Perhaps their FRAND terms were more agreeable so Apple paid up.
You left out Siemens, Phillips, Qualcomm, Motorola and others who also have sizeable patent portfolios in these areas.
Meanwhile Nokia has launched suits against 11 LCD screen manufacturers, including Samsung, alleging price fixing.
They may have a large portfolio but combined they just about equal Nokia's. The fact that Nokia chose only 10 patents is reason enough to believe that they have a strong case. I know that this is an uber-fanboy site and how dare anyone challenge "he who must not be named", but Apple is no more above infringing a patent than say Nokia. You do not have to like their phones, or the fact that a country of 5.3 million are standing up to the might Apple, but the fact remains Nokia feels they have a case and Apple will have to prove that they don't. Pretty simple. If we turn on our hypocrisy devices, if this suit have been going the other way with Apple suing Nokia or Ericsson or anyone else, you and several of the more rabid members of this site would be all for "sticking it to them", but now that Apple may be caught with its hand in the cookie jar Nokia is deemed petty, immature, unprofessional, etc...While I love all of my Apple products, and devices, I can truly see why many Apple users are hated outside of the community.
I think you need to consult a dictionary, you seem to be missing the meaning of a word.
allege |əˈlej|
verb [ reporting verb ]
claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof that this is the case : [with clause ] he alleged that he had been assaulted | [ trans. ] the offenses are alleged to have been committed outside the woman's home | he is alleged to have assaulted five men.
? (usu. be alleged) suppose or affirm to be the case : the first artifact ever alleged to be from Earhart's aircraft.
ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [declare on oath] ): from Old French esligier, based on Latin lis, lit- ?lawsuit? ; confused in sense with Latin allegare ?allege.?
allege
verb
both children allege that the babysitter had left them alone for hours at a time: claim, assert, charge, accuse, declare, state, contend, argue, affirm, maintain, attest, testify, swear; formal aver.
Allegation
Not to be confused with alligation.
"Alleged" redirects here. For the champion racehorse, see Alleged (horse).
An allegation (also called adduction) is a claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims to be able to prove. Allegations remain assertions without proof, until they can be proved.
There are also marriage allegations: marriage bonds and allegations exist for couples who applied to marry by licence. They do not exist for couples who married by banns. The marriage allegation was the document in which the couple alleged (or frequently just the groom alleged on behalf of both of them) that there were no impediments to the marriage.
Generally in a civil complaint a plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to establish all the elements of the claim and thus states a cause of action. The plaintiff must then carry the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion in order to succeed in the lawsuit.
A defendant can allege affirmative defenses in its answer to the complaint.
Other allegations are required in a pleading to establish the correct jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.
Disjunctive allegations
Disjunctive allegations are allegations in a pleading joined together by an "or". In a complaint, disjunctive allegations are usually per se defective because such a pleading does not put the party on notice of which allegations they must defend.
On the other hand, defendants often plead in the alternative by listing seemingly inconsistent defenses. For example, "I did not do the crime", "if I did, I didn't know", or "even if I did know, I've got a good excuse". Such a pleading may be considered disjunctive and may be permissible.
Alleged is not proven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
They may have a large portfolio but combined they just about equal Nokia's. The fact that Nokia chose only 10 patents is reason enough to believe that they have a strong case. I know that this is an uber-fanboy site and how dare anyone challenge "he who must not be named", but Apple is no more above infringing a patent than say Nokia. You do not have to like their phones, or the fact that a country of 5.3 million are standing up to the might Apple, but the fact remains Nokia feels they have a case and Apple will have to prove that they don't. Pretty simple. If we turn on our hypocrisy devices, if this suit have been going the other way with Apple suing Nokia or Ericsson or anyone else, you and several of the more rabid members of this site would be all for "sticking it to them", but now that Apple may be caught with its hand in the cookie jar Nokia is deemed petty, immature, unprofessional, etc...While I love all of my Apple products, and devices, I can truly see why many Apple users are hated outside of the community.
I think you need to consult a dictionary, you seem to be missing the meaning of a word.
allege |əˈlej|
verb [ reporting verb ]
claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof that this is the case : [with clause ] he alleged that he had been assaulted | [ trans. ] the offenses are alleged to have been committed outside the woman's home | he is alleged to have assaulted five men.
• (usu. be alleged) suppose or affirm to be the case : the first artifact ever alleged to be from Earhart's aircraft.
ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [declare on oath] ): from Old French esligier, based on Latin lis, lit- ‘lawsuit’ ; confused in sense with Latin allegare ‘allege.’
allege
verb
both children allege that the babysitter had left them alone for hours at a time: claim, assert, charge, accuse, declare, state, contend, argue, affirm, maintain, attest, testify, swear; formal aver.
Allegation
Not to be confused with alligation.
"Alleged" redirects here. For the champion racehorse, see Alleged (horse).
An allegation (also called adduction) is a claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims to be able to prove. Allegations remain assertions without proof, until they can be proved.
There are also marriage allegations: marriage bonds and allegations exist for couples who applied to marry by licence. They do not exist for couples who married by banns. The marriage allegation was the document in which the couple alleged (or frequently just the groom alleged on behalf of both of them) that there were no impediments to the marriage.
Generally in a civil complaint a plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to establish all the elements of the claim and thus states a cause of action. The plaintiff must then carry the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion in order to succeed in the lawsuit.
A defendant can allege affirmative defenses in its answer to the complaint.
Other allegations are required in a pleading to establish the correct jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.
Disjunctive allegations
Disjunctive allegations are allegations in a pleading joined together by an "or". In a complaint, disjunctive allegations are usually per se defective because such a pleading does not put the party on notice of which allegations they must defend.
On the other hand, defendants often plead in the alternative by listing seemingly inconsistent defenses. For example, "I did not do the crime", "if I did, I didn't know", or "even if I did know, I've got a good excuse". Such a pleading may be considered disjunctive and may be permissible.
Alleged is not proven.
Snoozer alert.....
And you point being? As many of the more non-fanboyish have stated, this is an alleged case where Nokia alleges that Apple infringed on their patents. The only place where I have seen a trial take place is on this forum where the Steve Jobs pants dwellers have already decided that Nokia has no case, sour grapes, pissed because they are losing market share in the high-end market, out dated UI's, and are going after the beloved, can do no wrong, savior of humanity Apple.
Your foray onto dictionary.com was more of a benefit to you than me as I already know the meaning of the word.
You have had much better posts than the tripe you served up. Try again.
I think it's already been proven. Nokia can make computers all day without one Apple "innovation" but Apple cannot say the same..
Hence the need for a court to sort this mess out which is what I have said all along.
Just because you seem to have no respect for the law or the tenets of justice it doesn't mean that others are like you, in that you make statements as if they have already been proven as fact.
Now you resort to the "fanboy" card.
There should be an addition to Godwin's law, regarding the probability of the term "fanboy" or "fanboi" entering a discussion approaching 1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
Snoozer alert.....
And you point being? As many of the more non-fanboyish have stated, this is an alleged case where Nokia alleges that Apple infringed on their patents. The only place where I have seen a trial take place is on this forum where the Steve Jobs pants dwellers have already decided that Nokia has no case, sour grapes, pissed because they are losing market share in the high-end market, out dated UI's, and are going after the beloved, can do no wrong, savior of humanity Apple.
Your foray onto dictionary.com was more of a benefit to you than me as I already know the meaning of the word.
You have had much better posts than the tripe you served up. Try again.
Hence the need for a court to sort this mess out which is what I have said all along.
Just because you seem to have no respect for the law or the tenets of justice it doesn't mean that others are like you, in that you make statements as if they have already been proven as fact.
Now you resort to the "fanboy" card.
There should be an addition to Godwin's law, regarding the probability of the term "fanboy" or "fanboi" entering a discussion approaching 1.
FULL STOPPPPPP !!!!!!!!!!!!
Didn't I preface my previous statements with the word opinion, or say that the lawyers are going to have to sort it out? Not once then nor do I now think it is a completely open and shut case. I think that Nokia has a pretty good leg to stand on based on the same info you are probably reading. This, however, is my opinion. In my opinion again, I do not thing this will see the light of a courthouse. Too much money on both sides at stake. Some lawyers will play golf, have lunch, send a few baseball tickets here and there, a few ski jumping tickets as well and we will have a deal with details not to be disclosed. This is what I THINK will happen.
Anyway, if the fanboy shoe does not fit, then by all means it is withdrawn, and my "disrespect" for the law as you put it is a reach and you know it. You just played the "high and might card". Anyway again, I need to crash. If you post something good, I will answer you. Cheers.
Um, yeah, that was a pretty major deal and hardly the stuff of rampant litigiousness.
Quote:
Try Googling this search term: "apple sues"
You get 57,000 hits
Try Googling any large corporation plus "sues." Nokia gets you 543,000 hits, MS gets you 901,000 , Sony gets you 1,405,00. By that criteria you've actually made my point, that Apple is not particularly litigious.
Quote:
Just a couple: "Apple Sues School For Using The Same Fruit In a Logo"
"Apple filed a lawsuit against Media Solutions Holdings for selling replacement power adapters that infringe on its patent."
and so on...
Yeah, that sound like Apple is just suing everybody willy-nilly cause that's how they roll. Or, we can agree that any large company is going to use the courts to protect their intellectual property, and then make a further distinction regarding whether they tend to be excessive. The original contention was that Apple is one of the most litigation happy companies out there, based on your Google search test that clearly isn't true.
Quote:
Apple fan-bois who think Nokia are the bad guys over wanting to charge Apple a different rate for use of their tech than other users, should have a look at this:
Where it appears Apple is being rather selective in charging for use of it's images.
Use of the "fan-boi" crutch to bolster your weak argument suggests you're a dumb fuck. You're probably not, so you should probably avoid it.
At any rate, comparing a massive lawsuit that seeks to take a cut of every iPhone sold or prevent it from being sold entirely to varying standards for the misappropriation of imagery is extremely weak, indeed.
Quote:
Kodak is now suing Apple and RIM and has asked the ITC to ban the import of iPhones.
The whole concept of patents has been broken for years.
Entirely possible. However, it doesn't change the point that Apple is not particularly litigious, outside of being pretty militant about not leaking pre-release product info and use of it's trade dress, which in the arena of hight stakes IP infringement lawsuits is pretty small potatoes.
X-boyism's aside, is everyone or mostly everyone in agreement that this will be settled by lawyers and that up to now this is all pure speculation on everyone's part? Does anyone here have hard evidence to what is going on with the case?
X-boyism's aside, is everyone or mostly everyone in agreement that this will be settled by lawyers and that up to now this is all pure speculation on everyone's part? Does anyone here have hard evidence to what is going on with the case?
I have no problem with that characterization. As I've said, it appears to me that the entire thing hinges on what a customary and reasonable licensing fee would be, but subsequent reading suggests that even that is pretty malleable, what equivalent in-kind cross licensing and such.
So much so that my guess would be that whatever the courts decide won't look like "justice" so much as an extremely difficult to follow financial document with highly technical provisions. I will say that it seems pretty unlikely that any of this will result in phones not being sold.
I don't know that these patents really cross the boundary between phone and computer. Here is a list of the patents and their associated names. Check out the text of the patents by going to
www.patentlens.net , go to the search function and enter the patent number. (Select just US Patents). The text is technical but you can get a flavor of what each is about.
So are Nokia going to refund the extra production costs that they stand to recoup from any legal actions, to the people who bought phone's containing the LCD's off them?
Or do they just stick it in their kitty and increase the profits made on handsets that have already been paid for by consumers?
There may be a chance of a class action against Nokia if they don't pass on to consumers any damages they are awarded because after all they are the ones who paid any additional costs as a result of any price fixing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
And what is your point? They are a business, the number one goal is to make money.
So are Nokia going to refund the extra production costs that they stand to recoup from any legal actions, to the people who bought phone's containing the LCD's off them?
Or do they just stick it in their kitty and increase the profits made on handsets that have already been paid for by consumers?
There may be a chance of a class action against Nokia if they don't pass on to consumers any damages they are awarded because after all they are the ones who paid any additional costs as a result of any price fixing.
Maybe there will be, but the question you should be asking, and I noticed you failed to ask it, Nokia is following AT&T's lead, they produce a similar lawsuit a month prior to Nokia. What will AT&T do if they win?
Maybe there will be, but the question you should be asking, and I noticed you failed to ask it, Nokia is following AT&T's lead, they produce a similar lawsuit a month prior to Nokia. What will AT&T do if they win?
Regardless, this has been posted in the past and it is just as relevant today. The key point being that Nokia chose only 10 patents to contest. They have plenty more but they chose only ten. This should set off alarms that they are pretty damn confident that they can make this poop stick to the wall. There is not one mobile that you can pick up that does not have Nokia technology in it somewhere. The same can't be said about Apple. Apple needs Nokia's technology more than Nokia needs Apple's. The issue is not who makes a better phone with more bells and whistles but who is stealing (opppsss, sorry for being politically incorrect) infringing, on the others IPR.
The winners will be the lawyers.
Nokia just grabbed the only ten that had an outside chance of sticking... and don't forget the assertion that Apple tried to negotiate in good faith, but Nokia tried to extort more license fees and/or IP from Apple than everyone else. If the last assertion is true, then Apple will likely win the right to just pay Nokia a fair royalty.
You are correct about the real winners: the lawyers. As usual.
Comments
Perhaps their FRAND terms were more agreeable so Apple paid up.
You left out Siemens, Phillips, Qualcomm, Motorola and others who also have sizeable patent portfolios in these areas.
Why haven't you brought up Ericsson, or Alcatel, or Nortel while you are naming other companies?
Meanwhile Nokia has launched suits against 11 LCD screen manufacturers, including Samsung, alleging price fixing.
They are not suing Apple.
Perhaps their FRAND terms were more agreeable so Apple paid up.
You left out Siemens, Phillips, Qualcomm, Motorola and others who also have sizeable patent portfolios in these areas.
Meanwhile Nokia has launched suits against 11 LCD screen manufacturers, including Samsung, alleging price fixing.
They may have a large portfolio but combined they just about equal Nokia's. The fact that Nokia chose only 10 patents is reason enough to believe that they have a strong case. I know that this is an uber-fanboy site and how dare anyone challenge "he who must not be named", but Apple is no more above infringing a patent than say Nokia. You do not have to like their phones, or the fact that a country of 5.3 million are standing up to the might Apple, but the fact remains Nokia feels they have a case and Apple will have to prove that they don't. Pretty simple. If we turn on our hypocrisy devices, if this suit have been going the other way with Apple suing Nokia or Ericsson or anyone else, you and several of the more rabid members of this site would be all for "sticking it to them", but now that Apple may be caught with its hand in the cookie jar Nokia is deemed petty, immature, unprofessional, etc...While I love all of my Apple products, and devices, I can truly see why many Apple users are hated outside of the community.
allege |əˈlej|
verb [ reporting verb ]
claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof that this is the case : [with clause ] he alleged that he had been assaulted | [ trans. ] the offenses are alleged to have been committed outside the woman's home | he is alleged to have assaulted five men.
? (usu. be alleged) suppose or affirm to be the case : the first artifact ever alleged to be from Earhart's aircraft.
ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [declare on oath] ): from Old French esligier, based on Latin lis, lit- ?lawsuit? ; confused in sense with Latin allegare ?allege.?
allege
verb
both children allege that the babysitter had left them alone for hours at a time: claim, assert, charge, accuse, declare, state, contend, argue, affirm, maintain, attest, testify, swear; formal aver.
Allegation
Not to be confused with alligation.
"Alleged" redirects here. For the champion racehorse, see Alleged (horse).
An allegation (also called adduction) is a claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims to be able to prove. Allegations remain assertions without proof, until they can be proved.
There are also marriage allegations: marriage bonds and allegations exist for couples who applied to marry by licence. They do not exist for couples who married by banns. The marriage allegation was the document in which the couple alleged (or frequently just the groom alleged on behalf of both of them) that there were no impediments to the marriage.
Generally in a civil complaint a plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to establish all the elements of the claim and thus states a cause of action. The plaintiff must then carry the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion in order to succeed in the lawsuit.
A defendant can allege affirmative defenses in its answer to the complaint.
Other allegations are required in a pleading to establish the correct jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.
Disjunctive allegations
Disjunctive allegations are allegations in a pleading joined together by an "or". In a complaint, disjunctive allegations are usually per se defective because such a pleading does not put the party on notice of which allegations they must defend.
On the other hand, defendants often plead in the alternative by listing seemingly inconsistent defenses. For example, "I did not do the crime", "if I did, I didn't know", or "even if I did know, I've got a good excuse". Such a pleading may be considered disjunctive and may be permissible.
Alleged is not proven.
They may have a large portfolio but combined they just about equal Nokia's. The fact that Nokia chose only 10 patents is reason enough to believe that they have a strong case. I know that this is an uber-fanboy site and how dare anyone challenge "he who must not be named", but Apple is no more above infringing a patent than say Nokia. You do not have to like their phones, or the fact that a country of 5.3 million are standing up to the might Apple, but the fact remains Nokia feels they have a case and Apple will have to prove that they don't. Pretty simple. If we turn on our hypocrisy devices, if this suit have been going the other way with Apple suing Nokia or Ericsson or anyone else, you and several of the more rabid members of this site would be all for "sticking it to them", but now that Apple may be caught with its hand in the cookie jar Nokia is deemed petty, immature, unprofessional, etc...While I love all of my Apple products, and devices, I can truly see why many Apple users are hated outside of the community.
I think you need to consult a dictionary, you seem to be missing the meaning of a word.
allege |əˈlej|
verb [ reporting verb ]
claim or assert that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically without proof that this is the case : [with clause ] he alleged that he had been assaulted | [ trans. ] the offenses are alleged to have been committed outside the woman's home | he is alleged to have assaulted five men.
• (usu. be alleged) suppose or affirm to be the case : the first artifact ever alleged to be from Earhart's aircraft.
ORIGIN Middle English (in the sense [declare on oath] ): from Old French esligier, based on Latin lis, lit- ‘lawsuit’ ; confused in sense with Latin allegare ‘allege.’
allege
verb
both children allege that the babysitter had left them alone for hours at a time: claim, assert, charge, accuse, declare, state, contend, argue, affirm, maintain, attest, testify, swear; formal aver.
Allegation
Not to be confused with alligation.
"Alleged" redirects here. For the champion racehorse, see Alleged (horse).
An allegation (also called adduction) is a claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims to be able to prove. Allegations remain assertions without proof, until they can be proved.
There are also marriage allegations: marriage bonds and allegations exist for couples who applied to marry by licence. They do not exist for couples who married by banns. The marriage allegation was the document in which the couple alleged (or frequently just the groom alleged on behalf of both of them) that there were no impediments to the marriage.
Generally in a civil complaint a plaintiff alleges facts sufficient to establish all the elements of the claim and thus states a cause of action. The plaintiff must then carry the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion in order to succeed in the lawsuit.
A defendant can allege affirmative defenses in its answer to the complaint.
Other allegations are required in a pleading to establish the correct jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction.
Disjunctive allegations
Disjunctive allegations are allegations in a pleading joined together by an "or". In a complaint, disjunctive allegations are usually per se defective because such a pleading does not put the party on notice of which allegations they must defend.
On the other hand, defendants often plead in the alternative by listing seemingly inconsistent defenses. For example, "I did not do the crime", "if I did, I didn't know", or "even if I did know, I've got a good excuse". Such a pleading may be considered disjunctive and may be permissible.
Alleged is not proven.
Snoozer alert.....
And you point being? As many of the more non-fanboyish have stated, this is an alleged case where Nokia alleges that Apple infringed on their patents. The only place where I have seen a trial take place is on this forum where the Steve Jobs pants dwellers have already decided that Nokia has no case, sour grapes, pissed because they are losing market share in the high-end market, out dated UI's, and are going after the beloved, can do no wrong, savior of humanity Apple.
Your foray onto dictionary.com was more of a benefit to you than me as I already know the meaning of the word.
You have had much better posts than the tripe you served up. Try again.
I think it's already been proven. Nokia can make computers all day without one Apple "innovation" but Apple cannot say the same..
Hence the need for a court to sort this mess out which is what I have said all along.
Just because you seem to have no respect for the law or the tenets of justice it doesn't mean that others are like you, in that you make statements as if they have already been proven as fact.
Now you resort to the "fanboy" card.
There should be an addition to Godwin's law, regarding the probability of the term "fanboy" or "fanboi" entering a discussion approaching 1.
Snoozer alert.....
And you point being? As many of the more non-fanboyish have stated, this is an alleged case where Nokia alleges that Apple infringed on their patents. The only place where I have seen a trial take place is on this forum where the Steve Jobs pants dwellers have already decided that Nokia has no case, sour grapes, pissed because they are losing market share in the high-end market, out dated UI's, and are going after the beloved, can do no wrong, savior of humanity Apple.
Your foray onto dictionary.com was more of a benefit to you than me as I already know the meaning of the word.
You have had much better posts than the tripe you served up. Try again.
Proven where and by whom?
Hence the need for a court to sort this mess out which is what I have said all along.
Just because you seem to have no respect for the law or the tenets of justice it doesn't mean that others are like you, in that you make statements as if they have already been proven as fact.
Now you resort to the "fanboy" card.
There should be an addition to Godwin's law, regarding the probability of the term "fanboy" or "fanboi" entering a discussion approaching 1.
FULL STOPPPPPP !!!!!!!!!!!!
Didn't I preface my previous statements with the word opinion, or say that the lawyers are going to have to sort it out? Not once then nor do I now think it is a completely open and shut case. I think that Nokia has a pretty good leg to stand on based on the same info you are probably reading. This, however, is my opinion. In my opinion again, I do not thing this will see the light of a courthouse. Too much money on both sides at stake. Some lawyers will play golf, have lunch, send a few baseball tickets here and there, a few ski jumping tickets as well and we will have a deal with details not to be disclosed. This is what I THINK will happen.
Anyway, if the fanboy shoe does not fit, then by all means it is withdrawn, and my "disrespect" for the law as you put it is a reach and you know it. You just played the "high and might card". Anyway again, I need to crash. If you post something good, I will answer you. Cheers.
Posts are being quoted as me when someone else is quoting it.
I can - Apple sued Microsoft over the use of a GUI for an OS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...ft_Corporation
Um, yeah, that was a pretty major deal and hardly the stuff of rampant litigiousness.
Try Googling this search term: "apple sues"
You get 57,000 hits
Try Googling any large corporation plus "sues." Nokia gets you 543,000 hits, MS gets you 901,000 , Sony gets you 1,405,00. By that criteria you've actually made my point, that Apple is not particularly litigious.
Just a couple: "Apple Sues School For Using The Same Fruit In a Logo"
"Apple filed a lawsuit against Media Solutions Holdings for selling replacement power adapters that infringe on its patent."
and so on...
Yeah, that sound like Apple is just suing everybody willy-nilly cause that's how they roll. Or, we can agree that any large company is going to use the courts to protect their intellectual property, and then make a further distinction regarding whether they tend to be excessive. The original contention was that Apple is one of the most litigation happy companies out there, based on your Google search test that clearly isn't true.
Apple fan-bois who think Nokia are the bad guys over wanting to charge Apple a different rate for use of their tech than other users, should have a look at this:
http://www.macblogz.com/2009/02/02/a...phone-imagery/
Where it appears Apple is being rather selective in charging for use of it's images.
Use of the "fan-boi" crutch to bolster your weak argument suggests you're a dumb fuck. You're probably not, so you should probably avoid it.
At any rate, comparing a massive lawsuit that seeks to take a cut of every iPhone sold or prevent it from being sold entirely to varying standards for the misappropriation of imagery is extremely weak, indeed.
Kodak is now suing Apple and RIM and has asked the ITC to ban the import of iPhones.
The whole concept of patents has been broken for years.
Entirely possible. However, it doesn't change the point that Apple is not particularly litigious, outside of being pretty militant about not leaking pre-release product info and use of it's trade dress, which in the arena of hight stakes IP infringement lawsuits is pretty small potatoes.
X-boyism's aside, is everyone or mostly everyone in agreement that this will be settled by lawyers and that up to now this is all pure speculation on everyone's part? Does anyone here have hard evidence to what is going on with the case?
Side question: (yes, I said I was going to crash)
X-boyism's aside, is everyone or mostly everyone in agreement that this will be settled by lawyers and that up to now this is all pure speculation on everyone's part? Does anyone here have hard evidence to what is going on with the case?
I have no problem with that characterization. As I've said, it appears to me that the entire thing hinges on what a customary and reasonable licensing fee would be, but subsequent reading suggests that even that is pretty malleable, what equivalent in-kind cross licensing and such.
So much so that my guess would be that whatever the courts decide won't look like "justice" so much as an extremely difficult to follow financial document with highly technical provisions. I will say that it seems pretty unlikely that any of this will result in phones not being sold.
Meanwhile Nokia has launched suits against 11 LCD screen manufacturers, including Samsung, alleging price fixing.
Why didn't you include the bit about how the LCD manufactures have admitted they were price fixing?
I don't know that these patents really cross the boundary between phone and computer. Here is a list of the patents and their associated names. Check out the text of the patents by going to
www.patentlens.net , go to the search function and enter the patent number. (Select just US Patents). The text is technical but you can get a flavor of what each is about.
<list>
Thanks for the detailed list.
So are Nokia going to give rebates to those who bought their phone's at an inflated cost, due to the alleged price fixing they suffered?
Haven't they already made profits on the handsets they sold?
Why didn't you include the bit about how the LCD manufactures have admitted they were price fixing?
Haven't they already made profits on the handsets they sold?
And what is your point? They are a business, the number one goal is to make money.
Or do they just stick it in their kitty and increase the profits made on handsets that have already been paid for by consumers?
There may be a chance of a class action against Nokia if they don't pass on to consumers any damages they are awarded because after all they are the ones who paid any additional costs as a result of any price fixing.
And what is your point? They are a business, the number one goal is to make money.
So are Nokia going to refund the extra production costs that they stand to recoup from any legal actions, to the people who bought phone's containing the LCD's off them?
Or do they just stick it in their kitty and increase the profits made on handsets that have already been paid for by consumers?
There may be a chance of a class action against Nokia if they don't pass on to consumers any damages they are awarded because after all they are the ones who paid any additional costs as a result of any price fixing.
Maybe there will be, but the question you should be asking, and I noticed you failed to ask it, Nokia is following AT&T's lead, they produce a similar lawsuit a month prior to Nokia. What will AT&T do if they win?
Maybe there will be, but the question you should be asking, and I noticed you failed to ask it, Nokia is following AT&T's lead, they produce a similar lawsuit a month prior to Nokia. What will AT&T do if they win?
Some references to the ATT lawsuit would be good.
Some references to the ATT lawsuit would be good.
It would have been quicker for you to search for it, but here it is
http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news...violations.ars
Nokia is actually the second company to sue for over these violations, following AT&T, so the risk is anything but hypothetical.
Regardless, this has been posted in the past and it is just as relevant today. The key point being that Nokia chose only 10 patents to contest. They have plenty more but they chose only ten. This should set off alarms that they are pretty damn confident that they can make this poop stick to the wall. There is not one mobile that you can pick up that does not have Nokia technology in it somewhere. The same can't be said about Apple. Apple needs Nokia's technology more than Nokia needs Apple's. The issue is not who makes a better phone with more bells and whistles but who is stealing (opppsss, sorry for being politically incorrect) infringing, on the others IPR.
The winners will be the lawyers.
Nokia just grabbed the only ten that had an outside chance of sticking... and don't forget the assertion that Apple tried to negotiate in good faith, but Nokia tried to extort more license fees and/or IP from Apple than everyone else. If the last assertion is true, then Apple will likely win the right to just pay Nokia a fair royalty.
You are correct about the real winners: the lawyers. As usual.
Thompson
nah mac tripper is truly insane
repeating the same mantra over and over shows cracks in his .....
on topic
nokia better becareful
apple will bite it
At least MacTripper can write a coherent post...