Apple didn't lose. Apple always knew it would pay Nokia something. Nokia, however, made those patents available to a standards body to license under FRAND terms. Yet, Nokia wanted to extort from Apple non-FRAND terms, which it wasn't allowed to do.
According to Nokia's financial statements, Apple won. People thought Apple would have to pay Nokia over a billion dollars. Instead, Apple paid less the 600 million. Further, Apple protected most of its patents from cross licensing, which Nokia prior to embracing Windows 7 really wanted. .
Most news source claim Apple came out ahead in that lawsuit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by screamingfist
they are in no way a 'slam dunk' just as oracles move to try and hide jon schwartz's sun blog entries was not a 'slam dunk' for google. both hurt the others case is all. it isn't definitive. unlike the Apple case with nokia where apple didn't feel it should have to pay 'high' license fees (sounds familiar?) and decided to just go ahead and 'steal' the IP from nokia. apple lost that one and settled by agreeing to pay license fees.
google may be ordered to pay more or less or none. have to wait and see.
When you have more than innuendo or ad hominems to offer, get back to us.
Us? There is no "us" on your side of the discussion. You're either here simply for the purpose of derailing the discussion and distracting from the facts, or you are so far out in the weeds that there is not point in discussing anything with you.
Us? There is no "us" on your side of the discussion. You're either here simply for the purpose of derailing the discussion and distracting from the facts, or you are so far out in the weeds that there is not point in discussing anything with you.
Actually if you bothered to read the thread you'd find that other people have agreed with me. But again, nice to see you maintain your one ad hominem per post average. Keep it up.
Apple didn't lose. Apple always knew it would pay Nokia something. Nokia, however, made those patents available to a standards body to license under FRAND terms. Yet, Nokia wanted to extort from Apple non-FRAND terms, which it wasn't allowed to do.
According to Nokia's financial statements, Apple won. People thought Apple would have to pay Nokia over a billion dollars. Instead, Apple paid less the 600 million. Further, Apple protected most of its patents from cross licensing, which Nokia prior to embracing Windows 7 really wanted. .
Most news source claim Apple came out ahead in that lawsuit.
Also... don't forget that Apple had already accounted for the Nokia settlement in its finances... so much so that there was a net gain to Apple's bottom line.
Us? There is no "us" on your side of the discussion. You're either here simply for the purpose of derailing the discussion and distracting from the facts, or you are so far out in the weeds that there is not point in discussing anything with you.
LOl... you don't really think you're going to get the last word... do you?!
You could have said, "the sky is blue", and you would have had at least a 90 post thread in response.
Also... don't forget that Apple had already accounted for the Nokia settlement in its finances... so much so that there was a net gain to Apple's bottom line.
Watch it. That is getting a little too close to facts and we can't have that. I mean I'm sure Google has done the same thing. Oh wait, Google told the judge that they owe $0 in damages sooooo scratch that.
they are in no way a 'slam dunk' just as oracles move to try and hide jon schwartz's sun blog entries was not a 'slam dunk' for google. both hurt the others case is all. it isn't definitive. unlike the Apple case with nokia where apple didn't feel it should have to pay 'high' license fees (sounds familiar?) and decided to just go ahead and 'steal' the IP from nokia. apple lost that one and settled by agreeing to pay license fees.
google may be ordered to pay more or less or none. have to wait and see.
why's Google trying so hard to hide the emails from the Jury? because even they know that once that email becomes available to the Jury THEY ARE DONE.
Oracle hiding schwartz's blog entries has NO LEGAL IMPACT whatsover in this case because endorsements are NOT LEGALLY BINDING.
taking down schwartz's blog entries was just a PR move.
Apple didn't lose. Apple always knew it would pay Nokia something. Nokia, however, made those patents available to a standards body to license under FRAND terms. Yet, Nokia wanted to extort from Apple non-FRAND terms, which it wasn't allowed to do.
According to Nokia's financial statements, Apple won. People thought Apple would have to pay Nokia over a billion dollars. Instead, Apple paid less the 600 million. Further, Apple protected most of its patents from cross licensing, which Nokia prior to embracing Windows 7 really wanted. .
Most news source claim Apple came out ahead in that lawsuit.
ha ha ha. never heard of someone having to settle cuz they had no case, pay nokia a lump sum somewhere around 600 million or more (no one is quite sure just yet) and a license fee on each and every iphone paid to nokia from now on as 'winning'. must be that charlie sheen version of winning?
Sorry but Apple refused to pay Nokia above FRAND rates which everyone else does all the while giving Nokia IP that Apple felt kept it's phone unique. Apple never said that Nokia's patents were invalid nor did they pretend that it owed Nokia nothing. That was a whole different kettle of fish but if you want to conflate the two instances to make you feel better then by all means. . .
that must have been it...not.
apple hands over 600 million give or take, plus a fee paid to nokia for each and every iphone sold. all out of the goodness of apple's heart and pocketbook? nope. had to go to court and apple caved in cuz they knew they were toast. but i am sure you will spin it as a win cuz apple didn't pay a billion dollars.
stealing IP is stealing IP. doesn't matter if you feel the rates are too high or not.
apple hands over 600 million give or take, plus a fee paid to nokia for each and every iphone sold. all out of the goodness of apple's heart and pocketbook? nope. had to go to court and apple caved in cuz they knew they were toast. but i am sure you will spin it as a win cuz apple didn't pay a billion dollars.
stealing IP is stealing IP. doesn't matter if you feel the rates are too high or not.
Do people just intentionally overlook details to fit their anti-Apple agenda? Many others have already stated that it wasn't paying Nokia that bothered them but that Nokia was demanding more than was fair, than what others had to pay because Nokia. Now, if it turns out that Sun was demanding more than was reasonable from Google and more than what others had to pay for the same thing, then I'll sympathize with Google's decision.
LOl... you don't really think you're going to get the last word... do you?! ...
Not at all. But, when someone is that distanced from reality, there's no point in actually trying to argue with them. The only rational response is to simply point out the BS level.
Do people just intentionally overlook details to fit their anti-Apple agenda? Many others have already stated that it wasn't paying Nokia that bothered them but that Nokia was demanding more than was fair, than what others had to pay because Nokia. Now, if it turns out that Sun was demanding more than was reasonable from Google and more than what others had to pay for the same thing, then I'll sympathize with Google's decision.
it was that Apple wanted it all their way. apple wanted nokia to license nokia's technology to apple (at a price apple felt was fair?) and apple did not want to cross license anything.
so apple thinks it can take someone else IP and then tell the owner of that IP how things will be. Nokia said no, its our IP and we will license it to you but we want some cross licensing.
Apple wouldn't do it so Nokia had to take it to court.
Moral of the story? If you (Apple) don't like someones offer, steal their IP anyway and make them take you to court.
the point isn't about money its about theft. apple didn't say "we don't want to cut that deal with you" and then remove the infringing IP (i.e. 'give back' the 'product') they stole the IP and said 'we are going to use it and if you don't like it take us to court'. nokia did. and 'won'.
it was that Apple wanted it all their way. apple wanted nokia to license nokia's technology to apple (at a price apple felt was fair?) and apple did not want to cross license anything.
so apple thinks it can take someone else IP and then tell the owner of that IP how things will be. Nokia said no, its our IP and we will license it to you but we want some cross licensing.
Apple wouldn't do it so Nokia had to take it to court.
Moral of the story? If you (Apple) don't like someones offer, steal their IP anyway and make them take you to court.
the point isn't about money its about theft. apple didn't say "we don't want to cut that deal with you" and then remove the infringing IP (i.e. 'give back' the 'product') they stole the IP and said 'we are going to use it and if you don't like it take us to court'. nokia did. and 'won'.
Apparently you have no clue what FRAND is? Nokia's patents in that case were standardized and are required to be licensed at a particular price. Nokia wanted to charge Apple ABOVE that price AND Apple's IP on the iPhone. If every other handset maker pays a certain price, then why should Apple pay a higher price when that is against the law?
If for some reason Apple's patents became a standard in the industry and it was forced to license them at a set price, I would require the same above board business practices as anyone else.
Apparently you have no clue what FRAND is? Nokia's patents in that case were standardized and are required to be licensed at a particular price. Nokia wanted to charge Apple ABOVE that price AND Apple's IP on the iPhone. If every other handset maker pays a certain price, then why should Apple pay a higher price when that is against the law?
If for some reason Apple's patents became a standard in the industry and it was forced to license them at a set price, I would require the same above board business practices as anyone else.
Rubbish. Apple may have "claimed" high price but did not prove it. You and apple must not know about ETSI RECIPROCITY cluase that nokia had and had right to exercise. Apple didnt think they should have to abide. Apple free ride? DENIED.
Daniel is a brilliant writer, his information is accurate and non biased, perhaps you should go back to the engadget forums. I don't recall any touch screen windows based phones gaining traction like the iPhone did after it's introduction in 2007.
Daniel is a terrible writer, he is so one eyed he may as well be a cyclops.
Comments
According to Nokia's financial statements, Apple won. People thought Apple would have to pay Nokia over a billion dollars. Instead, Apple paid less the 600 million. Further, Apple protected most of its patents from cross licensing, which Nokia prior to embracing Windows 7 really wanted. .
Most news source claim Apple came out ahead in that lawsuit.
they are in no way a 'slam dunk' just as oracles move to try and hide jon schwartz's sun blog entries was not a 'slam dunk' for google. both hurt the others case is all. it isn't definitive. unlike the Apple case with nokia where apple didn't feel it should have to pay 'high' license fees (sounds familiar?) and decided to just go ahead and 'steal' the IP from nokia. apple lost that one and settled by agreeing to pay license fees.
google may be ordered to pay more or less or none. have to wait and see.
When you have more than innuendo or ad hominems to offer, get back to us.
Us? There is no "us" on your side of the discussion. You're either here simply for the purpose of derailing the discussion and distracting from the facts, or you are so far out in the weeds that there is not point in discussing anything with you.
Us? There is no "us" on your side of the discussion. You're either here simply for the purpose of derailing the discussion and distracting from the facts, or you are so far out in the weeds that there is not point in discussing anything with you.
Actually if you bothered to read the thread you'd find that other people have agreed with me. But again, nice to see you maintain your one ad hominem per post average. Keep it up.
Apple didn't lose. Apple always knew it would pay Nokia something. Nokia, however, made those patents available to a standards body to license under FRAND terms. Yet, Nokia wanted to extort from Apple non-FRAND terms, which it wasn't allowed to do.
According to Nokia's financial statements, Apple won. People thought Apple would have to pay Nokia over a billion dollars. Instead, Apple paid less the 600 million. Further, Apple protected most of its patents from cross licensing, which Nokia prior to embracing Windows 7 really wanted. .
Most news source claim Apple came out ahead in that lawsuit.
Also... don't forget that Apple had already accounted for the Nokia settlement in its finances... so much so that there was a net gain to Apple's bottom line.
Us? There is no "us" on your side of the discussion. You're either here simply for the purpose of derailing the discussion and distracting from the facts, or you are so far out in the weeds that there is not point in discussing anything with you.
LOl... you don't really think you're going to get the last word... do you?!
You could have said, "the sky is blue", and you would have had at least a 90 post thread in response.
Also... don't forget that Apple had already accounted for the Nokia settlement in its finances... so much so that there was a net gain to Apple's bottom line.
Watch it. That is getting a little too close to facts and we can't have that. I mean I'm sure Google has done the same thing. Oh wait, Google told the judge that they owe $0 in damages sooooo scratch that.
they are in no way a 'slam dunk' just as oracles move to try and hide jon schwartz's sun blog entries was not a 'slam dunk' for google. both hurt the others case is all. it isn't definitive. unlike the Apple case with nokia where apple didn't feel it should have to pay 'high' license fees (sounds familiar?) and decided to just go ahead and 'steal' the IP from nokia. apple lost that one and settled by agreeing to pay license fees.
google may be ordered to pay more or less or none. have to wait and see.
why's Google trying so hard to hide the emails from the Jury? because even they know that once that email becomes available to the Jury THEY ARE DONE.
Oracle hiding schwartz's blog entries has NO LEGAL IMPACT whatsover in this case because endorsements are NOT LEGALLY BINDING.
taking down schwartz's blog entries was just a PR move.
Apple didn't lose. Apple always knew it would pay Nokia something. Nokia, however, made those patents available to a standards body to license under FRAND terms. Yet, Nokia wanted to extort from Apple non-FRAND terms, which it wasn't allowed to do.
According to Nokia's financial statements, Apple won. People thought Apple would have to pay Nokia over a billion dollars. Instead, Apple paid less the 600 million. Further, Apple protected most of its patents from cross licensing, which Nokia prior to embracing Windows 7 really wanted. .
Most news source claim Apple came out ahead in that lawsuit.
ha ha ha. never heard of someone having to settle cuz they had no case, pay nokia a lump sum somewhere around 600 million or more (no one is quite sure just yet) and a license fee on each and every iphone paid to nokia from now on as 'winning'. must be that charlie sheen version of winning?
Sorry but Apple refused to pay Nokia above FRAND rates which everyone else does all the while giving Nokia IP that Apple felt kept it's phone unique. Apple never said that Nokia's patents were invalid nor did they pretend that it owed Nokia nothing. That was a whole different kettle of fish but if you want to conflate the two instances to make you feel better then by all means. . .
that must have been it...not.
apple hands over 600 million give or take, plus a fee paid to nokia for each and every iphone sold. all out of the goodness of apple's heart and pocketbook? nope. had to go to court and apple caved in cuz they knew they were toast. but i am sure you will spin it as a win cuz apple didn't pay a billion dollars.
stealing IP is stealing IP. doesn't matter if you feel the rates are too high or not.
Stay in business?
Does anyone still use Oracle databases?
Mmmm... Apparently so... Here are today's market caps:
GOOG Market Value of Listed Security\t$*138,139,237,860
ORCL Market Value of Listed Security\t$*131,674,626,320
AAPL Market Value of Listed Security\t$*326,632,713,550
XOM Market Value of Listed Security\t$*345,755,940,000
MSFT Market Value of Listed Security\t$*206,434,136,160
that must have been it...not.
apple hands over 600 million give or take, plus a fee paid to nokia for each and every iphone sold. all out of the goodness of apple's heart and pocketbook? nope. had to go to court and apple caved in cuz they knew they were toast. but i am sure you will spin it as a win cuz apple didn't pay a billion dollars.
stealing IP is stealing IP. doesn't matter if you feel the rates are too high or not.
Do people just intentionally overlook details to fit their anti-Apple agenda? Many others have already stated that it wasn't paying Nokia that bothered them but that Nokia was demanding more than was fair, than what others had to pay because Nokia. Now, if it turns out that Sun was demanding more than was reasonable from Google and more than what others had to pay for the same thing, then I'll sympathize with Google's decision.
LOl... you don't really think you're going to get the last word... do you?! ...
Not at all. But, when someone is that distanced from reality, there's no point in actually trying to argue with them. The only rational response is to simply point out the BS level.
Mmmm... Apparently so... Here are today's market caps:
GOOG Market Value of Listed Security\t$*138,139,237,860
ORCL Market Value of Listed Security\t$*131,674,626,320
AAPL Market Value of Listed Security\t$*326,632,713,550
XOM Market Value of Listed Security\t$*345,755,940,000
MSFT Market Value of Listed Security\t$*206,434,136,160
oracle is used heavily in enterprise.
oracle is used heavily in enterprise.
Yes! Larry seems to dominate the markets he chooses to enter!
Yes! Larry seems to dominate the markets he chooses to enter!
At least most of the time *cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_computer *cough*.
Do people just intentionally overlook details to fit their anti-Apple agenda? Many others have already stated that it wasn't paying Nokia that bothered them but that Nokia was demanding more than was fair, than what others had to pay because Nokia. Now, if it turns out that Sun was demanding more than was reasonable from Google and more than what others had to pay for the same thing, then I'll sympathize with Google's decision.
it was that Apple wanted it all their way. apple wanted nokia to license nokia's technology to apple (at a price apple felt was fair?) and apple did not want to cross license anything.
so apple thinks it can take someone else IP and then tell the owner of that IP how things will be. Nokia said no, its our IP and we will license it to you but we want some cross licensing.
Apple wouldn't do it so Nokia had to take it to court.
Moral of the story? If you (Apple) don't like someones offer, steal their IP anyway and make them take you to court.
the point isn't about money its about theft. apple didn't say "we don't want to cut that deal with you" and then remove the infringing IP (i.e. 'give back' the 'product') they stole the IP and said 'we are going to use it and if you don't like it take us to court'. nokia did. and 'won'.
it was that Apple wanted it all their way. apple wanted nokia to license nokia's technology to apple (at a price apple felt was fair?) and apple did not want to cross license anything.
so apple thinks it can take someone else IP and then tell the owner of that IP how things will be. Nokia said no, its our IP and we will license it to you but we want some cross licensing.
Apple wouldn't do it so Nokia had to take it to court.
Moral of the story? If you (Apple) don't like someones offer, steal their IP anyway and make them take you to court.
the point isn't about money its about theft. apple didn't say "we don't want to cut that deal with you" and then remove the infringing IP (i.e. 'give back' the 'product') they stole the IP and said 'we are going to use it and if you don't like it take us to court'. nokia did. and 'won'.
Apparently you have no clue what FRAND is? Nokia's patents in that case were standardized and are required to be licensed at a particular price. Nokia wanted to charge Apple ABOVE that price AND Apple's IP on the iPhone. If every other handset maker pays a certain price, then why should Apple pay a higher price when that is against the law?
If for some reason Apple's patents became a standard in the industry and it was forced to license them at a set price, I would require the same above board business practices as anyone else.
Apparently you have no clue what FRAND is? Nokia's patents in that case were standardized and are required to be licensed at a particular price. Nokia wanted to charge Apple ABOVE that price AND Apple's IP on the iPhone. If every other handset maker pays a certain price, then why should Apple pay a higher price when that is against the law?
If for some reason Apple's patents became a standard in the industry and it was forced to license them at a set price, I would require the same above board business practices as anyone else.
Rubbish. Apple may have "claimed" high price but did not prove it. You and apple must not know about ETSI RECIPROCITY cluase that nokia had and had right to exercise. Apple didnt think they should have to abide. Apple free ride? DENIED.
Daniel is a brilliant writer, his information is accurate and non biased, perhaps you should go back to the engadget forums. I don't recall any touch screen windows based phones gaining traction like the iPhone did after it's introduction in 2007.
Daniel is a terrible writer, he is so one eyed he may as well be a cyclops.