Nokia Increases Scope of Patent Complaints to Include 'Virtually All' Apple Products

[zacman]

So Apple is lying then about Nokia asking then to pay 3 times the industry rate?

Why don't you even read the complaint? Nokia offered the same amount as they asked all other companies (paragraph 45). Apple does not even deny that.

The 3 times higher amount is including the compensation of damages that Nokia asked for after Apple rejected the initial offer under the FRAND rules.

So Apple didn't want to pay the FRAND amount first and later didn't want to pay the compensations. They turn out just to be nothing more than thieves.

 

[darkplanets]

Seriously, you're grasping at straws. Nokia has patents that Apple needs to license. They can't agree to the terms. The courts will decide, and Apple will end up paying. This will end in settlement. Both sides are just pilling up the charges as way to push negotiations. This is business as usual.

This.

It seems like this thread is just running around in circles between Nokia haters and lovers. I have not read all of the court documents, so I do not know the exact situation, but if Nokia failed to offer F/RAND and then subsequently re offered twice more (also not F/RAND), as suggested, then this whole thing could quite easily get arbitrated by the court. Nokia is at fault then.

Failure to offer F/RAND is against the law (as far as my non-legal self is aware), so therefore Apple had the right to refuse the terms of the licensing. More than likely, if the court finds this to be the case, it will arbitrate the terms of the licensing, as knight has also said, and the other counter suits will more than likely be dropped.

If Apple is in the wrong however, and Nokia did offer F/RAND, then they could be in for some legal fees.

As for the whole ITC thing... well, I've never had much respect for the ITC to begin with, but I could see their ruling having little effect on the overall situation. With todays markets there are many ways around an ITC ruling, and that's only provided that the countries involved actually care.

Just my two cents.

 

[*LTD*]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/29/nokia-apple

The ITC usually takes up to 30 days to rule on whether it will pursue a complaint, indicating that the basis of Nokia's claims will be weighed up by the end of January. The court cases, meanwhile, are not expected to be heard until 2011.

 

[KnightWRX]

As for the whole ITC thing... well, I've never had much respect for the ITC to begin with, but I could see their ruling having little effect on the overall situation. With todays markets there are many ways around an ITC ruling, and that's only provided that the countries involved actually care.

Just my two cents.

The ITC thing is just something to push settlement negotiations. Nokia wants this settled and wants its money. Apple probably wants the same thing, hence their patent counter-suit.

This is a game and it needs to be played. No one is 100% wrong or right. If it was so easy, we wouldn't need courts.

The "Apple can do no wrong" crowd needs to chill out and learn to keep an open mind.

 

[zacman]

alleging infringement of Nokia-held patents by "virtually all" Apple products, including the iPhone, iPod, and Mac.

Absolute lunacy. I'm dying to see this play out, if only to get a better sense of just how far this company has degenerated.

The Macs and the iPod (touch) all include wireless lan technology which is also part of the initial lawsuit. Nokia just didn't include the other products in the law suit first because they probably thought that Apple would just be clever and pay for the iPhone. Instead Apple decided to counter sue. Nokia is now threatening to stop Apple's whole business.

Remember when almost all SanDisk MP3 players that were imported into the EU got distrained a few years ago because a chip manufacturer didn't pay Fraunhofer for their patents (Sisvel) and SanDisk was the only company that didn't want to pay for it. Same could happen to Apple very quickly. There is no such obligation in EU law to licence technology to other companies like it is in the US law (FRAND).

See for example: http://www.sisvel.com/english/news/sisvelnews/sisvelandsandiskatif
http://www.design-reuse.com/news/14...ional-legal-troubles-sandisk-mp3-players.html

 

[darkplanets]

The ITC thing is just something to push settlement negotiations. Nokia wants this settled and wants its money. Apple probably wants the same thing, hence their patent counter-suit.

This is a game and it needs to be played. No one is 100% wrong or right. If it was so easy, we wouldn't need courts.

The "Apple can do no wrong" crowd needs to chill out and learn to keep an open mind.

Agreed.

 

[aegisdesign]

I suggest you read Apple's claim to gain a complete understanding of the situation. You will realise just how bad this really is for Nokia.

I've read both claims now. Apple's claim is ridiculous. I own an E71, referred to many times throughout their claim and Apple's assertions as to what Nokia is infringing is frankly silly. Have Apple used an E71 for any length of time?

But, Nokia's claim is also pretty silly too in places.

It seems both of their lawyers have to claim 200 points to make sure they score on 20. After the sabre rattling, it will get sorted. Moneywise I read Apple were basically complaining about 35M in licence fees - ie. this is not about the money.

I can only hope that some of Apple's patent claims get thrown out in this, particularly their claims for the notification system they inherited from Taligent.

 

[surferfromuk]

They actually alleged Nokia asked for three times what they'd offered the previous year, not three times the industry rate, whatever that is.

If you're suggesting the second offer was three times the industry rate then the implication is that Apple initially refused to pay even the "industry rate" whatever that is.

I suspect what actually happened was that Nokia offered a very low rate but included use of patents in the deal. Apple refused to include patents so the second offer was higher to reflect that.

Clarification. From Apple's filing

Article 82. Nokia demanded a royalty three times as much as the royalty proposed prior sping, which was itself in excess of a F/RAND rate, as well as “picks” to Apple’s non-standards-essential patents. Nokia never represented that its 2008 demand was below F/RAND, and it’s tripling of that demand in May 2009 was in flagrant violation of it’s F/RAND commitments. Apple again refused to agree...

Article 83. Finally, Nokia made demands in or about September 2009, just prior to filing suit, for highly excessive royalties virtually identical to those sought by Nokia two years earlier at the outset of the parties negotiation.

Article 80. Apple has no obligation, under law of otherwise, to license these non-standards-essential patents to Nokia. Thus, Nokia is seeking unlawfully and unfairly to leverage the monopoly power it obtained from its false F/RAND commitments to SSO’s to obtain licenses to Apple’s proprietary technology ( to which Nokia in not entitled) that would enable Nokia to develop products with feature now unique to the iPhone. Nokia’s demand for license terms that are unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory constitues a breach of Nokia’s F/RAND commitments.

 

[robbyx]

Ah, the last desperate attempt of a failing company. When you can't compete in the market, resort to litigation. They will fail. And in a few years Nokia will be an also-ran. Perhaps they should have tried innovating?

 

[surferfromuk]

I've read both claims now. Apple's claim is ridiculous. I own an E71, referred to many times throughout their claim and Apple's assertions as to what Nokia is infringing is frankly silly. Have Apple used an E71 for any length of time?

But, Nokia's claim is also pretty silly too in places.

It seems both of their lawyers have to claim 200 points to make sure they score on 20. After the sabre rattling, it will get sorted. Moneywise I read Apple were basically complaining about 35M in licence fees - ie. this is not about the money.

I can only hope that some of Apple's patent claims get thrown out in this, particularly their claims for the notification system they inherited from Taligent.

I think Apple's counter patents open a whole new can of worms and could drag it out for years.

In their entirety they represent the ability for Apple to at least stop Nokia producing any kind of gesture based touch screen mobile device and could serve as a precedent for multi-touch that the rest of the industry would rather not see ratified. At worst they could force endless software and innumerable component level platform technology 'switches' to be undertaken at Nokia that would likely cost them two years to market.

 

[Bevz]

LMAO... You just can't write comedy like this...

 

[cmaier]

Apple are the only ones saying that. Nokia asked the courts to decide what was fair and what Apple should pay.

Seems to me they wouldn't ask the courts to decide unless they were happy with an outcome of "what everyone else pays".

Read Nokia's pleading. They never specify what they asked for in terms of money, but they do specify that they asked for a reciprocal license.

 

[aegisdesign]

I think Apple's counter patents open a whole new can of worms and could drag it out for years.

In their entirety they represent the ability for Apple to at least stop Nokia producing any kind of gesture based touch screen mobile device and could serve as a precedent for multi-touch that the rest of the industry would rather not see ratified. At worst they could force endless software and innumerable component level platform technology 'switches' to be undertaken at Nokia that would likely cost them two years to market.

There's only ONE Apple patent that relates to the UI and it's easily avoided by removing swipe gestures to switch screens - just stick a button on the screen that switches screens.

It's a little more difficult for Apple to avoid the patents in the GSM spec.

 

[cmaier]

Why don't you even read the complaint? Nokia offered the same amount as they asked all other companies (paragraph 45). Apple does not even deny that.

The 3 times higher amount is including the compensation of damages that Nokia asked for after Apple rejected the initial offer under the FRAND rules.

So Apple didn't want to pay the FRAND amount first and later didn't want to pay the compensations. They turn out just to be nothing more than thieves.

Read paragraph 44 of the nokia complaint, where it says "reciprocal."

 

[xlii]

Come on, Nokia... show us the love...

 

[surferfromuk]

There's only ONE Apple patent that relates to the UI and it's easily avoided by removing swipe gestures to switch screens - just stick a button on the screen that switches screens.

It's a little more difficult for Apple to avoid the patents in the GSM spec.

List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display - for one - there are others which relate to aspects of the UI.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...7,469,381.PN.&OS=PN/7,469,381&RS=PN/7,469,381

Apple don't have to avoid the GSM patents - they will, at worst, simply pay market F/RAND rates (like they wanted to), at best have the court declare Nokia's patents unenforceable due to their illegal activity. Either way NOTHING can stop Apple using those patent technologies as that is part of Nokias legal admittance to the GSM standard, but for Nokia to receive an injunction against the core patent technologies they are already using will cause Nokia a lot more trouble.

 

[aegisdesign]

Read Nokia's pleading. They never specify what they asked for in terms of money, but they do specify that they asked for a reciprocal license.

I don't see how that is necessarily unfair though. Most companies have reciprocal licensing agreements.

 

[MacBram]

...
I haven't read that in this thread. I've seen a few neutral people who look at facts say Apple should pay something to Nokia to use the patents, and that a suit makes sense if the companies can't negotiate proper licensing terms.

Then read every post. More than a few have said that Apple is refusing to pay anything at all and think that they are above the law and something special. At the same time they have said that Nokia is asking only what is right and fair, and have increased the scope of the complaints only because Apple has repeatedly and arrogantly refused to respond to the respectful requests by Nokia for its due recompense. That much is very clear on the pro-Nokia side from even a cursory reading of this thread.

And yet, the simple facts from the pro-Apple side of this thread, yet to be refuted, are overwhelmingly that:
a) Apple does not appear to have refused to pay the going industry rate for the standard patent licensing
b) Us *fanboys* think that yes, Apple SHOULD pay the going industry rate.
c) Nokia is singling out Apple (why?), and asking THREE TIMES the going rate in a discriminatory manner, despite committing itself to an established non-discriminatory plan for the licensing.
d) Nokia is putting its foot in it and compounding its error by asking for access to Apples private IP that do not pertain to industry standards.

 

[aegisdesign]

List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display - for one - there are others which relate to aspects of the UI.

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...7,469,381.PN.&OS=PN/7,469,381&RS=PN/7,469,381

Apple don't have to avoid the GSM patents - they will, at worst, simply pay market F/RAND rates (like they wanted to), at best have the court declare Nokia's patents unenforceable due to their illegal activity. Either way NOTHING can stop Apple using those patent technologies as that is part of Nokias legal admittance to the GSM standard, but for Nokia to receive an injunction against the core patent technologies they are already using will cause Nokia a lot more trouble.

That's the patent I meant. Really, it's minor and is barely used in S60. Nokia's S60 V5 Touch interface is very basic. If anything, I'd be more worried if I was Google as their Maps application infringes more of those gestures. I don't think that patent will stand long.

There's 2-3 patents from the Taligent Pink days that are more worrying to be honest dealing with low level OO stuff and notifications that you'd think were fundamental to any modern OS.

 

[Matti]

It gets better. Apple outlines the nature of Nokia's potentially illegal strong-arm tactics. ( Apple specifically claims Nokia to be unlawful in article 84)

From Apple's counter-claim;

Article 81. In Particular, in or about the spring of 2008, Nokia demanded that, as part of it’s compensation for licensing Nokia’s portfolio of purported essential patents, Apple must grant Nokia a license to a particular number of Apple non-standards-essential patents...Apple immediately rejected the proposal and reiterated Apple’s position that Nokia’s F/RAND obligations required it to licence Nokia’s purportedly essential technologies.

Article 82. ...In or about May 2009, Nokia demanded a royalty approximately three times as much as the royalty proposed the prior spring, which was itself in excess of a F/RAND rate, as well as “picks’ to Apple’s non-standards-essential patents.


Nokia have been very naughty.

You conviniently left out Articles 80 and 83 where Apple states that in 2007 and autumn 2009 Nokia offered licensing without any cross licensing.




Looking at both Apple's and Nokia's court papers:

2007: Negotiations started. Nokia offered licensing with only monetary compensation. (Only money)

2008: Nokia switched to offering licensing on the basis of mostly crosslicensing terms. (Lots of patent cross licensing + some money)

Spring 2009: Nokia changed offer again. (Mostly money + few patents)

Autumn 2009: Nokia went back to 2007 offer. (Only money)

October 2009: Nokia sues.





This new Nokia complaint and Apple's couter-complaint two weeks ago are just negotiation tactics. Bottom line is that the matter is still really about the GSM patents in the original Nokia complaint. Rest is just usual large corporation legal tactics.

We might get actual legal ruling on whetever Nokia's offers were in line with FRAND principles or if Apple was really trying to piggyback on Nokia's innovation, but it's far more likely that this will be setled by corporate lawyers behind closed doors.

 

[aristotle]

I don't see how that is necessarily unfair though. Most companies have reciprocal licensing agreements.

The key word here is "agreement". Both parties have to agree to such an arrangement. What is happening here is Nokia is trying to force Apple to pay extra and license patents to them.

 

[cmaier]

I don't see how that is necessarily unfair though. Most companies have reciprocal licensing agreements.

It's not a typical element of a FRAND licensing agreement, however. By definition it is not "ND" since the cost/value of such a term will vary wildly depending on who the licensee is.

 

[0423379]

b) Us *fanboys* think that yes, Apple SHOULD pay the going industry rate.
c) Nokia is singling out Apple (why?), and asking THREE TIMES the going rate in a discriminatory manner, despite committing itself to an established non-discriminatory plan for the licensing.
.

I think that has been answered pretty clearly several times in this forum.
and not to be an ******* or anything, but it seems you are too busy picking a fight and posting for posting sakes rather than reading what it's all about.

Read the siliconlaw dude's posts, maybe you'll learn something.

If apple really had balls it would offer all their iphone patents to the GSM pool. And in return, become a partner with nokia and the others.

In the end we as consumers would benefit from it the most.
Regardless of fanboy or not.

 

[surferfromuk]

That's the patent I meant. Really, it's minor and is barely used in S60. Nokia's S60 V5 Touch interface is very basic. If anything, I'd be more worried if I was Google as their Maps application infringes more of those gestures. I don't think that patent will stand long.

There's 2-3 patents from the Taligent Pink days that are more worrying to be honest dealing with low level OO stuff and notifications that you'd think were fundamental to any modern OS.

That's the problem though - it stops Nokia from progressing.

I don't think Apple has really wanted to push some of those patents since the debacle with Microsoft (which we all know had everything to do with a certain 'one page contract' given to Microsoft by John Sculley for what reason we shall never know).

However, we all know Nokia doesn't have such a letter - unless it's going to borrow Microsofts ?

In response to your question about why it's unfair for Nokia to demand 'grant-backs' in relation to technology developed and granted admittance to the SSO.

Article 26. Having suffered losses in the marketplace, Nokia has resorted to demanding exorbitant royalties from Apple for patents that Nokia claims are essential to various compatibility standard for mobile wireless telecommunications and wireless computing that Apple practices...Nokia’s demand for unreasonable royalties and grantbacks violate the promises Nokia made to the SSOs that developed and adopted these standards : to license purported essential patents on F/RAND terms. Nokia never told SSOs that is would not be willing to license its purported essential patents on F/RAND terms if it considered the prospective licenses to be a threat competitively, or that is would insist on grantbacks to non-standards-essential patents from potential licensees holding patents that Nokia desired to License.

Article 50. Nokia’s representations that it would license its purported standards-essential patents on F/RAND terms were false, and enabled Nokia to obtain the “hold-up” power it now abusively seeks to wield.

 

[surferfromuk]

You conviniently left out Articles 80 and 83 where Apple states that in 2007 and autumn 2009 Nokia offered licensing without any cross licensing.




Looking at both Apple's and Nokia's court papers:

2007: Negotiations started. Nokia offered licensing with only monetary compensation. (Only money)

2008: Nokia switched to offering licensing on the basis of mostly crosslicensing terms. (Lots of patent cross licensing + some money)

Spring 2009: Nokia changed offer again. (Mostly money + few patents)

Autumn 2009: Nokia went back to 2007 offer. (Only money)

October 2009: Nokia sues.





This new Nokia complaint and Apple's couter-complaint two weeks ago are just negotiation tactics. Bottom line is that the matter is still really about the GSM patents in the original Nokia complaint. Rest is just usual large corporation legal tactics.

We might get actual legal ruling on whetever Nokia's offers were in line with FRAND principles or if Apple was really trying to piggyback on Nokia's innovation, but it's far more likely that this will be setled by corporate lawyers behind closed doors.

Post 233 has them in.

However, you conveniently left out article 78 and 79 ;-)

Article 78 Late 2007 Apple and Nokia began negotiating a licence

Article 79 ...Throughout the negotiations, Apple made clear to Nokia, that except for one specific family of patents, Apple would not agree to cross-licence to Nokia any of it's patents ( in particular those relating to iPhone technology).

Look, I suggest people read the thing - I'm not hiding anything - it's a massive article - I can only post so much of it, plus (disclosure) I am not posting Nokia's filing - you've created a composite of two filing there which is just too subjective - at least by only posting Apple's stuff I can claim clarity and at the very least bias