For those of your with short attention spans or easily reassignable memory, it was Nokia that filed the complaint with the ITC claiming that Apple was infringing their patents when Apple refused to pay additional royalties to Nokia (above the recommended Fair and Equitable licensing for allowing the use of patented technology in a standard). Remember, Apple claims that Nokia was demanding higher than fees than they charge others for the use of the GSM standard patents, as well as licensing of Apple technology patents. This whole set-to developed out of Nokia trying to leverage Apple technology and charge Apple more than they do other handset manufacturers for the use of GSM-related technologies
.
Provide proof of these claims, naming Apple as the proof isn't valid.
For those of your with short attention spans or easily reassignable memory, it was Nokia that filed the complaint with the ITC claiming that Apple was infringing their patents when Apple refused to pay additional royalties to Nokia (above the recommended Fair and Equitable licensing for allowing the use of patented technology in a standard). Remember, Apple claims that Nokia was demanding higher than fees than they charge others for the use of the GSM standard patents, as well as licensing of Apple technology patents. This whole set-to developed out of Nokia trying to leverage Apple technology and charge Apple more than they do other handset manufacturers for the use of GSM-related technologies
That the ITC has thrown out the initial round of claims, indicates that Nokia needs to come up with better claims.
I don't know what your point is? Nokia complained and lost, lost big, as in o-fer 5 in their original case. That pretty much makes the case moot unless an appeal overturns it. Anyone can claim anything, but that doesn't make it true. It also doesn't say Nokia needs better claims, it simply states those claims by Nokia were unfounded. Big difference because a ruling saying the claims needed improvement wouldn't have said no infringement, they would have just identified the claims as being improperly written up. A No Infringement ruling removes that kind of wriggle-room.
Quote:
Let's not forget also that the use of suits and complaints is about leveraging your competition. If you find yourself unable to respond quick enough to the development of another company, you can try to slow them down (especially if you have a wide patent portfolio like Nokia does), to buy you time to repair your market position. In this case Nokia seems to be firing wildly to keep pressure on Apple. IN Apple's case the appropriate response is to do what they have done - countersue and file counter-claims, and of course hire one of the BEST litigators in IP disputes to represent your interests. With the Microsoft partnership Nokia is not going to let up, just like Microsoft weighing in on the "App Store" trademark. None of these companies are going to give Apple any quarter, since Apple's success is challenging their positions. Apple has a strong warchest for just such issues.
Comments
For those of your with short attention spans or easily reassignable memory, it was Nokia that filed the complaint with the ITC claiming that Apple was infringing their patents when Apple refused to pay additional royalties to Nokia (above the recommended Fair and Equitable licensing for allowing the use of patented technology in a standard). Remember, Apple claims that Nokia was demanding higher than fees than they charge others for the use of the GSM standard patents, as well as licensing of Apple technology patents. This whole set-to developed out of Nokia trying to leverage Apple technology and charge Apple more than they do other handset manufacturers for the use of GSM-related technologies
.
Provide proof of these claims, naming Apple as the proof isn't valid.
For those of your with short attention spans or easily reassignable memory, it was Nokia that filed the complaint with the ITC claiming that Apple was infringing their patents when Apple refused to pay additional royalties to Nokia (above the recommended Fair and Equitable licensing for allowing the use of patented technology in a standard). Remember, Apple claims that Nokia was demanding higher than fees than they charge others for the use of the GSM standard patents, as well as licensing of Apple technology patents. This whole set-to developed out of Nokia trying to leverage Apple technology and charge Apple more than they do other handset manufacturers for the use of GSM-related technologies
That the ITC has thrown out the initial round of claims, indicates that Nokia needs to come up with better claims.
I don't know what your point is? Nokia complained and lost, lost big, as in o-fer 5 in their original case. That pretty much makes the case moot unless an appeal overturns it. Anyone can claim anything, but that doesn't make it true. It also doesn't say Nokia needs better claims, it simply states those claims by Nokia were unfounded. Big difference because a ruling saying the claims needed improvement wouldn't have said no infringement, they would have just identified the claims as being improperly written up. A No Infringement ruling removes that kind of wriggle-room.
Let's not forget also that the use of suits and complaints is about leveraging your competition. If you find yourself unable to respond quick enough to the development of another company, you can try to slow them down (especially if you have a wide patent portfolio like Nokia does), to buy you time to repair your market position. In this case Nokia seems to be firing wildly to keep pressure on Apple. IN Apple's case the appropriate response is to do what they have done - countersue and file counter-claims, and of course hire one of the BEST litigators in IP disputes to represent your interests. With the Microsoft partnership Nokia is not going to let up, just like Microsoft weighing in on the "App Store" trademark. None of these companies are going to give Apple any quarter, since Apple's success is challenging their positions. Apple has a strong warchest for just such issues.
OK, so?