/compression maybe should be patentable. This also relates to obviousness, many software patents are obvious... but patents are annoying to get. This results in big corporations which have people to deal with patents just patenting everything. Which slows progress.
Next is cost. If you think that patent laws are important
Re: (Score:2)
So far as I can tell, if you're against software patents, you're either against all patents, or you're a hypocrite.
You need a better dictionary. Being hypocritical isn't believing something inconsistent, which pretty much everyone does. It's believing one thing and acting differently, like acting anti-gay when you're gay yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
No, they are asking (according to Apple) more than they are allowed to - Apple wants to pay what everyone else pays for the GSM patents. Nokia is obliged to charge them that rate. Apple claims Nokia is strongarming them unfairly to get access to other patents that Apple holds.
Sick to death of the obviousness of it all (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a bunch of phones.
You press buttons, make calls with them to other people. Thank goodness that's not a patentable idea or we'd all be shafted.
The tweaks on how to make these calls really seem.... unimportant apart to the lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't have noticed much...I think the most minutes I've used up in a billing cycle in the last two years was 35 :/
Re:Sick to death of the obviousness of it all (Score:4, Interesting)
The patents for tip-and-ring landlines expired long ago. There was a fight, even then.
According TFA, this also about GSM, UTMS, and WiFI-- and Nokia has intellectual property claims in all three; and those are what the litigation against Apple is all about.
Let's see: cells and wireless. No, not about phones. Bridging GSM lines for data... no, not about phones. WiFi switch-off.... no, not about phones again.
Not about software either. Hmmmm.
This doesn't speak to Bilski, this doesn't have anything to do with that. This, notwithstanding to the madness of patents in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Its hilarious because you know - making phone calls was patented - look up 174465. Sure its old, but there you go.
On cell phones I'm sure Motorola patented the hell out of the original Dynatac as well.
You're funny.... (Score:2)
The early phone industry faced very long and complex wars over patent thickets for quite some time. Who had the patent on what parts of the Telephone? Who had patents on various bits of electromechanical switch technology? Cell phones too are very, very patent-laden.
I'm with Nokia (Score:3, Interesting)
After being screwed by Microsoft in the past, it's pretty obvious why Apple is so aggressive nowadays. It's taking taking some pages from Microsoft.
I am with Nokia because they're quite nice with Qt and they are definitely rightly responsible for a lot of technology that no doubt Apple just implemented without permission. I think the fact that about 40 firms* paying royalties is evidence enough.
I will not buy an iPhone and never will be part of that monopoly. iPods, iPhones are engineered to fail and you paying ~£30 for the privilege to do very little.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8321058.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...iPods, iPhones are engineered to fail...
News to me. I own an old 406 gig iPod which is about eight years old and still works like a dream. I own an first gen iPod Touch which works perfectly. And I own an iPhone 3GS which works flawlessly. Now, I know that's anecdotal evidence but I think the millions and millions and millions and millions of people who own iPods (and often multiple iPods) would disagree with your claim that they are engineered to fail.
Feel free to prove me wrong but I doubt you'll succeed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What company releases a product and then quits? Releasing new products does not automatically define that they are engineering obsolescence. My original 5 gig ipod still works. My original iMac ( 1998) still works. I have a 520c Portable that still worked the day I threw it out ( 1995?) last month.
I never sell any apple product they all continue to work .
Re: (Score:2)
I'll get working on your question once I'm able to pronounce the name correctly.
Re: (Score:2)
Silly, but predictable (Score:4, Insightful)
Corporate Wars (Score:2)
They are much less exciting than REAL wars. When will Apple and Nokia build up militias and shoot each other to death while I watch it on my major news source in night vision?
Re: (Score:2)
They are much less exciting than REAL wars. When will Apple and Nokia build up militias and shoot each other to death while I watch it on my major news source in night vision?
They just need a few more politicians. Patience, chummer.
RAND (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, someone else may have more recent information that contradicts this, but...
My understanding was that Apple tried to license these patents from Nokia. They are part of the GSM specification, which no GSM phone can function without. Because they are part of the standard, they must be licensed under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms.
But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.
What, exactly? I don't know. Either the articles I've read didn't say, or I've sinc
Isn't licence pricing usually kept quiet? (Score:5, Interesting)
But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.
Really? So, exactly how much did Nokia want from Apple?
And exactly how much did the other licensees pay?
Re:RAND (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple has a rather unusual model to sell its phone: From what we've heard Apple demands not only a one-time sales price from the operators (as most other mobile manufacturers do) but also a part of the monthly fee paid by iphone-customers. If Nokia licenses its patents for a percentage of the sales price (a common practice) they could also have asked for a percentage of the monthly fee (and justly so, if you ask me, as Apple just spreads out the sales price over a longer period of time). Apple on the other side might object to being the only GSM-manufacturer that has to pay a monthly fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple demands not only a one-time sales price from the operators (as most other mobile manufacturers do) but also a part of the monthly fee paid by iphone-customers.
while no one out side of Apple and the carriers know for sure, it has been assumed based on information from the minimal disclosures that Apple has made that Apple had this model when they launched the first iPhone, but then changed to a standard subsidy model with the launch of the 3G iPhone.
One point of confusion for analysts is that Apple uses subscription accounting for iPhone sales. So assuming they get about $360 for AT&T for each phone sold, they recognize that revenue over 24 months, or $15 a m
Re:RAND - *IF* you developed it... (Score:5, Informative)
RAND terms only applied IF you developed and contributed to the standard.
RAND terms SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED everyone who came along afterwards and wanted to use / licence GSM.
Apple DID NOT help develop GSM.
Apple REFUSED to accept non-RAND GSM licencing terms.
These are the facts. These are ALL the facts.
[citation needed] (Score:2)
I suspect you're thinking of more normal cross-licensing agreements. Because that's what you've describe
Re:RAND - *IF* you developed it... (Score:5, Informative)
RAND terms only applied IF you developed and contributed to the standard.
Um, wrong much?
From everyone's favorite source [wikipedia.org]:
"companies agree that if they receive any patents on technologies which become essential to the standard then they agree to allow other groups attempting to implement the standard to use those patents and they agree that the charges for those patents shall be reasonable"
There is absolutely nothing involved in being part of the standards body to receive RAND terms. If you're part of the standards body you have to extend RAND terms.
Re:RAND - *IF* you developed it... (Score:5, Interesting)
You linked to the general definition of RAND. There's nothing in the definition that precludes some form of "limited RAND", where the terms are only applied to a members of a specific group, and not outside of it.
In any case, every time this Nokia vs Apple topic is raised on Slashdot, I see this very same exchange about RAND. However, neither the side that claims GSM is RAND-licensed to everyone, nor the side which claims some kind of "limited RAND", have offered any definite sources. I've tried to find it on GSM Association website on my own, but wasn't successful.
Until then, both yours and GP's claims are just speculation, and the actual licensing terms for GSM specs, and how they apply to this situation, are unclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:RAND (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, someone else may have more recent information that contradicts this, but...
My understanding was that Apple tried to license these patents from Nokia. They are part of the GSM specification, which no GSM phone can function without. Because they are part of the standard, they must be licensed under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms.
But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.
What, exactly? I don't know. Either the articles I've read didn't say, or I've since forgotten. I think it was cross-licensing with some of the specific patents on the iPhone, but as I say, I'm not sure.
Either way, if Nokia isn't licensing the original patents under RAND terms to Apple, then they should be burned to hell and back for this. They knew the price when they put patents of theirs into the GSM spec, and now they have to live with it.
So, let me see if I got this right:
You don't know WHAT Nokia wanted from Apple, but you KNOW that Nokia didn't license the original patents under RAND terms?
I am sorry - could you try to explain this to me again? You know that Nokia wouldn't give Apple the patents under RAND terms, but you don't know what Nokia was asking for?
I am at the point where I am annoyed more by Apple appologists than by biggest Microsoft fans.
And that is really really hard to achieve...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's say all that is true (because I have no reason to believe you are wrong). If Nokia refused to make a reasonable deal with Apple – one that would violate anti-trust laws – shouldn't Apple have sued Nokia at that point, rather than build a device they knew required licensing to use that they didn't have? Is this "it's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to get permission"?
If Apple had built something and just failed to identify patents because they didn't research some obscure patents, I co
Re: (Score:2)
That will be difficult - Apple buys its GSM chips off the shelf.
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
You keep posting these 'facts' about cross-licensing. You're basically wrong. RTF Filing. From Statement of facts, p 4-5
In late 2007, Apple and Nokia began negotiating a potential license agreement for Nokia's patents essential to the ETSI standards (id. 86). Apple admits that, at the start of the negotiations, and again in September 2009, Nokia offered license terms to Nokia's essential patents that did not require Apple to grant any license back to Apple's non-essential patents (id. 86, 91).3 Apple acknowledges its rejection of Nokia's "standard" license terms (id. 85, 91, 92). Apple's unhappiness about these offers seems only to be that Nokia was asking for what Apple considered too much money for Nokia's essential patents (see id. 91).
Apple also admits that "Nokia defined both a portfolio rate and an average per patent royalty rate" that did not require any
license-back of non-essential patents (id. Answer to 44). Once again, Apple's only problem with these offers is the amount of money involved (id. 91).
Again, according to Nokia's filing, there was an offer to cross-license, but it was Apple that first made it.
Apple further admits that it was willing to grant Nokia a cross-license to certain Apple patents that are not claimed to be essential to any of the standards listed above (id. 87). Apple avers that, in Spring 2008, Nokia made another license offer, proposing Apple expand its prior offer to give Nokia the right to pick a limited number of Apple non-essential patents that would be licensed (id. 89). Apple states that it rejected the proposal (id.).
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of righteous anger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what the court case is all about. Apple's GSM hardware is all third party, and used by other cellphone makers. The procedures for paying the licences are well understood. It seems (according to Apple) that it was only further into the process that Nokia decided to change the game up.
Apple went to the standards body when Palm started spoofing Apple's USB Vendor ID - that went well for them, right?
Apple must pay the RAND terms for the use of GSM patents. Nokia must allow them to pay in those terms. It
Re:Exactly - it was cross-licences (Score:4, Insightful)
If Apple wants to use GSM hardware, Nokia is obliged to licence it to them under RAND terms. RAND is not an organisation (in this sense, although there is a non-profit called "the RAND corporation", but it has nothing whatsoever to do with this) it means Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory licensing; which applies to the GSM patents Nokia holds. They are required to licence them fairly and equally to anyone who wants to use them, in exchange for the patents being part of the standard for cellular communication.
Apple doesn't need to be part of anything to be able to licence the patents. You could set up your own mobile phone company in your basement and Nokia would be obliged to licence the patents to you too - at the same rate that everyone pays to use them.
documenting it on http://en.swpat.org (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's what I've gathered so far about these:
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
1984 ad (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember when Apple resembled the androgynous athlete more than the creepy old Big Brother dude on the TV? I do...
Alchemy? (Score:4, Funny)
Legal Alchemy? iPad Magic?
Is this Cupertino we're talking about or Hogwarts?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Legal Alchemy? iPad Magic?
Is this Cupertino we're talking about or Hogwarts?
Seriously. I think Apple's marketing team must all be out on vacation because the image on Apple's homepage [apple.com] had the worst tagline I've ever seen:
"A magical and revolutionary product at an unbelievable price."
That's unbelievably bad. I thought Apple was a lot classier than that garbage.
Not Alchemy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory Jefferson quote : (Score:5, Insightful)
jefferson as in thomas jefferson
It has been pretended by some that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
he basically says patents are bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
From the time he wrote that passage until well after WWII the great majority of inventions in the world took place in countries that had a patent system similar to ours.
your understanding of scientific history is beyond flawed.
in between jefferson's time and ww2, information had free flow. scientists, pioneers of scientific age has been sharing their scientific discoveries without holding them hostage. ideas and methods flowed around freely. it was the golden age of discovery.
it was during this time a lot of inventors patented various machinery and inventions based on these FREE FLOWING scientific information and ideas.
the fact that those people patented, does NOT mean tha
Economic feasibility (Score:2)
The lawyers are happy, and everyone is paying lots of money. At this rate, at some future point it will hopefully become unaffordable to litigate over software patents, and all companies who do so will go the way of SCO.