Nokia is part of a consortium that was set up to standardize cell phone intercompatibility.
Consortium link please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The agreement says that IF YOU CHOOSE TO LICENSE A TECHNOLOGY, that you have to give everyone the same price.
Link the agreement please. Some (real) evidence of what Nokia charges from others would be helpful too.
Either way, you still haven't explained why Apple responded with a patent suit rather than some other path to get the courts to decide on the pricing issue, if they really thought there were contracts involved. It's dangerous for them to sue because they could open up a can of worms on their own patents.
Link the agreement please. Some (real) evidence of what Nokia charges from others would be helpful too..
Look it up yourself. It's been published all over the web for months.
It is, however, silly to think that they have published their royalty rates. If you have a legitimate need to license their technology, you're free to contact them to find out the rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jukes
Either way, you still haven't explained why Apple responded with a patent suit rather than some other path to get the courts to decide on the pricing issue, if they really thought there were contracts involved. It's dangerous for them to sue because they could open up a can of worms on their own patents.
It's obvious that you don't have any idea how to run a large business.
Nokia started this with their complaint to the ITC and filing patent suits. Apple responded in a similar manner. If Nokia didn't want to get into patent litigation, they shouldn't have started it.
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).
Not quite. It seems you only read the first part of my response. If you read the second part (the one about differing F/RANDs in different regions of the world), you might find out that it is entirely plausible that both are telling the truth, but not the whole truth.
Kind of like me suing Apple for not selling me an iPhone here with the same price that you guys get it in the U.S.
Look it up yourself. It's been published all over the web for months.
It is, however, silly to think that they have published their royalty rates. If you have a legitimate need to license their technology, you're free to contact them to find out the rates.
Haha. Which is what makes this whole discussion worthless.
Nokia says "we offered FRAND pricing". Apple says "reciprocity isn't FRAND (i.e., no you didn't)---and by the way, we don't infringe on any parts of those patents that are valid, and those patents you listed aren't essential to the standards in question anyway."
I'm eagerly awaiting a time 3 years from now when we can find out if others have agreed to reciprocity in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
It's obvious that you don't have any idea how to run a large business.
Nokia started this with their complaint to the ITC and filing patent suits. Apple responded in a similar manner. If Nokia didn't want to get into patent litigation, they shouldn't have started it.
Of course not. That's why I have time to post comments in these forums. I think the same thing about everyone here. None of us have anything more useful to do.
Nokia noted that it has invested about 40 billion euros in research and development in the last two decades. It said it has one of the industry's "strongest and broadest" patent portfolios, with more than 11,000 patent families.
Of course not. That's why I have time to post comments in these forums. I think the same thing about everyone here. None of us have anything more useful to do.
Absolutely love that reply. Far too many people here think they are way more important than they are, given how much time they spend on message boards.
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.
Haha. Which is what makes this whole discussion worthless.
Nokia says "we offered FRAND pricing". Apple says "reciprocity isn't FRAND (i.e., no you didn't)---and by the way, we don't infringe on any parts of those patents that are valid, and those patents you listed aren't essential to the standards in question anyway."
The only problem with your analysis is that Nokia never stated that they offered FRAND. Apple said that they were willing to pay FRAND and the only response from Sweden is *crickets*.
If Nokia had said that they were offering FRAND, you might have a point.
The only problem with your analysis is that Nokia never stated that they offered FRAND. Apple said that they were willing to pay FRAND and the only response from Sweden is *crickets*.
If Nokia had said that they were offering FRAND, you might have a point.
Again paragraphs 43-46. 44 is particularly funny. It likely comes down to what is considered FRAND, and it seems to me that is likely to be defined by what others have paid, which we don't know.
Apple isn't licensing that tech from Nokia even though everybody else in the industry is. These aren't software patents but patents on real physical technology.
On the other hand, Nokia has refused to license the tech to apple on the same reasonable, non-discriminatory terms as everybody else. They want access to some of Apple's valuable patents, one that Apple really doesn't want to license.
This is the issue. Hopefully the courts and the ITC will be smart enough to figure it out.
Yes, thats the part I'm not clear on, it seems that Apple is willing to pay what everyone else is paying regarding licensing, but, Nokia is holding Apple to a different standard by demanding access to particular Apple patents in addition to licensing fees, is this the case?, and if it is, can Nokia legally request this of Apple specifically and not the others?
Yes, thats the part I'm not clear on, it seems that Apple is willing to pay what everyone else is paying regarding licensing, but, Nokia is holding Apple to a different standard by demanding access to particular Apple patents in addition to licensing fees, is this the case?
I doubt anyone knows. It may well be that other licensees have agreed to the same terms that Apple has rejected. If this ends up decided in court we'll get to find out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraBuggy
and if it is, can Nokia legally request this of Apple specifically and not the others?
It's up the courts what is fair and reasonable. Maybe it is fair and reasonable to ask more from Apple, if that is what is going on. Maybe it's not. Who knows? If you sit on the jury you might get to decide.
Again paragraphs 43-46. 44 is particularly funny. It likely comes down to what is considered FRAND, and it seems to me that is likely to be defined by what others have paid, which we don't know.
Fun fun fun.
As you're hinting at - there's nothing in that document which states that Nokia has offered Apple the same terms as everyone else. Interesting omission, right?
As you're hinting at - there's nothing in that document which states that Nokia has offered Apple the same terms as everyone else. Interesting omission, right?
There won't be a single, standard set of terms across all of the licensees. Nokia cross license patents with the big players, rather than swapping cash.
What is the point of all these attacks? All these cases take years to deal with. By the time case is settled iPhone/Pod/Pad will be made with a different tech and the most Nokia can hope for is a few hundred millions. Which would not help Nokia make a good smartphone.
All know to me cases of mobile patents have settled for no more than 300 millions. Thats exactly or less of what the winning company has paid their lawyers team. Plus these corps are so big that even half a billion is not much.
P.S. at least for Apple half a billion would not hurt too much it may be different for a 40% geared company like Nokia. Anyhow they better spend all this effort to make a decent smartphone.
You know, I think everything that can be said has been said, twice, about companies suing Apple and Apple suing other companies. Maybe the moderators could do a public service by just posting an FAQ-style summary of the best of them instead of continuing to host redundant comments on these stories.
I know, I know, I'm an enemy of free and open discussion, but before I even opened and scanned the comments I predicted the gist, and sometimes even the exact wording, of what I would see. That's when it hit me.
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.
I read some time back that Apple pays about $40-50/phone for IPR royalties. That would include the payments to companies like Qualcomm, etc. With UMTS/GSM Qualcomm's 5.5% royalties got diluted and other collect their share. I do not know the terms. May be somebody here can explain what the terms are.
I would think that the royalties are for the radio portion of the device and not on the whole device itself. Typically the royalty would be paid to the consortium. Why is it that Apple is being discriminated while Google/Nexus, HTC or any of the Chinese, Japanese and Korean company can get licenses easily?
Just sounds that Nokia is trying to discriminate outside the consortium rules.
As you're hinting at - there's nothing in that document which states that Nokia has offered Apple the same terms as everyone else. Interesting omission, right?
No it isn't. They only claim they've offered FRAND. You've been told several times that FRAND means different things in different places. You refuse to even acknowledge that just so that you can make your point stick (That Nokia is the bad guy and keeps lying).
In addition to regional FRAND differences, it is also likely that Apple and Nokia disagree on the fact that is the iPhone a 100% phone or say 1% phone 99% computer. So they propably disagree on how much of the iPhone's price should be counten into licensing of the portfolio. So again both could be right in their view of what is FRAND pricing. They just have different views.
Then things like Antenna design and WLAN patents are another story (used in iPods and Macbooks). Heck they propably even disagree on what price should the calculations be made from (factory, ASP, street etc.). Any of these could be seen as "didn't agree to FRAND" and "didn't offer FRAND".
Making either of these companies the "bad guy" in this case without knowing any of the real facts behind the negotiations and offered pricings is, well, pointless. You can assume the **** out of it, but thats all it still is. An assumption.
It's all there in the analysis by Richard Wolfram, embedded in flash for you to view and read.
Thank you for that link. Lots of good stuff, but looking at one viewpoint only. I don't agree it's all there, we still don't know what was really offered, just that the two sides don't agree on the F/RAND. But your post was the first one to bring real insight and data into this discussion.
The differences in FRAND pricing for 2G & 3G licensing betwen established NAM/European players and noname SE Asia player comes from a similar blog entry from a similar lawyer. I just didn't find the link to it.
There's also the claim by Apple that the patents are non-essential (a view dismissed by many analysis companies). But the courts make the decision.
As we can see, there are way too many views and details in this case for any of us amateurs to judge.
Your post actually enforces my point. Us amateurs can only make assumptions until more professional information and real data is given out to us. Making uneducated assumptions seems pointless in this light. Hmm. why am I even writing this?
Comments
Nokia is part of a consortium that was set up to standardize cell phone intercompatibility.
Consortium link please.
The agreement says that IF YOU CHOOSE TO LICENSE A TECHNOLOGY, that you have to give everyone the same price.
Link the agreement please. Some (real) evidence of what Nokia charges from others would be helpful too.
Either way, you still haven't explained why Apple responded with a patent suit rather than some other path to get the courts to decide on the pricing issue, if they really thought there were contracts involved. It's dangerous for them to sue because they could open up a can of worms on their own patents.
Consortium link please.
Link the agreement please. Some (real) evidence of what Nokia charges from others would be helpful too..
Look it up yourself. It's been published all over the web for months.
It is, however, silly to think that they have published their royalty rates. If you have a legitimate need to license their technology, you're free to contact them to find out the rates.
Either way, you still haven't explained why Apple responded with a patent suit rather than some other path to get the courts to decide on the pricing issue, if they really thought there were contracts involved. It's dangerous for them to sue because they could open up a can of worms on their own patents.
It's obvious that you don't have any idea how to run a large business.
Nokia started this with their complaint to the ITC and filing patent suits. Apple responded in a similar manner. If Nokia didn't want to get into patent litigation, they shouldn't have started it.
...
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).
Not quite. It seems you only read the first part of my response. If you read the second part (the one about differing F/RANDs in different regions of the world), you might find out that it is entirely plausible that both are telling the truth, but not the whole truth.
Kind of like me suing Apple for not selling me an iPhone here with the same price that you guys get it in the U.S.
Regs, Jarkko
Look it up yourself. It's been published all over the web for months.
It is, however, silly to think that they have published their royalty rates. If you have a legitimate need to license their technology, you're free to contact them to find out the rates.
Haha. Which is what makes this whole discussion worthless.
Nokia says "we offered FRAND pricing". Apple says "reciprocity isn't FRAND (i.e., no you didn't)---and by the way, we don't infringe on any parts of those patents that are valid, and those patents you listed aren't essential to the standards in question anyway."
I'm eagerly awaiting a time 3 years from now when we can find out if others have agreed to reciprocity in the past.
It's obvious that you don't have any idea how to run a large business.
Nokia started this with their complaint to the ITC and filing patent suits. Apple responded in a similar manner. If Nokia didn't want to get into patent litigation, they shouldn't have started it.
Of course not. That's why I have time to post comments in these forums. I think the same thing about everyone here. None of us have anything more useful to do.
Nokia noted that it has invested about 40 billion euros in research and development in the last two decades. It said it has one of the industry's "strongest and broadest" patent portfolios, with more than 11,000 patent families.
They've certainly done so with Siemens and reaped in Iran.
Of course not. That's why I have time to post comments in these forums. I think the same thing about everyone here. None of us have anything more useful to do.
Absolutely love that reply. Far too many people here think they are way more important than they are, given how much time they spend on message boards.
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.
Well said.
Haha. Which is what makes this whole discussion worthless.
Nokia says "we offered FRAND pricing". Apple says "reciprocity isn't FRAND (i.e., no you didn't)---and by the way, we don't infringe on any parts of those patents that are valid, and those patents you listed aren't essential to the standards in question anyway."
The only problem with your analysis is that Nokia never stated that they offered FRAND. Apple said that they were willing to pay FRAND and the only response from Sweden is *crickets*.
If Nokia had said that they were offering FRAND, you might have a point.
The only problem with your analysis is that Nokia never stated that they offered FRAND. Apple said that they were willing to pay FRAND and the only response from Sweden is *crickets*.
If Nokia had said that they were offering FRAND, you might have a point.
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/pdfs...?tag=mncol;txt
See paragraphs 43-46, "Apple's Refusal to pay F/RAND Compensation." And of course
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/pdfs...?tag=mncol;txt
Again paragraphs 43-46. 44 is particularly funny. It likely comes down to what is considered FRAND, and it seems to me that is likely to be defined by what others have paid, which we don't know.
Fun fun fun.
Apple isn't licensing that tech from Nokia even though everybody else in the industry is. These aren't software patents but patents on real physical technology.
On the other hand, Nokia has refused to license the tech to apple on the same reasonable, non-discriminatory terms as everybody else. They want access to some of Apple's valuable patents, one that Apple really doesn't want to license.
This is the issue. Hopefully the courts and the ITC will be smart enough to figure it out.
Yes, thats the part I'm not clear on, it seems that Apple is willing to pay what everyone else is paying regarding licensing, but, Nokia is holding Apple to a different standard by demanding access to particular Apple patents in addition to licensing fees, is this the case?, and if it is, can Nokia legally request this of Apple specifically and not the others?
Yes, thats the part I'm not clear on, it seems that Apple is willing to pay what everyone else is paying regarding licensing, but, Nokia is holding Apple to a different standard by demanding access to particular Apple patents in addition to licensing fees, is this the case?
I doubt anyone knows. It may well be that other licensees have agreed to the same terms that Apple has rejected. If this ends up decided in court we'll get to find out.
and if it is, can Nokia legally request this of Apple specifically and not the others?
It's up the courts what is fair and reasonable. Maybe it is fair and reasonable to ask more from Apple, if that is what is going on. Maybe it's not. Who knows? If you sit on the jury you might get to decide.
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/pdfs...?tag=mncol;txt
See paragraphs 43-46, "Apple's Refusal to pay F/RAND Compensation." And of course
http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/pdfs...?tag=mncol;txt
Again paragraphs 43-46. 44 is particularly funny. It likely comes down to what is considered FRAND, and it seems to me that is likely to be defined by what others have paid, which we don't know.
Fun fun fun.
As you're hinting at - there's nothing in that document which states that Nokia has offered Apple the same terms as everyone else. Interesting omission, right?
As you're hinting at - there's nothing in that document which states that Nokia has offered Apple the same terms as everyone else. Interesting omission, right?
There won't be a single, standard set of terms across all of the licensees. Nokia cross license patents with the big players, rather than swapping cash.
All know to me cases of mobile patents have settled for no more than 300 millions. Thats exactly or less of what the winning company has paid their lawyers team. Plus these corps are so big that even half a billion is not much.
P.S. at least for Apple half a billion would not hurt too much it may be different for a 40% geared company like Nokia. Anyhow they better spend all this effort to make a decent smartphone.
I know, I know, I'm an enemy of free and open discussion, but before I even opened and scanned the comments I predicted the gist, and sometimes even the exact wording, of what I would see. That's when it hit me.
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.
I read some time back that Apple pays about $40-50/phone for IPR royalties. That would include the payments to companies like Qualcomm, etc. With UMTS/GSM Qualcomm's 5.5% royalties got diluted and other collect their share. I do not know the terms. May be somebody here can explain what the terms are.
I would think that the royalties are for the radio portion of the device and not on the whole device itself. Typically the royalty would be paid to the consortium. Why is it that Apple is being discriminated while Google/Nexus, HTC or any of the Chinese, Japanese and Korean company can get licenses easily?
Just sounds that Nokia is trying to discriminate outside the consortium rules.
As you're hinting at - there's nothing in that document which states that Nokia has offered Apple the same terms as everyone else. Interesting omission, right?
No it isn't. They only claim they've offered FRAND. You've been told several times that FRAND means different things in different places. You refuse to even acknowledge that just so that you can make your point stick (That Nokia is the bad guy and keeps lying).
In addition to regional FRAND differences, it is also likely that Apple and Nokia disagree on the fact that is the iPhone a 100% phone or say 1% phone 99% computer. So they propably disagree on how much of the iPhone's price should be counten into licensing of the portfolio. So again both could be right in their view of what is FRAND pricing. They just have different views.
Then things like Antenna design and WLAN patents are another story (used in iPods and Macbooks). Heck they propably even disagree on what price should the calculations be made from (factory, ASP, street etc.). Any of these could be seen as "didn't agree to FRAND" and "didn't offer FRAND".
Making either of these companies the "bad guy" in this case without knowing any of the real facts behind the negotiations and offered pricings is, well, pointless. You can assume the **** out of it, but thats all it still is. An assumption.
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.
Really?
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/34964865...-Wolfram-_www/
It's all there in the analysis by Richard Wolfram, embedded in flash for you to view and read.
Really?
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/34964865...-Wolfram-_www/
It's all there in the analysis by Richard Wolfram, embedded in flash for you to view and read.
Thank you for that link. Lots of good stuff, but looking at one viewpoint only. I don't agree it's all there, we still don't know what was really offered, just that the two sides don't agree on the F/RAND. But your post was the first one to bring real insight and data into this discussion.
The differences in FRAND pricing for 2G & 3G licensing betwen established NAM/European players and noname SE Asia player comes from a similar blog entry from a similar lawyer. I just didn't find the link to it.
There's also the claim by Apple that the patents are non-essential (a view dismissed by many analysis companies). But the courts make the decision.
As we can see, there are way too many views and details in this case for any of us amateurs to judge.
Your post actually enforces my point. Us amateurs can only make assumptions until more professional information and real data is given out to us. Making uneducated assumptions seems pointless in this light. Hmm. why am I even writing this?
Thank you once more for the added data.
Regs, Jarkko