Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Begins Paying $2 Billion in Cash to Nokia as Part of Lawsuit Settlement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just ask yourself about any business... what's the goal? Optimize for profit, or help the customer? Clearly business are supposed to optimize for profit. Can you imagine how angry stock investor would be if they were told profit comes second and customers come first. If it's easier to steal, maybe get caught and pay a small fine, it much more efficient than trying to create something from ground up. It's not just Apple, it's every company. Remember the term "Optimize for Profit", and how it applies to any company. Customers never come first, even though most companies publicly say "we're here to help you".
I don't follow Microsoft, but do they face these same sorts of continual lawsuits? Just curious.
Did they actually pay $2B, or partially pay? At one point, Nokia claims they received $2B. In another sentence, it states $2B was partially paid. What does that mean?
Picasso
[doublepost=1501260188][/doublepost]
The chickens are coming home to roost.
[doublepost=1501260294][/doublepost]
Or part of a death by a thousand cuts.
Let me be the someone
I think it is impossible to research every angle of every patent and how it can be interpreted. Many patents we read about are vaguely formulated and should have never been approved. They are shakedowns, because Apple "HAS THE $$$"
Some are however legit, because they are precisely formulated/specific.
Some lawsuits belong in the garbage and some have merit. We'll never know which are which,
Then comes the kind of suit where it's all about money. I think Apple and others are a lot about that.
At one point their bean counters decide they paid enough, full well knowing that they will do better AFTER re-negotiating.
But, to start that, the suits have to happen first, otherwise the other party wouldn't want to talk about it/negotiate.
All in all this is and will be normal procedure in the tech world and sometimes be started by Apple , sometimes by a vendor. You win a few, you lose a few.
For me it matters that my iPhone and MBPs work and I wish that the new loudspeaker is awesome.
I am anti religion, so while I like Apple products for the way they work I am not kneeling down at their altar or think they can do no wrong.
We are loyal to products because they are good and work. If we would concern ourselves with every background of every company, we may not buy anything ever
Remember toxic waste dumping in African jungles , Amoco Cadiz = Exxon , Bopal and the like?
It's all more public these days due to media and sensationalism.
Yes, Picaso was credited with it, but the correct phrase is "good artists copy, great artists steal"
And almost everyone misinterprets the idea. It was not meant to say that people take other's work and claim it as their own, that is plagiarism or theft.
The idea is that an artist starts by experimenting a with the styles of previous artists, and when something works for them they permanently incorporate it into their own unique style which become a totally new style made up of a synthesis of previous ideas, which new artists then are influenced by.
And calling coders artists is totally B.S. (no offense to coders). And while SJ did say it, people are always using it out of the context that even he was using it.
Companies aren't required to maximize shareholder value. They can focus on what they like. It's up to investors to decide if they agree or disagree with management's goals and philosophies in relation to the order in which they place customers, employees and profits.
Apple is in a fortunate position where each one now creates the environment for the other to thrive (profits and customer value/focus), but more companies and business leaders than you might think don't share the view you posted. Leaders such as Benioff, Jack Welch, Jack Ma and others have gone on record to say they believe a singular or main goal of maximizing shareholder value isn't a smart business strategy. Apple of course delivers very well on both fronts, and they have done a tremendous job in delivering shareholder value, but I personally believe they focus on products first and trust, with good reason, that this is key to future profit/value. As an example, Tim himself has talked about things like Apple's investment in R&D around accessibility which aren't huge drivers of profit but simply the right thing to do.
You've explained the borrow=influence part, but not why stealing makes you great part.
Apple's Bud Tribble: "If you take something and make it your own ... it's your design and that is the dividing line between copying and stealing. That is part of Apple's DNA."
What makes you great is adding that something that is your influence.
Edit: from here https://www.cnet.com/news/what-stev...e-said-good-artists-copy-great-artists-steal/
"I think that's been misunderstood. Copying means -- I believe this is what he meant when he said it because we talked about it back then -- doing the same thing," said Schiller, senior vice president of worldwide marketing. "I think what he meant by 'steal' was you learn, as artists have, from past masters; you figure out what you like about it and what you want to incorporate into your idea, and you take it further and do something new with it. I can see why people might confuse that with the current use people have for that phrase. You don't just say, 'I want something that looks just like yours and I'm going to sell it too.'
"Great people actually understand at a deeper level what makes something great and then build on the shoulders of that and build something even more marvelous and take it further," he added. "I think that's the case. We all learn from everything in our industry. It doesn't matter what field you are in, but copying is literally just taking and doing the same thing."
I'm neither an Artist/Philosopher/Lawyer but wow, that's a great quote I've never heard before (and I'm sure one Apple uses in court all the time).
I thought the answer was simple, so I then read it again before explaining it to you, guess what, it's not clear at all.
Don't get me started. That was not just about rectangular. It was just about everything else. I love Samsung's latest galaxy phones but the initial ones where pure copy/paste style.
Yes it was just about rectangle, grid of icons and slide to unlock which btw apple stole from neonode and called its own. Considering that apple copied or followed others a lot recently (folder, notification shade, big screen, widget, bezel less etc), looking back at the earlier lawsuits brought about by apple seems like a farce.
So, in this case, as I understand it, Apple wasn't "stealing" anything. The patents in question were essential for implementing the standard (in this case, wi-fi, I believe). You can't implement the standard without using the patent and there's no way around it. By law, companies holding these kinds of patents are required to charge "fair and reasonable" royalty rates. They are not supposed to charge one company more than another. The term here is "FRAND," "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory."
Apple alleged that Nokia was charging too much. They were never arguing that they shouldn't have to pay anything, just that they were being asked to pay too much. So, they were withholding payment until the terms offered were acceptable to them. Nokia didn't agree, so Apple sued them. Nokia countersued Apple. (or Nokia sued first and Apple countersued. I'm not sure which). Eventually it led to a settlement between the two companies, mainly because if the suits went to trial, it could have ended up even more expensive for either or both parties. This $2 billion payment is not punitive damages being awarded to Nokia. Presumably it is Apple paying the back royalties they owed Nokia.
I fail to see how this is "stealing," in the context of this particular case.
Apple alleged that Nokia was charging too much. They were never arguing that they shouldn't have to pay anything, just that they were being asked to pay too much. So, they were withholding payment until the terms offered were acceptable to them. Nokia didn't agree, so Apple sued them. Nokia countersued Apple. (or Nokia sued first and Apple countersued. I'm not sure which). Eventually it led to a settlement between the two companies, mainly because if the suits went to trial, it could have ended up even more expensive for either or both parties. This $2 billion payment is not punitive damages being awarded to Nokia. Presumably it is Apple paying the back royalties they owed Nokia.
I fail to see how this is "stealing," in the context of this particular case.
It is not stealing per se. But it is a cheap shot by apple to use the law to not pay what it owed. That's just dirty tactic.
I disagree, because this was a FRAND patent at the heart of the dispute. Apple's position was that what they were being asked to pay wasn't FRAND. In the end, both parties settled the case to both sides' satisfaction. Even if both sides ended up compromising.
If this wasn't a FRAND patent, I would definitely agree with you, with the caveat that Apple is not the only one who does this. Everybody does it. Doesn't make it right, but it is what happens right now.
Although it's not clear, there's a simple explanation. Nokia could have received the payment from Apple but only applied part of it to their books this quarter and will apply the remaining portion in subsequent quarter(s). That would help to avoid a precipitous drop next year in YoY comparisons. Not saying that's what they did or that's the reason, but it's an easy explanation that could make sense.