PDA

View Full Version : Apple's Nokia Deal Could Cost Android Manufacturers Too




MacRumors
Jun 14, 2011, 03:26 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/14/apples-nokia-deal-could-cost-android-manufacturers-too/)


Apple's patent licensing deal (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/14/apples-royalty-payments-to-nokia-estimated/) with Nokia may have some additional consequences beyond the immediate effects of the settlement. By agreeing to a long-term licensing agreement with Nokia, Apple gets a lengthly, defensive legal fight out of the way. This allows Apple to focus all its legal energies on major battles with Samsung (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/18/apple-targets-samsung-with-new-lawsuit-over-galaxy-line/), HTC (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/03/02/apple-files-lawsuit-against-htc-over-alleged-iphone-patent-infringement/) and Motorola (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/06/motorola-files-suit-against-apple-for-patent-infringement/).

Speaking with the NYTimes, Apple indicates that the settlement (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/technology/15nokia.html) is actually a cross-licensing one:
Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each other’s patents, but not the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique. We are glad to put this behind us and get back to focusing on our respective businesses.There a larger, much more strategic victory here as well. By agreeing to pay royalties for Nokia's patents, Apple has set a market price -- and given Nokia's patents serious legitimacy. Apple wouldn't pay anything if they didn't have to, and other companies may not want to fight over turf Apple has already acquiesced to Nokia.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2011/06/jobs.jpg


Other companies, notably Android handset manufacturers, may now have to play ball with Nokia on these patents -- and they don't necessarily have the margins to send 1% of gross revenues to Nokia as easily as Apple can. In fact, because Apple has so many of its own patents (some of which it cross-licensed to Nokia) other manufacturers may have to pay even more for the same licenses.

Florian Mueller has suggested (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/06/apple-and-nokia-settle-patent-dispute.html) just that at FOSS Patents:
Given that Android is in many ways a rip-off of Apple's operating software, Android-based devices are highly likely to infringe on largely the same Nokia patents that Apple now felt forced to pay for.
[...]
This is a sweet defeat for Apple because its competitors -- especially those building Android-based devices -- will also have to pay Nokia, and most if not all of them will likely have to pay more on a per-unit basis because they don't bring as much intellectual property to the table as Apple definitely did.Apple pays off Nokia, but exposes the competition as well. Competition that doesn't have as much money or intellectual property to barter with.

(Photo by Acaben (http://www.flickr.com/photos/acaben/541444577/)/Flickr)

Article Link: Apple's Nokia Deal Could Cost Android Manufacturers Too (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/06/14/apples-nokia-deal-could-cost-android-manufacturers-too/)



parapup
Jun 14, 2011, 03:30 PM
If Florian Mueller said something there is a good chance it is some baseless, inflammable, not-real thing that has great likelihood of not happening.

Moving right along.

[ Apple and their followers are like insecure kids - if they get beat up, instead of either accepting or responding they drag that other cool kid in it for no reason but to feel better - look tomorrow that other kid might get beat too - then I will be vindicated.]

Rodimus Prime
Jun 14, 2011, 03:30 PM
nice headline grabbing BS by our media. It is safe to bet that the other manufactures were already paying the for the patents. I know LG, HTC, Samsung, Motorola, and Blackberry already have an agreement with them and most of them have patents sharing with Nokia.

I love the piss poor reporting the media does.

Hellhammer
Jun 14, 2011, 03:34 PM
nice headline grabbing BS by our media. It is safe to bet that the other manufactures were already paying the for the patents. I know LG, HTC, Samsung, Motorola, and Blackberry already have an agreement with them and most of them have patents sharing with Nokia.

I love the piss poor reporting the media does.

Amen to this. Other OEMs have been making phones way before Apple even came up with the idea of iPhone. They have already settled with Nokia and are paying the license fees, so why would this hurt Android?

FlameofAnor
Jun 14, 2011, 03:35 PM
Castrate your competition, Steve?....... that's not very nice. ;)

ratzzo
Jun 14, 2011, 03:35 PM
It could. It probably may never happen, but if it does, Apple's "surrendering" to Nokia's lawsuit would just add to Nokia's side of the story for anyone who shares a lawsuit regarding whatever patent Apple and Nokia were originally arguing over.

Oletros
Jun 14, 2011, 03:37 PM
Florian on Twitter was incapable of telling why those companies would have to pay and why has been making phones since the 90's without any problem.

thejadedmonkey
Jun 14, 2011, 03:39 PM
So because iOS infringes, this automatically makes Android infringe upon it too?

maclaptop
Jun 14, 2011, 03:40 PM
The test of time will prove it's all meaningless.

supmango
Jun 14, 2011, 03:41 PM
From the same article:

“Having proven its ability to defeat Apple after the most bitterly contested patent dispute that this industry has seen to date is clear proof of” the effectiveness of Nokia's more aggressive strategy, Mr. Mueller said. “Other companies whom Nokia will ask to pay royalties will have to think very hard whether to pay or pick a fight."

So it sounds like to me, Nokia just became the school yard bully.

Doctor Q
Jun 14, 2011, 03:42 PM
The "winner" of a cross-licensing deal, if you want to think of it that way, is the one who gets paid, in this case Nokia. I doubt that Apple has had trouble because its lawyers are spread too thin, but the settlement is presumably worth it to Apple. They may have expected to owe these same licensing payments anyway as a result of the lawsuits.

It's best for our interests as consumers if companies have strong reasons to do the R&D for new developments, with rights to their patents being one of their incentives. But it's also in our interests to see new developments used in many products, which can result from cross-licensing and even from patent infringement! Somebody (us) ultimately has to pay for it, of course, but I'd rather pay for R&D than for court battles.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 14, 2011, 03:42 PM
The only way this even "hurts" android and others is they have to keep paying the fees they have been paying any how.

oh wait that does nothing to them and it is status quo. If Apple had won it would of done some good so to speak because they would no longer have to license them.

RodThePlod
Jun 14, 2011, 03:44 PM
Cor.... Nokia are gonna be rolling in it!

RTP.

Consultant
Jun 14, 2011, 03:45 PM
And Android still has to face the Java lawsuit that might wipe them out.

I am sure many people can't wait.

Nitrocide
Jun 14, 2011, 03:46 PM
Cover story, Apple and Nokia had this planned all along :p

kenypowa
Jun 14, 2011, 03:48 PM
And Android still has to face the Java lawsuit that might wipe them out.

I am sure many people can't wait.

lol like it's going to happen.

ChazUK
Jun 14, 2011, 03:49 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.4; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRJ22) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)

This is fantastic news!

Hit Bada and WebOS whilst they're at it.

Edit: I am being sarcastic btw.

Mattie Num Nums
Jun 14, 2011, 03:49 PM
Florian on Twitter was incapable of telling why those companies would have to pay and why has been making phones since the 90's without any problem.

Florian Mueller has been proven in the past to publish BS information. I take anything he says for a grain of salt.

benthewraith
Jun 14, 2011, 03:52 PM
And Android still has to face the Java lawsuit that might wipe them out.

I am sure many people can't wait.

Oracle may or may not win, but I severely doubt it would take out Android.

As far as Mueller goes, in my opinion I think he has as much or less credibility than Paul Thurrott.

Jeaz
Jun 14, 2011, 04:09 PM
Makes more sense that it's cross-licenense and not as suggested by all media this morning that it's all Apple -> Nokia.

juicedropsdeuce
Jun 14, 2011, 04:11 PM
Ok, what gives here. Is this some stock pump article by MR????

First the false report that Android makers will have to pay Nokia (they already license the patent). Next, showing a completely unrelated picture of a 'fat' Steve Jobs which was obviously from half a decade ago.

Real classy! :rolleyes:

juicedropsdeuce
Jun 14, 2011, 04:13 PM
And Android still has to face the Java lawsuit that might wipe them out.

I am sure many people can't wait.

LOL. Yes, wipe them out.

mdatwood
Jun 14, 2011, 04:16 PM
And Android still has to face the Java lawsuit that might wipe them out.

I am sure many people can't wait.

That's like saying Nokia was going wipe out the iPhone, ie never would happen. There is too much money going around and in the end someone will pay someone else and Android will go on.

rmwebs
Jun 14, 2011, 04:17 PM
And Android still has to face the Java lawsuit that might wipe them out.

I am sure many people can't wait.

I guess you'd be all for an Apple dictatorship over the market wouldn't you. Are you sure you're a consultant? :rolleyes:

50548
Jun 14, 2011, 04:18 PM
Castrate your competition, Steve?....... that's not very nice. ;)

This is much more clear evidence of the failed US patent system than anything else...

But even then, SJ is a genius in making such a move - settle for a lost cause, pay a few millions, cross-license the rest and let Android burn under the newly-acquired legitimacy of Nokia's patents...simply genius. :rolleyes:

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 04:20 PM
So much hatred against Florian Mueller.

The guy has actually given some good coverage on the Lodsys issues lately.

Don't see the point of such ad hominem attacks. If you have beef with the actual article then say it.

To me it appears the two platforms are similar, so he has a point.

Oletros
Jun 14, 2011, 04:20 PM
let Android burn under the newly-acquired legitimacy of Nokia's patents...simply genius. :rolleyes:

Please, anyone talking about "legitimacy of Nokia's patents" can explain which patents and how affect other companies?

Or there is only wishful thinking and fanboyism?

Rodimus Prime
Jun 14, 2011, 04:23 PM
So much hatred against Florian Mueller.

The guy has actually given some good coverage on the Lodsys issues lately.

Don't see the point of such ad hominem attacks. If you have beef with the actual article then say it.

To me it appears the two platforms are similar, so he has a point.

I said it. I call the article what it was. Complete BS and nothing but headline grabing. if you understand the industry at all you would understand how crappy this article is and it is pretty clear Mueller does not know what he is talking about.

The major android manufactures have been making cells for a very long time and have had an agreement with Nokia during that time. The OS has zero effect on that part. HTC, Samsong and others already are paying the fees so it is a non issue.

It is a crappy article that is just full of misinformation. It is an empty threat.

Oletros
Jun 14, 2011, 04:27 PM
So much hatred against Florian Mueller.

The guy has actually given some good coverage on the Lodsys issues lately.

Don't see the point of such ad hominem attacks. If you have beef with the actual article then say it.

To me it appears the two platforms are similar, so he has a point.

From the original filing from Nokia:

"Nokia has already successfully entered into license agreements including these patents with approximately 40 companies, including virtually all the leading mobile device vendors, allowing the industry to benefit from Nokia's innovation.

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."

Has Florian even read the filing and the patents in question?

gnasher729
Jun 14, 2011, 04:28 PM
******* Florian Müller.

Really guys, when you read the name Florian Müller you should automatically keep it away from MacRumors. The guy is a paid mouthpiece for Microsoft and nothing else. Whatever he says you can be sure that he paints the bleakest picture possible for any Microsoft competitor. Google and anything related to Google is top of his hitlist because at the moment Google looks even more threatening to Microsoft than Apple does, but that can change any moment when he gets different instructions from his paymasters.

This site is supposed to be about rumours. I don't mind a bit of actual fact in between the rumours :D but paid disinformation doesn't belong here.


So much hatred against Florian Mueller.

The guy has actually given some good coverage on the Lodsys issues lately.

Don't see the point of such ad hominem attacks. If you have beef with the actual article then say it.

To me it appears the two platforms are similar, so he has a point.

"Good coverage"? Florian Müller is the one who advises iOS developers to suck it up and pay the patent trolls. And Android developers should do the same. Look, when there is a history of one article after the other by the same author spewing misinformation, by an author who has actually no qualifications whatsoever, and each single article is attacking Microsoft competitors, and in many cases making exactly the same statements that Microsoft makes officially at the same time, then an attack on the person is not "ad hominem" anymore.


I said it. I call the article what it was. Complete BS and nothing but headline grabing. if you understand the industry at all you would understand how crappy this article is and it is pretty clear Mueller does not know what he is talking about.

And when I strongly agree with Rodimus Prime, as I do on this point, you can safely assume that he is correct.

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 04:29 PM
The major android manufactures have been making cells for a very long time and have had an agreement with Nokia during that time. The OS has zero effect on that part. HTC, Samsong and others already are paying the fees so it is a non issue.

It is a crappy article that is just full of misinformation. It is an empty threat.

You post was actually the one that wasn't just straight Florian bashing.

But I'm curious now, first you say "it's safe to bet that the other manufactures were already paying the for the patents", but then make it seem that's a certain thing?

Can you actually prove the others have licensed these patents?

benthewraith
Jun 14, 2011, 04:32 PM
You post was actually the one that wasn't just straight Florian bashing.

But I'm curious now, first you say "it's safe to bet that the other manufactures were already paying the for the patents", but then make it seem that's a certain thing?

Can you actually prove the others have licensed these patents?

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12757644&postcount=29

bb426
Jun 14, 2011, 04:32 PM
Cross off another lawsuit off the list.

Everyone wins, everyone loses. Like one of the comments I saw previously, I agree with the fact that Apple shouldn't win every legal battle thrown at them, no matter how awesome their inventions are. There comes a point where it's almost necessary for the big $$ companies to throw down a bit. I'm not saying Nokia is a small company in any sense, but hey, I'm sure they'll need that sum in the long run.

It also avoided the courts... god, they would have spent that PLUS more, not to mention it saved a ton of time. This time they earned my respect with that action, rather than arrogantly going headfirst into the ringer.

However, in no way am I insinuating a company should not defend its intellectual property, either. :apple:

And Android? A rip off of Apple?

What is this guy thinking?

harley3k
Jun 14, 2011, 04:32 PM
But wait....I thought Android, and open source software was free??!! :p:p:p

Oletros
Jun 14, 2011, 04:33 PM
You post was actually the one that wasn't just straight Florian bashing.

But I'm curious now, first you say "it's safe to bet that the other manufactures were already paying the for the patents", but then make it seem that's a certain thing?

Can you actually prove the others have licensed these patents?

"Nokia has already successfully entered into license agreements including these patents with approximately 40 companies, including virtually all the leading mobile device vendors, allowing the industry to benefit from Nokia's innovation."

http://press.nokia.com/2009/10/22/nokia-sues-apple-in-delaware-district-court-for-infringement-of-nokia-gsm-umts-and-wlan-patents/

It's not exactly a proof, but I highly doubt that a company like Motorola or Samsung doesn't have paid or cross-licensed this technology.

They have been making phones way before than Apple, Motorola, way way before.

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 04:33 PM
******* Florian Müller.

Really guys, when you read the name Florian Müller you should automatically keep it away from MacRumors.

So his Lodsys posts are tied to Microsoft's angle in what way exactly?

Feels almost like I'm defending the devil here :-)

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 04:37 PM
Ok, so Nokia says:

"Nokia has already successfully entered into license agreements including these patents with approximately 40 companies"

Seems very weasel speak to me. Surely they know the exact number of companies?

And why not say: "has licensed these patents to ..." instead of this mumble?

Rodimus Prime
Jun 14, 2011, 04:37 PM
You post was actually the one that wasn't just straight Florian bashing.

But I'm curious now, first you say "it's safe to bet that the other manufactures were already paying the for the patents", but then make it seem that's a certain thing?

Can you actually prove the others have licensed these patents?

Read below. On top of that safe assumption considering how long the others have been in the market.

Florian killed his credibility on this one. He Open Mouth, insert Foot.

From the original filing from Nokia:

"Nokia has already successfully entered into license agreements including these patents with approximately 40 companies, including virtually all the leading mobile device vendors, allowing the industry to benefit from Nokia's innovation.

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."

Has Florian even read the filing and the patents in question?

Hueyfreeman
Jun 14, 2011, 04:37 PM
Oh noes! Now that apple has lost to nokia the entire smartphone industry will collaspe. We all know that even if the android OEMs have been paying nokia now that apple has lost they will have to pay more. Why?

Also the genius stated that android is a coppy of android. Sadly it is not it is a copy of Blackberry os and sambian heavily modified to be optimized for a touch screen. It looks similer to iOS but it is not a copy.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 14, 2011, 04:38 PM
Ok, so Nokia says:

"Nokia has already successfully entered into license agreements including these patents with approximately 40 companies"

Seems very weasel speak to me. Surely they know the exact number of companies?

And why not say: "has licensed these patents to ..." instead of this mumble?


It was a press release. Press release is not going to include it. Also often times there are agreements between companies not to publicly release names of who is licencing the tech.

Oletros
Jun 14, 2011, 04:39 PM
Ok, so Nokia says:

"Nokia has already successfully entered into license agreements including these patents with approximately 40 companies"

Seems very weasel speak to me. Surely they know the exact number of companies?

And why not say: "has licensed these patents to ..." instead of this mumble?

Why Nokia has to list any number of companies in a filing against other company? Does Apple list all the companies they have licensed any patent when filing against other? Any company does it?

ThisIsNotMe
Jun 14, 2011, 04:43 PM
I said it. I call the article what it was. Complete BS and nothing but headline grabing. if you understand the industry at all you would understand how crappy this article is and it is pretty clear Mueller does not know what he is talking about.

The major android manufactures have been making cells for a very long time and have had an agreement with Nokia during that time. The OS has zero effect on that part. HTC, Samsong and others already are paying the fees so it is a non issue.

It is a crappy article that is just full of misinformation. It is an empty threat.

People keep saying that there are patent deals in place.

If so, please provide a link.

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 04:44 PM
Why Nokia has to list any number of companies in a filing against other company? Does Apple list all the companies they have licensed any patent when filing against other? Any company does it?

Then why say 40 at all :confused:

Just say licensed by every major phone manufacturer?

Did they need to fill in the blank space in that PR?

kdarling
Jun 14, 2011, 04:47 PM
In fact, because Apple has so many of its own patents (some of which it cross-licensed to Nokia) other manufacturers may have to pay even more for the same licenses.

*laughing*

Wait a second...

So if a company doesn't have patents they're willing to cross license, then they must pay Nokia more???!

This reasoning sure sounds familiar.

Oletros
Jun 14, 2011, 04:47 PM
People keep saying that there are patent deals in place.

If so, please provide a link.

Can you provide any proof that there is no deals?

If so, provide any link.

Oletros
Jun 14, 2011, 04:49 PM
Then why say 40 at all :confused:

Just say licensed by every major phone manufacturer?

Did they need to fill in the blank space in that PR?

Why every phone manufacturer? Not all of those companies make phones.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 14, 2011, 04:50 PM
Then why say 40 at all :confused:

Just say licensed by every major phone manufacturer?

Did they need to fill in the blank space in that PR?

No they say over 40 to prove a point. That it is not that Apple is being specially targeted. They know the the Apple fans will come out and call them trolls if they do not have a case to back it (aka other majors players agree to it.

People keep saying that there are patent deals in place.

If so, please provide a link.

Why would their be a link to the list? It not something you have to or even do release publicly.
On top of that other law suit so why should their be a list on what the deals are.


There is plenty of evidance to suggest that the other major players licences the patents.

1.) It is part of the global standard.
2.) 40 or more companies licences it.
3.) Other major players like LG, Samsung Motorola, HTC, Sony ect have not been sued and they have all been making phones a hell of a lot longer than Apple.

gnasher729
Jun 14, 2011, 04:55 PM
So because iOS infringes, this automatically makes Android infringe upon it too?

You really need to keep track of what is pro Apple / anti Apple opinion, and what is fact. Fact is that Nokia has about 800 patents that anyone making phone calls over GSM will need to license. Totally unavoidable. Apple vs. Nokia was never about whether Apple had to pay or not, it was always about _how much_ Apple had to pay. And it is totally unavoidable that Android phone makers will have to pay as well.

Where Florian Müller, Microsoft's personal spambot, is wrong is that these license deals are just a normal part of every phone makers business, and all these Android phone manufacturers, just like all the non-Android phone makers, have been paying license fees all the time. Nothing new here. Whatever happens in the industry, you will find Florian Müller making some comment that claims coming doom for some Microsoft competitor. Nothing new there as well.


Florian killed his credibility on this one.

It's more like Germany's oldest oak tree is planted right on the grave of Florian Müller's credibility.

*LTD*
Jun 14, 2011, 04:56 PM
*laughing*

Wait a second...

So if a company doesn't have patents they're willing to cross license, then they must pay Nokia more???!

This reasoning sure sounds familiar.

That seems to be it. This is what Apple had a beef with.

macnisse
Jun 14, 2011, 04:56 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)

Here we go again... Anyone knows just how big is Apple's legal dept? maybe the whole top floor of the new "mothership" building will be needed to house all these busy busy lawyers?!

iStudentUK
Jun 14, 2011, 05:04 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

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)

Here we go again... Anyone knows just how big is Apple's legal dept? maybe the whole top floor of the new "mothership" building will be needed to house all these busy busy lawyers?!

That's the modern business world! Lawyers everywhere!

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 05:06 PM
There is plenty of evidance to suggest that the other major players licences the patents.

1.) It is part of the global standard.
2.) 40 or more companies licences it.
3.) Other major players like LG, Samsung Motorola, HTC, Sony ect have not been sued and they have all been making phones a hell of a lot longer than Apple.

Not exactly true, that's what Nokia is saying in that 2009 PR. But there's more.

Back in March when Nokia filed their second round of complaints they said "The seven Nokia patents in the new complaint relate to Nokia's pioneering innovations that are now being used by Apple to create key features in its products in the areas of multi-tasking operating systems, data synchronization, positioning, call quality and the use of Bluetooth accessories."

http://press.nokia.com/2011/03/29/nokia-files-second-itc-complaint-against-apple/

So there may be more going on. It's not just GSM, UMTS and Wlan stuff you are saying now.

Oletros
Jun 14, 2011, 05:09 PM
Not exactly true, that's what Nokia is saying now, but they are being economic with the truth.

So there may be more going on. It's not just GSM, UMTS and Wlan stuff they are saying now.

Ejem, GSM, UMTS and Wlan patents were said in 2.009, not now.

odedia
Jun 14, 2011, 05:11 PM
And Android still has to face the Java lawsuit that might wipe them out.

I am sure many people can't wait.

As someone who heard a lecture on this from Oracle, I can tell you that it is a very serious and perhaps rightful lawsuit on Oracle's side. Java's promise and specification demand is "write once, run anywhere", and Google just ignored that. They also didn't license Java, which is required on a mobile device.

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 05:11 PM
That's the modern business world! Lawyers everywhere!

Modern world? The computer industry has been like that since forever.

Oldest one I can remember was the Compaq vs IBM over the PC BIOS many still use these days, but I'm sure there were others before them.

Everything in this industry seems born out of litigation.

theBB
Jun 14, 2011, 05:16 PM
You really need to keep track of what is pro Apple / anti Apple opinion, and what is fact. Fact is that Nokia has about 800 patents that anyone making phone calls over GSM will need to license. Totally unavoidable. Apple vs. Nokia was never about whether Apple had to pay or not, it was always about _how much_ Apple had to pay. And it is totally unavoidable that Android phone makers will have to pay as well.
Agreed. Apple did not claim that they did not need to license anything from Nokia. It just said Nokia was asking for too much. Actually, I believe it said Nokia was asking for some of their iPhone patents that they did not want to share and it was not a fair deal, as other companies were not expected to pay with such high value patents of their own. Apple's press release states that they managed to settle without giving up on these valuable patents of its own. This may be true and it actually makes sense, as Nokia is not in the business of developing mobile operating systems any more. Nokia's financial situation is not as good as it used to be, so cash payment may be more valuable than some patents that it may never use.

Oletros
Jun 14, 2011, 05:16 PM
They also didn't license Java, which is required on a mobile device.

On a mobile device the required license was JavaME, not Java.

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 05:18 PM
Ejem, GSM, UMTS and Wlan patents were said in 2.009, not now.

Sorry I meant the patents shown in that link that was posted here, as proof that other companies had licensed the patents.

There's more areas in the whole folio of patents than just network stuff.

Oletros
Jun 14, 2011, 05:19 PM
Sorry I meant the patents shown in that link that was posted here, as proof that other companies had licensed the patents.

There's more areas in the whole folio of patents than just network stuff.

No, the original filing was about only network stuff.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 14, 2011, 05:21 PM
Not exactly true, that's what Nokia is saying in that 2009 PR, but they are being economic with the truth.

Back in March when Nokia filed their second round of complaints they said "The seven Nokia patents in the new complaint relate to Nokia's pioneering innovations that are now being used by Apple to create key features in its products in the areas of multi-tasking operating systems, data synchronization, positioning, call quality and the use of Bluetooth accessories."

http://press.nokia.com/2011/03/29/nokia-files-second-itc-complaint-against-apple/

So there may be more going on. It's not just GSM, UMTS and Wlan stuff you are saying now.

that explains why it is over 40 companies. So yet again fails to address the point.

Noticed something about those cell phone from the majors players have been able to do all that stuff long before Apple entered the market.

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 05:24 PM
No, the original filing was about only network stuff.

But the updated suit, which included the 7 added patents included more than just network stuff.

These have now all been licensed by the new agreement. Correct?

Rodimus Prime
Jun 14, 2011, 05:28 PM
It's more like Germany's oldest oak tree is planted right on the grave of Florian Müller's credibility.

well I had never heard of the guy before so I was not going to say that. Other wise I would of said he killed off what ever credibility he had left. I was trying to be nice.:D

kdarling
Jun 14, 2011, 05:28 PM
“Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each other’s patents, but not the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique,” Apple said. - NY Times

I would sure love to know what smartphone patents Apple gave up. My guess would be minor, but nice to have, items like the rubberbanding at the end of a screen.

I also wonder how much Apple's desire to buy the Nortel cell patents had to do with this decision to pay Nokia. Is Apple trying to show the government that they know how to play nice with others when it comes to patent licensing?

Oletros
Jun 14, 2011, 05:29 PM
But the updated suit, which included the 7 added patents included more than just network stuff.

These have now all been licensed by the new agreement. Correct?

No, there is no an updated suit, there is ANOTHER suit.

So, no, it's not correct.

But the original question you facd was about ESENTIAL patents, so, do you still think other companies like Motorola, Samsung or HTC doesn't have any license?

And, wait, do you think Nokia doesn't have licensed anything from Motorola?

ghostface147
Jun 14, 2011, 05:37 PM
That's an old pic of Steve.

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 05:39 PM
No, there is no an updated suit, there is ANOTHER suit.

So, no, it's not correct.

But the original question you facd was about ESENTIAL patents, so, do you still think other companies like Motorola, Samsung or HTC doesn't have any license?

And, wait, do you think Nokia doesn't have licensed anything from Motorola?

So it is another suit. But has now been settled in one go with the original suit. So Apple is now licensed for all patents, both the network stuff in the original suit and these 7 extra covering other fields.

Is that better?

My original question was for proof that other manufacturers had already licensed the same patents as Apple, which would disprove Florian Mueller story.

So far I've only seen a tiny hint in Nokia PR - far from proof - that some 40 unknown companies may have licensed patents covered in the original suit, ie the network stuff.

But nothing at all about the patents in this later one.

Oletros
Jun 14, 2011, 05:43 PM
So it is another suit. But has now been settled in one go with the original suit. So Apple is now licensed for all patents, both the network stuff in the original suit and these 7 extra covering other fields.

Is that better?

My original question was for proof that other manufacturers had already licensed the same patents as Apple, which would disprove Florian Mueller story.

So far I've only seen a tiny hint in Nokia PR - far from proof - that they may have licensed patents covered in the original suit, ie the network stuff.

But nothing at all about the patents in this later one.

No, Apple doesn't have licensed ALL the Nokia patents.

Do you really want to know or do you have a dogmatic opinion and when you doesn't have the reason do you change the question?

Last answer, it's better to talk to a stone.

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 05:52 PM
No, Apple doesn't have licensed ALL the Nokia patents.

Do you really want to know or do you have a dogmatic opinion and when you doesn't have the reason do you change the question?

Last answer, it's better to talk to a stone.

Where did I say licensed for ALL Nokia patents? Read my post again "Apple is now licensed for all patents, both the network stuff in the original suit and these 7 extra covering other fields."

So obviously only the patents covered in the suits.

Have you got me confused with another user?

My original question, unedited:

"But I'm curious now, first you say "it's safe to bet that the other manufactures were already paying the for the patents", but then make it seem that's a certain thing?

Can you actually prove the others have licensed these patents?"

Thank you for your valuable contributions, but feel free to abstain from answering my questions if you only have petty criticism for them and no real answers.

ShiftyPig
Jun 14, 2011, 05:58 PM
Did Jordan Golson get plucked from the forums to write articles? I've never seen such blatant fanboy crap on the front page.

spacemanspifff
Jun 14, 2011, 06:00 PM
OK so Nokia won... ...or did they? Sure, they finally got Apple to pay up for using their patents all these years and in the process they cross licensed some stuff from Apple too.

Now in my opinion, the interesting subtext here is not about Apple having to pay Nokia, everyone knew that was on the cards, but that Nokia have cross licensed some Apple patented stuff. See where I'm going? This puts a very large weight behind Apples case in going after all the Android boys to licence their tech too! So by the time all the other manufacturers start paying Apple like Nokia is now going to do, then Apple will probably not loose anything financially from this one.

I imagine a dark room full of Apple lawyers all laughing maniacally as El Steevo enters throwing his hands up and saying "Well done my pets, they played right into our hands" Whoooo ha ha haa haaaaaa!!

John Dillinger
Jun 14, 2011, 06:08 PM
Im sorry but what a complete joke!

This is of course assuming that they arent already paying for licensing GSM tech?? Seeing as the majority of android manufacturers have been making phones waaaay longer than Apple, I think this a given.

P.S I think in Apple's own wording lies the clue: "not much of what makes the iPhone unique"............

......If Android is such a clone.. (and they are definitely getting more similar with each year ;)) of iOS.. and the patents licensed in question are less to do with iOS.. and more to do with a basic phone function, which fair enough Nokia DOES own... well you have your answer. Nokia winning this changes nothing for who are most likely already payees!

Please remember, prior to Apple, Nokia were the big boys in phones (worldwide at least). There's no way your LGs, samsungs etc were making phones ALL THOSE YEARS without paying their dues. No fricking way.

Further.. havent people been screaming all along that Apple wanted to pay... just that Apple was unhappy with Nokia asking them to pay more than everyone else to license them (because they didnt contribute as much to the pool)??? The others are already paying for the licenses!

Seriously why havent Nokia sued the others for the same patents? Its not like their scared of suing multiple entities. Dont companies usually go for the lower hanging fruit ie. companies with less deep pockets than the richest tech company, who has the resources to drag the case out for a (comparative) eternity? (like Apple going after HTC instead of Google directly).

Lastly if you think logically, people like HTC, Motorola etc. who have been making phones for eons compared to Apple, would have actually far more substantial patents related to mobile phones, to put them in a better position to negotiate with Nokia if it hadnt happended already (HINT: thats probably why they werent targeted in the same suit).

Sorry but this really does see like a case of playground : "they did it too!!"-style finger pointing.

P.S. Apple hasnt managed to get a single Android manufacturer to settle yet. Whilst Im sure more than a few judges' eyebrows were raised at the latest iOS Notification system to come out of Cupertino ;)

John Dillinger
Jun 14, 2011, 06:13 PM
No, there is no an updated suit, there is ANOTHER suit.

So, no, it's not correct.

But the original question you facd was about ESENTIAL patents, so, do you still think other companies like Motorola, Samsung or HTC doesn't have any license?

And, wait, do you think Nokia doesn't have licensed anything from Motorola?

Exactly. Thats what some dont understand.

These other companies have all been playing ball long before Apple even thought about entering the phone business. Its rather absurd to think that either of these parties would have entered licensing before now.

Like licensing was thought up the minute Apple showed up on the scene :rolleyes:

AppleScruff1
Jun 14, 2011, 06:16 PM
This is great news for Microsoft.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 14, 2011, 06:23 PM
This is a good article.

Well Apple and Nokia are on the same page now. And Apple is helping keep Nokia afloat.

Now we'll see if more lawsuits are filed.

John Dillinger
Jun 14, 2011, 06:23 PM
OK so Nokia won... ...or did they? Sure, they finally got Apple to pay up for using their patents all these years and in the process they cross licensed some stuff from Apple too.

Now in my opinion, the interesting subtext here is not about Apple having to pay Nokia, everyone knew that was on the cards, but that Nokia have cross licensed some Apple patented stuff. See where I'm going? This puts a very large weight behind Apples case in going after all the Android boys to licence their tech too! So by the time all the other manufacturers start paying Apple like Nokia is now going to do, then Apple will probably not loose anything financially from this one.

I imagine a dark room full of Apple lawyers all laughing maniacally as El Steevo enters throwing his hands up and saying "Well done my pets, they played right into our hands" Whoooo ha ha haa haaaaaa!!

Cross licensing... it appears Nokia is payin Apple nothing. They settled, and Apple it appears will pay a sum up front then a few 100 million quarterly to Nokia.
The cross licensing part is that Nokia, instead of taking payment for some patents, will just exchange usage rights for some of Apples.

Though you do have a point in that Nokia did license some of Apple patents given them at least some validity. Then again... it may end up being the same story for Apple with the others they have sued... ie cross licensing and thats it.

theBB
Jun 14, 2011, 06:27 PM
P.S. Apple hasnt managed to get a single Android manufacturer to settle yet. Whilst Im sure more than a few judges' eyebrows were raised at the latest iOS Notification system to come out of Cupertino ;)
Well, the story I heard says the notification interface was first implemented by an app in the jailbroken iPhone app market. I don't know whether the guy who first implemented it has a case against Android, but Apple is said to be his employer now, so it is possible the original designer of this system is actually part of Apple's team now. By the way, judges do not consider a claim (or raise their eyebrows if neither side brings something up in the first place), as almost nothing is as simple as rambling blog posts or even professional media make it sound like.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 14, 2011, 06:28 PM
The last thing Google needs is another lawsuit over Android. It already has a class action suit from Android users themselves.

southernpaws
Jun 14, 2011, 06:35 PM
The only way this even "hurts" android and others is they have to keep paying the fees they have been paying any how.

oh wait that does nothing to them and it is status quo. If Apple had won it would of done some good so to speak because they would no longer have to license them.

Can you provide a reference backing up the claim that the others have been paying these royalties all along?

John Dillinger
Jun 14, 2011, 06:36 PM
Well, the story I heard says the notification interface was first implemented by an app in the jailbroken iPhone app market. I don't know whether the guy who first implemented it has a case against Android, but Apple is said to be his employer now, so it is possible the original designer of this system is actually part of Apple's team now. By the way, judges do not consider a claim (or raise their eyebrows if neither side brings something up in the first place), as almost nothing is as simple as rambling blog posts or even professional media make it sound like.

Lol I know but you gotta admit its pretty funny. Pot meet kettle type.

Its more likely that the app developer copied android seeing as for the first year iOS was only web apps, and jailbreak devs tend to take the best from all OS's. Whether they bought him or not... you'd a thunk Apple would have more pride but there you go.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 14, 2011, 06:38 PM
Can you provide a reference backing up the claim that the others have been paying these royalties all along?

they already are in this thread multiple times. Also go look at Nokia original filing.

Other wise tell me were the law suit is for companies that have been making cell phones a hell of a lot longer than before the iPhone was even a pipe dream at Apple.

John Dillinger
Jun 14, 2011, 06:38 PM
The last thing Google needs is another lawsuit over Android. It already has a class action suit from Android users themselves.

Yeah thats certainly unheard of (http://mashable.com/2010/07/12/judge-iphone-class-action/)

xIGmanIx
Jun 14, 2011, 06:40 PM
don't forget microsoft is dead along with google.....but before you go

- most vendors are already paying the legitimate fees, its just apple that had to sit in time out
- The amount hasn't been finalized but some estimates are $.7B up front and royalties rightfully so on using this little known tech called GSM.
- Android i would imagine wouldn't license any of these patents since its an operating system not phone hardware.

just saying.....
This is much more clear evidence of the failed US patent system than anything else...

But even then, SJ is a genius in making such a move - settle for a lost cause, pay a few millions, cross-license the rest and let Android burn under the newly-acquired legitimacy of Nokia's patents...simply genius. :rolleyes:

southernpaws
Jun 14, 2011, 06:41 PM
they already are in this thread multiple times. Also go look at Nokia original filing.

Other wise tell me were the law suit is for companies that have been making cell phones a hell of a lot longer than before the iPhone was even a pipe dream at Apple.

was just about to edit the post after leafing through the pages of posts.

xIGmanIx
Jun 14, 2011, 06:44 PM
here is a linky that states over 40 companies are currently paying
linky (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=807247)
was just about to edit the post after leafing through the pages of posts.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 14, 2011, 06:46 PM
Yeah thats certainly unheard of (http://mashable.com/2010/07/12/judge-iphone-class-action/)

Aw I must have upset you talking about Google like that.

Android users sue Google over tracking (http://androidcommunity.com/android-users-sue-google-over-tracking-20110429/)
.
.

LaDirection
Jun 14, 2011, 06:46 PM
Steve Jobs played this one like a boss!

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 06:47 PM
I'm surprised by people saying the other manufacturers are fully licensed for the same network level patents as Apple, when we don't even know what they're about.

Mobile industry is a moving target. Right now it's moving to LTE. Guess who has LTE patents? Nokia

Patent enforcement may come at any time. Look how InterDigital filed a complaint against Nokia in 2007, well after Nokia had 3G mobile phones around. Nokia had a license for InterDigital's 2G tech, but not (according to InterDigital) for the 3G.

Sure it didn't succeed in that particular corner, but InterDigital did get millions in license payments from other mobile companies such as Apple, RIM and Samsung (though the latter after a legal staring competition)

Would not be surprised at all if Nokia - now empowered by this highly publicised win - found something in their books that would let them grab a few bucks out of other manufacturers.

Doesn't their new Redmond-based leader do the same?

Icaras
Jun 14, 2011, 06:48 PM
With a picture like that, how can anyone not guess what the article will be about? It just has Android and Nokia and all things about lawsuits and settlements riddled all over it!

xIGmanIx
Jun 14, 2011, 06:50 PM
kind of hard to slight Nokia when their patents are the cornerstone of the GSM technology that all vendors (over 40) have already been licensing. Truth is apple thought they were above it and lost, i don't think anyone saw them wining other than just minimizing their costs.
I'm surprised by people saying the other manufacturers are fully licensed for the same network level patents as Apple, when we don't even know what they're about.

Mobile industry is a moving target. Right now it's moving to LTE. Guess who has LTE patents? Nokia

Patent enforcement may come at any time. Look how InterDigital tried to sue Nokia in 2006, well after Nokia had mobile phones around.

Sure it didn't succeed in that particular corner, but not before extracting millions in payments from other mobile companies such as Apple, RIM and Samsung (though the latter after a legal staring competition)

Would not be surprised at all if Nokia - now empowered by this highly publicised win - found something in their books that would let them grab a few bucks out of other manufacturers.

Doesn't their new Redmond-based leader do the same?

scoobydoo99
Jun 14, 2011, 06:51 PM
other companies may not want to fight over turf Apple has already acquiesced to Nokia.

You mean "ceded"
Incorrect context for acquiesce. One may acquiesce in a turf war, but one does not acquiesce turf.

ten-oak-druid
Jun 14, 2011, 06:55 PM
Mueller had been following this for some time. He has an earlier article on the subject back in January of this year:

Google is patently too weak to protect Android (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/google-is-patently-too-weak-to-protect.html)

He refers to Google as a "Suit Magnet" and lists a dozen filed to date.

He points out that Googles lack of patents makes cross-licensing less likely.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 14, 2011, 07:07 PM
Mueller had been following this for some time. He has an earlier article on the subject back in January of this year:

Google is patently too weak to protect Android (http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/google-is-patently-too-weak-to-protect.html)

He refers to Google as a "Suit Magnet" and lists a dozen filed to date.

He points out that Googles lack of patents makes cross-licensing less likely.

yeah might like to point out a flaw in your trashing of Google of that and Android and you pressing FUD.

To go take on Android directly requires you taking on the Open handset alliance. I am pretty sure that group has enough patents to protect Android as most of the major players in cell phones are part of that group and I believe all the manufactures (or at least majors ones) using Android are part of it. So that means Samsung, LG, Sony, Motolura HTC which between them have a pretty large pool.

You already have proven you hate android and mostly just have been spreading miss information based on that hate.

xIGmanIx
Jun 14, 2011, 07:11 PM
plus they seem to overlook simple things too

- android is software and wouldn't need hardware patents
- hardware vendors are currently licensing the appropriate technology from Nokia

macbots can't be bothered with reason and facts

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 07:12 PM
I understand that people love Apple - especially on here - I really do. But what I don't understand is why people are black and white about that love. Meaning - why some people love Apple and that, in turn, means you must HATE other companies and wish them failure, to die, etc. You can love one company without condemning others.

I love my wife - that doesn't mean I hate all other women or wish them ill.

Ultimately - as a consumer - you should want competition to exist - if only to keep those companies you love "honest" - and...well... competitive.

Monopolies don't do a service for the customer. And you only have to look as far as the iPhone in the US to get my point. How many people were constantly griping that ATT was the only service provider you could use for the iPhone. How many clamored for that exclusivity to end?

My .02

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 07:25 PM
To go take on Android directly requires you taking on the Open handset alliance.

If so, why is Microsoft suing Motorola directly over Android?

Then by your guess the OHA going to retaliate as a joint entity?

I'll get my popcorn then. Any idea when this will happen?

ten-oak-druid
Jun 14, 2011, 07:27 PM
yeah might like to point out a flaw in your trashing of Google of that and Android and you pressing FUD.

To go take on Android directly requires you taking on the Open handset alliance. I am pretty sure that group has enough patents to protect Android as most of the major players in cell phones are part of that group and I believe all the manufactures (or at least majors ones) using Android are part of it. So that means Samsung, LG, Sony, Motolura HTC which between them have a pretty large pool.

You already have proven you hate android and mostly just have been spreading miss information based on that hate.

LOL

Yes no one would ever sue Google. Or Apple for that matter. :rolleyes:

Edit: I'm still laughing over this "logic".

lilo777
Jun 14, 2011, 07:36 PM
This is much more clear evidence of the failed US patent system than anything else...

But even then, SJ is a genius in making such a move - settle for a lost cause, pay a few millions, cross-license the rest and let Android burn under the newly-acquired legitimacy of Nokia's patents...simply genius. :rolleyes:

Genius? Really? Nokia said to Steve: "You have to pay me". Steve replies: " Yes, sir". What a genius!

This article is clear BS. Nokia did not sue Apple for iOS. They sued them for hardware. The patents have nothing to do with iOS or Android.

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 07:37 PM
I love my wife - that doesn't mean I hate all other women or wish them ill.

You would if the husbands of other women (and other women themselves) spent their days saying:

* you married yours just because of looks
* yours was dumb and so you were dumb for choosing her
* she was not open minded enough (may be a good thing in wives)
* she didn't have enough orifices (I'm talking about SD cards, dirty perverts)

Then ignore you completely when you say you love her for what she is.

ZipZapRap
Jun 14, 2011, 07:38 PM
So it sounds like to me, Nokia just became the school yard bully.

Nooo... that's still Apple

KnightWRX
Jun 14, 2011, 07:39 PM
You would if the husbands of other women (and other women themselves) spent their days saying:

* you married yours just because of looks
* yours was dumb and so you were dumb for choosing her
* she was not open minded enough (may be a good thing in wives)
* she didn't have enough orifices (I'm talking about SD cards, dirty perverts)

Then ignore you completely when you say you love her for what she is.

Why would we wish ill on other women for that ? First, it's their husbands who say it, not them in your analogy. Second, why care what others think so much ?

Third: Did you just compare Apple to your wife ? you realise Apple is a faceless corporation out to make profit from your earnings right ? You just compared them to the most cherished person in your life... think about that for a minute.

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 07:46 PM
Why would we wish ill on other women for that ? First, it's their husbands who say it, not them in your analogy. Second, why care what others think so much ?

It's the husbands, the father and even some of the women that says that. You also get notes from the women in magazines and TV saying yours sucks because it doesn't wear heavy, worthless, shiny jewellery (eg Flash)

A bit hard to ignore when they keep telling it to your face with such a smug look that's just sooo tempting to shatter.

Popeye206
Jun 14, 2011, 07:47 PM
I need more popcorn.... all the arm chair lawyers and patent experts on this forum is amazing.

Apple really should just come here for advice and skip legal council. :rolleyes:

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 07:48 PM
You would if the husbands of other women (and other women themselves) spent their days saying:

* you married yours just because of looks
* yours was dumb and so you were dumb for choosing her
* she was not open minded enough (may be a good thing in wives)
* she didn't have enough orifices (I'm talking about SD cards, dirty perverts)

Then ignore you completely when you say you love her for what she is.

Actually - I wouldn't care. But hey - that's me. I don't really care what other people think. I've never been one to be influenced by peer pressure or what's cool. I've never been one to shy away from something just because it wasn't popular. It's more telling about how others act and what they say as to the kind of person they are. So again I say - you don't have to put down the competition to enjoy what you have. Just enjoy it. That's what matters.

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 07:48 PM
Third: Did you just compare Apple to your wife ? you realise Apple is a faceless corporation out to make profit from your earnings right ? You just compared them to the most cherished person in your life... think about that for a minute.

Samcraig started that particular comparison. I'm happy to replace the analogy with anything else .

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 07:50 PM
It's the husbands, the father and even some of the women that says that. You also get notes from the women in magazines and TV saying yours sucks because it doesn't wear heavy, worthless, shiny jewellery (eg Flash)

A bit hard to ignore when they keep telling it to your face with such a smug look that's just sooo tempting to shatter.

Sounds like a personal issue to me :)

KnightWRX
Jun 14, 2011, 07:50 PM
I think you started it?

Uh ? That was my first post in this thread...:confused:

Seriously, you just wished ill on women, saying they talk smack about your "wife" in an analogy about people badmouthing Apple. You just said you wanted to "shatter" their face.

You need to chill out.


Sounds like a personal issue to me :)

Sounds like he has some very deep personal issues. I don't even get where this "people talk about my wife, I want to hit them" stuff comes from or relates to the thread topic anymore.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 14, 2011, 07:53 PM
If so, why is Microsoft suing Motorola directly over Android?

Then by your guess the OHA going to retaliate as a joint entity?

I'll get my popcorn then. Any idea when this will happen?

take a closer look. While it may look like it often times it is shots across the bow but not head on.

ten-oak-druid for example hates android and pretty much just attacks it no matter how much miss information is in there.

benthewraith
Jun 14, 2011, 07:56 PM
Aw I must have upset you talking about Google like that.

Android users sue Google over tracking (http://androidcommunity.com/android-users-sue-google-over-tracking-20110429/)
.
.

Apple sued over location tracking (http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20057245-248.html)

Ball's in your corner again, buddy.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 07:56 PM
Uh ? That was my first post in this thread...:confused:

Seriously, you just wished ill on women, saying they talk smack about your "wife" in an analogy about people badmouthing Apple. You just said you wanted to "shatter" their face.

You need to chill out.




Sounds like he has some very deep personal issues. I don't even get where this "people talk about my wife, I want to hit them" stuff comes from or relates to the thread topic anymore.

That part is a bit scary. And I am not defending where he went.. but I was the one that made a statement earlier about loving my wife doesn't mean I wish others ill. I was not equating my wife with a company but rather explaining the notion that the emotion of love does not require one to hate the alternative. Then he went on a wild tirade...

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 07:57 PM
Uh ? That was my first post in this thread...:confused:

Sorry I meant samcraig. Mine was a reply to his post where he raised the wife/Apple comparison.
You can tell it's a reply because it has a little box on top, with the username one is replying to and the quote for reference.


Seriously, you just wished ill on women, saying they talk smack about your "wife" in an analogy about people badmouthing Apple. You just said you wanted to "shatter" their face. You need to chill out.

I never said shatter their face. Can you read? Look and face - different things.

Sounds like he has some very deep personal issues. I don't even get where this "people talk about my wife, I want to hit them" stuff comes from or relates to the thread topic anymore.

No one mentioned hitting anyone. You're the one with a violent imagination.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 08:01 PM
Sorry I meant samcraig. Mine was a reply to his post where he raised the wife/Apple comparison.



I absolutely did not make a wife/Apple comparison. Read my previous post.

theBB
Jun 14, 2011, 08:03 PM
Lol I know but you gotta admit its pretty funny. Pot meet kettle type.
Why? Because I claimed the truth is probably more nuanced than the simple storyline that some others claim? Talk about missing the point...

Its more likely that the app developer copied android seeing as for the first year iOS was only web apps, and jailbreak devs tend to take the best from all OS's. Whether they bought him or not... you'd a thunk Apple would have more pride but there you go.
Jailbreak predates App Store, partly because that was no other way to install apps and Android was in pretty clunky shape when it first came out, but if you'd rather rewrite history, be my guest.

KnightWRX
Jun 14, 2011, 08:03 PM
You're the one with a violent imagination.

Wait what ? :confused: First you imagine samcraig saying stuff about wives, then you don't even remember posting this :


A bit hard to ignore when they keep telling it to your face with such a smug look that's just sooo tempting to shatter.

Seriously, calm down. Take a deep breath. No one is insulting your wife, women around you don't laugh and ridicule you behind your back. Don't hurt anyone. Talk to people close to you about these issues you have and get them sorted out before someone gets hurt.

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 08:10 PM
Wait what ? :confused: First you imagine samcraig saying stuff about wives, then you don't even remember posting this :

Seriously, calm down. Take a deep breath. No one is insulting your wife, women around you don't laugh and ridicule you behind your back. Don't hurt anyone. Talk to people close to you about these issues you have and get them sorted out before someone gets hurt.

LOL ok now you're just trying to wind me up :-)

"Look" is NOT "face". Shattering a smug look is just a way of saying the other party goes from smug - usually sly smile - to a normal, regular, anything but smug facial expression.

Smug means: showing an excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements.

So it's all word based play, no violence involved.

For Android users it's quite easy, I just ask them to set their clocks to 03:14:08 01/19/2038.

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 08:13 PM
I absolutely did not make a wife/Apple comparison. Read my previous post.

Le sigh...

You compared a love for something to the love for your wife.

I understand that people love Apple - especially on here - I really do. But what I don't understand is why people are black and white about that love. Meaning - why some people love Apple and that, in turn, means you must HATE other companies and wish them failure, to die, etc. You can love one company without condemning others.

I love my wife - that doesn't mean I hate all other women or wish them ill.

See: top paragraph, then bottom one.

It's ok, don't worry. She won't know.

haruhiko
Jun 14, 2011, 08:19 PM
Nokia may well become the next patent troll i.e. Lodsys.

samcraig
Jun 14, 2011, 08:30 PM
Le sigh...

You compared a love for something to the love for your wife.



See: top paragraph, then bottom one.

It's ok, don't worry. She won't know.

No. You're misinterpreting. Did you not read my later post in which I "defended" your citing me (even though it was a wrong interpretation).

I didn't equate Apple with my Wife. I used an example where one can express love without hating. The love/hate is the lesson/example.

You can twist it if you want if it makes you feel better. But I am telling you what my meaning and intention was. So there's no argument about that (definitively) from here on in because I've said my intended meaning point blank. Any further confusion/wrong assumptions/etc is your own doing.

Nokia may well become the next patent troll i.e. Lodsys.

No. Unless you use "patent trolling" in an extremely general sense. Which I wouldn't. Nokia has legitimate patents which aren't "fluff" or ones that are just on the books in case there's ever some random occurrence they can can pursue legally. That's not to say Lodys does or does not. My point being - that If Nokia pursues those companies violating their patents - that's not trolling. That's enforcing technology and IP that they have invested in and own.

gkpm
Jun 14, 2011, 08:47 PM
You can twist it if you want if it makes you feel better. But I am telling you what my meaning and intention was. So there's no argument about that (definitively) from here on in because I've said my intended meaning point blank. Any further confusion/wrong assumptions/etc is your own doing.

It's cool buddy. You've cleared it up pretty well.

I also agree that Nokia has not acted as a patent troll, so far at least.

Apple probably thought they had it covered with InterDigital's patents, but now it's clear they needed Nokia's too.

Would love for these things to be more open though and get a feeling for what patents they were actually talking about.

AidenShaw
Jun 14, 2011, 08:47 PM
Wirefully posted (Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; Trident/5.0))


maybe the whole top floor of the new "mothership" building will be needed to house all these busy busy lawyers?!

A letter in today's Mercury News suggested the name iColosseum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colosseum) ;) !

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Colosseum_in_Rome%2C_Italy_-_April_2007.jpg/250px-Colosseum_in_Rome%2C_Italy_-_April_2007.jpg

blow45
Jun 14, 2011, 08:52 PM
Great strategic move, masterful actually. Kudos to apple.

Nokia may well become the next patent troll i.e. Lodsys.

In sheer mobile tec nokia dwarfs apple, apple have just been using eir much more limited expertise much more wiser what with their greater overall expertise, that's all.

conglomeride
Jun 14, 2011, 09:02 PM
It could. It probably may never happen, but if it does, Apple's "surrendering" to Nokia's lawsuit would just add to Nokia's side of the story for anyone who shares a lawsuit regarding whatever patent Apple and Nokia were originally arguing over.

STEVE! Just Buy Nokia already!

SuperVehicle001
Jun 14, 2011, 09:03 PM
Are these hardware or software patents? We may never know. As a programmer software patents are horrible. They are usually vague and stifle creativity. Two different people can achieve something with software that under the hood is totally different. Trademarks and copyrights on code are enough to stop plagiarism. This situation is unlikely to change since most corporations are in a prisoners dilemma with their patent portfolio. Take as many patents as you can to avoid being sued by those who did take lots of patents.

igazza
Jun 14, 2011, 09:28 PM
Are these hardware or software patents? We may never know. As a programmer software patents are horrible. They are usually vague and stifle creativity. Two different people can achieve something with software that under the hood is totally different. Trademarks and copyrights on code are enough to stop plagiarism. This situation is unlikely to change since most corporations are in a prisoners dilemma with their patent portfolio. Take as many patents as you can to avoid being sued by those who did take lots of patents.

software like wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption etc..

ten-oak-druid
Jun 14, 2011, 09:29 PM
Apple sued over location tracking (http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20057245-248.html)

Ball's in your corner again, buddy.
^^^
That story was posted already and I responded to it. Please keep up.

take a closer look. While it may look like it often times it is shots across the bow but not head on.

ten-oak-druid for example hates android and pretty much just attacks it no matter how much miss information is in there.
^^^
I don't hate Android. And I'm perfectly capable of criticizing Apple. But of course there are so many people who come here with a preconceived notion of "Apple fanboys" and well I just feel it would blow their world view if no one played the part. I like to think they sleep better at night trusting their world view is intact.

But lets be honest here. I don't have time for all the malware on Windows and now Android. It just isn't worth it to me.

Supa_Fly
Jun 14, 2011, 10:18 PM
nice headline grabbing BS by our media. It is safe to bet that the other manufactures were already paying the for the patents. I know LG, HTC, Samsung, Motorola, and Blackberry already have an agreement with them and most of them have patents sharing with Nokia.

I love the piss poor reporting the media does.

Really? What proof of these royalty payments by ALL of competing manufacturers are paying Nokia?

jonnysods
Jun 14, 2011, 10:27 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) Mobile/8J2)

From the same article:

“Having proven its ability to defeat Apple after the most bitterly contested patent dispute that this industry has seen to date is clear proof of” the effectiveness of Nokia's more aggressive strategy, Mr. Mueller said. “Other companies whom Nokia will ask to pay royalties will have to think very hard whether to pay or pick a fight."

So it sounds like to me, Nokia just became the school yard bully.

If Nokia invested the time into R&D and patent something new, it's right to get what they are owed. But man Nokia is going down the gurgler soon. Apple will probably buy them out and get all the intellectual property at the end of the day.

paul4339
Jun 14, 2011, 11:29 PM
nice headline grabbing BS by our media. It is safe to bet that the other manufactures were already paying the for the patents. I know LG, HTC, Samsung, Motorola, and Blackberry already have an agreement with them and most of them have patents sharing with Nokia.
...


Really? What proof of these royalty payments by ALL of competing manufacturers are paying Nokia?

I believe that Nokia themselves says that 40 manufacturers are paying.

So to answer your question directly, there is no proof that ALL competitors are paying Nokia. But it probably would be safe to say that if indeed, there are 40 payers, then most or all the above mentioned big companies are probably among them.

CFreymarc
Jun 15, 2011, 12:45 AM
nice headline grabbing BS by our media. It is safe to bet that the other manufactures were already paying the for the patents. I know LG, HTC, Samsung, Motorola, and Blackberry already have an agreement with them and most of them have patents sharing with Nokia.

I love the piss poor reporting the media does.

I'm sure a good reporter got all the data right. Then his boss, the uber-reporters who knows the agenda of the board members of said media group, hacked the article to where anything said will not compromise media group board members portfolio.

Yes, those corner office talks are interesting. Stick with media that refuses to spike stories based on advertisers threats to drop an account. The Internet is making guys like this modern day heroes. Eventually everyone will see the emperor has no clothes in the boardroom.

CFreymarc
Jun 15, 2011, 12:47 AM
[SIZE=1]But man Nokia is going down the gurgler soon. Apple will probably buy them out and get all the intellectual property at the end of the day.

Keep in mind that Nokia is a socialist puppet of Finland. They are just moving to another industry. They are just soon to be out of the cell phone business if they don't get their third world welfare soon.

cchaplin
Jun 15, 2011, 12:52 AM
It was a press release. Press release is not going to include it. Also often times there are agreements between companies not to publicly release names of who is licencing the tech.

Rodimus, don't bother. You've made your point already. If a person still want's to argue with such arguments, let him ;)

Rodimus Prime
Jun 15, 2011, 01:04 AM
Rodimus, don't bother. You've made your point already. If a person still want's to argue with such arguments, let him ;)

Yeah I have kind of given up. If people want to be mindless drones and can not accept the fact that this article is beyond BS then there is not much I can do for them. The logic was laid out.

You can lead a horse to water but if they are to dumb to drink well ....

you know glue factory.

cchaplin
Jun 15, 2011, 01:12 AM
*laughing*

Wait a second...

So if a company doesn't have patents they're willing to cross license, then they must pay Nokia more???!

This reasoning sure sounds familiar.

Yes, you've got it right. This is how _all_ business works. Why do you see this difficult to understand or unfear?

A person has an apple (the fruit or money or own patents to license), another person has an iPhone 4 (own patents to license) and a third one has two Macbook Air's (patents to license).

They make business because the first two want or need to have a Macbook Air from the third one.

The first one makes a deal to give the third one the apple for the Air, the second one makes a deal to to the third one the iPhone for the Air.

Does it work? Yes its does if the apple and the iPhone and the Air are equal in value. Since they most likely are not, the deal is more likely something else than just a straight forward swap. Perhaps something like this (provided that the Air is the most valuable item in the deal):

The first one gives the apple + x $ to the third one and get's the Air.
The second one gives the iPhone + y $ to the third one and get's the Air.

gnasher729
Jun 15, 2011, 02:27 AM
Are these hardware or software patents? We may never know. As a programmer software patents are horrible. They are usually vague and stifle creativity. Two different people can achieve something with software that under the hood is totally different. Trademarks and copyrights on code are enough to stop plagiarism. This situation is unlikely to change since most corporations are in a prisoners dilemma with their patent portfolio. Take as many patents as you can to avoid being sued by those who did take lots of patents.

I don't distinguish between software and hardware patents. I distinguish between patent trolls and genuine patents. A patent troll has a patent that I have absolutely no interest in, where I could do exactly the same things whether that patent exists or not, and where I am forced to pay not because of the value of the invention, but because of patent law. Genuine patents are those where my stuff wouldn't work if the invention hadn't been made. Without these Nokia patents, mobile phones wouldn't work. As a counter example, if the Lodsys patents didn't exist, Apple would have written exactly the same software, and whatever Lodsys sues developers for would work exactly the same.

caspersoong
Jun 15, 2011, 03:30 AM
If Apple gets off with such a huge sum with SJ's awesome negotiations, I wonder how the other manufacturers will fare.

Oletros
Jun 15, 2011, 03:44 AM
Are these hardware or software patents? We may never know.

The patents are described in Nokia filing, they're hardware patents

Oletros
Jun 15, 2011, 03:48 AM
If Apple gets off with such a huge sum with SJ's awesome negotiations, I wonder how the other manufacturers will fare.

SJ negotiations?

BLACKFRIDAY
Jun 15, 2011, 04:02 AM
******* Florian Müller.

Real mature.

Really guys, when you read the name Florian Müller you should automatically keep it away from MacRumors. The guy is a paid mouthpiece for Microsoft and nothing else.

Great assumptions.

Whatever he says you can be sure that he paints the bleakest picture possible for any Microsoft competitor. Google and anything related to Google is top of his hitlist because at the moment Google looks even more threatening to Microsoft than Apple does, but that can change any moment when he gets different instructions from his paymasters.

That's true but I don't see any reason why he would be bothered.

This site is supposed to be about rumours. I don't mind a bit of actual fact in between the rumours :D but paid disinformation doesn't belong here.

May be the whole news is wrong and baseless, but it's a good rumour anyway. ;)

"Good coverage"? Florian Müller is the one who advises iOS developers to suck it up and pay the patent trolls. And Android developers should do the same.

I can quote a number of people who said 'paying up' was better than kind of litigation whatsoever.
If I remember right, Marco Arment suggested all developers pay and be happy. Maybe that was a short term solution but was indeed the right thing to do if Apple didn't play the game. Even JohnGruber suggested that Litigation can be a big pain and one can suffer a lot.

I don't see anything wrong with his suggession. Like many others, no one knew that Apple was gonna step in, the way things turned out.

Look, when there is a history of one article after the other by the same author spewing misinformation, by an author who has actually no qualifications whatsoever, and each single article is attacking Microsoft competitors, and in many cases making exactly the same statements that Microsoft makes officially at the same time, then an attack on the person is not "ad hominem" anymore.

Provide links so even I can understand that?

And when I strongly agree with Rodimus Prime, as I do on this point, you can safely assume that he is correct.

Maybe he is, but I think he is too short tempered and abusive some times.

NSeven
Jun 15, 2011, 04:07 AM
ANDRIOD WILL SUFFER !!!

Good

gkpm
Jun 15, 2011, 04:11 AM
The patents are described in Nokia filing, they're hardware patents

No they are not. There's software patents as well. Stop spreading rubbish.

For example one of the patents is on "Mobile Station with Touch Input Having Automatic Symbol Magnification Function,"

Which is how the iPhone zooms in on the key when you press it on the virtual keyboard. That's a software patent.

See the actual filing here: http://tinyurl.com/yd4rcop (you have to register with the ITC, but it's free)

Oletros
Jun 15, 2011, 04:18 AM
No they are not. There's software patents as well. Stop spreading rubbish.

For example one of the patents is on "Mobile Station with Touch Input Having Automatic Symbol Magnification Function,"

Which is how the iPhone zooms in on the key when you press it on the virtual keyboard. That's a software patent.

See the actual filing here: http://tinyurl.com/yd4rcop (you have to register with the ITC, but it's free)


Please, you are spreading rubbish

Those are the TEN esential pattents Nokia sued for against Apple:

1.) "Data Transmission in a Radio Telephone Network." (1998) Covers the formation of virtual data channel.
2.) "Data Transfer in a Mobile Telephone Network." (2002) A wireless patent which covers when a radio block is to be coded, and user data is transferred in octet form to simplify flow of data.
3.) "Measurement Report Transmission in a Telecommunications System." (2004) This lets mobile devices respond to polling codes that indicate the condition of that device.
4.) "Access Channel for Reduced Access Delay in a Telecommunications System." (2004) A UMTS patent where access requests are adjusted based on channel conditions.
5.)"Reporting Cell Measurement Results in a Cellular Communications System." (2006) This "enables a mobile device to report an increased number of signal quality measurements to a mobile network."
6.) "Method and Apparatus for Speech Transmission." (1998) This lets multiple speech coding methods to be used at different transmission rates for 2 stage channel encoding.
7.) "Speech Synthesizer Employing Post-Processing for Enhancing the Quality of the Synthesized Speech." (1999) This is a postfilter processing technology for clearer voice calls.
8.) "Method of Ciphering Data Transmission in a Radio System." (2005) This covers a UMTS cyphering alogrithm with a channel specific parameter among its inputs.
9.) "Integrity Check in a Communications System." (2006) A UMTS integrity algorithm calculated from values including channel identity information.
10.) "System for Ensuring Encrypted Communication after Handover." (2008) This allows for secure handoffs with an encryption algorithms supported by a mobile station between radio access networks.

All of them are radio hardware related.

Herre the complaint filing:

http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/pdfs/complaint.pdf

Read first, then comment with a littl knowledge, not like now.

spacemanspifff
Jun 15, 2011, 04:21 AM
Cross licensing... it appears Nokia is payin Apple nothing. They settled, and Apple it appears will pay a sum up front then a few 100 million quarterly to Nokia.
The cross licensing part is that Nokia, instead of taking payment for some patents, will just exchange usage rights for some of Apples.

Though you do have a point in that Nokia did license some of Apple patents given them at least some validity. Then again... it may end up being the same story for Apple with the others they have sued... ie cross licensing and thats it.

Sorry John, but any way you look at it, cross licensing is still paying! There may not be actual money changing hands but it's just the old barter system, you give me something, I'll give you something. We are both "paying" in the end. Although Apple is paying Nokia a boatload more for sure.

On your second point, I don't think the other manufacturers involved in suits with Apple have anything substantial to cross license! I may be wrong... The other suits seem to me to be against the copying of the touch interface, the software and the case design rather than the internal engineering as in the Nokia one.

Outside of the 3G/Network engineering stuff, the iPhone is not just a phone, and this is the "unique" thing about it, this is what Apple are trying to protect from people like Samsung, HTC etc.

Now while they probably will not be able to stop these other companies making phones which look and act like the iPhone, they should be able to get the others to pay them for every phone sold [including past offerings] which infringe the Apple held patents, just like Nokia did.

I guess we'll have to wait and see...

Popeye206
Jun 15, 2011, 04:29 AM
I believe that Nokia themselves says that 40 manufacturers are paying.

So to answer your question directly, there is no proof that ALL competitors are paying Nokia. But it probably would be safe to say that if indeed, there are 40 payers, then most or all the above mentioned big companies are probably among them.

Here's my take on why they say Google may be at risk... the patents in question must be a OS function that was in violation. If it was a hardware thing, like involving the 3G chip, then wouldn't the creator of the 3G chip already have the patent license and Apple would have been covered since they OEM the chip. So, conclusion, it's a software interaction violation.

Given this, yes, Moto, Samsung, etc. probably do have a license for their other OS's. But maybe Google never got one for Android and the licenses that Moto and the gang have don't cover Android. If this is the case, then Android devices would be liable for the licensing.

All the arguments here seem to be based on two things... one is assumption that the other hardware guys have this covered and two that depending on which article you want to believe (the one that best supports your belief) is the one that is accurate.

Given I don't think anyone here is a director or VP with Moto, Samsung, HTC or whoever... none of you really know for sure what licenses they hold. And for that matter, neither do the writers or people who have made these claims.

So, I guess we'll know if Google or the others are served soon by Nokia since now they have a very strong patent to defend and if there is no license that covers Android.... they will be in a bad position.

gkpm
Jun 15, 2011, 04:34 AM
Please, you are spreading rubbish

Those are the TEN esential pattents Nokia sued for against Apple:

That's only one part of the complaints Nokia filed against Apple. That's only the US court patent suit.

There have been patent suits filed in the US, Germany, UK and the Netherlands courts and two complaints to the International Trade Commission (ITC).

The one I posted is Nokia's first complaint to the ITC.

There's no difference in essentiality or not, there were a total of 46 patents claimed to be infringed in the whole set of suits and complaints Nokia filed against Apple. All these have now been settled.

Not all of them were hardware unlike you were implying.

For reference the ITC complaint I linked to covers these Nokia patents:

** SOFTWARE ** U.S. Patent No. 6,073,036, "Mobile Station with Touch Input Having Automatic Symbol Magnification Function,"

** SOFTWARE ** U.S. Patent No. 6,262,735, "Utilizing the Contents of a Message,"

U.S. Patent No. 6,714,091, "VCO With Programmable Output Power"

U.S. Patent No. 6,34,181, "Mobile Communication Device and Related Construction Method"

U.S. Patent No. 6,895,256, "Optimized Camera Sensor Architecture for a Mobile Telephone"

U.S. Patent No. 6,518,957, "Communications Device with Touch Sensitive Screen"

U.S. Patent No. 6,924,789, "User Interface Device,"

Full complaint at the ITC (minus the confidental parts) http://tinyurl.com/yd4rcop

Question is are other manufacturers licensed for all these patents as well. Eg the keyboard one.
Unfortunately the licensee list for these patents included in the ITC complaint is confidential.

vemssi
Jun 15, 2011, 05:02 AM
Can you actually prove the others have licensed these patents?

I strongly doubt that any of those major others would be members of ETSI GSM standardization body without paying the licenses. Unless you are a member too (through your organization) I'm afraid you just have to trust this is the case since the hard evidence is burried in those docs and I simply cannot copy the details here.

gkpm
Jun 15, 2011, 05:06 AM
I strongly doubt that any of those major others would be members of ETSI GSM standardization body without paying the licenses. Unless you are a member too (through your organization) I'm afraid you just have to trust this is the case since the hard evidence is burried in those docs and I simply cannot copy the details here.

Why are people insisting the 46 infringed patents just cover aspects of GSM?

They don't: there's software, there's a touchscreen patent, camera sensors, plus others completely unrelated to GSM standards.

See my post above for examples.

Dbrown
Jun 15, 2011, 05:09 AM
My original question was for proof that other manufacturers had already licensed the same patents as Apple, which would disprove Florian Mueller story.

Nokia said virtually all cell phone vendors have licensed Nokia technology. Has nokia sued samsung, motorola or LG? There's your proof right there.

gkpm
Jun 15, 2011, 05:15 AM
Nokia said virtually all cell phone vendors have licensed Nokia technology. Has nokia sued samsung, motorola or LG? There's your proof right there.

That's no proof.

Nokia might just be considering if those other manufacturers don't have bigger things to retaliate with. After all they all have been making mobile phones for a long time, haven't they...

Also why is Google so desperately bidding for Nortel's 3G patents? Maybe leverage for the Open Handset Alliance?

vladi
Jun 15, 2011, 05:32 AM
This guy has no clue what he is talking about unless he has an inside info of what Apple vs Nokia dispute was all about and complete look into all Nokia agreements with other manufacturers.

gkpm
Jun 15, 2011, 05:40 AM
Please, you are spreading rubbish

Those are the TEN esential pattents Nokia sued for against Apple:

All of them are radio hardware related.

Read first, then comment with a littl knowledge, not like now.

I was now going through the list patents you posted from the US court filing and just noticed most (if not all) of them are actually software patents.

Do you even know the difference? Yes they are related to radio, but describe methods and algorithms by which the software codes and displays information (like signal measurement). Those are software patents.

But thanks for strengthening my point. I should have used your list instead.

gnasher729
Jun 15, 2011, 05:48 AM
Here's my take on why they say Google may be at risk...

The person making the claim is Florian Müller. You can stop reading when you read that name. Florian Müller is a hired gun for Microsoft. He gets told what to say directly by Microsoft. The reason why he says that Google must be at risk is because Microsoft wants people to believe that Google is at risk, or might do something they shouldn't.

And in this case, like in many other cases, he is talking nonsense. There are plenty of companies having patents in the GSM space, and everyone is licensing them. Apple and Nokia was a very special case where one patent holder and one licensee couldn't agree about the terms. At the same time Apple has already been paying patent license fees to other GSM patent holders where they didn't disagree with the terms, and every phone manufacturer must have patent licenses from all these patent holders.

There are two possibilities only with these licenses: You either have all the licenses you need, or you are in court. If Google, or more likely the phone manufacturers, didn't have all the licenses they needed, they would have been in court for a long time.

Popeye206
Jun 15, 2011, 06:01 AM
The person making the claim is Florian Müller. You can stop reading when you read that name. Florian Müller is a hired gun for Microsoft. He gets told what to say directly by Microsoft. The reason why he says that Google must be at risk is because Microsoft wants people to believe that Google is at risk, or might do something they shouldn't.

And in this case, like in many other cases, he is talking nonsense. There are plenty of companies having patents in the GSM space, and everyone is licensing them. Apple and Nokia was a very special case where one patent holder and one licensee couldn't agree about the terms. At the same time Apple has already been paying patent license fees to other GSM patent holders where they didn't disagree with the terms, and every phone manufacturer must have patent licenses from all these patent holders.

There are two possibilities only with these licenses: You either have all the licenses you need, or you are in court. If Google, or more likely the phone manufacturers, didn't have all the licenses they needed, they would have been in court for a long time.

All I'm saying is... I doubt anyone here really knows. And... I think you're wrong... if Apple and Google are in violation, you put your efforts on one first. If you win, then you essentially win both.

In cases like this it would make sense that Nokia would focus on one or the other first. Apple being the obvious choice because Apple has IP to barter that Nokia wanted. So now that the patent has been validated, if Google does not have a license they will have little choice but to negotiate and pay.

Now... with all that said... I'm talking about strategy and not necessarily reality. I hear what you're saying about Muller. I'm not saying he's right. But I will say NO ONE HERE REALLY KNOWS what licenses are in place and what they cover. So... if... IF Muller is right (which I doubt too), we'll know soon as Google will be next if they don't have a license.

I just think it's funny that so many here are talking like they know for sure what others have and don't have. :rolleyes:

kdarling
Jun 15, 2011, 06:38 AM
All I'm saying is... I doubt anyone here really knows. And... I think you're wrong... if Apple and Google are in violation, you put your efforts on one first. If you win, then you essentially win both.

Google doesn't make phones.

HTC, Samsung, LG and others have been making GSM phones for at least a decade. It's an overwhelmingly good bet that they are already licensed with Nokia.

For that matter, Nokia is just one of many that require licenses. Phone makers also must deal with Ericsson, Broadcom, Qualcomm, and others for communications.

Then there's royalties for Visual Voice Mail (yes, Apple pays for that, too, since they didn't invent it), camera related patents, browser related patents (Apple didn't invent double-click web zoom either), power saving patents and so forth.

All told, perhaps $30 of a smartphone's cost can be in royalties alone.

That's one reason Nokia has a good partner with Microsoft. MS has cross licenses with most everyone, including the huge Nortel patent pool that's being auctioned off.

gkpm
Jun 15, 2011, 06:55 AM
Google doesn't make phones.

No, but they write the software for them.

Why else would they be bidding for Nortel's patents then. They are also worried.

The mobile world is not static, patents are coming out all the time. Nokia has some old patents, but some new as well.

We don't know if the major players have licensed everything they need.

For all we know Nokia might be calling them right now and saying:
"Hey [HTC/Samsung/Motorola/...] remember those patents you didn't think applied to you? Well they do and we even bent Apple over to pay for them. Yes, that's how good we are.

Should we invoice you now at a special offer price or would you like the "Apple treatment" as well?"

John Dillinger
Jun 15, 2011, 07:07 AM
Something else that I dont get from the article, and some comments is this:
"Other companies, notably Android handset manufacturers, may now have to play ball with Nokia on these patents -- and they don't necessarily have the margins to send 1% of gross revenues to Nokia as easily as Apple can. "

I mean this isnt regresseive taxation-- 1% is 1%... so if these other manufacturers dont have the revenues... they will be paying less in comparison and no more as a percentage of their earnings?

If I earn $100 and have to pay 1% I pay.. 1$
If I earn $1,000,000 I pay $10,000.

I dont see how it hurts the little guy more except if as the florian guy is hoping, they negotiate worse terms. but otherwise... wtf? :confused::confused:

KnightWRX
Jun 15, 2011, 07:12 AM
No, but they write the software for them.

Why else would they be bidding for Nortel's patents then. They are also worried.

The mobile world is not static, patents are coming out all the time. Nokia has some old patents, but some new as well.

We don't know if the major players have licensed everything they need.

For all we know Nokia might be calling them right now and saying:
"Hey [HTC/Samsung/Motorola/...] remember those patents you didn't think applied to you? Well they do and we even bent Apple over to pay for them. Yes, that's how good we are.

Should we invoice you now at a special offer price or would you like the "Apple treatment" as well?"

Look up what are patent pools and who participates in them and why they exist. It's to avoid your fictional ridiculous scenario. Apple was one of the last players to not license the stuff from Nokia, anything else is FUD.

And FUD is something Florian Mueller excels at. You're just helping him spread it.

kdarling
Jun 15, 2011, 07:20 AM
So if a company doesn't have patents they're willing to cross license, then they must pay Nokia more???!

This reasoning sure sounds familiar.Yes, you've got it right. This is how _all_ business works. Why do you see this difficult to understand or unfear?


Thanks! I understand it fully. It's my fault that you missed the point, as I mistakenly assumed most people had read all my previous posts on the topic.

I was expressing my amusement at an article that predicted other companies with less IP would have to pay more, right after a whole year of previous articles crying foul that Apple might have to do the same, for the same reason.

Cheers!

Oletros
Jun 15, 2011, 07:22 AM
I was now going through the list patents you posted from the US court filing and just noticed most (if not all) of them are actually software patents.

Do you even know the difference? Yes they are related to radio, but describe methods and algorithms by which the software codes and displays information (like signal measurement). Those are software patents.

But thanks for strengthening my point. I should have used your list instead.

I give up.

Yes, you're totally righ, Apple has licensed all 46 patents. All the other manufacturers must pay Nokia because they doesn't pay anything and all the patents are software patents.

Satisfied?

When there is no filing against any of those companies what you will say?

Au dios

Oletros
Jun 15, 2011, 07:24 AM
Look up what are patent pools and who participates in them and why they exist. It's to avoid your fictional ridiculous scenario. Apple was one of the last players to not license the stuff from Nokia, anything else is FUD.

And FUD is something Florian Mueller excels at. You're just helping him spread it.

Don't waste your time trying to argue with him

John Dillinger
Jun 15, 2011, 07:25 AM
No, but they write the software for them.

Why else would they be bidding for Nortel's patents then. They are also worried.

The mobile world is not static, patents are coming out all the time. Nokia has some old patents, but some new as well.

We don't know if the major players have licensed everything they need.

For all we know Nokia might be calling them right now and saying:
"Hey [HTC/Samsung/Motorola/...] remember those patents you didn't think applied to you? Well they do and we even bent Apple over to pay for them. Yes, that's how good we are.

Should we invoice you now at a special offer price or would you like the "Apple treatment" as well?"

You seem to be hoping against hope.

These 'new' unknown patents that Nokia may or may not have are NOT the ones they just sued Apple for. So that whole argument is moot.

They havent set any precedent for those patents by winning this case.
In other words if Nokia did decide to sue and win.. well Apple would be liable just like the rest of manufacturers.

gkpm
Jun 15, 2011, 07:26 AM
Look up what are patent pools and who participates in them and why they exist. It's to avoid your fictional ridiculous scenario. Apple was one of the last players to not license the stuff from Nokia, anything else is FUD.

And FUD is something Florian Mueller excels at. You're just helping him spread it.

So you seem to know which patent pools all major Android manufacturers participate in? Plus Nokia? If so, very good, look forward to you listing them in a future post.

None of this is FUD at all, if you haven't noticed everyone in the mobile industry is either suing, already settled or licensed often after legal threats, so your patent pool concept isn't as tight as you'd hope.

Nokia moving on to shake a few more manufacturers out of their change - for patents that were less solid in the past - would not be surprising at all.

I give up. Yes, you're totally righ, Apple has licensed all 46 patents. All the other manufacturers must pay Nokia because they doesn't pay anything and all the patents are software patents.

Satisfied?


No, because not all the patents mentioned are not software patents. There's both kinds.

Look if you don't even know what a software patent is, why exactly are you posting in a position of knowledge?

You obviously don't know a lot about it.

hese 'new' unknown patents that Nokia may or may not have are NOT the ones they just sued Apple for. So that whole argument is moot.

You misunderstood the "new", what I meant is there are patents more recent than the old GSM stuff that companies may have licensed in the past. I mean how popular where on-screen keyboards with key zoom effects before Apple came along?

There simply weren't that many manufacturers using them. Most were pen interfaces that didn't need those things.

Apple has settled these now. Have the others? We simply don't know.

I can't understand how all three of you seem to be claiming they are, but yet only have very incomplete facts to support it.

I know some of you have some sort of personal hatred for Florian Mueller, but to reject this article based on his name alone is just as bad as some of his actions you complain about.

Oletros
Jun 15, 2011, 07:59 AM
You obviously don't know a lot about it.


Right, the only one which knows anything about everything is you

John Dillinger
Jun 15, 2011, 08:09 AM
You misunderstood the "new", what I meant is there are patents more recent than the old GSM stuff that companies may have licensed in the past. I mean how popular where on-screen keyboards with key zoom effects before Apple came along?

There simply weren't that many manufacturers using them. Most were pen interfaces that didn't need those things.

Apple has settled these now. Have the others? We simply don't know.

I can't understand how all three of you seem to be claiming they are, but yet only have very incomplete facts to support it.I know some of you have some sort of personal hatred for Florian Mueller, but to reject this article based on his name alone is just as bad as some of his actions you complain about.

Arstechnica, a pretty reputable source, state (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/06/nokia-agrees-to-bury-patent-hatchet-with-apple-for-lump-sum.ars): "Nokia originally sued Apple in October 2009, claiming the company refused to negotiate licensing of Nokia's extensive portfolio of cellular technology patents"... the suit is about wireless tech and is not related to OS.. pinching to zoom or icons any crap that Apple is suing for. It is fundamentals of a wireless phone that is highly likely that other players, who been in the market a long time, would have likely licensed/cross licensed.

Ars also disagrees that Android manufacturers would next be a target as a result of this case. They refuted it in one line as the (most likely) bs that it is.

Again, the other hardware manufacturers who have been producing phones for a long time and competing with Nokia, would have had to settle a long time ago. Or built up their own patents with which to negotiate/cross license.

It makes no sense whatsover for Nokia to go after Apple first, who i remind are the most loaded company in tech, if they had equal dirt on the others...

If you look at this logically, the answer is either they have already paid/licensed... OR they hold patents that dissuaded Nokia from even bothering to try litigate.. regards these particular patents.

Rodimus Prime
Jun 15, 2011, 08:23 AM
No, but they write the software for them.

Why else would they be bidding for Nortel's patents then. They are also worried.

The mobile world is not static, patents are coming out all the time. Nokia has some old patents, but some new as well.

We don't know if the major players have licensed everything they need.

For all we know Nokia might be calling them right now and saying:
"Hey [HTC/Samsung/Motorola/...] remember those patents you didn't think applied to you? Well they do and we even bent Apple over to pay for them. Yes, that's how good we are.

Should we invoice you now at a special offer price or would you like the "Apple treatment" as well?"
Google does not write the phone signal part. That is provided and handle by the carriers and hardware manufacturers. It is proprietary to each carrier and manufacturer.

KnightWRX
Jun 15, 2011, 08:39 AM
None of this is FUD at all,

Yes it is FUD. If you knew what FUD meant, you'd know why this is FUD. You are Uncertain of everything you say and speculate to spread a Doubt in our minds that other players in the industry aren't properly licensed. All this speculation leads to Fear.

Do I need to spell it out more clearly now ?

Who do you think the 40 companies already licensing these patents from Nokia are exactly ?

gkpm
Jun 15, 2011, 08:40 AM
Right, the only one which knows anything about everything is you

Absolutely not, and I know that, that's why I find out what things actually are before posting. I know, with three critics at the same time it's hard. But hey I survived my PhD thesis committee, so this is a doodle.

Arstechnica, a pretty reputable source, state (http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/06/nokia-agrees-to-bury-patent-hatchet-with-apple-for-lump-sum.ars): "Nokia originally sued Apple in October 2009, claiming the company refused to negotiate licensing of Nokia's extensive portfolio of cellular technology patents"... the suit is about wireless tech and is not related to OS.. pinching to zoom or icons any crap that Apple is suing for.

That was the initial suit in the US court, however Nokia followed on with further suits around the world and two complaints to the International Trade Commission, claiming infringement on a range of other patents including user interface topics, camera, etc. I've described this in my previous posts here!

Also note the initial "wireless tech" suit included things like representing the signal level (ie bars)

Google does not write the phone signal part. That is provided and handle by the carriers and hardware manufacturers. It is proprietary to each carrier and manufacturer.

And that's probably why Nokia filed on the next suits and complaints including patents all over the operation of the phone, not just signal tech.

I'm also unsure Google has not worked on the signal part, since they are bidding for Nortel 3G and 4G patents now? If they had no interest in the signal part why would they do so?

Yes it is FUD. If you knew what FUD meant, you'd know why this is FUD. You are Uncertain of everything you say and speculate to spread a Doubt in our minds that other players in the industry aren't properly licensed. All this speculation leads to Fear.

Do I need to spell it out more clearly now ?

Who do you think the 40 companies already licensing these patents from Nokia are exactly ?

LOL, thanks for teaching what FUD is, I never imagined. Hopefully you'll know what sarcasm is. Maybe you wish to go on the journey of defining what "fear" is and how it applies in this case?

I simply can't see anything we should be afraid of? Seems clear my iPhone is not going anywhere. Do you work for any of the mobile companies that may be affected? If so as you seem to think they're properly licensed you'll be fine, don't worry.

As for the 40 companies, I have no clue, but neither do you. For all I know that number could have dozens of smaller R&D companies Nokia created with their massive budget.

Themaeds
Jun 15, 2011, 08:46 AM
I need more popcorn.... all the arm chair lawyers and patent experts on this forum is amazing.

Apple really should just come here for advice and skip legal council. :rolleyes:

hahaha I know, I've never seen so many people that think they are in the Apple war room sitting next to El Stevarino

London Lad
Jun 15, 2011, 09:07 AM
Anyway, lets hope that a bit of cooperation between Apple and Nokia paves the way for us to get rSAP on the iPhone so we can use the full feature set in more modern cars :-)

gkpm
Jun 15, 2011, 09:14 AM
Anyway, lets hope that a bit of cooperation between Apple and Nokia paves the way for us to get rSAP on the iPhone so we can use the full feature set in more modern cars :-)

LOL unlikely. Bluetooth is a dead end. You could have AirSIM I guess, but I think Apple was more interested in having the iPhone also handle the user interface part in cars, so maybe some sort of Air iPod Out?

One thing is almost certain however, you'll need to buy a new car.

London Lad
Jun 15, 2011, 09:18 AM
LOL unlikely. Bluetooth is a dead end. You could have AirSIM I guess, but I think Apple was more interested in having the iPhone also handle the user interface part in cars, so maybe some sort of Air iPod Out?

One thing is almost certain however, you'll need to buy a new car.

rSAP is effectively 'air sim' and my car already has it, I just need the iPhone to catch up !

KnightWRX
Jun 15, 2011, 09:26 AM
LOL, thanks for teaching what FUD is, I never imagined. Hopefully you'll know what sarcasm is. Maybe you wish to go on the journey of defining what "fear" is and how it applies in this case?

I simply can't see anything we should be afraid of? Seems clear my iPhone is not going anywhere. Do you work for any of the mobile companies that may be affected? If so as you seem to think they're properly licensed you'll be fine, don't worry.

Fear in this case is implying that other manufacturers would face added licensing cost above what they already pay, which would result in added costs for the consumer or "problems" in profitability for said manufacturers. Which is what Florian Mueller is claiming and what you are implying.

Do we really need to explain every point to you, you really can't figure out any of this on your own ?

As for the 40 companies, I have no clue, but neither do you. For all I know that number could have dozens of smaller R&D companies Nokia created with their massive budget.

And again, what about the fact that all Android players, HTC, LG, Motorola, Samsung, Sony Ericsson having been in the mobile industry for over a decade doesn't catch on with you ? Apple wasn't the first Nokia was going after, so why would Nokia have left these players alone ?

You don't know, I don't know. But : people like me who claim these guys are licensed have a much better leg to stand on than you and Florian do in your claims.

As such, stop spreading FUD. Until Nokia files a lawsuit, nothing is going to happen to the Android manufacturers. Stating otherwise is again : Fear Uncertainty Doubt.

cchaplin
Jun 15, 2011, 09:33 AM
Thanks! I understand it fully. It's my fault that you missed the point, as I mistakenly assumed most people had read all my previous posts on the topic.

I was expressing my amusement at an article that predicted other companies with less IP would have to pay more, right after a whole year of previous articles crying foul that Apple might have to do the same, for the same reason.

Cheers!

Maybe I should have. Now that you point it out as irony I kind of like it ;)

Cheers!

azbigdog
Jun 15, 2011, 12:31 PM
Something else that I dont get from the article, and some comments is this:
"Other companies, notably Android handset manufacturers, may now have to play ball with Nokia on these patents -- and they don't necessarily have the margins to send 1% of gross revenues to Nokia as easily as Apple can. "

I mean this isnt regresseive taxation-- 1% is 1%... so if these other manufacturers dont have the revenues... they will be paying less in comparison and no more as a percentage of their earnings?

If I earn $100 and have to pay 1% I pay.. 1$
If I earn $1,000,000 I pay $10,000.

I dont see how it hurts the little guy more except if as the florian guy is hoping, they negotiate worse terms. but otherwise... wtf? :confused::confused:

It hurts the manufacturers who make lower percentages on their hardware. Apple has a very high profit percentage on their products. The p.o.s. of the day android phone is given away free it does not.

azbigdog
Jun 15, 2011, 01:13 PM
Fear in this case is implying that other manufacturers would face added licensing cost above what they already pay, which would result in added costs for the consumer or "problems" in profitability for said manufacturers. Which is what Florian Mueller is claiming and what you are implying.

Do we really need to explain every point to you, you really can't figure out any of this on your own ?



And again, what about the fact that all Android players, HTC, LG, Motorola, Samsung, Sony Ericsson having been in the mobile industry for over a decade doesn't catch on with you ? Apple wasn't the first Nokia was going after, so why would Nokia have left these players alone ?

You don't know, I don't know. But : people like me who claim these guys are licensed have a much better leg to stand on than you and Florian do in your claims.

As such, stop spreading FUD. Until Nokia files a lawsuit, nothing is going to happen to the Android manufacturers. Stating otherwise is again : Fear Uncertainty Doubt.

Does this sound like a guy who is not planning other lawsuits??

“We are very pleased to have Apple join the growing number of Nokia licensees,” said Stephen Elop, president and chief executive officer of Nokia. “This settlement demonstrates Nokia’s industry leading patent portfolio and enables us to focus on further licensing opportunities in the mobile communications market.”

KnightWRX
Jun 15, 2011, 01:36 PM
Does this sound like a guy who is not planning other lawsuits??

“We are very pleased to have Apple join the growing number of Nokia licensees,” said Stephen Elop, president and chief executive officer of Nokia. “This settlement demonstrates Nokia’s industry leading patent portfolio and enables us to focus on further licensing opportunities in the mobile communications market.”

Against established players in the industry that have contributed and licensed the patents in question for years before Apple thought of an idea for a phone ? No. For other new comers like Apple that think they can reap the benefits without paying their dues ? Yes.

The Android ecosystem is compromised of the former.

Until there's a lawsuit, it's all FUD.

ZipZapRap
Jun 15, 2011, 06:27 PM
The Android ecosystem is compromised

Lol..

mjtomlin
Jun 15, 2011, 09:34 PM
Goes a long way.

A few points here...

1. Apple was all set to pay the licensing fee to Nokia, but Nokia demanded much more than the fair amount they charged other companies. They also wanted access to some of Apple's iPhone patents.
2. Apple flat pout refused to these terms and decided to use the tech without licensing it, knowing full well it would end up in court. I'm pretty sure Apple has been preparing for this moment to pay Nokia what it is due - a fair amount for the license.
3. No one has even mentioned the fact that a month ago Apple bought 200 wireless communication patents from Freescale (Motorola) that are related to tech used in the iPhone and iPad. Apple could have used these to form the cross-licensing settlement.
4. I'd be willing to guess that just about all current mobile handset makers have already licensed the Nokia IP and are free from being dragged into court.

Ars has a nice summary of ACTUAL events here...

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/06/nokia-agrees-to-bury-patent-hatchet-with-apple-for-lump-sum.ars

kdarling
Jun 16, 2011, 06:23 AM
1. Apple was all set to pay the licensing fee to Nokia, but Nokia demanded much more than the fair amount they charged other companies. They also wanted access to some of Apple's iPhone patents.

Every time this is repeated, it totally ignores the fact that in the end, Nokia was so sure of their position, they asked an American jury to decide what was a fair payment from Apple.

No demand for cross licensing. No demand for high royalties. Not even a demand for triple damages, as Apple haughtily did in their countersuit, although they said they were open to anything extra the court thought was just.

Apple decided to avoid the jury trial and settled ahead of time. Now, there could be a bunch of reasons for that, including:


Apple thought a jury's fair amount would be more, including possible damages.
The ITC was not buying their counter claims of Nokia infringing Apple patents.
Apple wanted to look friendly towards licensing before bidding on the Nortel patents.
Nokia's deal with Microsoft effectively ended Apple's countersuit claims.

Oletros
Jun 16, 2011, 07:23 AM
1. Apple was all set to pay the licensing fee to Nokia, but Nokia demanded much more than the fair amount they charged other companies. They also wanted access to some of Apple's iPhone patents.

And how do you know this is a fact?

Dbrown
Jun 17, 2011, 02:21 AM
That's no proof.

Nokia might just be considering if those other manufacturers don't have bigger things to retaliate with. After all they all have been making mobile phones for a long time, haven't they...

Also why is Google so desperately bidding for Nortel's 3G patents? Maybe leverage for the Open Handset Alliance?

maybe you missed the "virtually all cell phone manufacturers have licensed Nokia technology" part.