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.
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.
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.
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!
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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.
(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.
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.
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?
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 doesn?t 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.
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.
That's right, anyone that has opinion than the Apple-zombie-brigade or is not trying to live in Steve Job's pants is biased.
My bad. Apple is the salt of the earth. They never do anything wrong. The world is out go get them. Steve Job's for galactic overlord. Free iTunes for everyone.
Sorry to assume that you would be able to distinguish between a fact based claim and an opinion. I'll try to keep it simpler next time.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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 doesn?t 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.
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.
As for Apple, I would say chances are pretty good, they violated Nokia's patents.
Are you an IP lawyer, or just biased?
Are you an IP lawyer, or just biased?
That's right, anyone that has opinion than the Apple-zombie-brigade or is not trying to live in Steve Job's pants is biased.
My bad. Apple is the salt of the earth. They never do anything wrong. The world is out go get them. Steve Job's for galactic overlord. Free iTunes for everyone.
Sorry to assume that you would be able to distinguish between a fact based claim and an opinion. I'll try to keep it simpler next time.