Timing of Nokia agreement suggests a 'favorable outcome' for Apple

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 41
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by martimus3060 View Post


    When this all started, Apple indicated it was willing to pay RAND rates for the technologies that Nokia was to license, but that Nokia wanted a higher rate than they were getting from other licensees and that Nokia was demanding a full cross-license for Apple's iPhone centric patent portfolio.



    Apple explicitly stated that the settlement didn't include the stuff that made the iPhone distinct, the one-time payment was probably to settle the back terms that Apple had so far not paid and then the rest is probably similar to the RAND terms that they had agreed to pay all along. We won't know exactly because the terms before and after won't be available for inspection, but I suspect that Nokia got at best a Pyrrhic victory. Since the settlement terms could have been worse than the original RAND terms, Nokia could have outright lost even though recording their "victory" in court.



    totally correct. but as usual, the media and blogs completely ignore these actual facts of the matter and are reporting a Nokia victory in court. we are in an era of determined media stupidity pretending to be journalism.
  • Reply 22 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    and that is what?



    touch screen phones are everywhere these days



    Yeah, but there's a whole lot of tiny bits of 'ideas' and 'technologies' involved that can be patented on their own right. Ask TrollSys
  • Reply 23 of 41
    alfiejralfiejr Posts: 1,524member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post


    In my early reading about the case, it seemed like the underlying issue was not whether Apple would pay licensing fees for these patents or not but rather, at what cost. Nokia was likely trying to gouge them in order to inflict revenge through onerous terms. Most news accounts spin it as Apple trying to get out of paying anything at all, but don't believe it. This was just a hardball negotiation tactic.



    Probably not a coincidence that with Elop in charge, that Nokia has become more reasonable in order to get it behind them, benefit by a bit more cash flow now and cut the cost of the legal battle. All that will only help them get focused, it they are up to it.



    I suspect that Apple is pleased with the outcome ...



    you got it right.



    i dunno if all the other OEM's already pay Nokia the standard fee for this necessary license. if not, they will now. and Nokia needs all the cash flow they can get these days.
  • Reply 24 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ricardo Dawkins View Post


    Like what? Grid of icons?



    Nokia got all the need patents they need for their upcoming devices in WP7. I wonder when Apple will start paying for that camera roll in the viewfinder that MSFT patented big time...





    "There is, however, one feature in iOS 5 which is exactly, and I mean exactly, like a feature on Windows Phone 7: Camera Swipe to Camera Roll."

    http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...DN/20110119619



    Two words: Recycle Bin.
  • Reply 25 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigpics View Post


    In the original iPhone keynote Jobs pointedly said Apple had over 200 patents on the technologies that made the iPhone unique and that the company was prepared to defend them "vigorously" (I believe that was the word).





    Steve said something like:



    Quote:

    ...and boy have we patented it!



  • Reply 26 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ranReloaded View Post


    Two words: Recycle Bin.



    Two words: Xerox Alto
  • Reply 27 of 41
    _hawkeye__hawkeye_ Posts: 139member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit


    Actually... this is a prelude to Apple purchasing Nokia... with Nokia being the first company to licence iOS. This settlement helps Nokia stay afloat (and therefore keeps the valuation higher) until the papers are signed.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boeyc15 View Post


    you say in jest, but I wonder if they played that card....





    Not sure Apple would be allowed to acquire Nokia, on anti-trust grounds. But maybe Apple isn't perceived as a big enough player in the phone business yet?



    Everyone says Android is the fastest growing platform, but the elephant in the room is what's really going on: Android is preying on the carcasses of failing platforms (like Windoze phones). It represents, largely, a consolidation of non-Apple phone OSes.



    In contrast, iPhone is the real growth story. Android is riding Apple's coattails to be sure, in addition to consolidating the competition, but it is the iPhone which sparked the growth in smart phones by actually making them, well, smart and desirable.
  • Reply 28 of 41
    _hawkeye__hawkeye_ Posts: 139member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ricardo Dawkins View Post


    Two words: Xerox Alto



    One word: Tosser!
  • Reply 29 of 41
    gotwakegotwake Posts: 115member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ricardo Dawkins View Post


    Two words: Xerox Alto



    Why do idiots bring up Xerox?



    Fact:

    Apple obtained permission ahead of the Xerox PARC visit. Apple provided compensation in exchange for the various Xerox PARC ideas such as the GUI.
  • Reply 30 of 41
    _hawkeye__hawkeye_ Posts: 139member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post


    I have a theory that this might suggest a prelude to a purchase by MS. Apple has cross licencing agreements with MS, so if Nokia had been bought by MS, they would have got no royalties from Apple.



    One way or another, it looks like M$ is poised to control Nokia. What with a M$ Borg drone running Nokia now, and M$ pumping money into Nokia in an a last ditch effort to save M$'s failing Windoze mobile platform. A take-over by M$ certainly seems portended indeed.



    M$ seems to have the Midas touch these days, with the exception that everything they touch turns to lead, not gold.



    So i'm quite relieved that Nokian Tyres and Nokian Footwear are no longer part of Nokia Corporation. At least they have a bright future!
  • Reply 31 of 41
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,665member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GotWake View Post


    Why do idiots bring up Xerox?



    Fact:

    Apple obtained permission ahead of the Xerox PARC visit. Apple provided compensation in exchange for the various Xerox PARC ideas such as the GUI.



    He's not an idiot, he's a troll. He doesn't care what's true, he cares about pushing buttons. Put it on your ignore list and it will leave us be.
  • Reply 32 of 41
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by _Hawkeye_ View Post


    One way or another, it looks like M$ is poised to control Nokia. What with a M$ Borg drone running Nokia now, and M$ pumping money into Nokia in an a last ditch effort to save M$'s failing Windoze mobile platform. A take-over by M$ certainly seems portended indeed.



    "We are the borg. Lower your firewall and surrender your PC. Computing as you know it has come to and end. We will add your psichological and technological distinctiveness to our... I mean, we will EE&E the shit out of it."



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by _Hawkeye_ View Post


    M$ seems to have the Midas touch these days, with the exception that everything they touch turns to lead, not gold.



    So i'm quite relieved that Nokian Tyres and Nokian Footwear are no longer part of Nokia Corporation. At least they have a bright future!



    The sadiM touch!
  • Reply 33 of 41
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,755member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ricardo Dawkins View Post


    Two words: Xerox Alto



    Four words:"They paid for it."



    When you pay for the ideas it's not stealing



    How I wish ignorant people would learn about the history they try to pontificate on
  • Reply 34 of 41
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,755member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by martimus3060 View Post


    The final answer is as Sunspot42 says:



    Exactly. If Nokia had anything significant they wouldn't have settled this quickly. Those who are interpreting settlement as "loosing" are being very myopic.
  • Reply 35 of 41
    kenckenc Posts: 195member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by martimus3060 View Post


    When this all started, Apple indicated it was willing to pay RAND rates for the technologies that Nokia was to license, but that Nokia wanted a higher rate than they were getting from other licensees and that Nokia was demanding a full cross-license for Apple's iPhone centric patent portfolio.



    Apple explicitly stated that the settlement didn't include the stuff that made the iPhone distinct, the one-time payment was probably to settle the back terms that Apple had so far not paid and then the rest is probably similar to the RAND terms that they had agreed to pay all along. We won't know exactly because the terms before and after won't be available for inspection, but I suspect that Nokia got at best a Pyrrhic victory. Since the settlement terms could have been worse than the original RAND terms, Nokia could have outright lost even though recording their "victory" in court. The final answer is as Sunspot42 says:



    This is my interpretation as well. Apple probably settled for FRAND rates, and paid the back fees that they were withholding during the litigation.



    I bet that Nokia's next financials will show how large these payments are, since their operational earnings will be close to nil.
  • Reply 36 of 41
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Wall Street was so impressed by Nokia's victory [dig, dig] that they awarded the stock by increasing it's present price a grand total of 15 pennies.



    The Apple stock was punished by increasing is present price by a grand total of 584 pennies.



    So, Apple valuation jumped $5.84/share to $.15/share for Nokia.



    And that's even after Johnson's announcement to head JC Penney's.



    It's clear that Wall Street is finally catching up to what serious investors of Apple know--Apple is reaching a point where the vision and execution, on all fronts, is so ingrained at all levels that losing a visible face that once would scare Wall Street now emotes a yawn.



    Apple will replace Johnson with an up and coming person the entire Industry will have been found to fight over as they do with the rest of their executives.



    Having moved Tim Cook into running Apple now for several quarters the fear of Jobs taking down Apple have also been worked into the current price.



    Apple's long term visions are in place, no matter who steps in to pitch in and help.
  • Reply 37 of 41
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GotWake View Post


    Why do idiots bring up Xerox?



    Fact:

    Apple obtained permission ahead of the Xerox PARC visit. Apple provided compensation in exchange for the various Xerox PARC ideas such as the GUI.



    It's all about revising history to suit one's own bias and it happens on both sides. However in the case of Apple the haters are particularly offensive in their revisionist statements. You still run into the occasional troll who claims Microsoft owns Apple becasue of the non-voting stock they long ago got rid of and made a tidy profit on. The basic history the haters and trolls would like for people to believe is that Apple invented nothing, innovated nothing, did nothing that wasn't already done, and produces junk to this day. Not bad for a company that is more valuable than Microsoft, Google, and HP.
  • Reply 38 of 41
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,282member
    Didn't apple recently buy a bunch of freescale patents?I wonder if that is what brought this to a close.
  • Reply 39 of 41
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    Most of Apple's "unique" patents related to multi-touch as opposed to touch screen technology. Touch screen prior to the iPhone worked by merely pushing a button. They didn't work by swipe, pinch, squeeze, and those types of gestures. Some patents relate to simple things like the swipe unlock screen. People might think that is a pretty simple idea, but before to unlock a screen you generally had to push a button.



    Multi-touch wasn't unique to Apple either. Apple, however, bought companies like Finger works that did a lot pioneering work in multi-touch.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bigpics View Post


    In the original iPhone keynote Jobs pointedly said Apple had over 200 patents on the technologies that made the iPhone unique and that the company was prepared to defend them "vigorously" (I believe that was the word).



    Touch screens as such had already been in existence for some time and though something about Apple's variant might have represented one or more of the patents, being a touch screen device per se was certainly not one.



    Thanks for playing the home game. Do feel free to try again tho'.....



  • Reply 40 of 41
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member
    It couldn't' hurt. I, however, suspect those patents will help Apple with Motorola more. Those patents I think deal largely with wi-fi, which Motorola is suing Apple about.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post


    Didn't apple recently buy a bunch of freescale patents?I wonder if that is what brought this to a close.



Sign In or Register to comment.