Apple countersues Motorola over multi-touch iPhone patents

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 99
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alexkhan2000 View Post


    They're earning close to $4 billion per quarter and is now the world's largest technology/CE company (will be $130 billion+ after their fiscal 2010).



    Samsung Group and Samsung Electronics are definitely well run and profitable companies, but the line above I quoted needs the qualifier “by revenue”. I don’t think they are even in the 10 top ten for valuation or profits per quarter.



    Quote:

    They're the only two companies in the tech/CE hardware sector that are really growing and making tons of money. It only makes sense they rely on each other to grow and bring in gobs of profits.



    RiM is growing their , and RiM and MS look to be making money hand-over-fist. I figured RiM would have been dropping out by now with a strong OS competitor for their handsets but they are doing very well each quarter.
  • Reply 82 of 99
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,394member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Ugh.. jfannaing and Steve-J have ruined another thread. <sigh> BTW, Steve-J is just a rebranded iGenuis/TeckStud/whatever, so can we ignore these [posters] and keep the threads useful and informative? Only you can prevent trolls from taking over.



    ok, as you are the biggest troll on this site, what have I done this time? Some one made a claim, I asked for proof of this claim, I have asked a number of times, and he still hasn't provided this proof. Yet you call me a troll. hypocrite
  • Reply 83 of 99
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,394member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    The proof is in Nokia's own statement. They said that they engaged in lengthy negotiations to try to reach an agreement with Apple.



    If they offered Apple F/RAND terms, there would have been no lengthy negotiations. The fact that there were lengthy negotiations indicates that they were asking for something more than F/RAND from Apple.



    If that is your proof, you are a little naive to how these things work. Please provide proof.
  • Reply 84 of 99
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,394member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    You don't know either if this is true or not.



    I have already said this, if you had actually read my posting you would have seen that



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    We are not the judge nor the jury. We don't need proof to talk about what we know each side is saying. I never said Apple is right or Nokia is wrong. I don't need a proof to state an opinion about statements made by Nokia or Apple. Everything here is an opinion since no one here is an executive at Apple or Nokia.



    At the request of proof, you mentioned Apple claimed it, hence you were taking the side that Apple was right.
  • Reply 85 of 99
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post


    Because surely this site doesn't get enough attention from the Microsofties, the Fandroids, the Pomme Haiteurs, and those either terminally arbitrary or once again off their meds. At least with you we get the chill breezes that blow off the coast of Finland.



    yritä näyttää hyvää suomea kohteliaisuus täällä my friend.



    Sorry about that. Name calling kind of gets under my skin. I know that returning the favour is not the right way to go, but sometimes one can't help oneself.



    Regs, Jarkko
  • Reply 86 of 99
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Ugh.. jfannaing and Steve-J have ruined another thread. <sigh> BTW, Steve-J is just a rebranded iGenuis/TeckStud/whatever, so can we ignore these [posters] and keep the threads useful and informative? Only you can prevent trolls from taking over.



    Actually for the record Steve-J is most recently "Newtron" and "appl". Interesting how he loves strongly Apple-related names. A good one for psychology case-studies.



    I find it entertainment nowadays. Though like too much bad pizza it can give you mental indigestion.



    Anyways I think I'll wait for more AppleInsider articles to jump back into the conversation. Though you never know when I may be "called into action".



    I do enjoy my iPhone 4 32GB, iPad WiFi+3G 32GB, and MacBook Alu 2ghz 4GB RAM 7200rpm HDD. Got my iPhone 3GS 16GB as backup should anything untoward happen to my iPhone 4. Bye for now...!
  • Reply 87 of 99
    jahonenjahonen Posts: 364member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    The proof is in Nokia's own statement. They said that they engaged in lengthy negotiations to try to reach an agreement with Apple.



    If they offered Apple F/RAND terms, there would have been no lengthy negotiations. The fact that there were lengthy negotiations indicates that they were asking for something more than F/RAND from Apple.



    Hmm. So the lengthy negotiations scenario proves that Apple was patient and tried to do the right thing WHILE Nokia tried it's hardest to screw Apple? Now that's a leap of faith.



    Here's a simple example of the other possibility (mind you there's no real proof of either scenario except hearsay):



    Nokia: You are using patented solutions, here are the customary F/RAND licensing terms as agreed to in the standardisation bodies and the industry players.

    Apple: They are too high, we won't pay

    Nokia: But they are what everyone pays (Fair and non discriminatory)

    Apple: But we want tem to be lower

    Nokia: But that wouldn't be fair to others and would discriminate against them

    Apple: But we want them to be lower. We don't think it's fair

    Nokia: but they are what everyone pais

    Apple: we won't

    .... on it goes for years



    Now that Motorola has stated pretty much the same about their negotiations as Nokia did in their lawsuit, this scenario is just as propable as the one you assumed.



    Mind you, until the ITC and/or courts provide a ruling on this, all of this is just guessing at what really is going on.



    I'm not saying either company is in the right here since I don't have any real evidence to present. Since so many assumptions are thrown about, it makes sense to provide another assumption that is just as possible, but completely opposite as it balances out the discussion and hopefully stops assumptions from becoming fact as usual.



    Regs, Jarkko
  • Reply 88 of 99
    nasseraenasserae Posts: 3,158member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


    I have already said this, if you had actually read my posting you would have seen that







    At the request of proof, you mentioned Apple claimed it, hence you were taking the side that Apple was right.



    My first post in this thread was in response to jahonen and not to you and I never claimed that Apple was right. Please go back and read it slowly this time. I started the the post with "Apple said" and was adding to jahonen post not contradicting it.



    I am entitled to my opinion and IN MY OPINION Apple is stupid to make such claim without evidence, which make that point (Nokia wanted cross licensing) more likely true than not. Also IN MY OPINION, It is very likely that Apple is using some of those Nokia patent since those patents are essential to GSM tech.
  • Reply 89 of 99
    jahonenjahonen Posts: 364member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    My first post in this thread was in response to jahonen and not to you and I never claimed that Apple was right. Please go back and read it slowly this time. I started the the post with "Apple said" and was adding to jahonen post not contradicting it.



    I am entitled to my opinion and IN MY OPINION Apple is stupid to make such claim without evidence, which make that point (Nokia wanted cross licensing) more likely true than not. Also IN MY OPINION, It is very likely that Apple is using some of those Nokia patent since those patents are essential to GSM tech.



    Thanks. I understand your logic in the first point even though I don't agree. i disagree Mainly because Nokia made an opposite statement in similar court documents and Motorola's filing was awfully similar to Nokia's as far a negotiations with Apple are concerned.



    I believe neither is stupid in that sense and that both may be right in the own honest viewpoint. It's now for the courts to decide who really is correct.
  • Reply 90 of 99
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    What is essential?



    It's based on radio waves, you stick a piece of metal in them and it will provide measurable responses, that can be converted to sound or on/off (0's and 1's) in electrical circuits.



    What is patentable about that?



    It's something that has been known about for well over a century.



    Nokia and the other phone "pioneers" have built a collusive monopoly on bullshit patents.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    My first post in this thread was in response to jahonen and not to you and I never claimed that Apple was right. Please go back and read it slowly this time. I started the the post with "Apple said" and was adding to jahonen post not contradicting it.



    I am entitled to my opinion and IN MY OPINION Apple is stupid to make such claim without evidence, which make that point (Nokia wanted cross licensing) more likely true than not. Also IN MY OPINION, It is very likely that Apple is using some of those Nokia patent since those patents are essential to GSM tech.



  • Reply 91 of 99
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jahonen View Post


    Thanks. I understand your logic in the first point even though I don't agree. i disagree Mainly because Nokia made an opposite statement in similar court documents and Motorola's filing was awfully similar to Nokia's as far a negotiations with Apple are concerned.



    I believe neither is stupid in that sense and that both may be right in the own honest viewpoint. It's now for the courts to decide who really is correct.



    That is the nature of the legal system, it's adversarial.



    "You did this."



    "No, I didn't."



    Both sides have the right to argue their case, it's up to a judge and/or a jury to decide who is "right".
  • Reply 92 of 99
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,394member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post


    My first post in this thread was in response to jahonen and not to you and I never claimed that Apple was right. Please go back and read it slowly this time. I started the the post with "Apple said" and was adding to jahonen post not contradicting it.



    I am entitled to my opinion and IN MY OPINION Apple is stupid to make such claim without evidence, which make that point (Nokia wanted cross licensing) more likely true than not. Also IN MY OPINION, It is very likely that Apple is using some of those Nokia patent since those patents are essential to GSM tech.



    Sorry, I was thinking of something else and thought you replied to me. But in saying that, I didn't say you weren't allowed to make your own opinion, everyone is allowed to.
  • Reply 93 of 99
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


    What is essential?



    It's based on radio waves, you stick a piece of metal in them and it will provide measurable responses, that can be converted to sound or on/off (0's and 1's) in electrical circuits.



    What is patentable about that?



    It's something that has been known about for well over a century.



    Nokia and the other phone "pioneers" have built a collusive monopoly on bullshit patents.



    Aren't you in a bad mood today. . How about massive minituriazition, improvements in interference scenarios, better sensitivity, lower power consumption, broader spectral bandwidth to name a few? Or the improvements to get from a few kbps to 1.4Gbps now in the latest specs?



    Or better yet, phone numbers and links as selectable objects in web pages, SMS and MMS messages in mobile devices? Enlarging selected key on virtual keyboard upon detected touch screen press? Swipe a symbol to unlock screen? All granted patents. BS?



    Regs, Jarkko
  • Reply 94 of 99
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    The difference is that Apple's patents are not part of a standards patenting pool under which Nokia freely offered it's patents to be available to all members of the standards body (of which Apple is a member) at reasonable and undiscriminatory terms. Apple's beef against Nokia isn't that it isn't willing to pay Nokia, but that Nokia is discriminating against Apple when offering licensing terms.



    Apple hasn't made it's patents available to any standards body. So, it isn't required to give a license to anybody under any terms.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cycomiko View Post


    Nokia sues apple for patents they well and truly own, yet when that occurred "oh nokia are scared, they cant compete, yada yada yada"



    pots are always a different shade when its apple





    Lets see the last thread about motorola suing apple, one of the first posts



  • Reply 95 of 99
    thomprthompr Posts: 1,511member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    1) No, I compared the iPhone's display elements with those of PalmOS, and there is direct evidence of blatant rip-off. It doesn't matter that 8 year-old technology appears older than 3 year old technology. The fact that Apple ripped the technology off is self-evident proof enough.



    So, what you're saying is that "The fact that Apple ripped the technology off..." is proof that Apple ripped the technology off. Circular argument, much?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    2) The dual-microphone technology was incorporated by the Nexus One long before the iPhone 4 came out.



    And iPhone 4's candidate feature set was likely set long before the Nexus One came out as well. Apple doesn't tend to try shoehorning new features in at the last minute. If anything, they prune away features... and even then, they're most likely done pruning well in advance of mass manufacturing.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    3) The Sprint Evo 4g had the front-facing camera before the iPhone 4. The front-facing camera on the Evo is incredibly easy to use, arguably much easier to use than the FaceTime app on the iPhone.



    Yeah, well Macintosh computers have had "front facing" camera for video chat for a very long time. Don't tell me that Apple woke up one day after the Evo came out and said, "Holy crap, why didn't WE think of that!?!? Let's add it too!" I guarantee you that Apple has been working on front-facing mobile video (and supporting software and services, i.e. "Facetime") for a very very long time. One of the obvious metrics that Apple has been trying to conserve in all of their iPhone designs (including software) has been battery life.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    And, I guarantee you that Apple will rip-off the idea of using 4g data speeds in a phone from competitors once Apple releases the next version. But, I'm sure you'll turn a blind eye to that one as well.



    Wait a minute. What exactly are you saying here? Everybody knows that LTE is coming. (It is the "world standardized" 4G system that is being rolled out.) All phone manufacturers are going to be selecting some sort of 4G, most of them LTE, but some will use Sprint's Wi-Max.



    Is it your opinion that the first vendor to build to the 4G spec owns it, and that the others are "copying" it? That's just fool's talk.





    Thompson
  • Reply 96 of 99
    grkinggrking Posts: 533member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zindako View Post


    Funny though, because all smart phones are trying to still copy the look and feel of the iPhone, and let's talk about app stores, everyone else is still trying to copy apples model.



    except windows phone 7
  • Reply 97 of 99
    juandljuandl Posts: 228member
    All I want to know is; WHO'S ON FIRST?
  • Reply 98 of 99
    zc456zc456 Posts: 96member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by g3pro View Post


    But all the fanbois on this forum claim that Apple uniquely created multi-touch, and only Apple is allowed to use multi-touch in any handheld product. Fanbois love to say that, using your comparison, Apple invented the pigment and everyone else is infringing on its patent.



    This. Also the iPhone wasn't the first capacitive touchscreen phone. The LG Prada was, but don't tell Apple fanbois will think LG copied Apple, even though it pre-dates the iPhone.
  • Reply 99 of 99
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zc456 View Post


    This. Also the iPhone wasn't the first capacitive touchscreen phone. The LG Prada was, but don't tell Apple fanbois will think LG copied Apple, even though it pre-dates the iPhone.



    What was the first multi-touch capacitive touchscreen phone, a technology (with associated software) that changed the the smartphone market forever? BTW, how is the LG Prada doing today? I haven?t heard anything about their breakthrough sales, or revolutionary pairing of HW and SW, or their App Store.



    You seem to not realize that all technology is based on a foundation of what came before it and that the true innovators in business aren?t who came first, but who first made it great. Henry Ford didn?t invent the automobile or the moving assembly line.



    From your comments it seems like you think that in the 3 weeks between the announcement of the LG Prada and the original iPhone, that Apple crapped their pants and decided to copy the LG Prada in time for their then annual MacWorld keynote. If you honestly think that then you should be giving Apple to go from nothing to the iPhone in 27 days in time for the keynote and demo. If that isn?t magical I don?t know what is.



    What is most likely given the noise about an upcoming iPhone, Apple?s suspected purchase of FingerWorks, and longtime use and experience with capacitance trackpads that LG was afraid that their capacitance phone was going to be overshadowed by the iPhone at the beginning of January so they did an unusual preemptive strike to get their inferior product?s name out to the market in the middle of December. THE MIDDLE OF DECEMBER. THE MIDDLE OF DECEMBER. As i recall, they didn?t even have an official statement until after the iPhone was announced.



    But hey, if you want to think that Apple copied from LG I?m okay with that.
Sign In or Register to comment.