Nokia sued for patents that by all reports they refused to license under the fair and nondiscriminatory terms that they are obligated to offer. That's why Apple refused to license them.
Nokia's report essentially confirms that. If they were using 'fair and nondiscriminatory' terms, as required by their membership in the cell phone consortium, there would be no need for lengthy negotiations. Simply "these are the terms that everybody in the industry receives."
They were clearly trying to extract extra money from Apple and Apple exercised their rights to decline to pay illegally requested license fees.
Please provide proof of this claim, you constantly make this claim and have yet to provide any proof.
Secondly, how many phones have had video chatting that was actually easy to use. I can't think of a phone besides iphone that consumers would want off the top of my head that did so.
Hmm. Let me see:
1: Select desired Contact instead of pressing on the "dial" key when on top of contact
2: Select "Video Call" (default is voice call)
That's how it's been done for about a decade now on hundreds of millions of the 3G phones out there. If facetime is even simpler, brilliant. But I can't say that the above description is difficult.
Patent holders are not obligated to license their technologies, that part is correct.
HOWEVER, a number of years ago when the lawsuits in the cell phone business got out of hand, all the major cell phone manufacturers got together and formed a group where each member of the group (including Nokia and Motorola) agreed to license all of their cell phone technologies to all comers for reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates.
By refusing to license to Apple at the same rates, Nokia is in violation of the agreement.
Please finally (after multiple requests on multiple threads to do so) provide proof of your claim. The only proof I've seen is "Apple said so" and some journalists making assumptions from that basis.
Now that other patent holders are suing Apple after "lengthy discussions failed", it seems quite likely that Apple disagrees with others what F/RAND is. So yes, Apple's statement in that regard makes sense. But it may not be the universally accepted truth.
One of the truths is that F/RAND means different values for different geographical areas.
It seems that Asia has lower F/RAND rates (due to difficulty in enforcing patent law against small and nimble copycat companies in Taiwan and mainland china). Europe and the U.S. have higher F/RAND rates (as patent law is more easily enforcable).
One of the analysts theories is that Apple doesn't want to pay the price that US/European companies pay, rather they want the cheaper Asia prices. If that were the case, then all of the three companies have been speaking the truth, they just have different interpretations as to what the truth (i.e. F(RAND terms)) is.
Now it's time to see it out in court as they haven't been able to play nice in the meeting rooms.
But please stop spewing out assumptions as fact if you cannot provide the facts that go with it.
Please finally (after multiple requests on multiple threads to do so) provide proof of your claim. The only proof I've seen is "Apple said so" and some journalists making assumptions from that basis.
Now that other patent holders are suing Apple after "lengthy discussions failed", it seems quite likely that Apple disagrees with others what F/RAND is. So yes, Apple's statement in that regard makes sense. But it may not be the universally accepted truth.
One of the truths is that F/RAND means different values for different geographical areas.
It seems that Asia has lower F/RAND rates (due to difficulty in enforcing patent law against small and nimble copycat companies in Taiwan and mainland china). Europe and the U.S. have higher F/RAND rates (as patent law is more easily enforcable).
One of the analysts theories is that Apple doesn't want to pay the price that US/European companies pay, rather they want the cheaper Asia prices. If that were the case, then all of the three companies have been speaking the truth, they just have different interpretations as to what the truth (i.e. F(RAND terms)) is.
Now it's time to see it out in court as they haven't been able to play nice in the meeting rooms.
But please stop spewing out assumptions as fact if you cannot provide the facts that go with it.
Regs, Jarkko
Apple also said, in court fillings, that Nokia wanted Apple to license some of it non-standard technologies to Nokia in exchange for the Nokia to license those standard technologies. When you have billions of dollars on the line, lying in court documents is not very smart. I am sure Apple didn't make these things up and they most likely have more than sufficient evidence (emails, correspondence.. etc) to support this claim. The easiest and most common respond in these cases is "we didn't infringe on these patents" but Apple didn't say that, which tells me that they are very confident in their claims.
God nonononononononononononononono not another troll to this board. By your logic Windows Mobile 6 was "ahead of its time" just because it included folders before iOS. Which is downright batshit insane
No, being ahead of its time has nothing whatsoever to do with iOS. Instead, it has everything to do with the then-current alternatives.
And it beat all of them, for years. Indeed, stuff it had in Rev 1 is now just being implemented in current mini-OSs.
Lol, that's how these things always go down. All these big companies have massive libraries of patents, and if one tries to sue another they get as good right back. It's mutually assured destruction.
After all, painters had put pigment to canvas and framed it long before that pompous fool da Vinci thought of doing it, so I LOL at the Last Supper and it's so called "uniqueness."
Also: every single thing ever made by man that has some attribute in common with something previous. I guess the discovery of how to make a fire might count as "inventive", except they obviously copied it from nature.
You misunderstand my comment. Or maybe you rely on premises that do not have resemblance to mine.
Whatever, your "necessary conclusions" do not rest on anything I said, meant or implied.
I think that this sort of discussion is a waste of time. I'll start replying with "Nope" and spare the other readers.
"Certain important respects" being "whatever irrelevant similarities I can pull out of my ass to play to the tiresome Apple never innovates game."
After all, painters had put pigment to canvas and framed it long before that pompous fool da Vinci thought of doing it, so I LOL at the Last Supper and it's so called "uniqueness."
Also: every single thing ever made by man that has some attribute in common with something previous. I guess the discovery of how to make a fire might count as "inventive", except they obviously copied it from nature.
The same is true of multi-touch. Apple didn't invent it. It has been in existence long before it purchased the patent holder for it.
But all the fanbois on this forum claim that Apple uniquely created multi-touch, and only Apple is allowed to use multi-touch in any handheld product. Fanbois love to say that, using your comparison, Apple invented the pigment and everyone else is infringing on its patent.
The irony is that when it comes to Apple copying off everyone else, we only hear "great artists steal" and "that technology (like pigment) is so common that Apple has every right to use it without licensing the patent" from the fanbois.
The only thing we learned is that Apple fanbois are hypocrites.
Unless I'm completely off base, patent holders are under zero obligation to license their patents to competitors, nor are they legally required to do so in a non-discriminatory way. A patent is a government-approved form of monopoly for a limited time period.
But the Mobile telephone industry has a special situation that every company that is in the playing field can license the needed patents buy paying the same price as everybody else. There are a few big patentholders that own many of the patents in the mobile phone industry and they cross-license their patents between eachother. If this wasnt the case nobody could make a phone without breaking one or more patents from another company. These patents are the essential patents regarding standard mobile phone protocols and radio patents etc. These patents DONT include anything that contains about GUI, touchscreens, sms, mms, mail, synchronising, etc, that hasnt anything to do with the protocols that make call and data transmission possible with a mobile phone!!!
Eg, thats why the iphone doesnt understand Nokia VCards, or you cant bluetooth a contact. Its the forst is a nokia patent, and probably the other aswell (or sonyericsson) and only nokia has the ability to chose whom it will or wont lincense this feature to (and for what price), Apple has made its own version of that feature that doesnt need to license vcard. Even if Apple will eventually pay Nokia for the licenses of standard mobilephone radio standards like it is allready paying motorola and Sonyericsson and some other big companies. I t just seems like nokia wanted more than they where entitled to charge. When they pay up for the essentials it still doesnt let apple use the vcard and other patents that the iphone doesnt use. You can many times do your own versions of things if you a big enough player in the industry (like videocalls like apple facetime, nokia has probably many patents in this field that apple didnt need when they did facetime).
I see, so it's a voluntary industry-wide agreement... sounds suspiciously like collusion to me.
Not at all. Talking with your competitors is not illegal, nor is licensing your technologies. It's only illegal if it impedes competition - and the intent of RAND is actually to knock down barriers to competition - and to create an industry standard that all providers can use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfanning
Please provide proof of this claim, you constantly make this claim and have yet to provide any proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jahonen
Please finally (after multiple requests on multiple threads to do so) provide proof of your claim.
Geez. Three requests over a 10 minute period around 3 am and you're whining that I haven't provided it? Did you ever think about getting a life?
It is widely known in the industry. Sorry that you're so uninformed.
Ooh, you mean the Alto that didn't have drop down menus, drag and drop, double clicking, one to one icon to file mapping, Finder, dynamic window refresh, check-box selectable items, or a Trash Can and never saw the light of day as a commercial product outside of a $17,000 word processing station? Because they couldn't figure out a way to make all that neat GUI stuff happen within constrained hardware?
Mentioning Alto is a sure sign of reflexive, ignorance based Apple slapping.
how about the Star in 1981?
ignoring reality and truth is a sure sign of stupidity or insanity.
Not at all. Talking with your competitors is not illegal, nor is licensing your technologies. It's only illegal if it impedes competition - and the intent of RAND is actually to knock down barriers to competition - and to create an industry standard that all providers can use.
Geez. Three requests over a 10 minute period around 3 am and you're whining that I haven't provided it? Did you ever think about getting a life?
It is widely known in the industry. Sorry that you're so uninformed.
Or search 'mobile phone consortium patent licensing RAND' for a list of thousands more.
Sorry, but your ignorance doesn't mean that it's not true.
Nobody denies that RAND terms exist for many technologies. The question is whether the infringing technology has been licensed properly. I see no indication that any license was granted.
I see nothing in any of your cites that the patents in question were covered by any RAND terms.
There are also folders, which apple added just recently. The OS was way ahead of its time, and Apple is just catching up in certain important respects.
If I were to guess, I'd say Steve abhors folders almost as much as he abhors buttons.
Interesting that many of his platforms (Apple II, Macintosh, iOS) didn't have folders at first.
1) No, I compared the iPhone's display elements with those of PalmOS, and there is direct evidence of blatant rip-off. It doesn't matter that 8 year-old technology appears older than 3 year old technology. The fact that Apple ripped the technology off is self-evident proof enough.
2) The dual-microphone technology was incorporated by the Nexus One long before the iPhone 4 came out.
3) The Sprint Evo 4g had the front-facing camera before the iPhone 4. The front-facing camera on the Evo is incredibly easy to use, arguably much easier to use than the FaceTime app on the iPhone.
And, I guarantee you that Apple will rip-off the idea of using 4g data speeds in a phone from competitors once Apple releases the next version. But, I'm sure you'll turn a blind eye to that one as well.
Funny. Appearance in a product does not imply who's idea it was.
The same is true of multi-touch. Apple didn't invent it. It has been in existence long before it purchased the patent holder for it.
But all the fanbois on this forum claim that Apple uniquely created multi-touch, and only Apple is allowed to use multi-touch in any handheld product. Fanbois love to say that, using your comparison, Apple invented the pigment and everyone else is infringing on its patent.
The irony is that when it comes to Apple copying off everyone else, we only hear "great artists steal" and "that technology (like pigment) is so common that Apple has every right to use it without licensing the patent" from the fanbois.
The only thing we learned is that Apple fanbois are hypocrites.
They didn't create, but had the vision to actually do something with it.
If I were to guess, I'd say Steve abhors folders almost as much as he abhors buttons.
Interesting that many of his platforms (Apple II, Macintosh, iOS) didn't have folders at first.
Could be. My early impression of the iPhone UI was that it was similar to a naive Windows user's desktop, with icons scattered in random order all over the desktop.
The addition of folders helps iOS to be better, but it is implemented very poorly, IMO.
Could be. My early impression of the iPhone UI was that it was similar to a naive Windows user's desktop, with icons scattered in random order all over the desktop.
The addition of folders helps iOS to be better, but it is implemented very poorly, IMO.
Maybe. It seems dumbed down at first but it's the model everyone is following... With the exception of WP7.
Comments
Not at all.
Nokia sued for patents that by all reports they refused to license under the fair and nondiscriminatory terms that they are obligated to offer. That's why Apple refused to license them.
Nokia's report essentially confirms that. If they were using 'fair and nondiscriminatory' terms, as required by their membership in the cell phone consortium, there would be no need for lengthy negotiations. Simply "these are the terms that everybody in the industry receives."
They were clearly trying to extract extra money from Apple and Apple exercised their rights to decline to pay illegally requested license fees.
Please provide proof of this claim, you constantly make this claim and have yet to provide any proof.
By refusing to license to Apple at the same rates, Nokia is in violation of the agreement.
Again, provide proof of your claim
Secondly, how many phones have had video chatting that was actually easy to use. I can't think of a phone besides iphone that consumers would want off the top of my head that did so.
Hmm. Let me see:
1: Select desired Contact instead of pressing on the "dial" key when on top of contact
2: Select "Video Call" (default is voice call)
That's how it's been done for about a decade now on hundreds of millions of the 3G phones out there. If facetime is even simpler, brilliant. But I can't say that the above description is difficult.
Regs, Jarkko
Patent holders are not obligated to license their technologies, that part is correct.
HOWEVER, a number of years ago when the lawsuits in the cell phone business got out of hand, all the major cell phone manufacturers got together and formed a group where each member of the group (including Nokia and Motorola) agreed to license all of their cell phone technologies to all comers for reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates.
By refusing to license to Apple at the same rates, Nokia is in violation of the agreement.
Please finally (after multiple requests on multiple threads to do so) provide proof of your claim. The only proof I've seen is "Apple said so" and some journalists making assumptions from that basis.
Now that other patent holders are suing Apple after "lengthy discussions failed", it seems quite likely that Apple disagrees with others what F/RAND is. So yes, Apple's statement in that regard makes sense. But it may not be the universally accepted truth.
One of the truths is that F/RAND means different values for different geographical areas.
It seems that Asia has lower F/RAND rates (due to difficulty in enforcing patent law against small and nimble copycat companies in Taiwan and mainland china). Europe and the U.S. have higher F/RAND rates (as patent law is more easily enforcable).
One of the analysts theories is that Apple doesn't want to pay the price that US/European companies pay, rather they want the cheaper Asia prices. If that were the case, then all of the three companies have been speaking the truth, they just have different interpretations as to what the truth (i.e. F(RAND terms)) is.
Now it's time to see it out in court as they haven't been able to play nice in the meeting rooms.
But please stop spewing out assumptions as fact if you cannot provide the facts that go with it.
Regs, Jarkko
Please finally (after multiple requests on multiple threads to do so) provide proof of your claim. The only proof I've seen is "Apple said so" and some journalists making assumptions from that basis.
Now that other patent holders are suing Apple after "lengthy discussions failed", it seems quite likely that Apple disagrees with others what F/RAND is. So yes, Apple's statement in that regard makes sense. But it may not be the universally accepted truth.
One of the truths is that F/RAND means different values for different geographical areas.
It seems that Asia has lower F/RAND rates (due to difficulty in enforcing patent law against small and nimble copycat companies in Taiwan and mainland china). Europe and the U.S. have higher F/RAND rates (as patent law is more easily enforcable).
One of the analysts theories is that Apple doesn't want to pay the price that US/European companies pay, rather they want the cheaper Asia prices. If that were the case, then all of the three companies have been speaking the truth, they just have different interpretations as to what the truth (i.e. F(RAND terms)) is.
Now it's time to see it out in court as they haven't been able to play nice in the meeting rooms.
But please stop spewing out assumptions as fact if you cannot provide the facts that go with it.
Regs, Jarkko
Apple also said, in court fillings, that Nokia wanted Apple to license some of it non-standard technologies to Nokia in exchange for the Nokia to license those standard technologies. When you have billions of dollars on the line, lying in court documents is not very smart. I am sure Apple didn't make these things up and they most likely have more than sufficient evidence (emails, correspondence.. etc) to support this claim. The easiest and most common respond in these cases is "we didn't infringe on these patents" but Apple didn't say that, which tells me that they are very confident in their claims.
God nonononononononononononononono not another troll to this board. By your logic Windows Mobile 6 was "ahead of its time" just because it included folders before iOS. Which is downright batshit insane
No, being ahead of its time has nothing whatsoever to do with iOS. Instead, it has everything to do with the then-current alternatives.
And it beat all of them, for years. Indeed, stuff it had in Rev 1 is now just being implemented in current mini-OSs.
As recent as 25 years ago.
iOS did not exist 25 years ago. We're talking PDA OSs here.
Desktop OSs might be an interesting topic, but I think it might warrant a separate thread.
After all, painters had put pigment to canvas and framed it long before that pompous fool da Vinci thought of doing it, so I LOL at the Last Supper and it's so called "uniqueness."
Also: every single thing ever made by man that has some attribute in common with something previous. I guess the discovery of how to make a fire might count as "inventive", except they obviously copied it from nature.
You misunderstand my comment. Or maybe you rely on premises that do not have resemblance to mine.
Whatever, your "necessary conclusions" do not rest on anything I said, meant or implied.
I think that this sort of discussion is a waste of time. I'll start replying with "Nope" and spare the other readers.
Again, provide proof of your claim
His contention has become common knowledge in some circles. As such, proof is not important.
"Certain important respects" being "whatever irrelevant similarities I can pull out of my ass to play to the tiresome Apple never innovates game."
After all, painters had put pigment to canvas and framed it long before that pompous fool da Vinci thought of doing it, so I LOL at the Last Supper and it's so called "uniqueness."
Also: every single thing ever made by man that has some attribute in common with something previous. I guess the discovery of how to make a fire might count as "inventive", except they obviously copied it from nature.
The same is true of multi-touch. Apple didn't invent it. It has been in existence long before it purchased the patent holder for it.
But all the fanbois on this forum claim that Apple uniquely created multi-touch, and only Apple is allowed to use multi-touch in any handheld product. Fanbois love to say that, using your comparison, Apple invented the pigment and everyone else is infringing on its patent.
The irony is that when it comes to Apple copying off everyone else, we only hear "great artists steal" and "that technology (like pigment) is so common that Apple has every right to use it without licensing the patent" from the fanbois.
The only thing we learned is that Apple fanbois are hypocrites.
Unless I'm completely off base, patent holders are under zero obligation to license their patents to competitors, nor are they legally required to do so in a non-discriminatory way. A patent is a government-approved form of monopoly for a limited time period.
But the Mobile telephone industry has a special situation that every company that is in the playing field can license the needed patents buy paying the same price as everybody else. There are a few big patentholders that own many of the patents in the mobile phone industry and they cross-license their patents between eachother. If this wasnt the case nobody could make a phone without breaking one or more patents from another company. These patents are the essential patents regarding standard mobile phone protocols and radio patents etc. These patents DONT include anything that contains about GUI, touchscreens, sms, mms, mail, synchronising, etc, that hasnt anything to do with the protocols that make call and data transmission possible with a mobile phone!!!
Eg, thats why the iphone doesnt understand Nokia VCards, or you cant bluetooth a contact. Its the forst is a nokia patent, and probably the other aswell (or sonyericsson) and only nokia has the ability to chose whom it will or wont lincense this feature to (and for what price), Apple has made its own version of that feature that doesnt need to license vcard. Even if Apple will eventually pay Nokia for the licenses of standard mobilephone radio standards like it is allready paying motorola and Sonyericsson and some other big companies. I t just seems like nokia wanted more than they where entitled to charge. When they pay up for the essentials it still doesnt let apple use the vcard and other patents that the iphone doesnt use. You can many times do your own versions of things if you a big enough player in the industry (like videocalls like apple facetime, nokia has probably many patents in this field that apple didnt need when they did facetime).
I see, so it's a voluntary industry-wide agreement... sounds suspiciously like collusion to me.
Not at all. Talking with your competitors is not illegal, nor is licensing your technologies. It's only illegal if it impedes competition - and the intent of RAND is actually to knock down barriers to competition - and to create an industry standard that all providers can use.
Please provide proof of this claim, you constantly make this claim and have yet to provide any proof.
Please finally (after multiple requests on multiple threads to do so) provide proof of your claim.
Geez. Three requests over a 10 minute period around 3 am and you're whining that I haven't provided it? Did you ever think about getting a life?
It is widely known in the industry. Sorry that you're so uninformed.
How about this one- read the last paragraph:
http://www.wirelesspowerconsortium.c...ers/index.html
Or:
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Reas...Licensing.html
Or search 'mobile phone consortium patent licensing RAND' for a list of thousands more.
Sorry, but your ignorance doesn't mean that it's not true.
Ooh, you mean the Alto that didn't have drop down menus, drag and drop, double clicking, one to one icon to file mapping, Finder, dynamic window refresh, check-box selectable items, or a Trash Can and never saw the light of day as a commercial product outside of a $17,000 word processing station? Because they couldn't figure out a way to make all that neat GUI stuff happen within constrained hardware?
Mentioning Alto is a sure sign of reflexive, ignorance based Apple slapping.
how about the Star in 1981?
ignoring reality and truth is a sure sign of stupidity or insanity.
Not at all. Talking with your competitors is not illegal, nor is licensing your technologies. It's only illegal if it impedes competition - and the intent of RAND is actually to knock down barriers to competition - and to create an industry standard that all providers can use.
Geez. Three requests over a 10 minute period around 3 am and you're whining that I haven't provided it? Did you ever think about getting a life?
It is widely known in the industry. Sorry that you're so uninformed.
How about this one- read the last paragraph:
http://www.wirelesspowerconsortium.c...ers/index.html
Or:
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Reas...Licensing.html
Or search 'mobile phone consortium patent licensing RAND' for a list of thousands more.
Sorry, but your ignorance doesn't mean that it's not true.
Nobody denies that RAND terms exist for many technologies. The question is whether the infringing technology has been licensed properly. I see no indication that any license was granted.
I see nothing in any of your cites that the patents in question were covered by any RAND terms.
There are also folders, which apple added just recently. The OS was way ahead of its time, and Apple is just catching up in certain important respects.
If I were to guess, I'd say Steve abhors folders almost as much as he abhors buttons.
Interesting that many of his platforms (Apple II, Macintosh, iOS) didn't have folders at first.
1) No, I compared the iPhone's display elements with those of PalmOS, and there is direct evidence of blatant rip-off. It doesn't matter that 8 year-old technology appears older than 3 year old technology. The fact that Apple ripped the technology off is self-evident proof enough.
2) The dual-microphone technology was incorporated by the Nexus One long before the iPhone 4 came out.
3) The Sprint Evo 4g had the front-facing camera before the iPhone 4. The front-facing camera on the Evo is incredibly easy to use, arguably much easier to use than the FaceTime app on the iPhone.
And, I guarantee you that Apple will rip-off the idea of using 4g data speeds in a phone from competitors once Apple releases the next version. But, I'm sure you'll turn a blind eye to that one as well.
Funny. Appearance in a product does not imply who's idea it was.
The same is true of multi-touch. Apple didn't invent it. It has been in existence long before it purchased the patent holder for it.
But all the fanbois on this forum claim that Apple uniquely created multi-touch, and only Apple is allowed to use multi-touch in any handheld product. Fanbois love to say that, using your comparison, Apple invented the pigment and everyone else is infringing on its patent.
The irony is that when it comes to Apple copying off everyone else, we only hear "great artists steal" and "that technology (like pigment) is so common that Apple has every right to use it without licensing the patent" from the fanbois.
The only thing we learned is that Apple fanbois are hypocrites.
They didn't create, but had the vision to actually do something with it.
If I were to guess, I'd say Steve abhors folders almost as much as he abhors buttons.
Interesting that many of his platforms (Apple II, Macintosh, iOS) didn't have folders at first.
Could be. My early impression of the iPhone UI was that it was similar to a naive Windows user's desktop, with icons scattered in random order all over the desktop.
The addition of folders helps iOS to be better, but it is implemented very poorly, IMO.
Could be. My early impression of the iPhone UI was that it was similar to a naive Windows user's desktop, with icons scattered in random order all over the desktop.
The addition of folders helps iOS to be better, but it is implemented very poorly, IMO.
Maybe. It seems dumbed down at first but it's the model everyone is following... With the exception of WP7.