No they don't. Ford knew that by giving his employees a good wage, they'd buy his cars. Apple's lawyers buy iPads.
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.
Motorola Files Suit Against Apple for Patent Infringement
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No they don't. Ford knew that by giving his employees a good wage, they'd buy his cars. Apple's lawyers buy iPads.
Wow...
Thanks for the diagram - it's all clear now...
LOL...
Was "Antique-ing" today and saw an old AT&T Trim-Line wall phone.
I still have the old Western Electric mount in the kitchen - tempting...
Thanks for the diagram - it's all clear now...
LOL...
Was "Antique-ing" today and saw an old AT&T Trim-Line wall phone.
I still have the old Western Electric mount in the kitchen - tempting...
Again... people confusing market cap with profits.
Example:
APPL Market Cap $264B
NOK Market Cap $38B
Apple is expected to report approx. $50B in revenue this year (Q4 final results will be reported on Oct. 18) a majority of which is NOT iPhone sales.
Nokia reported Q2 2010 revenue of $22B. (Nokia hasn't reported Q3 or Q4 2010 numbers yet... at least not on their investor relations page yet.)
A majority of which is phone related sales.
That's nearly half of what Apple made for the whole year and they haven't reported the other half yet. I'd say that makes Nokia pretty profitable.
Not bad for a company with a $38B market cap.
I was being sarcastic lol. Its all good
Maybe Apple lawyers were given iPads! oh the horror!
Nokia made $ 0.7 b profit in first half 2010 compared to Apple's $6.4 b
If you see what I mean...
Revenue is not profit.
Nokia Q1 Profit was 820M Euros or $1.14B USD... still not too bad.
They also have $13 Billion USD in cash and liquid assets on hand.
Not exactly on death's door as many seem to believe.
Though the Nokia - QCOM case was settled long time ago (is Nokia only who has old cases listed in the picture?), and for LCD price fixing, pretty much everyone is suing LC, Hitachi, Samsung and Sharp, including New York State!
Other companies suing LC and Samsung for LCD price fixing include Motorola, not shown in those charts either.
I don't understand why everyone thinks Apple has done no wrong here.
Apple came to the mobile game late, 2007, Motorola have been producing phones since at least the early 90's. Current market share is irrelevant. Apple stood on the shoulders of many innovators when producing the iPhone.
Patents are patents, it doesn't matter if its a Dyson vacum cleaner or a higly specialised piece of technology, £100 of millions are spent developing products, its not a free-for-all.
IF Apple stole patented technology they should be made to pay, in the same way if I marketed a copied Dyson Vacum with a different name but the exact same technology I would get my ass sued.
Jobs = Fail
Apple came to the mobile game late, 2007, Motorola have been producing phones since at least the early 90's. Current market share is irrelevant. Apple stood on the shoulders of many innovators when producing the iPhone.
Patents are patents, it doesn't matter if its a Dyson vacum cleaner or a higly specialised piece of technology, £100 of millions are spent developing products, its not a free-for-all.
IF Apple stole patented technology they should be made to pay, in the same way if I marketed a copied Dyson Vacum with a different name but the exact same technology I would get my ass sued.
Jobs = Fail
^ Ditto. Just because we're on an Apple fansite, doesn't mean Apple are the ones in the right here. They are just as bad as everyone else.
Revenue != Profit
You seem to be confusing high revenue with high profitability. The two are not intrinsically linked. Yes, Nokia may report $22B revenue for the quarter, but I can guarantee you with 100% certainly that Apple's quarterly PROFIT will outstrip Nokia's easily (hell Apple's H1 2010 mobile phone PROFITS are 7% points HIGHER than Nokia, LG and Samsung COMBINED). And that's with Apple only having 2.8% of the H1 2010 market share.
I think Apple is definitely the more profitable of the two companies, no doubt about it.
You seem to be confusing high revenue with high profitability. The two are not intrinsically linked. Yes, Nokia may report $22B revenue for the quarter, but I can guarantee you with 100% certainly that Apple's quarterly PROFIT will outstrip Nokia's easily (hell Apple's H1 2010 mobile phone PROFITS are 7% points HIGHER than Nokia, LG and Samsung COMBINED). And that's with Apple only having 2.8% of the H1 2010 market share.
I think Apple is definitely the more profitable of the two companies, no doubt about it.
I sort of agree with you, however nobody could get a patent on "sucking air", the patents in the Dyson are for "the way (or 'the method' to use patent parlance) it sucks air".
And that's the distinct thing that tends to be wrong with most of these crappy patent suits that are flying around.
Imagine it's a party organised by a group of friends. One pays for the DJ, hiring the room, the bar, the food. That would be Nokia, the rich one. One brings their TV and game console. That would be Sony. Another brings loads of cables and lighting. That would be Qualcomm. Another buys the balloons. That would be Motorola. Yeah, they're that cheap but you can't have a party without balloons. Oh and Samsung brings hats.
Anyway, the friends are happy with their party when there's a huge crashing noise and someone they didn't invite bursts through the doors acting like they own the place. They've got flashy threads and can bust-a-move on the dancefloor but they're otherwise vacant of party ideas and despite bragging about how much cash they have, refuse to pay anything toward the party. That's Apple.
The party is the mobile phone standards. The GSM, 3G & WiFi standards are comprised of a pool of patents from multiple companies. Each company involved in developing the technology in the standard 'gives' their patent up to the jointly arrived at standard and it is then licensed on fair and reasonable grounds to anyone who wishes to use it. The licence fee is then split up between the companies who worked on the standard equitably.
The idea is that even though you've spent billions on R&D individually, you can't create a market without everybody being on board and sharing some R&D. Nokia still needs Motorola's balloons and Motorola would look silly with a load of balloons but no party to go to.
Nokia's complaint with Apple is that Apple has used the standards without a licence and is therefore freeloading on their and other people's R&D. I've not looked at the Motorola complaint but that seems to be the same complaint but slightly different patents.
Apple's complaint about Nokia is that Nokia's terms were not fair and reasonable. I'd guess they will use the same defence against Motorola and then also sue them like they're doing Nokia and HTC over much less important patents Apple own.
The diagram shows Nokia suing Motorola interestingly. I don't think that is true. The Qualcomm suit was settled in 2008 and the rest are all to do with various far eastern LCD panel manufacturers fixing prices and not really related to mobile phone tech at all. The only company Nokia is really in dispute with over mobile is Apple who has gate crashed the mobile phone party and didn't even bring a bottle. Today, Motorola seem to be saying "yeah, and keep off my balloons".
I'll agree, a superior diagram. Expect the peeps who did the first one to sue you.
I currently have a Nokia phone. It Sucks! The only thing that they could realistically say Apple learned from their phone is how NOT to develop a phone OS.
What you're seeing here is the strategy of "If you can't compete in the marketplace, then sue them". So the lawyers are the big winners in the smartphone market. But it would suck to be one of Nokia's lawyers and have to use one of their crappy phones.
So what? Like real estate agents, stock brokers, etc.? You're hiring them for a service. The lawyers aren't suing - the companies are.
You might as well say that the judges, court reporters, paper manufacturers, and everyone else involved "wins."
So they have lots of patented ideas, they're absolutely loaded with cash... Wow. Now all they need to do is to produce a smartphone that can lure people away from iPhone and Android. ... Woops!
What I don't seem to understand is... Apple doesn't manufacture any products containing these techs. They buy the products that contain the tech and, aside from assembling them, resell them to the public. Didn't they pay for the use of the tech when they bought the item? So (and I am sure these relationships are completely incorrect, but go with me) if Qualcomm has Nokia or Motorola tech through legal means to manufacture what are obviously OEM products, haven't they already been compensated for the tech in that chip by Qualcomm? How many times does the tech need to be paid for on that one chip? Is Apple claiming the tech as their own?
I probably don't understand the law behind all of this as well as I need to, but common sense dictates that once a "royalty" or "license" has been paid for on a particular unit, then it is paid for. So if Nokia and Motorola one this tech, and they license it to Qualcomm, and they manufacture a product and sell it to Apple, how has Apple done something wrong? If it is a matter of competitive advantage vs. competition, then shouldn't Nokia and Motorola take that up in their licensing agreement with Qualcomm? It seems they underestimated a competitor who is using tech in an OEM part manufactured by someone who paid for the right to use the tech... and now is trying to damage that competitor because they cannot compete...
Like I said, all I have to go on is common sense. I understand the need to protect and receive compensation for developed tech... But it feels like this is more about not being happy about who is using the tech... Not because it was not paid for, but because it ended up in a competitor product. That feels like an issue and negotiation between the tech owner and the company that licensed the tech to manufacture and sell.
I probably don't understand the law behind all of this as well as I need to, but common sense dictates that once a "royalty" or "license" has been paid for on a particular unit, then it is paid for. So if Nokia and Motorola one this tech, and they license it to Qualcomm, and they manufacture a product and sell it to Apple, how has Apple done something wrong? If it is a matter of competitive advantage vs. competition, then shouldn't Nokia and Motorola take that up in their licensing agreement with Qualcomm? It seems they underestimated a competitor who is using tech in an OEM part manufactured by someone who paid for the right to use the tech... and now is trying to damage that competitor because they cannot compete...
Like I said, all I have to go on is common sense. I understand the need to protect and receive compensation for developed tech... But it feels like this is more about not being happy about who is using the tech... Not because it was not paid for, but because it ended up in a competitor product. That feels like an issue and negotiation between the tech owner and the company that licensed the tech to manufacture and sell.