Where did you see the words "judgment for the plaintiff"? I'm trying to be polite here, but you just have no clue about how these settlements work.
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's Royalty Payments to Nokia Estimated at $608 Million Up Front, ~$138 Million Per Quarter
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Where did you see the words "judgment for the plaintiff"? I'm trying to be polite here, but you just have no clue about how these settlements work.
Which completely defeats the purpose for FRAND. At least, Apple was arguing for a more equitable reading of the principle.
Nokia might fetch $39 billion, judging by comparable companies. The company's current market value is $24.6 billion, after tumbling 78 percent since Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007.
Article here
Apple could probably buy them out tomorrow. On the other hand, keeping Nokia under their heel gives them the semblance of competition. The last thing Apple wants is to be accused of having a Monopoly.
Apple don't have that kind of cash on tap, to spend it they'd have to pay tax on it...
not happening!
FRAND is the ceiling. not the floor. You can trade patents to get below the ceiling rate.
Apple was being cheap and wanted the cheap rate others got but did not want to trade anything for it like the other did.
Apple was late to the game. It has no patents in the pool so it is going to get a higher rate. That is the price you pay if you did not help develop the technology like the others did.
The fact that apple cross licensed some patents with nokia tells you who won alright!!
Then by your definition, your viewpoint is biased since you do agree after considering all the facts?.
And I disagree with that notion. A viewpoint isn't biased solely because you agree or disagree with the facts presented. Which - if you read through the thread - you'll see I conceded once it was pointed out that I missed an element of the story (being that it was a settlement not a verdict).
Here's perhaps a twisted example of what I mean. If it is fact that movies cost $15 - that doesn't mean that my opinion that $15 for a movie is too expensive isn't biased. It's my opinion based on the facts.
I think you might mean that I am being prejudicial or that I enter into the situation with a prejudice of Apple - fair or unfair and that is "tainting" my opinion. That's somewhat fair to assume. But in at least this case - that's not accurate. I had no bias either way. And truthfully - has little to no impact on me whatsoever either way.
Oh for Pete's sake. Read the thread and how this conversation evolved. I was responding to a specific comment in context which you are now taking out of context, reposting and responding to.
There was no verdict here - it was a settlement. I was responding to an earlier post/comment.
Nokia might fetch $39 billion, judging by comparable companies. The company's current market value is $24.6 billion, after tumbling 78 percent since Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007.
Article here
Apple could probably buy them out tomorrow. On the other hand, keeping Nokia under their heel gives them the semblance of competition. The last thing Apple wants is to be accused of having a Monopoly.
What makes you think Apple or anyone else is entitled to buying Nokia?
No Apple denied that any of the patents were essential to the iPhone.
Only Apple stated that FRAND terms weren't offered.
Apple wanted to join the GSM patent pool WITHOUT cross licensing any of its' patents.
Now they are paying AND cross licensing!
Need a map?
Really now? How the hell is it deserved? You seriously believe Nokia deserves $ from every future iPhone sold?
You know how all of you were bitching about the (utterly insignificant) money Apple spent replacing their store tags with iPads? Or currently bitching about the potential cost of Apple's new campus? Yeah, this payout and these royalties will constitute more than that, and will not benefit Apple in the least, but instead help out their competition. It seems you guys bitch and moan when Apple actual spends money to improve itself, and are overjoyed when they piss it away on **** like this.
That I totally agree with you on. And to be honest, they do deserve it. People can hate on Nokia all they want, I am not a huge fan of them myself, but coming from a Computer Engineering background, I can tell you the whole cellphone industry owes Nokia a lot. They were definitely the pioneers.
Apple, like other tech companies, moves it's cash from sales through foreign countries to avoid the 35% corporate tax paid in the US.
http://www.safehaven.com/article/18...job-creation-during-schumpeterian-depressions
the money is still sat in overseas accounts...avoiding tax so that if Apple wanted to spend it they'd have to bring it in house and then pay in excess of $15bn tax on it.
like I said...not happening..
the alternative is that Apple don't license the tech and pay the fees and have no GSM device.
Is that better?
No license, no iPhone.
Kodak was a great company at one time too.
If they were so fast, they would have adapted by now. They tried to make their 'great tech', Symbian, work but was not successful and realized that they have to join Microsoft or Google (like Motorola) (or both like HTC).
If they don't turn things around soon, the only company they'll be joining is Kodak ... living off of royalties.
I don't think Nokia did too much wrong, they still make the best hardware (by miles) and thye just got beat by 2 of the biggest and the best.
Who'd have predicted the current scenario back in 07?
Amazing job by both Apple and Google.
Yes, because Nokia (and several other companies) spent billions of dollars to develop the technology that the iPhone uses to make phone calls, and to send or receive data over 3G. Without this technology, the iPhone would just be an iPod Touch. Apple itself always said that Nokia deserves license payments - they only disagreed strongly with Nokia about the amount.
Now remember that the "Estimated $608 million" is just a WAG that an analyst pulled out of his arse; that number is exactly one percent of a rough estimate of the total revenue that Apple made from iPhones so far. We can safely assume that Apple and Nokia have been haggling about hundredths of percents here, so an agreement of _exactly_ one percent is unlikely. Second, percentage of end user price doesn't make sense. An iPhone 3 with 8 GB memory uses these patents just as much as an iPhone 4 with 64 GB even though the sales price is totally different. Nokia wouldn't want to get less for the cheaper phone, and Apple wouldn't want to pay more for the more expensive phone. So the agreement is probably a mixture of some fixed cost per phone plus some percentage of sales price. And finally, that enormous number of $608 million is one percent of revenue. In other words, $60,800 million revenue.
You must be one of those people who screams "patent trolling" as soon as some company other than Apple does this. When Apple does it, it's just a matter of protecting their properties, right?
I think i see where you are coming from... it is easy to see things in hindsight.
But consider this perspective:
As recent as 2009/10 Nokia, could still have licensed Android (or Windows). HTC sells both platforms and has increased under $10B to over $33B in the last 2 years (surpassing Nokia, RIM). And Nokia has deep in-roads into distribution that it could leverage; in otherwords, there's no shame in selling other platforms while you sort out your strategy (or maybe better put, making money and gaining market share is better than having your stock price dive from $40 down to $6)
edit: even spending $1.2B for Palm may have worked out better.
Last edited:
I'm reasonably sure I have never claimed to be unbiased (about Apple) in any post on this forum.
I would say there is no argument where one side is 100% in the right. Arguing itself belies that.
In no way do I think Apple would, but they could probably do it if they really wanted to.