Nokia Files iPhone-Related Suit Against Apple Regarding Wireless Patents

[Rodimus Prime]

The timing and the circumstances make this a little fishy, that's all.

There's cause for some suspicion.

If you read threw the thread some one else already pointed out that the 2-3 year lag on this law suit is understandiable.

during that time you have the negotiations going back and forth. Apple refusing to pay up like everyone else. Now it reach a point Nokia is done playing apples games and taking apple to court.

 

[Stella]

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.

I find other browsers more usable than Mobile Safari ( MS ) since MS won't allow you to view Flash, real / wmv content, of which there are plenty.

For this I have to use my Nokia cell phone, which will allow me to experience the full richness of internet content.

 

[kzin]

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

I'd MUCH rather have an Android device or Maemo device ... than an iPhone.

And, hey, I _do_ have Android and Maemo devices. Imagine that.

 

[Povilas]

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

Who's crying a river?

 

[*LTD*]

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.)

RIM was impressive about two years ago. Another player that missed the boat and is now swimming after Apple.

I suppose the extent to which Apple has changed the game can be argued. Might be hard to quantify completely, anyway.

 

[JonHimself]

I find other browsers more usable than Mobile Safari ( MS ) since MS won't allow you to view Flash, real / wmv content, of which there are plenty.

For this I have to use my Nokia cell phone, which will allow me to experience the full richness of internet content.

I'm an Apple apologist in most situation, so I like to spin that as saying that Apple is trying to get rid of proprietary (is that right?) formats on the internet and is fully supporting more open codecs/formats (mp4, css, etc) to create the content... is mp4 (aac mpeg-4, right?) even an "open" codec? I might just be making things up.

 

[kzin]

I find other browsers more usable than Mobile Safari ( MS ) since MS won't allow you to view Flash, real / wmv content, of which there are plenty..

That's useful, not usable.

Usable is a measure of ergonomics/user-friendliness ... not a measure of utility.

The things you mention are more about utility than user friendliness.

 

[JonHimself]

RIM was impressive about two years ago. Another player that missed the boat and is now swimming after Apple.

I suppose the extent to which Apple has changed the game can be argued. Might be hard to quantify completely, anyway.

See I think RIM's phones are still impressive. I switched from an 8700 BB to the iPhone and if I had to, for whatever reason, not use the iPhone anymore I'd go right back to a Tour, Bold, or some other BB.
They're different and I would definitely be losing a lot of the features that made me choose the iphone (mostly managing my media and contacts) but I still think RIM has some really nice devices (it's opinion though).

 

[jodyfanning]

Are you deluded?

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.

Every S60 phone sold in at least the last 3 years have had a webkit based browser. It is all over the net if you actually looked.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Nokia's Apple envy is showing.

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

I see the fanatics are out in force in this thread....

If Apple can "beat 'em" and therefore presumably doesn't need to sue people then why are they suing Psystar? Oh, that's right...when Apple sues the living crap out of people it's not only OK, it's the right thing to do! Bad Psystar! Evil Psystar! How DARE they infringe on Apple's intellectual property!?!? I hope Psystar goes out of business immediately, the cut-throat leeches!!! Hey wait...what's this? Nokia is suing Apple for phone related patent violations? Those scum suckers! They can't beat the iPhone so they're trying to steal some of Apple billions! (you know the billions they make from not having to compete with anyone else's hardware directly for "Mac" sales since anyone wanting a "Mac" must buy only Apple hardware even though it's identical to all Intel clone hardware and so an "intellectual license" is their shield against competition and against the Clayton Anti-Trust tying provision for that matter, but who cares about that because Apple gets what Apple wants!) What? The very suggestion that Apple should COMPETE with Psystar's hardware instead of just trying to erase them off the planet? Pshaw! That's absurd! You don't "compete" in a monarchy! King Steve doesn't compete with anyone! He sues his enemies into oblivion and he will do the same with Nokia for stealing his patents on wireless phone technology just as soon as he figures a way to get his "Time Machine" to go back and change history! Then Nokia will rue the day they messed with the Almighty Steve!

 

[Unspeaked]

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

I didn't come to any conclusion, I'm just making assumptions.

Isn't that what the comments section is for? To discuss the news item?

 

[Sabenth]

All i can say is theres an app for this. in reality nokia has invested heavily into mobiles apples been at this a couple of years. Yes apple has made it so we can all touch twist pinch flip and do visual voice mail. I think the possible outcome of this will be heres so much and heres a bit of the touch stuff and we all carry on our normal lives as usual

 

[Stella]

That's useful, not usable.

Usable is a measure of ergonomics/user-friendliness ... not a measure of utility.

The things you mention are more about utility than user friendliness.

yes, you are correct - but what good is usability if the product deliveries a lack of functionality?

A Door stop?

Why can't I use Safari to experience to full internet content? I shouldn't have to resort to other mobile browsers.

Nokia Browser renders pages just fine.

Every S60 phone sold in at least the last 3 years have had a webkit based browser. It is all over the net if you actually looked.

The point of his post was - that if there was no web kit, you'd still have some other browser on your Nokia, because there are other non-web kit options out there.

 

[stuarthatto]

I call BS on Nokia's suit. I don't have a lot of info to go off of here, but based on reports so far... BS. First of all, Apple & Lucent brought WiFi technology to market, so Nokia can't say anything about that. Second, to my knowledge cellular radios existed long before Nokia did, so I don't think they can say anything about that either. I think they're just pissed that Apple is building a better phone than they are, and instead of putting more effort into making a better product, they're asking the court to eliminate their competition.

Sorry mytdave thats wrong - Nokia have been around a lot longer than cellular communications, they started as a company making paper in 1865 and were making rubber boots and gas masks in 1922. As pioneers of the cellular industry in 1971 they developed the first mobile car phone network.

Sometimes it pays to research... and the patents involved in developing this and future technologies deserve to be protected.

 

[kdarling]

A few interesting paragraphs from UK news...
---
The two companies have been locked in talks to agree to a licensing deal that would see Nokia receive payments for the technology it has developed, which has become an industry-wide standard.

Talks, however, failed to reach a settlement and Nokia has started legal proceedings, which are unlikely to enter court until the end of 2011.

A Nokia spokesman said that Apple would be able to continue developing the iPhone and shipping existing models, even though the company alleges that every device breaches its patents.

"We are not seeking to disrupt the business of any operator or the company, we are looking to get appropriate compensation for our intellectual property," he said. "For Nokia, legal action is always a last resort."

He refused to say the price Nokia wanted for use of the 10 patents at issue, but typical licence payments are a few dollars.
---
Also, apparently Apple has been paying license fees to at least one other UMTS/3G patent holder... and to a WiFi patent holder. So perhaps they felt they were covered under those. Sounds like it'll be a long drawn out process.

 

[DougB541]

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.

I agree with part of your stamtents...but don't agree with others.

There were large touch screen phones prior and even same month as the iPhone.

They just used the horrible windows mobile.

Apple took a fresh look at the industry instead of relying on Windows Mobile or Palm OS to be the future phone OS's.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

RIM was impressive about two years ago. Another player that missed the boat and is now swimming after Apple.

I suppose the extent to which Apple has changed the game can be argued. Might be hard to quantify completely, anyway.

RIM still has not gone head to head with apple. It has some stuff in the general direction but still has not gone head to head with Apple. Hell if you really look at RIM stuff the storm was the closes at going head to head with the iPhone and even then it was not truly even trying to do it. It still fell back on RIM solid set up.

But take away the storm since the iPhone has come out RIM has released the Curve 8900, Bold 9000, Tour, and soon to be the Onyx (9700) if you look at all those phones they all follow the Curves 8300 design. RIM things that go in apple general direction have been an things more to hold on to its main market which is business users. The media player is clearly not trying to compete again the iPhones. It Apps store is just putting up a place where people can find safe good apps but even then it is not the only BB app store as I can name at least one more that RIM does not control for the BB. Plus you can download apps straight from the devs.

Really RIM still has not tried nor do I see it planning to try to go head to head with the iPhone. it is sticking to its main market. Apple is not trying to go head to head with the Blackberry. All the head to head crap out there is made up by the media and reviewers. Plus Fan boys like yourself.

 

[sysiphus]

It's simple, really...Nokia was one of the pioneers in GSM communications. It stands to reason that they hold a LOT of IP in the field. Virtually everybody else who makes GSM equipment licenses this IP. Apple gambled, and decided not to. Time to pay up.

As for the timing of the suit, get real. It has nothing to do with Nokia's earnings/marketshare...they tried to settle out of court, and are now taking it to court to push for resolution. Two years of preceding legal bickering is hardly surprising.

 

[kzin]

The point of his post was - that if there was no web kit, you'd still have some other browser on your Nokia, because there are other non-web kit options out there.

Thank you. Yes, that was my point exactly.

 

[brazilectro]

Patentinsanity

So darn tired of all those patent lawsuits, all it's about is ripping someone else's money off, once more demonstrating what rank all those lawyers are in, selling their soul to the mammon.

One thing though that I don't quite get on that one now:
Let's say I'd have a patent on wheels - would ALL car, truck, bicycle, go-kart etc etc manufactures have to pay me a share??

Meaning: the patent claim sounds so freaky, as we're speaking about the core foundation of mobiles - or?

Lost in insanity...

 

[lex750]

 

[whooleytoo]

Maybe Nokia were about to release an ad-supported Symbian, and are now using this patent to counter sue?

But seriously.. does anyone know if any mobile manufacturers work around the patent, rather than license it? If everyone licenses it, is that for cost reasons (i.e. it's cheaper to let Nokia do the work, and license the parent)? Or is it because the patents are so sweeping it's impossible to work around them?

Just the term "intellectual property" gives me the heebie-jeebies. Yes, innovators do deserve to have their work protected from being copied/stolen. But equally at the other end of the scale, innovators need to be protected from an unwieldy patent system where their original work could fall foul of broad, sweeping patents not deserving of protection.

 

[BaldiMac]

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

Your source does not appear to back up your assertion that Nokia has probably contributed more to Webkit than Apple. Apple employs the primary developers and Nokia did not own Trolltech throughout their "extensive history of Webkit contributions."

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

According to Nokia.

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

Nokia's press release

It's crystal clear from Nokia's press release? Seriously? Besides, who says Apple intends to "win"? If they are clearly using Nokia patented technology, the most likely outcome is compromise. Apple obviously feels like they have some sort of leverage to negotiate the terms that Nokia has proposed to license the tech.

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.

It really is easy to win an argument if you make up your own claims to fight. I never said that "every usable mobile browser must be based upon/dependent upon webkit and/or mobile safari." I said that "a reasonable person can consider it the first "useable" mobile web browser."

I find other browsers more usable than Mobile Safari ( MS ) since MS won't allow you to view Flash, real / wmv content, of which there are plenty.

For this I have to use my Nokia cell phone, which will allow me to experience the full richness of internet content.

No mobile browser offers "the full richness of internet content." Heck, I doubt that there is a single browser on any machine in the world that is configured to allow "the full richness of internet content."

I didn't come to any conclusion, I'm just making assumptions.

Isn't that what the comments section is for? To discuss the news item?

Yes, the forum is for discussion of news items. That's why I asked you a question about the statement that you posted. No offense intended. If it's just a gut feeling, that's fine. But if you have any evidence to back up your statement, it could add to the discussion.

 

[zacman]

Funny discussion:

Jobs: "And Hell have we patented it"
MacRumors: WOHOOO!!!! Let's sue!!!!!!1111!!1

Nokia: "Apple stole our technology!"
MacRumors: BOOOOOO!!!!! Nokia you suck!!!!!!!111

 

[Goona]

Personal pet-peeve - but as an FYI, don't use absolutes in argument that you can't back-up with proof. You have no way of knowing that - or proving it and it's easy for anyone to point that out.

I'm not sure that it's unrealistic to think that they've been negotiating for this long. How long ago did Apple "threaten" to sue Palm and yet no lawsuit has come out yet?
It is possible that Apple was just talking tough, it's also possible that they're still investigating patents, it's possible that Palm didn't violate anything, it's also possible that they did but now they're just negotiating a solution. We can't assume that these things happen quickly and shouldn't be surprised that it's taken so long. The timing might just be coincidental.

Apple didn't say they were gonna sue Palm, stop making stuff up. They threatened to protect their IP which in this case was iTunes which Palm has been using hacks to get iTunes to recognize the Pre.