How do we know we're years away from a final resolution to the Nokia / Apple patent lawsuit? It's been six months since Nokia
first filed its complaint, and the two parties are just now starting to argue about which specific substantive claims they're eventually going to argue about. Let's do a quick refresh: at the heart of the lawsuit is a
conflict over Nokia's wireless patents, some of which are almost certainly essential to how cell data and WiFi operate. As a member of the ETSI and the IEEE licensing groups which oversee GSM and WiFi, Nokia's required to license its patents to anyone who asks on fair terms, but those terms aren't set in stone -- Nokia can negotiate separate licenses as it sees fit, and it apparently wanted Apple to cross-license its touchscreen patents as part of the deal. Apple said no, and now we're all in court, with both sides alleging patent infringement in three
different lawsuits (one of which is
on hold) and Apple claiming that Nokia is also liable for breach of contract, because it promised fair licensing terms and didn't deliver. Got all that? Right.
So that brings us to yesterday, when Nokia asked the court to dismiss all of Apple's contract-related claims, saying that they're simply a distraction from the real issue, which is patents, and that its license offers aren't unfair simply because Apple doesn't like them. In short: Apple and Nokia's patent lawsuit is currently not really about patents at all, but about whether or not it should also be a fight about contract terms in addition to a fight about patents, and that question won't be resolved for months. And that's why
vigilante justice is the future of America's tarnished civilization something like 90 percent of patent cases eventually settle out of court.
P.S. Oh, and in case you're wondering, today Reuters reported that the first trial date
isn't expected until 2012. So, yeah.
posted March 12th 2010 2:57PM
Contracts are not important? Uuuhhhhhhh.....
@BigD145 apparently.
@BigD145
They are just trying to win part of the "arguement" before they see the courts...
@BigD145
where's that Contracts are not important is mentioned here, what's mentioned here is that apple trying to distract the court from the real case which is patent infringement
Meh Nokia got rock solid patents i don't think anybody doubts that. When they hold more essential patents in GSM and antennas that pretty much all your WiFi, phones and what not devices use in the world.
Hopefully it gets settled and that's that.
So basically, in exchange for a good rate to license Wifi and GSM tech from Nokia, Apple has to offer a cross license, with a good rate, on gesture/multi touch/pinch-zoom.
I foresee a multi year exclusive cross licensing deal in the works.
The people really making out here, are all the corporate lawyers, in billable hours.
Ya' know, I should have gone to law school.
@madmac I don't think we'll never know what was really on the table here -- if the issue was simply just negotiating a cash license rate for essential patents, it should have never gotten to this point. I'm suspect there was something else at stake.
@madmac Oh, you're right, I was looking at something else when I added that. Thanks for the catch.
Only one of the federal cases is on hold -- in addition to the case here, all of the patents in the ITC case were added as well. That's the case which is on hold. It's a procedural circus.
@madmac
Is it a coincidence that the trials will occur in the year of the Mayan-predicted Apocalypse?
@madmac Apple alleges Nokia wanted touch-related patents, not me. Hence "apparently."
Apple's claim is confuse, misleading and untidy. May be,it can be granted inside USA (and may be in some third world country) but outside USA ,jurist don't like such aberration of the law.
2012? Looks like we'll never see this trial happen :(
@ALBGunner04
It's in the lawyers' interest to drag this out. More money to be made the longer and more complicated it gets.
@ALBGunner04
Now you know why the world ends.
@Abe
It's just the damn number of infringements.
I just love that picture. That is all.
@Son Goku
me too
@Son Goku : It'd be better if they matched Nokia's old logo with Apple's old logo, the rainbow Apple.
According to an ancient Mayan prophecy, on December 21, 2012, at 11:11 AM, the judge will rule in favor of Nokia and will ban sales of the iPhone on all U.S. territories.
LOL at:
vigilante justice is the future of America's tarnished civilization
@DeFlanko Why did this get edited out? It was a great summary.
@juanvaldez
I have no idea... but i lol'd at it again today.
@Nilay Patel
Apple hints Nokia wants to license some of its patents, but doesnt state which ones. Nokia in fact have some of its own patents on touchscreen...
I think when you look at Jonathan Schwartz' recent blog post, it's very easy to see how this got out of hand. Apple needs to figure out a way to get rid of Steve Jobs and then extricate itself from the myriad of messes that moron has put the company in of late.
@Bosco
Whilst that's a bit harsh I do feel Jobs is going the same way he did last time. Focus on design, produce epic products, over-focus on some aspects of those products, get lunch stolen by competitors, get fired.
I wonder if he could make a second comeback though?
@MarkAnderson
I don't think he could. He's been busy making Apple a well-oiled machine capable of putting out a hot new product that the market eats up every few years (with minor revisions annually). I think Apple could run a good while without him, but if they started to go downhill I'd imagine it would be too late in his life to make a return.
@Bosco
Honestly, I have been wondering if people have all forgotten the mess he drag Apple into in the 80s. Apple was on the verge of extinction by the middle of the 90s.... and guess what, Microsoft has to pity them.
Ah well.... grudgingly, I'll have to say without that fund infusion, the iPhone would not have change the game in mobile phones.
Anyway, from a legal standpoint, right now, Nokia has about 25% advantage over Apple in the dispute, since they have provided the license to other mobile phone manufacturers all these years.
Apple might just get what is coming to them for a long time now. Apple should never pretend to be a football player when it is a weak-knee nerd.
@darkmax You do realize that none of that was Jobs doign right? He had been pushed out by Sculley long before that. It wasn't until Jobs came back and cleaned house at Apple that they became the ridiculously succesfull company they are today. Its sad how few people understand history in general, but for geeks the lack of understanding around Apple's history is even more so.
As for the patent thing, sorry but Nokia are the ones being a-holes here. They license the tech to other people for a fee. Apple on the other hand is expected to pay a fee AND cross licencse patents. Fair is that everyone gets the same (or roughly the same deal). Fair is not demanding more from one company because you are jealous of their success.
@krizoitz The time for Apple to sue Nokia for breach of contract was before shipping 3G phones. Or just play their game and cross-license. Even if you want to assume that Nokia is the biggest d-bag company in the whole world, it doesn't excuse Apple lowering itself to that level. It accomplishes absolutely nothing.
@krizoitz
Uh, most of it was down to Jobs. You might want to think about why the board lost confidence in him.
@krizoitz
Well look at IPR deals made by anyone of the big three you will find that the majority involves a cross license and a cash royalty. So its the same deal and the fee is around 5% of ASP. .
@Bosco
You think Apple should "get rid of Steve Jobs" ? Are you nuts?
Or is that just the Apple-hater in you dreaming out loud?
@MarkAnderson Here's a very simple little exercise in history for you:
Look up how AAPL stock developed from the time Steve Jobs was kicked out of Apple in 1985 and until his return in 1997.
Then compare this to how AAPL stock has developed since Steve's return in 1997 and up untill today.
That tells the whole story about Steve Jobs' importance to Apple.
"and that its license offers aren't unfair simply because Apple doesn't like them"
Nice one Nokia.
It seems fair to me, to respond to "we won't let you license because you compete with us" with "we won't let you license because you compete with us". Even Steven so they say, that's the fairest of them all.
@wraith404
Nokia will provide the license to Apple, just that Apple (the spoilt brat) doesn't want to accept the terms, it wants to dictate them.
@darkmax
It seems to me that Jobs feels that his patent for touching his own device is more valuable than nokia's patent for touching everyone else.. lol
But wait, isn't 2012 the year the world ends, is this what the Mayans predicted for armageddon, an all out war, not court dates, between Nokia and Apple?
Hopefully I will get a chance to work on this case. I love ITC hearings they are fun and a lot of work.
@Nilay Patel
You must be right here.
a lot more in the game.
Apple uses patented technology from Nokia, knows about it as the previous discussions entail, is not happy about the asked "price" - whatever that price was - gets mad (SJ must have had a bad day then) and says, the hell with it, we going to use them anyway.
on the other side. Nokia is obligated to licenses at a fair price it's patent to anyone who asks. which they did. fair price is subjective as a phrasing could be.
fair priced TV for your poorest neighborhood might be 500$ .
while fair price for selling a Tv to Bill gates might be 2000$.
in any case, apple did wrong and obviously (due to what the patents are for wireless use)
for the fact that Nokia used Apple patents , well, for the too broad patents, that is questionnable, as they should be voided anyway.
for the other few, they are so specific, that the court has to judge.
Most likely scenario is Nokia wanted access to Apple patents. Apple says no. Nokia sues. Ape counter sues.
Indicates Nokia knows Apple has defensible patents.
Nokia was once the shining star of European consumer electronics. Hopefully they'll recover and start gaining market share again.
What a humongous waste of time.
I have a question?
Nokia holds patents for parts of the UMTS/GSM and LAN technologies. "Some" of these patents are part of the GSM standardization group and ETSI using the FRAND policy for licensing.
MANY companies provided patented technologies including Nokia (alot of it was Nokia). all of this tech was pooled together to create GSM, and out of that a GSM standardization group.
My questions are:
1) why is nokia the only one suing, or why is the standardization group and ETSI sitting on the side lines for this. Wouldn't these groups be more vocal about IP infringement used in its standards?
2) If my thinking is correct and Apple is infringing IP from a standard that is made up of multiple companies tech. Why does Nokia decide the licensing fee.......... Or how does Nokia get to ask for Apples patents when Nokia would be the only company benefiting from a patent swap?
I seem to be missing the logic of how this is only between Nokia and Apple? Nokia wasn't the ONLY company to invent GSM. It took alot of tech from many, many companies, if you you infringe on 1, your also infringing on 10 others. I know these patents in this suit are VERY broad, but even the patent for "data transmission in a radio telephone network" describes the use of other patented IP in its summary. why arent they suing Apple?
This seems like a strange licensing dispute to me. But it does throw up a red flag to me if Nokia "was" asking for a patent swap. Nokia has to license them as being a standard. But Apple has no benefit in licensing there patents. Nokia would know this, why even ask?
i Think there's more to this story, in 15 years we'll find out.
@Col Forbin
1) Because it's not the groups problem, every member has to license their patents themselves.
2)Royalty is based on the share of standards-essential IPR larger player has invested more in R&D and should there by get more compensation.
@ariarinen
1) But a 3G Patent Licensing Program is already in place so each patent does not have to be licensed separately. thats the point, its many many companies hold patents to make up the 3G standard. It would take forever to negotiate licensing for each individual patent and it wouldn't be in fair practice for competitors.
2) My question isn't about share of standards that are essential. - Its you already have UMTS/GSM standardization group working under FRAND policy for licensing AND a Patent Licensing Program. Its how does 1 patent holder dictate licensing fees for a body of standers. The Patent Licensing Program already states loosely that fees run from $1-$2 depending on which of or all 5 categories are to be licensed.
Patent programs and licensing fees are not my area of expertise so i know im missing something. It just seems strange to get in a licensing dispute when things are already well documented in a set standard.
@D1Only1
even if nokia offers to license fairly this does not mean that apple has to license fairly or even at all. so this is a no win situation for nokia, so it's best for them to have apple take the phone portion out of their phones and just sell them as ipod touch. then again apple has always claimed they invented everything http://technologizer.com/2010/03/08/the-secret-origin-of-windows/