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.
Thread beginning with comment 477153
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 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 Parent Score: 3

RE: Nokia won?
by Carewolf on Tue 14th Jun 2011 09:20 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Nokia won?
by Carewolf on Tue 14th Jun 2011 14:30 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Nokia won?
by ourcomputerbloke on Wed 15th Jun 2011 09:35 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 Parent Score: 1

RE: Nokia won?
by JAlexoid on Tue 14th Jun 2011 19:48 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 Parent Score: 4