Apple Files Countersuit Against Nokia

[NSMonkey]

Apple's patents are usually lame crap like UI gestures rather than actual technology. Apple will look pretty stupid trying to swap finger swipes for UMTS but I guess if that's what stupid people pay money for and Apple has a patent on it, Nokia's only option is to capitulate.

You must contact someone at Nokia immediately! Surely they will recognize the irrefutable logic of your argument and decide they don't want Apple's patents after all.

True. However, there seems to be enough people out there that are easily swayed by Apple's slick UI gloss rather than Nokia's features.

I know. That's totally true, because smart people only buy products with the longest feature list. It doesn't matter if you can use the features or not. What matters is how many are printed on the box!

I mean, who'd buy a Nokia that didn't multitask or that had poor phone reception?

Exactly. No one has ever bought a non-multitasking phone from Nokia. And no one has ever had bad reception with one either. Apple has sold way more phones than Nokia because, you know, there are so many stupid people.

 

[Test17]

Wasn't Nokia's suit basically a request for the court's to decide on fair licensing terms? Isn't it a bit late to accuse Nokia of demanding unfair licensing terms?

Apple has sold way more phones than Nokia because, you know, there are so many stupid people.

I'm not touching that one with a 10 foot pole

 

[SwingSwords]

Nokia wanted to pay Apple 5% of revenue. That's exactly the same all other companies pay to Nokia under the FRAND rules. Just Apple wanted to pay less.

You sir are either very mistaken, blind or a troll. It has been said a few times already that Apple is willing to pay the license fees that all the others are paying, but that isn't what Nokia was offering, Nokia made multiple offerings to them, which they shouldn't be able to change the pricing anyways because they agreed to a set licensing price when they contributed to the standard, all these offers included cross licensing, which is not FRAND, is different from what they have with other companies and is therefore singling Apple out and is going against there agreement from contributing to the standard.

 

[gnasher729]

I laughed at the part where Apple claims "unreasonable licensing agreements" as the reason they just went ahead and violated Nokia's patents and are now clearly hoping to get them to back off by suing them as well. Unreasonable licensing agreements? Apple? The same people who REFUSE TO LICENSE their operating system to ANYONE for ANY REASON? And that's not unreasonable? And then they're surprised when someone went ahead (like them it seems) and did it anyhow? Can you say HYPOCRITES? Yes, I knew you could.

Another Magnus rant: MacOS X is not part of any international standard, and Apple's ownership of MacOS X does not constitute a monopoly. In the absence of any reasons why Apple would have to license MacOS X, Apple is free to license it or not as they see fit. Nokia's patents in the GSM area are part of the GSM standard. Anyone who has patents that are part of this standard _has_ the legal obligation to license these patents under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms; this was agreed upon when GSM was standardised. As a result, Nokia _must_ license these patents to anyone, including Apple, under the same terms.

That's how international standards work. Nokia could have refused to agree to this; in that case there would be no GSM network, but a different network that doesn't use any of Nokia's patents.

 

[aucl]

You sir are either very mistaken, blind or a troll. It has been said a few times already that Apple is willing to pay the license fees that all the others are paying, but that isn't what Nokia was offering, Nokia made multiple offerings to them, which they shouldn't be able to change the pricing anyways because they agreed to a set licensing price when they contributed to the standard, all these offers included cross licensing, which is not FRAND, is different from what they have with other companies and is therefore singling Apple out and is going against there agreement from contributing to the standard.

actually i am sure they do not wanna pay the same % but the same absolute amount and since the iPhone is a relatively expensive device (before provider discounts) the difference might be big...

 

[Azathoth]

Offtopic:

I was reading NOKIA's Wikipidea page and found out that NOKIA was founded 1865 it took apple less then 2 years to beat them in smartphone market..

And if you read further then you would realise that Nokia started off making rubber products back in 1865. Your point? In any case, Nokia still have one of the largest smartphone market shares - don't let US -only sales figures blind you.

And throughout all this I'm sure it's just the lawyers getting rich. Truly a-less-than-zero-sum game.




This holiday season, check out the movie:
What Would Jesus Buy?

 

[Povilas]

And if you read further then you would realise that Nokia started off making rubber products back in 1865. Your point? In any case, Nokia still have one of the largest smartphone market shares - don't let US -only sales figures blind you.

And throughout all this I'm sure it's just the lawyers getting rich. Truly a-less-than-zero-sum game.




This holiday season, check out the movie:
What Would Jesus Buy?

And Apple managed to beat crap out of every single manufacturer that exist on this planet with only one phone on a limited number of mobile networks in les than 3 years. More than impressive. Let your imagination fill in the rest.

 

[ChazUK]

And Apple managed to beat crap out of every single manufacturer that exist on this planet with only one phone on a limited number of mobile networks in les than 3 years. More than impressive. Let your imagination fill in the rest.

Only one phone?

I thought we were on the 3rd generation of a phone based on a similar form factor which runs iPhone OS or am I missing something?

Yes the iPhone is a marvel and really caught other manufacturers off guard and has done fantastically but why do people insist on lumping 3 generations of phones into one as if Apple have released only 1 device?

Last time I checked, the 1st gen couldn't do 3g data or MMS, the 2nd gen couldn't do video recording and still had a 2 megapixel cam without autofocus and the 3rd gen had superior internal hardware and features over the first two generations.

 

[Povilas]

Only one phone?

I thought we were on the 3rd generation of a phone based on a similar form factor which runs iPhone OS or am I missing something?

Yes the iPhone is a marvel and really caught other manufacturers off guard and has done fantastically but why do people insist on lumping 3 generations of phones into one as if Apple have released only 1 device?

Last time I checked, the 1st gen couldn't do 3g data or MMS, the 2nd gen couldn't do video recording and still had a 2 megapixel cam without autofocus and the 3rd gen had superior internal hardware and features over the first two generations.

ah... Details. Still doesn't change the fact.

 

[ChazUK]

ah... Details. Still doesn't change the fact.

The fact that "And Apple managed to beat crap out of every single manufacturer that exist on this planet with only one phone on a limited number of mobile networks in les than 3 years. More than impressive. Let your imagination fill in the rest." is inaccurate?

 

[surferfromuk]

Another Magnus rant: MacOS X is not part of any international standard, and Apple's ownership of MacOS X does not constitute a monopoly. In the absence of any reasons why Apple would have to license MacOS X, Apple is free to license it or not as they see fit. Nokia's patents in the GSM area are part of the GSM standard. Anyone who has patents that are part of this standard _has_ the legal obligation to license these patents under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms; this was agreed upon when GSM was standardised. As a result, Nokia _must_ license these patents to anyone, including Apple, under the same terms.

That's how international standards work. Nokia could have refused to agree to this; in that case there would be no GSM network, but a different network that doesn't use any of Nokia's patents.

Perfectly put and clear signs that Nokia gave up any ambition for innovation when they signed that 'partnership' agreement with Microsoft in August. Perhaps a certain CEO whispered to them that the best way to compete it to copy then litigate

Three years from now Nokia will be nothing more than a hardware proxy manufacturer for Microsoft WinMobile software and no longer able to define it's future. They will be reduced to being just another Dell competing in a market filled with Acer handsets.

 

[sjo]

You sir are either very mistaken, blind or a troll. It has been said a few times already that Apple is willing to pay the license fees that all the others are paying, but that isn't what Nokia was offering, Nokia made multiple offerings to them, which they shouldn't be able to change the pricing anyways because they agreed to a set licensing price when they contributed to the standard, all these offers included cross licensing, which is not FRAND, is different from what they have with other companies and is therefore singling Apple out and is going against there agreement from contributing to the standard.

apple has never said they are willing to pay the licensing fees all the others are paying. if you read the document filed by apple it's very clear that they are trying to distinguish iphone from all the other phones and argue that it's much more than the basic wireless equipment.

this is important point because the license fees are usually set as % of the revenue. this is exactly what apple doesn't want to pay. apple is arguing that iphone is an ipod and internet communication platform in addition to a mobile phone. what they want is to pay the license fees based on the "mobile phone" part of the device, and indicate that the mobile phone part should be priced towards the cheap(est) handsets in the market.

that's a $50 vs $500 difference in the basis for the calculation of the license fees, or if we take the often quoted 5% license fee (which probably is towards the higher end), $2.5 / iphone vs $25 / iphone. if apple sells say 500m iphones it's $1.25B vs $12.5B in license fees.

that's the case here.

 

[Povilas]

The fact that "And Apple managed to beat crap out of every single manufacturer that exist on this planet with only one phone on a limited number of mobile networks in les than 3 years. More than impressive. Let your imagination fill in the rest." is inaccurate?

Why should it?

 

[TMay]

Only one phone?

I thought we were on the 3rd generation of a phone based on a similar form factor which runs iPhone OS or am I missing something?

Yes the iPhone is a marvel and really caught other manufacturers off guard and has done fantastically but why do people insist on lumping 3 generations of phones into one as if Apple have released only 1 device?

Last time I checked, the 1st gen couldn't do 3g data or MMS, the 2nd gen couldn't do video recording and still had a 2 megapixel cam without autofocus and the 3rd gen had superior internal hardware and features over the first two generations.

People like myself lump the three generations together, and I would throw in the ipod Touch as well, as they have a near identical form factor and use the same UI and OS. Arguably, throw a cover on any of them and any iphone user would be hard pressed to acknowledge differences. This is yet another reason why iPhone branding is so strong in comparison to the plethora of smartphones from the competition.

 

[TMay]

apple has never said they are willing to pay the licensing fees all the others are paying. if you read the document filed by apple it's very clear that they are trying to distinguish iphone from all the other phones and argue that it's much more than the basic wireless equipment.

this is important point because the license fees are usually set as % of the revenue. this is exactly what apple doesn't want to pay. apple is arguing that iphone is an ipod and internet communication platform in addition to a mobile phone. what they want is to pay the license fees based on the "mobile phone" part of the device, and indicate that the mobile phone part should be priced towards the cheap(est) handsets in the market.

that's a $50 vs $500 difference in the basis for the calculation of the license fees, or if we take the often quoted 5% license fee (which probably is towards the higher end), $2.5 / iphone vs $25 / iphone. if apple sells say 500m iphones it's $1.25B vs $12.5B in license fees.

that's the case here.

You have made an excellent case for Apple, and I agree that the basis of the license fee is the crux of the matter.

 

[Povilas]

People like myself lump the three generations together, and I would throw in the ipod Touch as well, as they have a near identical form factor and use the same UI and OS. Arguably, throw a cover on any of them and any iphone user would be hard pressed to acknowledge differences. This is yet another reason why iPhone branding is so strong in comparison to the plethora of smartphones from the competition.

That's what I'm saying.

 

[Test17]

Perfectly put and clear signs that Nokia gave up any ambition for innovation when they signed that 'partnership' agreement with Microsoft in August.

Unfortunately for your conspiracy theories, that partnership is merely an agreement that involves Microsoft producing versions of Office Mobile for Symbian.

It's extremely similar to an agreement made between Microsoft and Apple not that long ago...

 

[CQd44]

apple has never said they are willing to pay the licensing fees all the others are paying. if you read the document filed by apple it's very clear that they are trying to distinguish iphone from all the other phones and argue that it's much more than the basic wireless equipment.

this is important point because the license fees are usually set as % of the revenue. this is exactly what apple doesn't want to pay. apple is arguing that iphone is an ipod and internet communication platform in addition to a mobile phone. what they want is to pay the license fees based on the "mobile phone" part of the device, and indicate that the mobile phone part should be priced towards the cheap(est) handsets in the market.

that's a $50 vs $500 difference in the basis for the calculation of the license fees, or if we take the often quoted 5% license fee (which probably is towards the higher end), $2.5 / iphone vs $25 / iphone. if apple sells say 500m iphones it's $1.25B vs $12.5B in license fees.

that's the case here.

They can't be serious.

 

[Mackan]

Apple doesn’t sell Blu-Ray. There is nothing to license in the first place.

Apple doesn't sell Blu-ray because they don't want to license it. Or, how much clearer should we express ourselves?

 

[ChazUK]

People like myself lump the three generations together, and I would throw in the ipod Touch as well, as they have a near identical form factor and use the same UI and OS. Arguably, throw a cover on any of them and any iphone user would be hard pressed to acknowledge differences. This is yet another reason why iPhone branding is so strong in comparison to the plethora of smartphones from the competition.

Judging by that philosophy, can we now lump the sales of the N81, N85, N86, N95, N95 8GB, N96 as they use the same form factor, UI and OS?

I'd say no as it doesn't make sense, each phone has different functionality between generations and some can do things the others can not and some are no longer manufactured or sold any more (just as the iPhone, 3g and 3gs).

Lump the platform together, sure, but don't try to say Apple's success is with "one phone" (especially if people now want to include media players too).

 

[pdjudd]

Apple doesn't sell Blu-ray because they don't want to license it. Or, how much clearer should we express ourselves?

Do you have proof of that? Can you cite any official statement from Apple on Licensing being the sole reason for not adopting Blue-ray? The whole “bag of hurt” comment can only be considered one reason. Apple is on the board of Blu-Ray, their reasons go beyond licensing. I guarantee it.

And what relevance does this have to anything? Blu-Ray isn’t a standard akin to GSM. It is a standard’s body, but Apple has never manufactured nor designed their own optical drives.

 

[samven582]

Perfectly put and clear signs that Nokia gave up any ambition for innovation when they signed that 'partnership' agreement with Microsoft in August. Perhaps a certain CEO whispered to them that the best way to compete it to copy then litigate

Three years from now Nokia will be nothing more than a hardware proxy manufacturer for Microsoft WinMobile software and no longer able to define it's future. They will be reduced to being just another Dell competing in a market filled with Acer handsets.

Nokia we never use WinMobile in there handsets. They will continue to use Symbian and Memeo OS in there handsets.

 

[TMay]

Judging by that philosophy, can we now lump the sales of the N81, N85, N86, N95, N95 8GB, N96 as they use the same form factor, UI and OS?

I'd say no as it doesn't make sense, each phone has different functionality between generations and some can do things the others can not and some are no longer manufactured or sold any more (just as the iPhone, 3g and 3gs).

Lump the platform together, sure, but don't try to say Apple's success is with "one phone" (especially if people now want to include media players too).

The original VW became the iconic "Beetle" and sold some 50 million plus. They evolved, but were recognizable as a single series. Even the modern version is recognizable as a "Beetle". That's good branding.

Surely there are other examples, but the point is that even Nokia had its "N-Series", and I have no problem with lumping them together, even though they are a patch work of design concepts not unlike the 70's and 80's Ford Mustangs. How Ford was able to truly revive the Mustang brand after that carnage amazes me.

 

[pdjudd]

Nokia we never use WinMobile in there handsets. They will continue to use Symbian and Memeo OS in there handsets.

People thought that it would be stupid for Palm to do that too - and they did.

 

[TMay]

Apple doesn't sell Blu-ray because they don't want to license it. Or, how much clearer should we express ourselves?

Apple is putting pressure on the BD licensing body so the it's pro users won't have to pay fees, or at least pay the same fee structure for authoring BD disks that the Studios pay. Further, DRM issues need to be alleviated for consumers; a BD licensing fee is already embedded in BD writable disks.

I also suspect that there are form factor issues and pricing that need to occur before BD drives can be incorporated into Mac Book Pros.

The timing of BD probably has more to do with Apple software being rewritten for Snow Leopard capabilities. The next Final Cut Suite and iLife will demonstrate this.

Apple won't deliver BD until the user experience meets Apple's expectations. I'll be happy to wait. In the meantime, there are 3rd party solutions.