Apple to 'Vigorously' Defend Itself in Nokia Lawsuit

The Engadget article proposes the Nokia most likely picked the strongest ten patents they have... ones that can't be dismissed as not essential to the iPhone. Makes sense.

As I've said before, if Apple doesn't think one or more is valid, they could've paid for just the ones they thought were okay, and disputed the rest. Nokia offered both per-patent terms and total portfolio terms. So Apple apparently thinks none of them should be paid for.

What I'd like to know is, what is Apple paying Ericsson for? Is it possible that Apple thought paying one member of the GSM consortium was enough?

We're all basically waiting to hear Apple's side.
 
randyhudson said:
No one is paying for anything. The other 40 companies have just entered cross-licensing agreements, allowing Nokia to develop products containing the "intellectual property" owned by those other companies.
Click to expand...
That's way too extreme statement. Some are mostly paying, like RIMM who has almost no IP of it's own in network technology. This is also why RIMM tried to buy Nortel's GSM portfolio after Nortels's bankruptcy (but was outbid by Ericsson). Some have mixture of cross licensing and money. There are few corporations with enough compatible IP to just use only cross licensing. Nokia and Ericssson, for example, might have deals that doen't involve any money.

Apple allready pays Ericsson for GSM licenses. This has been confirmed by Ericsson itself on swedish media.
 
Matti said:
That's way too extreme statement. Some are mostly paying, like RIMM who has almost no IP of it's own in network technology.
Click to expand...

Yes. And some are really paying.

For instance, Nokia has paid Qualcomm over $1 billion US dollars in license fees over the years.
 
Nuvi said:
I definitely don't hate Apple. I've been Mac user since day one but this doesn't make a mindless fanboy accepting everything they do. I believe Apple dropped the ball on this one so they need to pay up. Its simple as that.
Click to expand...

Apple legal believes differently, so I guess we'll see how it turns out.
 
kdarling said:
Yes. And some are really paying.

For instance, Nokia has paid Qualcomm over $1 billion US dollars in license fees over the years.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think it is billions.

(IIRC) Nokia used to pay about 5% for sale price of each phone. After the courtcase it was dropped around 2%.
 
edesignuk said:
Why is it people think a corporate giant can do no wrong?
Click to expand...

I never said that Apple can do no wrong, but you didn't accuse me of that either. It seems to me however, that there is a preponderance of posters here (and elsewhere) that like to assume that Apple is in the wrong any chance they get. As a shareholder of AAPL, I tend not to see it that way.

Nokia and Apple have a disagreement, and the legal process may be required to sort it out. Apple's legal department has a pretty good track record, so I'm not willing to buy into the "certainty" that Nokia will prevail here.
 
Shodan said:
Point being?

Rather that than a Microscrub fanboy.
Click to expand...

The issue I have is that if someone here goes against Apple they are labeled "MS Fanboys, Nokia Fanboys, or being paid blah blah blah."

Loving a product is one thing.

Being an outspoken loyalist is another.

Being a blind fan boy is another.


I have no commitments to any faceless company whether I love there products or not.
 
mccldwll said:
Better stay away from the stock market, or get some help with financial statements. Below are cash rankings as of mid March of 2009, before aapl's fiscal 2Q, 3Q and 4Q updates. Aapl now has $34B cash.
Click to expand...
I don't need any help.
Apple does not have $34 billion in cash on hand. They have $36 billion in assets.
You're confusing cash and cash equivalents with total assets.
Their own report clearly shows how much actual cash they have.
$5.263 Billion. Not a lot when you compare that to last years filing.
The screen shot I attached is from Apple's Sept 2009 filing.

Short term securities are volatile assets subject to the terms they were issued under and market conditions at the time they are sold.
Their value is subjective.
The remaining assets are outstanding AR and tax deferments.

appl2009.jpg


MS for example... has $81.612 billion in assets as of Sept 2009 filing, but they only have $8.823 Billion in actual cash and cash equivalents.
 
dude, anyone that doesnt see that apple permeates with unnecessary narcissism is blind....

What is the problem with accepting the fact that apple makes good computers and other such products, but that they should also keep their feet on the ground and remember their just ordinary people? :confused:

SERIOUSLY, WHATS WITH ALL THE VANITY AND SUPERFICIAL DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR ?!?!

oh THATS RIGHT! :apple: and their zealots Jonestown style followers dont just appreciate the computers for their practical utility, but would rather believe that they actually define the quality and value of their existence :eek:!

YOU PEOPLE ARE SAD! Its like you are trying to compensate and cover up some void and deficiency of actual substance in your lives. :confused: (sorry to break it to you, but maybe you all should have that checked out...:rolleyes: )
 
kdarling said:
The Engadget article proposes the Nokia most likely picked the strongest ten patents they have... ones that can't be dismissed as not essential to the iPhone. Makes sense.

As I've said before, if Apple doesn't think one or more is valid, they could've paid for just the ones they thought were okay, and disputed the rest. Nokia offered both per-patent terms and total portfolio terms. So Apple apparently thinks none of them should be paid for.
Click to expand...

One thing I don't understand, is that if Apple buys-in components, rather than develops the parts themselves.

And if the component vendors, are already licensees of Nokia's technology...

Why would Apple have to pay Nokia again?

C.
 
charlituna said:
think about it, Apple has a huge legal department. don't you think they would have researched and keep up on all the issues that affect the company's work. and don't you think they would have crossed all Ts and dotted all Is before Jobs ever muttered the word iphone.
Click to expand...

You mean when Jobs infringed Cisco's trademark for iPhone?
 
Unspeaked said:
If you look at my post, you'll see I was specifically addressing the line saying Nokia is "much, much larger than Apple." This is simply not the case. While you can use number of employees, revenue or whatever other number you wish to compare companies, market capitalization is generally used to classify how large a company is. This is right from the dictionary:

"The investment community uses this figure to determining a company's size, as opposed to sales or total asset figures."

If you look at the original thread on the Nokia patent issue, I was one of the biggest supporters of Nokia, and I still am. I was simply correcting a factual error.
Click to expand...

How large of a company is Mars incorporated?
 
mccldwll said:
Better stay away from the stock market, or get some help with financial statements. Below are cash rankings as of mid March of 2009, before aapl's fiscal 2Q, 3Q and 4Q updates. Aapl now has $34B cash.

"
Click to expand...


perhaps less time spent on seekingalpha and more time reading apples own books
 
Carniphage said:
One thing I don't understand, is that if Apple buys-in components, rather than develops the parts themselves.

And if the component vendors, are already licensees of Nokia's technology...

Why would Apple have to pay Nokia again?

C.
Click to expand...

I think you will find purchasing components is a common practice. Or do you believe all cellular manufacturers build all of their own components?
 
cycomiko said:
I think you will find purchasing components is a common practice. Or do you believe all cellular manufacturers build all of their own components?
Click to expand...

People here still believe Apple develops everything they sell and don't believe they share parts with the same bargain bin laptops on the market.
 
Carniphage said:
One thing I don't understand, is that if Apple buys-in components, rather than develops the parts themselves.

And if the component vendors, are already licensees of Nokia's technology...

Why would Apple have to pay Nokia again?

C.
Click to expand...

Its common that purchase of a chip doesn't cover IP fees. Why? because a chip can have multipurpose use. In GSM technology data might be transferred between two units but those units might not allow voice transfer. Same goes for network switching etc. In the situation in which one unit allows wide array of features and other only few the same chip might be used. Why? Because its more cost efficient to manufacture product with large volume then to design a custom chips for different applications and only manufacture them in short runs. Hence, the licensing is based on to actual use of the chip and not built in features that might not be available to end user.
 
Back on topic it seems strange to me that Apple has came out and cleared the air by now. This is the same thing we saw from them with the Google Voice App. Apple usually always comes forward and clears the air. Sounds to me like they may be scrambling.
 
cycomiko said:
perhaps less time spent on seekingalpha and more time reading apples own books
Click to expand...

Reading, and actually understanding what you are reading, are two different things and when you play with real money, you have to be able to do both. I can read and understand. You should try it some time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top