Submitted by 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.
According to a press release pushed out by Nokia, Apple infringes upon Nokia patents in virtually all of the Cupertino’s hardware products, from mobile phones, portable music players, to computers. Seven patents make up this case, in the areas of user interface, camera, antenna, and power management technologies. “These patented technologies are important to Nokia’s success as they allow better user experience, lower manufacturing costs, smaller size and longer battery life for Nokia products,” the Finnish company claims.
“Nokia has been the leading developer of many key technologies in small electronic devices” said Paul Melin, General Manager, Patent Licensing at Nokia, in a statement, “This action is about protecting the results of such pioneering development. While our litigation in Delaware is about Apple’s attempt to free-ride on the back of Nokia investment in wireless standards, the ITC case filed today is about Apple’s practice of building its business on Nokia’s proprietary innovation.”
While we here at OSNews, and the geek world in general, have a tendency to dislike patents, we have to remember that there is a difference between software and hardware patents. I am diametrically opposed to the idea of software patents, but when it comes to hardware patents it’s a different story. It appears the portfolio of patents referred to in this case consist of both software and hardware patents.
Back in October 2009, Nokia struck the first blow in this legal tussle between the two technology heavyweights by claiming Apple’s iPhone infringes patents covering GSM, UMTS, and wireless LAN standards. Apple officially responded early December when it counter-sued, claiming Nokia infringed upon 13 Apple patents.
Like I said – it’s on.
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.
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.
Well than Apple is in the deep end of the **** pool, right now.
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.
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
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~*~…
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.
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?
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!
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.
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
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.
Unless of course a lot of the stuff necessary to make it work (especially for data communication) is software written by Apple.
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.
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
You said apple… Did you get a license for that?
They’re going to sue you too for trademark infringment.
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
So… Who should he pay for trademark infringement? Apple Inc or Apple Corps(founded by The Beatles)?
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]
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?
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.
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”.
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.
Yeah, well, here is your hero of FOSS at work.
Haven’t followed the case that closely, but this seems to slip the carpet from those FOSS apologists that like to also play with the distinction of “software patents” and “hardware patents”. Expect some well-known hypocrisy in replies.
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
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.
I don’t know what to conclude from this.
Should this imply that “patents are okay” as long as you are not Microsoft or as long as you have some relations to FOSS?
Stupid me who has been schooled by the FOSS advocates to believe that patents were bad. Some day I get schizophrenia with you guys.
Edited 2009-12-30 13:06 UTC
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.
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.
Looks like there was a little something extra special under the lawyer’s trees this year.
Capitalism – A Love Story
My understanding is as follows. Apple has licensed patents for iPhone technology out of a pool for a set price from an independent body, sort of like MPEG-LA. Some of those patents trace back to Nokia, and Nokia doesn’t like Apple using them to such great success for such small royalties, but that’s just too bad. They’re in the pool, so they’re licensed equitably, no matter how dangerous Apple’s success becomes to the original patent holders.
Apple’s countersuit, on the other hand, involves plainly unlicensed patents that Apple owns and holds on to. They are not licensed out, by Apple or anyone else. Nokia also doesn’t like this, but again, too bad. Apple’s patents, Apple’s decision. This is the inequity. Nokia doesn’t have access to any good patents that everyone else doesn’t already have as well, while Apple gets access to Nokia’s plus its own. The problem for Nokia is that this is all fair and legal. They’re trying to pull leverage out of thin air, and of course it’s backfiring.
Maybe you think it’s unfair for Apple to take advantage of equal opportunity patent licensing without contributing back to it. Maybe it actually is unfair. But regardless, Nokia doesn’t have a case.
Now, this is the important point for Apple haters to consider. Apple ignored Nokia’s infringement up to this point. They beat Nokia on merit, in the marketplace, with their own innovations, with a better product that people chose to buy. Nokia is trying to use its patents to troll a more productive company for profit, while Apple is using its patents defensively.
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.
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.
just wanted a bit of clarification on the usage of that word in the last sentence in the first paragraph.