If Nokia won this suit, then why aren't other companies forced to pay apple for their technology? Their multitouch? Their designs? Their OS?
Can someone explain that to me?
There's no way to get around using Nokia's IP. And there's no way Nokia can refuse to license it.
To expand on your question, there's no actual "winning here" unless Apple disputed the validity of Nokia's GSM et al patents to begin with, which would have been pointless.
Nokia *must* license these particular patents to everyone because they are a necessity. In turn, there is no way that any potential licensee can get out of licensing them. So the relationship Nokia has with those that produce wireless phones is more or less inevitable. At some point you're going to be a licensee and Nokia will be the licensor.
Apple was not disputing Nokia's patents in question. There's really no disputing them by anyone. The complaint that Apple had was that Nokia was charging Apple "x" while charging everyone else "y." FRAND terms exist for patents like these to ensure a level of equal and unfettered access. So, the patent holder can't use their position as a holder of GSM patents to extort money from others. There is a requirement for equal and fair treatment in terms of access and licensing costs.
Apple essentially said "we know we have to pay you, but what's up with charging us so much more?? We have a problem with that. So we'll hold off on paying you because we think what you're doing to us is unjust under FRAND requirements. We'll figure this out in court."
The only way to "win" in this case would mean that Nokia would receive
what they asked for originally, namely the amount (however much it was) that Apple alleged was exorbitant and outside FRAND terms. If, however, Apple ended up paying Nokia the same amount everyone else was paying them, or otherwise a fair deal under FRAND, then it's not really a win for Nokia. What it is, and could reasonably be inferred, is a much-needed payout for Nokia. We don't know the amounts. We don't know whether Apple got the deal they were looking for or if they got a different deal that they considered equitable under FRAND. What happened is they settled. Given that this ended earlier than anyone expected, one of the parties decided it was best to either come up with a better deal, or to simply pay what the other asked for.
Now, the fact that this case settled way early is interesting. These tend to go on for years. We don't know the scheduling and dates for this case (or do we?) But if there was an expectation by parties involved that the case would have gone on for far longer than it did, that there would be further opportunities for ongoing arguments, all the while with Apple still holding out on payment, then it wold likely not have been Apple who decided to end it early, since there was no actual requirement to do so.
Would it have been in Nokia's best interest to get this money (or get anything at all) asap? Yes. Given their dismal situation, they need it.
Whether Apple needed to settle *now* as opposed to later (they waited *this* long, after all), is pretty hazy.
Unfortunately, there are still some facts that we don't have. However, "winning" and "losing" don't really apply here unless we know who paid what, measured against original payment terms. If your terms were originally $500 and I end up paying you $350 then you didn't really win. Especially if we both knew that you were required to give me the product and I was required to pay for it anyway at some point.
