or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple files countersuit against Nokia
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple files countersuit against Nokia - Page 4

post #121 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Aaahhh....... (deep breath).

It is nice to revel in actual intelligent content compared to the fractured mess in Pages 1 and 2 of this thread......

I don't understand why <you-know-who> keeps coming back, nor why AI allows him back. After close to 6500 posts of trivial provocation one would think this problem would get reconciled.

Any forum has its contentious members, but I have never seen anyone so persistent or oblivious to correction. I enjoy when people more informed than myself answer arcane questions about wireless technology or software development, but I fear some of them have given up here because of the endless trolling. Slashdot has been held up as the example of a lost cause for technical discussion. Only with diligence can other sites not fall into that same category.
post #122 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

I think what he means is Apple is showing "the Number one worldwide cellphone maker is in your sights and has nothing to combat their shrinking sales..." in their countersuit. It isn't related to who initiated the proceedings.

Nah, looked like he was talking about going after these companies. Especially since he mentions RIM and Google... Apple wasn't sued by them if I recall? Nice try though.
post #123 of 278
The link keeps redirecting to page 3.
post #124 of 278
Apple's patent list is an interesting one. All but one of those patents must have been filed 5+ years ago if Nokia can't claim prior art.
post #125 of 278
Multi-touch has been in the pipeline for a long time - since at least the 80s - when the first attempts at building on the 60's initial attempts at touch-screen technology were rolling out. The attempts were (comparatively) kludgey for the most part and did not have any cachet at all in the consumer space. It was simply a geek thing for much of the early development. Multi-touch, (or multi touch or multitouch) has been a generic term covering several different aspects of the concept - using several points of contact on a surface as a user interface to control the machine. Much of the work being done in the space, by Jeff Han, his spinoff company PerceptivePixel, and easily a dozen others involves rear-projection or (as in the case of the Microsoft Surface and other, homebuilt interfaces) sub-surface rojection and a form of surface interaction sensing. The Surface uses four cameras in the infrared band to pickup finger touches and objects that have been set up with associative microdot labels. Jeff Han uses use infrared light emitting diodes along with an infrared camera in an implementation of FTIP. FingerWork, bought by Apple had developed an interface using capacitive touch sensing, which is more compact, and easier to use in high light situations (that dimish the performance of the infrared type).

So multi touch is a broad term that covers a variety of screen technologies (infrared/capacitive/resistive, etc), a number of different implementations of interfaces and form factors. To argue that Apple claims to have invented it is rather silly and ignorant, in light of the known history, SJ's "quote" notwithstanding.

'Nuf said.
post #126 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

This is the patent version of Mutually Assured Destruction. It's why companies like Apple file for so many patents. Just like the US/USSR built far more nuclear weapons than they ever really needed. Just view this like the Cuban missile crisis. Both sides likely have far more to lose if someone pulls the trigger. In the end, they will likely find a compromise that avoids an all-out courtroom battle. The Soviet Union removes their missiles from Cuba, and the US removes their missles from Italy and Turkey (a fact most Americans aren't aware of because we like to think that Khrushchev blinked and went running home with his tale between his legs).



It depends if you are saying "multi-touch" in the generic sense or in reference to a specific implementation of it. You can't patent the idea of using multiple points of contact to manipulate items on the screen (or should shouldn't be able to). You CAN patent the implementation of HOW you do that. There are multiple ways of accomplishing it, and each could be an independently patentable technology.

Save yourself the trouble of explaining how Patents are designed to work. People refuse to learn.
post #127 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robodude View Post

Nah, looked like he was talking about going after these companies. Especially since he mentions RIM and Google... Apple wasn't sued by them if I recall? Nice try though.

what I am saying is Apple probably could counter sue most companies that comes after them, its not wise, but since Nokia choose to come after the Iphone, when I am sure they let other competitors/partners slide, shows they want a piece of the Apple pie (no pun intended), or at least to stop the hemorrhaging sales of their top spot. While Apple could have probably have sued Nokia before this point, they where probably keeping their cards close to their chest, as apple does with most of its technology. Its almost as if most of apple's competitors wait til they produce something before they see the inherent value of proper implementation.

Companies like Nokia are going to have create their own multi-touch systems and do it well, which is not likely seeing their previous manifestations. So their best hope is to hopefully license what apple has built. Pointing out the microsoft surface as a viable multi-touch systems is ridiculous and could never been used at in a small form factor as phone. Now that apple has patented the best use of multi-touch they have a large target on their back. This is everyone is coming after them, but they will soon see the repeat of the Ipod phenomenon unfold before their eyes and competitors are powerless to stop it, unless they come after the most mundane of lawsuits/patent infringements. If a company could have done it better before Apple, then we would have certainly have seen it. Now companies are going to have spend millions to work around the patented apple multi-touch, and I gather that will be quite the challenge.

Nokia's best bet is the 3D multi-touch they have patented, but a patent is a far cry from a working prototype. Sounds very interesting, but I doubt we will see that anytime soon to save Nokia's downward technology spiral.
post #128 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by gin_tonic View Post

Android and Google repeats Windows (Unix, Linux, etc) way - the same OS on different hardware sets. And iPhone is pure Apple ideology - single OS on VERY limited hardware configurations.
Let check the market share of Windows/Unix/Linux and MacOS - I think you will something interesting

And apple will continue to be the premium brand and google will slide in the less desirable mass market with low profit/fractured OS that just runs OK on multiple devices. For those of us that implementation and proficiency is key will let a company build a device that is rock solid.

Isn't Google already abandoning older Android for their new Google Phone ANDROID...how can anyone keep this straight? What interest does google have to update devices that compete against their latest and greatest Google Phone Android..what's that one called...snacky cake? Since the others are Donut, Cupcake, and Eclair....all MANLY SCUDLY names right? I will ask the first person with a Droid phone how they like their Eclair OS...I hope its sweet and stuff with sugary but useless filling...mmm..I prefer healthy treats like Apples...
post #129 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

I don't understand why <you-know-who> keeps coming back, nor why AI allows him back. After close to 6500 posts of trivial provocation one would think this problem would get reconciled.

Any forum has its contentious members, but I have never seen anyone so persistent or oblivious to correction. I enjoy when people more informed than myself answer arcane questions about wireless technology or software development, but I fear some of them have given up here because of the endless trolling. Slashdot has been held up as the example of a lost cause for technical discussion. Only with diligence can other sites not fall into that same category.

Ignore function. If everyone simply kept him on ignore, his posts would never enter into the discussion. It's really that simple.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #130 of 278
Apple seems to have a strong defense and strong offense. Apple is essentially saying, Nokia has an obligation to license it's patents to Apple under fair and nondiscriminatory terms because Nokia's patented technologies are standards and Nokia agreed to license it's patents under such terms to members of the trade group that both Apple and Nokia belong to. Further, Apple is saying Nokia is copying Apple's patents, which Apple has not agreed to license and are not necessary to create a standard.

Nokia's patents are necessary for any cell phone operator to operate today. Apple's are not.
post #131 of 278
Since it seems to have come and gone, it's probably worth restating what is being reported as the crux of the matter:

Nokia was attempting to use their patents on certain underlying GSM tech to force Apple to cross license aspects of the iPhone tech. They were doing this by using the stick of demanding excessive and non-typical licensing fees while holding out the carrot of "equitable" cross licensing.

Apple didn't bite, so Nokia sued. Apple has counter-sued, claiming infringement on the very items that Nokia was trying to get an agreement on, plus using the lawsuit as a vehicle to make public editorial comment regarding Nokia's fee/cross-licensing strategy.

The items Apple is claiming infringement on are all specific implementations of processes, not completely untenable claims to things like "scrolling lists." I really wish people would stop popping off about the terribleness of the patent process without least grasping that fundamental point.*

*As explained above by Wiggin
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #132 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Ignore function. If everyone simply kept him on ignore, his posts would never enter into the discussion. It's really that simple.

Unfortunately, that won't work for newcomers. Their first impressions of the AI forums may be tainted by the endless provocation, and they may never come back.

After 6400+ posts, the problem has gone on long enough. Report egregious trolling when it occurs and we'll all see a respite like we have now (which hopefully becomes permanent.)
post #133 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

Unfortunately, that won't work for newcomers. Their first impressions of the AI forums may be tainted by the endless provocation, and they may never come back.

After 6400+ posts, the problem has gone on long enough. Report egregious trolling when it occurs and we'll all see a respite like we have now (which hopefully becomes permanent.)

I agree with that as far as it goes, but I do think that if people who have been around a little more do both (ignore, at least publicly, and report), the problem would be diminished.

Certain posters feed off the attention, and back and forth in the discussion just increases the likelihood that such posters will continue their pattern. Also, "ignore" increases one's sense of well being and makes thread scanning much more relaxing.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #134 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

I think what he means is Apple is showing "the Number one worldwide cellphone maker is in your sights and has nothing to combat their shrinking sales..." in their countersuit. It isn't related to who initiated the proceedings.

Yip, Apple with their 0.7% market share
post #135 of 278
This should be resolved as follows: Apple pays the same licensing fees to Nokia that Sony and others pay, which is far less then Nokia is demanding. Further, Nokia doesn't get to license any of Apple's patents because Apple's patents are not part of a standard body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robodude View Post

... just consider the possible outcome of this.

Multi-touch vs GSM? Both seem like bargaining tools from either side to be honest. Apple's issues with Nokia/GSM get resolved quite nicely, and Nokia gets to use multi-touch on its phones (arguably, the "rotate to zoom" on the N900 is already in violation of the patent). I wonder how long these proceedings will drag out for?

Now, more witty slurs towards our least favourite companies?
post #136 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

This should be resolved as follows: Apple pays the same licensing fees to Nokia that Sony and others pay, which is far less then Nokia is demanding. Further, Nokia doesn't get to license any of Apple's patents because Apple's patents are not part of a standard body.

do you or does anyone know any specific reasons why nokia is asking more money from apple?
post #137 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

Yip, Apple with their 0.7% market share

Really? So we're going to start citing an out-of-some-bloggers ass percentage number based on global cell phone users to try and pretend the iPhone isn't doing fantastically well? As opposed to Apple's skyrocketing share of the smartphone market? Which of course is the only metric that makes any sense?

Why?
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #138 of 278
One simple question:

Can an iPhone work without Nokia's technology? Survey says: NO !!!!!!!!!!!

Can any of Nokia's phones work without Apple's technology? Hell yes....

Suit dismissed. Suck on it Apple. You got caught and have to pay Nokia, but it will not come to that. An exchange of technology will happen and everyone will go their merry way. The only winners are the lawyers.
post #139 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by gin_tonic View Post

Android and Google repeats Windows (Unix, Linux, etc) way - the same OS on different hardware sets.

What happened to this user's posts?

Anyway, Windows and Linux and Unix aren't even nearly the same thing and shouldn't be so quickly conflated. I don't see how Apple escapes this judgement, because Apple says iPhone OS X is derived from Apple OS X. The UI is very different, but the back end isn't so terribly different. Linux gets adapted at least as much to many different uses, such as wireless routers and TiVos, and people wouldn't know that unless they're told, the UI and code is changed to suit the task.
post #140 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

, which is far less then Nokia is demanding.

According to Apple. Courts will say which of them is right
post #141 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

One simple question:

Can an iPhone work without Nokia's technology? Survey says: NO !!!!!!!!!!!

Can any of Nokia's phones work without Apple's technology? Hell yes....

Suit dismissed. Suck on it Apple. You got caught and have to pay Nokia, but it will not come to that. An exchange of technology will happen and everyone will go their merry way. The only winners are the lawyers.

Way to take a complicated legal subject and oversimplify it to the level of children's playground logic.
post #142 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Way to take a complicated legal subject and oversimplify it to the level of children's playground logic.

Really. Ok all knowing global moderator. Enlighten us with your unsurpassed telecommunications knowledge.

1. Do Nokia phones need Apple invented/developed/designed technology to work? Simple yes or no will do. Key word being: NEED.

2. Does the iPhone need Nokia invented/developed/designed technology to work: Again, a simple yes or no answer will suffice. Once again, the key word being: NEED.

3. While you may want to pontificate and expound, the facts are pretty clear in the questions I asked. Maybe the simplicity of their very nature was lost on a high-brow person such as you.

Clock is ticking. Two answers on deck.
post #143 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Really. Ok all knowing global moderator. Enlighten us with your unsurpassed telecommunications knowledge.

1. Do Nokia phones need Apple invented/developed/designed technology to work? Simple yes or no will do. Key word being: NEED.

2. Does the iPhone need Nokia invented/developed/designed technology to work: Again, a simple yes or no answer will suffice. Once again, the key word being: NEED.

3. While you may want to pontificate and expound, the facts are pretty clear in the questions I asked. Maybe the simplicity of their very nature was lost on a high-brow person such as you.

Clock is ticking. Two answers on deck.

I said it that way because that's the way it really is. One problem is that you're not even asking the right questions. I really doubt a court of law would give credence to such an argument.

Whether or not some workaround is available, the real question is whether patents were violated. If a patent is violated, then no amount of hand waving gets away from that, unless the patent is later invalidated, such as being overly broad or having found prior art.

Another question is, if Nokia really didn't need to violate the patent, then why did they? They could have used some other method of touch input that Apple didn't own.
post #144 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The problem is that you're not even asking the right questions. I really doubt a court of law would give credence to such an argument.

Whether or not some workaround is available, the real question is whether patents were violated. If a patent is violated, then no amount of hand waving gets away from that, unless the patent is later invalidated, such as being overly broad or having found prior art.

Beep, beep, beep = the sound of backing up. No matter. I'll play along.

The 10 patents that Nokia is suing for are real, "you need our technology to work" patents that Apple infringed upon. Many to most websites following this have gone on to point out that these are very specific patents that Apple cannot simply brush off. The Apple patents appear to be more dredged up and vague and an attempt to try and level the playing field. The bottom line that many Apple-istas hate to admit is that Apple is no better than any other company and they got caught with their hand in the patent infringement jar. Apple sues people for just suing an icon. This suit is the best thing that could have happened to them. Hopefully it breaks their arrogance.

Now if you will excuse me, I am going back to downloading apps for my iPhone.
post #145 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Really? So we're going to start citing an out-of-some-bloggers ass percentage number based on global cell phone users to try and pretend the iPhone isn't doing fantastically well? As opposed to Apple's skyrocketing share of the smartphone market? Which of course is the only metric that makes any sense?

Heh heh. Not to mention the report I recall (I am unable to point to the link, but it was an AI story too), which showed that Apple's operating profit from only the phone segment of its business was greater than that of Nokia, Samsung, SonyEricsson, and a couple of others combined!
post #146 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

Can any of Nokia's phones work without Apple's technology? Hell yes....

Yeah, sure, and they can keep yesterday's technology, the one that has put them in the financial pits and is leading them down the tube. Why not.

If the CEO is dumb enough to articulate a legal strategy like that, I'd be willing to bet that he'll land on his a** on an icy, cold, Helsinki sidewalk .
post #147 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

One simple question:

Can an iPhone work without Nokia's technology? Survey says: NO !!!!!!!!!!!

Can any of Nokia's phones work without Apple's technology? Hell yes....

Suit dismissed. Suck on it Apple. You got caught and have to pay Nokia, but it will not come to that. An exchange of technology will happen and everyone will go their merry way. The only winners are the lawyers.

Actually, if I read this correctly, this is the crux of the Apple counter suit... Nokia technology is part of the standard already, hence they cannot charge Apple higher licensing fees and cannot ask Apple to share the multi-touch implementation patent.

On the other hand, Apple's multi-touch patent is not needed to create a mobile phone, hence, not a standard and they are not obliged to license it to anyone.

So your post defeated your argument. Apple is willing to pay fair licensing fees to Nokia. Nokia, on the other hand wanted to charge more than what is merited.
post #148 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

Yeah, sure, and they can keep yesterday's technology, the one that has put them in the financial pits and is leading them down the tube. Why not.

If the CEO is dumb enough to articulate a legal strategy like that, I'd be willing to bet that he'll land on his a** on an icy, cold, Helsinki sidewalk .

And this means what? Does it escape the fact that Apple infringed on Nokia's patents? Your answer is a lesson in obtuseness. Try again.
post #149 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by strikestrike View Post

Actually, if I read this correctly, this is the crux of the Apple counter suit... Nokia technology is part of the standard already, hence they cannot charge Apple higher licensing fees and cannot ask Apple to share the multi-touch implementation patent.

On the other hand, Apple's multi-touch patent is not needed to create a mobile phone, hence, not a standard and they are not obliged to license it to anyone.

So your post defeated your argument. Apple is willing to pay fair licensing fees to Nokia. Nokia, on the other hand wanted to charge more than what is merited.

And you have the fees charged by Nokia where so we can all see them? And my argument asked a two main questions that you half answered, JeffDM deferred and did not answer, and anantksundaram brought up a non-issue. If the is kind of support that Apple has in waiting, they would be better off just paying. From the legal experts that have reviewed the Nokia case against Apple it looks solid. Nokia chose 10 very specific patents that Apple violated which are very provable. Apple is throwing patents at the wall and hoping something will stick. Live by the lawsuit, die by the lawsuit.
post #150 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

Stay with me here:

Apple sells music and video material at their iTunes store. Apple gets a cut of the sale, and the label/artist gets a cut. Apple provides the software, tech support, advertising, storage, electricity, and network bandwidth required to fulfill the purchase. Those components all cost money.

If Apple then offers material for people to download for free, they are assuming all the associated costs necessary to do so. Apple is GIVING YOU ALL OF THAT, FOR FREE.

You continue to waste everyone's time with your willful stupidity. Either that or you are simply a forum troll, and seek some perverse pleasure with your incessant mosquito bites attempting to point out some pedantic technicality or a trivial weakness of Apple and their products. You are the noise to everyone else's signal. You now have a post count exceeding 6400, of which the vast majority are childish one-liners seeking a response just for the sake of provocation. There are many people who have expressed exasperation or outright disgust with your antics. It's not just me.

Don't you think it's time for a little introspection?



teckstud doesn't care if what he says has no substance so long as he can inflate his post-count. Thanks for giving him the verbal bitch-slapping he has needed for such a long time.
post #151 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

And you have the fees charged by Nokia where so we can all see them? And my argument asked a two main questions that you half answered, JeffDM deferred and did not answer, and anantksundaram brought up a non-issue.

You want to talk about dodging the question, did Nokia violate Apple's patents or not?

That was the crux of my original reply, the way you wrote it, it made it sound like it didn't matter to you whether Nokia violated Apple's patents or not.

I wasn't trying to say that Nokia's patents weren't valid, though you seem to read that from my comments.
post #152 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dlux View Post

Teckstud simply wants attention, hence his high post count. It's an unfortunately common behavior:

Troll
(Internet) A person who posts to a newsgroup, bulletin board, etc., in a way intended to anger other posters and to cause drama, or otherwise disrupt the group's intended purpose.

Attention whore
(Internet) Someone who craves attention and is not above soliciting it via deliberately meaningless or provocative tactics.



Since he makes it extremely difficult to ignore his posts, our only recourse is to report him to AppleInsider. It is in their interests to keep these forums informative, pleasant, and useful, and teckstud's behavior works against that.

To report his posts simply click the red exclamation mark under his name and then enter 'Trolling' as the reason. Do that as often as required. He's dragging everyone else down with his selfish antics.

thank you for the information. I can make good use of that. I do wish I had known it about a week ago.
post #153 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

And this means what? Does it escape the fact that Apple infringed on Nokia's patents? Your answer is a lesson in obtuseness. Try again.

It is obtuse only if you have the inability to process some pretty basic information. You're smarter than that.

Quote: "beep beep beep..." :unquote.
post #154 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

You want to talk about dodging the question, did Nokia violate Apple's patents or not?

Not only that, his assertion that "Apple infringed on Nokia's patents" is simply unfounded. (Underlining mine: the choice of the word 'infringe' is not accidental on his part, since, as any reasonable dictionary will show you, it implies a violation of the law or rights of the other person. It is a very loaded word on his part).

He apparently did not bother to read Apple's response to Nokia's suit.

Hey sapporobabyrtrns, please don't assume the rest of the world is stupid.
post #155 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Really? So we're going to start citing an out-of-some-bloggers ass percentage number based on global cell phone users to try and pretend the iPhone isn't doing fantastically well? As opposed to Apple's skyrocketing share of the smartphone market? Which of course is the only metric that makes any sense?

Why?

]

why quote an american figure when the other poster had a world figure?
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #156 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by anakin1992 View Post

do you or does anyone know any specific reasons why nokia is asking more money from apple?

does anyone really know whether tey actually ARE asking for more money, or that Apple is just using that excuse to bipass their legal obligations
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
Household: MacBook, iPad 16gb wifi, iPad 64gb wifi, iPad Mini 32gb, coming iPhone 5S, iPhone 4S 32gb, iPhone 32gb, iPod Touch 4th gen x1, iPod nano 16gb gen 5 x2, iPod nano gen 3 8gb, iPod classic...
Reply
post #157 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

why quote an american figure when the other poster had a world figure?

That link also states a global marketshare and sales figures, and a whole lot of non-US regional marketshare and sales figures.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #158 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post

does anyone really know whether tey actually ARE asking for more money, or that Apple is just using that excuse to bipass their legal obligations

It doesnt sounds like we know anything "whole truths" from either company. As it should be in business, each is trying to make themselves out to be saints and the other sinners. Often I will read a few reports and lean in one direction or the other, but both seem to be at fault, which is entirely possible.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #159 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

You want to talk about dodging the question, did Nokia violate Apple's patents or not?

That was the crux of my original reply, the way you wrote it, it made it sound like it didn't matter to you whether Nokia violated Apple's patents or not.

I wasn't trying to say that Nokia's patents weren't valid, though you seem to read that from my comments.

On this, I have to call my bad. Considering all that has been written in this thread, I just went past it. Anyway, in my opinion, I would say not from the phones I have seen, however a judge, a bazillion lawyers, and a few odds and ends will decide this. As for Apple, I would say chances are pretty good, they violated Nokia's patents.
post #160 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns View Post

As for Apple, I would say chances are pretty good, they violated Nokia's patents.

Are you an IP lawyer, or just biased?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple files countersuit against Nokia