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
Your logic doesn't work well at all for handsets. Seeing the tight integration work its magic on a phone is now making Google and Microsoft copy Apple's business model.
Where have you been the last 2 years where Microsoft ditched all its "Plays for Sure" partners to clone the ipod ecosystem with the Zune?
Btw, from what was already posted about this, why should Apple pay a dime to Nokia when they buy a GSM chip which they should have paid any fees for licensing?
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.
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.
Get off your high-horse. Can you name one fact-based claim you've made above before, say, making wild assertions like 'Apple infringed...' and 'Apple violated...patents'?
I have no trouble with opinions. Not in the least. But attaching credibility to it requires some semblance of a basis in fact. Opinions pulled out of thin air, or from a hunch, or based on a bias, or with an axe to grind, or are simply knee-jerk, etc. are simply facile, and unworthy of someone seemingly as smart as you.
Get off your high-horse. Can you name one fact-based claim you've made above before, say, making wild assertions like 'Apple infringed...' and 'Apple violated...patents'?
I have no trouble with opinions. Not in the least. But attaching credibility to it requires some semblance of a basis in fact. Opinions pulled out of thin air, or from a hunch, or based on a bias, or with an axe to grind, or are simply knee-jerk, etc. are simply facile, and unworthy of someone seemingly as smart as you.
Here's the deal in a way we can both agree on. Neither one of us has been invited into the lawyers chambers to hear what is being said. You get a snippet here and there from a blog, and I do the same. The "legal" minds render their completely worthless judgments into the ether for all to consume, gestate, then produce an opinion. Is any of it fact based? Maybe a bit. Is all of it conjecture up to this point? Sure is. So, unless you can provide a fact, your opinions carry about as much weight as mine. The one difference is, I see Apple as no better than Microsoft, or Motorola, or Nokia, etc... They are in it to make money. Steve Jobs is not your friend. He would sell you Air 1.0, and make you upgrade to Pollution 2.5 if he could get away with it. Steve Jobs is only loyal to the shareholders, the current Mrs. Jobs, and his kids, not necessarily in that order. Those on this site who delude themselves into thinking Apple is a force for good are well, stupid. That's another opinion as well.
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.
Nice can you be a tad bit more rude and dismissive? No really go on a try a bit harder. Mod - I think we have studlytech lurking under a different moniker here.
But to respond to the baby's returns, let's look at the questions posted and see who has the correct answers here. Now I will assume you have no real knowledge of how the technology licensing works, so I'll use short words and simple sentences so you can easily follow along - just call out if you get lost along the way.
A little over 22 years ago a consortium (baby - that means big group) of telecommunications companies (large groups of people working together to manufacture devices that talk to each other) created (what was then known as Group Speciale Mobile, then became) Global System for Mobile communications, or GSM. The group of 15 or so companies established the first set of standards. Nokia was one of those companies. In the following years, Nokia developed, patented and then provded those technologies (voice codecs, and transmission technologies for example - go with me on this one baby). The Nordic Mobile Telephony standards were used to build an agreed upon standard for most of western Europe, which became the core of GSM in use today. All of Nokia's IP (that's Intellectual Property, or ideas and inventions that Nokia developed and registered in support of the GSM standard) became a part of the standard and therefore became subject to a restricted licensing process known as F/RAND, which is established as a part of the IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) policies governing royalty payments. F/RAND is "fair/reasonable and non-discriminatory policies established by the governing Standards Setting Organisations (SSOs). These standards dictate what limits are placed on what an IP holder can require as a royalty on the use of the IP it produced in support of the standard.
Nokia is accused (by Apple) of trying to double-dip on Apple - they want not just their royalties, but reciprocity on key Apple technology patents. Apple claims that it already is paying into those royalties by using existing 3rd party technologies which have already paid the royalties.
Get a grip. You're spouting utter BS at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
Here's the deal in a way we can both agree on. Neither one of us has been invited into the lawyers chambers to hear what is being said.
That silly statement of an obvious fact is one thing I can agree on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
You get a snippet here and there from a blog, and I do the same.
You have no idea where I get my snippets (if I do). Talk about yourself without making attributions about me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
The "legal" minds render their completely worthless judgments into the ether for all to consume, gestate, then produce an opinion. Is any of it fact based? Maybe a bit. Is all of it conjecture up to this point? Sure is.
I am not a lawyer, and I could care less about lawyers. But when I hear you make a statement such as 'legal minds render completely worthless judgments' you are way off-base (just as you are when you make statements such as 'Apple violates patents' and 'Apple infringes on patents...').
Incidentally, the US constitution was the product of many 'legal' minds. Completely worthless?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
So, unless you can provide a fact, your opinions carry about as much weight as mine.
I have provided zero opinions on legal issues surrounding Apple v. Nokia. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Unlike you, I know when to keep my mouth shut: when I don't have the facts or the knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
The one difference is, I see Apple as no better than Microsoft, or Motorola, or Nokia, etc... They are in it to make money. Steve Jobs is not your friend. He would sell you Air 1.0, and make you upgrade to Pollution 2.5 if he could get away with it. Steve Jobs is only loyal to the shareholders, the current Mrs. Jobs, and his kids, not necessarily in that order. Those on this site who delude themselves into thinking Apple is a force for good are well, stupid. That's another opinion as well.
Where did anyone, least of all me, say that Apple doesn't or shouldn't care about its shareholders!? Are you delusional? As an Apple shareholder, I damn well want Apple to put that front-and-center in everything they do. (Indeed, Nokia has horrendously failed its shareholders in the past couple of years, and I am shocked that no butts have been kicked yet).
As to the rest of your rant -- pollution, Mrs. Jobs, his kids, force for good, etc -- I have no view whatsoever (except to say, GROW UP).
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?
Well I would beleive him over a lot of the stats tossed around here. But if there are 4.6 billion mobile connections in the world, and they have sold 35 million iPhones, how can you try and prove that they don't have a 0.7% market share?
Why are you restricting Apple to the Smartphone market, when Steve Jobs originally said he wanted a share of the total market?
If you read that article, it proves that the iPhone isn't as big as people in parts of the US make it out to be.
Well I would beleive him over a lot of the stats tossed around here. But if there are 4.6 billion mobile connections in the world, and they have sold 35 million iPhones, how can you try and prove that they don't have a 0.7% market share?
Why are you restricting Apple to the Smartphone market, when Steve Jobs originally said he wanted a share of the total market?
If you read that article, it proves that the iPhone isn't as big as people in parts of the US make it out to be.
Please compare an iPhone to a cheap garbagephone by Nokia that does not do much more than make calls. Compare a Blackberry to the same phone. Compare a Pre to the same phone. BIG difference.
Smartphones are still quite different from dumbphones. That's why the figures are often separated. Separate markets.
If you read that article, it proves that the iPhone isn't as big as people in parts of the US make it out to be.
Oh, it's big. Huge, in fact. Within-2%-of-RIM-and-growing huge. 17.1% of wordlwide smartphones in only two years huge. Forcing Nokia to change its game huge. Making RIM look ancient huge. Burying Windows Mobile and destroying all mobile progress made by MS in the last decade huge.
Nokia offers technology to everyone else for say, $500 (i know its not $500, but hear me out) and then offers it to Apple only with $500 AND the multi touch tech. They're using their patents on GSM to force Apple to give them multitouch.
But those patents nokia has are STANDARDS anyway! You can't use standards tech as a bargaining chip!
If this were possible, then anyone who wants to make a better phone on a GSM network must give that technology and know-how to Nokia. Thus Nokia is saying "we'll licence it as long as you do our R&D for us, and then we'll steal your tech - no one is allowed to do a better GSM phone than Nokia" - hmm - something wrong here???!!!
Its preposterous, its bad for business, its bad for consumers, and it should be illegal.
To recap in summary what has been, in fact revealed in various news venues over the time since Nokia first brought their suit, that is facts, not speculation:
As Nokia began to build out its approach to the next generation of smartphones from its base on the Nokia 9XXXX and E90 series (developed out of its Nokia Communicator line), it found itself faced with having to meet the emerging challenge of touch-screen telephony devices which to date culminated in the Apple iPhone and the Motorola Droid, but is also well-established in other competitor lines from LG, HTC, and Palm, for example. Without the immediate research into this interface within its own walls, Nokia went hunting for IP it could leverage in its smartphone development. It's dispute with Apple over royalty claims for its IP under GSM standards gave Nokia an opportunity to get Apple's own interface IP on the table, since Apple had been counter-claiming that Nokia was asking for a second royalty payment from Apple, which was supposed to be covered by royalty payments made by the chipset manufacturers that Apple was using, and that Apple was therefore not going to pay "a second time". Hence the lawsuit by Nokia for IP infringement, and Apple's counter suit to defend it's own IP from predation from Nokia. The key difference here is that Nokia's IP is under control of GSM IPR policies as a part of the standard, while Apple's IP is not part of any standard. As far as baby's claim that Apple couldn't make the iPhone without Nokia's IP - that is technically true - for GSM standards. If Apple so chose, it could discontinue GSM and go to CDMA which has no Nokia IP attached to it. But in so doing it would then lose its penetration into the rest of the world market - which is mostly GSM.
So in short, no Apple doesn't technically NEED the Nokia IP - but has chosen to use it as it represents the larger share of world market under GSM. And it remains to be seen if Nokia needs Apple IP. All indications are that they want it badly enough to file suit to get it and risk an INternational Trade Commission intervention in order to get it. Sounds like a NEED to me.
The fact is, it looks like at this point, Nokia has no real game plan moving forward in terms of smartphones. It's just an attempt to rehash what's already been done.
One other thing to note here. sapporobabyrtrns hails from Helsinki, Finland home base of Nokia. Just for the record, Nokia is one of, if not the largest Finnish company, accounts for a significant chunk of the capitalization in the Finnish stockmarket, a respectable percentage of the Finnish exports market as well as its own Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Nokia is highly regarded in Finland, in fact it inspires a frothy- mouthed loyalty in the normally stoic and reticent Finns, not seen since the hey-days of ABBA. I would not be a bit surprised to find out that sapporobabyrtrns is a stockholder or employee of the firm.
sapporobabyrtrns, Älä nakata poron paskaa, poika. Se saa heitti takaisin sinulle. But my Finnish is terrible - so take that in the best possible way.
One other thing to note here. sapporobabyrtrns hails from Helsinki, Finland home base of Nokia. Just for the record, Nokia is one of, if not the largest Finnish company, accounts for a significant chunk of the capitalization in the Finnish stockmarket, a respectable percentage of the Finnish exports market as well as its own Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Nokia is highly regarded in Finland, in fact it inspires a frothy- mouthed loyalty in the normally stoic and reticent Finns, not seen since the hey-days of ABBA. I would not be a bit surprised to find out that sapporobabyrtrns is a stockholder or employee of the firm.
I think he works for the US State Department (if I recall correctly from his having said so in the past; I sincerely apologize in advance if I am wrong about this fact.).
Not sure that, if I were him, I'd be broadcasting that fact in an internet Forum, though.
----
Yeah, I was right. From an 11-06-09 thread (notice the arrogance dripping from every sentence):
Originally Posted by Tofino
way to drop the f-bomb all the way from Helsinki! Does everybody in Finland work for Nokia?
sapporobabyrtns' reply: Way to ask a totally inane question based completely in ineptitude. Does someone working for the State Department mean that someone works for Nokia. They are handing out clues. Pick up a box.
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.
The law is very clear. Nokia cannot charge Apple any more to license its GSM et al general standard patents than it charges anyone else. IF it has tried to - and the facts will speak for themselves once we see them - then it is toast in court. as to the merit of Apple's claim about its patents, that is a technical question that no independent party has yet had time to evaluate and report. so i don't - and you don't either - know if it holds water.
now for opinion. IMHO, Nokia is desperate, and its suit is a sad hail mary. the suit is a tactical miscalculation because it tells the whole world they are desperate. the next Sony.
PS: actually, after spinning off its Hollywood media company that never fit with the Japanese tech company anyway, Sony should merge with Nokia. get all that obsolete consumer tech into one outfit, and focus on Asia which is the one market where both are still relevant.
The fact is, it looks like at this point, Nokia has no real game plan moving forward in terms of smartphones. It's just an attempt to rehash what's already been done.
And how do you really come up with that?
What has apple brought to the party? cut/paste, video recording, mms, weeeeeeee.... It's just an attempt to rehash what's already been done.
Smartphones are still quite different from dumbphones. That's why the figures are often separated. Separate markets.
The figures are seperated to make their share look larger than it actually is. Just like all stats for Apple, they are restricted to small subset of the market to make it look bigger than it is. And to think, just a few weeks back everyone here was bitching because the Microsoft stats for bing was doing the same thing.
The figures are seperated to make their share look larger than it actually is. Just like all stats for Apple, they are restricted to small subset of the market to make it look bigger than it is. And to think, just a few weeks back everyone here was bitching because the Microsoft stats for bing was doing the same thing.
Right. Gartner is in cahoots with Apple. As is NPD, IDC, and AdMob.
The figures for ALL smartphones are separated from the rest of the handsets. Not just Apple's.
Smartphones (plural)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
And how do you really come up with that?
What has apple brought to the party? cut/paste, video recording, mms, weeeeeeee.... It's just an attempt to rehash what's already been done.
What has Apple brought to the party?
Umm . . . the iPhone.The device the also-rans are trying furiously to imitate, unsuccessfully. The device that revolutionzed the entire mobile industry overnight. Where have you been the last two years??
Comments
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
Your logic doesn't work well at all for handsets. Seeing the tight integration work its magic on a phone is now making Google and Microsoft copy Apple's business model.
Where have you been the last 2 years where Microsoft ditched all its "Plays for Sure" partners to clone the ipod ecosystem with the Zune?
Btw, from what was already posted about this, why should Apple pay a dime to Nokia when they buy a GSM chip which they should have paid any fees for licensing?
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.
Hows the job hunting going anyway?
Hows the job hunting going anyway?
You must have me confused with someone else or you are making a feeble attempt (key word being feeble) at being humorous.
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.
Get off your high-horse. Can you name one fact-based claim you've made above before, say, making wild assertions like 'Apple infringed...' and 'Apple violated...patents'?
I have no trouble with opinions. Not in the least. But attaching credibility to it requires some semblance of a basis in fact. Opinions pulled out of thin air, or from a hunch, or based on a bias, or with an axe to grind, or are simply knee-jerk, etc. are simply facile, and unworthy of someone seemingly as smart as you.
Get off your high-horse. Can you name one fact-based claim you've made above before, say, making wild assertions like 'Apple infringed...' and 'Apple violated...patents'?
I have no trouble with opinions. Not in the least. But attaching credibility to it requires some semblance of a basis in fact. Opinions pulled out of thin air, or from a hunch, or based on a bias, or with an axe to grind, or are simply knee-jerk, etc. are simply facile, and unworthy of someone seemingly as smart as you.
Here's the deal in a way we can both agree on. Neither one of us has been invited into the lawyers chambers to hear what is being said. You get a snippet here and there from a blog, and I do the same. The "legal" minds render their completely worthless judgments into the ether for all to consume, gestate, then produce an opinion. Is any of it fact based? Maybe a bit. Is all of it conjecture up to this point? Sure is. So, unless you can provide a fact, your opinions carry about as much weight as mine. The one difference is, I see Apple as no better than Microsoft, or Motorola, or Nokia, etc... They are in it to make money. Steve Jobs is not your friend. He would sell you Air 1.0, and make you upgrade to Pollution 2.5 if he could get away with it. Steve Jobs is only loyal to the shareholders, the current Mrs. Jobs, and his kids, not necessarily in that order. Those on this site who delude themselves into thinking Apple is a force for good are well, stupid. That's another opinion as well.
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.
Nice can you be a tad bit more rude and dismissive? No really go on a try a bit harder. Mod - I think we have studlytech lurking under a different moniker here.
But to respond to the baby's returns, let's look at the questions posted and see who has the correct answers here. Now I will assume you have no real knowledge of how the technology licensing works, so I'll use short words and simple sentences so you can easily follow along - just call out if you get lost along the way.
A little over 22 years ago a consortium (baby - that means big group) of telecommunications companies (large groups of people working together to manufacture devices that talk to each other) created (what was then known as Group Speciale Mobile, then became) Global System for Mobile communications, or GSM. The group of 15 or so companies established the first set of standards. Nokia was one of those companies. In the following years, Nokia developed, patented and then provded those technologies (voice codecs, and transmission technologies for example - go with me on this one baby). The Nordic Mobile Telephony standards were used to build an agreed upon standard for most of western Europe, which became the core of GSM in use today. All of Nokia's IP (that's Intellectual Property, or ideas and inventions that Nokia developed and registered in support of the GSM standard) became a part of the standard and therefore became subject to a restricted licensing process known as F/RAND, which is established as a part of the IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) policies governing royalty payments. F/RAND is "fair/reasonable and non-discriminatory policies established by the governing Standards Setting Organisations (SSOs). These standards dictate what limits are placed on what an IP holder can require as a royalty on the use of the IP it produced in support of the standard.
Nokia is accused (by Apple) of trying to double-dip on Apple - they want not just their royalties, but reciprocity on key Apple technology patents. Apple claims that it already is paying into those royalties by using existing 3rd party technologies which have already paid the royalties.
This is for smartphones.
When considering all cellphones/handsets (dumb ones included), Apple is just over 1% I believe, or 2%.
Obviously, it's rather silly to compare an iPhone to a cheap, disposable device by Nokia, that barely does anything beyond calls.
Here's the deal in a way we can both agree on. Neither one of us has been invited into the lawyers chambers to hear what is being said.
That silly statement of an obvious fact is one thing I can agree on.
You get a snippet here and there from a blog, and I do the same.
You have no idea where I get my snippets (if I do). Talk about yourself without making attributions about me.
The "legal" minds render their completely worthless judgments into the ether for all to consume, gestate, then produce an opinion. Is any of it fact based? Maybe a bit. Is all of it conjecture up to this point? Sure is.
I am not a lawyer, and I could care less about lawyers. But when I hear you make a statement such as 'legal minds render completely worthless judgments' you are way off-base (just as you are when you make statements such as 'Apple violates patents' and 'Apple infringes on patents...').
Incidentally, the US constitution was the product of many 'legal' minds. Completely worthless?
So, unless you can provide a fact, your opinions carry about as much weight as mine.
I have provided zero opinions on legal issues surrounding Apple v. Nokia. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Unlike you, I know when to keep my mouth shut: when I don't have the facts or the knowledge.
The one difference is, I see Apple as no better than Microsoft, or Motorola, or Nokia, etc... They are in it to make money. Steve Jobs is not your friend. He would sell you Air 1.0, and make you upgrade to Pollution 2.5 if he could get away with it. Steve Jobs is only loyal to the shareholders, the current Mrs. Jobs, and his kids, not necessarily in that order. Those on this site who delude themselves into thinking Apple is a force for good are well, stupid. That's another opinion as well.
Where did anyone, least of all me, say that Apple doesn't or shouldn't care about its shareholders!? Are you delusional? As an Apple shareholder, I damn well want Apple to put that front-and-center in everything they do. (Indeed, Nokia has horrendously failed its shareholders in the past couple of years, and I am shocked that no butts have been kicked yet).
As to the rest of your rant -- pollution, Mrs. Jobs, his kids, force for good, etc -- I have no view whatsoever (except to say, GROW UP).
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?
Well I would beleive him over a lot of the stats tossed around here. But if there are 4.6 billion mobile connections in the world, and they have sold 35 million iPhones, how can you try and prove that they don't have a 0.7% market share?
Why are you restricting Apple to the Smartphone market, when Steve Jobs originally said he wanted a share of the total market?
If you read that article, it proves that the iPhone isn't as big as people in parts of the US make it out to be.
Well I would beleive him over a lot of the stats tossed around here. But if there are 4.6 billion mobile connections in the world, and they have sold 35 million iPhones, how can you try and prove that they don't have a 0.7% market share?
Why are you restricting Apple to the Smartphone market, when Steve Jobs originally said he wanted a share of the total market?
If you read that article, it proves that the iPhone isn't as big as people in parts of the US make it out to be.
Please compare an iPhone to a cheap garbagephone by Nokia that does not do much more than make calls. Compare a Blackberry to the same phone. Compare a Pre to the same phone. BIG difference.
Smartphones are still quite different from dumbphones. That's why the figures are often separated. Separate markets.
If you read that article, it proves that the iPhone isn't as big as people in parts of the US make it out to be.
Oh, it's big. Huge, in fact. Within-2%-of-RIM-and-growing huge. 17.1% of wordlwide smartphones in only two years huge. Forcing Nokia to change its game huge. Making RIM look ancient huge. Burying Windows Mobile and destroying all mobile progress made by MS in the last decade huge.
Nokia offers technology to everyone else for say, $500 (i know its not $500, but hear me out) and then offers it to Apple only with $500 AND the multi touch tech. They're using their patents on GSM to force Apple to give them multitouch.
But those patents nokia has are STANDARDS anyway! You can't use standards tech as a bargaining chip!
If this were possible, then anyone who wants to make a better phone on a GSM network must give that technology and know-how to Nokia. Thus Nokia is saying "we'll licence it as long as you do our R&D for us, and then we'll steal your tech - no one is allowed to do a better GSM phone than Nokia" - hmm - something wrong here???!!!
Its preposterous, its bad for business, its bad for consumers, and it should be illegal.
As Nokia began to build out its approach to the next generation of smartphones from its base on the Nokia 9XXXX and E90 series (developed out of its Nokia Communicator line), it found itself faced with having to meet the emerging challenge of touch-screen telephony devices which to date culminated in the Apple iPhone and the Motorola Droid, but is also well-established in other competitor lines from LG, HTC, and Palm, for example. Without the immediate research into this interface within its own walls, Nokia went hunting for IP it could leverage in its smartphone development. It's dispute with Apple over royalty claims for its IP under GSM standards gave Nokia an opportunity to get Apple's own interface IP on the table, since Apple had been counter-claiming that Nokia was asking for a second royalty payment from Apple, which was supposed to be covered by royalty payments made by the chipset manufacturers that Apple was using, and that Apple was therefore not going to pay "a second time". Hence the lawsuit by Nokia for IP infringement, and Apple's counter suit to defend it's own IP from predation from Nokia. The key difference here is that Nokia's IP is under control of GSM IPR policies as a part of the standard, while Apple's IP is not part of any standard. As far as baby's claim that Apple couldn't make the iPhone without Nokia's IP - that is technically true - for GSM standards. If Apple so chose, it could discontinue GSM and go to CDMA which has no Nokia IP attached to it. But in so doing it would then lose its penetration into the rest of the world market - which is mostly GSM.
So in short, no Apple doesn't technically NEED the Nokia IP - but has chosen to use it as it represents the larger share of world market under GSM. And it remains to be seen if Nokia needs Apple IP. All indications are that they want it badly enough to file suit to get it and risk an INternational Trade Commission intervention in order to get it. Sounds like a NEED to me.
sapporobabyrtrns, Älä nakata poron paskaa, poika. Se saa heitti takaisin sinulle. But my Finnish is terrible - so take that in the best possible way.
One other thing to note here. sapporobabyrtrns hails from Helsinki, Finland home base of Nokia. Just for the record, Nokia is one of, if not the largest Finnish company, accounts for a significant chunk of the capitalization in the Finnish stockmarket, a respectable percentage of the Finnish exports market as well as its own Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Nokia is highly regarded in Finland, in fact it inspires a frothy- mouthed loyalty in the normally stoic and reticent Finns, not seen since the hey-days of ABBA. I would not be a bit surprised to find out that sapporobabyrtrns is a stockholder or employee of the firm.
I think he works for the US State Department (if I recall correctly from his having said so in the past; I sincerely apologize in advance if I am wrong about this fact.).
Not sure that, if I were him, I'd be broadcasting that fact in an internet Forum, though.
----
Yeah, I was right. From an 11-06-09 thread (notice the arrogance dripping from every sentence):
Originally Posted by Tofino
way to drop the f-bomb all the way from Helsinki! Does everybody in Finland work for Nokia?
sapporobabyrtns' reply: Way to ask a totally inane question based completely in ineptitude. Does someone working for the State Department mean that someone works for Nokia. They are handing out clues. Pick up a box.
-------
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.
The law is very clear. Nokia cannot charge Apple any more to license its GSM et al general standard patents than it charges anyone else. IF it has tried to - and the facts will speak for themselves once we see them - then it is toast in court. as to the merit of Apple's claim about its patents, that is a technical question that no independent party has yet had time to evaluate and report. so i don't - and you don't either - know if it holds water.
now for opinion. IMHO, Nokia is desperate, and its suit is a sad hail mary. the suit is a tactical miscalculation because it tells the whole world they are desperate. the next Sony.
PS: actually, after spinning off its Hollywood media company that never fit with the Japanese tech company anyway, Sony should merge with Nokia. get all that obsolete consumer tech into one outfit, and focus on Asia which is the one market where both are still relevant.
The fact is, it looks like at this point, Nokia has no real game plan moving forward in terms of smartphones. It's just an attempt to rehash what's already been done.
And how do you really come up with that?
What has apple brought to the party? cut/paste, video recording, mms, weeeeeeee.... It's just an attempt to rehash what's already been done.
Smartphones are still quite different from dumbphones. That's why the figures are often separated. Separate markets.
The figures are seperated to make their share look larger than it actually is. Just like all stats for Apple, they are restricted to small subset of the market to make it look bigger than it is. And to think, just a few weeks back everyone here was bitching because the Microsoft stats for bing was doing the same thing.
The figures are seperated to make their share look larger than it actually is. Just like all stats for Apple, they are restricted to small subset of the market to make it look bigger than it is. And to think, just a few weeks back everyone here was bitching because the Microsoft stats for bing was doing the same thing.
Right. Gartner is in cahoots with Apple. As is NPD, IDC, and AdMob.
The figures for ALL smartphones are separated from the rest of the handsets. Not just Apple's.
Smartphones (plural)
And how do you really come up with that?
What has apple brought to the party? cut/paste, video recording, mms, weeeeeeee.... It's just an attempt to rehash what's already been done.
What has Apple brought to the party?
Umm . . . the iPhone.The device the also-rans are trying furiously to imitate, unsuccessfully. The device that revolutionzed the entire mobile industry overnight. Where have you been the last two years??