Nokia Files iPhone-Related Suit Against Apple Regarding Wireless Patents

[seedster2]

With the amount of money they loosing, why wouldn't they want some of Apple's billions.

Nokia's Apple envy is showing.

If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.

HAHA, I was waiting to hear you two come up with something along these lines.

When Apple sues, it's protecting it's interests. Conversely, when anyone else defends their patents and IP, they're suing because of jealousy. Fortune 100 corps are just notorious for bringing forth these jealousy suits...

 

[kdarling]

So, no Nokia phone will ever have touchscreen or use of fingers to scroll, or pinch effect to zoom in or out, or virtual keyboard on any of their branded phones, or app store, regardless of the OS like Google's Android, HTC Touch... because they will be riding on the backs of Apple's innovation without just compensation...

Apple doesn't have any of the patents that you think it does.

C'mon Apple Legal... Steve, start defending those patents you talked about at the iPhone's introduction several years back!

Jobs exaggerated just a bit. Well, okay, a lot. He was probably referring to every patent on every chip in the phone, owned by every company that made those particular chips.

 

[aegisdesign]

I wonder if Apple has any patents on Newton, precursor of PDA and smart phones.

I wonder if Nokia, owner of SymbianOS which was once Psion's EPOC OS and used on it's PDAs (eg the Series3) that predate the Newton has any patents that affect Apple.

Do you think apple goes to the patent office, reads nokia's patents, and copy it?
Those patents seem overly broad. The system is broken.

FYI, Apple typically always acquire the proper agreement when it comes to intellectual property, but Apple typically rather fight patent trolls when it comes to obvious technology.

The patents mentioned in the press release seem related to Nokia's development on GSM and UMTS radio standards... unless you know different and it's about user interface as you seem to be suggesting.

 

[Matti]

Why innovate when you can litigate!

And how did Nokia get these patents? Answer starts with the letter "i". iPhone is full of GSM technology, and Nokia holds the largest chunk of GSM/UMTS/HSDPA patents. You wouldn't even be using a GSM phone if Nokia hadn't pushed it to become a global standard.

 

[aegisdesign]

... but the claim that they'd have NO browers on their phones at all, if it weren't for webkit, is 100% pure BS.

I agree. 100% pure BS.

On a Nokia S60 device you'd have Nokia's S60 browser which *is* based on webkit, Skyfire, Opera Mini, Opera Mobile and plenty others I've forgotten.

Unlike the iPhone, you have MANY browsers to choose from.

 

[Deppe]

The original iPhone changed nothing much. At least for countries with vaguely good mobile networks that subsidised very expensive phones (e.g. not the US). It was incredibly overpriced and lacked a whole host of features in both the hardware and software departments. The only thing it had going for it was the screen and the UI.

Apple have done three things since then: Corrected most of their initial mistakes, created a way to keep total control of the phone but allow applications to run (App Store) and marketed the hell out if it.

Well, the iPhone maybe did'nt change the market-structure but it changed the way the phones got used. I doubt that we would have seen so many phones with touch-screen if it was not for the iPhone!

 

[Cannedkoala]

"The ten patents in suit relate to technologies fundamental to making devices which are compatible with one or more of the GSM, UMTS (3G WCDMA) and wireless LAN standards. The patents cover wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption and are infringed by all Apple iPhone models shipped since the iPhone was introduced in 2007."

It doesn't sound like it is about features but more how the phone interacts with the rest of the world through standardised systems. How the voice data is packaged and transmitted, how it interfaces with mobile phone networks etc.

This stuff has to be consistent across all phones and if Nokia has been investing billions into developing these technologies then they likely should be deserving of compensation. They have helped everyone take advantage of the worldwide standards that ensure your phone works the same everywhere you go.

 

[lex750]

Placing all emotionally based fanboyistic comments aside. The facts is that Apple used Nokia's patens without paying for them. This is called stealing, and it's against the law.

 

[aegisdesign]

Well, the iPhone maybe did'nt change the market-structure but it changed the way the phones got used. I doubt that we would have seen so many phones with touch-screen if it was not for the iPhone!

Yep. I bet Nokia with their touchscreen communicators and Sony Ericsson with it's UIQ phones were thinking - hey, that touchscreen stuff will never catch on.

 

[BaldiMac]

I hate to say it, but it actually looks like Nokia has a case here.

This isn't about who makes the better product, it's about IP rights.

I'm no expert, but it appears that Nokia owns a lot of IP tied to the way smartphones handle data. It looks like most (all?) other smartphone manufacturers license this IP from Nokia for a fee.

I don't know if this is a case of the iPhone handling this differently (though I don't see why it would be any different than any other smart phone) or Apple just being arrogant, but if it's the latter I think they're in for a lot of trouble...

Are you basing this on anything more than this article which contains nowhere near enough information for you to come to this conclusion?

So, no Nokia phone will ever have touchscreen or use of fingers to scroll, or pinch effect to zoom in or out, or virtual keyboard on any of their branded phones, or app store, regardless of the OS like Google's Android, HTC Touch... because they will be riding on the backs of Apple's innovation without just compensation...

C'mon Apple Legal... Steve, start defending those patents you talked about at the iPhone's introduction several years back!

Apple doesn't have patents on any of those things that you listed.

Sorry, but no.

I actually own Nokia devices.

All of the Symbian ones run Opera-mini (no webkit).
All of the Maemo ones (N800, N810, soon N900) run Opera-mini or Mozila microb (precursor to fennec) (again, no webkit).

They might have an add-on for a webkit based browser, or they may have shipped some models with a webkit based browser ... but the claim that they'd have NO browers on their phones at all, if it weren't for webkit, is 100% pure BS.

Luckily, no one actually made the claim that you are calling "100% pure BS".

 

[Compile 'em all]

The original iPhone changed nothing much. At least for countries with vaguely good mobile networks that subsidised very expensive phones (e.g. not the US). It was incredibly overpriced and lacked a whole host of features in both the hardware and software departments. The only thing it had going for it was the screen and the UI.
oo.

Only?

The screen and the UI IS what the iPhone is: Bringing multitouch to the masses.

Look at what all smartphones from other manufacturers a couple of years looked like and have a look at how they looked like a year after the first iPhone came out. Yeah, that's right. Big multitouch screens.

The iPhone turned the whole mobile industry upside down. It is a fact.

 

[charliehustle]

That's kind of the first thing I thought. I mean, Apple has been guilty of stuff like this before, but why would Nokia wait 2.5 years to bring this up?

The only thing different between 2007 and now is that then many respected pundits - including Ballmer himself - said the iPhone would flop and now Nokia has consistently lost market share.

Smacks of sour grapes.

could be legal issues, getting everything in order..

this will most likely just end with a settlement like blackberry back in the day..

 

[kzin]

Luckily, no one actually made the claim that you are calling "100% pure BS".

from article #29 of this thread:

And let's not forget Nokia wouldn't even have a usable browser on their phones if not for Webkit.

You're right, he said "usable" instead of "no".

The claim is still 100% pure BS, whether it's "no browsers at all" or "no usable browsers".

 

[KaneBaker]

If you can't deliver product people want to buy, sue...

Jeez

Nokia swings to $1.36 billion loss between July and September 2009
http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/10/15/nokias.summer.hurt.by.poor.phone.sales/

Isn't that why apple is suing Psy Star ?

 

[BaldiMac]

Placing all emotionally based fanboyistic comments aside. The facts is that Apple used Nokia's patens without paying for them. This is called stealing, and it's against the law.

That is a claim. It is not necessarily a fact. It would be an emotionally based comment to jump to that conclusion without any actual evidence.

 

[outphase]

No way this gets litigated. It will reach settlement.

Companies have to protect their IP. Just like Apple suing Psystar. Or did you think Apple was desperate, too?

That's not the way it works. Coming to an Apple fansite means that there's bias. Apple can do no wrong

 

[*LTD*]

I wonder, other than Apple, is there any other company out there that you actually like? Or is it all **** to you?

Most of them are **** to me. I'll exclude Google because it looks like they're making a real effort with some interesting ideas.

Look at what Apple's done in the last ten years. Now look at Dell, HP, and the king of wasted opportunity: MS. And these other also-rans in the smartphone industry who have been upstaged overnight and still can't get their act together with all of their experience. And Apple's performance in a recession in particular shows just how broken the rest of this pathetic industry is with their losing business models.

Yeah, most of them are ****. What's there really to be impressed with outside of Apple??

 

[JonHimself]

I'm surprised that no one has spun this to say that the reason Apple isn't paying the licensing fee is because they feel it's too high and what they're really doing is sticking up for other companies that just pay the "unfairly high" license fees that are unable to fight it... so far it's been a good read of people using logic vs people irrationally hating on Nokia (of course with some other spectator comments, like mine I guess.

 

[BaldiMac]

You're right, he said "usable" instead of "no".

The claim is still 100% pure BS, whether it's "no browsers at all" or "no usable browsers".

It depends on your definition of useable. Mobile web browsing jumped by an incredible amount with the release of Mobile Safari. I think a reasonable person can consider it the first "useable" mobile web browser.

 

[AdeFowler]

I hate to say it, but it actually looks like Nokia has a case here.

Maybe. But then why would Apple invite negative publicity and legal costs. Maybe, just maybe, no one's bothered to challenge the patent before. It's worth considering.

Oh and Apple are hardly pro-litigious; they're often on the receiving end of lawsuits, but rarely in recent years have they executed them.

 

[boer]

Funny! Nokia wakes up two years later and... hey why aren't we selling any phones?

Funny! Actually, no. Nokia sells more phones in a week than Apple does in a year. You do realise Apple has only a marginal share of the total mobile market, don't you?

 

[JonHimself]

Yeah, most of them are ****. What's there really to be impressed with outside of Apple??

RIM

Edit: I should add that I do (somewhat) agree with you about how well Apple has entered this market and caused such a dramatic shake-up (with their business model, innovation, etc). I just wouldn't go as far as you sound like you're taking it. I do own almost exlusively Apple products (xbox and tv being the lone non-apple device... even my "home theatre" is simply an Apple HiFi but that's because I live in a small apartment.)

 

[iPh0ney]

1. Apple doesn't own WebKit. Nokia has probably contributed more to WebKit than Apple. Remember, they own Trolltech and QT
source

2. Nokia has invested over 40 billion EUR in R&D over the last 2 decades and now Apple is freeloading on their innovation.

3. It's crystal clear that Apple is going to lose this one.

Nokia's press release

Now cry me a river.

It's a shame thou that Apple didn't steal Nokia's antenna patents..

 

[firewood]

poker

This is just a poker hand, either before or after starting negotiations on the cross-licensing terms for Apple's (phone UI, iPod, Newton) patent portfolio. Palm is probably doing the same thing with their iTunes USB games.

These companies have huge patent portfolios that would cost maybe a fraction of a billion to litigate in their entirety, even if there isn't exactly infringement (which could take half a decade for a court to determine). So they rattle sabers, negotiate (more poker hands), then settle. Else they would have to set aside billions on their financial statements as reserves against large potential future court judgments.

 

[kzin]

It depends on your definition of useable. Mobile web browsing jumped by an incredible amount with the release of Mobile Safari. I think a reasonable person can consider it the first "useable" mobile web browser.

increases in usability are orthogonal to dependence on webkit.

While I agree that Apple increased the standard of usability on mobile browsers, that doesn't mean that every usable mobile browser must be based upon/dependent upon webkit and/or mobile safari.