This will end in a stalemate, or at best, Apple getting spanked with a huge fine.
Nokia has nothing to worry about.
If you read the article. or have followed similar cases that dragged on for years and years (including, curiously enough, Nokia vs Qualcomm and RIM vs NTP), that's exactly what usually happens - STALEMATE.
The parties then settle out-of-court away from our prying eyes.
However, in this situation, I suspect that what Nokia is looking for is not money, but to get an injunction in Europe or even USA (like NTP did to RIM in 2006/7) halting the sales of all iPhone products until they disabuse themselves of the infringement.
This, they hope, will slow Apple's breakneck advance into the smartphone industry and outright leadership enough for Nokia's R&D to have a chance of playing catch-up.
Fat chance, now that the counterstrike has been launched. Back to stalemate.
Through the present suit, Nokia has asserted unfounded claims of infringement and breached licensing commitments it made to license on F/RAND [Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory] terms all patents that it claimed were necessary for a party to practice standards. Nokia has also violated those licensing commitments by demanding unjustifiable royalties and reciprocal licenses to Apple's patents covering Apple's pioneering technology -- patents unrelated to any industry standard. This attempt by Nokia to leverage patents previously pledged to industry standards is an effort to free ride on the commercial success of Apple's innovative iPhone while avoiding liability for copying the iPhone and infringing Apple's patents.
Apple denies that any of Nokia's patents cited in its own lawsuit are "essential" to standards, but even if a court should rule any of the contested claims valid, Apple should be granted F/RAND licensing terms, which Nokia has refused to offer.
In support of its claims that Nokia has already copied iPhone intellectual property, Apple points to comments made by a Nokia executive soon after the launch of the original iPhone highlighting Nokia's interest in copying Apple's inventions.
The above is the most crucial bit about this report. Basically, if a company invents and patents technology which is essential to establishing a standard (such as GSM), then that company is obliged to offer it on F/RAND [Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory] terms.
Apple is saying that Nokia is going beyond the commitment it gave and wants to charge Apple more than it charges others who make use of the same technology. In addition, Nokia is also asking for "unjustifiable royalties and reciprocal licenses to Apple's patents covering Apple's pioneering technology".
So Apple is quite right to not only defend itself but also go on a counter-attack because Nokia has violated Apple's IP.
That's the way to back up a claim and give a posting to another Apple Rumor site.
Serious Question. When you Google or Bing do you have your Mac set to only give you Mac rumor site results?
Nobody knows the inner dealings of what is happening as in all the patent postings on the web. Apple & Nokia at this point are the only ones that know the entire picture in this story. Anything else is purely speculation. Something that you are very familiar with.
That's the way to back up a claim and give a posting to another Apple Rumor site.
Serious Question. When you Google or Bing do you have your Mac set to only give you Mac rumor site results?
Nobody knows the inner dealings of what is happening as in all the patent postings on the web. Apple & Nokia at this point are the only ones that know the entire picture in this story. Anything else is purely speculation. Something that you are very familiar with.
I cited a poster from another Mac site because the poster made sense, and drew a fair conclusion from the material they quoted, related to this discussion. It at least advances this discussion in a more meaningful way than your trolling.
it was already used to provide security for the last superbowl
so you use a glorified sports event that is hosted ONCE A YEAR, to show how practical it is? That's the one example you are going to go with?
that just proves my point, and i doubt that most security companies would find this practical, and on top of that, you pick an event that costs what a couple of million to advertise for 30 secs. If that is not a case of bloated expensive useless garbage being used for bloated overpaid useless events I do not what is. So at least the NFL and Microsoft is consistent.
If Apple produced a 10,000 multitouch computer, there would be Microsoft fanboys foaming at the mouth to rip apple a new one. Yes I know you can be a dream Mac Pro for almost 20K but its entirely more useful and not a gimmicky wannabe.
Explain the article on CNN on the beginnings of multi touch and the final product used by CNN everday?
Why has Apple not sued Microsoft for Surface which pre-dates the Magic Wall Concept by a decade?
In October 2001, a virtual team was formed with Bathiche and Wilson as key members, to bring the idea to the next stage of development."
There are different implementations of what comes under the general grouping of multi-touch, people.
Apple's particular implementation of multi-touch with gestures, which it has patented, comes to them by virtue of a company they acquired called FingerWorks.
And then haven't (yet) supplied a source or citation.
EDIT: (Jerseymac's post slipped in while I was composing that)
I haven't reviewed the video itself, but did Jobs explicitly state that Apple 'invented multitouch'? As I recall, he showed off the overall capabilities of the device, and then quipped, "And boy, have we patented it." That statement could refer to any number of underlying technologies, not necessarily 'multi-touch' itself (however it might be defined).
SJ is very good at describing an ordinary feature and making it seem like it's going to change computing forever. i remember the time virtual desktops came to OS X and SJ was describing it like it was some huge innovation when in reality ^nix and Windows have had it for years and no one used it much.
because apple has never given YOU anything for me, means the same as Apple never gives anything for free...more hyperbolic rhetoric.
You're completely wrong on this point.
One word can counter the argument. Podcasts. All free, all hosted and promoted by Apple for years and years. Just for you.
Not to mention the free give-aways, the free open source givebacks etc. Apple gives away *tons* of stuff for free and always has. Their computers are expensive, but the argument that they never give you anything for free is just 100% BS.
so you use a glorified sports event that is hosted ONCE A YEAR, to show how practical it is? That's the one example you are going to go with?
that just proves my point, and i doubt that most security companies would find this practical, and on top of that, you pick an event that costs what a couple of million to advertise for 30 secs. If that is not a case of bloated expensive useless garbage being used for bloated overpaid useless events I do not what is. So at least the NFL and Microsoft is consistent.
If Apple produced a 10,000 multitouch computer, there would be Microsoft fanboys foaming at the mouth to rip apple a new one. Yes I know you can be a dream Mac Pro for almost 20K but its entirely more useful and not a gimmicky wannabe.
HP has a touch screen PC where you touch the screen like on the iphone. it's actually kind of funny since my 2 year old loves my iphone and it's very hard to teach him the concept of a mouse on my PC's and Mac. he keeps touching the monitor to try to make something happen
In countersuit, Apple says Nokia missed paradigm shift and therefore ?chose to copy the iPhone?
"In Apple?s countersuit today, it accuses Nokia of attempting a 'patent hold-up.' The patents in question are part of industry standards, and as such Nokia must license them under fair and reasonable terms, argues Apple. But instead, Nokia tried to put the squeeze on Apple," Erick Schonfeld reports for TechCrunch. "Apple states in its countersuit:"
In dealing with Apple, Nokia has sought to gain an unjust competitive advantage over Apple by charging unwarranted fees to use patents that allegedly cover industry compatability standards.
Schonfeld reports, "Whether or not Apple?s arguments hold water is for a court to decide. But Apple takes the opportunity of this legal battle to make a swipe at Nokia as a flailing competitor. If you read between the lines of the suit, the reason Nokia is not willing to license its patents under 'fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms' to Apple is because while Apple was creating a 'revolutionary change in the mobile phone category' with the iPhone, Nokia was sitting on its haunches:"
In contrast, Nokia made a different business decision and remained focussed on traditional mobile wireless handsets with conventional user interfaces. As a result, Nokia has rapidly lost share in the market for high-end mobile phones. . . . In response, Nokia chose to copy the iPhone.
Schonfeld reports, "In other words, Nokia is losing in the marketplace so it is falling back on the only thing it has left?its patents."
One word can counter the argument. Podcasts. All free, all hosted and promoted by Apple for years and years. Just for you.
Not to mention the free give-aways, the free open source givebacks etc. Apple gives away *tons* of stuff for free and always has. Their computers are expensive, but the argument that they never give you anything for free is just 100% BS.
I think you two are actually in agreement, if I'm reading Rhetoric's comment correctly.
One word can counter the argument. Podcasts. All free, all hosted and promoted by Apple for years and years. Just for you.
Not to mention the free give-aways, the free open source givebacks etc. Apple gives away *tons* of stuff for free and always has. Their computers are expensive, but the argument that they never give you anything for free is just 100% BS.
Please note that the quote you referenced was pointing out the same thing, in response to teckstud's provocation. The order (and grammar) were confusing.
Apple sells music and video material at their iTunes store. Apple gets a cut of the sale, and the label/artist gets a cut. Apple provides the software, tech support, advertising, storage, electricity, and network bandwidth required to fulfill the purchase. Those components all cost money.
If Apple then offers material for people to download for free, they are assuming all the associated costs necessary to do so. Apple is GIVING YOU ALL OF THAT, FOR FREE.
You continue to waste everyone's time with your willful stupidity. Either that or you are simply a forum troll, and seek some perverse pleasure with your incessant mosquito bites attempting to point out some pedantic technicality or a trivial weakness of Apple and their products. You are the noise to everyone else's signal. You now have a post count exceeding 6400, of which the vast majority are childish one-liners seeking a response just for the sake of provocation. There are many people who have expressed exasperation or outright disgust with your antics. It's not just me.
Don't you think it's time for a little introspection?
Thanks for that well-articulated post. What a disaster this guy is (was?).
I cited a poster from another Mac site because the poster made sense, and drew a fair conclusion from the material they quoted, related to this discussion. It at least advances this discussion in a more meaningful way than your trolling.
A similar comparison would be me quoting Colbert that quoted John Stewart. A show that can't be taken serious and two sites that can't be taken serious.
The difference is everyone in both forums appears to be patent attorneys because they appear to have all the answers. Always favorable to Apple.
Apple Says Nokia Wanted Cross-License for Apple iPhone Patents
Engadget?s Nilay Patel is reading Apple?s filing, and I think he?s found the heart of the disagreement:
Apple says Nokia?s patents aren?t actually essential to GSM / UMTS, denies infringing them, and says they?re invalid and / or unenforceable anyway. Apple also says Nokia wanted unreasonable license terms for the patents, including a cross-license for Apple?s various iPhone device patents as part of any deal, which Apple clearly wasn?t willing to do.
The big question about this dispute all along has been why Apple didn?t just license Nokia?s GSM/UMTS patents. Supposedly every other GSM phone maker (or at least all the other major ones) does, and they?re relatively cheap. The answer is that Nokia didn?t just want licensing fees from Apple: they wanted cross-license rights to Apple?s own iPhone patents.
In 2007, Apple introduced the iPhone a ground-breaking device that allowed users access to the functionality of the already popular iPod on a revolutionary mobile phone and Internet device. The iPhone is a converged device that allows users to access and ever expanding set of software features to take and send pictures, play music, play games do research, serve as a GPS device and much more….The iPhone platform has caused a revolutionary change in the mobile phone category.
In contrast, Nokia made a different business decision and remained focused on traditional mobile wireless handsets with conventional user interfaces. As a result, Nokia has rapidly lost share in the market for high-end mobile phones. Nokia has admitted that, as a result of the iPhone launch, “the market changed suddenly and [Nokia was] not fast enough changing with it.
In response, Nokia chose to copy the iPhone, especially its enormously popular and patented design and user interface….
As Anssi Vanjoki, Nokia’s executive Vice President and General Manager of Multimedia, stated at Nokia’s GoPlay event in 2007 when asked about the similarities of Nokia’s new offerings to the already released iPhone: “if there is something good in the world, we copy with pride.” True to this quote, Nokia has demonstrated its willingness to copy Apple’s iPhone ideas as well as Apple’s basic computing technologies, all while demanding Apple pay for access to Nokia’s purported standards essential patent. Apple seeks redress for this behavior.
Comments
So true.. So true..
This will end in a stalemate, or at best, Apple getting spanked with a huge fine.
Nokia has nothing to worry about.
If you read the article. or have followed similar cases that dragged on for years and years (including, curiously enough, Nokia vs Qualcomm and RIM vs NTP), that's exactly what usually happens - STALEMATE.
The parties then settle out-of-court away from our prying eyes.
However, in this situation, I suspect that what Nokia is looking for is not money, but to get an injunction in Europe or even USA (like NTP did to RIM in 2006/7) halting the sales of all iPhone products until they disabuse themselves of the infringement.
This, they hope, will slow Apple's breakneck advance into the smartphone industry and outright leadership enough for Nokia's R&D to have a chance of playing catch-up.
Fat chance, now that the counterstrike has been launched. Back to stalemate.
It seems to me many of these infringements apply to every iPhone wannabe out there from Pre to Blackberry.
If that's the case and it's true, then Apple is being selective, interested more in creating an example than anything else.
Can you pinch/zoom on an ATM screen, anywhere on the screen?
I admit, I haven't tried that yet.
I've been tempted to take a sledge hammer to one now and then LOL
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...1&postcount=48
Quote:
Through the present suit, Nokia has asserted unfounded claims of infringement and breached licensing commitments it made to license on F/RAND [Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory] terms all patents that it claimed were necessary for a party to practice standards. Nokia has also violated those licensing commitments by demanding unjustifiable royalties and reciprocal licenses to Apple's patents covering Apple's pioneering technology -- patents unrelated to any industry standard. This attempt by Nokia to leverage patents previously pledged to industry standards is an effort to free ride on the commercial success of Apple's innovative iPhone while avoiding liability for copying the iPhone and infringing Apple's patents.
Apple denies that any of Nokia's patents cited in its own lawsuit are "essential" to standards, but even if a court should rule any of the contested claims valid, Apple should be granted F/RAND licensing terms, which Nokia has refused to offer.
In support of its claims that Nokia has already copied iPhone intellectual property, Apple points to comments made by a Nokia executive soon after the launch of the original iPhone highlighting Nokia's interest in copying Apple's inventions.
The above is the most crucial bit about this report. Basically, if a company invents and patents technology which is essential to establishing a standard (such as GSM), then that company is obliged to offer it on F/RAND [Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory] terms.
Apple is saying that Nokia is going beyond the commitment it gave and wants to charge Apple more than it charges others who make use of the same technology. In addition, Nokia is also asking for "unjustifiable royalties and reciprocal licenses to Apple's patents covering Apple's pioneering technology".
So Apple is quite right to not only defend itself but also go on a counter-attack because Nokia has violated Apple's IP.
That's the way to back up a claim and give a posting to another Apple Rumor site.
Serious Question. When you Google or Bing do you have your Mac set to only give you Mac rumor site results?
Nobody knows the inner dealings of what is happening as in all the patent postings on the web. Apple & Nokia at this point are the only ones that know the entire picture in this story. Anything else is purely speculation. Something that you are very familiar with.
I've been tempted to take a sledge hammer to one now and then LOL
A brand new take on the Stylus!
That's the way to back up a claim and give a posting to another Apple Rumor site.
Serious Question. When you Google or Bing do you have your Mac set to only give you Mac rumor site results?
Nobody knows the inner dealings of what is happening as in all the patent postings on the web. Apple & Nokia at this point are the only ones that know the entire picture in this story. Anything else is purely speculation. Something that you are very familiar with.
I cited a poster from another Mac site because the poster made sense, and drew a fair conclusion from the material they quoted, related to this discussion. It at least advances this discussion in a more meaningful way than your trolling.
Disturbing... Hate much?
Agreed.
it was already used to provide security for the last superbowl
so you use a glorified sports event that is hosted ONCE A YEAR, to show how practical it is? That's the one example you are going to go with?
that just proves my point, and i doubt that most security companies would find this practical, and on top of that, you pick an event that costs what a couple of million to advertise for 30 secs. If that is not a case of bloated expensive useless garbage being used for bloated overpaid useless events I do not what is. So at least the NFL and Microsoft is consistent.
If Apple produced a 10,000 multitouch computer, there would be Microsoft fanboys foaming at the mouth to rip apple a new one. Yes I know you can be a dream Mac Pro for almost 20K but its entirely more useful and not a gimmicky wannabe.
Explain the article on CNN on the beginnings of multi touch and the final product used by CNN everday?
Why has Apple not sued Microsoft for Surface which pre-dates the Magic Wall Concept by a decade?
In October 2001, a virtual team was formed with Bathiche and Wilson as key members, to bring the idea to the next stage of development."
There are different implementations of what comes under the general grouping of multi-touch, people.
Apple's particular implementation of multi-touch with gestures, which it has patented, comes to them by virtue of a company they acquired called FingerWorks.
And then haven't (yet) supplied a source or citation.
EDIT: (Jerseymac's post slipped in while I was composing that)
I haven't reviewed the video itself, but did Jobs explicitly state that Apple 'invented multitouch'? As I recall, he showed off the overall capabilities of the device, and then quipped, "And boy, have we patented it." That statement could refer to any number of underlying technologies, not necessarily 'multi-touch' itself (however it might be defined).
SJ is very good at describing an ordinary feature and making it seem like it's going to change computing forever. i remember the time virtual desktops came to OS X and SJ was describing it like it was some huge innovation when in reality ^nix and Windows have had it for years and no one used it much.
because apple has never given YOU anything for me, means the same as Apple never gives anything for free...more hyperbolic rhetoric.
You're completely wrong on this point.
One word can counter the argument. Podcasts. All free, all hosted and promoted by Apple for years and years. Just for you.
Not to mention the free give-aways, the free open source givebacks etc. Apple gives away *tons* of stuff for free and always has. Their computers are expensive, but the argument that they never give you anything for free is just 100% BS.
so you use a glorified sports event that is hosted ONCE A YEAR, to show how practical it is? That's the one example you are going to go with?
that just proves my point, and i doubt that most security companies would find this practical, and on top of that, you pick an event that costs what a couple of million to advertise for 30 secs. If that is not a case of bloated expensive useless garbage being used for bloated overpaid useless events I do not what is. So at least the NFL and Microsoft is consistent.
If Apple produced a 10,000 multitouch computer, there would be Microsoft fanboys foaming at the mouth to rip apple a new one. Yes I know you can be a dream Mac Pro for almost 20K but its entirely more useful and not a gimmicky wannabe.
HP has a touch screen PC where you touch the screen like on the iphone. it's actually kind of funny since my 2 year old loves my iphone and it's very hard to teach him the concept of a mouse on my PC's and Mac. he keeps touching the monitor to try to make something happen
In countersuit, Apple says Nokia missed paradigm shift and therefore ?chose to copy the iPhone?
"In Apple?s countersuit today, it accuses Nokia of attempting a 'patent hold-up.' The patents in question are part of industry standards, and as such Nokia must license them under fair and reasonable terms, argues Apple. But instead, Nokia tried to put the squeeze on Apple," Erick Schonfeld reports for TechCrunch. "Apple states in its countersuit:"
In dealing with Apple, Nokia has sought to gain an unjust competitive advantage over Apple by charging unwarranted fees to use patents that allegedly cover industry compatability standards.
Schonfeld reports, "Whether or not Apple?s arguments hold water is for a court to decide. But Apple takes the opportunity of this legal battle to make a swipe at Nokia as a flailing competitor. If you read between the lines of the suit, the reason Nokia is not willing to license its patents under 'fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms' to Apple is because while Apple was creating a 'revolutionary change in the mobile phone category' with the iPhone, Nokia was sitting on its haunches:"
In contrast, Nokia made a different business decision and remained focussed on traditional mobile wireless handsets with conventional user interfaces. As a result, Nokia has rapidly lost share in the market for high-end mobile phones. . . . In response, Nokia chose to copy the iPhone.
Schonfeld reports, "In other words, Nokia is losing in the marketplace so it is falling back on the only thing it has left?its patents."
You're completely wrong on this point.
One word can counter the argument. Podcasts. All free, all hosted and promoted by Apple for years and years. Just for you.
Not to mention the free give-aways, the free open source givebacks etc. Apple gives away *tons* of stuff for free and always has. Their computers are expensive, but the argument that they never give you anything for free is just 100% BS.
I think you two are actually in agreement, if I'm reading Rhetoric's comment correctly.
You're completely wrong on this point.
One word can counter the argument. Podcasts. All free, all hosted and promoted by Apple for years and years. Just for you.
Not to mention the free give-aways, the free open source givebacks etc. Apple gives away *tons* of stuff for free and always has. Their computers are expensive, but the argument that they never give you anything for free is just 100% BS.
Please note that the quote you referenced was pointing out the same thing, in response to teckstud's provocation. The order (and grammar) were confusing.
Stay with me here:
Apple sells music and video material at their iTunes store. Apple gets a cut of the sale, and the label/artist gets a cut. Apple provides the software, tech support, advertising, storage, electricity, and network bandwidth required to fulfill the purchase. Those components all cost money.
If Apple then offers material for people to download for free, they are assuming all the associated costs necessary to do so. Apple is GIVING YOU ALL OF THAT, FOR FREE.
You continue to waste everyone's time with your willful stupidity. Either that or you are simply a forum troll, and seek some perverse pleasure with your incessant mosquito bites attempting to point out some pedantic technicality or a trivial weakness of Apple and their products. You are the noise to everyone else's signal. You now have a post count exceeding 6400, of which the vast majority are childish one-liners seeking a response just for the sake of provocation. There are many people who have expressed exasperation or outright disgust with your antics. It's not just me.
Don't you think it's time for a little introspection?
Thanks for that well-articulated post. What a disaster this guy is (was?).
I cited a poster from another Mac site because the poster made sense, and drew a fair conclusion from the material they quoted, related to this discussion. It at least advances this discussion in a more meaningful way than your trolling.
A similar comparison would be me quoting Colbert that quoted John Stewart. A show that can't be taken serious and two sites that can't be taken serious.
The difference is everyone in both forums appears to be patent attorneys because they appear to have all the answers. Always favorable to Apple.
Engadget?s Nilay Patel is reading Apple?s filing, and I think he?s found the heart of the disagreement:
Apple says Nokia?s patents aren?t actually essential to GSM / UMTS, denies infringing them, and says they?re invalid and / or unenforceable anyway. Apple also says Nokia wanted unreasonable license terms for the patents, including a cross-license for Apple?s various iPhone device patents as part of any deal, which Apple clearly wasn?t willing to do.
The big question about this dispute all along has been why Apple didn?t just license Nokia?s GSM/UMTS patents. Supposedly every other GSM phone maker (or at least all the other major ones) does, and they?re relatively cheap. The answer is that Nokia didn?t just want licensing fees from Apple: they wanted cross-license rights to Apple?s own iPhone patents.
★
Daring Fireball 09-12-11 12:47 PM John Gruber http://daringfireball.net/
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/11/a...ng-13-patents/
In 2007, Apple introduced the iPhone a ground-breaking device that allowed users access to the functionality of the already popular iPod on a revolutionary mobile phone and Internet device. The iPhone is a converged device that allows users to access and ever expanding set of software features to take and send pictures, play music, play games do research, serve as a GPS device and much more….The iPhone platform has caused a revolutionary change in the mobile phone category.
In contrast, Nokia made a different business decision and remained focused on traditional mobile wireless handsets with conventional user interfaces. As a result, Nokia has rapidly lost share in the market for high-end mobile phones. Nokia has admitted that, as a result of the iPhone launch, “the market changed suddenly and [Nokia was] not fast enough changing with it.
In response, Nokia chose to copy the iPhone, especially its enormously popular and patented design and user interface….
As Anssi Vanjoki, Nokia’s executive Vice President and General Manager of Multimedia, stated at Nokia’s GoPlay event in 2007 when asked about the similarities of Nokia’s new offerings to the already released iPhone: “if there is something good in the world, we copy with pride.” True to this quote, Nokia has demonstrated its willingness to copy Apple’s iPhone ideas as well as Apple’s basic computing technologies, all while demanding Apple pay for access to Nokia’s purported standards essential patent. Apple seeks redress for this behavior.
Is nothing sinking in?
You have learned well, Grasshopper.