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.
No-one of any consequence wanted to get into bed with Apple/Fairplay for Video due to a fear of Apple controlling the content market so not a good choice.
Bring out the F-word (fanboy). Quibble about "basic" but Nokia's patents are for the fundamental network technology which is now set and moving on to 4G. The majority of the innovation and differentiation is in the software and UI layers and that is where Nokia is woefully behind.
Anyway, Nokia charges fees per device with a lot of licensees, instead of cross licenses where the other party doesn't have anything to offer or doesn't want to give it to Nokia. Apple have stated that Nokia was trying to overcharge Apple. Their side of the story for sure, but likely true given Nokia's desperation to catch up.
Continue living in your Finnish dreamworld if you like but they are in a deep hole and your rambling about your perceived Apple failings won't change that.
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.
Apple Fanboys are typically a rational group. The RDF field is only active during keynotes. If you can actually find evidence to the contrary that Nokia is not trying to use their patent portfolio aggressively to take advantage of Apple instead of treating them fairly I would love to hear it. So far the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing toward Nokia entering Patent Troll territory.
Apple Fanboys are typically a rational group. The RDF field is only active during keynotes. If you can actually find evidence to the contrary that Nokia is not trying to use their patent portfolio aggressively to take advantage of Apple instead of treating them fairly I would love to hear it. So far the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing toward Nokia entering Patent Troll territory.
That than what is being reported on Apple fan sites can you show me factual evidence that Nokia was charging more than others, so far the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing to Apple being a technology thief, and profiting off others innovation.
Bring out the F-word (fanboy). Quibble about "basic" but Nokia's patents are for the fundamental network technology which is now set and moving on to 4G. The majority of the innovation and differentiation is in the software and UI layers and that is where Nokia is woefully behind.
So how many patents does Apple have with 4G mobile radio technologies? If they are so basic, why haven't they innovated here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob
Anyway, Nokia charges fees per device with a lot of licensees, instead of cross licenses where the other party doesn't have anything to offer or doesn't want to give it to Nokia. Apple have stated that Nokia was trying to overcharge Apple. Their side of the story for sure, but likely true given Nokia's desperation to catch up.
Nokia wants to cross-licence technologies with Apple, Apple doesn't want to, Apple doesn't want to pay any licence either, that is the overcharging that Apple is complaining about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob
Continue living in your Finnish dreamworld if you like but they are in a deep hole and your rambling about your perceived Apple failings won't change that.
yeah that is the one, start making racial comments, that helps your agrument.
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.
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.
That's an Apple centric view with a lot of assumptions (at least I haven't seen factual documentation to statements for points 2-6). To have meaningful discussion about any topic, multiple sides to the story should be viewed.
Here's one, where I've tried to stay with as much facts as possible. Note that the cross-lisensing demand by Nokia does seem to be more of an assumption by many posters instead of fact (I'd love to see a reference to fact if it indeed is):
1) Nokia and Apple have been in negotiations about Nokia patents (documented fact)
2) FRAND terms have different pricing in different regions (Europe & US one price, asia about half) (documented fact)
3) Apple says Nokia's price is higher for Apple than for others (documented Apple statement, factual basis unknown)
4) Apple wants Asia prices instead of US/Europe prices (pure assumption on several patent related discussion sites)
5) No agreement reached -> Lawsuit (documented fact)
6) Case escalated to ITC after both sides start thowing patent lawsuits.
A lot of people here assume that Nokia is wrong _because_ it's a sore loser. That has nothing to do with being in the right or wrong in patent cases as many of the same people here support Apple for defending its patents and trademarks and even design aspects.
BTW, here's the Nokia filing to the ITC. Interesting read and also shows stuff related to touch patents that Nokia owns and Apple clearly infringes on. Also interestingly these patents are different than the ones in the lawsuit.
That until recently came with a substantial annual cost, now it's free.
Nokia instigated this action in the US, their panic stricken reaction to the iPhone has led them to desperate moves.
Such as dumping free GPS software in much the same way as Microsoft almost destroyed the web browser market by giving away Internet explorer, now phone manufacturers will have to give away GPS software for free in order to compete.
No more subscriptions to pay for development.
All the navigation App store Apps have become obsolete.
Dumping, dumping, dumping.
All it will take is one complaint and Nokia will be screwed in the US.
I wonder what Nokia owned Navteq charge Garmin for the use of their maps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
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?
That until recently came with a substantial annual cost, now it's free.
Nokia instigated this action in the US, their panic stricken reaction to the iPhone has led them to desperate moves.
Such as dumping free GPS software in much the same way as Microsoft almost destroyed the web browser market by giving away Internet explorer, now phone manufacturers will have to give away GPS software for free in order to compete.
No more subscriptions to pay for development.
All the navigation App store Apps have become obsolete.
Dumping, dumping, dumping.
All it will take is one complaint and Nokia will be screwed in the US.
I wonder what Nokia owned Navteq charge Garmin for the use of their maps?
Hey, it gets better than that! Google is also screwed as well since navigation is included on the Google phone?
And Nokia is double screwed with Nokia's Comes With Music as it is also dumping and destroying Apple's business case with iTunes since user's get to dowload all the music they want for a year.
And using patented technology without paying for it (or user of said patents trying to tell the owner what price they'd like to pay and the owner having no say in the matter) is triple screwing Nokia.
And Apple is the wise and holy one by include iLife with the OS thereby removing the need for corresponding applications from independent SW vendors.
Apple is the wise and holy one by including licenses for basically unlimited users with their server licenses for stuff that microsoft licences user specific CALs for.
Nokia charge more for the "Comes with Music" versions of their phone's.
Until recently Nokia gave away trial versions of their maps if you wanted to continue the trial you paid.
Nokia handsets came with regional licenses, if you wanted other regions you paid.
Now it is free, worldwide.
Googles voice guidance is US only although people in Europe enabled it only to have Google block their crack with a patch (so much for open).
Nokia has paved the way for Google to offer free voice guidance anywhere on earth as to charge for licenses is anti-competive, especially from NavTeq the source of Nokia's "free" GPS maps.
How can Nokia charge wholesale buyers for a product that is "free", unless it isn't "free" and they are dumping it into the US.
If a US company makes a complaint, Nokia are screwed.
Now tell me specifically which Nokia patents Apple are using and the means by which they are doing it.
Don't the Qualcomm licenses Apple has, you know the one's Nokia settled by paying $2.3 Billion to Qualcomm cover what the iPhone does?
The licenses paid to other patent holders in this area?
The licenses paid for in the outsourced chips used in the iPhone.
Tell me under what jurisdiction, anywhere on earth, has it been shown that a phone cannot work without Nokia's technologies?
Motorola manufactured the first GSM phone, which Nokia technology was used in it seeing as it was prior art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
Hey, it gets better than that! Google is also screwed as well since navigation is included on the Google phone?
And Nokia is double screwed with Nokia's Comes With Music as it is also dumping and destroying Apple's business case with iTunes since user's get to dowload all the music they want for a year.
And using patented technology without paying for it (or user of said patents trying to tell the owner what price they'd like to pay and the owner having no say in the matter) is triple screwing Nokia.
And Apple is the wise and holy one by include iLife with the OS thereby removing the need for corresponding applications from independent SW vendors.
Apple is the wise and holy one by including licenses for basically unlimited users with their server licenses for stuff that microsoft licences user specific CALs for.
Nokia charge more for the "Comes with Music" versions of their phone's.
Now tell me specifically which Nokia patents Apple are using and the means by which they are doing it.
Don't the Qualcomm licenses Apple has, you know the one's Nokia settled by paying $2.3 Billion to Qualcomm cover what the iPhone does?
The licenses paid to other patent holders in this area?
The licenses paid for in the outsourced chips used in the iPhone.
Tell me under what jurisdiction, anywhere on earth, has it been shown that a phone cannot work without Nokia's technologies?
Motorola manufactured the first GSM phone, which Nokia technology was used in it seeing as it was prior art.
I'm not a patent lawyer so I can't really be the judge, but take a look at the PDF that I gave in my previous post. For example touchscreen keyboard zooming patented by Nokia looks awfully similar to what Apple implemented in the iPhone.
The licenses licensed by chipset vendors are typically not transferrable to the byer of the chipsets (sounds weird and I agree it is, but this is what "people in the know" tell me is how it works in ITU and 3GPP). So Apple has to pay (and does to Ericsson and Motorola for example) so why not Nokia?
I won't (propably can't) point out a juristiction where they say that a GSM/3G phone cannot work without Nokia patented tech. But that's not the point. The point is "did Apple use Nokia patented tech or not?".
As to making the first GSM phone. Well the phone contains tons of tech (and you know that) which has been cross licensed from day one by the incumbent players (Motorola, Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson etc.). GSM phone itself is not patented.
I'm not a patent lawyer so I can't really be the judge, but take a look at the PDF that I gave in my previous post. For example touchscreen keyboard zooming patented by Nokia looks awfully similar to what Apple implemented in the iPhone.
The licenses licensed by chipset vendors are typically not transferrable to the byer of the chipsets (sounds weird and I agree it is, but this is what "people in the know" tell me is how it works in ITU and 3GPP). So Apple has to pay (and does to Ericsson and Motorola for example) so why not Nokia?
I won't (propably can't) point out a juristiction where they say that a GSM/3G phone cannot work without Nokia patented tech. But that's not the point. The point is "did Apple use Nokia patented tech or not?".
As to making the first GSM phone. Well the phone contains tons of tech (and you know that) which has been cross licensed from day one by the incumbent players (Motorola, Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson etc.). GSM phone itself is not patented.
Unless Steve Jobs lives in Australia or he is the possessor of unusually large trousers, inspired by MC Hammer...
...12,000 mile parachute pants, perhaps.
Somebody's gotta ground all you Nokia enthusiasts, you had it too easy at the top for too long, rejoicing at the fall of Motorola and Ericsson until Apple came along and shook your safe little S60 world up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobabyrtrns
Jarko,
Moro, moro. Are you really wasting your time trying to debate with the dweller in apartment 1A of Steve Job's pants?
Moro, moro. Are you really wasting your time trying to debate with the dweller in apartment 1A of Steve Job's pants?
Don't waste your time.
Moimoi.
Naah. Hill60 is OK sofar. He's just playing at being the "blind Apple fanboy". There are points in his posts.
But yeah, sometimes I don't bother when the speedblindness hits in with many of the posters here (and other fansites of various things technical). Just not quite there yet on this thread.
Competition is good and black and white opinions (the bane of fansites) are as bad as monopolies (real or de-facto). The ITC and patent cases are part of competition and protecting Apple's or Nokia's IP is what the economy is based on (i.e. making innovations and benefiting from them so that there's an incentive to innovate more)
Regs, Jarkko
P.S. Just to clarify to before someone starts discrediting anything I say solely because of my nationality (I did see what happened to you just because you're stationed here). I am a Finn through and through. Owner and user of iPods and Macs. Used to be a fan of Nokia (because they used to made seriously better stuff than anyone else in the business and it was all the better since it is the home team). They've since lost most of the momentum they had going for them (became complacent) and I'm no longer a fan of any manufacturer in particular.
What I'm really interested in is seeing where the _real_ facts are and what makes a manufacturer succeed and fail. It's interesting to see for example will Nokia be able to reinvent itself (history would prove yes, but you never know). Samsung and HTC seem to be quick to copy and stay in the game, but neither of them have done a single gamechanger. Can they become gamechangers? Can Apple stay and keep being the gamechanger or was it a one-off in the phone space?
Naah. Hill60 is OK sofar. He's just playing at being the "blind Apple fanboy". There are points in his posts.
But yeah, sometimes I don't bother when the speedblindness hits in with many of the posters here (and other fansites of various things technical). Just not quite there yet on this thread.
Competition is good and black and white opinions (the bane of fansites) are as bad as monopolies (real or de-facto). The ITC and patent cases are part of competition and protecting Apple's or Nokia's IP is what the economy is based on (i.e. making innovations and benefiting from them so that there's an incentive to innovate more)
Regs, Jarkko
P.S. Just to clarify to before someone starts discrediting anything I say solely because of my nationality (I did see what happened to you just because you're stationed here). I am a Finn through and through. Owner and user of iPods and Macs. Used to be a fan of Nokia (because they used to made seriously better stuff than anyone else in the business and it was all the better since it is the home team). They've since lost most of the momentum they had going for them (became complacent) and I'm no longer a fan of any manufacturer in particular.
What I'm really interested in is seeing where the _real_ facts are and what makes a manufacturer succeed and fail. It's interesting to see for example will Nokia be able to reinvent itself (history would prove yes, but you never know). Samsung and HTC seem to be quick to copy and stay in the game, but neither of them have done a single gamechanger. Can they become gamechangers? Can Apple stay and keep being the gamechanger or was it a one-off in the phone space?
But that has nothing to do with the ITC case.
My sentiments exactly. I had production number 102 of the original Communicator, as well as several 2110i's. So my Nokia roots run deep, however they have lost their way, not because of the technology. The iPhone is not groundbreaking technology wise but in its implementation. I have friends deep inside of Nokia that talk about the daily infighting, back stabbing and the total ineptitude of the management staff. This was enough to push me off of a "brand" and to embrace the more bang for my buck. I am only loyal to technology. Someone could come along tomorrow and bump Apple off and I would not care less.
I wonder what Nokia owned Navteq charge Garmin for the use of their maps?
Now, I understand from this statement that you don't understand how companies work, but I will try and explain this for you. Even though Navteq may be owned by Nokia, Nokia will still pay Navteq for the use of the Maps, just like Garmin etc.
Now, I understand from this statement that you don't understand how companies work, but I will try and explain this for you. Even though Navteq may be owned by Nokia, Nokia will still pay Navteq for the use of the Maps, just like Garmin etc.
Dude, your head has got to hurt from banging it on the wall trying to explain things. Is it really worth your time? Some people simply do not have the capacity to learn.
Until recently Nokia gave away trial versions of their maps if you wanted to continue the trial you paid.
No, the maps applications was fully funcational, it was just missing navigation which you had to licence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Nokia handsets came with regional licenses, if you wanted other regions you paid.
No, you could download any map for any part of the world for free, again without navigation, but still free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Now it is free, worldwide.
Always was, you are referring to navigation
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Nokia has paved the way for Google to offer free voice guidance anywhere on earth as to charge for licenses is anti-competive, especially from NavTeq the source of Nokia's "free" GPS maps.
How is it anti-competive? Anti-Comptive is when you produce a multimedia application for your computer and won't let anyone else have direct access for it, or is that a competive advantage, just like Nokias has?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
How can Nokia charge wholesale buyers for a product that is "free", unless it isn't "free" and they are dumping it into the US.
Now, that comment is just plain stupid, maybe you can get away with it in k-mart, but in the real world, no. How is the product free if I have to got purchase a phone to use it? Does that mean that all the applications that come with the phone are "free", or does it mean that Nokia will now be taking less of a profit due to them giving the funcationality away?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
If a US company makes a complaint, Nokia are screwed.
No they won't be, it just means those 12 customers in the US won't get to use the funcationality, the rest of the world, including Australia will just be fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Tell me under what jurisdiction, anywhere on earth, has it been shown that a phone cannot work without Nokia's technologies?
If Nokia is one of the holders of key GSM technologies, how can you make something that connects to GSM without using one of those technologies. Now I know you are a k-mart worker, so this won't come to you too quickly, but it is a fact, and a fact that Apple hasn't denied.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Motorola manufactured the first GSM phone, which Nokia technology was used in it seeing as it was prior art.
According to history, Nokia had this honour, can you post a link to this claim of yours?
No, the maps applications was fully funcational, it was just missing navigation which you had to licence.
No, you could download any map for any part of the world for free, again without navigation, but still free.
Always was, you are referring to navigation
How is it anti-competive? Anti-Comptive is when you produce a multimedia application for your computer and won't let anyone else have direct access for it, or is that a competive advantage, just like Nokias has?
Now, that comment is just plain stupid, maybe you can get away with it in k-mart, but in the real world, no. How is the product free if I have to got purchase a phone to use it? Does that mean that all the applications that come with the phone are "free", or does it mean that Nokia will now be taking less of a profit due to them giving the funcationality away?
No they won't be, it just means those 12 customers in the US won't get to use the funcationality, the rest of the world, including Australia will just be fine.
If Nokia is one of the holders of key GSM technologies, how can you make something that connects to GSM without using one of those technologies. Now I know you are a k-mart worker, so this won't come to you too quickly, but it is a fact, and a fact that Apple hasn't denied.
According to history, Nokia had this honour, can you post a link to this claim of yours?
Check and mate. Game, set, match: winner jfanning.
Comments
Fairplay for video is one, a major one.
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.
No-one of any consequence wanted to get into bed with Apple/Fairplay for Video due to a fear of Apple controlling the content market so not a good choice.
Bring out the F-word (fanboy). Quibble about "basic" but Nokia's patents are for the fundamental network technology which is now set and moving on to 4G. The majority of the innovation and differentiation is in the software and UI layers and that is where Nokia is woefully behind.
Anyway, Nokia charges fees per device with a lot of licensees, instead of cross licenses where the other party doesn't have anything to offer or doesn't want to give it to Nokia. Apple have stated that Nokia was trying to overcharge Apple. Their side of the story for sure, but likely true given Nokia's desperation to catch up.
Continue living in your Finnish dreamworld if you like but they are in a deep hole and your rambling about your perceived Apple failings won't change that.
Fairplay for video is one, a major one.
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.
Apple Fanboys are typically a rational group. The RDF field is only active during keynotes. If you can actually find evidence to the contrary that Nokia is not trying to use their patent portfolio aggressively to take advantage of Apple instead of treating them fairly I would love to hear it. So far the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing toward Nokia entering Patent Troll territory.
Apple Fanboys are typically a rational group. The RDF field is only active during keynotes. If you can actually find evidence to the contrary that Nokia is not trying to use their patent portfolio aggressively to take advantage of Apple instead of treating them fairly I would love to hear it. So far the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing toward Nokia entering Patent Troll territory.
That than what is being reported on Apple fan sites can you show me factual evidence that Nokia was charging more than others, so far the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing to Apple being a technology thief, and profiting off others innovation.
Bring out the F-word (fanboy). Quibble about "basic" but Nokia's patents are for the fundamental network technology which is now set and moving on to 4G. The majority of the innovation and differentiation is in the software and UI layers and that is where Nokia is woefully behind.
So how many patents does Apple have with 4G mobile radio technologies? If they are so basic, why haven't they innovated here?
Anyway, Nokia charges fees per device with a lot of licensees, instead of cross licenses where the other party doesn't have anything to offer or doesn't want to give it to Nokia. Apple have stated that Nokia was trying to overcharge Apple. Their side of the story for sure, but likely true given Nokia's desperation to catch up.
Nokia wants to cross-licence technologies with Apple, Apple doesn't want to, Apple doesn't want to pay any licence either, that is the overcharging that Apple is complaining about.
Continue living in your Finnish dreamworld if you like but they are in a deep hole and your rambling about your perceived Apple failings won't change that.
yeah that is the one, start making racial comments, that helps your agrument.
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.
You mean like H.264?
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.
That's an Apple centric view with a lot of assumptions (at least I haven't seen factual documentation to statements for points 2-6). To have meaningful discussion about any topic, multiple sides to the story should be viewed.
Here's one, where I've tried to stay with as much facts as possible. Note that the cross-lisensing demand by Nokia does seem to be more of an assumption by many posters instead of fact (I'd love to see a reference to fact if it indeed is):
1) Nokia and Apple have been in negotiations about Nokia patents (documented fact)
2) FRAND terms have different pricing in different regions (Europe & US one price, asia about half) (documented fact)
3) Apple says Nokia's price is higher for Apple than for others (documented Apple statement, factual basis unknown)
4) Apple wants Asia prices instead of US/Europe prices (pure assumption on several patent related discussion sites)
5) No agreement reached -> Lawsuit (documented fact)
6) Case escalated to ITC after both sides start thowing patent lawsuits.
A lot of people here assume that Nokia is wrong _because_ it's a sore loser. That has nothing to do with being in the right or wrong in patent cases as many of the same people here support Apple for defending its patents and trademarks and even design aspects.
BTW, here's the Nokia filing to the ITC. Interesting read and also shows stuff related to touch patents that Nokia owns and Apple clearly infringes on. Also interestingly these patents are different than the ones in the lawsuit.
http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadg..._apple_itc.pdf
I couldn't find the Apple filing and would be interested to see that if anyone has a link to it.
Regs, Jarkko
That until recently came with a substantial annual cost, now it's free.
Nokia instigated this action in the US, their panic stricken reaction to the iPhone has led them to desperate moves.
Such as dumping free GPS software in much the same way as Microsoft almost destroyed the web browser market by giving away Internet explorer, now phone manufacturers will have to give away GPS software for free in order to compete.
No more subscriptions to pay for development.
All the navigation App store Apps have become obsolete.
Dumping, dumping, dumping.
All it will take is one complaint and Nokia will be screwed in the US.
I wonder what Nokia owned Navteq charge Garmin for the use of their maps?
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?
A worldwide, lifetime license?
That until recently came with a substantial annual cost, now it's free.
Nokia instigated this action in the US, their panic stricken reaction to the iPhone has led them to desperate moves.
Such as dumping free GPS software in much the same way as Microsoft almost destroyed the web browser market by giving away Internet explorer, now phone manufacturers will have to give away GPS software for free in order to compete.
No more subscriptions to pay for development.
All the navigation App store Apps have become obsolete.
Dumping, dumping, dumping.
All it will take is one complaint and Nokia will be screwed in the US.
I wonder what Nokia owned Navteq charge Garmin for the use of their maps?
Hey, it gets better than that! Google is also screwed as well since navigation is included on the Google phone?
And Nokia is double screwed with Nokia's Comes With Music as it is also dumping and destroying Apple's business case with iTunes since user's get to dowload all the music they want for a year.
And using patented technology without paying for it (or user of said patents trying to tell the owner what price they'd like to pay and the owner having no say in the matter) is triple screwing Nokia.
And Apple is the wise and holy one by include iLife with the OS thereby removing the need for corresponding applications from independent SW vendors.
Apple is the wise and holy one by including licenses for basically unlimited users with their server licenses for stuff that microsoft licences user specific CALs for.
Regs, Jarkko
Until recently Nokia gave away trial versions of their maps if you wanted to continue the trial you paid.
Nokia handsets came with regional licenses, if you wanted other regions you paid.
Now it is free, worldwide.
Googles voice guidance is US only although people in Europe enabled it only to have Google block their crack with a patch (so much for open).
Nokia has paved the way for Google to offer free voice guidance anywhere on earth as to charge for licenses is anti-competive, especially from NavTeq the source of Nokia's "free" GPS maps.
How can Nokia charge wholesale buyers for a product that is "free", unless it isn't "free" and they are dumping it into the US.
If a US company makes a complaint, Nokia are screwed.
Now tell me specifically which Nokia patents Apple are using and the means by which they are doing it.
Don't the Qualcomm licenses Apple has, you know the one's Nokia settled by paying $2.3 Billion to Qualcomm cover what the iPhone does?
The licenses paid to other patent holders in this area?
The licenses paid for in the outsourced chips used in the iPhone.
Tell me under what jurisdiction, anywhere on earth, has it been shown that a phone cannot work without Nokia's technologies?
Motorola manufactured the first GSM phone, which Nokia technology was used in it seeing as it was prior art.
Hey, it gets better than that! Google is also screwed as well since navigation is included on the Google phone?
And Nokia is double screwed with Nokia's Comes With Music as it is also dumping and destroying Apple's business case with iTunes since user's get to dowload all the music they want for a year.
And using patented technology without paying for it (or user of said patents trying to tell the owner what price they'd like to pay and the owner having no say in the matter) is triple screwing Nokia.
And Apple is the wise and holy one by include iLife with the OS thereby removing the need for corresponding applications from independent SW vendors.
Apple is the wise and holy one by including licenses for basically unlimited users with their server licenses for stuff that microsoft licences user specific CALs for.
Regs, Jarkko
Nokia charge more for the "Comes with Music" versions of their phone's.
Now tell me specifically which Nokia patents Apple are using and the means by which they are doing it.
Don't the Qualcomm licenses Apple has, you know the one's Nokia settled by paying $2.3 Billion to Qualcomm cover what the iPhone does?
The licenses paid to other patent holders in this area?
The licenses paid for in the outsourced chips used in the iPhone.
Tell me under what jurisdiction, anywhere on earth, has it been shown that a phone cannot work without Nokia's technologies?
Motorola manufactured the first GSM phone, which Nokia technology was used in it seeing as it was prior art.
I'm not a patent lawyer so I can't really be the judge, but take a look at the PDF that I gave in my previous post. For example touchscreen keyboard zooming patented by Nokia looks awfully similar to what Apple implemented in the iPhone.
The licenses licensed by chipset vendors are typically not transferrable to the byer of the chipsets (sounds weird and I agree it is, but this is what "people in the know" tell me is how it works in ITU and 3GPP). So Apple has to pay (and does to Ericsson and Motorola for example) so why not Nokia?
I won't (propably can't) point out a juristiction where they say that a GSM/3G phone cannot work without Nokia patented tech. But that's not the point. The point is "did Apple use Nokia patented tech or not?".
As to making the first GSM phone. Well the phone contains tons of tech (and you know that) which has been cross licensed from day one by the incumbent players (Motorola, Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson etc.). GSM phone itself is not patented.
And are you sure that Motorola manufactured the first GSM phone? http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/11/09/ft_nokia_1011/
They manufactured the first mobile (analog) phone, but it _may_ just have been Nokia who made the first mass produced GSM phone.
Regs, Jarkko
I'm not a patent lawyer so I can't really be the judge, but take a look at the PDF that I gave in my previous post. For example touchscreen keyboard zooming patented by Nokia looks awfully similar to what Apple implemented in the iPhone.
The licenses licensed by chipset vendors are typically not transferrable to the byer of the chipsets (sounds weird and I agree it is, but this is what "people in the know" tell me is how it works in ITU and 3GPP). So Apple has to pay (and does to Ericsson and Motorola for example) so why not Nokia?
I won't (propably can't) point out a juristiction where they say that a GSM/3G phone cannot work without Nokia patented tech. But that's not the point. The point is "did Apple use Nokia patented tech or not?".
As to making the first GSM phone. Well the phone contains tons of tech (and you know that) which has been cross licensed from day one by the incumbent players (Motorola, Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson etc.). GSM phone itself is not patented.
And are you sure that Motorola manufactured the first GSM phone? http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2007/11/09/ft_nokia_1011/
They manufactured the first GSM phone, but it _may_ just have been Nokia who made the first mass produced GSM phone.
Regs, Jarkko
Jarko,
Moro, moro. Are you really wasting your time trying to debate with the dweller in apartment 1A of Steve Job's pants?
Don't waste your time.
Unless Steve Jobs lives in Australia or he is the possessor of unusually large trousers, inspired by MC Hammer...
...12,000 mile parachute pants, perhaps.
Somebody's gotta ground all you Nokia enthusiasts, you had it too easy at the top for too long, rejoicing at the fall of Motorola and Ericsson until Apple came along and shook your safe little S60 world up.
Jarko,
Moro, moro. Are you really wasting your time trying to debate with the dweller in apartment 1A of Steve Job's pants?
Don't waste your time.
Jarko,
Moro, moro. Are you really wasting your time trying to debate with the dweller in apartment 1A of Steve Job's pants?
Don't waste your time.
Moimoi.
Naah. Hill60 is OK sofar. He's just playing at being the "blind Apple fanboy". There are points in his posts.
But yeah, sometimes I don't bother when the speedblindness hits in with many of the posters here (and other fansites of various things technical). Just not quite there yet on this thread.
Competition is good and black and white opinions (the bane of fansites) are as bad as monopolies (real or de-facto). The ITC and patent cases are part of competition and protecting Apple's or Nokia's IP is what the economy is based on (i.e. making innovations and benefiting from them so that there's an incentive to innovate more)
Regs, Jarkko
P.S. Just to clarify to before someone starts discrediting anything I say solely because of my nationality (I did see what happened to you just because you're stationed here). I am a Finn through and through. Owner and user of iPods and Macs. Used to be a fan of Nokia (because they used to made seriously better stuff than anyone else in the business and it was all the better since it is the home team). They've since lost most of the momentum they had going for them (became complacent) and I'm no longer a fan of any manufacturer in particular.
What I'm really interested in is seeing where the _real_ facts are and what makes a manufacturer succeed and fail. It's interesting to see for example will Nokia be able to reinvent itself (history would prove yes, but you never know). Samsung and HTC seem to be quick to copy and stay in the game, but neither of them have done a single gamechanger. Can they become gamechangers? Can Apple stay and keep being the gamechanger or was it a one-off in the phone space?
But that has nothing to do with the ITC case.
Moimoi.
Naah. Hill60 is OK sofar. He's just playing at being the "blind Apple fanboy". There are points in his posts.
But yeah, sometimes I don't bother when the speedblindness hits in with many of the posters here (and other fansites of various things technical). Just not quite there yet on this thread.
Competition is good and black and white opinions (the bane of fansites) are as bad as monopolies (real or de-facto). The ITC and patent cases are part of competition and protecting Apple's or Nokia's IP is what the economy is based on (i.e. making innovations and benefiting from them so that there's an incentive to innovate more)
Regs, Jarkko
P.S. Just to clarify to before someone starts discrediting anything I say solely because of my nationality (I did see what happened to you just because you're stationed here). I am a Finn through and through. Owner and user of iPods and Macs. Used to be a fan of Nokia (because they used to made seriously better stuff than anyone else in the business and it was all the better since it is the home team). They've since lost most of the momentum they had going for them (became complacent) and I'm no longer a fan of any manufacturer in particular.
What I'm really interested in is seeing where the _real_ facts are and what makes a manufacturer succeed and fail. It's interesting to see for example will Nokia be able to reinvent itself (history would prove yes, but you never know). Samsung and HTC seem to be quick to copy and stay in the game, but neither of them have done a single gamechanger. Can they become gamechangers? Can Apple stay and keep being the gamechanger or was it a one-off in the phone space?
But that has nothing to do with the ITC case.
My sentiments exactly. I had production number 102 of the original Communicator, as well as several 2110i's. So my Nokia roots run deep, however they have lost their way, not because of the technology. The iPhone is not groundbreaking technology wise but in its implementation. I have friends deep inside of Nokia that talk about the daily infighting, back stabbing and the total ineptitude of the management staff. This was enough to push me off of a "brand" and to embrace the more bang for my buck. I am only loyal to technology. Someone could come along tomorrow and bump Apple off and I would not care less.
I wonder what Nokia owned Navteq charge Garmin for the use of their maps?
Now, I understand from this statement that you don't understand how companies work, but I will try and explain this for you. Even though Navteq may be owned by Nokia, Nokia will still pay Navteq for the use of the Maps, just like Garmin etc.
Now, I understand from this statement that you don't understand how companies work, but I will try and explain this for you. Even though Navteq may be owned by Nokia, Nokia will still pay Navteq for the use of the Maps, just like Garmin etc.
Dude, your head has got to hurt from banging it on the wall trying to explain things. Is it really worth your time? Some people simply do not have the capacity to learn.
Until recently Nokia gave away trial versions of their maps if you wanted to continue the trial you paid.
No, the maps applications was fully funcational, it was just missing navigation which you had to licence.
Nokia handsets came with regional licenses, if you wanted other regions you paid.
No, you could download any map for any part of the world for free, again without navigation, but still free.
Now it is free, worldwide.
Always was, you are referring to navigation
Nokia has paved the way for Google to offer free voice guidance anywhere on earth as to charge for licenses is anti-competive, especially from NavTeq the source of Nokia's "free" GPS maps.
How is it anti-competive? Anti-Comptive is when you produce a multimedia application for your computer and won't let anyone else have direct access for it, or is that a competive advantage, just like Nokias has?
How can Nokia charge wholesale buyers for a product that is "free", unless it isn't "free" and they are dumping it into the US.
Now, that comment is just plain stupid, maybe you can get away with it in k-mart, but in the real world, no. How is the product free if I have to got purchase a phone to use it? Does that mean that all the applications that come with the phone are "free", or does it mean that Nokia will now be taking less of a profit due to them giving the funcationality away?
If a US company makes a complaint, Nokia are screwed.
No they won't be, it just means those 12 customers in the US won't get to use the funcationality, the rest of the world, including Australia will just be fine.
Tell me under what jurisdiction, anywhere on earth, has it been shown that a phone cannot work without Nokia's technologies?
If Nokia is one of the holders of key GSM technologies, how can you make something that connects to GSM without using one of those technologies. Now I know you are a k-mart worker, so this won't come to you too quickly, but it is a fact, and a fact that Apple hasn't denied.
Motorola manufactured the first GSM phone, which Nokia technology was used in it seeing as it was prior art.
According to history, Nokia had this honour, can you post a link to this claim of yours?
No, the maps applications was fully funcational, it was just missing navigation which you had to licence.
No, you could download any map for any part of the world for free, again without navigation, but still free.
Always was, you are referring to navigation
How is it anti-competive? Anti-Comptive is when you produce a multimedia application for your computer and won't let anyone else have direct access for it, or is that a competive advantage, just like Nokias has?
Now, that comment is just plain stupid, maybe you can get away with it in k-mart, but in the real world, no. How is the product free if I have to got purchase a phone to use it? Does that mean that all the applications that come with the phone are "free", or does it mean that Nokia will now be taking less of a profit due to them giving the funcationality away?
No they won't be, it just means those 12 customers in the US won't get to use the funcationality, the rest of the world, including Australia will just be fine.
If Nokia is one of the holders of key GSM technologies, how can you make something that connects to GSM without using one of those technologies. Now I know you are a k-mart worker, so this won't come to you too quickly, but it is a fact, and a fact that Apple hasn't denied.
According to history, Nokia had this honour, can you post a link to this claim of yours?
Check and mate. Game, set, match: winner jfanning.
Check and mate. Game, set, match: winner jfanning.
Don't worry, hill60 won't allow something like facts to get in his way.
Don't worry, hill60 won't allow something like facts to get in his way.
It is pretty embarrassing though.