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

[mrochester]

Oh i agree - but the 200 or so posts i read kept a theme of, "Nokia is running circles around Apple", which obviously, they are hurting in the current economy, as are a lot of companies. It struck me as ironic to read last night - after reading parts of this thread (i was reading a backlog of engadget posts, hence the timing).

I'm interested in the way this plays out - although i do think there should be some sort of statue of limitations on bringing suit though. So many years of knowledge a person might be infringing - without a word to them on it - should translate to "consent" somehow. WHich probably would make an even bigger mess of the courts. Otherwise it does just strike me as, "Hey, we know you are using something we invented - go ahead until you are making gobs of money on it, then we want part of it."

ANYWAY...... i'll just keep reading!

But they have been in discussions over this before we even knew what an iPhone was, so it was making Apple precisely £0 at the time. Discussions can only go on for so long before stalemate is declared, and then it has to be passed onto the courts to decide, and that's where we are now, 2 and a half years later. I really don't understand why this point keeps getting ignored time and time again.

 

[KnightWRX]

However back then 3G was not deployed and therefore downloading applications over the air was technically impossible.

Before 3G there was EDGE (the first iPhone didn't even support 3G) and before that there was GPRS.

What are you smoking ? GPRS has been around for quite a few years now. I had an old Nokia with a black and white screen that supported GPRS and Internet access, using WAP instead of HTTP.

I agree. I had a lot of respect for Nokia back in the day. This kind of patent trolling is very bad sign for stockholders. Companies don't rely on these tactics unless they believe it is all they have left.

You obviously have no idea what patent trolling is. Patent trolls are firms that buy up patents, build a portfolio but never deliver a product to market with them. They then sit on these patents for a few years and wait for people to build products that infringe on them, wait a few more years for these products to become successful, and then they sue.

Nokia has been building products off their patents and they have been licensing them for use to other manufacturer for quite a while. Apple comes into the game, Nokia offers them a license so they can comply, and Apple doesn't.

The only people who think this is a desperate tactic are the blind "Apple can do no wrong" crowd. Everyone else is paying a license, why shouldn't Apple ? They are using components that are patented by Nokia, it's part of the game. Heck, even Apple agrees they need to license these patents, what they don't agree on is the cost Nokia is charging. Read the claims again, both sides. It's all about cost.

 

[cmaier]

Heck, even Apple agrees they need to license these patents, what they don't agree on is the cost Nokia is charging. Read the claims again, both sides. It's all about cost.

no they don't agree. They allege the patents are invalid under 35 USC 102 and 103 and unenforceable under patent misuse. They admit nothing.

 

[KnightWRX]

no they don't agree. They allege the patents are invalid under 35 USC 102 and 103 and unenforceable under patent misuse. They admit nothing.

That's only for some patents, and again, that's just negotiation tactics.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

Before 3G there was EDGE (the first iPhone didn't even support 3G) and before that there was GPRS.

What are you smoking ? GPRS has been around for quite a few years now. I had an old Nokia with a black and white screen that supported GPRS and Internet access, using WAP instead of HTTP.



You obviously have no idea what patent trolling is. Patent trolls are firms that buy up patents, build a portfolio but never deliver a product to market with them. They then sit on these patents for a few years and wait for people to build products that infringe on them, wait a few more years for these products to become successful, and then they sue.

Nokia has been building products off their patents and they have been licensing them for use to other manufacturer for quite a while. Apple comes into the game, Nokia offers them a license so they can comply, and Apple doesn't.

The only people who think this is a desperate tactic are the blind "Apple can do no wrong" crowd. Everyone else is paying a license, why shouldn't Apple ? They are using components that are patented by Nokia, it's part of the game. Heck, even Apple agrees they need to license these patents, what they don't agree on is the cost Nokia is charging. Read the claims again, both sides. It's all about cost.

You will just be ignored bro or labeled a fanboy. What you are saying is the truth. This is how business has been done for decades even by Apple. The problem here is that Apple is never wrong.

 

[cmaier]

That's only for some patents, and again, that's just negotiation tactics.

Ignoring the ITC case (because Apple hasn't yet responded) it's all patents.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 forbids a party from pleading things unless it has a good faith basis (requiring investigation and due diligence). Apple and its attorneys believe there is a sufficient basis to say the patents are invalid. They've already gathered at least some prior art. It's not just a negotiating position - it doesn't work that way.

 

[CQd44]

I don't agree with these patents, therefore I shouldn't have to license them.

Brilliant :O

 

[TraceyS/FL]

But they have been in discussions over this before we even knew what an iPhone was, so it was making Apple precisely £0 at the time. Discussions can only go on for so long before stalemate is declared, and then it has to be passed onto the courts to decide, and that's where we are now, 2 and a half years later. I really don't understand why this point keeps getting ignored time and time again.

I"m not ignoring it - i wasn't actually referring to the Apple-Nokia stuff, but in a general broad sense of ignoring an infringement until it is financially beneficial doing something about it. That rubs *me* wrong - because it goes against how i feel about protecting my own stuff - it is worth defending because it's mine.

My way of thinking how it should work would likely not be doable in the real world either, but hey, it's my thought and i'll stick behind it! LOL!!

And for the record - Apple should be paying a fair amount in royalties, along the same lines that any other company that wasn't involved in the creation of the tech pays. Trying to get them to pay more because they are successful is wrong. It will be up for the courts to decide on that point now.

 

[KnightWRX]

Ignoring the ITC case (because Apple hasn't yet responded) it's all patents.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 forbids a party from pleading things unless it has a good faith basis (requiring investigation and due diligence). Apple and its attorneys believe there is a sufficient basis to say the patents are invalid. They've already gathered at least some prior art. It's not just a negotiating position - it doesn't work that way.

That's a little naive. Every patent case results in these claims that the patent or patents are unenforceable. Microsoft did it for the i4i case, and look what happened to them. So much for due diligence and investigation...

 

[cmaier]

That's a little naive. Every patent case results in these claims that the patent or patents are unenforceable. Microsoft did it for the i4i case, and look what happened to them. So much for due diligence and investigation...

in i4i Matt Powers screwed up, but that's no the point. Apple believes it can make the invalidity case - that doesn't mean it's correct.

I'm not naive - I'm a patent litigator. You are wrong - unenforceability is rarely plead. Invalidity is often plead, but often as "no valid claim is infringed.". Apple's pleading is more aggressive than that.

 

[JAT]

Go to Apple and purchase one without the contract. That's right, they cost a lot more than the subsidised price from AT&T (or whatever country you live in). If you don't understand that, you are really the mobile providers best friend.

So....you wouldn't have a cellphone with data otherwise? Apple or the phone company are making you buy both hardware and service? I think everyone here understands that cellphone companies charge for their services. What some don't seem to understand is the iPhone changed nothing about that.

Some people consider the subsidizing to be a discount to the new phone they want. They were already going to be paying the $100/month (or whatever amount) for service. That doesn't change just because of the iPhone or any other phone. Hell, my dad got his first cellphone in the mid-80s. I think he's going to be paying $80/month regardless of what hardware is attached to his belt. (right now it's a Droid)

Geez, the iPhone wasn't even subsidized at first, and people whined about that!

 

[cmaier]

Geez, the iPhone wasn't even subsidized at first, and people whined about that!

And rightfully so, since the lack of subsidy was accompanied by a mandatory contract. Unsubsidized is fine if I don't have to have a contract.

 

[w00t951]

Because Nokia JUST REALIZED how much more popular the iPhone is over their stuff.

 

[TraceyS/FL]

And rightfully so, since the lack of subsidy was accompanied by a mandatory contract. Unsubsidized is fine if I don't have to have a contract.

And that is still the case isn't it? You can't be month to month on the iPhone at all? Or did that finally change?

 

[jaw04005]

Well, I’m going to give Nokia the benefit of the doubt simply because they filed their lawsuit in Delaware and not the Eastern District of Texas.

 

[KoolStar]

Everyone just wants their moment in the limelite.

 

[scaredpoet]

Here two examples of iPhone features and one ipod feature that are in question in the latest Nokia patent case:

It should also be noted that Apple's argument in the case is NOT they aren't infringing, but rather they they have made good faith efforts to negotiate licenses from Nokia for these patents, but Nokia has not been acting in good faith.

Generally, a patent owner needs to show the defendant is acting badly to have a leg to stand on. But when they are the ones acting badly, well, that doesn't look very good.

If Apple proves their case, then Nokia risks losing out badly. Not that it matters for a good long while, since this could take years to play out.

 

[cmaier]

And that is still the case isn't it? You can't be month to month on the iPhone at all? Or did that finally change?

My point was that if the phone is UNsubsidized a contract makes no sense. The phones are now subsidized.

 

[KnightWRX]

My point was that if the phone is UNsubsidized a contract makes no sense. The phones are now subsidized.

The option of both would be nice, with breaks in monthly fees for "bring your own phone" like the Europeans get. Here with Rogers, you don't have any choice, it's subsidized or GTFO. If you buy off eBay, you can't get a 3G plan. And rates don't go down for people that bring their own phones either.

The cellphone market in Canada is worse than in the US, which is hardly good to begin with.

 

[cmaier]

The option of both would be nice, with breaks in monthly fees for "bring your own phone" like the Europeans get. Here with Rogers, you don't have any choice, it's subsidized or GTFO. If you buy off eBay, you can't get a 3G plan. And rates do go down for people that bring their own phones either.

The cellphone market in Canada is worse than in the US, which is hardly good to begin with.

Buy.com sells it unlocked and unsubsidized for $900-$1000 depending on model.

 

[KnightWRX]

Buy.com sells it unlocked and unsubsidized for $900-$1000 depending on model.

But like I said, then you can't get a 3G plan here, only a regular voice plan, and you don't get a break on the monthly fee either.

Why would I buy a 900$ iPod Touch ?

So again, with Rogers, it's subsidized with a 3 year contract. There are no other options.

 

[kdarling]

I don't agree with these patents, therefore I shouldn't have to license them.
Brilliant :O

Happens all the time. A lot depends on whether other companies have already acknowledged the patents.

For example, ATT and Apple were sued over Visual Voice Mail on the iPhone and lost in mid-2008.

It didn't help that Vonage, AOL and others had just settled over the same patent claim. Verizon and Sprint had to cave in as well.

Geez, the iPhone wasn't even subsidized at first, and people whined about that!

It was, but we didn't get to use it. The monthly money set aside for subsidies for the first iPhone model went into Apple's pockets instead of helping the consumer. They just called it "revenue sharing" to hide the switcheroo.

Fortunately that contract stipulation only lasted one year and in June 2008 ATT announced that a new exclusivity contract had been signed:

"The new agreement between Apple and AT&T eliminates the revenue-sharing model under which AT&T shared a portion of monthly service revenue with Apple.

"Under the revised agreement, which is consistent with traditional equipment manufacturer-carrier arrangements, there is no revenue sharing and both iPhone 3G models will be offered at attractive prices ... "

 

[TraceyS/FL]

My point was that if the phone is UNsubsidized a contract makes no sense. The phones are now subsidized.

I was agreeing -it makes zero sense at all - BUT, don't you have to have a 2 year contract even if you bring your own phone?

Like when my STBXH's bosses wife got a new iPhone 3gs - if i had bought her old 3g, wouldn't AT&T still held me to a 2 year contract, even though i didn't take the subsidy?

Or have I been thinking about that wrongly?

Because, it just doesn't make any sense to me at all..... nor did the original 2 year contract and no subsidy. So i totally agree with you - just trying to clarify for me what changed with the subsidy.

 

[sjo]

It should also be noted that Apple's argument in the case is NOT they aren't infringing, but rather they they have made good faith efforts to negotiate licenses from Nokia for these patents, but Nokia has not been acting in good faith.

Apple has not responded to the claims concerning the patents above.

If Apple proves their case, then Nokia risks losing out badly. Not that it matters for a good long while, since this could take years to play out.

And if Nokia proves their case, Apple won't be selling anything in the US. The case has gone to the ITC now, handling there generally doesn't take years but months.

 

[cmaier]

I was agreeing -it makes zero sense at all - BUT, don't you have to have a 2 year contract even if you bring your own phone?

Like when my STBXH's bosses wife got a new iPhone 3gs - if i had bought her old 3g, wouldn't AT&T still held me to a 2 year contract, even though i didn't take the subsidy?

Or have I been thinking about that wrongly?

Because, it just doesn't make any sense to me at all..... nor did the original 2 year contract and no subsidy. So i totally agree with you - just trying to clarify for me what changed with the subsidy.

I see. I don't know the answer. If you approach AT&T with a phone you brought yourself, I suspect they do make you do a 2 year contract. If so, that sucks.