Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 29th Dec 2009 23:53 UTC, submitted by OSGuy
Legal And here you were, thinking the legal tussle between Apple and Nokia couldn't get any uglier. Well, it turns out it can, as Nokia has filed another patent complaint, this time to the US International Trade Commission. This new case revolves around patents other than the ones in the first case.
Order by: Score:
Can you say settlement
by Praxis on Wed 30th Dec 2009 02:22 UTC
Praxis
Member since:
2009-09-17

Nokia is really going after this case hard, I suspect they are trying to squeeze some cross-licensing deal out of Apple that Apple really doesn't want to go for, I wonder what they want so bad. Well its an interesting story to follow at least, I don't care who wins, though it will almost certainly end in some sort of settlement or a cross-licensing agreement. I am eagerly awaiting Apples return volley. They already played the 'your violating some of our patents too and oh yeah your only suing cause we are whooping your ass in sales' card, its hard to top themselves when they lead off with their big gun.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Can you say settlement
by WereCatf on Wed 30th Dec 2009 09:11 UTC in reply to "Can you say settlement"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I suspect the thing Nokia wants the most is the right to use multitouch in their devices. Multitouch is patented and as such f.ex. Nokia N900 lacks such functionality. They will be releasing a Maemo 6 device(s?) sooner or later and will want this thing sorted out before that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Can you say settlement
by tyrione on Wed 30th Dec 2009 09:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Can you say settlement"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

I suspect the thing Nokia wants the most is the right to use multitouch in their devices. Multitouch is patented and as such f.ex. Nokia N900 lacks such functionality. They will be releasing a Maemo 6 device(s?) sooner or later and will want this thing sorted out before that.


My grandmother [I kid you not when times were tough] used to say, ``Wish in one hand, s*** in the other, see which one fills up faster.''

They will never get any cross-patent license pooling with Apple moving forward.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Can you say settlement
by JAlexoid on Wed 30th Dec 2009 11:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can you say settlement"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

They will never get any cross-patent license pooling with Apple moving forward.

Well than Apple is in the deep end of the **** pool, right now.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Can you say settlement
by eriwik on Thu 31st Dec 2009 10:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can you say settlement"
eriwik Member since:
2009-07-31

I suspect the thing Nokia wants the most is the right to use multitouch in their devices. Multitouch is patented and as such f.ex. Nokia N900 lacks such functionality. They will be releasing a Maemo 6 device(s?) sooner or later and will want this thing sorted out before that.


I suspect that Nokia wanted Apple to license a few of its patents, but I suspect that it will end with Apple paying for the license and giving Nokia a license for various other patents.

My grandmother [I kid you not when times were tough] used to say, ``Wish in one hand, s*** in the other, see which one fills up faster.''

They will never get any cross-patent license pooling with Apple moving forward.


I'm not an expert on patents but I suspect that Nokia sits on enough patents on GSM, GPRS, and 3G technology to reduce an iPhone to the functionality of an iPod

Edited 2009-12-31 10:27 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Can you say settlement
by ariarinen on Thu 31st Dec 2009 13:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Can you say settlement"
ariarinen Member since:
2009-02-07

If you look at essential patents that are judge to be essential by expert the patent landscape would look like:

Patents judge essential to GSM (158 patents)2008:
Nokia 67
Ericsson 31
Motorola 19
Siemens 9
Nortel* 4
BT 5
Alcatel** 4
Interdigital 4
Voiceage 3
Qualcomm 3
rest 9
Source: http://www.frlicense.com/GSM_FINAL.pdf

Same for WCDMA 2009, Huawei 51, Nokia 32, Ericsson 16, Qualcomm 9 etc.
http://www.frlicense.com/WCDMA%202009%20Report%20for~*~...

Reply Score: 2

RE: Can you say settlement
by frodirk on Wed 30th Dec 2009 11:50 UTC in reply to "Can you say settlement"
frodirk Member since:
2009-04-01

I think Nokia is going for checkmate here.

If the patent system is able to defend anything it pretends to defend it should work here.

Apple stole their position in the mobile market by stealing technology based on decades on research.

If Apple didnt think the GSM research was significant enough to pay for they had the option of launching the iPhone without GSM support.

As I see it, Apple owe Nokia and its sister companies most of their iPhone earnings.

And if Nokias terms were unfair, it may have been a reason to protest, but not not simply ignore paying for this research.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Can you say settlement
by darknexus on Wed 30th Dec 2009 12:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Can you say settlement"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Can someone clear something up on this for me? My understanding was that Apple didn't create most of the chipsets in the iPhone, including the GSM radio and other Cel related technologies. Rather, they purchased them from various manufacturers who already had a license, from Nokia among others, to produce these components. So how, exactly, is Apple the infringing party here? Why do they have to pay Nokia if they aren't creating the hardware? Did the component makers not have a license to sell to Apple or something and, if so, shouldn't Nokia be going after them instead?? I'm confused. I'm no lawyer, and hoping someone who understands this more than I do can clear this up for me.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Can you say settlement
by bousozoku on Wed 30th Dec 2009 15:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can you say settlement"
bousozoku Member since:
2006-01-23

Can someone clear something up on this for me? My understanding was that Apple didn't create most of the chipsets in the iPhone, including the GSM radio and other Cel related technologies. Rather, they purchased them from various manufacturers who already had a license, from Nokia among others, to produce these components. So how, exactly, is Apple the infringing party here? Why do they have to pay Nokia if they aren't creating the hardware? Did the component makers not have a license to sell to Apple or something and, if so, shouldn't Nokia be going after them instead?? I'm confused. I'm no lawyer, and hoping someone who understands this more than I do can clear this up for me.


Nokia already knocked on doors of several chipset vendors, from what I understand and it's not likely Apple or any other handset maker tweaks that hardware.

As far as user interface patents, what does Nokia have that's worth anything? Their icons all look as though they're drawn by 7 year olds. The company may understand the hardware really well, but they (like most) are horrible on the software side.

I hope both companies come out mutually dissatisfied. Oh, and by the way, where are all the Europeans who usually cry foul about lawsuits initiated by U.S. companies of similar circumstances?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Can you say settlement
by rmeyers on Wed 30th Dec 2009 20:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can you say settlement"
rmeyers Member since:
2009-12-16

Maybe this can clear up a little confusion. (At the risk of causing massive outrage!) In the US the law specifically says that anyone who 'makes, produces, uses, ...etc.' a 'device' which incorporates a patented 'process' is guilty of patent infringement. Yes, you read that correctly, an end user who purchases a product in good faith and with no knowledge of any infringement is also guilty of patent infringement, with one exception.
The exception is if the product in question qualifies as a 'consumer product' the seller of that product must indemnify the end user for any damages resulting from the end users infringement.
So for example, if I buy, say, a John Deere tractor that includes an infringing technology, then I am also guilty of patent infringement and may be sued by the patent holder. A tractor is not considered a 'consumer' product. If on the other hand I were to purchase an iPhone that included infringing technology, I would still be guilty of patent infringement, and could still be sued, but Apple would have to indemnify me.
If all of this sounds a little insane it's only because it is.
Suing end users rarely happens but the threat of suing your end users is often one of the tactics brought to bear to try and settle cases.
Oh, and before someone jumps in and says that this is a consumer product or that that is a consumer product, be advised the in the US the US government is the final arbiter of what is and is not a consumer product.
It gets better. Humorously enough, the software industry has fought, successfully, for decades to keep software from being declared a consumer product. You know, to keep from having to comply with all of those pesky consumer safety rules. So as an added benefit, if you "buy" any software that infringes anyones patents, you too can be sued!
It should be noted that while I believe that everything that I have posted above is correct I have probably painted too gloomy a picture, at least a little. For those not in the US the logic of our legal system may seem somewhat strange. In the John Deere example above the proper recourse for me as the purchaser of a tractor that infringes someones patents is to sue John Deere. And so on up the chain. In theory everyone is made whole in this fashion. May have worked well a couple of hundred years ago too. The sad reality today is that the little guy (customer) could not afford to go after a well heeled seller no matter how good you case.
So when you hear someone say that the patent system needs overhauling - it is even worse that you thought!

Reply Score: 5

RE[4]: Can you say settlement
by darknexus on Wed 30th Dec 2009 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Can you say settlement"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Ouch, that hurts my brain. Yet more wonderful garbage from our ever so screwed up legal process. Guess that's why I never had any interest in being a lawyer, I don't know whether to laugh out loud or smash my head into a wall in sheer despair when it comes to things like this.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Can you say settlement
by Carewolf on Thu 31st Dec 2009 12:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can you say settlement"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

There is a reason for the brain-pain. This is the core of the issue. Nokia has licenced their patent to the chip-manufacturer, but under a license that only covers the chips themselves not their application. This means Nokia can double-dip on the licensing.

Apple argued this was unfair, Nokia argued everybody-else paid and Apple was not special.

Apple issued counter-suits, IMHO probably because they thought the first case was losing, and this could save them face by getting cross-licencing instead of paying the usual Nokia fees.

Nokia issued counter-suits IMHO to go increase presure on Apple.

Edited 2009-12-31 12:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Can you say settlement
by kittynipples on Wed 30th Dec 2009 17:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Can you say settlement"
kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

Depends. Apple doesn't make the components in the phone for enabling GSM communication, a third party supplier does, which has likely already paid the necessary license fees. If that is the case, then Apple doesn't have to pay Nokia a second time.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Can you say settlement
by eriwik on Thu 31st Dec 2009 10:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Can you say settlement"
eriwik Member since:
2009-07-31

Unless of course a lot of the stuff necessary to make it work (especially for data communication) is software written by Apple.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Can you say settlement
by mkone on Thu 31st Dec 2009 19:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Can you say settlement"
mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

I think Nokia is going for checkmate here.

If the patent system is able to defend anything it pretends to defend it should work here.

Apple stole their position in the mobile market by stealing technology based on decades on research.

If Apple didnt think the GSM research was significant enough to pay for they had the option of launching the iPhone without GSM support.

As I see it, Apple owe Nokia and its sister companies most of their iPhone earnings.

And if Nokias terms were unfair, it may have been a reason to protest, but not not simply ignore paying for this research.


Umm, no. For the GSM association to accept patented technology, the licensee must make it available to anyone under RAND terms. And, as far as I understand, this only covers technology necessary for GSM networking. So Nokia is trying to pull a fast one over Apple here. They are trying to bully Apple into licensing their patents for next to nothing because Apple is challenging them. Apple is willing to pay the same amount under the same terms as everyone else. Nokia wants to get Apple's patents for free effectively. Nokia can't ask for more because Apple happens to make a really profitable product. I can get a 3G phone for under $100. Nokia can't expect to gain because Apple happens to make a phone that sells for $600 and it sells really well.

Reply Score: 1

OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

Can someone get me some pop corn and grilled apple sauce or even better an oven-baked apple? ;)

Jokes aside, I guess they both violate each others' patients but as the poster said above, it will probable end up with a settlement.

Edited 2009-12-30 02:27 UTC

Reply Score: 2

flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Can someone get me some pop corn and grilled apple sauce or even better an oven-baked apple? ;)

You said apple... Did you get a license for that?

They're going to sue you too for trademark infringment.

Reply Score: 4

OSGuy Member since:
2006-01-01

No they can't. I said "apple" not "Aeple"...just to be clear, I wrote "Aeple" and not "apple" with a capital "A". Just in case I get a cease and dismiss letter. You see an "apple" is a fruit and all I asked is some apple sauce and an oven-baked apple. What's wrong with that? ;)

http://img4.southernliving.com/i/2009/09/apple-recipes/grilled-appl...

:)

Edited 2009-12-30 02:58 UTC

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

"Can someone get me some pop corn and grilled apple sauce or even better an oven-baked apple? ;)

You said apple... Did you get a license for that?

They're going to sue you too for trademark infringment.
"

So... Who should he pay for trademark infringement? Apple Inc or Apple Corps(founded by The Beatles)?

Reply Score: 1

Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps

On 5 February 2007, Apple Inc. and Apple Corps announced a settlement of their trademark dispute under which Apple Inc. will own all of the trademarks related to “Apple” (including all designs of the famed 'Granny Smith' Apple Corps Ltd. logos[3]) and will license certain of those trademarks back to Apple Corps for their continued use. The settlement ends the ongoing trademark lawsuit between the companies, with each party bearing its own legal costs, and Apple Inc. will continue using its name and logos on iTunes. The settlement includes terms that are confidential.[24][25]

Reply Score: 2

Of course you are...
by mrhasbean on Wed 30th Dec 2009 03:36 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

...diametrically opposed to the idea of software patents, but when it comes to hardware patents it's a different story.


It wouldn't have anything whatever to do with the fact that in recent legal cases the former favour Apple but the latter maybe doesn't. And you're saying that someone who has a completely unique software idea shouldn't be afforded any protection of their idea but someone who has a unique idea for something that can be manufactured does get protection? What about if the hardware component requires a software component for it to work. They get protection on part of it?

Oh yeah, remind me, who was it - as a joint venture with Lucent - that first bought affordable wireless technology to the desktop computing arena? Where was Nokia's patent suit then? Or were Nokia not involved in the initial development of these technologies? Wouldn't that infer that they built their patented technologies off the back of other's ideas?

Obviously Nokia want something Apple don't want to give them - most likely a slice of the success of the iPhone - if you can't beat them, or even match them, hit them with a patent infringement and make your money out of them.

If it is as everyone claims these days that Apple only use hardware and chipsets made by other manufacturers shouldn't the suit be against the manufacturer(s) of the offending chipsets? Surely it's the responsibility of the component manufacturer(s) to obtain the necessary rights before offering their components for sale? And if this isn't the case where are the suits against all the other companies that use the same components from the same manufacturers in their products?

Reply Score: 4

RE: Of course you are...
by WorknMan on Wed 30th Dec 2009 03:52 UTC in reply to "Of course you are..."
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

It wouldn't have anything whatever to do with the fact that in recent legal cases the former favour Apple but the latter maybe doesn't. And you're saying that someone who has a completely unique software idea shouldn't be afforded any protection of their idea but someone who has a unique idea for something that can be manufactured does get protection? What about if the hardware component requires a software component for it to work. They get protection on part of it?


Yeah, I'm not at all opposed to either hardware or software patents, so long as the ideas are truly unique. In other words, something you're going to patent should be something that has never been seen before, and probably would never have been created apart from others blatantly trying to rip you off after you released your product.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Of course you are...
by tyrione on Wed 30th Dec 2009 09:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Of course you are..."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"It wouldn't have anything whatever to do with the fact that in recent legal cases the former favour Apple but the latter maybe doesn't. And you're saying that someone who has a completely unique software idea shouldn't be afforded any protection of their idea but someone who has a unique idea for something that can be manufactured does get protection? What about if the hardware component requires a software component for it to work. They get protection on part of it?


Yeah, I'm not at all opposed to either hardware or software patents, so long as the ideas are truly unique. In other words, something you're going to patent should be something that has never been seen before, and probably would never have been created apart from others blatantly trying to rip you off after you released your product.
"

Truly unique? Sorry, but that's not the requirement for getting a patent.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Of course you are...
by JAlexoid on Wed 30th Dec 2009 12:03 UTC in reply to "Of course you are..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Software gets copyright, that should be enough. Software copyright is protected by more than just rights for copying.
Hardware can only be protected by patents on the original idea behind it, nothing else.

Granting patents for software, is like granting patent for fantasy genre to Tolkien for his writings. The same reason that mathematical formulas are not patentable, imagine if Einstein could patent E=mc2 or Newton F=ma ? He would "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US".

Reply Score: 4

RE: Of course you are...
by ariarinen on Wed 30th Dec 2009 17:40 UTC in reply to "Of course you are..."
ariarinen Member since:
2009-02-07

Nokia has been involved in development of mobile standard since the 70's. Nokia has been involved in the initial development of NMT, GSM, WCDMA, HSPA, LTE, WiMAX and WIFI and many more.

And Lucent and Nokia would most likely have had an cross-licensing agreement when both had their fair share of patents and both build networks.

Well the chipset manufacturers has a license, but the end customer has to pay royalties to key patent holders (Ericsson, Interdigital, Nokia, Qualcomm).
It would not make much sense in suing your own suppliers. Or would it?

Well the answer to why their is no suits against other companies are that: They have paid or have cross-licensing agreements.

Reply Score: 2

v Patents
by strcpy on Wed 30th Dec 2009 06:44 UTC
RE: Patents
by frood on Wed 30th Dec 2009 07:59 UTC in reply to "Patents"
frood Member since:
2005-07-06

When did Thom declare himself a hero of FOSS?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Patents
by strcpy on Wed 30th Dec 2009 08:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Patents"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

When did Thom declare himself a hero of FOSS?


Not Thom, but Nokia that bought the status with Qt, Maemo, and N900. The same company that is suing a competitor for (hardware and software) patent violations.

But no worries, this is just a small outcry from the community which generally just goes lalalallalala-i-can-not-hear-you-lalallalalalala when their friends are engaged in the same bad things as their competitors.

Edited 2009-12-30 08:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Patents
by JAlexoid on Wed 30th Dec 2009 12:07 UTC in reply to "Patents"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Last time I checked, both Apple and Nokia are not as anti-FOSS as Microsoft was(and mostly still is). In fact, both probably are very similar in their relations of FOSS.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[2]: Patents
by strcpy on Wed 30th Dec 2009 13:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Patents"
Comment by blitze
by blitze on Wed 30th Dec 2009 09:41 UTC
blitze
Member since:
2006-09-15

Here's to Nokia. Apple are a bunch of arrogant f's who need to be brought down peg or two and Nokia might be the guys to do it for em.

Sick of the crap Apple bring to market and the messiac complex they recieve as a result.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Comment by blitze
by tyrione on Wed 30th Dec 2009 09:45 UTC in reply to "Comment by blitze"
RE[2]: Comment by blitze
by JAlexoid on Wed 30th Dec 2009 12:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by blitze"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Got turned down for a job?

Well.... Steve Jobs is quite arrogant and without him Apple is nothing. Why is he arrogant? My final point was his claim to have invented multitouch when presenting iPhone.

Reply Score: 1

Ho Ho Ho
by fretinator on Wed 30th Dec 2009 14:43 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

Looks like there was a little something extra special under the lawyer's trees this year.

Capitalism - A Love Story

Reply Score: 3

v Inequities
by atsureki on Wed 30th Dec 2009 15:59 UTC
RE: Inequities
by ariarinen on Wed 30th Dec 2009 18:33 UTC in reply to "Inequities"
ariarinen Member since:
2009-02-07

There is NO patent pool, Apple has made agreements with Interdigital, Ericsson, Qualcomm.

Nokia's terms would be similar to those that they have with RIM.

The patents presented in the countersuit, is really broad and there by weak patents. Nokia on the other had has strong hardware patents, and software patents for stuff like UI etc.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Inequities
by mkone on Thu 31st Dec 2009 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Inequities"
mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

There is a patent pool. For patented technologies to be accepted into the standard, Nokia had to agree on Fair, Reasonable and Non Discriminatory (F/RAND) terms on which to license the patents to anyone who wants to use them. Cross licensing doesn't even figure in this. Nokia is trying to pull a fast one on Apple.

Reply Score: 1

should that read "revolves around" ?
by de_wizze on Thu 31st Dec 2009 01:47 UTC
de_wizze
Member since:
2005-10-31

just wanted a bit of clarification on the usage of that word in the last sentence in the first paragraph.

Reply Score: 2