Apple Again Hits Back at Nokia in Patent Dispute

[spanading]

Nokia's just suing apple because the iphone has been more successful

Here is my understanding:

Nokia holds the patents for GSM, UMTS and WLAN standards.

Apple released iPhone in 2007 containing these technologies - without paying for the licence (as all other manufacturers have done in the past).

Apple claims it has no problem paying 'fair' royalties. Knowing Apple's idea of a 'fair' pricing structure, this is probably the equivalent of five magic beans.

Nokia (legally) has the right to set its terms of licensing - not Apple. So, Nokia takes Apple to court.

And from then on it becomes childish with these counter-lawsuits, until both companies realise they are both infringing each other and agree to settle.

Correct?

If this is true then apple is absolutely correct in saying that the patents cover industry standard technology which is essential to the function of mobile phones. Hence, they should have an agreement which is fair for access to this technology. on this front I have two questions for Nokia.

1) why was this not raised as soon as the iPhone came out?
2) Why are you not persuing other mobile producers on the same grounds and if they have access what the hell is your problem with apple, why can't they have the same terms as everyone else?

I suspect the truth is that Nokia did not think the iPhone would be as sucessful as it has been and it was not until it took a chunk of their market share that they became bothered in patent issues.

On the counter suit I cannot see what apple would have patented that could be considered a standard required by the industry as most of Apples patents tend to be about the look and feel of the operating system or methods of input in to the device and since other companies such as Samsung and LG have developed touch screen phones with out encountering the rath of Apple's legal teams. Lets not forget there are two touch sensitive technologies out there, sure the technology that Apple uses a technology that allows a clear screen but that is why they have patents to protect it and if Nokia wants it they will have to pay for that benefit or find an alterantive, but it is not essencial that they use the same technology as Apple. I would also argue that the new Nokia interface on the Phones and their Ovi store are close enough to Apple's interface and App store for Apple to have a right to bring an action.

I would argue the same for Kodac as well. The world and his wife use cameras in phones and cameras that are all digital and use similar methods to control the camera so why is Kodac so interested in Apples use of the supposed patented technology above the likes of Nokia, Samsung and Panasonic to name but a few of the major players that use digital camera technology in there products.

I really do think that this is a case of sour grapes. Apple has always had a reputation of taking existing technologies that have not been widely adopted and then making them useable to the general consumer and profiting form that. If others companies cannot manage that then that is there problem but not grounds for legal action. To be honest I hope that these two case go the same way of the Apple records complaint. I am fed up of companies suing Apple just because they done a better job in their field and shown them how something should be do. Its time these companies invested less time in legal action and took a leaf out of Apples book and innovated their way out of recession and once they have done that also make sure what you have invented works in real life not just in the labs of the scientists who made it. People will not use products that they need to spend hours reading the instruction manuals and wading through menus to do the simplest task. This is what Apple have understood for a long time the reason so many people use their products.

Its a no brainer!

 

[SiPat]

Here is my understanding:

Nokia holds the patents for GSM, UMTS and WLAN standards.

Apple released iPhone in 2007 containing these technologies - without paying for the licence (as all other manufacturers have done in the past).

Apple claims it has no problem paying 'fair' royalties. Knowing Apple's idea of a 'fair' pricing structure, this is probably the equivalent of five magic beans.

Nokia (legally) has the right to set its terms of licensing - not Apple. So, Nokia takes Apple to court.

And from then on it becomes childish with these counter-lawsuits, until both companies realise they are both infringing each other and agree to settle.

Correct?

NO, not correct. There is a standards body for cell communications, and any company which created the technology to make mobile comms a reality have given their tech to the Standards Body and agreed a fair-use licensing fee. This was necessary to ensure that all the bits that make up mobile comms could be standardised but also to prevent any monopolies.

If Nokia had refused to share its tech, Nokia would have been the only manufacturer of GSM phones. A bit like Sony's trinitron technology which was protected for 25 years before anyone else could use that tech to produce flat-screen CRTs.

Example: any tech owned by Nokia can be used by other phone manufacturers for a flat fee (for arguments sake, we'll say $1 per phone manufactured or sold). This fee is agreed beforehand and applies to every phone manufacturer. When Apple hit the mobile scene, it agreed to pay the same fee as everyone, except Nokia decided to change the terms of use and demanded access to Apple's iPhone tech in addition to what everyone else pays (in our example, $1 per unit).

I can't see Nokia winning this one, because if it does win, every manufacturer is going to be soiling their pants. It would be prudent for other players in the market to force Nokia to back-off through the standards body, otherwise Nokia, if it continues to bleed will certainly start swinging its dick.

 

[KnightWRX]

1) why was this not raised as soon as the iPhone came out?

From both Nokia's and Apple's filing, we can see that the negotiations have been ongoing since the iPhone came out. So your question is wrong in and of itself.

2) Why are you not persuing other mobile producers on the same grounds and if they have access what the hell is your problem with apple, why can't they have the same terms as everyone else?

Other mobile producers are under license to use the patents thus giving Nokia no reason to pursue them. As for Apple not having the same terms as everyone else, maybe you'd like to enlighten us to exactly what Apple was offered and what exactly are the terms other mobile manufacturers are subject to.

Maybe you want to just drop the bias a few notches and look at what is presented objectively before you poor your venom all over this story.

Example: any tech owned by Nokia can be used by other phone manufacturers for a flat fee (for arguments sake, we'll say $1 per phone manufactured or sold). This fee is agreed beforehand and applies to every phone manufacturer. When Apple hit the mobile scene, it agreed to pay the same fee as everyone, except Nokia decided to change the terms of use and demanded access to Apple's iPhone tech in addition to what everyone else pays (in our example, $1 per unit).

You misunderstand what F/RAND means. It does not mean Nokia has to license the patents out to everyone for the same flat fee. It just means that the terms must be non discriminatory. If Motorola has 5 patents Nokia needs, Nokia can license their patent for the cost of the license to the 5 patents Motorola holds + 0.50$ per phone. If Apple has 2 patents, Nokia can ask for a cross-license + 1.25$ per phone and the terms are still non discriminatory.

 

[Vmaatta]

1) why was this not raised as soon as the iPhone came out?
2) Why are you not persuing other mobile producers on the same grounds and if they have access what the hell is your problem with apple, why can't they have the same terms as everyone else?

I suspect the truth is that Nokia did not think the iPhone would be as sucessful as it has been and it was not until it took a chunk of their market share that they became bothered in patent issues.
…
I would argue the same for Kodac as well.
…
Its a no brainer!

It’s not quite a no brainer as we don’t know the details.

1) It was. They’ve been in discussions since 2007.
2) They have. Nokia says they have licensed to other companies and that Apple doesn’t want to pay. And Apple says Nokia wants unfair amounts or cross licensing. Something like that.

Nokia or any other company doesn’t wait to see if some product becomes successful. Licensing deals are just normal business and you don’t wait to see who “is worth going after” or if they are successful.

The Kodak case is similar. If I recall, Kodak says that it has licensed its technology for the other companies but Apple and RIM have been unwilling to pay the licenses. I don’t know if Apple has replied to that. Or RIM for that matter.

 

[Rocketman]

When you have cross-lawsuits it is very rare to see criminal charges filed. But since Nokia seems to be using extortion after Apple claims all they wanted was "standard terms" which were refused, this might be one of those rare cases.

Rocketman

 

[cmaier]

When you have cross-lawsuits it is very rare to see criminal charges filed. But since Nokia seems to be using extortion after Apple claims all they wanted was "standard terms" which were refused, this might be one of those rare cases.

Rocketman

Um, no. There is no extortion.

 

[Rocketman]

Um, no. There is no extortion.

http://www.answers.com/topic/extortion

1. The act or an instance of extorting.
2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
3. An excessive or exorbitant charge.
4. Something extorted.

extortion
Unlawful exaction of money or property through intimidation or undue exercise of authority. It may include threats of physical harm, criminal prosecution, or public exposure. Some forms of threat, especially those made in writing, are occasionally singled out for separate statutory treatment as blackmail.

extortion, in law, unlawful demanding or receiving by an officer, in his official capacity, of any property or money not legally due to him. Examples include requesting and accepting fees in excess of those allowed to him by statute or arresting a person and, with corrupt motives, demanding money or property unlawfully under pretense of duty. The taking of money or property is generally an essential element of the crime. In most states of the United States, extortion is more widely defined to include the obtaining of money or property of another by inducing his consent through wrongful use of fear, force, or authority of office; blackmail, ransom, and threat of force are included under this definition.


People are sitting in jail for life for less.

 

[cmaier]

http://www.answers.com/topic/extortion

1. The act or an instance of extorting.
2. Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.
3. An excessive or exorbitant charge.
4. Something extorted.

extortion
Unlawful exaction of money or property through intimidation or undue exercise of authority. It may include threats of physical harm, criminal prosecution, or public exposure. Some forms of threat, especially those made in writing, are occasionally singled out for separate statutory treatment as blackmail.

extortion, in law, unlawful demanding or receiving by an officer, in his official capacity, of any property or money not legally due to him. Examples include requesting and accepting fees in excess of those allowed to him by statute or arresting a person and, with corrupt motives, demanding money or property unlawfully under pretense of duty. The taking of money or property is generally an essential element of the crime. In most states of the United States, extortion is more widely defined to include the obtaining of money or property of another by inducing his consent through wrongful use of fear, force, or authority of office; blackmail, ransom, and threat of force are included under this definition.


People are sitting in jail for life for less.

Yeah, I know what it means (I passed a bar exam, after all). There just ain't no extortion here.

 

[djgamble]

What a bunch of losers...
"We created a phone before you guys, so pretty well all the standard features of phones belong to us, please stop competing with us!!!!"

 

[djgamble]

(I passed a bar exam, after all).

'Sif you did mate... don't tell lies...

 

[cmaier]

'Sif you did mate... don't tell lies...

I don't even know what you're saying

 

[Rocketman]

Yeah, I know what it means (I passed a bar exam, after all). There just ain't no extortion here.

What "elements" are missing?

 

[macduke]

No it’s not “well known”. It’s just forum posters deciding such things.

But it is true.

Used in many phones from many manufacturers but the patents are not some old hacks from 80s like you suggest. How could a patent like "deactivating the touch screen during phone calls so that information is not accidentally inputted via the touch screen when the phone is pressed against the ear” be from the 80s.

I'm not familiar with ALL the specifics, but wasn't that one of the patents that they added later after the initial GSM ones? I was referring primarily to the first round of GSM patents.

Yeah well no one still hasn’t provided something like a link to a court filing or quote from Apple saying that Nokia want’s more from them than others. And yeah I guess they’d really like a cross licensing deal but it has been said that both, money, licenses and combination has been proposed. I don’t know, and I don’t presume to know what is exactly true about the discussions between Apple and Nokia.

Here is a link to the counterclaim by Apple: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/19291155/?key=NWQ3MTg2ODAt&pass=ZTY0Yy00OWE4

Snippet from Introductory Statement:

2. Apple responds to the allegations contained in the numbered paragraphs of Nokia's complaint below, but first provides this brief overview of its response. With respect to Nokia's claims of infringement (a) Apple denies that it infringes any valid claim of the patents identified in Counts I - X of Nokia's Complaint ("Nokia Asserted Patents"), (b) Apple denies that the Nokia Asserted Patents are essential to any standard, but to the extent that they are construed by the Court as essential, Apple asserts that Nokia is obligated by commitments it made to Standards Setting Organizations ("SSOs"), but has refused, to license those patents on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory ("F/RAND") terms, and (c) to the extent the Nokia Asserted Patents are construed by the Court to be essential to any standard, Apple asserts that it has the irrevocable right to be licensed under those patents on F/RAND terms.

3. In dealing with Apple, Nokia has sought to gain an unjust competitive advantage over Apple by charging unwarranted fees to use patents that allegedly cover industry compatibility standards and by seeking to obtain access to Apple's intellectual property. Nokia needs access to Apple's intellectual property because Nokia has copied and is now using that patented technology. Nokia's improper claims against Apple therefore should be rejected, and Apple seeks recovery for Nokia's infringement of the Apple patents identified in Counts XXVII - XXXIX of Apple's counterclaim.

Also Apple stated in 6-8 of Introductory Statement:

In 2007, Apple introduced the iPhone a ground-breaking device that allowed users access to the functionality of the already popular iPod on a revolutionary mobile phone and Internet device. The iPhone is a converged device that allows users to access and ever expanding set of software features to take and send pictures, play music, play games do research, serve as a GPS device and much more….The iPhone platform has caused a revolutionary change in the mobile phone category.

In contrast, Nokia made a different business decision and remained focused on traditional mobile wireless handsets with conventional user interfaces. As a result, Nokia has rapidly lost share in the market for high-end mobile phones. Nokia has admitted that, as a result of the iPhone launch, “the market changed suddenly and [Nokia was] not fast enough changing with it.

In response, Nokia chose to copy the iPhone, especially its enormously popular and patented design and user interface….

As Anssi Vanjoki, Nokia’s executive Vice President and General Manager of Multimedia, stated at Nokia’s GoPlay event in 2007 when asked about the similarities of Nokia’s new offerings to the already released iPhone: “f there is something good in the world, we copy with pride.” True to this quote, Nokia has demonstrated its willingness to copy Apple’s iPhone ideas as well as Apple’s basic computing technologies, all while demanding Apple pay for access to Nokia’s purported standards essential patent. Apple seeks redress for this behavior.

And seriously. If Nokia were making “carbon copies” of iPhones then the phones might actually be good don’t you think.

I didn't say that they were making them, I said this:

"...and were also wanting access to Apple's intellectual property as part of the deal so that they can make a carbon copy clone of the iPhone without actually doing any real, innovative work"

They haven't actually got all the IP, they WANT it so that they can COPY it. These are against the F/RAND terms that Nokia has agreed to with virtually every other wireless phone manufacturer. And according to Apple, they are already starting to copy some of it, even without license.

Yeah, their profits have been tumbling. And partly at the expense of Apple. But they’re not exactly going under. I was wrong, something was actually based on fact and not just heated rambling.

Yeah, they're not going under, but writing off over a billion dollars has to hurt. That is also combined with the fact that many people perceive their brand to be less valuable and they seem to not innovate as much as they did in their heyday. The NYT put part of the blame on Apple and RIM. Soon Google will also be at fault. I'm not sure if they've also made agreements with Nokia, and if they were fair. It seems more like Nokia perceives Apple as a threat, and since the terms haven't been worked out yet, they want more. I'm sure they would have also done the same thing if they had known that other competitors were going to steal a large chunk of their share, but I'm sure that back when many of those agreements were made Nokia was riding high.

In the US Nokia has never been all that popular I guess but here most people still have Nokia phones and that stupid ringtone.

Nokia was really popular here when cell phones were first becoming popular. My first cell phone was a Nokia with b&w screen that could play Snake and I remember thinking how totally badass it was. I had a brushed aluminum case for it that was slick.

I don’t know, hasn’t happened yet. I’ll just let my iPhone have it’s rest in the cradle and use a keyboard to type. I’m not a Nokia fanboy and presuming so just shows your own bias perhaps.

I was more referring to the fanboy who stated that financially Nokia was having a great time, which wasn't true at all.

The Engadget analysis about this is quite good: http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/29/nokia-vs-apple-the-in-depth-analysis/

And a couple other links:
http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadget/files/nokia_apple_itc.pdf
http://podcasts.aolcdn.com/engadget/files/21458614-Nokia-vs-Apple-Complaint.pdf

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out later.

OK, now does everyone finally agree that I'm not just blowing smoke out my ___? Time to get back to the real world. I just wanted to set the record straight. Apparently some people like to write off informed user's comments as unfounded even though they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. I'm no lawyer or anything, but I keep up with the RSS feed, and after reading many of the comments on here, I feel like I have a pretty sound understanding of whats going on. It doesn't take a genius to understand that Apple thinks Nokia is being unfair by not agreeing to the F/RAND terms that they agreed to with every other company and that Nokia has been financially unsuccessful recently. Put two and two together. Apple has been eating into Nokia's share. That's the only reason there is a problem. That pretty much sums up my whole original argument, but apparently I have to spell it out for at least half of you. Perhaps I should write a thesis next time...I mean holy crap on a stick. I'm done with this thread now! Time to go back to finding a car...

 

[cmaier]

What "elements" are missing?

Well, let's pick some common definitions:

The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right. 18 U.S.C.A. §871 et seq.; §1951.

In this one, Nokia has not obtained any property. If it does manage to obtain property it will be because a court of law has decided it deserves that property, and thus there was no wrongfulness.

Here's another:

A person is guilty of theft by extortion if he purposely obtains property of another by threatening to: (1) inflict bodily injury on anyone or commit any other criminal offense; or (2) accuse anyone of a criminal offense; or (3) expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business repute; or (4) take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action; or (5) bring about or continue a strike, boycott or other collective unofficial action, if the property is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or (6) testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or (7) inflict any other harm which would not benefit the actor. Model Penal Code, §223.4.

Again, nokia has not "obtained property of another." It hasn't inflcited bodily injury or committed another criminal offense. It hasn't accused anyone of criminal offense. (3) doesn't apply. Neither does (4) or (5). Neither does (6). It did inflict harm (by filing suit) but it does benefit the actor, so (7) doesn't apply.

How about British common law:

An unlawful taking of money by a government officer

Nope. Nokia isn't a government officer, nor has it "taken any money."

How about California's extortion statute?

obtaining of property from another, with his consent, or the obtaining of an official act of a public officer, induced by a wrongful use of force or fear, or under color of official right

Again, nothing was obtained. If it is obtained, it won't be with Apple's consent. No public officer involved here.

There isn't even the right kind of "force or fear," which is:

1. To do an unlawful injury to the person or property of the individual threatened or of a third person; or,
2. To accuse the individual threatened, or any relative of his, or member of his family, of any crime; or,
3. To expose, or to impute to him or them any deformity, disgrace or crime; or,
4. To expose any secret affecting him or them

 

[Rocketman]

Thank you cmaier. I know. Saying that is rare here. Sorry.

You ******!!! There. That's more like it.



Rocketman

 

[kevin j]

But it is true.

That is not is a fact. Nokia claims it offered FRAND terms to Apple while Apple on the other hand felt that it was offered a price that was too high. (Apple should probably pay more money than most of the other companies as it is a new company in the phone business and the others would already have deals with nokia)

Either way Apple is infringing on nokia's gsm patents at least, and has not paid a cent.Therefore Nokia has all right to sue them and let the court decide on the price to be paid.The counter suit by apple and the other lawsuits from nokia are just stupid and just legal strategy by both companies.

Ask yourself this question though?If nokia wanted to overcharge apple why would they bring them to court where the most they can win is the FRAND terms.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

Engadget has the best coverage and explanation of this:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/29/nokia-vs-apple-the-in-depth-analysis/

+1

The above should be required reading for anyone wanting to comment in this thread.

 

[eastcoastsurfer]

But it is true.

They haven't actually got all the IP, they WANT it so that they can COPY it. These are against the F/RAND terms that Nokia has agreed to with virtually every other wireless phone manufacturer. And according to Apple, they are already starting to copy some of it, even without license.

No, it's not true. A FRAND deal with one company might be all patent based, while with another company is totally monetary. FRAND is not cut and dry. I agree with Engadget that Nokia probably has a very strong case if they are willing to let the courts decide the licensing deal. Nokia knows that the courts will go over all the other deals that they have cut while licensing the technology so they must be comfortable the deal(s) they have offered Apple are equivalent.

 

[cmaier]

No, it's not true. A FRAND deal with one company might be all patent based, while with another company is totally monetary. FRAND is not cut and dry. I agree with Engadget that Nokia probably has a very strong case if they are willing to let the courts decide the licensing deal. Nokia knows that the courts will go over all the other deals that they have cut while licensing the technology so they must be comfortable the deal(s) they have offered Apple are equivalent.

If I was Nokia I'd be far more worried about patent invalidity. There have been a series of Supreme Court decisions in the last few years that have made it far easier to invalidate patents (particularly the KSR case), and it's very common for courts to find invalidity.

 

[MorphingDragon]

I do apologise, put the wrong username in that quote. Have corrected it now.



Please quote one presumption or bias I have made! All I have done is challenge the general opinion on this topic that Nokia are in the wrong. One poster has even gone to the extent of insulting the whole nation of Finland:



The reality is that Apple will never be banned from importing products into the US (or any country) because this wouldn't be in the interest of anyone (even Nokia, believe it or not). Same applies vice versa.

That I was an Apple fanboy.

 

[kdarling]

Engadget has the best coverage and explanation of this:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/29/nokia-vs-apple-the-in-depth-analysis/

Engadget says, " Nokia isn't even really asking for money damages beyond interest on past due royalties, it just wants a fair license rate for its patents. "

True, but Nokia also hints that they'd like "any other such relief as may be appropriate", since they claim Apple has been able to charge less by not paying iPhone license fees, and has thus unfairly won away Nokia market share.

One of Apple's habits in these legal disputes, is that they often brag about how successful they are. That's great, but I suspect that American juries tend to like the underdog in business trials. And Nokia has demanded a trial by jury.

Thoughts? Is a jury trial more in favor of Apple or Nokia?

 

[MorphingDragon]

Engadget says, " Nokia isn't even really asking for money damages beyond interest on past due royalties, it just wants a fair license rate for its patents. "

True, but Nokia also hints that they'd like "any other such relief as may be appropriate", since they claim Apple has been able to charge less by not paying iPhone license fees, and has thus unfairly won away Nokia market share.

One of Apple's habits in these legal disputes, is that they often brag about how successful they are. That's great, but I suspect that American juries tend to like the underdog in business trials. And Nokia has demanded a trial by jury.

Thoughts? Is a jury trial more in favor of Apple or Nokia?

Nokia had a marketshare in US to begin with?

 

[immortalix]

One of Apple's habits in these legal disputes, is that they often brag about how successful they are. That's great, but I suspect that American juries tend to like the underdog in business trials. And Nokia has demanded a trial by jury.

Thoughts? Is a jury trial more in favor of Apple or Nokia?

There is a decent chance that the jury will be Apple biased as people performing jury duty are usually educated and use smartphones like the iPhone. If they are selecting a jury, they should probably get old people who don't use cell phones or something to have an unbiased trial.

 

[IhanaLeijona]

1. Declare Finland a terrorist state
2. Send in troops
3. Bomb them into stone age
4. "Rebuild" using US companies ONLY

Problem solved!!!!

What a stupid thing to say. You Yankees will just end up getting a bloody nose - the Ruskies tried that tactic prior to WWII and they came off second best.

 

[Rocketman]

Engadget says, " Nokia isn't even really asking for money damages beyond interest on past due royalties, it just wants a fair license rate for its patents. "

Look at it this way. Apple has the original sum and all accumulated sums of the traditional and standard "royalty fee" "in trust" "with statutory interest" in their cash account NOW.

Nokia will not come to agreement on the terms they already agreed to with a third party, outside of Apple, to Apple's damage. They Apple may have an offset for some portion of the "statutory interest" as a result, plus "legal expenses" because they Nokia failed or refused to comply with their own agreement with that third party with respect to Apple.

Any other claims about "other patents" being an entirely separate matter to be sure.

Apple has a "contractural right" to licensing associated with adopted standards. Fact.

Rocketman