That's what Apple said, do you know how much other companies pay and what Apple was asked to pay?
The amount companies pay for GSM is fixed. Nokia demanded access to several Apple patents instead of money. Apple valued those patents a lot more then Nokia did. I believe Apple has been trying to pay the appropriate fee all along. There have been 1000s of stories on this topic. A lot of the information comes from legal fillings.
Fixed royalties on GSM patents is not something "Apple Said"' it just is.
The known information all points to a 1 to 2% fee of every ipad, iphone and ipod touch. That's apparently what Nokia asked for under FRAND terms at the start. How is that caving?
They are having to eat it.
Do you know how much Apple paid Nokia? Where did you get your kown information anyway...
We don't know which patents they agreed to or what value Nokia ultimately gave Apple for their patents. People seeing this as a win or Nokia are high. They likely would have made more money if they just let Apple pay standard fees in the beginning.
I hadn't seen Apple's response posted yet, so here it is:
“Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each others’ patents, but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique,” the company said. “We’re glad to put this behind us and get back to focusing on our respective businesses.”
That' doesn't have the tone of someone who thinks they 'won".
The amount companies pay for GSM is fixed. Nokia demanded access to several Apple patents instead of money. Apple valued those patents a lot more then Nokia did. I believe Apple has been trying to pay the appropriate fee all along. There have been 1000s of stories on this topic. A lot of the information comes from legal fillings.
Fixed royalties on GSM patents is not something "Apple Said"' it just is.
No, F/RAND deals aren't fixed and equal for everybody
Can you provide any proof of Nokia demanding access to apple patents instead of money?
Again, like so many times before: Said who? Apple said so, Nokia denied. Unless the papers become public, we will never know.
Just because Apple thinks terms are not fair doesn't meant they aren't fair. It may be that Apple just felt that way. Fair you see is often a pretty subjective term especially if you've never licenced on F/RAND terms before.
Regs, Jarkko
Licensing terms are pretty much known, as companies who license usually broadcast that they are willing to do so, and let others know what the expected fees are. So if a rival complains that the asked for fees are too high, I wouldn't be surprised at that, as licensing terms are pretty much standard for specific IP.
Fixed royalties on GSM patents is not something "Apple Said"' it just is.
It's complicated because most other firms which are major licensees also cross license, so their terms are hard to apply directly to Apple. Many of the other firms are much smaller than Apple so may be less vigorous in terms of defending themselves.
Because while there is no doubt that Apple need to license some Nokia patents, there is considerable room for doubt as to exactly how many are strictly needed and which are covered by the licenses of Apple's suppliers.
Nokia cross licences their patents with lots of companies, what is your point?
Not every company licenses their IP, and they don't have to. Much IP, if not most IP, isn't licensed at all. If a company demands that a company cross license for them to license their own IP to them - IP that they otherwise freely license, then that's wrong, and the company that attempting to obtain licenses has a right to balk.
Any company can make whatever demands they wish, but if they single out one or more companies from their known licensing terms for special treatment, then of course those companies may not be willing to comply.
Essentially, Nokia is saying that the IP they are licensing is not central to their competitiveness in their hardware business. apple is saying that their IP is.
Nokia is a so saying that licensing fees make up a fair portion of the is profits, while Apple is saying that that case isn't true for them. So if Nokia was trying to force Apple to cross license, in addition to asking for higher licensing fees, then it's no wonder they couldn't come to terms.
Licensing terms are pretty much known, as companies who license usually broadcast that they are willing to do so, and let others know what the expected fees are. So if a rival complains that the asked for fees are too high, I wouldn't be surprised at that, as licensing terms are pretty much standard for specific IP.
Please, provide any example of those much knowed fees and quantities paid by royalties on those license agreements.
What pays HTC, Motorola, Samsung, RIM, Apple or Palm (now HP) to Noki for the essential GSM technology?
If they are prety much known you can provide quantities, don't you?
Apple always recognised that they needed to pay Nokia for these licenses (they are mainly to do with mobile phone technology Nokia developed with others well before Apple got into phones). The dispute was over the terms. Nokia were demanding larger royalties from Apple than from other manufacturers, so Apple threw their own patents back at Nokia. Now they've finally agreed terms, terms we'll probably never know.
Exactly.
In a way though, I see this as a defeat of "the rule of law" and general good order and fairness.
Apple has probably secured the use of these patents on FRAND terms, which was all they wanted, and what they had a right to in the first place. Why should a company have to go to court to get terms they have a right to? If they got better than FRAND terms (which the confidentiality agreement may indicate) then it's not really fair to the other companies that also should be able to secure the patents on FRAND terms as well.
No big deal though . . . surprisingly enough, Nokia is fast becoming irrelevant in the phone business.
As you were not the person who said it, you can only infer that as well. At the end of the day, Apple is paying Nokia to use their patents.
At no point in time did Apple say that they refused to license that IP. This was a losing battle for both companies, and there's no doubt that they both gave way. Assuming that Nokia wanted Apples' IP, that would have been a sticking point. From my understanding of the issues, Nokias' demands were that if Apple didn't want to cross license, they would have to pay more than the market rate for Nokias' IP, and that was what Apple refused to do.
I'd be willing to bet that Nokia hasn't received Apples' IP, and that a compromise on the fees occurred as well. So both came off a bit better than would have been expected.
I guess apple aren?t always that innovative after all.
They withdrew so there is no judgment on whether anyone did anything. Basically they are both agreeing to pay just to be done with the whole thing. Rather like paying a speeding ticket 'no contest' even though you are certain you weren't speeding simply because taking the day off to go to court etc is a pain
My guess is that Apple decided that the costs of settling would be offset by the time and money of the legal fees and whatever Nokia is paying to them to make it not really a huge deal over all.
If the original request for licensing included cross licensing that Apple wouldn't agree to and is no longer part of the deal, even if the percentage paid has remained the same, then Nokia would have been the ones to cave.
Repeating something doesn't make it true or a good argument.
They have already admitted that cross licensing is taking place, you should really read their official response, someone below had the wit to post it. Only one side got what they wanted here, and it wasn't Apple. Do the math.
Eating it doesn't require a good argument. You just eat it. Simple.
If you would have read other press besides AppleInsider, you would have seen that Nokia did in fact state quite clearly what they were sueing for (patent infringement with precise patents mentioned) and why (2 years of negotiations with Apple point blank refusing to license on well established F/RAND terms). Also Nokia responded to Apple's claims on Nokia demanding extra and/or cross-licensing as "untrue".
Of course the claims are "he said, she said", but your assumption that because she didn't say means they are somehow lying is wrong in general (shouting in the streets about injustice is actually often a diversionary tactic isn't it?). Your starting point is even more wrong because she actually did say quite a lot.
So what exactly did Nokia not comment on? The exact offers made to Apple? That is usually stuff none discloses.
Regs, Jarkko
Would you provide some of that other press that contends that Nokia was willing to license according to accepted terms? I don't recall reading any of it. All I remember reading was that Nokia was claiming that they were fair terms, but that would be from their standpoint, wouldn't it?
Nokia in the first case sued with TEN patents. This is telling what and why.
Nokia has reached what they wanted, Apple paying them
Yes, ten, and so far, three of those were thrown out. apple came back with their own, and some of those were thrown out as well. We don't know what the end result would have been. It could have resulted in a major shift in power if it went trough the courts. But both companies are smart enough to know that that wouldn't have been a good thing for either of them, and was too much of a distraction.
I'd be willing to bet that Nokia hasn't received Apples' IP, and that a compromise on the fees occurred as well. So both came off a bit better than would have been expected.
Bet lost
?Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each other?s patents, but not the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique,? Apple said. ?We are glad to put this behind us and get back to focusing on our respective businesses.?
The known information all points to a 1 to 2% fee of every ipad, iphone and ipod touch. That's apparently what Nokia asked for under FRAND terms at the start. How is that caving?
Yes, ten, and so far, three of those were thrown out. apple came back with their own, and some of those were thrown out as well. We don't know what the end result would have been. It could have resulted in a major shift in power if it went trough the courts. But both companies are smart enough to know that that wouldn't have been a good thing for either of them, and was too much of a distraction.
Please, tell this to the one that said that Nokia wasn't suing for any specific and didn't told why they were suing Apple
Because HTC has been making phones since 1998 withouth a problem with essential GSM patents like Nokia sued for to Apple?
Again, you don't know that. Nokia isn't the only company with essential patents in this area. As we found out recently, Nortel has a very large patent portfolio that includes essential patents in these areas, which is a major reason why the bidding is around $1 billion for them so far, and why it may go higher. Motorola also has patents in this area, and I wouldn't be surprised if others did as well.
Comments
That's what Apple said, do you know how much other companies pay and what Apple was asked to pay?
The amount companies pay for GSM is fixed. Nokia demanded access to several Apple patents instead of money. Apple valued those patents a lot more then Nokia did. I believe Apple has been trying to pay the appropriate fee all along. There have been 1000s of stories on this topic. A lot of the information comes from legal fillings.
Fixed royalties on GSM patents is not something "Apple Said"' it just is.
The known information all points to a 1 to 2% fee of every ipad, iphone and ipod touch. That's apparently what Nokia asked for under FRAND terms at the start. How is that caving?
They are having to eat it.
Do you know how much Apple paid Nokia? Where did you get your kown information anyway...
We don't know which patents they agreed to or what value Nokia ultimately gave Apple for their patents. People seeing this as a win or Nokia are high. They likely would have made more money if they just let Apple pay standard fees in the beginning.
And you know this because...?
Because HTC has been making phones since 1998 withouth a problem with essential GSM patents like Nokia sued for to Apple?
There's no reason for you to doubt it, as Nokia never denied Apple accusations, as they would have otherwise.
What didn't denied Nokia?
“Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each others’ patents, but not the majority of the innovations that make the iPhone unique,” the company said. “We’re glad to put this behind us and get back to focusing on our respective businesses.”
That' doesn't have the tone of someone who thinks they 'won".
http://allthingsd.com/20110613/break...e-patent-spat/
The amount companies pay for GSM is fixed. Nokia demanded access to several Apple patents instead of money. Apple valued those patents a lot more then Nokia did. I believe Apple has been trying to pay the appropriate fee all along. There have been 1000s of stories on this topic. A lot of the information comes from legal fillings.
Fixed royalties on GSM patents is not something "Apple Said"' it just is.
No, F/RAND deals aren't fixed and equal for everybody
Can you provide any proof of Nokia demanding access to apple patents instead of money?
Again, like so many times before: Said who? Apple said so, Nokia denied. Unless the papers become public, we will never know.
Just because Apple thinks terms are not fair doesn't meant they aren't fair. It may be that Apple just felt that way. Fair you see is often a pretty subjective term especially if you've never licenced on F/RAND terms before.
Regs, Jarkko
Licensing terms are pretty much known, as companies who license usually broadcast that they are willing to do so, and let others know what the expected fees are. So if a rival complains that the asked for fees are too high, I wouldn't be surprised at that, as licensing terms are pretty much standard for specific IP.
Fixed royalties on GSM patents is not something "Apple Said"' it just is.
It's complicated because most other firms which are major licensees also cross license, so their terms are hard to apply directly to Apple. Many of the other firms are much smaller than Apple so may be less vigorous in terms of defending themselves.
Because while there is no doubt that Apple need to license some Nokia patents, there is considerable room for doubt as to exactly how many are strictly needed and which are covered by the licenses of Apple's suppliers.
Nokia cross licences their patents with lots of companies, what is your point?
Not every company licenses their IP, and they don't have to. Much IP, if not most IP, isn't licensed at all. If a company demands that a company cross license for them to license their own IP to them - IP that they otherwise freely license, then that's wrong, and the company that attempting to obtain licenses has a right to balk.
Any company can make whatever demands they wish, but if they single out one or more companies from their known licensing terms for special treatment, then of course those companies may not be willing to comply.
Essentially, Nokia is saying that the IP they are licensing is not central to their competitiveness in their hardware business. apple is saying that their IP is.
Nokia is a so saying that licensing fees make up a fair portion of the is profits, while Apple is saying that that case isn't true for them. So if Nokia was trying to force Apple to cross license, in addition to asking for higher licensing fees, then it's no wonder they couldn't come to terms.
Licensing terms are pretty much known, as companies who license usually broadcast that they are willing to do so, and let others know what the expected fees are. So if a rival complains that the asked for fees are too high, I wouldn't be surprised at that, as licensing terms are pretty much standard for specific IP.
Please, provide any example of those much knowed fees and quantities paid by royalties on those license agreements.
What pays HTC, Motorola, Samsung, RIM, Apple or Palm (now HP) to Noki for the essential GSM technology?
If they are prety much known you can provide quantities, don't you?
Apple always recognised that they needed to pay Nokia for these licenses (they are mainly to do with mobile phone technology Nokia developed with others well before Apple got into phones). The dispute was over the terms. Nokia were demanding larger royalties from Apple than from other manufacturers, so Apple threw their own patents back at Nokia. Now they've finally agreed terms, terms we'll probably never know.
Exactly.
In a way though, I see this as a defeat of "the rule of law" and general good order and fairness.
Apple has probably secured the use of these patents on FRAND terms, which was all they wanted, and what they had a right to in the first place. Why should a company have to go to court to get terms they have a right to? If they got better than FRAND terms (which the confidentiality agreement may indicate) then it's not really fair to the other companies that also should be able to secure the patents on FRAND terms as well.
No big deal though . . . surprisingly enough, Nokia is fast becoming irrelevant in the phone business.
As you were not the person who said it, you can only infer that as well. At the end of the day, Apple is paying Nokia to use their patents.
At no point in time did Apple say that they refused to license that IP. This was a losing battle for both companies, and there's no doubt that they both gave way. Assuming that Nokia wanted Apples' IP, that would have been a sticking point. From my understanding of the issues, Nokias' demands were that if Apple didn't want to cross license, they would have to pay more than the market rate for Nokias' IP, and that was what Apple refused to do.
I'd be willing to bet that Nokia hasn't received Apples' IP, and that a compromise on the fees occurred as well. So both came off a bit better than would have been expected.
Good news is always welcome.
I guess apple aren?t always that innovative after all.
They withdrew so there is no judgment on whether anyone did anything. Basically they are both agreeing to pay just to be done with the whole thing. Rather like paying a speeding ticket 'no contest' even though you are certain you weren't speeding simply because taking the day off to go to court etc is a pain
My guess is that Apple decided that the costs of settling would be offset by the time and money of the legal fees and whatever Nokia is paying to them to make it not really a huge deal over all.
If the original request for licensing included cross licensing that Apple wouldn't agree to and is no longer part of the deal, even if the percentage paid has remained the same, then Nokia would have been the ones to cave.
Repeating something doesn't make it true or a good argument.
They have already admitted that cross licensing is taking place, you should really read their official response, someone below had the wit to post it. Only one side got what they wanted here, and it wasn't Apple. Do the math.
Eating it doesn't require a good argument. You just eat it. Simple.
If you would have read other press besides AppleInsider, you would have seen that Nokia did in fact state quite clearly what they were sueing for (patent infringement with precise patents mentioned) and why (2 years of negotiations with Apple point blank refusing to license on well established F/RAND terms). Also Nokia responded to Apple's claims on Nokia demanding extra and/or cross-licensing as "untrue".
Of course the claims are "he said, she said", but your assumption that because she didn't say means they are somehow lying is wrong in general (shouting in the streets about injustice is actually often a diversionary tactic isn't it?). Your starting point is even more wrong because she actually did say quite a lot.
So what exactly did Nokia not comment on? The exact offers made to Apple? That is usually stuff none discloses.
Regs, Jarkko
Would you provide some of that other press that contends that Nokia was willing to license according to accepted terms? I don't recall reading any of it. All I remember reading was that Nokia was claiming that they were fair terms, but that would be from their standpoint, wouldn't it?
Really? Nokia diden't said nothing?
Nokia in the first case sued with TEN patents. This is telling what and why.
Nokia has reached what they wanted, Apple paying them
Yes, ten, and so far, three of those were thrown out. apple came back with their own, and some of those were thrown out as well. We don't know what the end result would have been. It could have resulted in a major shift in power if it went trough the courts. But both companies are smart enough to know that that wouldn't have been a good thing for either of them, and was too much of a distraction.
I'd be willing to bet that Nokia hasn't received Apples' IP, and that a compromise on the fees occurred as well. So both came off a bit better than would have been expected.
Bet lost
?Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each other?s patents, but not the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique,? Apple said. ?We are glad to put this behind us and get back to focusing on our respective businesses.?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/te...okia.html?_r=1
The known information all points to a 1 to 2% fee of every ipad, iphone and ipod touch. That's apparently what Nokia asked for under FRAND terms at the start. How is that caving?
They are having to eat it.
What known information is that?
Yes, ten, and so far, three of those were thrown out. apple came back with their own, and some of those were thrown out as well. We don't know what the end result would have been. It could have resulted in a major shift in power if it went trough the courts. But both companies are smart enough to know that that wouldn't have been a good thing for either of them, and was too much of a distraction.
Please, tell this to the one that said that Nokia wasn't suing for any specific and didn't told why they were suing Apple
HTC has been making smartphones since 2002. This would have come to court already if HTC wasn't licensing Nokia's GSM/WLAN patents.
You don't know that.
Because HTC has been making phones since 1998 withouth a problem with essential GSM patents like Nokia sued for to Apple?
Again, you don't know that. Nokia isn't the only company with essential patents in this area. As we found out recently, Nortel has a very large patent portfolio that includes essential patents in these areas, which is a major reason why the bidding is around $1 billion for them so far, and why it may go higher. Motorola also has patents in this area, and I wouldn't be surprised if others did as well.
What didn't denied Nokia?
Would you word that so it makes sense?