Nokia Files iPhone-Related Suit Against Apple Regarding Wireless Patents

[johnntd]

Apple did not design the gsm chipset

If Apple buy the chipset from other companies why do they have to worry about paying the royalty fee? Shouldn't the company that make the GSM chipset have to deal with that?

Actually we know what patents apply to: speech encoding on GSM network, wireless data switching and data encryption.

This is just speculation but I don't think Nokia would be happy only with gesture patent since without Nokia patents it seems to be impossible to make a GSM phone. It seems this is the reason why all the other GSM handset manufacturers are paying royalties to Nokia.

 

[kdarling]

If Apple buy the chipset from other companies why do they have to worry about paying the royalty fee? Shouldn't the company that make the GSM chipset have to deal with that?

I can think of a couple of scenarios:

1) If you pay by your actual use of the chip.

For example, you might buy GSM chipsets to put into an embedded remote temperature monitor computer, transmitting _only simple data_ results via tiny phone calls (maybe even just SMS) to a master computer.

You're not using a voice CODEC. You're not switching between GSM and WiFi on the fly. So you'd only have to pay for the 3G data license, and perhaps not even that.

2) If the license is for the baseband software that's run on the chip.

This seems pretty likely to me. A radio chipset probably has fairly general purpose signal and data processors. The same as with any computer, they're useless without the right code.

The chipmaker has paid some electronic design license fees already for special purpose GSM circuits, but not for the software that makes it all go.

So the patents could be for the voice CODEC, GSM signal processing instructions, command and power algorithms, and so forth... and you'd have to license those code bits to make the chip work.

Hmm. Actually, both of those are pretty much the same scenario, aren't they? Payment by usage, I mean.

 

[majordude]

No, it's the same.

No.

If I sued you on day one would you shut it down or continue. You'd shut it down.

 

[kzin]

No.

If I sued you on day one would you shut it down or continue. You'd shut it down.

Not necessarily.

Cisco just about sued Apple on Day 1 of the iPhone (actually, before day 1). Did Apple shut down the iPhone, or keep moving forward? They kept moving forward.

 

[Laglorden]

And I stick by my assertion that Mobile Safari and Webkit are the primary drivers behind the improvement in usability in the mobile web.

Oh, I see you're one of those who "sticks with his original assertion" by making a new one

 

[majordude]

Not necessarily.

Cisco just about sued Apple on Day 1 of the iPhone (actually, before day 1). Did Apple shut down the iPhone, or keep moving forward? They kept moving forward.

Just about? That doesn't mean jack.

 

[kzin]

Just about? That doesn't mean jack.

Correct, it doesn't mean "jack", but it does refute your assertion that everyone folds if they're sued on day 1. Apple got sued before day 1, and didn't halt their development of the iPhone.

Not everyone gets paralysed with fear, or like a deer in the headlights, when being sued. Don't project your own shortcomings on to other people.

 

[Qwertylizer]

I think this is just some arm wrestling between Apple and Nokia. Apple has blamed Nokia over some touch-screen technology and now Nokia is sueing Apple over something else.

Maybe the biggest thing that happens is visibility in media.

 

[kdarling]

If I sued you on day one would you shut it down or continue. You'd shut it down.

So you claim that Apple would shut down the entire iPhone project the moment anyone sued them?

...

Apple has already been sued several times over the iPhone. For public example:

In 2008, a year after its debut, Apple settled over Visual Voicemail.

Currently, Apple is being sued over their smooth scrolling and zooming methods.

 

[twoodcc]

if nokia gets money out of this, then why doesn't apple sue everybody for trying to copy the iphone with their own multi-touch cell phones?

 

[mrochester]

if nokia gets money out of this, then why doesn't apple sue everybody for trying to copy the iphone with their own multi-touch cell phones?

Because you actually have to own something before you can charge someone else to use it? I'm going to sue you because you're breathing oxygen, which I have just now declared belongs to me.

 

[kdarling]

if nokia gets money out of this, then why doesn't apple sue everybody for trying to copy the iphone with their own multi-touch cell phones?

Because Apple didn't invent the idea. Or if they did, it was secretly in parallel with many others.

That's the way the real world often works: when times are right, everyone has the same idea and/or expands on ideas from others. (Just like Apple borrowed the idea of tapping to zoom on a web page section from previous patents by other researchers.)

Synaptics (makers of laptop touchpads), long promoted capacitive touch screens for smartphones... culminating in their working Onyx prototype.

The Linux-based OpenMoko phone showed off the usual icon grid, dock, multi-touch and even the pinch zoom gestures, months before the iPhone was revealed.

 

[*LTD*]

So, basically, you admit to posting completely off topic posts just to have your opinion heard? I think there is a term for that, I just can't... quite... remember it...

Trolling against Nokia in an Apple fan site. It's par for the course.

 

[BaldiMac]

Oh, I see you're one of those who "sticks with his original assertion" by making a new one

I made the "original assertion" in the preceding paragraph in the same post. You really didn't have to read very far back to find it.

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 1.5; en-gb; HTC Hero Build/CUPCAKE) AppleWebKit/528.5+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.1.2 Mobile Safari/525.20.1)

Interesting.
If Apple "own" multitouch why have Nokia applied for this: http://www.unwiredview.com/2009/10/22/nokia-is-exploring-3d-multi-touch-interfaces/

It'll never get granted amirite?

 

[giodelgado]

I hope they pay Nokia, I would not like that the iPhone to be taken out of the market, more options makes handset maker more competitive for cosumers. Even though the iPhone isn't a breakthrough in technology and open software it is easier to use for the masses than a full featured device.

 

[MorphingDragon]

I can think of a couple of scenarios:

1) If you pay by your actual use of the chip.

For example, you might buy GSM chipsets to put into an embedded remote temperature monitor computer, transmitting _only simple data_ results via tiny phone calls (maybe even just SMS) to a master computer.

You're not using a voice CODEC. You're not switching between GSM and WiFi on the fly. So you'd only have to pay for the 3G data license, and perhaps not even that.

2) If the license is for the baseband software that's run on the chip.

This seems pretty likely to me. A radio chipset probably has fairly general purpose signal and data processors. The same as with any computer, they're useless without the right code.

The chipmaker has paid some electronic design license fees already for special purpose GSM circuits, but not for the software that makes it all go.

So the patents could be for the voice CODEC, GSM signal processing instructions, command and power algorithms, and so forth... and you'd have to license those code bits to make the chip work.

Hmm. Actually, both of those are pretty much the same scenario, aren't they? Payment by usage, I mean.

Is it me or are a a lot of these patents based around Dect wireless technology?