And you are ignoring that that is what Apple says (in their countercomplaint to be exact). So far without a shed of proof. Kind of "he said, she said". And you believe them? And not the other company in question? Fanboyism is fine but believing what any company says blindly is kind of silly.
F/RAND also means two different things in GSM/3G licensing in N.America/Europe than what it means in Asia. Could it be that Nokia wants NAM/Europe prices (like every NAM/European company pays) and Apple wants Asian prices? That would easily explain the conflicting statements. They would both be correct in a sense.
We'll only know if this a) ever goes to court b) isn't settled outside of court and c) documents are made public.
Regs, Jarkko
Moro, moro Jarkko.
BPE = Best post ever. You nailed it. Next time you are in Helsinki flag me and I will by you a beer.
Nokia is required to charge everyone the same license fees but they want MORE from Apple. Apple agreed to pay what Nokia charges everyone else and Nokia refused.
It's good to see Apple getting some of their own medicine after the crap they started with HTC/Google. The only downside about all this is these stupid lawsuits cost money, which will drive up the cost for both Apple and Nokia products in the long run.
Nokia is required to charge everyone the same license fees but they want MORE from Apple. Apple agreed to pay what Nokia charges everyone else and Nokia refused.
Has this been proved? I know that this has been Apple's defence but has it been verified by an independent 3rd party?
I'm guessing we won't know the truth until the court case.
And you are ignoring that that is what Apple says (in their countercomplaint to be exact). So far without a shed of proof. Kind of "he said, she said". And you believe them? And not the other company in question? Fanboyism is fine but believing what any company says blindly is kind of silly.
F/RAND also means two different things in GSM/3G licensing in N.America/Europe than what it means in Asia. Could it be that Nokia wants NAM/Europe prices (like every NAM/European company pays) and Apple wants Asian prices? That would easily explain the conflicting statements. They would both be correct in a sense.
We'll only know if this a) ever goes to court b) isn't settled outside of court and c) documents are made public.
Regs, Jarkko
Maybe you could read and try to understand the public documents. It is illegal for a company to flat-out lie in a public document, so they tend not to do that. Instead, they spread FUD and make misleading statements. You need to be able to read for comprehension - and look for very clear statements - which apparently a lot of people are unable to do.
Apple specifically stated that they offered to pay Nokia the same fees that Nokia was charging everyone else. There's very little room for interpretation there. Apple either DID offer to pay the reasonable and non-discriminatory terms or they didn't. If they didn't, it's a flat out lie which gets them in trouble with the SEC and shareholders. Thus, it's likely that they're telling the truth.
Nokia has never stated otherwise. You will not find a single Nokia statement saying that Apple refused to pay the same licensing fees as the rest of the industry. Instead, Nokia's public statements have been that Apple has not licensed the technologies - which is NOT inconsistent with Apple's statement. If Nokia were asking for $10,000 per phone and Apple refused to pay it, then Nokia's statement would still be true.
So, the ONLY scenario which would support the view that BOTH companies are telling the truth is the one I stated - that Apple offered reasonable and non-discriminatory payments and Nokia wanted more than that. (In fact, I think Apple specifically stated that this is true).
Now, if you have evidence that Apple is lying, you'd better turn it over to law enforcement personnel. Note that I'm NOT accusing Nokia of lying - just making misleading statements.
Maybe you could read and try to understand the public documents. It is illegal for a company to flat-out lie in a public document, so they tend not to do that. Instead, they spread FUD and make misleading statements. You need to be able to read for comprehension - and look for very clear statements - which apparently a lot of people are unable to do.
Apple specifically stated that they offered to pay Nokia the same fees that Nokia was charging everyone else....
What jragosta said. With emphasis on the part about what Apple specifically stated. If I could vote and add points to your post, I would, sir (ma'am?).
What you're ignoring - even though it has been pointed out to you - is that Nokia is part of a consortium which requires reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing of their patents. They are asking Apple to pay a much higher fee than they charge anyone else - which is a violation of that agreement. Furthermore, they are insisting that Apple license some non-related patents - even though Apple has never agreed to reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing.
In effect, by participating in the consortium, Nokia no longer has the right to demand what they're asking.
Apple never licensed their iPhone technology to anyone and allege that HTC stole it. Apple certainly has the right to try to prove that.
I assume you meant your reply for the O.P. (Ricardo Dawkins). Otherwise you misunderstood my point (that's ok. It was kind of figurative)
Nokia is required to charge everyone the same license fees but they want MORE from Apple. Apple agreed to pay what Nokia charges everyone else and Nokia refused.
Show me.
1) The specific patents under question (patent #s).
2) That these patents are specifically included in a consortium agreement.
3) That the consortium agreement works the way that you claim.
I doubt that you are completely right, or Apple wouldn't have responded to Nokia's patent suit with a patent countersuit that has the risk of invalidating Apple's patents.
Stop all the crap about suing! Nokia, for that matter some others too, look at your own creation is it up to usable, reliable and loved by your users. If not you lost the creditability. So what good if you have chest load of patents and they aren't put to good use. Go back to your labs and come clean with a game changer to better iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad, then you talk about your patents.
Welcome to the forum, Spiced. I will enjoy your posts.
What you're ignoring - even though it has been pointed out to you - is that Nokia is part of a consortium which requires reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing of their patents. They are asking Apple to pay a much higher fee than they charge anyone else - which is a violation of that agreement. Furthermore, they are insisting that Apple license some non-related patents - even though Apple has never agreed to reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing.
In effect, by participating in the consortium, Nokia no longer has the right to demand what they're asking.
Apple never licensed their iPhone technology to anyone and allege that HTC stole it. Apple certainly has the right to try to prove that.
So, the ONLY scenario which would support the view that BOTH companies are telling the truth is the one I stated - that Apple offered reasonable and non-discriminatory payments and Nokia wanted more than that. (In fact, I think Apple specifically stated that this is true).
.
How is Nokia obligated to accept Apple's offer? By contract? What contract?
If Nokia rejected Apple's offer, why did Apple use Nokia's stuff?? Shouldn't they have gotten a judgment on the contract first?
Welcome to the forum, Spiced. I will enjoy your posts.
Appreciate your welcome note . Have been reading lots of post here and not airing my views is doing injustice. A first step in posting my frustration of phone manufacturers like Nokia who needs a good beating by Apple who is new to the mobile phone but created such a game changer in just 3yrs. Cheers Apple !
Alternatively, if you can't beat 'em, steal from 'em.
I've no idea how this is going to work out, but this isn't really news. The fact that there is a suit against the iPhone means iPad 3G was likely to be included as well.
How is Nokia obligated to accept Apple's offer? By contract? What contract?
If Nokia rejected Apple's offer, why did Apple use Nokia's stuff?? Shouldn't they have gotten a judgment on the contract first?
Nokia is part of a consortium that was set up to standardize cell phone intercompatibility. It was apparent that cell phones wouldn't work together well unless there were some standards - and a number of different companies (Motorola, Nokia, RIM, etc) all had relevant technology. They formed a consortium to allow all companies to cross-license each others' patents to help the industry move forward. As part of that consortium, they agree to license their technologies to anyone who wants them at the same reasonable and non-discriminatory rates.
Apple is not a member of the consortium, so they don't have to license their technologies. In fact, IIRC, even if they WERE a member of the consortium, they still wouldn't have to license all of their technology. The agreement says that IF YOU CHOOSE TO LICENSE A TECHNOLOGY, that you have to give everyone the same price. It doesn't require you to license any technology that you choose not to license.
There's no rule that you must be in the consortium to license the technologies, so it doesn't matter if Apple is or isn't.
Nokia agreed to the terms, but now that they're getting their rear end kicked in the market, they're trying to renege.
Appreciate your welcome note . Have been reading lots of post here and not airing my views is doing injustice. A first step in posting my frustration of phone manufacturers like Nokia who needs a good beating by Apple who is new to the mobile phone but created such a game changer in just 3yrs. Cheers Apple !
Evolution so far has shown that humans that can change as the decades roll by and adapt to current technologies and not stagnate will always be more successful than the apes that are stuck in the previous century. This would be companies like Palm/RIM/HP/Nokia/Microsoft/Dell etc etc. These subset of humans have all stagnated and can no longer learn and evolve with technology/humanity, because they lack this gene, they obviously turn to the only tactic in their mind that worked for them from the previous century, and that is to ride the tail of your superiors.
This is why those companies lack the ability to innovate, they're last centuries old aged technology/mentality/culture that is about to be phased out in favor of new tomorrow's tech.
Comments
And you are ignoring that that is what Apple says (in their countercomplaint to be exact). So far without a shed of proof. Kind of "he said, she said". And you believe them? And not the other company in question? Fanboyism is fine but believing what any company says blindly is kind of silly.
F/RAND also means two different things in GSM/3G licensing in N.America/Europe than what it means in Asia. Could it be that Nokia wants NAM/Europe prices (like every NAM/European company pays) and Apple wants Asian prices? That would easily explain the conflicting statements. They would both be correct in a sense.
We'll only know if this a) ever goes to court b) isn't settled outside of court and c) documents are made public.
Regs, Jarkko
Moro, moro Jarkko.
BPE = Best post ever. You nailed it. Next time you are in Helsinki flag me and I will by you a beer.
Nokia is required to charge everyone the same license fees but they want MORE from Apple. Apple agreed to pay what Nokia charges everyone else and Nokia refused.
Said who exactly?
Regs, Jarkko
Nokia is required to charge everyone the same license fees but they want MORE from Apple. Apple agreed to pay what Nokia charges everyone else and Nokia refused.
Has this been proved? I know that this has been Apple's defence but has it been verified by an independent 3rd party?
I'm guessing we won't know the truth until the court case.
And you are ignoring that that is what Apple says (in their countercomplaint to be exact). So far without a shed of proof. Kind of "he said, she said". And you believe them? And not the other company in question? Fanboyism is fine but believing what any company says blindly is kind of silly.
F/RAND also means two different things in GSM/3G licensing in N.America/Europe than what it means in Asia. Could it be that Nokia wants NAM/Europe prices (like every NAM/European company pays) and Apple wants Asian prices? That would easily explain the conflicting statements. They would both be correct in a sense.
We'll only know if this a) ever goes to court b) isn't settled outside of court and c) documents are made public.
Regs, Jarkko
Maybe you could read and try to understand the public documents. It is illegal for a company to flat-out lie in a public document, so they tend not to do that. Instead, they spread FUD and make misleading statements. You need to be able to read for comprehension - and look for very clear statements - which apparently a lot of people are unable to do.
Apple specifically stated that they offered to pay Nokia the same fees that Nokia was charging everyone else. There's very little room for interpretation there. Apple either DID offer to pay the reasonable and non-discriminatory terms or they didn't. If they didn't, it's a flat out lie which gets them in trouble with the SEC and shareholders. Thus, it's likely that they're telling the truth.
Nokia has never stated otherwise. You will not find a single Nokia statement saying that Apple refused to pay the same licensing fees as the rest of the industry. Instead, Nokia's public statements have been that Apple has not licensed the technologies - which is NOT inconsistent with Apple's statement. If Nokia were asking for $10,000 per phone and Apple refused to pay it, then Nokia's statement would still be true.
So, the ONLY scenario which would support the view that BOTH companies are telling the truth is the one I stated - that Apple offered reasonable and non-discriminatory payments and Nokia wanted more than that. (In fact, I think Apple specifically stated that this is true).
Now, if you have evidence that Apple is lying, you'd better turn it over to law enforcement personnel. Note that I'm NOT accusing Nokia of lying - just making misleading statements.
Everyone who builds a cell phone almost certainly needs to license patents that Nokia owns.
Apple just doesn't want to pay what Nokia is asking.
A key point in Apple's counter suit is that Nokia asked for way more than what everyone else is paying. and that's against the rules.
all of this is moot anyway cause there's a guy in Texas suing them both cause he claims to have a patent on the cell phone.
Maybe you could read and try to understand the public documents. It is illegal for a company to flat-out lie in a public document, so they tend not to do that. Instead, they spread FUD and make misleading statements. You need to be able to read for comprehension - and look for very clear statements - which apparently a lot of people are unable to do.
Apple specifically stated that they offered to pay Nokia the same fees that Nokia was charging everyone else....
What jragosta said. With emphasis on the part about what Apple specifically stated. If I could vote and add points to your post, I would, sir (ma'am?).
What you're ignoring - even though it has been pointed out to you - is that Nokia is part of a consortium which requires reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing of their patents. They are asking Apple to pay a much higher fee than they charge anyone else - which is a violation of that agreement. Furthermore, they are insisting that Apple license some non-related patents - even though Apple has never agreed to reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing.
In effect, by participating in the consortium, Nokia no longer has the right to demand what they're asking.
Apple never licensed their iPhone technology to anyone and allege that HTC stole it. Apple certainly has the right to try to prove that.
I assume you meant your reply for the O.P. (Ricardo Dawkins). Otherwise you misunderstood my point (that's ok. It was kind of figurative)
How many times do you need to be told?
Nokia is required to charge everyone the same license fees but they want MORE from Apple. Apple agreed to pay what Nokia charges everyone else and Nokia refused.
Show me.
1) The specific patents under question (patent #s).
2) That these patents are specifically included in a consortium agreement.
3) That the consortium agreement works the way that you claim.
I doubt that you are completely right, or Apple wouldn't have responded to Nokia's patent suit with a patent countersuit that has the risk of invalidating Apple's patents.
What are you talking about?
Nokia thinks a company has violated their patents, and is suing them.
Apple thinks a company has violated their patents, and is suing them.
Looks like a single standard to me.
Please explain?
Apple is fighting the good fight - to avoid the unlawful, despicable theft of its valuable intellectual property rights.
Nokia is a lazy whining bully using unfair tactics to bring a good company down.
Isn't that simple?
Stop all the crap about suing
Welcome to the forum, Spiced. I will enjoy your posts.
A key point in Apple's counter suit is that Nokia asked for way more than what everyone else is paying. and that's against the rules.
Who's rules? Who's jurisdiction?
What you're ignoring - even though it has been pointed out to you - is that Nokia is part of a consortium which requires reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing of their patents. They are asking Apple to pay a much higher fee than they charge anyone else - which is a violation of that agreement. Furthermore, they are insisting that Apple license some non-related patents - even though Apple has never agreed to reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing.
In effect, by participating in the consortium, Nokia no longer has the right to demand what they're asking.
Apple never licensed their iPhone technology to anyone and allege that HTC stole it. Apple certainly has the right to try to prove that.
Is Apple part of the consortium?
I just wonder if Edison, et al, has sued the makers of those inventors/companies that have improved the light bulb.... Nokia is struggling to survive.
Actually, no. But only because his competitor used a different bulb and base in order to avoid the patent problem.
See how Tesla lit the World's Fair with bayonet based florescent bulbs.
So, the ONLY scenario which would support the view that BOTH companies are telling the truth is the one I stated - that Apple offered reasonable and non-discriminatory payments and Nokia wanted more than that. (In fact, I think Apple specifically stated that this is true).
.
How is Nokia obligated to accept Apple's offer? By contract? What contract?
If Nokia rejected Apple's offer, why did Apple use Nokia's stuff?? Shouldn't they have gotten a judgment on the contract first?
A key point in Apple's counter suit is that Nokia asked for way more than what everyone else is paying. and that's against the rules.
What rules?
Welcome to the forum, Spiced. I will enjoy your posts.
Appreciate your welcome note
If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.
Alternatively, if you can't beat 'em, steal from 'em.
I've no idea how this is going to work out, but this isn't really news. The fact that there is a suit against the iPhone means iPad 3G was likely to be included as well.
Who's rules? Who's jurisdiction?
How is Nokia obligated to accept Apple's offer? By contract? What contract?
If Nokia rejected Apple's offer, why did Apple use Nokia's stuff?? Shouldn't they have gotten a judgment on the contract first?
Nokia is part of a consortium that was set up to standardize cell phone intercompatibility. It was apparent that cell phones wouldn't work together well unless there were some standards - and a number of different companies (Motorola, Nokia, RIM, etc) all had relevant technology. They formed a consortium to allow all companies to cross-license each others' patents to help the industry move forward. As part of that consortium, they agree to license their technologies to anyone who wants them at the same reasonable and non-discriminatory rates.
Apple is not a member of the consortium, so they don't have to license their technologies. In fact, IIRC, even if they WERE a member of the consortium, they still wouldn't have to license all of their technology. The agreement says that IF YOU CHOOSE TO LICENSE A TECHNOLOGY, that you have to give everyone the same price. It doesn't require you to license any technology that you choose not to license.
There's no rule that you must be in the consortium to license the technologies, so it doesn't matter if Apple is or isn't.
Nokia agreed to the terms, but now that they're getting their rear end kicked in the market, they're trying to renege.
Appreciate your welcome note
Evolution so far has shown that humans that can change as the decades roll by and adapt to current technologies and not stagnate will always be more successful than the apes that are stuck in the previous century. This would be companies like Palm/RIM/HP/Nokia/Microsoft/Dell etc etc. These subset of humans have all stagnated and can no longer learn and evolve with technology/humanity, because they lack this gene, they obviously turn to the only tactic in their mind that worked for them from the previous century, and that is to ride the tail of your superiors.
This is why those companies lack the ability to innovate, they're last centuries old aged technology/mentality/culture that is about to be phased out in favor of new tomorrow's tech.