and the result of that experiment was that palm learned that it was stupid move after all...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Files Countersuit Against Nokia
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
and the result of that experiment was that palm learned that it was stupid move after all...
Maybe they add support for this kind of drives to their Pro suit of programs, or it is already there(?) but i see no real benefit for Apple if they actually add drives to their systems. Maybe a BTO option for the mac pro, but the ones who really need would buy the drive separate too.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i guess Apple is not interested in selling a single BD drive to it's user base; they wanna sell movies online. So Apple would be stupid to add an expensive part into their systems, especially when it helps cutting of some other revenue.
ps:
people love downloads, i notice that here in Moscow quite a lot. Downloading something might take a long time or not always be easy, but still most do prefer it over buying dvds, which are really cheap here with about 4$ for 9movies packed do a disk (street price)
Offtopic:
I was reading NOKIA's Wikipidea page and found out that NOKIA was founded 1865it took apple less then 2 years to beat them in smartphone market..
So? Nokia hasn't been making smartphones since 1865. I don't see the relationship between your two statements.
But apple uses thinner drives than most manufacturers, and Steve would rather have less features in a laptop instead of making it a little thicker. Theres also the fact that Apple wants you to buy movies from iTunes instead of getting HD films on disc.
Buying GSM chips is not a licencse to use GSM technology.
Agreed. I also have trouble locating any technology invented by Apple. Apple is very good with creating a successful products, but most of their products based on technologies invented by someone else.
Apple, just acted on GSM like a consumer claiming that Apple (and other companies) is over changing for their Snow Leopard DVD (software), because of it only cost a few cents to make a DVD.
Buying chips does not make it legal to use underlying technology. Chips manufacturers just make chips, they do not sell you a license. "Wait a second, somebody was buying Leopard DVDs legally and installing it on their clone PC. So it should be legal right? What was the result?
Nokia tested their patents in court on many occasions and every single time they got what they wanted.
Apple will have to open their fat wallet this time.
No kudos to Apple legal, they have being losing almost all patent infringement cases lately.
Agreed. I also have trouble locating any technology invented by Apple. Apple is very good with creating a successful products, but most of their products based on technologies invented by someone else.
Apple, just acted on GSM like a consumer claiming that Apple (and other companies) is over changing for their Snow Leopard DVD (software), because of it only cost a few cents to make a DVD.
Buying chips does not make it legal to use underlying technology. Chips manufacturers just make chips, they do not sell you a license. "Wait a second, somebody was buying Leopard DVDs legally and installing it on their clone PC. So it should be legal right? What was the result?
Nokia tested their patents in court on many occasions and every single time they got what they wanted.
Apple will have to open their fat wallet this time.
No kudos to Apple legal, they have being losing almost all patent infringement cases lately.
Wrong, the smartphone global best seller in 08 was the Nokia E71. Apple has sure gotten an edge with the iPhone, but Nokia is still the largest manufacturer out there.
What does the law have to do with hypocrisy? I guess if your only underlying motive is GREED, it has everything to do with it, particularly if the very same laws were designed by the corporations that created them for that very same purpose. But then again, both lawsuits are driven by greed, so it's all the same thing in the end and greed will be the undoing of this country and much of the world as well. From phishing to ponzi schemes, everyone is trying to screw everyone else out of their savings. Must only non-profit companies seek to make the world a better place? If so, then the entire country should be non-profit as the greed of the few doesn't benefit the country as a whole, particularly if it leads to nothing but huge trade deficits and gigantic government debt for all. Where is the profit in that? I guess you only need to ask Steve Jobs or perhaps Bernie Madoff?
perception may depend on where you're located. for anyone in the us, nokia smartphones are nonexistent in practice. those phones don't even get past the carriers who are acting as gate-keepers. one could buy a non-subsidized phone but getting a call plan for that will cost pretty much the same as you get buying a subsidized model. so nokia models are out of question for most ppl.
on the other hand in the rest of the world nokia is very relevant in all the categories. eg in western europe iphone has stuck at 4% marketshare in smartphones (and practically all phones sold in western europe are smartphones, ie able to access email, internet etc), while nokia's marketshare in 10x that.
And it's a bit bizarre too when all the Nokia E series phones come with a full version of QuickOffice and free upgrades to QuickOffice Pro v6 on some of them.
I didn't understand who was benefiting in that agreement. Nokia already has built in office compatible software and Microsoft sticking Office on Symbian just makes the case for a WinMo phone even less of a draw.
I've not read it and frankly I don't have the time to do so but Apple's counter claim of patent infringement only has maybe 3 at most UI tech patents, two of which date back to the 90s before the iPhone.
Are you saying Nokia wanted access to other UI patents not mentioned in the counter claim?
My mistake. Either way it's still irrelevant. This is about negotiation and I'd doubt this one will go all the way to adjudication.
According to Apples countersuit, Nokia was attempting to leverage their patent pool IP to gain licenses to Apple patents that are currently being infringed by Nokia. Apple states that as these UI patents are not relevant to the wireless patents of the GSM Standard Setting Organization, that Nokia has no inherent rights to a license, and Apple will not license them.
Nokia on the other hand, is required to provide fair and reasonable licensing to any entity, including Apple. Apple will have to pay, and they agree with that in principal, but only want to pay based on the wireless/phone content of the device, not the full value, citing that phone tech is only a portion of their device.
An easy way to think of this is to consider the value of the iPhone and the iTouch. Lets say that the iTouch is $199 and an unsubsidized iPhone is $599.
Arguably, there is only $400 in wireless/phone content, and Apple should only have to pay license fees on that basis, not on the additional feature value. On that basis, Apple would pay Nokia fees inline with the rates that other builders pay.
*** edited***
I should add that that $400 is actually high as it includes the camera/video and GPS, which are inherent values not subject to the patent pool fees.
True, but only by a few percentage points, and I recall many 2-1 deals for Blackberry this year. The trend is for Apple to overtake RIM in the first half of this year, and Apple still are getting very good margins from the iPhone.
In that case my $75 LG phone has a clock and a calendar in it. I can go to walmart and pick up a pocketwatch and a small calendar for about $15, so LG should only be paying on $60 of that phone, right?
+1. Everyone's looking at Apple's countersuit, and has totally forgotten about the original Nokia lawsuit request. (see attachment below)
Nokia asked the court (jury) to determine the royalty amounts.
In other words, NO, Apple isn't currently being asked to pay too much by Nokia. They're being asked to pay whatever the jury decides.
-----
Attachments
I think the point is, they want to get SOMETHING
But they could also get less... or even nothing.. if the jury is swayed by Apple.
I think the point is, they want to get SOMETHING
But they could also get less... or even nothing.. if the jury is swayed by Apple.
i'm sure that if just something would be enough then would have got it.
True, accept that Apple contends in the Countersuit that Nokia is attempting to tie the license of Apple technology that is being infringed by Nokia, with the license fees for the Nokia tech that Apple is/was negotiating. Apple is also contending that the license fee is egregious in that the basis is currently the overall value of the device rather than the value of the wireless/phone tech in the device.
I'm no lawyer, but I would certainly consider Apple's countersuit compelling, and I would argue that any other Smartphone builder (other than Nokia) should be interested in Apple's success with the countersuit as a means to reduce royalty fees.