PDA

View Full Version : Apple's Royalty Payments to Nokia Estimated at $608 Million Up Front, ~$138 Million Per Quarter




MacRumors
Jun 14, 2011, 12:54 PM
http://cdn.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/14/apples-royalty-payments-to-nokia-estimated/)


http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/nokialogo-150x52.jpg

Deutsche Bank analyst Kai Korschelt today estimated (http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/nokia-likely-netted-600-million-plus-in-apple-patent-settlement/50590) that Nokia will be receiving on the order of a 420 million euro ($608 million) lump-sum payment from Apple as part of a patent litigation settlement (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/14/nokia-enters-into-patent-license-agreement-with-apple/) between the two companies.

The estimate, based on previous patent-related settlements in the industry, assumes a 1 percent royalty rate on all iPhones sold through the first quarter -- 110 million phones at an average selling price of $550. Korschelt also says that Apple would likely send Nokia recurring revenue payments covering future iPhone sales at the same rate, payments that would come in at around 95 million euros ($137.6 million) per quarter based on current sales, to cover ongoing licensing.

It's a significant sum for Nokia. The Finnish company is feeling tremendous pressure in the market as it abandons its old Symbian-based smartphone strategy and transitions to Microsoft's new Windows smartphone OS.

A report from Japanese analyst house Nomura, which got quite a bit of coverage yesterday (http://www.bgr.com/2011/06/13/samsung-apple-to-overtake-nokia-in-smartphone-share-this-quarter/), stated that the situation at Nokia was so poor that Samsung -- and perhaps even Apple -- would pass the Nokia in smartphone shipments this quarter. Of course, Nomura's numbers are based on an expectation of a massive drop in sales from Nokia as it transitions operating systems -- think the entire continent of Europe suddenly not buying Nokia phones -- plus a near doubling in smartphone sales by Samsung over the previous quarter. Samsung's mobile phones have been booming on the strength of Android, but that much growth in one quarter seems unlikely. Nokia is in trouble, but almost certainly not that much trouble.

Robert Cozza, mobile devices analyst at Gartner, poured water on Nomura's report, telling MacRumors:In 1Q11 Nokia smartphone sales were double those of Samsung, so it seems optimistic to see this overtake in 2Q. If Nokia's new Symbian devices will fail with consumers over the next couple of quarters then we could see this overtake from Samsung on Nokia happening in 3Q.MacRumors also spoke to Ramon Llamas at IDC (http://www.idc.com/analysts/viewanalystprofile.jsp?containerId=PRF002081) about Nokia's chances:Nokia is very fast at turning things around. They're currently in transition mode, and anytime you're going to be transitioning from the way things have been to the way things are going to be, it's not going to be without some series of dips in revenue.

Nokia has just provided the overall smartphone market with a gift: it's exposed itself and its vulnerabilities to everyone else. Lots of vendors are going to be able to turn up the heat.And now Nokia gets to enjoy a little bit of the spoils from Apple's success as well. Time will tell if they can turn it around themselves.

Article Link: Apple's Royalty Payments to Nokia Estimated at $608 Million Up Front, ~$138 Million Per Quarter (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/14/apples-royalty-payments-to-nokia-estimated/)



wordoflife
Jun 14, 2011, 12:57 PM
Wow, that's a lot of money. (probably not for Apple anyways). Hope Nokia takes advantage of it.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 12:58 PM
I'd say it's a major score for Nokia

ghostlyorb
Jun 14, 2011, 01:00 PM
Wow.. that's a lot of money..

ratzzo
Jun 14, 2011, 01:01 PM
And after all, Nokia IS competition for Apple. If they did this, it means Apple thought they would have lost a lot more money than that in court.

ThisIsNotMe
Jun 14, 2011, 01:03 PM
So what, $6 per iPhone sold plus another $1 per future iPhone?

When they get a similar deal from Google, well, I am not sure Android is generating that type of revenue for them.


Edit: Looks like Android is generating less than $6 in revenue per device for Google.
http://searchengineland.com/google-will-make-10-per-android-user-in-2012-report-64181

Throw Oracle on top of this and all of this should be fun.

daneoni
Jun 14, 2011, 01:03 PM
Cha-ching!

jonnysods
Jun 14, 2011, 01:03 PM
That's a lot of clams.

FrizzleFryBen
Jun 14, 2011, 01:04 PM
The estimate, based on previous patent-related settlements in the industry, assumes a 1 percent royalty rate

Can I get a source? Does this go back to the Ma-Bell days and rotary phones? Too vague to offer estimates as even close to accurate. Unless I missed something crucial.

HiRez
Jun 14, 2011, 01:04 PM
Holy @#$*, that's a lot. Even to Apple.

archipellago
Jun 14, 2011, 01:04 PM
well done Nokia...deserved.

Good luck with WP7 though ... you'll need it!

Centient
Jun 14, 2011, 01:05 PM
Nice bit of change for Nokia. Perhaps not a bad deal for Apple either. This has the added bonus of propping up another competitor against Google. Not to mention some of the other manufacturers might also have to pony up to Nokia. This sets a price point which could be painful for smaller manufacturer's to keep up with.

OllyW
Jun 14, 2011, 01:05 PM
So what, $6 per iPhone sold plus another $1 per future iPhone?

When they get a similar deal from Google, well, I am not sure Android is generating that type of revenue for them.

No, it will be the same $6 for every future iPhone.

Korschelt also says that Apple would likely send Nokia recurring revenue payments covering future iPhone sales at the same rate

HiRez
Jun 14, 2011, 01:07 PM
When they get a similar deal from Google, well, I am not sure Android is generating that type of revenue for them.


Edit: Looks like Android is generating less than $6 in revenue per device for Google.
http://searchengineland.com/google-will-make-10-per-android-user-in-2012-report-64181

I think the Nokia patents are more hardware related (GSM), so I'm thinking it'll be the device manufacturers like HTC and Samsung who have to pay and not Google.

Doctor Q
Jun 14, 2011, 01:11 PM
Will they invest it in R&D or pay to cover current shortfalls? Will the cash help them get back up to speed in the market or simply stay afloat as they fall behind?

juicedropsdeuce
Jun 14, 2011, 01:11 PM
.
What a failure of management at Apple. They should have had their bases covered when they were designing the iPhone. Instead they took shortcuts and got called out on it. :rolleyes:

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 01:12 PM
This should prop up their expected dismal (again) quarterly showing.

When your products suck ass because you were colossally negligent for nearly four years I guess you can live off royalties. Why not.

lilo777
Jun 14, 2011, 01:12 PM
So what, $6 per iPhone sold plus another $1 per future iPhone?

When they get a similar deal from Google, well, I am not sure Android is generating that type of revenue for them.


Edit: Looks like Android is generating less than $6 in revenue per device for Google.
http://searchengineland.com/google-will-make-10-per-android-user-in-2012-report-64181

Throw Oracle on top of this and all of this should be fun.

Google does not produce phones and therefore does not need to pay to Nokia but companies that do produces Android phones have been paying Nokia all along. That is one of the reasons why Android phones were less profitable but now the situation has changed.

G4DP
Jun 14, 2011, 01:12 PM
So we can expect $20 increases per phone from now on then.

djrobsd
Jun 14, 2011, 01:12 PM
Apple doesn't do something like this unless there is something in it for them. Yes, they could stand to loose a lot more in court, but if I were a gambling man, I'd say that they are actually gaining access to a lot more functionality, so maybe now we will see some more features on the iPhone that we always asked "I can't believe the iPhone doesn't do this"... Well now that Apple is paying the royalties, it possibly can..

One of those features could be the ability to snooze a calendar entry. ;) Amazing how both iPhone and Droid do not have that, my guess is either Nokia or HP (Palm) own the patent to that.

Edited: I stand corrected - RIM (Blackberry) owns the patent for "snoozing" a calendar entry, and they just applied for renewal of that patent in March of this year... ;)

http://www.google.com/patents?id=uDgOAQAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&source=gbs_overview_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

ThisIsNotMe
Jun 14, 2011, 01:13 PM
.
What a failure of management at Apple. They should have had their bases covered when they were designing the iPhone. Instead they took shortcuts and got called out on it. :rolleyes:

If the patent is required to operate a GSM phone, not really sure how they could have done anything else except pay Nokia eventually.

Sjhonny
Jun 14, 2011, 01:14 PM
And NOKIA changed it's business from phoneindustry giant to patent trolling >.<

vincenz
Jun 14, 2011, 01:14 PM
I found Nokia's new logo

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zDH2CV3txBo/TY70xBcaJtI/AAAAAAAACGo/7GvHfJy3IiE/s1600/vulturey.jpg

NebulaClash
Jun 14, 2011, 01:15 PM
If the patent is required to operate a GSM phone, not really sure how they could have done anything else except pay Nokia eventually.

Exactly. In today's broken system, you cannot help stepping on someone's patents. So you pay to play. It's just like the mafia. Which is why it's a broken system. It's no longer about innovation, it's about paying up, buddy.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 01:15 PM
This should prop up their expected dismal (again) quarterly showing.

When your products suck ass because you were colossally negligent for nearly four years I guess you can live off royalties. Why not.


So LTD - you admit that Apple was in the wrong and Nokia was justified in suing and that winning the suit was legit?

TMar
Jun 14, 2011, 01:15 PM
So what, $6 per iPhone sold plus another $1 per future iPhone?

When they get a similar deal from Google, well, I am not sure Android is generating that type of revenue for them.


Edit: Looks like Android is generating less than $6 in revenue per device for Google.
http://searchengineland.com/google-will-make-10-per-android-user-in-2012-report-64181

Throw Oracle on top of this and all of this should be fun.

Apple isn't selling 138 million iphones a quarter.

kyjaotkb
Jun 14, 2011, 01:16 PM
In their respective Paris offices, Nomura and Apple share the same building. Sounds like the walls are quite thin there.

Small White Car
Jun 14, 2011, 01:16 PM
.
What a failure of management at Apple. They should have had their bases covered when they were designing the iPhone. Instead they took shortcuts and got called out on it. :rolleyes:

Ah, an expert.

Please explain to us all what 'shortcuts' they took and how they could have avoided them.

NebulaClash
Jun 14, 2011, 01:16 PM
Google does not produce phones and therefore does not need to pay to Nokia but companies that do produces Android phones have been paying Nokia all along. That is one of the reasons why Android phones were less profitable but now the situation has changed.

Is that right? Android phone makers have been paying Nokia? If so, that means some Android phone makers are paying twice, for some are paying Microsoft for patent rights to use Android too. What a mess.

OllyW
Jun 14, 2011, 01:17 PM
And NOKIA changed it's business from phoneindustry giant to patent trolling >.<

You obviously don't understand what patent trolling is. :rolleyes:

wikus
Jun 14, 2011, 01:20 PM
This should prop up their expected dismal (again) quarterly showing.

When your products suck ass because you were colossally negligent for nearly four years I guess you can live off royalties. Why not.

4 years? I have a Nokia e71, released 3 years ago. It does not suck ass.

Is there a reason why you seem so obsessed with praising apple? Perhaps youre a shareholder?

ratzzo
Jun 14, 2011, 01:21 PM
For what reason was the patent claim filed anyway? With Apple suing so many companies and them suing Apple back, this was going to happen sooner or later.

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 01:25 PM
So LTD - you admit that Apple was in the wrong and Nokia was justified in suing and that winning the suit was legit?

I admit that if Apple owed money to Nokia for use of their patents then they need to pay like anyone else. But that was never at issue.

If Nokia was asking for more than what everyone else was paying then we had a problem, in which case it was right for Apple to hold out.

I'm not sure what there was to "win" here when Apple would have had to pay Nokia something anyway. We all knew that. The only question was how much. That's what the dispute was about. Not whether Apple owed anything.

Not much of a contest to begin with, though. You've got an innovator at the top of their game, and then you've got an example of wilful negligence gone very bad. Nokia can use every cent they can get. Good for them. Better buyout bait at then end.

If only they put as much attention into their products as they do with pursuing patent royalties.

But karma is clearly a bitch, because of all the wagons to hitch their droopy star to they picked Microsoft's. Or rather, it was probably fate.

davidgrimm
Jun 14, 2011, 01:28 PM
I wonder what Nokia had that was so valuable? I used one of their phones from Sept 2010 - Feb 2011 and I hated it. It did nothing right. Its hard to imagine any technology from Nokia being worth $0.01, not to mention $6.00 a phone.

wikus
Jun 14, 2011, 01:29 PM
I admit that if Apple owed money to Nokia for use of their patents then they need to pay like anyone else. But that was never at issue.

Yes it was:

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/22/nokia-files-iphone-related-suit-against-apple-regarding-wireless-patents/

Please don't make false statements in further comments.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 14, 2011, 01:30 PM
Thanks to Apple, Nokia won't be closing up shop. They are very near collapse. Perhaps they'll be bought out.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 01:30 PM
I admit that if Apple owed money to Nokia for use of their patents then they need to pay like anyone else. But that was never at issue.

If Nokia was asking for more than what everyone else was paying then we had a problem, in which case it was right for Apple to hold out.

I'm not sure what there was to "win" here when Apple would have had to pay Nokia something anyway. We all knew that. The only question was how much. That's what the dispute was about. Not whether Apple owed anything.

Not much of a contest to begin with, though. You've got an innovator at the top of their game, and then you've got an example of wilful negligence gone very bad. Nokia can use every cent they can get. Good for them. Better buyout bait at then end.

LOL. Run for congress - you're great at sidestepping.

Now Nokia is not only negligent (in your opinion) but WILLFUL? Too funny. You also start my saying IF Apple owed money - and then you stated that Apple did owe Nokia money - the question was how much. Do you see how you shape your posts to serve your purpose/twist it anyway you can to keep Apple ahead in the arrangement?

Here's the fact. Nokia owned patents. Apple used them. Apple was sued and lost and now has to make restitution. There's no patent trolling going on. There's a legitimate patent holder who enforced their rights via the legal system.

BELIEVE me - if this were Apple's patents and Nokia was sued and lost - you'd be shouting how great it is that someone who dared opposed Apple got shot down. Of that I am certain.

doboy
Jun 14, 2011, 01:31 PM
.
What a failure of management at Apple. They should have had their bases covered when they were designing the iPhone. Instead they took shortcuts and got called out on it. :rolleyes:

Before "thinking out loud" why don't you take some time to educate yourself of the patent. Here read this before you look stupid again.

http://thisismynext.com/2011/06/14/nokia-and-apple-settle-patent-disputes-apple-to-pay-one-time-fee-and-ongoing-license-fees/

cube
Jun 14, 2011, 01:31 PM
And this shows precisely the value of in-house R&D.

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 01:32 PM
I wonder what Nokia had that was so valuable? I used one of their phones from Sept 2010 - Feb 2011 and I hated it. It did nothing right. Its hard to imagine any technology from Nokia being worth $0.01, not to mention $6.00 a phone.

They do dumbphones ok. As long as the market for dumbphones remains viable, of course. If we were ever to see content-rich app-enabled phones the likes of Google's and Apple's approaching dumbphone prices, however, then Nokia will have even more problems. But by then their future will have been decided. What that future is we'll find out sometime in 2012.

OllyW
Jun 14, 2011, 01:33 PM
I wonder what Nokia had that was so valuable? I used one of their phones from Sept 2010 - Feb 2011 and I hated it. It did nothing right. Its hard to imagine any technology from Nokia being worth $0.01, not to mention $6.00 a phone.

Basically it's the technology that enables the iPhone to make a phone call or access the 3G networks.

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/22/nokia-files-iphone-related-suit-against-apple-regarding-wireless-patents/

The ten patents in suit relate to technologies fundamental to making devices which are compatible with one or more of the GSM, UMTS (3G WCDMA) and wireless LAN standards. The patents cover wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption and are infringed by all Apple iPhone models shipped since the iPhone was introduced in 2007.

Pretty useful don't you think?

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 01:34 PM
Here's the fact. Nokia owned patents. Apple used them. Apple was sued and lost and now has to make restitution.

No. Those are only half the facts. The dispute was about how much Nokia was demanding from Apple. Apple was asking for the same treatment Nokia gave everyone else in terms of the actual amount owing.

wikus
Jun 14, 2011, 01:35 PM
They do dumbphones ok. As long as the market for dumbphones remains viable, of course. If we were ever to see content-rich app-enabled phones the likes of Google's and Apple's approaching dumbphone prices, however, then Nokia will have even more problems. But by then their future will have been decided. What that future is we'll find out sometime in 2012.

I hope the partnership with M$ proves successful. I'd hate to have LTD's dreams of a monopoly market run by Apple. Corporate competition only makes the consumer the real winner.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 01:35 PM
They do dumbphones ok. As long as the market for dumbphones remains viable, of course. If we were ever to see content-rich app-enabled phones the likes of Google's and Apple's approaching dumbphone prices, however, then Nokia will have even more problems. But by then their future will have been decided. What that future is we'll find out sometime in 2012.

I think dumbphones still have plenty of life still left in them. You'll disagree. But you have a bias.

No. Those are only half the facts. The dispute was about how much Nokia was demanding from Apple. Apple was asking for the same treatment Nokia gave everyone else in terms of the actual amount owing.

No. What I stated was fact. You can throw in random details of the case - but my summary is 100 percent correct. But nice try.

ThunderSkunk
Jun 14, 2011, 01:38 PM
That's a buncha money. I still haven't seen a concise & complete list of the patents infringed upon. That'd be interesting to see.

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 01:38 PM
I hope the partnership with M$ proves successful. I'd hate to have LTD's dreams of a monopoly market run by Apple. Corporate competition only makes the consumer the real winner.

I don't mind competition, as long as it's competent.

There's already too much poorly designed, bad tech out there. Adding more doesn't help anyone.

I tend to laugh a little harder than most at the incompetence that's out there. Partly because for the most part, it's such a stark contrast to Apple.

wikus
Jun 14, 2011, 01:38 PM
I think dumbphones still have plenty of life still left in them. You'll disagree. But you have a bias.

I wonder what he thinks of this:

http://www.johnsphones.com/

Its ridiculously ignorant to assume 'dumbphones' are irrelevant, and also arrogant to try to force smartphones on everyone when not all have the need for one.

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 01:39 PM
No. What I stated was fact. You can throw in random details of the case - but my summary is 100 percent correct. But nice try.

Ok. But what you're stating as fact was never at issue in the first place.

ikir
Jun 14, 2011, 01:41 PM
4 years? I have a Nokia e71, released 3 years ago. It does not suck ass.

Is there a reason why you seem so obsessed with praising apple? Perhaps youre a shareholder?

You're right... Nokia always sucked :) their software is a joke.

wikus
Jun 14, 2011, 01:42 PM
No. Those are only half the facts. The dispute was about how much Nokia was demanding from Apple. Apple was asking for the same treatment Nokia gave everyone else in terms of the actual amount owing.

Again, please don't make false statements.

Apple wasn't paying, they got sued. Even macrumors posted this;

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/22/nokia-files-iphone-related-suit-against-apple-regarding-wireless-patents/

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 01:42 PM
I wonder what he thinks of this:

http://www.johnsphones.com/

Its ridiculously ignorant to assume 'dumbphones' are irrelevant, and also arrogant to try to force smartphones on everyone when not all have the need for one.

LTD is geocentric and also has a skewed view on economics. Coupled with is inability to admit that Apple could possibly make a mistake, misstep, or otherwise makes him a wonderful character study.

xIGmanIx
Jun 14, 2011, 01:42 PM
apple defending their IP and patents = fiesty apple setting the trends
other companies doing the same = patent trolling

Pretty much the foundation that is the iPhone owes itself to Nokia, and 3/4 of a billion dollars up front tells you others share that light. I don't think we really will know what Nokia and Apple truly disputed over but from what i have seen from Apple recently i would submit that Apple tried to get special treatment and not place nice
But karma is clearly a bitch, because of all the wagons to hitch their droopy star to they picked Microsoft's. Or rather, it was probably fate.
if the largest software company teeming up with the largest phone vendor on paper has the potential to be very successful. Greater pairings have failed surely, but considering neither of those are your companies i will give them a shot anyways

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 14, 2011, 01:43 PM
This should prop up their expected dismal (again) quarterly showing.

When your products suck ass because you were colossally negligent for nearly four years I guess you can live off royalties. Why not.

Instead of making snide comments towards Nokia how about chiding your religion aka Apple for trying to STEAL from Nokia.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 01:44 PM
Ok. But what you're stating as fact was never at issue in the first place.

It was. It's been pointed out. It's ok - you can admit that you (and Apple) were wrong. We won't think less of you. We might even respect you a little.

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 01:44 PM
I wonder what he thinks of this:

http://www.johnsphones.com/

Its ridiculously ignorant to assume 'dumbphones' are irrelevant, and also arrogant to try to force smartphones on everyone when not all have the need for one.

The funniest part is that's around $100 US.

LOL

wikus
Jun 14, 2011, 01:44 PM
You're right... Nokia always sucked :) their software is a joke.

When and why did you and everyone else like LTD develop this hate towards a company like so many other apple evangelists? Do you realize how ignorant you come off? This is almost as ridiculous as the apple bashing on engadget.

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 14, 2011, 01:45 PM
Ok. But what you're stating as fact was never at issue in the first place.

The issue about Nokia wanting more money than Apple. So what its their patents they can do whatever they want.

I've seen you use that exact excuse for Apple's ridiculous pricing.

shartypants
Jun 14, 2011, 01:48 PM
Nokia is hanging on... to Apple's coat tails :) In the long run this may be good for Apple as it could help fend off antitrust claims.

wikus
Jun 14, 2011, 01:48 PM
I don't mind competition, as long as it's competent.

There's already too much poorly designed, bad tech out there. Adding more doesn't help anyone.

I tend to laugh a little harder than most at the incompetence that's out there. Partly because for the most part, it's such a stark contrast to Apple.

You speak highly of competence, I'd imagine you'd be working for apple. But with competence comes rationale, something your pro-apple arguments lack because absolutely everything you'd said in this thread has been stunningly one-sided.

paul4339
Jun 14, 2011, 01:48 PM
Again, please don't make false statements.

Apple wasn't paying, they got sued. Even macrumors posted this;

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/22/nokia-files-iphone-related-suit-against-apple-regarding-wireless-patents/

Apple wanted FRAND, Nokia wanted more because Apple either, they did not have any relevant IP to contribute to the pool or did not want to share their IP.

Regardless, it was the amount that Apple should pay that was under dispute, not weather they should pay or not.

Supposedly Nokia wanted around $12 per phone (or 2%), but I think they settled closer to around $6 (1%).

.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 14, 2011, 01:49 PM
When and why did you and everyone else like LTD develop this hate towards a company like so many other apple evangelists? Do you realize how ignorant you come off? This is almost as ridiculous as the apple bashing on engadget.

When we decided it was fun to give people who come around here just to post things about "Apple fanboys" and "Apple Evangelists" something to argue about.

Metal Dice
Jun 14, 2011, 01:50 PM
“A guy who makes a nice chair doesn’t owe money to everyone who has ever built a chair.”

wikus
Jun 14, 2011, 01:51 PM
When we decided it was fun to give people who come around here just to post things about "Apple fanboys" and "Apple Evangelists" something to argue about.

That doesn't answer my question.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 01:52 PM
“A guy who makes a nice chair doesn’t owe money to everyone who has ever built a chair.”

So Apple should drop its suit against Samsung then. Got it.

Hellhammer
Jun 14, 2011, 01:53 PM
The funniest part is that's around $100 US.

LOL

Because it's unlocked. How much does an unlocked iPhone cost? Oh, right, it's $649, so $100 sounds pretty reasonable.

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 14, 2011, 01:53 PM
You speak highly of competence, I'd imagine you'd be working for apple. But with competence comes rationale, something your pro-apple arguments lack because absolutely everything you'd said in this thread has been stunningly one-sided.

Not only that I think Android is proving to be more than competent seeing how Apple is using ideas from Android to power iOS5.

firewood
Jun 14, 2011, 01:54 PM
I wonder what Nokia had that was so valuable?

GSM technology. Nokia invented a lot of what any GSM phone needs, dumb, smart, good or bad.

Apple wanted to pay Nokia the normal amount that everybody else does for Nokia's basic tech. Nokia wanted 1000X more. Apple said no way. So they both went off and paid lawyers enough to buy piles of new sports cars and yachts while pretending to file ridiculous claims and counterclaims to keep the judges and bloggers and trolls happy. Then Apple and Nokia finally decided paying something in between, now, was better than paying lawyers forever and ever creating a legal circus.

The judges went home. Soon, so too will the bloggers and trolls. No more circus. Buy your own peanuts.

mw360
Jun 14, 2011, 01:55 PM
This article is nonsense. The issue between Apple and Nokia was that Apple believed Nokia was demanding a license fee in excess of what other licensees were paying and so chose to take their chances in court to get a fairer deal.

Because we don't know the fee Apple paid, we don't know who won the battle. Did Apple pay more than the market rate, the same, or less? This researcher simply assumes Apple paid the market rate, ie that Apple 'won' and makes up his figures from there. Worthless.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 14, 2011, 01:56 PM
That doesn't answer my question.

Sure it does.

macnisse
Jun 14, 2011, 01:57 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

That's a nice lump-sum!

wikus
Jun 14, 2011, 01:57 PM
Not only that I think Android is proving to be more than competent seeing how Apple is using ideas from Android to power iOS5.

Apple actually ripped off LockInfo:

http://iphone.ashman.com/products/lockinfo/


but it copied google, rim, MS everywhere else...

Cod3rror
Jun 14, 2011, 02:00 PM
That's a lot of money!

I bet that's more money that they make from their phones.

Nokia and Microsoft are nice match, neither can sell their phones, but Microsoft gets a cut from HTC and Nokia gets a cut from Apple.

PeterQVenkman
Jun 14, 2011, 02:01 PM
well done Nokia...deserved.

Good luck with WP7 though ... you'll need it!

That's what they need the money for!

NebulaClash
Jun 14, 2011, 02:01 PM
if the largest software company teeming up with the largest phone vendor on paper has the potential to be very successful. Greater pairings have failed surely, but considering neither of those are your companies i will give them a shot anyways

The problem for Nokia is that no one partners with Microsoft and does well in the end. Microsoft gets what it wants, and you get the shaft sooner or later. With 30 years of history of this happening, with few exceptions along the way, I'm amazed that any company ever decides to partner with Microsoft. But when you get a Microsoft guy to become your CEO, I guess you get what you pay for.

LagunaSol
Jun 14, 2011, 02:03 PM
When your products suck ass because you were colossally negligent for nearly four years I guess you can live off royalties. Why not.

It works for Microsoft.

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 02:04 PM
Some of you aren't getting it. There was a reason Apple held out on paying Nokia. It was never in dispute that they owed anything.

Most of Nokia's IP relates to international wireless standards, and the licensing of this particular IP, such as GSM, is a far different beast than other IP. There's really no way around *not* licensing it to others, and no way around others *not* having to use it.

There are, however, rules that the licensor of this IP must abide by (given the nature of this IP); namely and in particularly under Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory terms, known as FRAND. As you can tell, this sort of thing doesn't at all apply to all IP. However, Nokia's is quite fundamental to the mobile industry, i.e., GSM. Nokia must license according to reasonable terms. The issue was, what was meant by Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory, and whether Nokia was or was not offering the license to Apple under these terms. Apple was looking for these terms, in particular for the same treatment Nokia gave to every other licensee.

Apple alleged that Nokia's terms were *not* Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (and not at parity with the terms Nokia offered to other licensees) whereas they are required to be. We don't know exactly how much Nokia was asking. We know that Apple did not have a lot of similar patents that Nokia had to license under FRAND, so we can just as well assume that they were asking for more than what Apple thought was justified.

Given that this case didn't go on for very long, means that that one of the parties likely gave in to the other. Someone caved. We really don't know who tapped out first. However, do note that Apple already had three of the patents excluded. Further, one of the parties needed the deal (as in, money) more than the other, and given the early resolution, they needed the deal *now.*

Draw your own conclusions.

pixelss
Jun 14, 2011, 02:07 PM
damnn nokia is getting paid. Apple is alright, you will make that back with the new Iphone sales...

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 02:08 PM
Some of you aren't getting it. There was a reason Apple held out on paying Nokia. It was never in dispute that they owed anything.

Most of Nokia's IP relates to international wireless standards, and the licensing of this particular IP, such as GSM, is a far different beast than other IP. There's really no way around *not* licensing it to others, and no way around others *not* having to use it.

There are, however, rules that the licensor of this IP must abide by, namely and in particularly under Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory terms, known as FRAND. As you can tell, this sort of thing doesn't at all apply to all IP. However, Nokia's is quite fundamental to the mobile industry, i.e., GSM. Nokia must license according to reasonable terms. The issue was, what was meant by Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory.

Apple alleged that Nokia's terms were *not* Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory whereas they are required to be. We don't know exactly hoe much Nokia was asking. We know that Apple did not have a lot of similar patents that Nokia had to license under FRAND, so we can just as well assume that they were asking for more than what Apple thought was justified.

Given that this cue didn't go on for very long, means that that one of the parties had to give in to the other. We really don't know who tapped out first. However, do note that Apple already had three of the patents excluded already. Further, one of the parties needed the deal (as in, money) more than the other, and given the early resolution, they needed the deal *now.*

Draw your own conclusions.

Yes - one of the parties DID need the deal. Apple. You'd like to think people (like me, perhaps) don't get it - or you. The problem is - we do. We don't agree and we're looking at this situation from a holistic point of view - not one of a 100 percent faith believer in Apple.

You will never be seen on these boards as someone with perspective. Because you have none. Even when/if you post with some clarity in thought - the problem is, you're known to have this incredible unwavering bias.

Mak47
Jun 14, 2011, 02:10 PM
This is interesting news. It provides an insurance policy for Nokia when/if WP7 fails. Nokia has always made very good, very basic phones. There is still a market for those--one that is being neglected by every manufacturer out there.

If WP7 turns out to be a flop, as every other incarnation of it has been, then why bother with smartphones? Nokia can go back to making simple and reliable phones for consumers who aren't interested in anything else, while still bringing in a significant amount of revenue from Apple and other licensors.

Glideslope
Jun 14, 2011, 02:11 PM
That's what they need the money for!

Ever thought about Apple using the WIN7 Nokia Phones to go after Android?
This would certainly drop kick the process.

I for one like WIN7 Mobile. I also do not see Nokia WIN7 phones minimizing iOS 5.

They could however take a nice bite from Android. Call it what you will, but I think Apple is looking out 5 years on this, and in a strange way, partnering with Nokia/Microsoft to take the wind out of the Android/Google Sails.

It just might work. :apple:

wikus
Jun 14, 2011, 02:11 PM
Yes - one of the parties DID need the deal. Apple. You'd like to think people (like me, perhaps) don't get it - or you. The problem is - we do. We don't agree and we're looking at this situation from a holistic point of view - not one of a 100 percent faith believer in Apple.

You will never be seen on these boards as someone with perspective. Because you have none. Even when/if you post with some clarity in thought - the problem is, you're know to have this incredible unwavering bias.

I think removal of posts that diplay THIS kind of bias should either be removed completely or users be given time outs as its borderline trolling.

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 14, 2011, 02:13 PM
Some of you aren't getting it.

Anytime you start a post with this... 95% of the forum moves on to the next post.


I think removal of posts that diplay THIS kind of bias should either be removed completely or users be given time outs as its borderline trolling.

Apple did need it. Without it they can't have a GSM phone period.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 02:14 PM
Anytime you start a post with this... 95% of the forum moves on to the next post.

I disagree. I think it's more like 98% ;)

I think Wikus was agreeing with me - not stating my post was biased.

nagromme
Jun 14, 2011, 02:14 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Wouldn't the specifics of THESE patents, and the specific uses of them, and the specific closed-doors negotiations, be much larger factors than "previous patent-related settlements in the industry"?

It's like saying there's an unknown item of food hidden in a box, and based on past food prices, it probably costs around $7.23.

wikus
Jun 14, 2011, 02:16 PM
Apple did need it. Without it they can't have a GSM phone period.

I was referring to LTD. His bias and false statements are offensive and an insult to my intelligence and everyone else.

Kwill
Jun 14, 2011, 02:17 PM
Wow. For that kind of cash, Apple should have considered buying Nokia (not for the product, but for the patent portfolio).

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 14, 2011, 02:18 PM
I was referring to LTD. His bias and false statements are offensive and an insult to my intelligence and everyone else.

This is true. He disagreed though. Noticed you got negged on your post. ;)]


Wow. For that kind of cash, Apple should have considered buying Nokia!

I'm so sick of this statement. Do people realize most of Apple's "cash" is worthless because Apple is lobbying to not pay taxes on it. Can't spend money you technically don't have or haven't paid taxes for.

cube
Jun 14, 2011, 02:19 PM
This is interesting news. It provides an insurance policy for Nokia when/if WP7 fails. Nokia has always made very good, very basic phones. There is still a market for those--one that is being neglected by every manufacturer out there.

If WP7 turns out to be a flop, as every other incarnation of it has been, then why bother with smartphones? Nokia can go back to making simple and reliable phones for consumers who aren't interested in anything else, while still bringing in a significant amount of revenue from Apple and other licensors.

This is only little money compared to what Nokia would rake in before killing their OSes.

Castaway
Jun 14, 2011, 02:21 PM
Ramon Llamas: "Nokia is very fast at turning things around."

That sentence alone proves he doesn't know what he's talking about. It is Nokia's giant bureaucratic machine involved in every meaningful decision that has been strangling them in a quickly evolving business. The slowness to react to new customer needs and market trends is very characteristic to Nokia.

In the mobile phone business Nokia only prospered upon a time when there were no equal competitors. Several years ago (before iPhone basically) they were way ahead of any other phone maker. And when the iPhone was released, the general reaction at Nokia was to laugh arrogantly and play down the media hype.

Announcing that they're going to publish the first WP device almost a year (that's their optimistic aim, anyway) after the publication of their strategy shift isn't exactly turning things around very fast. But if the aim was to sink their stock price, they succeeded quite well.

Still, milking their old patents is exactly what they should be doing. At least they're doing something correctly. That provides them with some cashflow, but it doesn't help the dwindling phone sales at all.

Thunderhawks
Jun 14, 2011, 02:21 PM
I disagree. I think it's more like 98% ;)

I think Wikus was agreeing with me - not stating my post was biased.

Can't we just all get along:-)?

I am fine with whatever happens, as long as my iphone works. Can't get sucked into he said/she said, my patent, your patent.

It's all about $$$$ anyway.

Figure it out and give us the next iphone ASAP please..

Stratus Fear
Jun 14, 2011, 02:27 PM
Again, please don't make false statements.

Apple wasn't paying, they got sued. Even macrumors posted this;

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/22/nokia-files-iphone-related-suit-against-apple-regarding-wireless-patents/

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/12/11/apple-files-countersuit-against-nokia/

Update: According to the court filing posted by Digital Daily, Apple accuses Nokia of demanding unreasonable licensing terms, including reciprocal access to intellectual property owned by Apple, for a variety of its patents.

Through the present suit, Nokia has asserted unfounded claims of infringement and breached licensing commitments it made to license on F/RAND [Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory] terms all patents that it claimed were necessary for a party to practice standards. Nokia has also violated those licensing commitments by demanding unjustifiable royalties and reciprocal licenses to Apple's patents covering Apple's pioneering technology -- patents unrelated to any industry standard. This attempt by Nokia to leverage patents previously pledged to industry standards is an effort to free ride on the commercial success of Apple's innovative iPhone while avoiding liability for copying the iPhone and infringing Apple's patents.
Apple denies that any of Nokia's patents cited in its own lawsuit are "essential" to standards, but even if a court should rule any of the contested claims valid, Apple should be granted F/RAND licensing terms, which Nokia has refused to offer.

I don't purport to support anything LTD says, but you guys need to do some homework. Nokia's say in the dispute was that Apple didn't pay, yes, but Apple's reciprocal say in the dispute was indeed that Nokia wanted terms in violation of F/RAND commitments. I don't see how that was in any way a false statement as quoted.

Edit: I like how I got negged for posting factual information with links. That's rich.

SeattleMoose
Jun 14, 2011, 02:31 PM
Which will allow the junky to stay "juiced" for a few more years...before the inevitable happens. RIP Nokia...

Gasu E.
Jun 14, 2011, 02:34 PM
LOL. Run for congress - you're great at sidestepping.

Now Nokia is not only negligent (in your opinion) but WILLFUL? Too funny. You also start my saying IF Apple owed money - and then you stated that Apple did owe Nokia money - the question was how much. Do you see how you shape your posts to serve your purpose/twist it anyway you can to keep Apple ahead in the arrangement?

Here's the fact. Nokia owned patents. Apple used them. Apple was sued and lost and now has to make restitution. There's no patent trolling going on. There's a legitimate patent holder who enforced their rights via the legal system.

BELIEVE me - if this were Apple's patents and Nokia was sued and lost - you'd be shouting how great it is that someone who dared opposed Apple got shot down. Of that I am certain.

I'm reading what LTD is saying, and I'm reading your response. And clearly, the discontinuity is that LTD is just arguing way over your head. You seem not to have the sophistication to understand his point, so you are arguing against something else entirely.

It is not disputed by ANYONE (not by LTD nor Apple) that Nokia has valid, fundamental patents that are necessary to create a cellphone product; nor is it disputed by ANYONE that Apple utilized technologies to which Nokia had rights under those patents. Rather, what Apple has stated (and LTD has repeated) is that the demands that Nokia made on Apple for compensation were onerous and inconsistent with the compensation Nokia has made on other users of this technology. Based on the information available, there is no way to verify the validity of this-- we don't know what Nokia's original demand was, nor what other companies are paying.

The other point LTD is making is that Nokia was negligent in managing their business-- they had a leadership advantage which they squandered by making poor choices. His use of the word WILLFUL is interesting-- it implies that Nokia was not making choices based on the best interests of their stockholders but, willfully, on some other basis. I don't know enough to say whether that is true, but clearly that is what LTD means.

blackburn
Jun 14, 2011, 02:34 PM
Steve Ballmer must be pissed of. Nokia is now more expensive to buy. I still don't know how nokia hasn't been bought yet (samsung / apple / ms).
Lately they haven't done anything right, let's hope they do something good, I still think that they should have went with MeeGo.
Anyway nowadays cellphones are darn expensive in here let's hope that they do something to spice the competition a little.

TMay
Jun 14, 2011, 02:40 PM
Ever thought about Apple using the WIN7 Nokia Phones to go after Android?
This would certainly drop kick the process.

I for one like WIN7 Mobile. I also do not see Nokia WIN7 phones minimizing iOS 5.

They could however take a nice bite from Android. Call it what you will, but I think Apple is looking out 5 years on this, and in a strange way, partnering with Nokia/Microsoft to take the wind out of the Android/Google Sails.

It just might work. :apple:

There is also a symbiotic relationship between OSX and Windows on Apple Intel hardware that is beneficial to both parties.

jameskatt
Jun 14, 2011, 02:41 PM
Nokia's marketshare is going downhill.

Sure, it has royalties from the iPhone.

But its phone business is dying a slow death.

After a while, its patents will be dead and it will receive nothing from Apple.

Windows Phone is NOT going to resuscitate Nokia. The problem is that Windows Phone COSTS Money off the top. It lowers one's profit.

Nokia's hardware also sucks compared to Android hardware. They simply can't move as fast as the Asian companies.

Nokia's only chance is to become a patent troll where it can. It can now sue Android hardware makers and win.

Nokia will feast while it can. But it has NO TALENT for software. That is a KILLER WEAKNESS in the Smartphone Business.

As Smartphones become commodities thanks to Android, Apple will live at the top of the heap with the most profits, while Nokia will be squeezed toward the bottom by Android.

Die, Nokia, Die. Just like the Wicked Witch in Oz.

P.S. Another GOOD THING is that Nokia HAS NO LICENSE TO ANY APPLE PATENT. Thus they can't copy Apple. They can only be a puppet to Microsoft.

LarryC
Jun 14, 2011, 02:44 PM
I have a question. If company X owns a patent on a type of technology, does company X have the right to refuse to license that technology to company Y? And can they pick and choose who they will allow to use that technology? I'm not trying to get involved in any kind of ongoing disagreement here. I'm really just curious. Thank you.

mrpither
Jun 14, 2011, 02:45 PM
Not only that I think Android is proving to be more than competent seeing how Apple is using ideas from Android to power iOS5.and even some from (gasp!) the wretchedly inferior windows phone 7. <shudder>



</s>

arcite
Jun 14, 2011, 02:45 PM
Nokia might fetch $39 billion, judging by comparable companies. The company's current market value is $24.6 billion, after tumbling 78 percent since Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007.

Article here (http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-06-05/business/29622224_1_bloomberg-briefing-casual-games-nokia)


Apple could probably buy them out tomorrow. On the other hand, keeping Nokia under their heel gives them the semblance of competition. The last thing Apple wants is to be accused of having a Monopoly. :)

farmboy
Jun 14, 2011, 02:46 PM
Here's the fact. Nokia owned patents. Apple used them. Apple was sued and lost and now has to make restitution. There's no patent trolling going on. There's a legitimate patent holder who enforced their rights via the legal system.

You really don't know what a win or loss is, and what isn't, unless you have access to the settlement documents and know what the bargaining chips were. If they wanted say, $20 a unit and Apple refused to pay, then they negotiate to $6 a unit, who won?

GorgonPhone
Jun 14, 2011, 02:48 PM
So we can expect $20 increases per phone from now on then.

exactly apple will pass this on to the consumer...lolol

mabaker
Jun 14, 2011, 02:48 PM
Anybody remembers Creative vs. Apple? Creative’s mp3 division went downhil DESPITE Apple’s payments.

elgrecomac
Jun 14, 2011, 02:49 PM
I found Nokia's new logo

Image (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zDH2CV3txBo/TY70xBcaJtI/AAAAAAAACGo/7GvHfJy3IiE/s1600/vulturey.jpg)

Actually that is Apple's new logo...as they swooped down and ate flesh from another body.

Apple is a great company with great products. People expect perfection from them but, alas, they are made of people and people make mistakes.

Tiger8
Jun 14, 2011, 02:50 PM
So LTD - you admit that Apple was in the wrong and Nokia was justified in suing and that winning the suit was legit?

They did not win, they settled, major difference.

A lot of times people settle to avoid the hassle and costly trial.

This seems to be a fair deal, and for everyone who thinks that Apple lost, well, think about it this way, five years ago Apple did not make a single phone, and now they are butting heads against NOKIA, the world's biggest cellphone manufacturer. That speaks volumes

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 02:51 PM
I'm reading what LTD is saying, and I'm reading your response. And clearly, the discontinuity is that LTD is just arguing way over your head. You seem not to have the sophistication to understand his point, so you are arguing against something else entirely.



Over my head? No - not in the slightest. I understand LTD's point, perspective and bias 100 percent. I am not suggesting that LTD's line of thought are incorrect itself in regards to elements of this situation. Just because I simplified my summation of the situation doesn't mean I lack sophistication or more specifically, the sophistication to understand his point.

But thanks for the snap judgment there...

OllyW
Jun 14, 2011, 02:51 PM
exactly apple will pass this on to the consumer...lolol

They should already have factored it into the iPhone retail price. They have known (and accepted) they would have to pay a licensing fee since the first iPhone came out in 2007, the only issue was how much they had to pay.

Knowing Apple they probably factored in a price at the high end of what Nokia were demanding and are now left with a healthy surplus. ;)

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 02:53 PM
Actually that is Apple's new logo...as they swooped down and ate flesh from another body.

Apple is a great company with great products. People expect perfection from them but, alas, they are made of people and people make mistakes.

I'm not sure (in this case) what their mistake was.

Or are you referring to something else?

Bigdaddyguido
Jun 14, 2011, 02:57 PM
Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

LOL. Run for congress - you're great at sidestepping.

Now Nokia is not only negligent (in your opinion) but WILLFUL? Too funny. You also start my saying IF Apple owed money - and then you stated that Apple did owe Nokia money - the question was how much. Do you see how you shape your posts to serve your purpose/twist it anyway you can to keep Apple ahead in the arrangement?

Here's the fact. Nokia owned patents. Apple used them. Apple was sued and lost and now has to make restitution. There's no patent trolling going on. There's a legitimate patent holder who enforced their rights via the legal system.

BELIEVE me - if this were Apple's patents and Nokia was sued and lost - you'd be shouting how great it is that someone who dared opposed Apple got shot down. Of that I am certain.

I'm reading what LTD is saying, and I'm reading your response. And clearly, the discontinuity is that LTD is just arguing way over your head. You seem not to have the sophistication to understand his point, so you are arguing against something else entirely.

It is not disputed by ANYONE (not by LTD nor Apple) that Nokia has valid, fundamental patents that are necessary to create a cellphone product; nor is it disputed by ANYONE that Apple utilized technologies to which Nokia had rights under those patents. Rather, what Apple has stated (and LTD has repeated) is that the demands that Nokia made on Apple for compensation were onerous and inconsistent with the compensation Nokia has made on other users of this technology. Based on the information available, there is no way to verify the validity of this-- we don't know what Nokia's original demand was, nor what other companies are paying.

The other point LTD is making is that Nokia was negligent in managing their business-- they had a leadership advantage which they squandered by making poor choices. His use of the word WILLFUL is interesting-- it implies that Nokia was not making choices based on the best interests of their stockholders but, willfully, on some other basis. I don't know enough to say whether that is true, but clearly that is what LTD means.

Thank you for putting this "debate" in perspective. Everyone is jumping on LTD, but in this circumstance, what he's saying about apple and nokia's claims is correct. Where he got a little weird was in claiming nokia willfully was tanking their business.

Due to the fact we don't know what nokia was originally asking for or are even sure what apple is paying now, anyone claiming either side "won" this lawsuit is not actually paying close attention. The biggest news we know of from all of this is that the dispute is finialuzed and no longer looms overhead.

the8thark
Jun 14, 2011, 02:58 PM
Again, please don't make false statements.

Apple wasn't paying, they got sued. Even macrumors posted this
This website is called MacRumors and not MacFacts for a very good reason. They get things wrong from time to time. But that's ok in the speculation game. Just remember to take everything you read here as rumour and not fact until independently (ie. someone other than M-R) proves it then you'll be ok.

So anything MacRomors post up I read for the entertainment value only. And if I want to know if something posted here is a fact I'll look elsewhere for said proof.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 02:58 PM
You really don't know what a win or loss is, and what isn't, unless you have access to the settlement documents and know what the bargaining chips were. If they wanted say, $20 a unit and Apple refused to pay, then they negotiate to $6 a unit, who won?

Actually - in legal terms - a judgment for the plaintiff is a win. You can view the terms as equitable to not - but a win is a win. YOU might think since Apple is possibly paying less - that they one. It's semantics. Whether a team loses by 10 points or 20 - it's still a loss.

They did not win, they settled, major difference.

A lot of times people settle to avoid the hassle and costly trial.

This seems to be a fair deal, and for everyone who thinks that Apple lost, well, think about it this way, five years ago Apple did not make a single phone, and now they are butting heads against NOKIA, the world's biggest cellphone manufacturer. That speaks volumes

And you're right on that point. They settled. Which doesn't equate to a win. Unlike some posters - I can admit when I'm mistaken. That being said - it's a significant settlement for Nokia on monies they either wouldn't have seen (for a long time) or of lesser value.

NebulaClash
Jun 14, 2011, 02:58 PM
I've been reading MacRumors for several years now, though I only started posting when the iPad was announced. It sure seems to me that there are a lot more posters here who cheer on anything that seems to go against Apple now. I chalk that up to Apple's success over the past few years reaching the attention of everyone. Success breeds jealosy, and we are seeing that now.

So Apple "loses" to Nokia? Cheers abound here. Weird.

logandzwon
Jun 14, 2011, 02:59 PM
I have a question. If company X owns a patent on a type of technology, does company X have the right to refuse to license that technology to company Y? And can they pick and choose who they will allow to use that technology? I'm not trying to get involved in any kind of ongoing disagreement here. I'm really just curious. Thank you.

Sure they can... unless they sign an agreement to license it for a standard like GSM. (Apple was refusing to pay because Nokia was demanding a much higher royalty payment then from anyone else.)

joemama
Jun 14, 2011, 03:00 PM
Basically it's the technology that enables the iPhone to make a phone call or access the 3G networks.

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/22/nokia-files-iphone-related-suit-against-apple-regarding-wireless-patents/



Pretty useful don't you think?

If Nokia won this suit, then why aren't other companies forced to pay apple for their technology? Their multitouch? Their designs? Their OS?

Can someone explain that to me?

Stella
Jun 14, 2011, 03:01 PM
Nokia's hardware is actually pretty good. The camera on the Nokia N8 has still yet to be surpassed by any other cell phone after 6 months, which is a long time in the mobile world.

Secondly, the batteries of the nokia phones are powerful enough to last a day, average use. This is unlike a lot of Android phones.

Nokia is in a transition phase, of course their profits / turnover are going to dip. This occurs when a company goes through transition. Nokia will come out the other side on a good footing. Nokia's brand name will help gain WP7 momentium.


Nokia's marketshare is going downhill.

Sure, it has royalties from the iPhone.

But its phone business is dying a slow death.

After a while, its patents will be dead and it will receive nothing from Apple.

Windows Phone is NOT going to resuscitate Nokia. The problem is that Windows Phone COSTS Money off the top. It lowers one's profit.

Nokia's hardware also sucks compared to Android hardware. They simply can't move as fast as the Asian companies.

Nokia's only chance is to become a patent troll where it can. It can now sue Android hardware makers and win.

Nokia will feast while it can. But it has NO TALENT for software. That is a KILLER WEAKNESS in the Smartphone Business.

As Smartphones become commodities thanks to Android, Apple will live at the top of the heap with the most profits, while Nokia will be squeezed toward the bottom by Android.

Die, Nokia, Die. Just like the Wicked Witch in Oz.

P.S. Another GOOD THING is that Nokia HAS NO LICENSE TO ANY APPLE PATENT. Thus they can't copy Apple. They can only be a puppet to Microsoft.

Bigdaddyguido
Jun 14, 2011, 03:03 PM
Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

No one else uses their OS. The designs are the basis for the samsung suit which on the surface appears to hold a lot of water, but forum commentors keep just reading the first line of the suit and claim apple is being ridiculous. The multitouch patents are the basis for the suits against HTC et all I believe, but I'm less informed on those suits and could be misinterpreting.

This is a reply to joemama, sorry for not quoting.

farmboy
Jun 14, 2011, 03:03 PM
Again, please don't make false statements.

Apple wasn't paying, they got sued. Even macrumors posted this;

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/22/nokia-files-iphone-related-suit-against-apple-regarding-wireless-patents/

Referencing a previously published rumor (any rumor) doesn't make it a fact (except on Fox News).

DavidG328
Jun 14, 2011, 03:03 PM
LTD is geocentric and also has a skewed view on economics. Coupled with is inability to admit that Apple could possibly make a mistake, misstep, or otherwise makes him a wonderful character study.

That's what happens when you're hated by an entire forum. It's impossible to take this guy seriously.

superfula
Jun 14, 2011, 03:03 PM
Over my head? No - not in the slightest. I understand LTD's point, perspective and bias 100 percent. I am not suggesting that LTD's line of thought are incorrect itself in regards to elements of this situation. Just because I simplified my summation of the situation doesn't mean I lack sophistication or more specifically, the sophistication to understand his point.

But thanks for the snap judgment there...

If it isn't over your head then I'm not sure what excuse you can use. It's evident from your posts that you don't understand what LTD is saying, nor what is being said in the macrumors news posts. Neither does wikus.

Props to the guys that are just now popping in here and adding some rational posts to the thread.

Stratus Fear
Jun 14, 2011, 03:04 PM
I've been reading MacRumors for several years now, though I only started posting when the iPad was announced. It sure seems to me that there are a lot more posters here who cheer on anything that seems to go against Apple now. I chalk that up to Apple's success over the past few years reaching the attention of everyone. Success breeds jealosy, and we are seeing that now.

It has also led to all the ad homs against anyone who is even the slightest bit positive toward Apple. I personally prefer if the discussion would be about the content of people's arguments and not their preferences, but this is the state of Internet forums these days. Trolls abound.

It wouldn't surprise me if various companies send paid shills here, too...

Hellhammer
Jun 14, 2011, 03:05 PM
If Nokia won this suit, then why aren't other companies forced to pay apple for their technology? Their multitouch? Their designs? Their OS?

Can someone explain that to me?

Depends on the patents. Nokia has patented their technologies so they have a legal right to ask for licensing fees from other companies using their patents. If Apple does not own patent for multitouch, they have no right to sue anyone else using multitouch, as they don't own multitouch technology. I have yet to see a product from a name brand to utilize Apple's design or OS.

It's very hard to say anything as we don't know what patents Apple holds and even if we did, it's even harder to say if someone is breaking them. That is why they are fighting in the court, as it sounds like they don't know it either.

Popeye206
Jun 14, 2011, 03:06 PM
Yeah... this was no mistake. This was a planned "legal negotiation" of the patent license.

I'm sure Apple knew they needed a license or we're informed they did by Nokia and Nokia probably said pay us $X's. Apple probably said no, we'll pay $Y's and Nokia said "no" to that. So Apple took the legal negotiation route. Dispute the patent. Hope that you can dilute the claims and lower the cost.

I would bet that the cost came in lower than it was originally and Apple is happy. And I bet Nokia is happy too.

People should not take all law suits and patent disputes as a negative. Sometimes it's necessary to get a fair price. Obviously a lot of money is at steak here, so a couple million to explore options is not all that bad.

Android is next for sure... Nokia is not going to hold still now that they won with Apple... they have a strong patent (its defendable) now and I'm sure are going to defend it.

mandis
Jun 14, 2011, 03:08 PM
Nokia's marketshare is going downhill.

Sure, it has royalties from the iPhone.

But its phone business is dying a slow death.

After a while, its patents will be dead and it will receive nothing from Apple.

Windows Phone is NOT going to resuscitate Nokia. The problem is that Windows Phone COSTS Money off the top. It lowers one's profit.

Nokia's hardware also sucks compared to Android hardware. They simply can't move as fast as the Asian companies.

Nokia's only chance is to become a patent troll where it can. It can now sue Android hardware makers and win.

Nokia will feast while it can. But it has NO TALENT for software. That is a KILLER WEAKNESS in the Smartphone Business.

As Smartphones become commodities thanks to Android, Apple will live at the top of the heap with the most profits, while Nokia will be squeezed toward the bottom by Android.

Die, Nokia, Die. Just like the Wicked Witch in Oz.

P.S. Another GOOD THING is that Nokia HAS NO LICENSE TO ANY APPLE PATENT. Thus they can't copy Apple. They can only be a puppet to Microsoft.

You have some serious anger issues... chill out and get yourself some friends!

JAT
Jun 14, 2011, 03:09 PM
No. What I stated was fact. You can throw in random details of the case - but my summary is 100 percent correct. But nice try.
You neglected one very important fact. That prior to any filings, the two companies had attempted to work out a deal. Nokia was tired of Apple's position and took it to court. Your extreme dislike of Apple makes you say this is Apple's fault, when in fact it is one of the most common scenarios in big business. Try relaxing for 10 seconds, it might help.

I'm so sick of this statement. Do people realize most of Apple's "cash" is worthless because Apple is lobbying to not pay taxes on it. Can't spend money you technically don't have or haven't paid taxes for.
Please explain this. I would like to understand how cash sitting in a bank should be taxed. I'll pass your opinion on to FASB and the IRS so we can all share, too.

haydn!
Jun 14, 2011, 03:09 PM
I don't get all these 'Oh Apple lost, shame on them for trying to copy other peoples patents' comments. That was never the point of this case.

Apple knew they had to pay royalties and were more than prepared to do so. The issue was Nokia wanted to charge Apple more than they charge other manufacturers for the same patents. Quite rightfully Apple challenged this.

Whilst it looks on paper that Apple lost because they paid out, what's to say Nokia didn't back down and lower their demands therefore Apple happily paid the money they knew they owed and were prepared to pay?

LarryC
Jun 14, 2011, 03:09 PM
Sure they can... unless they sign an agreement to license it for a standard like GSM. (Apple was refusing to pay because Nokia was demanding a much higher royalty payment then from anyone else.)

Thank you.

OllyW
Jun 14, 2011, 03:10 PM
Android is next for sure... Nokia is not going to hold still now that they won with Apple... they have a strong patent (its defendable) now and I'm sure are going to defend it.

I think most of the manufacturers who make Android phones are already licensees of Nokia's patents. They had all been making phones for many years before Apple entered the market so I can't see there being a problem for Android.

There were already 40 companies licensing the patents when Nokia started it's action against Apple in 2009 (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/22/nokia-files-iphone-related-suit-against-apple-regarding-wireless-patents/).

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 03:13 PM
You neglected one very important fact. That prior to any filings, the two companies had attempted to work out a deal. Nokia was tired of Apple's position and took it to court. Your extreme dislike of Apple makes you say this is Apple's fault, when in fact it is one of the most common scenarios in big business. Try relaxing for 10 seconds, it might help.

Please explain this. I would like to understand how cash sitting in a bank should be taxed. I'll pass your opinion on to FASB and the IRS so we can all share, too.


I'm quite relaxed. I find it funny that just because someone posts something that isn't praising Apple - they are labeled as someone who dislikes Apple. You know - I have really close friends - and when they act in a way that I don't care for and I express it - they don't think I don't like them.

Put another way - I'm pretty much all Apple in the products I own - iPhone, iPad, iMac - and I enjoy them all. That doesn't mean I have to love everything Apple does. Nor does Apple making such products entitled them to not be criticized. Nothing I've posted here is remotely as extreme as those posts against Nokia - for example. But somehow that misplaced anger doesn't warrant a "relax" post from you? LOL

JAT
Jun 14, 2011, 03:13 PM
If it isn't over your head then I'm not sure what excuse you can use. It's evident from your posts that you don't understand what LTD is saying, nor what is being said in the macrumors news posts. Neither does wikus.


Is our assumption that these 2 are different people, then?

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 03:14 PM
Is our assumption that these 2 are different people, then?

Are you really suggesting that Wikus and I are the same person. Really?

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 14, 2011, 03:17 PM
Are you really suggesting that Wikus and I are the same person. Really?

Maybe he is really LTD?

macrumors12345
Jun 14, 2011, 03:17 PM
That's almost $10/phone, and Apple has more units and much better bargaining power (in the form of its own patents) than most Android OEMs. Microsoft is already collecting $5/Android phone from HTC, and seeks to get up to $10/phone from OEMs that don't settle. Add in $10-15/phone for Nokia's IP, something for Apple's IP, and potentially much more for Oracle's IP. Suddenly you're looking at IP licensing costs of well over $50/phone for any Android OEM. At that point Windows Phone will start to look attractive to them...

miografico
Jun 14, 2011, 03:19 PM
They do dumbphones ok. As long as the market for dumbphones remains viable, of course. If we were ever to see content-rich app-enabled phones the likes of Google's and Apple's approaching dumbphone prices, however, then Nokia will have even more problems. But by then their future will have been decided. What that future is we'll find out sometime in 2012.

Nokia is a hell of a lot more than a, "dumphone" maker or a patent-troll.

You're talking about one of the oldest surviving telecommunications companies in the world. There is way, way too much to write in a post about the company itself, but you can semi educate yourself here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia

Nokia is a big reason we have GSM network technology to begin with as they were a big developer of it. Every time you're on a phone call (in a GSM iPhone) and you go to send a text message at the same time or browse the web you have Nokia and the other GSM engineers/developers to thank for that. If you take your GSM iPhone abroad it will work and you have Nokia and the other GSM engineers to thank for that.

There are a host of things Nokia does that are not directly mobile phone related: Nokia Siemens for wired and wireless network tech. Navteq for vehicle navigation etc. etc. etc.

The world would a very different place today if it weren't for the likes of Nokia, Motorola, Bell Labs <-> ATT, Lucent and on and on and on. These are the companies that shaped our communications based world and housed the engineers that created the systems we use on a day to day basis.

You try to make Apple out to be a demigod way too much. They are a great company with great tech, but they are also in the position they are today because of other companies who developed great tech.

theinsider
Jun 14, 2011, 03:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)



Thank you for putting this "debate" in perspective. Everyone is jumping on LTD, but in this circumstance, what he's saying about apple and nokia's claims is correct. Where he got a little weird was in claiming nokia willfully was tanking their business.

A quick word on Nokia willfully tanking their business. I would have to agree with that statement. Nokia made decisions stemming some years that have progressively set it farther and farther behind in the smartphone race. A couple of years ago Nokia released what I will admit was a pretty spectacular piece of hardware called the N900. Could it have been an iPhone killer? Probably not. However, that is not the point; the point is that Nokia could have used this device as a springboard into the smartphone market as we know it now (ie. iOS and Android.) Further more at the time Android had only a fraction of the market that they do now. Had Nokia made a significant investment in marketing the N900 and more importantly Maemo/Meego the smartphone landscape as we know it now could have looked extremely different. Alas they didn't they were content with both technologies being the playground of the "geek" crowd and look where it is now.

That's my take at least.

JAT
Jun 14, 2011, 03:22 PM
I'm quite relaxed. I find it funny that just because someone posts something that isn't praising Apple - they are labeled as someone who dislikes Apple. You know - I have really close friends - and when they act in a way that I don't care for and I express it - they don't think I don't like them.
Because you don't like their actions. Apparently you like Apple products, but not the company's actions. Which is what I stated. I'm glad you agree.

Any comment on the facts of Nokia vs Apple?

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 03:24 PM
If Nokia won this suit, then why aren't other companies forced to pay apple for their technology? Their multitouch? Their designs? Their OS?

Can someone explain that to me?

There's no way to get around using Nokia's IP. And there's no way Nokia can refuse to license it.

To expand on your question, there's no actual "winning here" unless Apple disputed the validity of Nokia's GSM et al patents to begin with, which would have been pointless.

Nokia *must* license these particular patents to everyone because they are a necessity. In turn, there is no way that any potential licensee can get out of licensing them. So the relationship Nokia has with those that produce wireless phones is more or less inevitable. At some point you're going to be a licensee and Nokia will be the licensor.

Apple was not disputing Nokia's patents in question. There's really no disputing them by anyone. The complaint that Apple had was that Nokia was charging Apple "x" while charging everyone else "y." FRAND terms exist for patents like these to ensure a level of equal and unfettered access. So, the patent holder can't use their position as a holder of GSM patents to extort money from others. There is a requirement for equal and fair treatment in terms of access and licensing costs.

Apple essentially said "we know we have to pay you, but what's up with charging us so much more?? We have a problem with that. So we'll hold off on paying you because we think what you're doing to us is unjust under FRAND requirements. We'll figure this out in court."

The only way to "win" in this case would mean that Nokia would receive what they asked for originally, namely the amount (however much it was) that Apple alleged was exorbitant and outside FRAND terms. If, however, Apple ended up paying Nokia the same amount everyone else was paying them, or otherwise a fair deal under FRAND, then it's not really a win for Nokia. What it is, and could reasonably be inferred, is a much-needed payout for Nokia. We don't know the amounts. We don't know whether Apple got the deal they were looking for or if they got a different deal that they considered equitable under FRAND. What happened is they settled. Given that this ended earlier than anyone expected, one of the parties decided it was best to either come up with a better deal, or to simply pay what the other asked for.

Now, the fact that this case settled way early is interesting. These tend to go on for years. We don't know the scheduling and dates for this case (or do we?) But if there was an expectation by parties involved that the case would have gone on for far longer than it did, that there would be further opportunities for ongoing arguments, all the while with Apple still holding out on payment, then it wold likely not have been Apple who decided to end it early, since there was no actual requirement to do so.

Would it have been in Nokia's best interest to get this money (or get anything at all) asap? Yes. Given their dismal situation, they need it.

Whether Apple needed to settle *now* as opposed to later (they waited *this* long, after all), is pretty hazy.

Unfortunately, there are still some facts that we don't have. However, "winning" and "losing" don't really apply here unless we know who paid what, measured against original payment terms. If your terms were originally $500 and I end up paying you $350 then you didn't really win. Especially if we both knew that you were required to give me the product and I was required to pay for it anyway at some point.

Popeye206
Jun 14, 2011, 03:25 PM
I think most of the manufacturers who make Android phones are already licensees of Nokia's patents. They had all been making phones for many years before Apple entered the market so I can't see there being a problem for Android.

There were already 40 companies licensing the patents when Nokia started it's action against Apple in 2009 (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/22/nokia-files-iphone-related-suit-against-apple-regarding-wireless-patents/).

Olly... I based that statement on this article that states that Android would be next. So it must me something in the OS and not in the hardware that is in violation.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/06/apple-and-nokia-settle-patent-dispute.html

If it was a hardware thing, Apple does not make the 3G chip and it would have carried the license if it did.

NebulaClash
Jun 14, 2011, 03:25 PM
That's almost $10/phone, and Apple has more units and much better bargaining power (in the form of its own patents) than most Android OEMs. Microsoft is already collecting $5/Android phone from HTC, and seeks to get up to $10/phone from OEMs that don't settle. Add in $10-15/phone for Nokia's IP, something for Apple's IP, and potentially much more for Oracle's IP. Suddenly you're looking at IP licensing costs of well over $50/phone for any Android OEM. At that point Windows Phone will start to look attractive to them...

That is Microsoft's exact strategy, and has been for years. Get the free OS to cost money so that people will flock back to Microsoft instead, and Microsoft will cut them a deal. Microsoft cannot compete against free, so they (or their partners -- hi, Nokia!) force the free operating systems to not be free any more.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 03:27 PM
Because you don't like their actions. Apparently you like Apple products, but not the company's actions. Which is what I stated. I'm glad you agree.

Any comment on the facts of Nokia vs Apple?

Let's not start a straw man argument. I didn't say I didn't like their actions (in total) as your post suggests. I stated that there are things about Apple I don't like.

Where did I say it was Apple's fault? I simply stated that Apple used patents owned by Nokia and Nokia was right to pursue legal action and be paid. Apple really had little choice in the matter - it was either use the GSM patents - or not make a phone. Calculated or not - they didn't reach an agreement with Nokia before releasing the first iPhone. Actions and consequences.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 14, 2011, 03:28 PM
Some of you aren't getting it. There was a reason Apple held out on paying Nokia. It was never in dispute that they owed anything.

Most of Nokia's IP relates to international wireless standards, and the licensing of this particular IP, such as GSM, is a far different beast than other IP. There's really no way around *not* licensing it to others, and no way around others *not* having to use it.

There are, however, rules that the licensor of this IP must abide by (given the nature of this IP); namely and in particularly under Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory terms, known as FRAND. As you can tell, this sort of thing doesn't at all apply to all IP. However, Nokia's is quite fundamental to the mobile industry, i.e., GSM. Nokia must license according to reasonable terms. The issue was, what was meant by Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory, and whether Nokia was or was not offering the license to Apple under these terms. Apple was looking for these terms, in particular for the same treatment Nokia gave to every other licensee.

Apple alleged that Nokia's terms were *not* Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (and not at parity with the terms Nokia offered to other licensees) whereas they are required to be. We don't know exactly how much Nokia was asking. We know that Apple did not have a lot of similar patents that Nokia had to license under FRAND, so we can just as well assume that they were asking for more than what Apple thought was justified.

Given that this case didn't go on for very long, means that that one of the parties likely gave in to the other. Someone caved. We really don't know who tapped out first. However, do note that Apple already had three of the patents excluded. Further, one of the parties needed the deal (as in, money) more than the other, and given the early resolution, they needed the deal *now.*

Draw your own conclusions.


Thing was Apple wanted the same rate as other companies but different is those other companies had patents in the pool and Nokia was able to use them.
Apple had ZERO patents in the pool and was not going to agree to licences any of them. This means Apple should pay a higher rate and rightfully so. Apple basically wanted a rate lower than everyone else.

It is share patents or pay a higher rate for the GSM ones.
Apple did not want to share patents and wanted the lower rate. Sorry it is one or the other.

Frobozz
Jun 14, 2011, 03:29 PM
Sure, it's not THAT bad for Nokia. It will probably take 2 or 3 quarters to drop off a cliff, not just one.

Bigdaddyguido
Jun 14, 2011, 03:33 PM
Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)

Because you don't like their actions. Apparently you like Apple products, but not the company's actions. Which is what I stated. I'm glad you agree.

Any comment on the facts of Nokia vs Apple?

Let's not start a straw man argument. I didn't say I didn't like their actions (in total) as your post suggests. I stated that there are things about Apple I don't like.

Where did I say it was Apple's fault? I simply stated that Apple used patents owned by Nokia and Nokia was right to pursue legal action and be paid. Apple really had little choice in the matter - it was either use the GSM patents - or not make a phone. Calculated or not - they didn't reach an agreement with Nokia before releasing the first iPhone. Actions and consequences.

You're still acting as if apple had the intention of not paying nokia. This is what everyone is criticisizing you for as far as I can tell. Nokia and apple went to court because they couldn't agree on terms. Now they've settled on terms they both agree to. We don't know enough to say who was trying to get over on who and when. If you continue to try and claim either side won or lost, or that one side was right and the other wrong, you aren't really grasping the concept of a settlement.

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 14, 2011, 03:33 PM
Nokia is a hell of a lot more than a, "dumphone" maker or a patent-troll.

You're talking about one of the oldest surviving telecommunications companies in the world. There is way, way too much to write in a post about the company itself, but you can semi educate yourself here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia

Nokia is a big reason we have GSM network technology to begin with as they were a big developer of it. Every time you're on a phone call (in a GSM iPhone) and you go to send a text message at the same time or browse the web you have Nokia and the other GSM engineers/developers to thank for that. If you take your GSM iPhone abroad it will work and you have Nokia and the other GSM engineers to thank for that.

There are a host of things Nokia does that are not directly mobile phone related: Nokia Siemens for wired and wireless network tech. Navteq for vehicle navigation etc. etc. etc.

The world would a very different place today if it weren't for the likes of Nokia, Motorola, Bell Labs <-> ATT, Lucent and on and on and on. These are the companies that shaped our communications based world and housed the engineers that created the systems we use on a day to day basis.

You try to make Apple out to be a demigod way too much. They are a great company with great tech, but they are also in the position they are today because of other companies who developed great tech.

They stole it preemptively from apple.

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 03:34 PM
Thing was Apple wanted the same rate as other companies but different is those other companies had patents in the pool and Nokia was able to use them.
Apple had ZERO patents in the pool and was not going to agree to licences any of them. This means Apple should pay a higher rate and rightfully so. Apple basically wanted a rate lower than everyone else.

It is share patents or pay a higher rate for the GSM ones.
Apple did not want to share patents and wanted the lower rate. Sorry it is one or the other.

Do Apple's other patents have anything to do with ensuring equitability under FRAND when it comes to the kind of IP that GSM is?

Does FRAND not apply regardless? You charge everyone the same amount due to the nature of the IP itself (i.e., it's a necessity.) Under law and the terms of FRAND, how do the licensee's other (possibly unrelated) patents apply here?

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 03:41 PM
Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)



You're still acting as if apple had the intention of not paying nokia. This is what everyone is criticisizing you for as far as I can tell. Nokia and apple went to court because they couldn't agree on terms. Now they've settled on terms they both agree to. We don't know enough to say who was trying to get over on who and when. If you continue to try and claim either side won or lost, or that one side was right and the other wrong, you aren't really grasping the concept of a settlement.

Huh? I never implied Apple never planned on paying Nokia. Did you read the post you quoted just now. I said that Apple and Nokia clearly didn't enter into an agreement BEFORE the launch of the iPhone. So that was always going to be looming over Apple's head. Clearly Nokia wasn't going to give Apple a pass. And clearly the situation had to reach a conclusion. It's not right or wrong - it's business.

Now perhaps you missed a post awhile back when I conceded that it was a SETTLEMENT and not a VERDICT. In that case, perhaps you should reread my posts after that. If not - I'm afraid it's you who isn't grasping it.

archipellago
Jun 14, 2011, 03:41 PM
Yes it was:

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/10/22/nokia-files-iphone-related-suit-against-apple-regarding-wireless-patents/

Please don't make false statements in further comments.

if he listened to you he could never post again!!

gnasher729
Jun 14, 2011, 03:44 PM
Now, the fact that this case settled way early is interesting. These tend to go on for years. We don't know the scheduling and dates for this case (or do we?) But if there was an expectation by parties involved that the case would have gone on for far longer than it did, that there would be further opportunities for ongoing arguments, all the while with Apple still holding out on payment, then it wold likely not have been Apple who decided to end it early, since there was no actual requirement to do so.

Things tend to change in two years. At Nokia, two things have changed: First, Nokia wanted Apple's iPhone user interface patents, probably to use them in Symbian. Now Symbian is dead, Nokia goes with Windows 7, any issues with Apple's patents are now Microsoft's problem and not Nokia's, so these patents are now much much less important for Nokia. Second, Nokia has a new CEO who wants to look good. Let's say the correct amount of license fees would be X dollars per iPhone, and at some point Apple has to pay X dollars for every iPhone made so far. For Nokia as a company it wouldn't really matter if the case lasts ten years, Nokia will get their money eventually. For the CEO, it's different. He wants the money _now_ so that Nokia looks profitable today while _he_ is the CEO. He doesn't want the next CEO to look good.

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 03:45 PM
if he listened to you he could never post again!!

Again, that's only half the story. At issue were Nokia's terms. Apple never refused to pay Nokia. They claimed they weren't getting the same deal as everyone else. They were quite willing to pay, but would right do so only under FRAND.

JAT
Jun 14, 2011, 03:47 PM
Where did I say it was Apple's fault? I simply stated that Apple used patents owned by Nokia and Nokia was right to pursue legal action and be paid.

So LTD - you admit that Apple was in the wrong and Nokia was justified in suing and that winning the suit was legit?
I guess I define "fault" and "wrong" as similar words. Shall I quote a thesaurus for every word in every post? That will take more time than I typically have during the day.

My point, of course, is that there is no 100% good/bad, right/wrong, justified/at fault here. You don't seem to agree, which, considering all the facts, is a biased viewpoint. Hence, my (and others) assumption that you dislike Apple, at least in relation to this particular court case.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 14, 2011, 03:48 PM
Do Apple's other patents have anything to do with ensuring equitability under FRAND when it comes to the kind of IP that GSM is?

Does FRAND not apply regardless? You charge everyone the same amount due to the nature of the IP itself (i.e., it's a necessity.) Under law and the terms of FRAND, how do the licensee's other (possibly unrelated) patents apply here?

you failed to address the issues. Other companies put patents in the pool. Those patents are worth some money so that basicly reduces the rate other companies have to pay.
for example
Say it is FRAND is 1% but you have some good patents that Nokia wants. Well if you throw them you get to rate of 0.5% since your patents cover the other 0.5%.

Apple wanted 0.5% but did not want to supply the patents that would of reduced the rate.

Pay higher rate or put patents in to get the reduced rate. It is that simple.

Simple logic complete kills LTD argument. That is a shocker (oh wait it is not)

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 03:48 PM
Again, that's only half the story. At issue were Nokia's terms. Apple never refused to pay Nokia. They claimed they weren't getting the same deal as everyone else. They were quite willing to pay, but would right do so only under FRAND.

Let's play with semantics. Apple was willing to pay but didn't because it didn't like the terms. That really means Apple refused to pay.

IE. I walk into a store. I want to buy a can of soda. The store says - that will be $500. I said I am willing to pay - but I will only pay $1. Doesn't that really mean I refuse to pay $500?

Just askin' LTD.

farmboy
Jun 14, 2011, 03:49 PM
Actually - in legal terms - a judgment for the plaintiff is a win. You can view the terms as equitable to not - but a win is a win. YOU might think since Apple is possibly paying less - that they one. It's semantics. Whether a team loses by 10 points or 20 - it's still a loss..

Where did you see the words "judgment for the plaintiff"? I'm trying to be polite here, but you just have no clue about how these settlements work.

wikus
Jun 14, 2011, 03:49 PM
Again, that's only half the story. At issue were Nokia's terms. Apple never refused to pay Nokia. They claimed they weren't getting the same deal as everyone else. They were quite willing to pay, but would right do so only under FRAND.

So first it was never an issue, but now you say it was half the issue?

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 03:49 PM
you failed to address the issues. Other companies put patents in the pool. Those patents are worth some money so that basicly reduces the rate other companies have to pay.

Which completely defeats the purpose for FRAND. At least, Apple was arguing for a more equitable reading of the principle.

archipellago
Jun 14, 2011, 03:51 PM
Nokia might fetch $39 billion, judging by comparable companies. The company's current market value is $24.6 billion, after tumbling 78 percent since Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007.

Article here (http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-06-05/business/29622224_1_bloomberg-briefing-casual-games-nokia)


Apple could probably buy them out tomorrow. On the other hand, keeping Nokia under their heel gives them the semblance of competition. The last thing Apple wants is to be accused of having a Monopoly. :)

Apple don't have that kind of cash on tap, to spend it they'd have to pay tax on it...

not happening!

Rodimus Prime
Jun 14, 2011, 03:52 PM
Which completely defeats the purpose for FRAND. At least, Apple was arguing for a more equitable reading of the principle.

FRAND is the ceiling. not the floor. You can trade patents to get below the ceiling rate.

Apple was being cheap and wanted the cheap rate others got but did not want to trade anything for it like the other did.

Apple was late to the game. It has no patents in the pool so it is going to get a higher rate. That is the price you pay if you did not help develop the technology like the others did.

archipellago
Jun 14, 2011, 03:52 PM
I'm reading what LTD is saying, and I'm reading your response. And clearly, the discontinuity is that LTD is just arguing way over your head. You seem not to have the sophistication to understand his point, so you are arguing against something else entirely.

It is not disputed by ANYONE (not by LTD nor Apple) that Nokia has valid, fundamental patents that are necessary to create a cellphone product; nor is it disputed by ANYONE that Apple utilized technologies to which Nokia had rights under those patents. Rather, what Apple has stated (and LTD has repeated) is that the demands that Nokia made on Apple for compensation were onerous and inconsistent with the compensation Nokia has made on other users of this technology. Based on the information available, there is no way to verify the validity of this-- we don't know what Nokia's original demand was, nor what other companies are paying.

The other point LTD is making is that Nokia was negligent in managing their business-- they had a leadership advantage which they squandered by making poor choices. His use of the word WILLFUL is interesting-- it implies that Nokia was not making choices based on the best interests of their stockholders but, willfully, on some other basis. I don't know enough to say whether that is true, but clearly that is what LTD means.


read the post 2 posts above yours and get a clue.

archipellago
Jun 14, 2011, 03:54 PM
Wirelessly posted (Iphone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8J2)



Thank you for putting this "debate" in perspective. Everyone is jumping on LTD, but in this circumstance, what he's saying about apple and nokia's claims is correct. Where he got a little weird was in claiming nokia willfully was tanking their business.

Due to the fact we don't know what nokia was originally asking for or are even sure what apple is paying now, anyone claiming either side "won" this lawsuit is not actually paying close attention. The biggest news we know of from all of this is that the dispute is finialuzed and no longer looms overhead.

The fact that apple cross licensed some patents with nokia tells you who won alright!!

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 03:55 PM
You don't seem to agree, which, considering all the facts, is a biased viewpoint.

Then by your definition, your viewpoint is biased since you do agree after considering all the facts?.

And I disagree with that notion. A viewpoint isn't biased solely because you agree or disagree with the facts presented. Which - if you read through the thread - you'll see I conceded once it was pointed out that I missed an element of the story (being that it was a settlement not a verdict).

Here's perhaps a twisted example of what I mean. If it is fact that movies cost $15 - that doesn't mean that my opinion that $15 for a movie is too expensive isn't biased. It's my opinion based on the facts.

I think you might mean that I am being prejudicial or that I enter into the situation with a prejudice of Apple - fair or unfair and that is "tainting" my opinion. That's somewhat fair to assume. But in at least this case - that's not accurate. I had no bias either way. And truthfully - has little to no impact on me whatsoever either way.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 03:57 PM
Where did you see the words "judgment for the plaintiff"? I'm trying to be polite here, but you just have no clue about how these settlements work.

Oh for Pete's sake. Read the thread and how this conversation evolved. I was responding to a specific comment in context which you are now taking out of context, reposting and responding to.

There was no verdict here - it was a settlement. I was responding to an earlier post/comment.

wikus
Jun 14, 2011, 03:57 PM
Nokia might fetch $39 billion, judging by comparable companies. The company's current market value is $24.6 billion, after tumbling 78 percent since Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007.

Article here (http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-06-05/business/29622224_1_bloomberg-briefing-casual-games-nokia)


Apple could probably buy them out tomorrow. On the other hand, keeping Nokia under their heel gives them the semblance of competition. The last thing Apple wants is to be accused of having a Monopoly. :)

What makes you think Apple or anyone else is entitled to buying Nokia?

archipellago
Jun 14, 2011, 03:58 PM
I don't get all these 'Oh Apple lost, shame on them for trying to copy other peoples patents' comments. That was never the point of this case.

Apple knew they had to pay royalties and were more than prepared to do so. The issue was Nokia wanted to charge Apple more than they charge other manufacturers for the same patents. Quite rightfully Apple challenged this.

Whilst it looks on paper that Apple lost because they paid out, what's to say Nokia didn't back down and lower their demands therefore Apple happily paid the money they knew they owed and were prepared to pay?

No Apple denied that any of the patents were essential to the iPhone.

Only Apple stated that FRAND terms weren't offered.

Apple wanted to join the GSM patent pool WITHOUT cross licensing any of its' patents.

Now they are paying AND cross licensing!

Need a map?

farmboy
Jun 14, 2011, 04:00 PM
Apple don't have that kind of cash on tap, to spend it they'd have to pay tax on it...

not happening!

What are you talking about?

archipellago
Jun 14, 2011, 04:01 PM
There's no way to get around using Nokia's IP. And there's no way Nokia can refuse to license it.

To expand on your question, there's no actual "winning here" unless Apple disputed the validity of Nokia's GSM et al patents to begin with, which would have been pointless.

Nokia *must* license these particular patents to everyone because they are a necessity. In turn, there is no way that any potential licensee can get out of licensing them. So the relationship Nokia has with those that produce wireless phones is more or less inevitable. At some point you're going to be a licensee and Nokia will be the licensor.

Apple was not disputing Nokia's patents in question. There's really no disputing them by anyone. The complaint that Apple had was that Nokia was charging Apple "x" while charging everyone else "y." FRAND terms exist for patents like these to ensure a level of equal and unfettered access. So, the patent holder can't use their position as a holder of GSM patents to extort money from others. There is a requirement for equal and fair treatment in terms of access and licensing costs.

Apple essentially said "we know we have to pay you, but what's up with charging us so much more?? We have a problem with that. So we'll hold off on paying you because we think what you're doing to us is unjust under FRAND requirements. We'll figure this out in court."

The only way to "win" in this case would mean that Nokia would receive what they asked for originally, namely the amount (however much it was) that Apple alleged was exorbitant and outside FRAND terms. If, however, Apple ended up paying Nokia the same amount everyone else was paying them, or otherwise a fair deal under FRAND, then it's not really a win for Nokia. What it is, and could reasonably be inferred, is a much-needed payout for Nokia. We don't know the amounts. We don't know whether Apple got the deal they were looking for or if they got a different deal that they considered equitable under FRAND. What happened is they settled. Given that this ended earlier than anyone expected, one of the parties decided it was best to either come up with a better deal, or to simply pay what the other asked for.

Now, the fact that this case settled way early is interesting. These tend to go on for years. We don't know the scheduling and dates for this case (or do we?) But if there was an expectation by parties involved that the case would have gone on for far longer than it did, that there would be further opportunities for ongoing arguments, all the while with Apple still holding out on payment, then it wold likely not have been Apple who decided to end it early, since there was no actual requirement to do so.

Would it have been in Nokia's best interest to get this money (or get anything at all) asap? Yes. Given their dismal situation, they need it.

Whether Apple needed to settle *now* as opposed to later (they waited *this* long, after all), is pretty hazy.

Unfortunately, there are still some facts that we don't have. However, "winning" and "losing" don't really apply here unless we know who paid what, measured against original payment terms. If your terms were originally $500 and I end up paying you $350 then you didn't really win. Especially if we both knew that you were required to give me the product and I was required to pay for it anyway at some point.


exactly what Apple originally did!

Slurpy2k8
Jun 14, 2011, 04:04 PM
well done Nokia...deserved.

Good luck with WP7 though ... you'll need it!

Really now? How the hell is it deserved? You seriously believe Nokia deserves $ from every future iPhone sold?

You know how all of you were bitching about the (utterly insignificant) money Apple spent replacing their store tags with iPads? Or currently bitching about the potential cost of Apple's new campus? Yeah, this payout and these royalties will constitute more than that, and will not benefit Apple in the least, but instead help out their competition. It seems you guys bitch and moan when Apple actual spends money to improve itself, and are overjoyed when they piss it away on **** like this.

Tiger8
Jun 14, 2011, 04:06 PM
And you're right on that point. They settled. Which doesn't equate to a win. Unlike some posters - I can admit when I'm mistaken. That being said - it's a significant settlement for Nokia on monies they either wouldn't have seen (for a long time) or of lesser value.
That I totally agree with you on. And to be honest, they do deserve it. People can hate on Nokia all they want, I am not a huge fan of them myself, but coming from a Computer Engineering background, I can tell you the whole cellphone industry owes Nokia a lot. They were definitely the pioneers.

archipellago
Jun 14, 2011, 04:08 PM
What are you talking about?

Apple, like other tech companies, moves it's cash from sales through foreign countries to avoid the 35% corporate tax paid in the US.

http://www.safehaven.com/article/18775/tax-avoidance-by-google-and-apple-corporate-cash-job-creation-during-schumpeterian-depressions

the money is still sat in overseas accounts...avoiding tax so that if Apple wanted to spend it they'd have to bring it in house and then pay in excess of $15bn tax on it.

like I said...not happening..

archipellago
Jun 14, 2011, 04:09 PM
Really now? How the hell is it deserved? You seriously believe Nokia deserves $ from every future iPhone sold?

You know how all of you were bitching about the (utterly insignificant) money Apple spent replacing their store tags with iPads? Or currently bitching about the potential cost of Apple's new campus? Yeah, this payout and these royalties will constitute more than that, and will not benefit Apple in the least, but instead help out their competition. It seems you guys bitch and moan when Apple actual spends money to improve itself, and are overjoyed when they piss it away on **** like this.


the alternative is that Apple don't license the tech and pay the fees and have no GSM device.

Is that better?

No license, no iPhone.

paul4339
Jun 14, 2011, 04:10 PM
Nokia is a hell of a lot more than a, "dumphone" maker or a patent-troll.

You're talking about one of the oldest surviving telecommunications companies in the world. ...

They are a great company with great tech, but they are also in the position they are today because of other companies who developed great tech.


Kodak was a great company at one time too.

Ramon Llamas: Nokia is very fast at turning things around.

If they were so fast, they would have adapted by now. They tried to make their 'great tech', Symbian, work but was not successful and realized that they have to join Microsoft or Google (like Motorola) (or both like HTC).

If they don't turn things around soon, the only company they'll be joining is Kodak ... living off of royalties.

archipellago
Jun 14, 2011, 04:14 PM
Kodak was a great company at one time too.



If they were so fast, they would have adapted by now. They tried to make their 'great tech', Symbian, work but was not successful and realized that they have to join Microsoft or Google (like Motorola) (or both like HTC).

If they don't turn things around soon, the only company they'll be joining is Kodak ... living off of royalties.


I don't think Nokia did too much wrong, they still make the best hardware (by miles) and thye just got beat by 2 of the biggest and the best.

Who'd have predicted the current scenario back in 07?

Amazing job by both Apple and Google.

OllyW
Jun 14, 2011, 04:14 PM
Olly... I based that statement on this article that states that Android would be next. So it must me something in the OS and not in the hardware that is in violation.

http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/06/apple-and-nokia-settle-patent-dispute.html

If it was a hardware thing, Apple does not make the 3G chip and it would have carried the license if it did.

Cool, I get you now.

It's now on the front page...

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1170327

gnasher729
Jun 14, 2011, 04:20 PM
Really now? How the hell is it deserved? You seriously believe Nokia deserves $ from every future iPhone sold?

Yes, because Nokia (and several other companies) spent billions of dollars to develop the technology that the iPhone uses to make phone calls, and to send or receive data over 3G. Without this technology, the iPhone would just be an iPod Touch. Apple itself always said that Nokia deserves license payments - they only disagreed strongly with Nokia about the amount.

Now remember that the "Estimated $608 million" is just a WAG that an analyst pulled out of his arse; that number is exactly one percent of a rough estimate of the total revenue that Apple made from iPhones so far. We can safely assume that Apple and Nokia have been haggling about hundredths of percents here, so an agreement of _exactly_ one percent is unlikely. Second, percentage of end user price doesn't make sense. An iPhone 3 with 8 GB memory uses these patents just as much as an iPhone 4 with 64 GB even though the sales price is totally different. Nokia wouldn't want to get less for the cheaper phone, and Apple wouldn't want to pay more for the more expensive phone. So the agreement is probably a mixture of some fixed cost per phone plus some percentage of sales price. And finally, that enormous number of $608 million is one percent of revenue. In other words, $60,800 million revenue.

Lennholm
Jun 14, 2011, 04:21 PM
And NOKIA changed it's business from phoneindustry giant to patent trolling >.<

You must be one of those people who screams "patent trolling" as soon as some company other than Apple does this. When Apple does it, it's just a matter of protecting their properties, right?

paul4339
Jun 14, 2011, 04:24 PM
I don't think Nokia did too much wrong, they still make the best hardware (by miles) and thye just got beat by 2 of the biggest and the best.

Who'd have predicted the current scenario back in 07?

Amazing job by both Apple and Google.

I think i see where you are coming from... it is easy to see things in hindsight.

But consider this perspective:
As recent as 2009/10 Nokia, could still have licensed Android (or Windows). HTC sells both platforms and has increased under $10B to over $33B in the last 2 years (surpassing Nokia, RIM). And Nokia has deep in-roads into distribution that it could leverage; in otherwords, there's no shame in selling other platforms while you sort out your strategy (or maybe better put, making money and gaining market share is better than having your stock price dive from $40 down to $6)

edit: even spending $1.2B for Palm may have worked out better.

JAT
Jun 14, 2011, 04:30 PM
Then by your definition, your viewpoint is biased since you do agree after considering all the facts?.
I'm reasonably sure I have never claimed to be unbiased (about Apple) in any post on this forum.

I would say there is no argument where one side is 100% in the right. Arguing itself belies that.

arcite
Jun 14, 2011, 04:32 PM
What makes you think Apple or anyone else is entitled to buying Nokia?

In no way do I think Apple would, but they could probably do it if they really wanted to.

celo48
Jun 14, 2011, 04:33 PM
Nokia had to cover their loss somehow. I hope they use their money wisely and try to be competitive against Apple in the smartphone market.

JorickF
Jun 14, 2011, 04:37 PM
Is this just me, or does it just sound not right that crucial things like that should even be patented. I don't know, that whole system seems to be just wrong.
I understand that unique add-on utilities, services and designs can and should be patented.. But for making a mobile phone work? Come on, this is 2011.

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 14, 2011, 04:38 PM
Is this just me, or does it just sound not right that crucial things like that should even be patented. I don't know, that whole system seems to be just wrong.
I understand that unique add-on utilities, services and designs can and should be patented.. But for making a mobile phone work? Come on, this is 2011.

Back when Nokia invested billions of dollars in GSM nobody knew what it would become. Nokia is now banking in on the R&D they performed, as they should or any company that invests in creating technology.

cliveren13
Jun 14, 2011, 04:43 PM
Like i said if it wasnt for Nokia there wouldnt be forums like this to bash nokia about there wouldnt be an iphone so yes apple stole from nokia but complains about everyone else takin from them maybe now the iphone can actually give us features that we need and want.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 04:47 PM
Is this just me, or does it just sound not right that crucial things like that should even be patented. I don't know, that whole system seems to be just wrong.
I understand that unique add-on utilities, services and designs can and should be patented.. But for making a mobile phone work? Come on, this is 2011.

First - yes - things like this warrant patents (far more than other things). Other technologies could have been created - and were. It happens that Nokia was fundamental in bringing what many of the world consider "best of breed" - meaning GSM. That, of course, could be debated. Point is - that the patent is valid and I believe firmly justified.

kiljoy616
Jun 14, 2011, 05:00 PM
I guess we will be paying more in the future:(

Oletros
Jun 14, 2011, 05:10 PM
Which completely defeats the purpose for FRAND

And why defeats anything?

Tarzanman
Jun 14, 2011, 05:22 PM
I am dumber for having waded through this thread.

Even if Nokia's phone business is on the rocks, their mobile network business is going strong.

As many of you apparently don't know, the big refrigerator-sized computers that carriers use to run cell phone networks? Nokia is one of a couple of companies that make those.

There is a reason that they have been (up until very recently) the predominant presence in mobile phones. Motorola is another company that makes everything from dumbphones to network controllers and gateways.

While profitable, apple's entire business has been consumer electronic good except for a few forays here and there.

firewood
Jun 14, 2011, 05:32 PM
Apple don't have that kind of cash on tap, to spend it they'd have to pay tax on it...

They can spend it without moving it to the U.S. where it becomes taxable.

Some foreign subsidiary could buy Nokia stock for them, and just leave Nokia in Finland (which is outside the U.S.)

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 05:34 PM
Even if Nokia's phone business is on the rocks, their mobile network business is going strong.

Ok. Can I put one of those in my pocket?

Regardless of their behind-the-scenes, back-end presence, we're talking about their continued viability as a maker of consumer electronics. Losing (in the process of) that market was and is a huge blow. I'm sure at their shareholders meeting they're saying "hey, look at the bright side, we're still good in mobile networks!"

Might not go off too well.

Tarzanman
Jun 14, 2011, 05:38 PM
Ok. Can I put one of those in my pocket?

Regardless of their behind-the-scenes, back-end presence, we're talking about their continued viability as a maker of consumer electronics. Losing (in the process of) that market was and is a huge blow. I'm sure at their shareholders meeting they're saying "hey, look at the bright side, we're still good in mobile networks!"

Might not go off too well.

Suffice it to say, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Skimming engadget and gizmodo doesn't make you informed. Some of us have worked in the industry and actually have a clue.

Big people are talking. Listen up and you might learn something, junior.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 05:40 PM
Ok. Can I put one of those in my pocket?

Regardless of their behind-the-scenes, back-end presence, we're talking about their continued viability as a maker of consumer electronics. Losing (in the process of) that market was and is a huge blow. I'm sure at their shareholders meeting they're saying "hey, look at the bright side, we're still good in mobile networks!"

Might not go off too well.

Oh.. So since LTD can't put these back end systems in his pocket - Nokia is sunk. Great logic. You're back peddling. At least when I screwed up for not paying attention to the facts/new story I manned up. Isn't about time you did the same?

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 05:53 PM
Suffice it to say, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Skimming engadget and gizmodo doesn't make you informed. Some of us have worked in the industry and actually have a clue.

Big people are talking. Listen up and you might learn something, junior.

What happens to their consumer business? That's the point. Putting technology in consumers' hands and pockets. That's what's at stake here. its not for nothing they're in the position they're in now. I'm quite sure the last thing they would have ever considered 2-3 years ago was the near collapse of their smartphone business, their share value plunging from $40 to 6$, their loss of face in the market, and having to partner with MS in order to save their phone business.

But apart from all that they're doing superbly! Forget that even their CTO walked out on them. Forget that their outlook for next quarter is absolutely dismal. Forget that Nokia fired Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo because he was running the company into the ground.

Look at Nokia pre-iPhone. Now look at them post-iPhone. Notice any differences? It's those differences that are under discussion.

Are those "big refrigerator-sized computers that carriers use to run cell phone networks" going to put them back to $40/share? Are those going to make them competitive with Google and Apple? Are those going to put an amazing OS on great hardware into consumers' hands? Are those going to fix their consumer business? Are those going to change their lousy forecast for next quarter? Are those going to eliminate their reliance on Microsoft?

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 06:09 PM
What happens to their consumer business? That's the point. Putting technology in consumers' hands and pockets. That's what's at stake here. its not for nothing they're in the position they're in now. I'm quite sure the last thing they would have ever considered 2-3 years ago was the near collapse of their smartphone business, their share value plunging from $40 to 6$, their loss of face in the market, and having to partner with MS in order to save their phone business.

But apart from all that they're doing superbly! Forget that even their CTO walked out on them. Forget that their outlook for next quarter is absolutely dismal.

Look at Nokia pre-iPhone. Now look at them post-iPhone. It's those differences that are under discussion.

Well to be fair, LTD - Nokia and Apple's stock price was pretty in sync (i.e running in parallel and based on the market) up until August on '09. Apple did, indeed shoot ahead and leave Nokia to greater stock decline but there are several factors besides the iPhone (alone) which contributed to Apple's stock climb.

Like I said - in the interest of fairness - since you like to talk about the big picture....

AppleScruff1
Jun 14, 2011, 06:19 PM
Why did Apple pay Nokia since Nokia copied them?

MattInOz
Jun 14, 2011, 06:19 PM
Apple actually ripped off LockInfo:

http://iphone.ashman.com/products/lockinfo/


but it copied google, rim, MS everywhere else...

You do realise that most Apps in JB arena are still using Apple's API's?
Ok mostly private ones that Apple haven't gotten around to completing to the point of making them public API's so they can then market that as Function. The burden of reliability on Apple Products is much higher than JB Hacks so they will always be faster to users.

I'm sure the developers of this went hunting the Private API's and Played the what do we think Apple will do with this game.

j-traxx
Jun 14, 2011, 06:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

.
What a failure of management at Apple. They should have had their bases covered when they were designing the iPhone. Instead they took shortcuts and got called out on it. :rolleyes:

You are exceedingly ignorant to think that apple wasn't prepared to pay a fair price for patents they hadn't been able to license at a fair price. They most certainly have not been caught with their pants Down over this. It's like taxes. They know they have to pay when it comes around so they didn't spend it. These are the smartest people in the world of business. Nothing is an accident for them. Ever.

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 06:22 PM
Why did Apple pay Nokia since Nokia copied them?

GSM licensing, etc. There's no way around it.

iMaci7
Jun 14, 2011, 06:38 PM
The only way Nokia can make any money is if Apple gives them cash from iPhone sales.;)

JForestZ34
Jun 14, 2011, 07:12 PM
If only they put as much attention into their products as they do with pursuing patent royalties.


Yeah and if it was reverse you can't tell me apple wouldn't go after them either.. What apple fanboys seem to miss is nokia has been making phone a lot longer than apple.


But like I said, if the whole thing was reversed people would be saying good for apple and I'm glad all these other companies have to pay.


James

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 07:35 PM
What apple fanboys seem to miss is nokia has been making phone a lot longer than apple.

After June 2007 I really couldn't tell.

I didn't miss it. It just didn't show.

And here we are today.

lilo777
Jun 14, 2011, 07:39 PM
After June 2007 I really couldn't tell.

I didn't miss it. It just didn't show.

And here we are today.

Thanks for sharing your emotions.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 07:43 PM
After June 2007 I really couldn't tell.

I didn't miss it. It just didn't show.

And here we are today.

While iPhone is the top selling in this feature, you'll note that 3 of the other in the top 10 are by Nokia

http://www.dnewsglobal.com/10-selling-mobile-phones-february-2011/3230.html

And in 2010 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_mobile_phones

Not saying that list is definitive - Nokia faired well for units sold.

Does that make them the most profitable? No. But you can't deny their presence no matter how hard you try, LTD.

JForestZ34
Jun 14, 2011, 08:05 PM
Honestly it's only right that nokia is defending their patents.. Any other company would and I'm willing to bet ANYTHING apple would be the first to do so also..


James

AidenShaw
Jun 14, 2011, 08:19 PM
Originally Posted by samcraig
Yes - one of the parties DID need the deal. Apple. You'd like to think people (like me, perhaps) don't get it - or you. The problem is - we do. We don't agree and we're looking at this situation from a holistic point of view - not one of a 100 percent faith believer in Apple.

You will never be seen on these boards as someone with perspective. Because you have none. Even when/if you post with some clarity in thought - the problem is, you're know to have this incredible unwavering bias.

I think removal of posts that diplay THIS kind of bias should either be removed completely or users be given time outs as its borderline trolling.

That would be censorship of any comment that doesn't salute the turtle-necked overlord.

samcraig made a reasonable, constructive criticism of another member's posts, without name-calling or other rule-breaking comments. Nothing for the moderators to complain about, IMO.

Red Oak
Jun 14, 2011, 08:22 PM
Can Nokia 'Turn Things Around'?. No ****ing way. This company is heading for the trash heap. I give them three to five years, when the wheels come off with their effort with Microsoft. I hope Apple can then buy the patents at a steep steep discount.

I interviewed for a senior BD position with them, in their NY office. It quickly became apparent the senior team was incompetent and had never ever launched ANY meaningful consumer services. They were truly over their heads. It was a joke

At the end of the day, when Apple is printing $10B in cash a quarter, this will be a rounding error.

I'm doubling down on my bet on Apple and against Nokia. And for that matter, against Samsung.

AidenShaw
Jun 14, 2011, 08:25 PM
If Nokia won this suit, then why aren't other companies forced to pay apple for their technology? Their multitouch?

Multi-touch was invented in the early 80's, years before Apple even made a MAC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitouch#History

NoNothing
Jun 14, 2011, 08:50 PM
.
What a failure of management at Apple. They should have had their bases covered when they were designing the iPhone. Instead they took shortcuts and got called out on it. :rolleyes:

WOW! That was the first really bad comment by someone that was totally clueless. If they got by with $6/phone and NO open access to Apple's IP, this is a major win for Apple.

NoNothing
Jun 14, 2011, 08:54 PM
So we can expect $20 increases per phone from now on then.

Apple has always stated the cost of these settlements were already considered into the costs and profits of Apple financials. Basically, Apple always knew they were going to pay Nokia some amount, the question was how much. Nokia had wanted some value above FRAND <b>plus</b> full access to Apple's IP portfolio. Apple did not want to give that.

This was <i>never</i> about Apple not wanting to pay Nokia. The question was always <b>how much</b> too pay.

NoNothing
Jun 14, 2011, 08:59 PM
Multi-touch was invented in the early 80's, years before Apple even made a MAC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitouch#History

What is your point?

AidenShaw
Jun 14, 2011, 09:10 PM
What is your point?

Nokia didn't patent RF, they patented a number of key technologies in cellular communications.

Apple couldn't have patented multi-touch. "Pinch" was described in 1991.

joemama asked "If Nokia won this suit, then why aren't other companies forced to pay apple for their technology? Their multitouch?"

My point is that joemama's question is absurd - Apple has not patented multi-touch.

MaSx
Jun 14, 2011, 09:17 PM
And NOKIA changed it's business from phoneindustry giant to patent trolling >.<

And you think other company is any different from them? Everyone does it, even "Apple" --> Samsung. That's how the game is played.

Vegastouch
Jun 14, 2011, 09:37 PM
4 years? I have a Nokia e71, released 3 years ago. It does not suck ass.

Is there a reason why you seem so obsessed with praising apple? Perhaps youre a shareholder?

Agree, Nokia makes a good phone...that just works :D

AppleScruff1
Jun 14, 2011, 09:42 PM
Can Nokia 'Turn Things Around'?. No ****ing way. This company is heading for the trash heap. I give them three to five years, when the wheels come off with their effort with Microsoft. I hope Apple can then buy the patents at a steep steep discount.

I interviewed for a senior BD position with them, in their NY office. It quickly became apparent the senior team was incompetent and had never ever launched ANY meaningful consumer services. They were truly over their heads. It was a joke

At the end of the day, when Apple is printing $10B in cash a quarter, this will be a rounding error.

I'm doubling down on my bet on Apple and against Nokia. And for that matter, against Samsung.

Didn't get the job, huh?

belletour
Jun 14, 2011, 09:53 PM
i just came across this news and really felt surprised...
"Apple to pay Nokia in patent settlement" !!!!!!!!
but it is said the numbers that nokia has applied for and been granted is more than 100,000. so it is inevitable for other manufacturer to avoid such broad patent arrays, Apple is no exception.

JAT
Jun 14, 2011, 11:00 PM
What is your point?

Anything he can find to discredit Apple and inflate his own ego about tech trivia.

AidenShaw
Jun 14, 2011, 11:38 PM
Anything he can find to discredit Apple and inflate his own ego about tech trivia.

If you consider that pointing out facts to be an ego thing, Gord have mercy.

And why is countering joemama's false statement a "discredit" to Apple?

If joemama says "Apple did X", and one proves that "Apple didn't do X" - that discredits joemama, not Apple.

Oletros
Jun 15, 2011, 12:45 AM
Nokia had wanted some value above FRAND <b>plus</b> full access to Apple's IP portfolio.

Really? Any proof?

miografico
Jun 15, 2011, 01:24 AM
Can Nokia 'Turn Things Around'?. No ****ing way. This company is heading for the trash heap. I give them three to five years, when the wheels come off with their effort with Microsoft. I hope Apple can then buy the patents at a steep steep discount.

I interviewed for a senior BD position with them, in their NY office. It quickly became apparent the senior team was incompetent and had never ever launched ANY meaningful consumer services. They were truly over their heads. It was a joke

At the end of the day, when Apple is printing $10B in cash a quarter, this will be a rounding error.

I'm doubling down on my bet on Apple and against Nokia. And for that matter, against Samsung.

Wow so you're going to increase your share count in Apple to 2 whole shares? Ballsy move!

caspersoong
Jun 15, 2011, 03:28 AM
Hopefully this agreement won't jack up the prices again. The people here still view Apple products as luxury products, sadly.

pmz
Jun 15, 2011, 08:45 AM
LOL. Run for congress - you're great at sidestepping.

Now Nokia is not only negligent (in your opinion) but WILLFUL? Too funny. You also start my saying IF Apple owed money - and then you stated that Apple did owe Nokia money - the question was how much. Do you see how you shape your posts to serve your purpose/twist it anyway you can to keep Apple ahead in the arrangement?

Here's the fact. Nokia owned patents. Apple used them. Apple was sued and lost and now has to make restitution. There's no patent trolling going on. There's a legitimate patent holder who enforced their rights via the legal system.

BELIEVE me - if this were Apple's patents and Nokia was sued and lost - you'd be shouting how great it is that someone who dared opposed Apple got shot down. Of that I am certain.

So what? I'm not sure why you feel like YOU personally have won something because Apple is paying Nokia.

Personally, I hope Apple did use Nokia patents, and I wish they hadn't lost the suit.

I do not care if Nokia owned patents that Apple used. Apple is better than Nokia. Apple does better things with those patents than Nokia ever dreamed of and tacked up on the "goals" board.

I don't pretend to hide behind the right thing to do. Apple did what was best for Apple, which was make the best product, even if it meant using someone else's patents. They had the day in court to negotiate the fees to a reasonable amount, lost apparently, and are now paying through the nose.

Fortunately, it took so long to materialize that Apple's iPhone is a runaway profit-machine, and can cover the fees back to Nokia without a blink.

That is Awesome. Who cares if it wasn't perfectly neighborly.

Tarzanman
Jun 15, 2011, 08:46 AM
Hopefully this agreement won't jack up the prices again. The people here still view Apple products as luxury products, sadly.

They *are* luxury products, IMO.

pmz
Jun 15, 2011, 08:47 AM
Multi-touch was invented in the early 80's, years before Apple even made a MAC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multitouch#History

Nope, multitouch was invented long before that. Do you have a link to the beginning of fingers?

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 15, 2011, 09:08 AM
Anything he can find to discredit Apple and inflate his own ego about tech trivia.

Really? Come on the dude was just giving facts. I know its hard to image that Apple didn't invent things like the Sun, breathing, and light but lets face it; Apple is a great company that has taken the best things in the tech world and made them pretty, easy, and fun to use.

Sjhonny
Jun 15, 2011, 02:00 PM
You obviously don't understand what patent trolling is. :rolleyes:

Well ... it was kinda meant as a joke ...

KnightWRX
Jun 15, 2011, 02:55 PM
They *are* luxury products, IMO.

What's luxurious about Apple products ? They're your standard fare higher-end products, but they aren't luxurious (especially if we're talking about the iPhone).

Sjhonny
Jun 15, 2011, 03:01 PM
What's luxurious about Apple products ? They're your standard fare higher-end products, but they aren't luxurious (especially if we're talking about the iPhone).

I tend to agree. The Mac is kinda the BMW/Mercedes of the PC industry. It's a luxurious brand, enjoying extremely healthy profit margins on there products. And if there's one of there products on which they harvest extremely high profits ... It's most likely the iPhone :)

KnightWRX
Jun 15, 2011, 03:06 PM
I tend to agree. The Mac is kinda the BMW/Mercedes of the PC industry. It's a luxurious brand, enjoying extremely healthy profit margins on there products. And if there's one of there products on which they harvest extremely high profits ... It's most likely the iPhone :)

You agree yet contradict me ? :confused:

The Mac is a Honda or Toyota, plain and simple. There isn't a BMW of the computer industry.

And the iPhone, profit or no, is the same bland Honda/Toyota fare.

AidenShaw
Jun 15, 2011, 03:18 PM
I tend to agree. The Mac is kinda the BMW/Mercedes of the PC industry. It's a luxurious brand, enjoying extremely healthy profit margins on there products. And if there's one of there products on which they harvest extremely high profits ... It's most likely the iPhone :)

No, it's the Lexus. An over-priced Toyota.

AppleScruff1
Jun 15, 2011, 07:03 PM
No, it's the Lexus. An over-priced Toyota.

The performance of a Toyota at the price of a Mercedes.

AidenShaw
Jun 15, 2011, 07:50 PM
The performance of a Toyota at the price of a Mercedes.

;)

Thank you - but the Lexus usually has a few odd extras - like the light-up "Lexus" logos on the running boards.

Gee, that's a lot like the light-up fruit logos on some over-priced laptops.

If the "added value" is lighted logos, you should think about value.
__________________

ps: My mother-in-law (yes, I'm a gay man with a legally recognized mother-in-law) has two Avalons - one at the house on Cape Cod and one at the winter home in Florida. She's occasionally mentioned that her Toyotas have "Lexus engines".

I've never tried to point out that all Lexus cars have Toyota engines - so of course her Toyota has a Lexus engine. Just smile and be a good son-in-law. :D

AppleScruff1
Jun 15, 2011, 11:14 PM
;)

Thank you - but the Lexus usually has a few odd extras - like the light-up "Lexus" logos on the running boards.

Gee, that's a lot like the light-up fruit logos on some over-priced laptops.

If the "added value" is lighted logos, you should think about value.
__________________

ps: My mother-in-law (yes, I'm a gay man with a legally recognized mother-in-law) has two Avalons - one at the house on Cape Cod and one at the winter home in Florida. She's occasionally mentioned that her Toyotas have "Lexus engines".

I've never tried to point out that all Lexus cars have Toyota engines - so of course her Toyota has a Lexus engine. Just smile and be a good son-in-law. :D

But it's a great customer service experience. When you go in for your 129.99 oil change, you get free soda and Perrier in the customer lounge.

AidenShaw
Jun 15, 2011, 11:27 PM
But it's a great customer service experience. When you go in for your 129.99 oil change, you get free soda and Perrier in the customer lounge.

Perrier is much cheaper at Costco.


;)

JAT
Jun 15, 2011, 11:33 PM
The Mac is a Honda or Toyota, plain and simple. There isn't a BMW of the computer industry.

Sure there is. Sony. Just as expensive as Apple, yet prone to problems (runs Windows).

jinxednuance
Jun 16, 2011, 02:34 AM
I am happy for Nokia.

Hope Apple learns it cannot just get away with things just like that.

KnightWRX
Jun 16, 2011, 04:11 AM
Sure there is. Sony. Just as expensive as Apple, yet prone to problems (runs Windows).

Running Windows doesn't make you more prone to problems than running OS X, Linux or any other OS.

(Not to mention Apple rips off Sony for ideas... chiclet keyboard anyone ?)

MorphingDragon
Jun 16, 2011, 07:04 AM
Running Windows doesn't make you more prone to problems than running OS X, Linux or any other OS.

You're a enterprise grade admin yet you can say that with a straight face. I'm impressed.

(Not to mention Apple rips off Sony for ideas... chiclet keyboard anyone ?)

Weren't Sinclair the first to use Chiclet Keys? Or are you just talking about the style of chiclet keys? If its the former every company and their dog has used chiclet keyboards. Apple is hardly copying when when its just about a standard from the 80s.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Timex_sinclair_2068_%282%29.jpg/800px-Timex_sinclair_2068_%282%29.jpg

KnightWRX
Jun 16, 2011, 07:05 AM
You're a enterprise grade admin yet you can say that with a straight face. I'm impressed.

After you've had so much obscure problems with Linux, HP-UX and Solaris (not to mention various bugs in multi-thousand dollar packages from Sun, HP, Veritas and other vendors), you tend to not sweat the Windows stuff anymore.

MorphingDragon
Jun 16, 2011, 07:16 AM
After you've had so much obscure problems with Linux, HP-UX and Solaris (not to mention various bugs in multi-thousand dollar packages from Sun, HP, Veritas and other vendors), you tend to not sweat the Windows stuff anymore.

Those aren't problems, they're a source of income. ;)

---

I find its usually the software running on top of the OS that's the source of technical pain, very few times have I had issues with OSes themselves. My most common sources of OS pain though are things like SELinux or NT Policies.

alent1234
Jun 16, 2011, 07:25 AM
After you've had so much obscure problems with Linux, HP-UX and Solaris (not to mention various bugs in multi-thousand dollar packages from Sun, HP, Veritas and other vendors), you tend to not sweat the Windows stuff anymore.

veritas bugs? never

my favorite linux experience was trying to get an HP tape library working on RHEL. after two weeks i gave up and within 3 hours of starting the windows install i was running backups. with linux i was chasing exact patch versions to make the drivers work and then some veritas tools wouldnt work on linux.

steadysignal
Jun 16, 2011, 07:43 AM
maybe these royalty payments are part of the reason apple is only offering a $100 gift card subsidy on the BTS promotion (and not the usual ipod touch)?

Centient
Jun 16, 2011, 09:27 AM
maybe these royalty payments are part of the reason apple is only offering a $100 gift card subsidy on the BTS promotion (and not the usual ipod touch)?

Probably unrelated. I think the GC has more to do with Apple's enormous push to get everything 'Appified'. They want you investing as much money as they can get you to into the iOS ecosystem via app purchases. Apple wants to keep you as a customer for life, and if you are heavily invested in the platform you're less likely to jump ship later.

This is a better deal for some folks who don't need or wouldn't bother to sell the Touch. Though I'm the type who was more likely to flip the Touch for some dough myself.

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 16, 2011, 12:20 PM
Those aren't problems, they're a source of income. ;)

---

I find its usually the software running on top of the OS that's the source of technical pain, very few times have I had issues with OSes themselves. My most common sources of OS pain though are things like SELinux or NT Policies.

This is true. However, we have more OSX issues because of the lack of built in management features. JAMF Casper has helped us a lot (no we can finally ditch OSX Server, what a joke.)

Sjhonny
Jun 16, 2011, 01:47 PM
Maybe the diamond, and other luxury stones, is a more adequate comparison (it's an extreme of what I'm trying to say about Apple). People spend up to millions, for something that has nearly no real life value (I know, drilling and sawing, but those are synthetic and aren't worth nearly as much)) It's purely "symbolic", YOU CAN'T DO **** WHIT IT - but stil you gladly pay 5-10 grand on one example. Why? Symbolics? In my opinion, this is because of marketing.

The worth of objects isn't defined by it's usability (or it's performance in comparison to other machines) but by how much someone is willing to pay for it.

Surely performance charts, reviews can help you in forming an opinion about the value of a product - and that's why I conclude Apple is a luxurious brand. It costs more while not offering much more. Sublime designs, great OS, but there's no company in the industry that has any higher profit margins.

JAT
Jun 17, 2011, 06:46 AM
Running Windows doesn't make you more prone to problems than running OS X, Linux or any other OS.

You must have been using some other "Windows" the last 20 years.

veritas bugs? never

my favorite linux experience was trying to get an HP tape library working on RHEL. after two weeks i gave up and within 3 hours of starting the windows install i was running backups. with linux i was chasing exact patch versions to make the drivers work and then some veritas tools wouldnt work on linux.
You do understand that what you just said is not about the OS, but about 3rd party drivers/equipment?

Windows can't even switch between apps properly. That is an OS issue.

CQd44
Jun 17, 2011, 07:28 AM
You must have been using some other "Windows" the last 20 years.


You do understand that what you just said is not about the OS, but about 3rd party drivers/equipment?

Windows can't even switch between apps properly. That is an OS issue.

Can't switch... what?

You mean alt-tab or windows-tab? Or just clicking from one window to another...?