They are not selling it for less than cost, as you need to buy the damn phone in the first place. No different than buying a stand along GPS unit.
Do you know that the cost of that is factored into the cost of the phone, or are you just speculating? You may well be right, but Nokia will have to prove it.
No big deal here -- it means nothing at all. The ITC is compelled to investigate formally filed complaints. That is what they are paid to do. They have no choice.
Nokia has a legitimate complaint. I just don't think the amount they want is legitimate.
Well, it kind of depends how this things has played out behind closed doors. None of us really know. But say it played out like this:
1) Apple tried to license the usual Nokia tech at whatever price everybody else pays.
2) Nokia said they want to cross-license.
3) Apple (who has been burned before with cross-licensing, which licensed wholesale theft), said no, just give us your usual rates.
4) Nokia names a egregious price.
5) Apple said fine, we'll do our own clean-room version and bypass your patents.
6) Now Apple thinks they have a clean-room version, Nokia believes it still infringes.
Just a note. The standard committee (IEEE) decided to use Nokia Patents as the standard for wireless technology (3G). In return Nokia agreed to license at reliable rates (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) because they received a monopoly on the Patents required by the standard.
I believe the fight is over what is fair /reasonable etc. Asking for cross-licensing outside of the standard is could be considered discriminatory.
Well, it kind of depends how this things has played out behind closed doors. None of us really know. But say it played out like this:
See there is your problem, what is the point of making up a scenario just after saying, none of us really know. Apple has been sued plently of times before, and has lost on some of them as well, so saying they are Mr Perfect is just as wrong.
Do you know that the cost of that is factored into the cost of the phone, or are you just speculating? You may well be right, but Nokia will have to prove it.
Do you know that the maps, and navigation provided with a TomTom, or Garmin GPS unit are factored into the price? Nokia doesn't have to prove anything regarding this, unless someone complains to a regulator body about it.
Yeah, when you can't address the message, attack the messenger. Very mature.
He asked you a question: either answer it (if you have an answer), or keep quiet. Don't get personal.
Who made you the boss? He is as one sided as all the Apple fan web sites, nothing he says is neutral, just like nothing on that Apple patent site is neutral, so how the fact of providing that site as a reference be aiding anything other than pushing a pro Apple stance
If I buy a tom tom now, it comes with free maps and navigation, if I get a garmin, it comes with free maps anf navigation, infact all the stand alone gps systems do, so if everyone does it, how come it is dumping when Nokia does it?
Quite simple, if it doesn't come from Apple then it is not worth being done or being done the right way. Don't you know Apple knows best?
Anyway, finally they can get the investigation started and bring it to some sort of resolution. If Nokia wins, it will not affect me. If they lose, it will not affect me. I will still buy Apple and Nokia products. I could not care less who wins. The big winners will be the lawyers. Nokia and Apple will cross-license technology and they will have no further comment.
the USA should not allow Finnish companies to sue our companies
You do standup right? You can not be serious. I have read some incredibly stupid things but this is by far the dumbest. Anyway, please try to top yourself.
By the way, without Nokia's technology you would not have an iPhone.
Nokia and Apple will cross-license technology and they will have no further comment.
Apple will have to hurry up and learn how to play with others, they have lost big opportunities by not cross licensing some of their technologies, and will continue to do so.
Who made you the boss? He is as one sided as all the Apple fan web sites, nothing he says is neutral, just like nothing on that Apple patent site is neutral, so how the fact of providing that site as a reference be aiding anything other than pushing a pro Apple stance
That Apple patent site doesn't purport to be neutral. It doesn't try to be because it doesn't need to be. All it's doing is collecting information on Apple's patent applications and granted patents. How does neutrality even need to figure into this??
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Apple will have to hurry up and learn how to play with others, they have lost big opportunities by not cross licensing some of their technologies, and will continue to do so.
One of the keys to their wild success is *not* cross-licensing tech.
Apple has been moving from strength to strength since the beginning of the (last) decade. They clearly know what they're doing. In fact, their business model is the object of envy, if anything.
Others need to hurry up and release tech that doesn't suck or that is actually as desirable as Apple's tech. This industry is constantly being shown up by Apple. It's almost comical. Looks like they're about to get another lesson tomorrow.
Apple will have to hurry up and learn how to play with others, they have lost big opportunities by not cross licensing some of their technologies, and will continue to do so.
Which technologies since early MacOS should they have cross licensed with others? Anything Apple wants out there, they make open source or contribute to other open source projects, anything they don't they don't and keep for themselves. Nokia is way behind the technology curve here with few hopes of catching up since their traditional skillsets are not the ones that are winning the races right now - traditional basic network tech...)
Apple have worked out their business model - it does not revolve around market share (which broad cross-licensing is designed to support), it revolves around margin and growth - why make $5 on a software license vs. $300 on a phone. Narrow cross-licensing is typically used to get something that someone else has if you can't/don't want to buy them or pay a fee.
Nokia by all accounts are tying to bend Apple over to get its technology which Nokia seems incapable of making for itself using its old basic tech patents that Nokia has licensed to everyone else without cross-licensing requirements.
One of the keys to their wild success is *not* cross-licensing tech.
I'll give you one example, the Apple TV. If Apple had licenced it to TV manufactures, then the Apple TV would have been the standard for that type of thing, rather than being a joke of a product that has gone no where.
Which technologies since early MacOS should they have cross licensed with others? Anything Apple wants out there, they make open source or contribute to other open source projects, anything they don't they don't and keep for themselves. Nokia is way behind the technology curve here with few hopes of catching up since their traditional skillsets are not the ones that are winning the races right now - traditional basic network tech...)
Fairplay for video is one, a major one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob
Nokia by all accounts are tying to bend Apple over to get its technology which Nokia seems incapable of making for itself using its old basic tech patents that Nokia has licensed to everyone else without cross-licensing requirements.
That is a fanboy response, Nokia cross licences a lot of its patents with other companies, otherwise they wouldn't be able to make phones, or cellsites either, and they are far from basic.
Well, it kind of depends how this things has played out behind closed doors. None of us really know. But say it played out like this:
1) Apple tried to license the usual Nokia tech at whatever price everybody else pays.
2) Nokia said they want to cross-license.
3) Apple (who has been burned before with cross-licensing, which licensed wholesale theft), said no, just give us your usual rates.
4) Nokia names a egregious price.
5) Apple said fine, we'll do our own clean-room version and bypass your patents.
6) Now Apple thinks they have a clean-room version, Nokia believes it still infringes.
If that's how it played out, then there is a certain kind of patent-trollishness going on.
The problem is, even after the lawsuit begins, it's not like any of us will have been edified. All we'll be able to do is hear two sides, and make arbitrary decisions about where the truth is (like: the truth is probably in the middle... which is not the case if one side flat-out lies and the other tells the truth... SCO, for an example of that).
One thing, though. Apple does not have a reputation for just outright stealing other people's tech and trying to get away with it. Mainly because they know how badly that would fail. I suspect my scenario above is pretty close to how it played out up to this point. How it plays out from here is anybody's guess. The lawyers will make money, and there will be some people who feel robbed. That's all we know for sure.
There is always grey area. Apple does the right thing if it is black and white. Apple's policy is don't sue us if we get in your grey area and we wont sue you if you stumble in our grey area. This is really the only sane way to do it. Apple of course isn't so generous with trademarks. They own the letter i.
Of course, it might just be that Nokia is overcharging like crazy. It also doesn't make any sense that open standards can contain patented technology (like GSM). If it is patented, it should be patented by the standards body so it is equally owned by all members.
I'll give you one example, the Apple TV. If Apple had licenced it to TV manufactures, then the Apple TV would have been the standard for that type of thing, rather than being a joke of a product that has gone no where.
It is a joke of a product because Apple hasn't been able to negotiate good content deals. If they had an all you can eat subscription plan that could be used in place of cable, they would be flying off shelves.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Apple has nothing to do with this.
Also, you may be confusing 'dumping' with 'predatory pricing.'
Apple is selling the device and Google is selling the service. With a traditional GPS, the same company sells the device and the service.
"dumping" is any form of predatory pricing. In international trade, however, it means you sell a product for less in another market then you do in your own. The term can also imply selling below cost. I don't see either going on here. It has nothing to do with selling a product in another market for less then a competitor does in that market. It is free here and free there so it is not "dumping". Anything else is plain old competition and there certainly is nothing wrong with that. It is perfectly alright for old ways to be replaced by new sustainable less expensive ways. Beyond that, "Dumping" is not illegal. It can only be regulated by Government if they choose.
Comments
They are not selling it for less than cost, as you need to buy the damn phone in the first place. No different than buying a stand along GPS unit.
Do you know that the cost of that is factored into the cost of the phone, or are you just speculating? You may well be right, but Nokia will have to prove it.
What does being neutral have anything to do with it?
It's a site that reports on Apple's latest patent applications and granted patents.
Going by most of your posts, nothing at all.
Yeah, when you can't address the message, attack the messenger. Very mature.
He asked you a question: either answer it (if you have an answer), or keep quiet. Don't get personal.
No big deal here -- it means nothing at all. The ITC is compelled to investigate formally filed complaints. That is what they are paid to do. They have no choice.
Nokia has a legitimate complaint. I just don't think the amount they want is legitimate.
Well, it kind of depends how this things has played out behind closed doors. None of us really know. But say it played out like this:
1) Apple tried to license the usual Nokia tech at whatever price everybody else pays.
2) Nokia said they want to cross-license.
3) Apple (who has been burned before with cross-licensing, which licensed wholesale theft), said no, just give us your usual rates.
4) Nokia names a egregious price.
5) Apple said fine, we'll do our own clean-room version and bypass your patents.
6) Now Apple thinks they have a clean-room version, Nokia believes it still infringes.
Just a note. The standard committee (IEEE) decided to use Nokia Patents as the standard for wireless technology (3G). In return Nokia agreed to license at reliable rates (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) because they received a monopoly on the Patents required by the standard.
I believe the fight is over what is fair /reasonable etc. Asking for cross-licensing outside of the standard is could be considered discriminatory.
Well, it kind of depends how this things has played out behind closed doors. None of us really know. But say it played out like this:
See there is your problem, what is the point of making up a scenario just after saying, none of us really know. Apple has been sued plently of times before, and has lost on some of them as well, so saying they are Mr Perfect is just as wrong.
Do you know that the cost of that is factored into the cost of the phone, or are you just speculating? You may well be right, but Nokia will have to prove it.
Do you know that the maps, and navigation provided with a TomTom, or Garmin GPS unit are factored into the price? Nokia doesn't have to prove anything regarding this, unless someone complains to a regulator body about it.
Yeah, when you can't address the message, attack the messenger. Very mature.
He asked you a question: either answer it (if you have an answer), or keep quiet. Don't get personal.
Who made you the boss? He is as one sided as all the Apple fan web sites, nothing he says is neutral, just like nothing on that Apple patent site is neutral, so how the fact of providing that site as a reference be aiding anything other than pushing a pro Apple stance
If I buy a tom tom now, it comes with free maps and navigation, if I get a garmin, it comes with free maps anf navigation, infact all the stand alone gps systems do, so if everyone does it, how come it is dumping when Nokia does it?
Quite simple, if it doesn't come from Apple then it is not worth being done or being done the right way. Don't you know Apple knows best?
Anyway, finally they can get the investigation started and bring it to some sort of resolution. If Nokia wins, it will not affect me. If they lose, it will not affect me. I will still buy Apple and Nokia products. I could not care less who wins. The big winners will be the lawyers. Nokia and Apple will cross-license technology and they will have no further comment.
the USA should not allow Finnish companies to sue our companies
You do standup right? You can not be serious. I have read some incredibly stupid things but this is by far the dumbest. Anyway, please try to top yourself.
By the way, without Nokia's technology you would not have an iPhone.
Nokia and Apple will cross-license technology and they will have no further comment.
Apple will have to hurry up and learn how to play with others, they have lost big opportunities by not cross licensing some of their technologies, and will continue to do so.
Who made you the boss? He is as one sided as all the Apple fan web sites, nothing he says is neutral, just like nothing on that Apple patent site is neutral, so how the fact of providing that site as a reference be aiding anything other than pushing a pro Apple stance
That Apple patent site doesn't purport to be neutral. It doesn't try to be because it doesn't need to be. All it's doing is collecting information on Apple's patent applications and granted patents. How does neutrality even need to figure into this??
Apple will have to hurry up and learn how to play with others, they have lost big opportunities by not cross licensing some of their technologies, and will continue to do so.
One of the keys to their wild success is *not* cross-licensing tech.
Apple has been moving from strength to strength since the beginning of the (last) decade. They clearly know what they're doing. In fact, their business model is the object of envy, if anything.
Others need to hurry up and release tech that doesn't suck or that is actually as desirable as Apple's tech. This industry is constantly being shown up by Apple. It's almost comical. Looks like they're about to get another lesson tomorrow.
Yeah, that sounds like a neutral site...
Did you bother to actually look at that site before you made that comment?
Its a site dedicated to and discussing of apples patents.
why is that a bad thing?
Apple will have to hurry up and learn how to play with others, they have lost big opportunities by not cross licensing some of their technologies, and will continue to do so.
Which technologies since early MacOS should they have cross licensed with others? Anything Apple wants out there, they make open source or contribute to other open source projects, anything they don't they don't and keep for themselves. Nokia is way behind the technology curve here with few hopes of catching up since their traditional skillsets are not the ones that are winning the races right now - traditional basic network tech...)
Apple have worked out their business model - it does not revolve around market share (which broad cross-licensing is designed to support), it revolves around margin and growth - why make $5 on a software license vs. $300 on a phone. Narrow cross-licensing is typically used to get something that someone else has if you can't/don't want to buy them or pay a fee.
Nokia by all accounts are tying to bend Apple over to get its technology which Nokia seems incapable of making for itself using its old basic tech patents that Nokia has licensed to everyone else without cross-licensing requirements.
One of the keys to their wild success is *not* cross-licensing tech.
I'll give you one example, the Apple TV. If Apple had licenced it to TV manufactures, then the Apple TV would have been the standard for that type of thing, rather than being a joke of a product that has gone no where.
Did you bother to actually look at that site before you made that comment?
Its a site dedicated to and discussing of apples patents.
why is that a bad thing?
How objective is a site called applepatents going to be in regard to discussing Nokia's patent claims against Apple?
discussing Nokia's patent claims against Apple?
It doesn't.
It is a site that reports on Apple's latest patent applications and granted patents.
Which technologies since early MacOS should they have cross licensed with others? Anything Apple wants out there, they make open source or contribute to other open source projects, anything they don't they don't and keep for themselves. Nokia is way behind the technology curve here with few hopes of catching up since their traditional skillsets are not the ones that are winning the races right now - traditional basic network tech...)
Fairplay for video is one, a major one.
Nokia by all accounts are tying to bend Apple over to get its technology which Nokia seems incapable of making for itself using its old basic tech patents that Nokia has licensed to everyone else without cross-licensing requirements.
That is a fanboy response, Nokia cross licences a lot of its patents with other companies, otherwise they wouldn't be able to make phones, or cellsites either, and they are far from basic.
Well, it kind of depends how this things has played out behind closed doors. None of us really know. But say it played out like this:
1) Apple tried to license the usual Nokia tech at whatever price everybody else pays.
2) Nokia said they want to cross-license.
3) Apple (who has been burned before with cross-licensing, which licensed wholesale theft), said no, just give us your usual rates.
4) Nokia names a egregious price.
5) Apple said fine, we'll do our own clean-room version and bypass your patents.
6) Now Apple thinks they have a clean-room version, Nokia believes it still infringes.
If that's how it played out, then there is a certain kind of patent-trollishness going on.
The problem is, even after the lawsuit begins, it's not like any of us will have been edified. All we'll be able to do is hear two sides, and make arbitrary decisions about where the truth is (like: the truth is probably in the middle... which is not the case if one side flat-out lies and the other tells the truth... SCO, for an example of that).
One thing, though. Apple does not have a reputation for just outright stealing other people's tech and trying to get away with it. Mainly because they know how badly that would fail. I suspect my scenario above is pretty close to how it played out up to this point. How it plays out from here is anybody's guess. The lawyers will make money, and there will be some people who feel robbed. That's all we know for sure.
There is always grey area. Apple does the right thing if it is black and white. Apple's policy is don't sue us if we get in your grey area and we wont sue you if you stumble in our grey area. This is really the only sane way to do it. Apple of course isn't so generous with trademarks. They own the letter i.
Of course, it might just be that Nokia is overcharging like crazy. It also doesn't make any sense that open standards can contain patented technology (like GSM). If it is patented, it should be patented by the standards body so it is equally owned by all members.
I'll give you one example, the Apple TV. If Apple had licenced it to TV manufactures, then the Apple TV would have been the standard for that type of thing, rather than being a joke of a product that has gone no where.
It is a joke of a product because Apple hasn't been able to negotiate good content deals. If they had an all you can eat subscription plan that could be used in place of cable, they would be flying off shelves.
I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Apple has nothing to do with this.
Also, you may be confusing 'dumping' with 'predatory pricing.'
Apple is selling the device and Google is selling the service. With a traditional GPS, the same company sells the device and the service.
"dumping" is any form of predatory pricing. In international trade, however, it means you sell a product for less in another market then you do in your own. The term can also imply selling below cost. I don't see either going on here. It has nothing to do with selling a product in another market for less then a competitor does in that market. It is free here and free there so it is not "dumping". Anything else is plain old competition and there certainly is nothing wrong with that. It is perfectly alright for old ways to be replaced by new sustainable less expensive ways. Beyond that, "Dumping" is not illegal. It can only be regulated by Government if they choose.
See Wikipedia for the definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)