Not only refused to pay, but claimed in their counterclaim that they were not infringing on the Nokia patents to begin with, they weren't valid patents anyway, and it was Nokia who was the patent infringer, not the other way around.
Does that sound like a company that was plainly willing to pay for a license to the IP?
Are you sure that Apple claimed that it didn't infringe on any and all patents from Nokia or only the non-FRAND ones? There were 5 non-FRAND patents that were dismissed in ITC but around 35 FRAND patents that stood in court.
Freckledbruh, were you able to come up with any other evidence that Nokia was after excessive FRAND licensing fees from Apple, other than the claim of Apple's attorneys? I've spent a little time searching today and don't find anything. Even Apple only seemed to mention it in passing as part of their response to the Nokia filing.
Freckledbruh, were you able to come up with any other evidence that Nokia was after excessive FRAND licensing fees from Apple, other than the claim of Apple's attorneys? I've spent a little time searching today and don't find anything. Even Apple only seemed to mention it in passing as part of their response to the Nokia filing.
Not yet. Was on the road from 8-10:30 and been a little crazy all day. I doubt either of us will find anything though because that's how closed negotiations/court cases roll.
FWIW. Congress is poised to pass a Patent Reform bill today, which IMO looks to favor the "big guys" over the individual inventor. In any case it's pretty watered down from the reforms that many in the affected industries were hoping for.
So are you saying that companies must accept ANY terms demanded, without question?
Do you have any evidence that Nokia was demanding more in fees than the going rate, other than a claim made by Apple's attorneys, IMHO intended for sympathy and covering their butts in the press in hindsight? I can't find anything myself.
So are you saying that companies must accept ANY terms demanded, without question?
No, but if a company refuses to offer them at that rate you DON'T USE THEM.
Apple could've (rightfully) taken Nokia to court over the pricing, but they didn't.
they went and put them out anyway. And they (apparently) did the same with samsung and HTC patents, assuming they've tried to negotiate with them about them sometime in the past (we still have no evidence that they had)
The ONLY thing we have saying that they were asking more is from apple's attorney's. I haven't argued that point because it's not really relevant.
No, but if a company refuses to offer them at that rate you DON'T USE THEM.
Apple could've (rightfully) taken Nokia to court over the pricing, but they didn't.
they went and put them out anyway. And they (apparently) did the same with samsung and HTC patents, assuming they've tried to negotiate with them about them sometime in the past (we still have no evidence that they had)
The ONLY thing we have saying that they were asking more is from apple's attorney's. I haven't argued that point because it's not really relevant.
Completely disagree. This isn't a criminal case. If a company wants to put me over a barrel while giving everyone else a fair shake, I'm not going to risk disclosing my future product in a court case until AFTER it has gone to market. The same goes for Samsung, HTC or anyone else (that's even IF these companies tried to negotiate with Apple at all before going to market). Why give your competitors a leg up?
Comments
Not only refused to pay, but claimed in their counterclaim that they were not infringing on the Nokia patents to begin with, they weren't valid patents anyway, and it was Nokia who was the patent infringer, not the other way around.
Does that sound like a company that was plainly willing to pay for a license to the IP?
Are you sure that Apple claimed that it didn't infringe on any and all patents from Nokia or only the non-FRAND ones? There were 5 non-FRAND patents that were dismissed in ITC but around 35 FRAND patents that stood in court.
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...212_551557.htm
Freckledbruh, were you able to come up with any other evidence that Nokia was after excessive FRAND licensing fees from Apple, other than the claim of Apple's attorneys? I've spent a little time searching today and don't find anything. Even Apple only seemed to mention it in passing as part of their response to the Nokia filing.
Just going by Bloomberg reports, which aren't a thorough study, so I can't be 100% certain without more searching.
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...212_551557.htm
Freckledbruh, were you able to come up with any other evidence that Nokia was after excessive FRAND licensing fees from Apple, other than the claim of Apple's attorneys? I've spent a little time searching today and don't find anything. Even Apple only seemed to mention it in passing as part of their response to the Nokia filing.
Not yet. Was on the road from 8-10:30 and been a little crazy all day. I doubt either of us will find anything though because that's how closed negotiations/court cases roll.
http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011...ely-today.html
True or false: Nokia owned FRAND patents that Apple used in a phone they HAD in the market?
True or false Apple and Nokia were negotiating the terms of an FRAND agreement, prior to legal action taking place.
The legal threats formed part of those negotiations and were used until both parties reached (confidential) agreement then dropped them.
True or false this is a fairly standard business practice.
True or false Apple and Nokia were negotiating the terms of an FRAND agreement, prior to legal action taking place.
The legal threats formed part of those negotiations and were used until both parties reached (confidential) agreement then dropped them.
True or false this is a fairly standard business practice.
Actually false. It's standard practice to PAY Frand licensing fees.
Actually false. It's standard practice to PAY Frand licensing fees.
At a rate that is "fair and reasonable".
So are you saying that companies must accept ANY terms demanded, without question?
At a rate that is "fair and reasonable".
So are you saying that companies must accept ANY terms demanded, without question?
Do you have any evidence that Nokia was demanding more in fees than the going rate, other than a claim made by Apple's attorneys, IMHO intended for sympathy and covering their butts in the press in hindsight? I can't find anything myself.
At a rate that is "fair and reasonable".
So are you saying that companies must accept ANY terms demanded, without question?
No, but if a company refuses to offer them at that rate you DON'T USE THEM.
Apple could've (rightfully) taken Nokia to court over the pricing, but they didn't.
they went and put them out anyway. And they (apparently) did the same with samsung and HTC patents, assuming they've tried to negotiate with them about them sometime in the past (we still have no evidence that they had)
The ONLY thing we have saying that they were asking more is from apple's attorney's. I haven't argued that point because it's not really relevant.
No, but if a company refuses to offer them at that rate you DON'T USE THEM.
Apple could've (rightfully) taken Nokia to court over the pricing, but they didn't.
they went and put them out anyway. And they (apparently) did the same with samsung and HTC patents, assuming they've tried to negotiate with them about them sometime in the past (we still have no evidence that they had)
The ONLY thing we have saying that they were asking more is from apple's attorney's. I haven't argued that point because it's not really relevant.
Completely disagree. This isn't a criminal case. If a company wants to put me over a barrel while giving everyone else a fair shake, I'm not going to risk disclosing my future product in a court case until AFTER it has gone to market. The same goes for Samsung, HTC or anyone else (that's even IF these companies tried to negotiate with Apple at all before going to market). Why give your competitors a leg up?