Apple lawsuit accuses Nokia of being at core of patent licensing conspiracy

Posted:
in General Discussion
Nokia's legal action against Apple appears that it may be a defensive measure, as Apple has also filed suit against nine Nokia-aligned patent aggregators, alleging that the group is guilty of trying to squeeze money out of Apple with abusive licensing terms for standards-essential patents.




On Tuesday, Apple filed an antitrust lawsuit against the group, accusing them of assisting Nokia with a plan to "extract and extort exorbitant revenues" from Apple and other mobile device manufacturers. Apple noted that a band of companies, including Nokia, have conspired to "use unfair and anticompetitive patent assertions to improperly tax the innovations of cell phone makers."

In its suit, Apple accuses Nokia of becoming a "patent troll" since the company's sale of its mobile business to Microsoft. As a result of the deal, Apple claims that Nokia has no need to be involved in any "patent peace" process, and is "bent on exploiting the patents that remain" in Nokia's hands.

Patent agencies named as Nokia co-conspirators in this case and others include Acacia and Conversant as primary offenders, with two Acacia subsidiaries, Helsinki Memory Technologies, Inventergy, Sisvel, Vringo, and WiLan also involved in the scheme over time.

"These serial assertions and litigations have forced Apple to incur multiple millions of dollars in defense costs," writes Apple in the complaint. "Precisely the sort of leverage that Acacia and Conversant intended when they agreed to conspire with Nokia."

Apple's accusations of misbehavior reach back to the 2011 patent deal with Nokia which ended all patent suits worldwide between the pair. According to Apple, the initial deal set the table for "an illegal patent transfer scheme" with other companies to "breach FRAND obligations and bring additional patent-related abuses" such as the recent bad-faith negotiations with the companies holding the patents.

One of the nine patent aggregators, Acacia, has sued apple 42 times in 10 years, with its most recent, and limited, success in September.

Apple is seeking that the named patent aggregators be prevented from enjoining Apple on standards-essential patent issues, and expenses of the suit.

Apple's suit, which presumably launched Nokia's Wednesday legal assault, was filed on Monday in the U.S. District Court for California.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    There are some here who think license fees for patents should be based on the final cost of the entire product and not the component itself.

    On the flip side there are people who think Apple isn't owed money on the profits of an entire Samsung phone for infringing design patents that are only a portion of the entire phone.

    Quite the dilemma.
    edited December 2016 Solijay-trepressthis
  • Reply 2 of 16
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,301member
    Currently Nokia is asserting “32 patents in suit across all of the actions, covering technologies such as display, user interface, software, antenna, chipsets and video coding."

    And that's not all. "
    Nokia is in the process of filing further actions in other jurisdictions.”

    Might be a wild ride. . . 
    repressthis
  • Reply 3 of 16
    There are some here who think license fees for patents should be based on the final cost of the entire product and not the component itself.

    On the flip side there are people who think Apple isn't owed money on the profits of an entire Samsung phone for infringing design patents that are only a portion of the entire phone.

    Quite the dilemma.
    Try not to draw comparisons between FRAND and design patents. FRAND patents have been granted to a standards body for non-discriminatory licensing terms: lawsuits come about because the parties couldn't reach a licensing agreement, usually because a nefarious patent holder is asking for an absurd share of the sale price.

    Design patents are not specifically licensed to any 3rd party and they have a significant effect on the end look/feel/design of a product - i.e. the reasons why a consumer may choose one device over another. Yes the US supreme court recently decided that a design patent infringement should not incur the full profit of an infringing device - but relief should be sought nonetheless, just calculated differently.
    edited December 2016 lolliverjustadcomicsration alpropod
  • Reply 4 of 16
    There are some here who think license fees for patents should be based on the final cost of the entire product and not the component itself.

    On the flip side there are people who think Apple isn't owed money on the profits of an entire Samsung phone for infringing design patents that are only a portion of the entire phone.

    Quite the dilemma.

    Well, you have two factors at work here.  First, let's face facts.  Apple has an over-reliance on PR and the press.  Today, there exist 573,000 stories and links on the web about the original cross-licensing agreement. When that many articles exist, people will generally draw the conclusion that they licensed all the patents. 

    Apple developers are also likely to study all patents; and code patented ideas into Apple's software.  Apple under Tim Cook is incredibly predictable.  Apple can complain, pretend it's a victim, file a lawsuit, and parade it's CEO out to give a speech on how it doesn't need corrective action.   That's how Tim Cook's Apple works and also why people who work in New York Finance like the company so much.  It seems to work well for their stock valuation.

    As a second item, hiring attorneys to scour through the patent database for ideas which people and companies were willing to pay real money to patent (and disclose) makes it easy for Apple's R&D budget to find ideas for products.  You'll notice that Apple is accusing Acacia, a Research Company, for anti-trust..?   Sounds like Acacia has some real good R&D researchers and ideas which Apple wants to copy.

    But still, patents should be paid for; especially if the company is the size of Apple.   As an example, I could conceivably see Apple not wanting to pay for patents related to phone payments.  In 1999, Nokia, Visa, and Finland-based NordBanken had this technology on a Nokia 7710 phone series in Europe... Back then, Visa had a second SIM card Chip; which Apple probably calls a "Secure Enclave".   Then, Apple re-introduced it as "new technology" with much bravado, and announced the payment platform with Chase Bank and called it ApplePay.   Still, my guess is that Chase didn't develop the technology; but instead, Nokia did, Apple copied it, then approached chase so it could market the iPhone features to its customers.  It was a feature which people didn't know they wanted or even needed, but Apple most likely found the patents and decided to copy another thing someone else did; and slap a fruit on it.
    calipscooter63
  • Reply 5 of 16
    There are some here who think license fees for patents should be based on the final cost of the entire product and not the component itself.

    On the flip side there are people who think Apple isn't owed money on the profits of an entire Samsung phone for infringing design patents that are only a portion of the entire phone.

    Quite the dilemma.

    Well, you have two factors at work here.  First, let's face facts.  Apple has an over-reliance on PR and the press.  Today, there exist 573,000 stories and links on the web about the original cross-licensing agreement. When that many articles exist, people will generally draw the conclusion that they licensed all the patents. 

    Apple developers are also likely to study all patents; and code patented ideas into Apple's software.  Apple under Tim Cook is incredibly predictable.  Apple can complain, pretend it's a victim, file a lawsuit, and parade it's CEO out to give a speech on how it doesn't need corrective action.   That's how Tim Cook's Apple works and also why people who work in New York Finance like the company so much.  It seems to work well for their stock valuation.

    As a second item, hiring attorneys to scour through the patent database for ideas which people and companies were willing to pay real money to patent (and disclose) makes it easy for Apple's R&D budget to find ideas for products.  You'll notice that Apple is accusing Acacia, a Research Company, for anti-trust..?   Sounds like Acacia has some real good R&D researchers and ideas which Apple wants to copy.

    But still, patents should be paid for; especially if the company is the size of Apple.   As an example, I could conceivably see Apple not wanting to pay for patents related to phone payments.  In 1999, Nokia, Visa, and Finland-based NordBanken had this technology on a Nokia 7710 phone series in Europe... Back then, Visa had a second SIM card Chip; which Apple probably calls a "Secure Enclave".   Then, Apple re-introduced it as "new technology" with much bravado, and announced the payment platform with Chase Bank and called it ApplePay.   Still, my guess is that Chase didn't develop the technology; but instead, Nokia did, Apple copied it, then approached chase so it could market the iPhone features to its customers.  It was a feature which people didn't know they wanted or even needed, but Apple most likely found the patents and decided to copy another thing someone else did; and slap a fruit on it.

    Quite the revisionist history you have there. Apple Pay is based on the EMVco tokenization standard developed by Europay, Mastercard and Visa. Nokia had nothing to do with it. Your comment is complete BS.


    Grimzahnrepressthisgilly017Rayz2016Donvermodarwiniandudecalipscooter63
  • Reply 6 of 16
    There are some here who think license fees for patents should be based on the final cost of the entire product and not the component itself.

    On the flip side there are people who think Apple isn't owed money on the profits of an entire Samsung phone for infringing design patents that are only a portion of the entire phone.

    Quite the dilemma.

    Well, you have two factors at work here.  First, let's face facts.  Apple has an over-reliance on PR and the press.  Today, there exist 573,000 stories and links on the web about the original cross-licensing agreement. When that many articles exist, people will generally draw the conclusion that they licensed all the patents. 

    Apple developers are also likely to study all patents; and code patented ideas into Apple's software.  Apple under Tim Cook is incredibly predictable.  Apple can complain, pretend it's a victim, file a lawsuit, and parade it's CEO out to give a speech on how it doesn't need corrective action.   That's how Tim Cook's Apple works and also why people who work in New York Finance like the company so much.  It seems to work well for their stock valuation.

    As a second item, hiring attorneys to scour through the patent database for ideas which people and companies were willing to pay real money to patent (and disclose) makes it easy for Apple's R&D budget to find ideas for products.  You'll notice that Apple is accusing Acacia, a Research Company, for anti-trust..?   Sounds like Acacia has some real good R&D researchers and ideas which Apple wants to copy.

    But still, patents should be paid for; especially if the company is the size of Apple.   As an example, I could conceivably see Apple not wanting to pay for patents related to phone payments.  In 1999, Nokia, Visa, and Finland-based NordBanken had this technology on a Nokia 7710 phone series in Europe... Back then, Visa had a second SIM card Chip; which Apple probably calls a "Secure Enclave".   Then, Apple re-introduced it as "new technology" with much bravado, and announced the payment platform with Chase Bank and called it ApplePay.   Still, my guess is that Chase didn't develop the technology; but instead, Nokia did, Apple copied it, then approached chase so it could market the iPhone features to its customers.  It was a feature which people didn't know they wanted or even needed, but Apple most likely found the patents and decided to copy another thing someone else did; and slap a fruit on it.

    Quite the revisionist history you have there. Apple Pay is based on the EMVco tokenization standard developed by Europay, Mastercard and Visa. Nokia had nothing to do with it. Your comment is complete BS.


    Damn you beat me to it. <grin>. Totally agree with you.
    Grimzahnrepressthisgilly017calipscooter63
  • Reply 7 of 16
    Apple has to be generally a bit more aggressive in their legal strategies, and in staring down these types of suits. Hopefully, they'll stick to their guns on this one. 

    That said, I am not hopeful that Apple's legal team has the chops. 
    cali
  • Reply 8 of 16
    Apple has to be generally a bit more aggressive in their legal strategies, and in staring down these types of suits. Hopefully, they'll stick to their guns on this one. 

    That said, I am not hopeful that Apple's legal team has the chops. 

    I concur. It's sad to see them getting beaten in almost all legal cases.
  • Reply 9 of 16
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,556member
    Apple has to be generally a bit more aggressive in their legal strategies, and in staring down these types of suits. Hopefully, they'll stick to their guns on this one. 

    That said, I am not hopeful that Apple's legal team has the chops. 
     Nothing I've seen from the Apple legal team over the past ten years would lead me to believe that they will bring Cupertino a victory here. They have been thrashed or railroaded in just about every courtroom in every country.

     I can't really accept that every court is biased against Apple; I just think their legal team is not very good. 

    edited December 2016
  • Reply 10 of 16
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,556member

    There are some here who think license fees for patents should be based on the final cost of the entire product and not the component itself.

    On the flip side there are people who think Apple isn't owed money on the profits of an entire Samsung phone for infringing design patents that are only a portion of the entire phone.

    Quite the dilemma.

    Well, you have two factors at work here.  First, let's face facts.  Apple has an over-reliance on PR and the press.  Today, there exist 573,000 stories and links on the web about the original cross-licensing agreement. When that many articles exist, people will generally draw the conclusion that they licensed all the patents. 

    Apple developers are also likely to study all patents; and code patented ideas into Apple's software.  Apple under Tim Cook is incredibly predictable.  Apple can complain, pretend it's a victim, file a lawsuit, and parade it's CEO out to give a speech on how it doesn't need corrective action.   That's how Tim Cook's Apple works and also why people who work in New York Finance like the company so much.  It seems to work well for their stock valuation.

    As a second item, hiring attorneys to scour through the patent database for ideas which people and companies were willing to pay real money to patent (and disclose) makes it easy for Apple's R&D budget to find ideas for products.  You'll notice that Apple is accusing Acacia, a Research Company, for anti-trust..?   Sounds like Acacia has some real good R&D researchers and ideas which Apple wants to copy.

    But still, patents should be paid for; especially if the company is the size of Apple.   As an example, I could conceivably see Apple not wanting to pay for patents related to phone payments.  In 1999, Nokia, Visa, and Finland-based NordBanken had this technology on a Nokia 7710 phone series in Europe... Back then, Visa had a second SIM card Chip; which Apple probably calls a "Secure Enclave".   Then, Apple re-introduced it as "new technology" with much bravado, and announced the payment platform with Chase Bank and called it ApplePay.   Still, my guess is that Chase didn't develop the technology; but instead, Nokia did, Apple copied it, then approached chase so it could market the iPhone features to its customers.  It was a feature which people didn't know they wanted or even needed, but Apple most likely found the patents and decided to copy another thing someone else did; and slap a fruit on it.

    Quite the revisionist history you have there. Apple Pay is based on the EMVco tokenization standard developed by Europay, Mastercard and Visa. Nokia had nothing to do with it. Your comment is complete BS.



    He came
    He trolled
    His ### was handed to him :-(
    edited December 2016 cali
  • Reply 11 of 16
    croprcropr Posts: 914member
    There are some here who think license fees for patents should be based on the final cost of the entire product and not the component itself.

    On the flip side there are people who think Apple isn't owed money on the profits of an entire Samsung phone for infringing design patents that are only a portion of the entire phone.

    Quite the dilemma.

    Well, you have two factors at work here.  First, let's face facts.  Apple has an over-reliance on PR and the press.  Today, there exist 573,000 stories and links on the web about the original cross-licensing agreement. When that many articles exist, people will generally draw the conclusion that they licensed all the patents. 

    Apple developers are also likely to study all patents; and code patented ideas into Apple's software.  Apple under Tim Cook is incredibly predictable.  Apple can complain, pretend it's a victim, file a lawsuit, and parade it's CEO out to give a speech on how it doesn't need corrective action.   That's how Tim Cook's Apple works and also why people who work in New York Finance like the company so much.  It seems to work well for their stock valuation.

    As a second item, hiring attorneys to scour through the patent database for ideas which people and companies were willing to pay real money to patent (and disclose) makes it easy for Apple's R&D budget to find ideas for products.  You'll notice that Apple is accusing Acacia, a Research Company, for anti-trust..?   Sounds like Acacia has some real good R&D researchers and ideas which Apple wants to copy.

    But still, patents should be paid for; especially if the company is the size of Apple.   As an example, I could conceivably see Apple not wanting to pay for patents related to phone payments.  In 1999, Nokia, Visa, and Finland-based NordBanken had this technology on a Nokia 7710 phone series in Europe... Back then, Visa had a second SIM card Chip; which Apple probably calls a "Secure Enclave".   Then, Apple re-introduced it as "new technology" with much bravado, and announced the payment platform with Chase Bank and called it ApplePay.   Still, my guess is that Chase didn't develop the technology; but instead, Nokia did, Apple copied it, then approached chase so it could market the iPhone features to its customers.  It was a feature which people didn't know they wanted or even needed, but Apple most likely found the patents and decided to copy another thing someone else did; and slap a fruit on it.

    Quite the revisionist history you have there. Apple Pay is based on the EMVco tokenization standard developed by Europay, Mastercard and Visa. Nokia had nothing to do with it. Your comment is complete BS.


    You comment is irrelevant.  The EMV is a specification. That does not mean the implementation cannot be subject to patents.  A little bit like H264 specification for video encoding, where the implementation is also subject to patents 
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 12 of 16
    Nokia became a troll in the end.  They must be desperate. No loss there when they are gone.

  • Reply 13 of 16
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,301member
    There are some here who think license fees for patents should be based on the final cost of the entire product and not the component itself.

    On the flip side there are people who think Apple isn't owed money on the profits of an entire Samsung phone for infringing design patents that are only a portion of the entire phone.

    Quite the dilemma.
    Both finished product and smallest saleable unit are acceptable for determining damages for any US patent infringement. The peculiar details of specific cases is the deciding factor on which basis is proper.. Until this month that did not apply to design patents where only the entire profits from a complete finished product was allowable as damages, no such thing as "smallest saleable". 

    Based on the tone of your post you agree with SCOTUS finding for the option of a design patent being applicable to a smaller unit than the total device. Is that correct? 
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 14 of 16
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    Apple should just buy what's left of the company for half a milllion. Would save time and at the end both parties get what they want.

    There are some here who think license fees for patents should be based on the final cost of the entire product and not the component itself.

    On the flip side there are people who think Apple isn't owed money on the profits of an entire Samsung phone for infringing design patents that are only a portion of the entire phone.

    Quite the dilemma.

    Well, you have two factors at work here.  First, let's face facts.  Apple has an over-reliance on PR and the press.  Today, there exist 573,000 stories and links on the web about the original cross-licensing agreement. When that many articles exist, people will generally draw the conclusion that they licensed all the patents. 

    Apple developers are also likely to study all patents; and code patented ideas into Apple's software.  Apple under Tim Cook is incredibly predictable.  Apple can complain, pretend it's a victim, file a lawsuit, and parade it's CEO out to give a speech on how it doesn't need corrective action.   That's how Tim Cook's Apple works and also why people who work in New York Finance like the company so much.  It seems to work well for their stock valuation.

    As a second item, hiring attorneys to scour through the patent database for ideas which people and companies were willing to pay real money to patent (and disclose) makes it easy for Apple's R&D budget to find ideas for products.  You'll notice that Apple is accusing Acacia, a Research Company, for anti-trust..?   Sounds like Acacia has some real good R&D researchers and ideas which Apple wants to copy.

    But still, patents should be paid for; especially if the company is the size of Apple.   As an example, I could conceivably see Apple not wanting to pay for patents related to phone payments.  In 1999, Nokia, Visa, and Finland-based NordBanken had this technology on a Nokia 7710 phone series in Europe... Back then, Visa had a second SIM card Chip; which Apple probably calls a "Secure Enclave".   Then, Apple re-introduced it as "new technology" with much bravado, and announced the payment platform with Chase Bank and called it ApplePay.   Still, my guess is that Chase didn't develop the technology; but instead, Nokia did, Apple copied it, then approached chase so it could market the iPhone features to its customers.  It was a feature which people didn't know they wanted or even needed, but Apple most likely found the patents and decided to copy another thing someone else did; and slap a fruit on it.

    You've got to be an idiot if you believe this is what happened. Smh.
  • Reply 15 of 16
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,385member
    cali said:
    Apple should just buy what's left of the company for half a milllion. Would save time and at the end both parties get what they want.

    Yeah that would make sense to sell a $28B company for half a million, I bet the shareholders are lining up for a deal like that
    singularity
  • Reply 16 of 16
    gatorguy said:
    Currently Nokia is asserting “32 patents in suit across all of the actions, covering technologies such as display, user interface, software, antenna, chipsets and video coding."

    And that's not all. "Nokia is in the process of filing further actions in other jurisdictions.”

    Might be a wild ride. . . 
    What sticks out to me is that Apple is being more than a little dishonest in complaining about this kind of tactic ... remember please that Apple was in the Rockstar consortium to use this exact mechanism to fight Android using the Nortel patent pool. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander ! Still, it's going to be an interesting squabble. And to prevent any useless discussions ... I am in no way taking a position to support either Nokia or Apple in this particular battle. Frankly I think software patents should not exist. YMMV.
Sign In or Register to comment.