Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Jun 2011 06:31 UTC
Legal Well, the first of the big patent litigations is over. Since this one involves Apple, the big winner is obviously the highly innovative company from Cupertiono, right? The company from which all others copy, right? Well, no, not exactly. The big winner is Nokia.
Order by: Score:
Why is this surprising?
by ourcomputerbloke on Tue 14th Jun 2011 07:30 UTC
ourcomputerbloke
Member since:
2011-05-12

Taking all Apple love / hate out of the equation this was logically going to be the conclusion to this. I don't see anything in that Nokia press release that indicates Nokia "won" anything.

From a purely logical business perspective Apple have more than likely taken their "bunch of measly software patents" to the negotiating table and received a reasonably hefty discount on the license they would have otherwise been paying Nokia, which is likely what they were after in the first place.

The details of the settlement are unknown so different people will put their spin on it depending where their loyalties lie. Logically I suspect it's been a win-win; Nokia got an Apple licensing deal - and cash - Apple got a discount.

That's my take anyway.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Why is this surprising?
by static666 on Tue 14th Jun 2011 07:34 UTC in reply to "Why is this surprising?"
static666 Member since:
2006-06-09

"We are very pleased to have Apple join the growing number of Nokia licensees," said Stephen Elop.

Sounds quite like "We are very pleased to FU Apple" to me.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Why is this surprising?
by ourcomputerbloke on Tue 14th Jun 2011 08:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Why is this surprising?"
ourcomputerbloke Member since:
2011-05-12

Sounds quite like "We are very pleased to FU Apple" to me.


Taking all Apple love / hate out of the equation


so different people will put their spin on it depending where their loyalties lie


;)

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Why is this surprising?
by dsmogor on Tue 14th Jun 2011 08:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Why is this surprising?"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

That rather sounded like sing of a rising patent trolling star.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Why is this surprising?
by kragil on Tue 14th Jun 2011 12:14 UTC in reply to "Why is this surprising?"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Most of what you write is speculation.

Fact are: Apple didn't want to pay, so Nokia sued and now Apple is paying. That sounds like a win to me.

Nokia and Apple will have to disclose the $ amounts at some point and then we may see if there was a discount.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Why is this surprising?
by Vargol on Tue 14th Jun 2011 12:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Why is this surprising?"
Vargol Member since:
2006-02-28

Most of what YOU write is just wrong. Apple wanted RAND terms Nokia wanted more. Unless the terms of the settlement are revealed we'll never know who got what they wanted.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why is this surprising?
by JAlexoid on Tue 14th Jun 2011 19:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why is this surprising?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Correction: Apple had their own interpretation of what FRAND terms should be. Nokia had their own.

Both parties dropped all complaints and Nokia got paid. Seems like Nokia got patents and $$$(kaching!), not just money.

In these kind of statements you have to read between the lines. Because they are designed to reveal as much as possible without actually blatantly spelling out the terms. A big pointer is that Nokia came out with the statement first, not Apple.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Why is this surprising?
by tomcat on Tue 14th Jun 2011 19:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why is this surprising?"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

Most of what YOU write is just wrong. Apple wanted RAND terms Nokia wanted more. Unless the terms of the settlement are revealed we'll never know who got what they wanted.


Nokia and Apple are both public companies. The amounts will be disclosed on their respective financial statements.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why is this surprising?
by cmchittom on Tue 14th Jun 2011 17:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Why is this surprising?"
cmchittom Member since:
2011-03-18

Most of what you write is speculation. Fact are: Apple didn't want to pay, so Nokia sued and now Apple is paying. That sounds like a win to me.


Thinking that Apple got a discount is speculation. You too are speculating, as your implication is that Apple didn't get a discout. Either is of course possible.

Nokia and Apple will have to disclose the $ amounts at some point and then we may see if there was a discount.


Why would they "have to disclose" that?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Why is this surprising?
by kragil on Wed 15th Jun 2011 00:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why is this surprising?"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

I didn't say they didn't get a discount. Nobody knows.

You cannot prove the "not existence" of something. Does not work for God and also doesn't work for discounts.

They are publically traded companies that owe to their share holders that they disclose where all the money went and came from. Basic business 101.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Why is this surprising?
by ourcomputerbloke on Wed 15th Jun 2011 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Why is this surprising?"
ourcomputerbloke Member since:
2011-05-12

Most of what you write is speculation.


Yes it is. Speculation based on plenty of business experience and something called common sense, and interestingly echoed by numerous non-aligned commentators both here and on other news sites.

Unfortunately in order to see common sense requires being dispassionate, taking any Apple love / hate out of the picture. That is something that many people, despite cries to the contrary, just don't seem to be capable of. As I said in my original post:

different people will put their spin on it depending where their loyalties lie


To spell that out just in case someone doesn't understand; Apple haters / Nokia fanboys will see it as a win to Nokia; the Apple fanboys / Nokia haters will see it as a win to Apple; those with no leaning either way will see it as win-win. The Apple haters / Nokia fanboys will call anyone who sees it as win-win an Apple fanboy, and the Apple fanboys / Nokia haters will do the reverse.

And it's very likely that this comment will attract more flames by the same people.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Why is this surprising?
by kaiwai on Tue 14th Jun 2011 15:07 UTC in reply to "Why is this surprising?"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm surprised it lasted this long; Nokia has a huge arsinal of patents for both hardware and software - for Apple to hope that maybe some brut force bullying would persuade Nokia to see things 'the Apple way' is really naive on the part of Apple.

If Apple had any common sense they would enter into agreement with all the major players in mutual patent sharing agreements - there is no need for Apple to be as anal as they are given that the Apple brand will always result in people wanting the 'genuine thing' rather than a cheap knock off. To me when I see organisations go to the extent in which Apple has it really does show a level of insecurity.

If anyone was wondering. I'm an iMac and MacBook Pro user but I have a LG Optimus 7Q phone - I enjoy the Apple products I have but that doesn't mean I have to defend Apple's business decisions ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Why is this surprising?
by TemporalBeing on Tue 14th Jun 2011 17:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Why is this surprising?"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

I'm surprised it lasted this long; Nokia has a huge arsinal of patents for both hardware and software - for Apple to hope that maybe some brut force bullying would persuade Nokia to see things 'the Apple way' is really naive on the part of Apple.


But you forget - Apple has Steve Jobs, Nokia as Steven Elop - and they both have a relationship with Bill Gates, probably one where Elop gets orders^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z directions from Gates too.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Why is this surprising?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 14th Jun 2011 17:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why is this surprising?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

But you forget - Apple has Steve Jobs, Nokia as Steven Elop - and they both have a relationship with Bill Gates, probably one where Elop gets orders^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z directions from Gates too.


I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but the evidence that Apple, Microsoft, and now (through Elop) Nokia are working together is getting harder and harder to ignore.

I'd love some EU investigation into possible cartel-forming there. Not because it's justified at this point, but just because it'd be interesting to get a peek into what's going on there.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Why is this surprising?
by cmchittom on Tue 14th Jun 2011 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why is this surprising?"
cmchittom Member since:
2011-03-18

I'd love some EU investigation into possible cartel-forming there. Not because it's justified at this point, but just because it'd be interesting to get a peek into what's going on there.


Er, don't you think it behooves governments to have justification before taking such an investigative action?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Why is this surprising?
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 14th Jun 2011 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Why is this surprising?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Er, don't you think it behooves governments to have justification before taking such an investigative action?


As I said: "I'd love some EU investigation into possible cartel-forming there. Not because it's justified at this point, but just because it'd be interesting to get a peek into what's going on there."

:).

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Why is this surprising?
by cmchittom on Tue 14th Jun 2011 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Why is this surprising?"
cmchittom Member since:
2011-03-18

As I said: "I'd love some EU investigation into possible cartel-forming there. Not because it's justified at this point, but just because it'd be interesting to get a peek into what's going on there." ;) .


I read what you wrote. Let's try this a different way:

<ul><li>"I'd love to see some government investigation into possible union-forming there."</li>
<li>"I'd love to see some government investigation into possible church-forming there."</li>
<li>"I'd love to see some government investigation into possible newspaper-forming there."</li>
</ul>

I'm not saying that you would agree with any of those statements. But I think you see my point.

I'm sorry—really, it was just the way you put it that rubbed me the wrong way. If you'd phrased it something like "It'd be interesting to get a peek to what's going on there. Unfortunately, unless the three start exhibiting enough cartel-like behavior to prompt an EU investigation, we're unlikely to get one," I don't think I'd've given it a second glance.

EDIT: Also, if the site's going to show my HTML, it shouldn't work in the preview.

Edited 2011-06-14 17:53 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Why is this surprising?
by JLF65 on Tue 14th Jun 2011 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Why is this surprising?"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

No, your analogies are wrong. He's saying it's more like

"I'd love to see some government investigation into possible gang-forming there."

"I'd love to see some government investigation into possible extortion-racketing there."

"I'd love to see some government investigation into possible fraud there."

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Why is this surprising?
by Delgarde on Tue 14th Jun 2011 21:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Why is this surprising?"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

But you forget - Apple has Steve Jobs, Nokia as Steven Elop - and they both have a relationship with Bill Gates, probably one where Elop gets orders^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z directions from Gates too.


You *do* know Bill Gates doesn't run Microsoft anymore, right? Still owns a fair chunk of the company, but hasn't been in charge for about 3 years now... spends most of his time on charity work...

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Why is this surprising?
by TemporalBeing on Tue 14th Jun 2011 21:50 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why is this surprising?"
TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

"But you forget - Apple has Steve Jobs, Nokia as Steven Elop - and they both have a relationship with Bill Gates, probably one where Elop gets orders^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z directions from Gates too.


You *do* know Bill Gates doesn't run Microsoft anymore, right? Still owns a fair chunk of the company, but hasn't been in charge for about 3 years now... spends most of his time on charity work...
"

But he's still the Chairman for Board of Directors, chairman (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/bod/bod.aspx) so very, very influential even aside from his stock.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Why is this surprising?
by JLF65 on Wed 15th Jun 2011 09:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Why is this surprising?"
JLF65 Member since:
2005-07-06

You *do* know Bill Gates doesn't run Microsoft anymore, right? Still owns a fair chunk of the company, but hasn't been in charge for about 3 years now... spends most of his time on forcing Africans to abide by US drug patents and to use patented GM crops...


FTFY

Edited 2011-06-15 09:22 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Nokia won?
by Stratoukos on Tue 14th Jun 2011 08:21 UTC
Stratoukos
Member since:
2009-02-11

Apple will pay Nokia a one-time fee, as well as ongoing royalty fees. In return, both companies drop all litigation and complaints.

If I remember correctly, Apple's case was that Nokia demanded a cross patent licensing agreement instead of a simple license fee. If this is indeed the case, it seems that it is Apple that won.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Nokia won?
by bitwelder on Tue 14th Jun 2011 08:29 UTC in reply to "Nokia won?"
bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

I would also be cautious with calling Nokia the winner here.
It depends on how big is the agreed one-time compensation: if it is substantially lower than what Apple should have been paid for the license(s), it could be a draw.
Or at least a big savings tactics for Apple.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Nokia won?
by Carewolf on Tue 14th Jun 2011 09:20 UTC in reply to "Nokia won?"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

No the case was that Apple didn't want to pay Nokia at all, arguing the license fee had been paid when they bought the GSM-chips, and Nokia were double-dipping.

Cross-licensing was only a predicted outcome by pundits, not something Nokia has ever demanded.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Nokia won?
by Carewolf on Tue 14th Jun 2011 14:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Nokia won?"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Anyway this means that it is actually legal to first license a patent to allow someone manufacture the chip, and then license the same patent again to someone making a product with the chip.

Hardware patents or not, there is something awfully software patent about it when the licensing follows concepts of 'application' instead of strictly following the hardware.

Could you buy a piece of hardware, but then not get all the rights for it? -- "To upgrade your CPU, buy a license upgrade"?? -- Software does it all the time, but it is not something I would readily accept for hardware.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Nokia won?
by kittynipples on Wed 15th Jun 2011 12:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nokia won?"
kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

Yes, I remember this too; and because of the legal concept of patent exhaustion, the whole claim that Nokia could demand GSM related license fees from Apple, after the component supplier of the GSM chips had already paid the license, should have been discarded. The patents dealing with antenna design, etc. not already being licensed, were obviously still Apple's responsibility.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Nokia won?
by ourcomputerbloke on Wed 15th Jun 2011 09:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Nokia won?"
ourcomputerbloke Member since:
2011-05-12

No the case was that Apple didn't want to pay Nokia at all, arguing the license fee had been paid when they bought the GSM-chips, and Nokia were double-dipping.


I've been thinking about this comment all day and got to wondering, regardless of whether you believe software patents should exist or not because that's a moot point at present, if you agree with Nokia about this shouldn't you also by default agree with Lodsys about their claim against iPhone developers - and eventually Android / Windows Phone / WebOS devs? It is after all exactly the same thing isn't it? Nokia are now double dipping, why shouldn't Lodsys?

I'm interested to hear perspectives on this.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Nokia won?
by Carewolf on Wed 15th Jun 2011 09:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nokia won?"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

I am not partial in this matter, as I also pointed out my follow-up comment. I just tell what I know from the first articles about the case(s).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Nokia won?
by flypig on Thu 16th Jun 2011 01:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Nokia won?"
flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

...if you agree with Nokia about this shouldn't you also by default agree with Lodsys about their claim against iPhone developers - and eventually Android / Windows Phone / WebOS devs? It is after all exactly the same thing isn't it? Nokia are now double dipping, why shouldn't Lodsys?


I would expect this depends entirely on the licence terms that were granted by Nokia to the chip manufacturer, and the licence Lodsys granted to Apple.

It's possible Nokia licensed their technology for manufacture in a way that didn't transfer a licence to the buyer of the chips. Similarly it's possible Lodsys granted a licence for Apple to use their IP but only in 'Apple-badged' software. Until the details of the licences are made public (e.g. if it goes to court), probably it's impossible to know.

I could be wrong about this, and I'm no lawyer, but that would be my take.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Nokia won?
by JAlexoid on Tue 14th Jun 2011 19:48 UTC in reply to "Nokia won?"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Are you missing that Apple dropped their lawsuit also? The one that claimed Nokia's devices infringing on Apple's patents.
Let's see:
Apple - got licenses to patents and has to pay (no wonder there)
Nokia - got patent infringement claims dropped*, got paid and licensed out patents for a fee.

I frankly wish that I'd be "loosing" every day, like Nokia "lost" this time.

* - not the same as licenses to patents, but a major indicator of that.

Reply Score: 4

Business interest won
by siki_miki on Tue 14th Jun 2011 09:05 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

Not a quest for better patent system ;)
Apple has loads of money so they'll pay,
while Nokia needs some cash to secure its future.
And now it's clear Apple can't be stopped, they simply have enough cash to even buy Nokia if they wanted.

Reply Score: 4

v Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Tue 14th Jun 2011 09:07 UTC
RE: Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Tue 14th Jun 2011 19:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

Lets try this again:

The patent disagreements between Apple and Nokia have ended with a big settlement.


How much?

Cupertino is only paying, not receiving.


How much?

Apple will pay Nokia a one-time fee


How much?

as well as ongoing royalty fees.


How much?

I will find the news for us. The settlement was not disclosed. That is all you had to say. This reporter did more:

Nokia could receive a one-off payment of more than €800m (£700m) from Apple and receive further royalties of €8 per iPhone sold in future, after winning a long-running patents case.

Although terms of the settlement were not disclosed, previous patent licensing deals in the phone industry have been worth up to 5% of the price of the device involved. At €8, or $11.50 (£7), they would represent about 4.5% of the estimated average $264 cost price of an iPhone, which Apple sells to retailers and phone networks for an average of $660. Apple has sold 108m iPhones since their launch.

Nokia's shares rose by 3% as it said that the one-off payment, whose size was not revealed, will have "a positive financial impact" on its upcoming quarterly results.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent...

Reply Score: 1

This reminds me Microsoft against HTC
by sicutdeux on Tue 14th Jun 2011 09:40 UTC
sicutdeux
Member since:
2011-06-14

This is just about money and which company has a bigger penis, this case reminds me Microsoft suing HTC over the switch to Android (i think, no clear for me why they sued), you can read it here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/may/31/microsoft-htc...

Worst off all Microsoft wins a lot of money due to the settling with HTC, I think we should wait for the numbers to see which one of these warriors gets the trophy and the cash.

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

This is just about money and which company has a bigger penis

Please ^^' I imagined for a second how this could look like graphically XD

Reply Score: 1

NOKIA You Say ...
by vermaden on Tue 14th Jun 2011 11:43 UTC
vermaden
Member since:
2006-11-18

Considering current 'status quo' shouldn't the header sound like 'Microsoft Wins Patent War with Apple'?

Reply Score: 4

RE: NOKIA You Say ...
by shotsman on Tue 14th Jun 2011 12:56 UTC in reply to "NOKIA You Say ..."
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Nah,
It should read

The Microsoft Finland Subsidiary (Nokia) today ...

Reply Score: 3

v Freaking Hypocrite!
by MacMan on Tue 14th Jun 2011 13:03 UTC
RE: Freaking Hypocrite!
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 14th Jun 2011 13:28 UTC in reply to "Freaking Hypocrite!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Thom, you are such a freaking hypocrite.


Looking at your nickname, this gun' be good.

So, according to Thom, software patents are bad except when used against Apple.


Nokia filed with HARDWARE patents. Apple filed with SOFTWARE patents. Software patents = bad. Hardware patents (generally) good. Simply, huh?

Look at most of Thom's posts, patents bad, patents bad...


SOFTWARE patents are by definition bad. SOFTWARE patents. SOFTWARE. SOFTWARE. SOFTWARE.

Why innovate when you can litigate.


Nokia had done more innovating in its lifetime than Apple has. Without Nokia (and Motorola) no worldwide mobile phone network. Apple innovates white plastics and pretty buttons. Nokia innovates a technology that has changed the world forever, and has allowed people the world over to share knowledge and to organise themselves, improving their lives.

Call me when Apple comes up with something that will change more lives than the lives of people at Starbucks and Hipster cafes.

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 14th Jun 2011 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Freaking Hypocrite!"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Maybe you have different hipsters. Ours are required by law to wear skinny jeans. iPhones wouldn't fit in them. Apple's gear is more for the techno-yuppies.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by fretinator on Tue 14th Jun 2011 16:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe you have different hipsters. Ours are required by law to wear skinny jeans. iPhones wouldn't fit in them. Apple's gear is more for the techno-yuppies.

I think the correct term is "hipster dufus". Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by pantheraleo on Tue 14th Jun 2011 15:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Freaking Hypocrite!"
RE[3]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 14th Jun 2011 15:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

By definition? Who's definition? Your's Thom?


Yes, by my definition. And, judging by what our readers post, most of OSNews' readership, too.

But you are one of those hipsters Thom.


Really? Considering I'm pretty much a redneck born and raised, that's an interesting observation. I guess making a clearly facetious comment about some of Apple's userbase now means that anyone who buys Apple is automatically a hipster. Interesting.

If they are so bad, and so un-innovative, then why do you buy them?


You might want to read up on my Apple product reviews. They're always positive.

You see, this might be a little hard for you to understand, but other than being the managing editor of OSNews, I'm also a consumer. If you had actually read my Apple product reviews instead of acting like a jerk, you would know that I generally recommend people to buy Apple products because they're generally good value.

Look, contrary to most other bloggers out there, I have always been open and honest about my positions, including those regarding Apple. I dislike companies on principle, and Apple is no exception. That, however, does not preclude me liking their products, and buying them in my role as an ordinary, clueless consumer with limited funds. I have always been open and honest about that - unlike some others.

I'm getting sick and tired of people like you ACTING like I'm sort of scheming dishonest fcukbag, while I'm actually the more honest and open bloggers out there. My positions are clear and free from fanboyistic influences. And yes, as I've said on numerous occasions, I can be a massive hypocrite.

At least I have the intellectual honesty to admit that - unlike some other (truly popular) bloggers out there.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by pantheraleo on Tue 14th Jun 2011 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Yes, by my definition. And, judging by what our readers post, most of OSNews' readership, too.


It's still your opinion. It is not established fact. So it is not "by definition".

But you are one of those hipsters Thom.


You might want to read up on my Apple product reviews. They're always positive.


Sure. But you criticize Apple every chance you get. You hate everything about them except their products. So it seems everything you hate about them works quite well for them. Even people who hate Apple, love their products, and will buy them anyway, so Apple has no motivation to change the way they do business. They are so astronomically successful that even people who hate the company will willingly buy their products.


I generally recommend people to buy Apple products because they're generally good value.


Well, we will have to agree to disagree on that. I still think Apple products are ridiculously overpriced. I wouldn't call them a "good value".

Look, contrary to most other bloggers out there, I have always been open and honest about my positions, including those regarding Apple.


So really this site should be called "OsBlog" then. Not "OsNews". because it's not news. It's one man's highly biased and vocal commentary. It's a soapbox basically. I remember years ago, when it wasn't like that.

I dislike companies on principle, and Apple is no exception.


But you still buy their stuff, even though you dislike them. As I said above, that must mean their methods, even though you hate them, are wildly successful. Because even people who hate them because of their practices will still knowingly buy their products.

I'm getting sick and tired of people like you ACTING like I'm sort of scheming dishonest fcukbag


Actually, I never implied that you were scheming or dishonest. Only that it sort of baffles me how anyone can hate Apple as a company as much as you seem to hate them, and yet you will still support that which you hate by buying their products. But oh well, at least you admit you are a hypocrite.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 14th Jun 2011 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Only that it sort of baffles me how anyone can hate Apple as a company as much as you seem to hate them, and yet you will still support that which you hate by buying their products.


I dislike all companies (well, the bigger ones at least). However, I still need and want their products to make my life easier. So, I look at what makes the most sense to buy, and in the case of tablets, it's no question at the moment that the iPad 2 is far ahead of the other offerings (at least here in NL).

When it comes to my reviews, even though *I* might dislike Apple as a company, most other people don't give a shit. Infusing my opinion on a *company* into a review of a *product* is dishonest - so I either mention it on the side, or just ignore it altogether.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by vitae on Tue 14th Jun 2011 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20


So really this site should be called "OsBlog" then. Not "OsNews". because it's not news. It's one man's highly biased and vocal commentary. I remember years ago, when it wasn't like that.


Hmm, see I've been here for years too, and I don't remember a time when it wasn't like that. No offense, Thom. No offense, Eugenia. I always assumed that was part of the appeal of the place, because if a person just wanted news, they get could get that from any number of news sites. It's still news from the link they provide, but you're also getting an editorial on the subject which you don't really have to read.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by pantheraleo on Tue 14th Jun 2011 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

I always assumed that was part of the appeal of the place, because if a person just wanted news, they get could get that from any number of news sites. It's still news from the link they provide, but you're also getting an editorial on the subject which you don't really have to read.


At some point, the editorials got a lot more "sensationalist tabloid" like though. I don't know exactly when that happened. There's little point in reading the editorials when they are as predictable as the value of x, when x + 2 = 3. Basically, they are going to rant and whine about software patents, rant and whine about Apple's business practices, maybe mention how great Apple's products are.

As I said, it's kind of like Fox News. It's extremely far to one side of the issues. And the extremely one sided view points get rather old and tiring to read after awhile.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by _txf_ on Tue 14th Jun 2011 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

As I said, it's kind of like Fox News. It's extremely far to one side of the issues. And the extremely one sided view points get rather old and tiring to read after awhile.


Why are you still at this site? You must be getting something out this site otherwise you wouldn't return.

I don't think this site ever claimed to be "fair and balanced" which is what fox news does. Also there are links in the articles so you can go to the source and draw your own opinions.

Reply Score: 5

RE[7]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 14th Jun 2011 21:00 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

At some point, the editorials got a lot more "sensationalist tabloid" like though.


Right. People have been saying this very line for a decade now. I'm not kidding. I've been around almost that long, and said line has been said for that long - in 2002, 2007, and 2011.

I don't pay much attention to it. OSNews is a tabloid when the editorial isn't to your liking, a regular blog when you agree with the article. It's been like this forever, and it's been like this for most other similar sites too. As far as I know, you have never contributed a single article or even a submissions. We WILL publish your stuff if you submit an article or a news item, and the fact that most people who complain about OSNews never actually submit anything speaks volumes.

In the meantime, I'll keep doing my thing, and the countless submitters we do have will do so as well.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by WereCatf on Tue 14th Jun 2011 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

So really this site should be called "OsBlog" then. Not "OsNews". because it's not news. It's one man's highly biased and vocal commentary. It's a soapbox basically. I remember years ago, when it wasn't like that.


I have been a registered member here for 5 years now and OSNews has been like it is for the whole time. And well, there's nothing wrong with that. Atleast I like OSNews exactly as it is.

Besides, how do you define news in this case anyways? I mean, they DO report on new stuff happening here and there, and well, that does sound a lot like 'news' to me. The fact that there's an editorial in place doesn't make it less of a news item, and doesn't mean you have to agree with the editorial.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by spiderman on Tue 14th Jun 2011 19:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

There is nothing hypocrite about that. It's 2 different things. I use nuclear power but I don't like the reason why nuclear power was invented. The two are completely separated. You can like and use the product and hate the way it was created, it's not hypocrite.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by pantheraleo on Tue 14th Jun 2011 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

I use nuclear power but I don't like the reason why nuclear power was invented.


That's not really a valid analogy. It's a bit like saying you won't fly in airplanes because airplanes can be used to drop bombs.

Nuclear weapons, and the nuclear power plant that produces your electricity are largely completely separated. The same is not true in this case. Apple as a company is definitely not completely separate from its products.

Even if you were very anti-nuclear power, the situation is it exists pretty much doesn't give you any alternative choices except to go without electricity. You can't choose what power company you use. You can, however, choose to buy a different brand of computer, or a different brand of tablet.

Perhaps, SUVs might be a better analogy than nuclear power. I like the roominess, cargo area, and utility that an SUV has. But as an environmentally conscious consumer, I won't buy one because of their impact on the environment. That's probably a more accurate analogy when it comes to buying or not buying Apple products based on your feelings about the company and how it conducts its business.

The two are completely separated. You can like and use the product and hate the way it was created, it's not hypocrite.


If your nuclear power plant's reactors were doubling as breeder reactors to produce plutonium for bombs, then that analogy would be accurate. But since they aren't, it's not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by kompak on Tue 14th Jun 2011 20:23 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
kompak Member since:
2011-06-14

You can't choose what power company you use.


Really? At least in Finland you can buy your electricity from any company you like. You only have to pay transfer fees to the company that owns your local branch of the grid.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by pantheraleo on Tue 14th Jun 2011 20:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
pantheraleo Member since:
2007-03-07

Really? At least in Finland you can buy your electricity from any company you like.


Doesn't work that way in the United States. Pretty much there is one electrical utility company that serves most areas, and you have to buy it from them. It used to be the same way with phone companies, although phone company deregulation pretty much stopped that. It's now possible to use any phone company you want. But you can't do that with electric companies.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by JAlexoid on Thu 16th Jun 2011 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

It's a bit like saying you won't fly in airplanes because airplanes can be used to drop bombs.

If this is your statement and what you would use as a counter analogy to highlight Thom's hypocrisy, then let me add my own.
I moderately "hate" Microsoft for their business practices. Yet I would buy an XBox360(if I needed a game console). And applied to planes and bombers: I will choose to fly on a Boeing, but I will criticize Boeing as a company. Or I will happily fly on an Airbus, yet hate EADS for supplying fighters to Saudis and bribing them.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by kittynipples on Wed 15th Jun 2011 12:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Freaking Hypocrite!"
kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

Nokia filed with HARDWARE patents. Apple filed with SOFTWARE patents. Software patents = bad. Hardware patents (generally) good. Simply, huh?


If an inventor comes up with some "new or novel" way of doing something, please explain what is the real difference between it being implemented in software or in hardware as far as patentability is concerned?

Using your kindergarten logic: Inventing a new algorithm to increase video compression by x3 is not patentable, but inventing a new type of drill bit design that can drill through a material x3 more efficiently should be? I guess so, since software patents = bad, hardware patents = good.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 15th Jun 2011 12:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

If an inventor comes up with some "new or novel" way of doing something, please explain what is the real difference between it being implemented in software or in hardware as far as patentability is concerned?


Software is written, and source code is protected by copyright.

Hardware is designed and constructed, and is protected by patents.

Both are artificial, government-granted monopolies. There is ZERO reason why software should be covered by BOTH copyright and patents. You can't patent the contents of a book, now, can you?

This is all pretty basic stuff.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by Neolander on Wed 15th Jun 2011 12:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Both are artificial, government-granted monopolies. There is ZERO reason why software should be covered by BOTH copyright and patents. You can't patent the contents of a book, now, can you?

Even if there are technical drawings of patented hardware in it ?

Edited 2011-06-15 12:52 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by JAlexoid on Thu 16th Jun 2011 00:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Here's the fun part on why patents a needed. If you buy a book with a copyrighted drawing(and all of them are copyrighted BTW) there is nothing in copyright preventing you from making products based on that drawing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by kittynipples on Wed 15th Jun 2011 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

Anybody who considers themselves a professional software developer will tell you that software is designed also.

You are confusing the design of something with the copying of bits. The patent protects the design, copyright protects the bits.

But maybe your dogmatic view is too basic to understand the distinction.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by JAlexoid on Thu 16th Jun 2011 00:19 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Freaking Hypocrite!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

How about being a professional(as in being paid to do their work) software developer for the last 14 years and working The Big software? Does that meet your criteria? Maybe add to that, actually working on patents that have been filed and granted by USPTO.

And I still know that software patents are absurd. Software design is very much generic in all software and is based on too much prior art, that it must not be patented.
Today, software differs only in particular algorithms, everything else has been done over and over(talking about software design).
The last truly innovative patent I personally reviewed, was a case of "Mmm... I remembered that formula from mathematical analysis courses in the university. It was created to solve my problem, so I used it and here's the patent application"

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by brichpmr on Thu 16th Jun 2011 10:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Freaking Hypocrite!"
brichpmr Member since:
2006-04-22

"Thom, you are such a freaking hypocrite.


Looking at your nickname, this gun' be good.

So, according to Thom, software patents are bad except when used against Apple.


Nokia filed with HARDWARE patents. Apple filed with SOFTWARE patents. Software patents = bad. Hardware patents (generally) good. Simply, huh?

Look at most of Thom's posts, patents bad, patents bad...


SOFTWARE patents are by definition bad. SOFTWARE patents. SOFTWARE. SOFTWARE. SOFTWARE.

Why innovate when you can litigate.


Nokia had done more innovating in its lifetime than Apple has. Without Nokia (and Motorola) no worldwide mobile phone network. Apple innovates white plastics and pretty buttons. Nokia innovates a technology that has changed the world forever, and has allowed people the world over to share knowledge and to organise themselves, improving their lives.

Call me when Apple comes up with something that will change more lives than the lives of people at Starbucks and Hipster cafes.
"



This exposes you as a marginally knowledgeable blogger with a weak agenda, dude. Several tens of millions of satisfied users at all levels of computer savvy would disagree with you.

Edited 2011-06-16 10:10 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE: Freaking Hypocrite!
by Beta on Tue 14th Jun 2011 13:34 UTC in reply to "Freaking Hypocrite!"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

These patents are ridiculous, all of them should have been thrown out, all of Nokia's, all of Apple's, all of them. I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I still can't believe the supreme court let that i4i troll extort all that money from Microsoft based on their ridiculous patent. At least Microsoft produces stuff that people want to buy.


I cannot stand patents, but taking such a harsh stand against anyone suing using them is absurd. To have a functioning free market, you need to limit companies abusing each other. Hopefully the next stage is shorter term patents, and a more watchful eye over licensing agreements from ombudsmen.

I4I attempted to work with Microsoft closely to bring some features to Office, their partner ship fell through but Microsoft still used their shared work. If it were easier to take MS to court for abusing their business partnerships, I'm sure i4i would have gone that route.

Nokia has developed hardware technology for telephony and Apple didn't have a licence. That's just the way the hardware market exists atm.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Freaking Hypocrite!
by MrWeeble on Tue 14th Jun 2011 13:35 UTC in reply to "Freaking Hypocrite!"
MrWeeble Member since:
2007-04-18

So, according to Thom, software patents are bad except when used against Apple.


from Thom's article:
Nokia presented cold and harsh hardware patents


Software patents are not the same as hardware patents.

I agree with you both that software patents are in general a stupid idea; but protecting actual innovations in hardware, well that is what the patent system was invented for. Now whether these hardware patents that Nokia hold actually are innovative, I couldn't say*, but since they were pretty integral to the creation of GSM I am guessing they have a few innovations up their sleeves

*I am sure there is a list somewhere, but I haven't had the inclination to go through them

[Edit: Damn, I got to be quicker with my comments, Thom's already said all of this while I was still spell-checking and previewing]

Edited 2011-06-14 13:37 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Freaking Hypocrite!
by JAlexoid on Tue 14th Jun 2011 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE: Freaking Hypocrite!"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I'd like to highlight a point for this case: Software and art have copyright and hardware has patents.

Make software non-copyrightable, then I'll agree on patents for software.

Reply Score: 2

The big winner is Nokia?
by kristoph on Tue 14th Jun 2011 16:34 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01

The fact that Apple and Nokia settled with Apple paying a royalty was very much a fait accompli.

Who 'won' is really a matter of the size of the settlement.

However, given that the ITC ruled against Nokia in March and there is all new Nokia management in place I would wager the settlement was far less then what Nokia initially asked for (and it obviated large legal costs for both parties).

All in all I don't think there are any 'big' winners here but only time will tell.

Reply Score: 4

a very tangible piece of insight here
by kristoph on Tue 14th Jun 2011 16:46 UTC
kristoph
Member since:
2006-01-01


"I don't hold shares in any tech company," Mueller writes in his post-decision analysis, "but if I were an Apple shareholder, I would probably view this outcome favorably. Nokia emerges victorious, but this is a sweet defeat for Apple because its competitors -- especially those building Android-based devices -- will also have to pay Nokia, and most if not all of them will likely have to pay more on a per-unit basis because they don't bring as much intellectual property to the table as Apple definitely did. So from a competitive point of view, I don't think Apple loses much. On the bottom line its profitability may even benefit from this because Apple's margins face no greater threat than Android-style commoditization of smartphone technologies."

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Mueller is an idiot. He claims Android is in trouble because the same Nokia patents apply to Android. This is the biggest drivel I have ever seen.

Nokia's patents are hardware patents, that have already been licensed by all the Android hardware makers (Apple was the only big one not licensing Nokia's patents). Android as a software package does not infringe on the Nokia hardware patents - Android hardware does. However, as Motorola, HTC, Samsung, etc. have already licensed said patents, this is ZERO threat to Android.

Reply Score: 6

kristoph Member since:
2006-01-01

You really sure read what the man wrote. He is not saying Android is in trouble. He is saying that other HANDSET MAKERS are going to have to pay the same or greater royalties then Apple to Nokia (Elop said as much in his statement.)

Android is only a casualty here because it's so popular. It will impact Windows phone too.

This is obvious right? I mean HTC and Sansung and everyone else is going to need to pay these royalties just like Apple but without significant patent portfolios of their own their going to have to pay more.

(This is in addition to the license fees HTC pays to Microsoft for using Android.)

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

He is saying that other HANDSET MAKERS are going to have to pay the same or greater royalties then Apple to Nokia


The problem is that the other handset makers ARE ALREADY PAYING. Unlike Apple, other phone makers have long since partaken in the global patent licensing of mobile phone technology. It has NOTHING to do with Android, since those other phone makers were already making phones when Apple was still struggling to not die. The operating system is irrelevant here, as it has to do with hardware - hardware other phone makers have been using for god knows how long, and have been licensing the patents for since god knows how long.

The only reason he mentions Android is for page hits, and so that clueless folk like Gruber pick it up.

Reply Score: 5

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23


This is obvious right? I mean HTC and Sansung and everyone else is going to need to pay these royalties just like Apple but without significant patent portfolios of their own their going to have to pay more.

Wait... Are you saying Samsung does not have a significant patent portfolio? I would be surprised if Apple had one hundredth of Samsung's patents.

Reply Score: 6

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Wait... Are you saying Samsung does not have a significant patent portfolio? I would be surprised if Apple had one hundredth of Samsung's patents.

Never underestimate the company which sued Microsoft about an implementation of overlapping windows in a computer GUI.

Apple executives would patent their genetic markup if they could.

Reply Score: 2

_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Apple executives would patent their genetic markup if they could.


Those are already patented (or at least the method to access and generate genettic markup)

Reply Score: 2

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

I wouldn't call him an idiot, because when it comes to legal issues his knowledge is wide. But when it comes to technical and business issues, his statements look very much out of place and quite often stupid(statements, not him).

The critical fact of the matter is that the biggest Android manufacturers are long time players in GSM area and have all licenses and x-licensing agreements to look Nokia in the face without blinking.

And remember the patent portfolio of Nortel? The one that Google is bidding on? It looks like some UMTS essential patents are in that portfolio...

Source:
http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewabstract.php?id=5587&cf=32

Reply Score: 3

Nokia is a huge winner here
by JAlexoid on Tue 14th Jun 2011 19:34 UTC
JAlexoid
Member since:
2009-05-19

Nokia is a huge winner here
A) Apple will not pursue any existing Symbian devices
B) Apple can't pursue any future WP7 devices, because Microsoft licenses cover licensees.

With point B in mind, Nokia basically had a win-win situation in any case. But they got even more than they expected.

Reply Score: 2

Torbjorn Vik Lunde
Member since:
2009-09-04

At least the software patent system…


Also: is it really that wrong to be more critical of Apple than smaller companies? They are among the biggest companies in the world. According to some estimates *the* biggest technology company. I think it's fine to reserve to extra scepticism for the bigger companies. (Sure, Nokia is a big company too… but Apple currently scares me more.)

And no, I am not particularly anti-Apple. I'm actually a fan or their products. I don't see why I should give a company the benefit of doubt just because I like their products.

Any big company is generally a spooky thing IMHO.

Reply Score: 1