Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nokia Sues Apple For Patent Infringement In iPhone

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the we-did-it-first dept.

Cellphones 367

AVee writes "Engadget (amongst many others) reports that Nokia is suing Apple because the iPhone infringes on 10 Nokia patents related to GSM, UTMS and WiFi. While the press release doesn't contain much detail, it does state that Apple didn't agree to 'appropriate terms for Nokia's intellectual property,' which sounds like there have been negotiations about those patents."

cancel ×

367 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'll ask it again (5, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837197)

Why are standards based on patented technology?

Canned answer (5, Funny)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837295)

Canned answer: "How else will we encourage innovation?!"

Re:Canned answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837433)

Improved efficiency, lowered cost, new features: these things are their own reward and would happen even without being "encouraged" by punishing out copycatters.

Re:Canned answer (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837445)

Yahoo's Answer: Lap Dances

Re:I'll ask it again (5, Insightful)

EvilNTUser (573674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837457)

Read the press release. Nokia has spent 40 billion euros in R&D over the last two decades. Wireless communication is probably not quite as simple as one click shopping.

Re:I'll ask it again (0, Flamebait)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837549)

So? Why should a STANDARD force its adherents to pay royalties?

Re:I'll ask it again (5, Interesting)

EvilNTUser (573674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837769)

Because otherwise it would be crap? We're not even talking about sound compression algorithms here, but stuff that needs serious R&D. You think >10Mbps downlink for your phone comes for free?

Think about it this way: would you rather have a patented standard everyone contributes to or have Nokia and Samsung privately decide on something they'll use together and shut everyone else out?

Re:I'll ask it again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837915)

Those are not the only two choices.

Re:I'll ask it again (1, Insightful)

iluvcapra (782887) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837983)

Think about it this way: would you rather have a patented standard everyone contributes to or have Nokia and Samsung privately decide on something they'll use together and shut everyone else out?

In many cases, as in the whole MP3 mess, the distinction between the two scenarios you provide is only a matter of degree... Nokia and Samsung "privately deciding to do something" and Nokia charging a smartphone OS vendor $12 a handset are indistinguishable, if, for example, you are the author of an open-source smartphone OS.

If Nokia and Samsung had some sort of secret protocol, that would almost be better, because then it would just be a matter of reverse-engineering.

Re:I'll ask it again (2, Informative)

EvilNTUser (573674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838049)

Who's stopping you from writing an open source OS for a phone you've bought? They're suing a device manufacturer. This isn't a simple case of ridiculous software patents, even though it may turn out some of them have a software component.

Re:I'll ask it again (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29838155)

Nokia and Samsung, because as HTML5 has shown if you have a standard everyone contributes to you end up with a bloated, inconsistent pile of turd that's a step back from previous standards.

Except it's more than Nokia and Samsung but at least it's not every, it includes Sony-Ericsson, HTC, Motorola etc. also. In fact, in this case, Apple is the odd one out because it didn't even try and work on these standards with the other mobile companies, it simply stole their work instead.

Re:I'll ask it again (2, Interesting)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838191)

If it becomes a standard, I'd like to see the patent holder paid an award at the moment for the creation of the standard and then the patent is released into the public domain.

There are several problems with this idea.

What if the standard never takes off, did you just pay a lot for a useless patent?

Or, what if your patent is useful outside of the standard? You wouldn't want it to become public if you are licensing it for other uses.

Re:I'll ask it again (3, Interesting)

Paolo DF (849424) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837647)

I don't know... If you read the quote (copy&paste from BBC website):
"The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for," said Ilkka Rahnasto, vice president of Legal & Intellectual Property at Nokia.
"Apple is also expected to follow this principle."

It seems that is more of a 'gentlemen agreement' thing.
I am not a native English speaker, though.

Re:I'll ask it again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837923)

Intellectual property is covered under the same laws that has the music industry suing old grannies. it's not so much a "Gentleman's Agreement" as it is "All your base are belong to us".

Re:I'll ask it again (1, Troll)

grimJester (890090) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838195)

"The basic principle in the mobile industry is that those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for," said Ilkka Rahnasto, vice president of Legal & Intellectual Property at Nokia.

Yeah, and the basic principle in the IP industry is that those in the cartel establish standards that limit interoperability so that everyone else will have to pay up or be unable to make working devices. I'm Finnish and I don't like Nokias role in destroying the "information society". I accept that it's a broken system and it's the role of governments to fix it while corporations can only exploit it as best as they can. I still wish Nokia could stay outside this patent trolling bullshit. You're Finnish, not American. Cutthroat capitalism is not acceptable.

Re:I'll ask it again (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29838173)

So how long has the iPhone been on the market?

This is so Neo-European... Replace the ability to innovate with litigation.

Whimps socialistes!

Re:I'll ask it again (1)

jsegal205 (1468223) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838181)

Nokia is just angry that they are profits are down and Apple's profits are up.
Source: CNN Money [cnn.com]

Re:I'll ask it again (5, Insightful)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837827)

Because standards that lag current technology by 17 years would go unused anyway? So instead of having to interoperate with one system and therefore needing to pay royalties to one group of patent-holders, any device manufacturer would have to either (1) play to a niche market, or (2) address the fragmented market by interoperating with many systems that each work differently, therefore needing to pay royalties to many groups of patent-holders?

Your question is reasonable when applied to standards that cover doing things for which there are alternatives unburdened by patents. In many areas (such as wireless telecommunications) that is not the case.

Two way street (0, Troll)

slazzy (864185) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837209)

Who should be the first to tell Nokia they are in violation of a few hundred Apple patents as well?

Re:Two way street (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837263)

I sure hope its someone who makes specific, actionable claims instead of this kind of general accusation. I.e., not you.

Re:Two way street (4, Insightful)

emj (15659) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837315)

Apple bad, Nokia good when we are talking about mobil phones. Nokias N900 has great Linux Comunity [lwn.net] , and they are writing a Free cell phone communication stack ofono [ofono.org] .

Re:Two way street (-1, Flamebait)

Fahrvergnuugen (700293) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837535)

Bullshit. If the Nokia N900 is so good, why are people buying 10x as many iPhones?

Re:Two way street (4, Insightful)

AlXtreme (223728) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837581)

Popularity != Quality

Re:Two way street (0, Troll)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837695)

Lawsuits are becoming the standard way of competing these days.

Why can't Nokia just work on making a great product that is better than the iPhone? And market it better.

Re:Two way street (4, Insightful)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838003)

Not that I've read the story or anything, but my guess is they made a bunch of the products that Apple has tucked in a shiny case with superior GUI. Apple may be standing on Nokia's shoulders here. Imagine you develop a teleportation device -- it would revolutionize the world. You patent it. Then Apple goes and builds a phone that you can point at an object and teleport it to a person with another phone, using your patent. They make billions of dollars because of it, but you're still broke because they didn't license your property.

Is this a problem? Only if you don't think ideas are cheap. People invent and patent things all the time. But that doesn't necessarily mean money in the bank, if you don't strike a deal to make that money. Invention is the very first step and patenting is a way to merely a way to protect your idea while you go look for financing to make it real.

Nokia made their product off their tech. It's not as popular as the iPhone. Do they deserve to get some of the iPhone's share of money?

Re:Two way street (3, Insightful)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837981)

Yeah I don't think cockroaches have anything on humans and there are way more cockroaches than humans.

Re:Two way street (-1, Flamebait)

swb (14022) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837585)

The geeks buy it so they can do something Linux-y on it, but they actually USE iPhones because they work and are trivial to use.

Last I checked the N900 was fairly worthless for connecting to Exchange, which, sad though it may well be, is kind of a critical must-have for a "smart" phone.

Re:Two way street (4, Informative)

INeededALogin (771371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837733)

Last I checked the N900 was fairly worthless for connecting to Exchange, which, sad though it may well be, is kind of a critical must-have for a "smart" phone.

Incorrect sir. N810 lacked an exchange client. The N900 has full support for Exchange just like every other Nokia Smartphone: link [nokiausa.com]

Re:Two way street (3, Informative)

H.G.Blob (1550325) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837755)

Two things:
1)Nokia N900 hasn't been released yet
2)All Nokia smarphones have had the ability to sync with exchange for a long time.

Re:Two way street (3, Informative)

EvilNTUser (573674) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837657)

Are you kidding or do you really not know that it's not shipping yet?

It's funny how Nokia is seen as the evil 500 pound gorilla rather than a 500 pound penguin that puts demoscene videos in its ads [youtube.com] .

Re:Two way street (1)

Paul Jakma (2677) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837689)

Well, the N900 has only just announced and isn't actually shipping yet...

Re:Two way street (4, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837759)

Apple advocates may not want to play the popularity card. By that standard, MacOS must suck, cuz Windows derivatives are 18 times [hitslink.com] more popular.

C'mon, I don't even like Apple, and I know better than to try to equate market share with superiority. In both cases, there must be some other explanation.

Oh, yeah, marketing.

Re:Two way street (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29838221)

In both cases, there must be some other explanation.

Oh, yeah, marketing.

And/or momentum or monopoly. Pick any two.

Re:Two way street (1)

slinches (1540051) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837809)

That may be because the N900 is not available yet (they are only accepting pre-orders) http://maemo.nokia.com/n900/ [nokia.com]

Re:Two way street (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837865)

Because the N900 isn't out yet? If it's already generating one tenth of the iPhone sales as pre-orders then I'd imagine Nokia is incredibly happy. On the other hand, if we're comparing released phones to released phones, then I'd imagine that Nokia is quite happy with their 78% of the smartphone market and similar share of the not-so-smart phone market.

Re:Two way street (1)

ianare (1132971) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837873)

Because it isn't shipping yet.

Re:Two way street (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837911)

Well, Nokia has sold 3-4 BILLION phones so far. Apple maybe 100 million, if even that. Probably more like 40 million or so.

If you want to compare unreleased phones, well, both Nokia and Apple have sold exactly 0 unreleased phones by definition.

So say what?

Re:Two way street (1)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837919)

Bullshit. If the Nokia N900 is so good, why are people buying 10x as many iPhones?

Effective marketing.

Re:Two way street (5, Informative)

kbrannen (581293) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837951)

Bullshit. If the Nokia N900 is so good, why are people buying 10x as many iPhones?

Because the N900 isn't being released until November, so people can't buy it yet. I have one, but then again, I work for Nokia. :)

Re:Two way street (1)

MadFarmAnimalz (460972) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837649)

Well, we already have FSO [openmoko.org] . I'm no subject matter expert, but a lot of the arguments for why Ofono and not FSO is NIH [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Two way street (4, Informative)

rm999 (775449) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837495)

This is largely the point; phone companies gather 100s of patents that cover every aspect of their phones. These patents are often so broad that courts will not uphold them or will force them to be narrowed.

Still, the lawyers use these patents as a sort of negotiation tool. In this and many other industries, patent lawyers aren't lawyers as much as strategists; for all we know, Nokia is doing this as a defensive method because they know they are infringing on some Apple IP. Or, perhaps, they want some cool multitouch features in their next phone.

See this article for a fascinating analysis of Apple and Palm's patent war:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/28/apple-vs-palm-the-in-depth-analysis/ [engadget.com]

Re:Two way street (1)

rcamans (252182) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837881)

Actually, every big corp which holds patents MUST sue to protect their patents, or they will lose the right to them. If they do not do due diligence in protecting their patents, then eventually someone can use the patents and say in court that the patent owners were not protecting their patents property rights, so the patents were in the public domain. Patents only mean that you can sue to protect them. If you don't sue, you lose them.
IIMNAL

Not so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837987)

Actually, every big corp which holds patents MUST sue to protect their patents, or they will lose the right to them.

That's true for trademarks, not patents.

Re:Two way street (2, Insightful)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838013)

Actually, every big corp which holds patents MUST sue to protect their patents, or they will lose the right to them. If they do not do due diligence in protecting their patents, then eventually someone can use the patents and say in court that the patent owners were not protecting their patents property rights, so the patents were in the public domain. Patents only mean that you can sue to protect them. If you don't sue, you lose them.

sed 's/patents/trademarks/g' and you have a valid assertion.

IIMNAL

You don't say.

Re:Two way street (1, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837525)

Symbian is such a primitive operating system I doubt its possible for it to infringe any patent that didn't expire 10 years ago.

Qt on the other hand, that one is almost certain to be violating some patents, I wonder if it infringes on any Apple font patents.

You can guess where this is probably heading it will grind through courts and backroom negotiations for years, they will either settle out of court and cross license patents, or maybe Apple will have to throw Nokia some cash. They have more than $30 billion in cash reserves if memory serves, almost as much as Microsoft so I doubt it will put much of a dent in their bank account.

Re:Two way street (4, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837907)

Symbian is such a primitive operating system I doubt its possible for it to infringe any patent that didn't expire 10 years ago.

It's a realtime microkernel with an event-driven userspace API, a full POSIX implementation. Calling it primitive is quite astonishing.

Re:Two way street (1)

demachina (71715) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838169)

OK, the kernel is awesome, its just developing apps for that is primitive, and about 10 years behind the times at this point ;)

Not for long ! (5, Funny)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837249)

Once the iPhones will have all flown away [blogspot.com] , Nokia will be left with noone to sue !!!

So confused about who to root for... (0, Troll)

Kirin Fenrir (1001780) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837261)

Hate Apple...
But hate patent trolling...


My brain hurts.

Re:So confused about who to root for... (5, Informative)

aesiamun (862627) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837323)

Is nokia a patent troll?

Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company that enforces its patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll [wikipedia.org]

Doesn't sound like it.

Re:So confused about who to root for... (1)

NoYob (1630681) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837347)

Hate Apple... But hate patent trolling... My brain hurts.

This "hate" you're talking about. Is it like "steam coming out of your ears" hate or is it "what a bunch jackasses" hate but whatever, I have a life?

Re:So confused about who to root for... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837353)

Do you know what "patent trolling" is? It's when people or companies register patents for technologies that they never intend to use or implement, for the sole purpose of suing others.

Nokia does, in fact, make phones and other communication devices.

Re:So confused about who to root for... (3, Insightful)

Viski (1647721) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837451)

And it seems they have tried to negotiate with Apple about licensing the patents. That's not something a patent troll does. They just try to go for maximum profit by coercing the others to settle the lawsuit or by winning in the court.

Re:So confused about who to root for... (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838145)

Obviously you have never been contacted by a patent troll.
You speak nonsense they always try to get money before they sue.
Cheaper cost of funds.

Re:So confused about who to root for... (1)

Kirin Fenrir (1001780) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837879)

I was making a (poor) joke. Seemed much funnier at the time.

Comedy is a fickle mistress.

Re:So confused about who to root for... (4, Insightful)

hallucinogen (1263152) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837375)

1. Nokia invests over 40 billion EUR on R&D
2. Every manufacturer apart from one pays Nokia for their hard work
3. Instead of paying (like everybody else) Apple chooses to steal from Nokia
4. Nokia sues Apple

Is it really patent trolling?

Re:So confused about who to root for... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837779)

Difficult call. Isn't there some third side we can choose, because corpra$hun$ are teh eeval?

Re:So confused about who to root for... (-1, Troll)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838183)

Nokia blackmails everybody else
they all cave and pay the troll
Apple stands against the troll
Is it really not patent trolling. Matter of perspective I guess.

Take down that Apple proprietary corporation (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837327)

Capitalism is evil.

Re:Take down that Apple proprietary corporation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837767)

Eating is a form of gain like capitalism. Your bodily processes are therefore 'evil' by your definition. You are profiting from other organism's demise - literally taking their lives for the benefit of your own. Of course, you have the prerogative to justify a difference in your self interest. It's expected.

N900 (4, Interesting)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837331)

I wonder how many of those same patents are included in the Linux based Maemo OS that the N900 has.

What exactly does that mean? If you have patents on some technology, but then release a device that implements them with code that's GPL V2 licensed? Does it mean that anyone can now use those patents royalty free as long as they use the gpl'd code? Or does it somehow invalidate them? Would GPL V3 change the situation appreciably?

Re:N900 (3, Insightful)

s.bots (1099921) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837455)

It sounds like these patents are more at the hardware level - GSM, UMTS (typo in summary), and WiFi are all hardware level patents. I don't think this really has anything to do with software or the GPL, but with Apple trying to use Nokia-patented hardware technologies royalty-free.

Re:N900 (3, Funny)

Whalou (721698) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837529)

UMTS (typo in summary)

Thanks for the correction!

I thought that uTMS was Nokia's answer to Apple's iTMS.

Re:N900 (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837625)

I would imagine that Nokia is already collecting from the chipset manufacturers.

Re:N900 (3, Informative)

oh2 (520684) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837833)

All the mobile phone companies that do actual work on the technology behind it all like Nokia and SonyEricsson have the hardware patents. The Iphone is a pretty piece of hardware, but the only parts of it that are developed by Apple are the software parts and the physical design. All the protocols and the radio stuff is developed on a whole other level by actual engineers, not the almighty Steve and his designer cohorts :p

Re:N900 (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838157)

>Does it mean that anyone can now use those patents royalty free as long as they use the gpl'd code?

The UMTS driver is going to be a binary blob, not open source.

There's That Progress in Science & the Useful (5, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837351)

If Nokia couldn't sue Apple, they certainly wouldn't have developed the technology to make phones they could sell. They certainly need longer than a year to break even on their investment before Apple could use the tech to sell more phones to the public. There's no way Apple and Nokia would work together to develop a technology they could both use in their phones, if their competitors could use it after several months work adapting it to their own products. Patents must be granted for any length of time, no matter how much profit that "temporary" artificial government-enforced monopoly makes while locking the invention out from use by the maximum number of people.

Right? No, that doesn't seem right to me, either.

Re:There's That Progress in Science & the Usef (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837645)

In the United States, under current patent law, the term of patent, provided that maintenance fees are paid on time, are: For applications filed on or after June 8, 1995,[1] the patent term is 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. application to which priority is claimed (excluding provisional applications).[2] For applications that were pending on and for patents that were still in force on June 8, 1995, the patent term is either 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. application to which priority is claimed (excluding provisional applications), the longer term applying.[3] The patent term in the United States was changed in 1995 to bring U.S. patent law into conformity with the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) as negotiated in the Uruguay Round. As a side effect, it is no longer possible to maintain submarine patents in the U.S., since the patent term now depends on the priority date, not the issue date. Design patents, unlike utility patents, have a term of 14 years from the date of issue.[4]

Re:There's That Progress in Science & the Usef (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838261)

Most tech patents don't need 20 years to recoup the investment. There's very few worthwhile patents that need that much time. 5 years is a long time for actual electronics patents that are narrow enough to protect a specific mechanism, which is all that legitimately promotes the progress that is reason to compromise our free expression rights.

As for the current patent regime's preventing submarine patents, I certainly have heard about dozens of them squeezing money, inhibiting progress, in the past 14 years since the current regime was installed.

Re:There's That Progress in Science & the Usef (2, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837953)

If Nokia's phones had to compete with phones made by people who didn't spend large amounts on R&D and just copied the technology, would they still be profitable enough to keep spending money on R&D? The point of the patent system is to reward companies that spend the money to develop technologies and, by extension, penalise those that don't. Apple produced a product using Nokia's research, competing with Nokia. Sounds like a fairly clear-cut case of the patent system doing the right thing, to me. Of course, Apple is free to devote some R&D resources to future mobile standards, and then they can avoid the license fees by putting up some equally valuable research for cross-licensing.

Re:There's That Progress in Science & the Usef (2)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838175)

Nokia doesn't need unlimited patent time to recoup its money invested in the invention. That's the problem with the patent system: it doesn't limit the monopoly to what's necessary to protect investment to produce the invention. Instead, it grants these monopolies to maximize profit, even at the expense of the progress that is its only justification for abridging our free expression rights.

If patents required an auditable statement of the investment at registration time, then expired the patent when, say, double (or 10x, still a huge cut) that investment were recouped in revenue, then they might balance the compromise and favor progress, not just profits at the expense of progress.

Those 40 other... losers? (5, Insightful)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837427)

Maybe Apple thinks the patents won't stand up in court. Just because 40 other companies licensed them from Nokia, doesn't mean those other companies actually considered taking on Nokia. Are those other companies as big and brash as Apple? Apple has an estimated market cap of ~$180 billion, while Nokia has ~$50 billion.

Re:Those 40 other... losers? (5, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837497)

Maybe those 40 other companies licensed them as part of a broader licensing package, rather than specifically. Without someone doing an analysis of the patents involved, and how Apple have implemented the similar features (patents protect a specific way of doing something, not the something), we won't know.

It'll end up with Apple paying a nominal fee and cross-licensing their multitouch and other mobile patents, so Nokia won't have to worry about them in the future, and thus can remain a relevant company in the mobile marketplace.

Re:Those 40 other... losers? (0, Troll)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837721)

Apple could buy Nokia in cash and a bit of stock.

But seriously, why would they want to [bloomberg.com] ?

And if you read that article, you'll understand the real reason Nokia is suing Apple...

Re:Those 40 other... losers? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837955)

The reason you imply is BS. The paperwork itself to prepare for this Nokia claim would take many months (plus there were apaprently negotiations)

Nokia is the ONLY profitable mobile phone manufacturer (others either quit the market, or mobile phones aren't their main product; RIM is debatable, though they don't seem to sell mobile phones per se, more enterprise solutions). They aren't far from "Nokia has more marketshare than all other manufacturers combined". Their smarpthones have half of the market. Such small loss doesn't seem significant for their long-term well being.

Re:Those 40 other... losers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29838225)

The fact that there were "negotiations" doesn't mean that Apple acknowledges the validity of the patent claim.

If Nokia said to Apple "We believe you are in violation of 40 Nokia patents.", Apple's response is not likely to be a simple "Fuck you!", they would discuss the situation in some way first.

Apple would ask Nokia to present the supposedly infringing patents and then do their own investigation as to whether they believe they are valid.

If Apple feels they are not in violation of the patents, then they can end the negotiations and say "Fuck you! Erm...I mean, we don't believe we are in violation of your patents. kthxbye!"

Re:Those 40 other... losers? (2, Informative)

INeededALogin (771371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838085)

Apple could buy Nokia in cash and a bit of stock.

These broad statements... No... Apple could not buy Nokia. They may offer their 30 billion in cash, but Nokia would simply turn it down. You don't simply buy a 100 year old company with so much history behind it. Not only that, but Nokia's losses are not in the device sector.

why would they want to

Oh, I don't know... tons of patents, Navteq, QT, loads of talented engineers, manufacturing facilities... value is not just last quarter. As it stands, Apple did have a quite a few bad quarters in their past as well.

Re:Those 40 other... losers? (1)

INeededALogin (771371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837941)

Are those other companies as big and brash as Apple? Apple has an estimated market cap of ~$180 billion, while Nokia has ~$50 billion.

What does Market Cap have to do with anything? Market cap is nothing more than the perceived value of the company by the public based on the value of its stock. Apple is on a hot streak right now. Also, those other companies are going to be Sony Ericcson, Motorola, HTC, Palm, Qualcomm, etc...

Nokia takes patents seriously. It resolved the Qualcomm problems with a $2.29 billion dollar payment that they paid to Qualcomm for use of their patents.

Oh boy! A lawsuit story! (5, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837475)

Would you just do a spinoff site calls "SueDot" already?

Re:Oh boy! A lawsuit story! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29838257)

Selling the domain, http://www.suedot.com [suedot.com]

Send offers to emokid420@gmail.com

Just like Cisco... (5, Insightful)

bkr1_2k (237627) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837523)

This will be another Cisco event where the case eventually gets settled out of court for some undisclosed amount of money... nothing to see here.

Presumed guilty (2, Interesting)

realinvalidname (529939) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837545)

...because the iPhone infringes on 10 Nokia patents related to GSM, UTMS and WiFi

Nice presumption that Nokia's claim is valid. If this were any company other than nefarious, evil, proprietary-everything Apple, would the /. summary be so favorable to Nokia?

Re:Presumed guilty (-1, Flamebait)

Hybrid-brain (1478551) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837599)

And for the record.....Apple is older then Nokia.

Re:Presumed guilty (1)

csboyer (1101385) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837663)

Older? Hasn't Nokia been around since the late 1800s? Though I think they were making paper then......

Re:Presumed guilty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837847)

Remember Adam and his girl, Eve? Well, and that tree, with, indeed. Apple. Nokia is just a youngster.

Re:Presumed guilty (1)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837917)

Older? Hasn't Nokia been around since the late 1800s? Though I think they were making paper then......

I used to drive past that paper mill every day...
Actually, they originally made rubber things (tires and boots, that is). Those divisions were sold off in the 1980s, but still exist using the "Nokian" brand name. Both of our cars have Nokian studded winter tires, and we have Nokian rubber boots (Wellington boots, for the brits).

Re:Presumed guilty (2, Insightful)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837743)

The Nokia founder invented pneumatic tires. I think they might be just a hair older than Jobs and Woz.

Re:Presumed guilty (2, Informative)

INeededALogin (771371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838177)

And for the record.....Apple is older then Nokia.

And for the record..... a google [wikipedia.org] search would of saved you some embarrassment.

Re:Presumed guilty (5, Insightful)

demachina (71715) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837701)

Since nearly every other cell phone maker has licensed these patents and Apple was negotiating to license them chances are pretty good Nokia's claim is valid. Don't think it has much to do with Slashdot bias.

Presumably Nokia's licensing terms were unreasonable to Apple, this is just escalation of the "negotiating" process by one side or the other, Nokia thinks they will win and get more cash than Apple was offering in the negotiation, or maybe even Apple thought they will do better in court or with a counter suit over other patents so they provoked Nokia in to this.

Re:Presumed guilty (1)

demachina (71715) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838231)

I should add I seriously would have thought Apple would have and licensed these patents when iPhone was just a glitter in Jobs eye, unless even back then Nokia saw the threat (thinking the iPod which was already big then) and wanted a lot even before it shipped. Pretty sure anyone doing a cell phone would know they have to license GSM from Nokia and or CDMA from Qualcomm before they even start.

Now iPhone is a huge success, making billions of dollars, Apple has $30+ billion in the bank, and is giving Nokia serious competition and grief so you can be pretty sure their terms are probably 10X worse now than they would have been a few years ago.

Re:Presumed guilty (1)

That's Unpossible! (722232) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837751)

I think it's ok to state the reason Nokia is giving for suing. They aren't saying they're right.

Re:Presumed guilty (5, Informative)

realinvalidname (529939) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837937)

No, they really are saying exactly that. Look at the sentence: "Endaget is reporting..." (statement of fact) "...that Nokia is suing Apple..." (statement of fact) "...because the iPhone infringes on 10 patents" (statement of fact).

I used to copy-edit at CNN, and this is a textbook case of convicting someone through sloppy writing. The summary should say "...because Nokia says the iPhone..." or "...because the iPhone allegedly..."

Of course, the other funny thing is that most every other patent story on Slashdot howls at the ridiculousness of patent cases, if not the implausibility of patents themselves.

What else is new (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29837613)

If you can't beat them.... SUE THEM...

Sounds like ... (0, Troll)

Pool_Noodle (1373373) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837631)

Sounds like Nokia is trying to break into the sauce market ... 'cause I'm getting the impression they want to crush apple in court.
"Coming to a store near you Nokia brand Apple Sauce"
(Ok... bad joke)

Corporate Logic(TM) (0, Flamebait)

hydrofi (576145) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837773)

When you can't win them by producing a better-quality product, just sue them!

Wait.... (0, Redundant)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837967)

I thought we hated Apple here on /. Isn't Nokia our OSS sugar mama? Oh wait, their both evil!!

Nothing to do with software !! (5, Insightful)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 4 years ago | (#29837989)

Looking over these posts..it's amazing that how little people understand of the technology they use.
Nokia's patents pertaining to GSM technology and UMTS have absolutely nothing to do with a phones OS but rather the 7 layers under it.

Nokia has spent many millions over the years on GSM and UMTS. They are major contributors to the 3GPP standards body and have help in a measurable way to shape the technology.
How can people call Nolia a patent troll because some company comes in years after Nokia did all the work and steals the tech?? Are you kidding me?

I know it's Apple and the normal rules of the world should not apply, but for F's sake people. This is the reason we have patents! It's not some nonsense software patent.

Interface patents. (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838021)

Apple has a lot of patents on basic UI. They have for decades. Thankfully Apple is historically not a terribly litigious company (there are exceptions). But I'm certain that in todays patent system they have plenty of ammo against Nokia.

What a coincidence (-1, Troll)

gilesjuk (604902) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838027)

So I guess this isn't because Nokia have made a loss and want to hurt their biggest rival in the smartphone market?

I hope Apple countersue on the basis that Nokia has infringed app store patents, Nokia have even 'stolen' the visual style of icon Apple use (rounded squares with an icon).

It is time... (1)

BlueBoxSW.com (745855) | more than 4 years ago | (#29838159)

It is time for the FTC and the FCC to break up the illegal phone/carrier bundling that is so prevalent in the marketplace.

If this happened, these lawsuits wouldn't matter.

Let me but a 3G phone and use it on any 3G network.

Let me buy a 2.5G phone and use it on any 2.5G network.

Let the phone makers compete with the phone makers.

Let the carriers compete with the carriers.

Anyone tries to make a phone with proprietary technology that runs on only one network, let the market tell them where to put their phones.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>