or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple, Nokia resolve patent dispute with license agreement
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple, Nokia resolve patent dispute with license agreement - Page 2

post #41 of 135
Does it really matter?

This company is circling the drain.

But hey, they got some patent money. Bravo. \

They could probably survive on dumb-phone sales alone, or even patent licensing alone, but there's not much to boast about there.
post #42 of 135
Apple didn't enter into patent licensing with Nokia.

Nokia makes this emphatically clear it's the other way around:

http://press.nokia.com/2011/06/14/no...nt-with-apple/

Quote:
Nokia enters into patent license agreement with Apple

Apple payments to Nokia settle all litigation and have positive financial impact
Nokia Corporation
Stock exchange release
June 14, 2011 at 08:05 (CET +1)

Espoo, Finland - Nokia announced that it has signed a patent license agreement with Apple. The agreement will result in settlement of all patent litigation between the companies, including the withdrawal by Nokia and Apple of their respective complaints to the US International Trade Commission.

The financial structure of the agreement consists of a one-time payment payable by Apple and on-going royalties to be paid by Apple to Nokia for the term of the agreement. The specific terms of the contract are confidential.

"We are very pleased to have Apple join the growing number of Nokia licensees," said Stephen Elop, president and chief executive officer of Nokia. "This settlement demonstrates Nokia's industry leading patent portfolio and enables us to focus on further licensing opportunities in the mobile communications market."

During the last two decades, Nokia has invested approximately EUR 43 billion in research and development and built one of the wireless industry's strongest and broadest IPR portfolios, with over 10,000 patent families. Nokia is a world leader in the development of handheld device and mobile communications technologies, which is also demonstrated by Nokia's strong patent position.

This agreement is expected to have a positive financial impact on Nokia's recently revised outlook for the second quarter 2011 of around break-even non-IFRS operating margin for Devices & Services.

About Nokia

Nokia is committed to connecting people to what matters to them by combining advanced mobile technology with personalized services. More than 1.3 billion people connect to one another with a Nokia, from our most affordable voice-optimized mobile phones to advanced Internet-connected smartphones sold in virtually every market in the world. Through Ovi (www.ovi.com), people also enjoy access to maps and navigation on mobile, a rapidly expanding applications store, a growing catalog of digital music, free email and more. Nokia's NAVTEQ is a leader in comprehensive digital mapping and navigation services, and Nokia Siemens Networks is one of the leading providers of telecommunications infrastructure hardware, software and professional services globally.

If Nokia was in a strong position to win they would have pushed for damages and that would have been required on them to reveal the damages for full-disclosure.

It's not. Apple got what it wanted. It's now covered by the same patent pool at HTC, Motorola, etc and now Nokia's leverage of RF Patents is done.

Nokia's reference to a positive impact is not impressive. If it were a big impact they would have noted more than the mild language which will reflect in a flat stock trade day.

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:NOK

Pre-Market NASDAQ trade has the stock up a whopping .25. It's at just over $6/share.

When Apple entered the Smartphone market Nokia was > $40 per share. It's now at $6.11 per share.

They are ripe for a spin off which Microsoft wants.

Apple will now expand on the offensive with HTC, Google's Android OS, Motorola and more. This will be fun when all the new IP Apple has been awarded for iOS 5 surfaces.

By the way in pre-market numbers Apple is up $2.60 per share.
post #43 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuffe View Post

Well, we can go on the assumption that they were either telling the truth, or they were lieing out of their ass.

As to which is more probably, we can't know for sure, but we can judge for ourselves by the comments and reactions of the parties involved.

Nokia sued, but made no comments about what they were sueing for, or why.
Apple replied, providing details of why they would contest the lawsuit.

Straightaway I am thinking what have Nokia got to hide. Apple are normally the ones with the closed doors, so why are they prepared to lay out their defense in the open, when Nokia didn't layout their claim.

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
post #44 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuffe View Post

Nokia sued, but made no comments about what they were sueing for, or why.

Really? Nokia diden't said nothing?

Nokia in the first case sued with TEN patents. This is telling what and why.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stuffe View Post

Moving on to today, and terms are agreed. Apple say nothing, which is like there normal operating mode, and Nokia...say nothing. If they had got anything out of this other than the minimum, there would be some sort of comment, surely?

Nokia has reached what they wanted, Apple paying them
post #45 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post


Pre-Market NASDAQ trade has the stock up a whopping .25. It's at just over $6/share.

or 3.5%

Quote:
By the way in pre-market numbers Apple is up $2.60 per share.

or 1%
post #46 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

That's what Apple said, do you know how much other companies pay and what Apple was asked to pay?

Wake up Gwydion and try to keep up. It is well known and documented that this is the case. Nokia attempted to extort money from Apple outside the terms with other handset makers which was also in violation of their own agreements to provide equal access and terms.
post #47 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

Wake up Gwydion and try to keep up. It is well known and documented that this is the case. Nokia attempted to extort money from Apple outside the terms with other handset makers which was also in violation of their own agreements to provide equal access and terms.

It's wll know for whom?

Can you provide thos agreements and the extortion Nokia tried to do to Apple? Thanks
post #48 of 135
This analysis is terrible.

And more bolstering of Florian Mueller? Really?

Nilay Patel's work was so much better:

http://thisismynext.com/2011/06/14/n...-license-fees/
post #49 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

Wake up Gwydion and try to keep up. It is well known and documented that this is the case. Nokia attempted to extort money from Apple outside the terms with other handset makers which was also in violation of their own agreements to provide equal access and terms.

The highlighted wording is only used, if no source for the "well known" piece of information is to be found.

And no, appleinsider is not to be considered trustworthy, neither is Apple (all they said about fees should have been assumption, unless apple happened to get insight in licensing terms of 3rd parties ... oh yeah ...) or Nokia.


Appleinsider should be even more biased, than apple's or nokia's marketing respectively.
post #50 of 135
If it's anything material the upfront will or should appear in the next financials or grouped into one-off charges, unless for some reason it's large enough to require restatement.

Reading around the sites, the one-off could be 1-2% of iPhone revenue to date + recurring 8euro per subsequent.

Don't shoot the messenger. This being a rumour site and all.
post #51 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by djsherly View Post

If it's anything material the upfront will or should appear in the next financials or grouped into one-off charges, unless for some reason it's large enough to require restatement.

Reading around the sites, the one-off could be 1-2% of iPhone revenue to date + recurring 8euro per subsequent.

Don't shoot the messenger. This being a rumour site and all.

Which would be a BIG deal to me. 1-2% of revenue is what, some amount of hundreds of millions of dollars
post #52 of 135
Based on the known information I'd say that Nokia reduced their licensing requirements to an agreeable point, not Apple caving under pressure from Nokia.
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 #53 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

If Nokia was in a strong position to win they would have pushed for damages and that would have been required on them to reveal the damages for full-disclosure.

Not likely. Given again that these patents MUST be licensed under terms that are Fair Reasonable and Non Discrimatory there would be no damages because there would be no damage once the lump-sum payment of previous license fees was made. Damages in a patent suit would be limited to cases where the patent holder had no intent of ever licensing the technology.
post #54 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Nokia has reached what they wanted, Apple paying them

There was never a question that Apple would have to pay Nokia something, the question was always the amount - and we don't know the amount, so we've no certainty about who came away with what they want.
post #55 of 135
Any way you slice it, it's a lot of money to pay out, as well as ongoing technologies that are essential to current and future products, so Apple will have to keep paying as well.

This a real shot in the arm for Nokia, I'm glad to see it. That's two boots to the face for Apple in a week (publisher climbdown), a quick one to the balls could have them on their knees. :-)
post #56 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Based on the known information I'd say that Nokia reduced their licensing requirements to an agreeable point, not Apple caving under pressure from Nokia.

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.
post #57 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Why? HTC has licensed Nokia patents

And you know this because...?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

That's what Apple said, do you know how much other companies pay and what Apple was asked to pay?

I would believe this as Apple pays licensing fees to others, as others pay them. Companies often try to get more from a perceived rival than from others they aren't as concerned about.

The two problems here is that Nokia is severely weakened, and the case is nearing the first deadline. So both Nokia and apple likely wanted to get this over with, and compromised on their demands. The is happens all the time, so it's not unusual. There's no reason for you to doubt it, as Nokia never denied Apple accusations, as they would have otherwise.
post #58 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 View Post

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.

We don't know that - it's just chatter. We won't know anything concrete until the first set of financials comes and analysts can try to break out how much is being paid. We do know that of the 10 patents that Nokia was using in the case 3 had been dismissed outright and 2 were at risk of dismissal. Perhaps because Apple was covered under the licenses of their suppliers, though that's speculation.
post #59 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

we don't know that - it's just chatter. We won't know anything concrete until the first set of financials comes and analysts can try to break out how much is being paid. We do know that of the 10 patents that nokia was using in the case 3 had been dismissed outright and 2 were at risk of dismissal. Perhaps because apple was covered under the licenses of their suppliers, though that's speculation.

eating it.
post #60 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 View Post

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?

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.

Quote:
They are having to eat it.

Repeating something doesn't make it true or a good argument.
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 #61 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

And you know this because...?

HTC has been making smartphones since 2002. This would have come to court already if HTC wasn't licensing Nokia's GSM/WLAN patents.
post #62 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

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.
post #63 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 View Post

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.
post #64 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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?


Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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?
post #65 of 135
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".

http://allthingsd.com/20110613/break...e-patent-spat/
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #66 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post

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?
post #67 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen View Post

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.
post #68 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel View Post


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.
post #69 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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.
post #70 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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?
post #71 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by drdb View Post

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.
post #72 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning View Post

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.
post #73 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairb View Post

Good news is always welcome.

I guess apple arent 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.
post #74 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

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.
post #75 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen View Post

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?
post #76 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

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.
post #77 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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 others 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
post #78 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaramanga89 View Post

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?
post #79 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

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
post #80 of 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL View Post

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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple, Nokia resolve patent dispute with license agreement