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!

Apple Agrees To Pay Licensing Fees To Nokia

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the money-makes-it-better dept.

Patents 205

dkd903 writes "After almost two years of litigation of Nokia and Apple suing and counter-suing each other, the patent war between the two companies has come to an end. The winner of this settlement is, however, Nokia. As a part of the settlement, Apple has agreed to become a licensee of Nokia's patents. As a part of the licensing agreement, Apple has agreed to give Nokia a one-time payment and ongoing royalties. The exact terms of the agreement have not been disclosed."

cancel ×

205 comments

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

$1 up front $0.01 per device (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434478)

Interesting here is, that nobody knows the deal. It could well be $1 up front and $0.01 per device.
Both are using each other patents.

Re:$1 up front $0.01 per device (3, Interesting)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434632)

Yes. It's never been a question whether Apple needed to license the patents. The sticking point has always been the terms. Normally these licenses involve some sort of cross licensing. I think Apple originally objected to the specific patents that Nokia wanted from them as they felt the patents were not cell phone patents but patents to their other technology. Frankly Apple didn't have a lot of cell phone patents so they didn't have many to offer. So Nokia then raised the licensing cost if they were not getting the patents they wanted. Apple objected to that.

Since we don't know the terms, we can't speculate how it was settled. There are two factors that may come into play. (1) Nokia is in a bit of trouble right now; they need to focus on their business and not a resource draining litigation where in the end only the lawyers may win. (2)Apple bought 200 patents from Freescale (former Motorola semiconductor division). So Apple now has patents to offer in cross licensing.

Re:$1 up front $0.01 per device (2)

Teufelsmuhle (849105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435168)

Since we don't know the terms, we can't speculate how it was settled

Actually, since we don't know the terms, all we can do is speculate.

Re:$1 up front $0.01 per device (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435812)

Since we don't know the terms, we can't speculate how it was settled

Actually, since we don't know the terms, all we can do is speculate.

OK here goes. The chairman of Nokia gets to screw the Chairman of Apple's daughter.

The summary is wrong. Apple got what they wanted. (4, Interesting)

CountBrass (590228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434992)

Apple have been fighting all along to pay royalties. Nokia wanted Apple to hand-over some of their patents relating to mobile 'phones but Apple refused.

Apple got what they wanted, not Nokia.

Re:The summary is wrong. Apple got what they wante (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435020)

Nokia gets 10$ for every iphone sold. Sure Apple is the winner!!

Re:The summary is wrong. Apple got what they wante (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435096)

That's ok. Apple gets about $600 for every iPhone sold.

Re:The summary is wrong. Apple got what they wante (1)

E IS mC(Square) (721736) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435704)

Wow! Really! Never thought about it.

Re:The summary is wrong. Apple got what they wante (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435792)

Subsidies are what has made Apple very, very rich.

Re:The summary is wrong. Apple got what they wante (2)

moronoxyd (1000371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435882)

But Apple has to produce the iPhones, whereas Nokia basically gets money for doing nothing.

I'd say I'd prefer to be Nokia in this situation.

Re:The summary is wrong. Apple got what they wante (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435262)

No, the case started because Apple believed they had already paid because the manufacturer of the GSM-chip had paid the license and Apple believed Nokia was double-dipping. The court rules Apple had to pay up.

Why are you rewriting the case?

Re:The summary is wrong. Apple got what they wante (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435540)

It's the Apple Reality Distortion Field.

Re:The summary is wrong. Apple got what they wante (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435748)

There is no ruling here. Nokia and Apple have agreed to settle. All we know is Apple will pay an upfront payment and periodic licensing fees later.

Re:The summary is wrong. Apple got what they wante (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435688)

We don't know if Nokia got the patents. All we know is they settled. The announcement does not say either way.

wait a sec (3, Funny)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434494)

I thought Apple was the company doing all the innovation.

Re:wait a sec (1)

MusedFable (1640361) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434530)

As if software patents had anything to do with innovation.

Re:wait a sec (0)

cgeys (2240696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434542)

Software patents is the only thing Apple has. Nokia, on the other hand, has a wide array of real patents too. They did a lot of work in the 90's to get GSM and mobile phone technology to where it is now.

Re:wait a sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434602)

Yup, I hate the current state of IP law, but Nokia's claim to patents are much more sane than Apple's Patent-Everything-Under-The-Sun

Re:wait a sec (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435842)

Apple has hardware patents. Some relate to their computers and some are in their iOS devices. For example they acquired Fingerworks for their multi-touch patents. Recently Apple acquired 200 patents from Freescale. That last acquisition may have helped them settle with Nokia.

Re:wait a sec (-1, Flamebait)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434728)

Apple's patents are justified by fanbois as innovation.

There, corrected that for you.

Re:wait a sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434546)

I thought Apple was the company doing all the innovation.

WTF does innovation have to do with patent-holding/enforcement?

Re:wait a sec (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434742)

I think it's an inverse squared relationship...

Re:wait a sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435118)

Some patents are, you know, for real work and real innovation - like inventing GSM related mobile technology which almost the whole world uses.

Then there are patents as only apple fanbois understand - useless, frivolous but passed on as groundbreaking innovations.

Learn to differentiate.

Re:wait a sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434592)

Nokia has already finished innovating, now they are earning :)
The move towards windows is to get a one time payment from MS
Law suits were to make Apple their licensees

They are planning to be make a safe boat, that gets paid even if their product line ends in failure.

Re:wait a sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434908)

Apple doesn't innovate, they steal technology. It's just that in this case, both companies were stealing technology.

Re:wait a sec (1)

LoganDzwon (1170459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435026)

In all fairness, the headline is misleading. Apple and Nokia were suing each other because Nokia was refusing to license the patents relating to GSM technology to Apple for price everyone else was paying.

Re:wait a sec (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435090)

In all fairness, your post is misleading. Nokia was asking Apple to pay more than everyone else was paying because Apple had no IP of its own that was useful to throw into the bargaining process. Usually there is an IP swap going on as well.

Re:wait a sec (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435108)

Well this sounds similar to the kind of tricks Apple is pulling with its anti-competitive price-policies in the app store.

Re:wait a sec (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435222)

Other way around; Nokia was prepared to, but Apple wasn't able to make that payment - the price the other companies were paying included patent licenses as well as a dollar figure; Apple just wanted to pay the dollar figure, but without the licenses.

Re:wait a sec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435406)

I thought Apple was the religion doing all the immolation.

There, I fixed that for you. ;)

In their defense... (1, Offtopic)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435448)

...and let me first say, I don't like Apple, don't like their snobbish, and inferior (imho) interfaces, their lock-in, and their outrageous prices.

However...

Apple, though I don't agree with how they do it, are able to bring together X, Y, and Z in a one of the most fascinatingly memetic way that touches something in a global manner. They are not innovators, because they don't own X, Y, or likely Z either. They design in such a way as to make people say, "What an innovation!" Yet, they are looking at the same X, Y, and Z as before. Mozart didn't invent musical instruments, he simply mastered their use and composition.

But there is a price. Mozart didn't get free pianos or violins simply because he knew how to use them. We shouldn't assume that because Apple uses a technology better that they invented or even improved it. And, in their defense, maybe they fell into the same fallacy of "I use it best, I should therefore not be bound to pay or give others credit." Unfortunately, this is much like those of us (and I do mean myself in that "us") who love FOSS and bristle that we have to actually "pay" for code sometimes.

All this fighting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434508)

Why can't we all be friends? [studentsoftheworld.info]

No not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434512)

Apple was willing all along to pay Nokia, they just weren't willing to cross license their patents. With Nokia going to Windows Phone, I suspect that Microsoft's Cross License with apple applies so Nokia no longer needs Apple's patents. Of course, given that they've torched their lineup, I suspect that they do need cash...

Windows Phone 7 (1, Troll)

GordonBX (1059078) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434524)

The real reason behind this is that Apple knows that Nokia won't be a threat now that they have decided to go with Windows. This way they get a license for all of Nokia's patents, and they get rid of one arm of the litigation. I bet the story would be different if Nokia had chosen Android.

Re:Windows Phone 7 (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434574)

I wonder to what degree this indemnifies them against patent trolling by MSFT later?

Re:Windows Phone 7 (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434666)

I wouldn't be so certain: While patent infringement lawsuits tend to drag on and on and on, often with little visible result other than fattening the lawyers and the eventual cross-licencing deal, that doesn't change the fact that the penalties for being on the losing end of one can be... dramatic.

While Nokia has taken a hammering because they can't seem to get a smartphone out the door, they do have a lot of 'basic research' patents on assorted cellular technologies, and I'm just guessing that Apple's balance sheet and shareholders would be a mite peeved if Nokia managed to secure a USITC injunction against the import of Apple's cell-capable products into the US...

If Nokia has even a shred of a case, and it is quite likely that they do, given the amount of GSM/etc. R&D they've done, paying them off is almost certainly the logical path. The fact that life looks grim for Nokia in the long term doesn't change the fact that they could potentially deliver a world of hurt in the short term.

Re:Windows Phone 7 (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434694)

I'm no fan of the Windows Phone, but I've also learned not to write off MS so quickly. Every time they come out with a new product, everyone laughs it off. And sometimes (as with the Zune) that proves to be warranted. But I also remember when the Xbox came out and Sony laughed that off. Then the Xbox 360 became the dominant brand in North America and suddenly Sony wasn't laughing anymore.

You can question the merits of their products, but there is little doubt that MS has a lot of marketing money to through behind a product if they really want too.

Re:Windows Phone 7 (0)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434898)

The real reason behind this is that Apple knows that Nokia won't be a threat now that they have decided to go with Windows.
Weren't Apple and you fanbois saying precisely the same thing about Google and Android only a year or two ago?

Re:Windows Phone 7 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434934)

Weren't you anti-Apple fanbois saying the same thing about Apple when they invented the consumer smartphone market?

Re:Windows Phone 7 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435010)

/. needs a +1 Deluded mod tag.

Re:Windows Phone 7 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435176)

It would apply well to your post...

Re:Windows Phone 7 (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435198)

As above, incorrect.

To be deluded is a negative trait, therefore it would be "-1 Deluded" using the Slashdot modding system.

Re:Windows Phone 7 (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435180)

Weren't you anti-Apple fanbois saying the same thing about Apple when they invented the consumer smartphone market?

It makes no sense gramatically because being "anti-" something automatically precludes usage of "fanboi" - it's the usual fanboi-created paradox.

"Apple anti-fanboi" would work better...

2/5 and see me afterwards for detention.

Re:Windows Phone 7 (1)

petteyg359 (1847514) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435328)

Yes, in your fantasy land, the "consumer smartphone market" was invented by Apple after HTC, Dell, HP, Palm, and others had already produced several models of smartphones for consumers to purchase.

It won't keep Nokia alive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434534)

Nokia still has a _huge_ problem: they are getting their ass kicked on the low end by cheap Chinese phones, and getting their ass kicked on the high end by Apple and Google. It doesn't leave much room for them. Their deal with Microsoft may have been their only option, but it wasn't a good option: MS is a nobody in the smartphone market.

They probably _should_ have gone the android rout. Yes, it does put them into competition with HTC and Samsung, but Nokia is not without certain strengths that would have been to their benefit.

It's too bad to see Nokia going down in flames, because I've always liked Nokia's stuff. I have several of their products that have served me well over the years.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive (1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434594)

Their deal with MSFT is probably good for them because Nokia was in a death spiral, without any kind of a mobile OS that could compete in this market. Selling their soul to MSFT gets them the OS, and it might get them back into retail here in the US. (When was the last time you saw anything from Nokia at the Verizon/ATT store...?)

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive (1)

peppepz (1311345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435462)

Their deal with MSFT is probably good for them because Nokia was in a death spiral, without any kind of a mobile OS that could compete in this market. Selling their soul to MSFT gets them the OS, and it might get them back into retail here in the US.

In Q1 2011, even after Elop killed it at the beginning of the year, Symbian's worldwide marketshare was 24% .
Apple was five points lower, at 19%.
The sales of Windows Phone, the supposed saviour of Nokia, sum up to 2.5%, ten times lower than the dead Symbian.
I don't know if WP7 will bring Nokia into retail in the US (I don't know that market, but if the numbers are those, there's not much to hope for); but what is certain is that Elop's announcement destroyed their sales outside the USA, which is where they actually did sell phones.

Well earned death (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434634)

Nokia had to do a hell of a lot wrong to be in this position, because they were doing a hell of a lot right with Maemo/Linux.
As a satisfied N900 user I'm quite happy to see Nokia dying after such a betrayal of it's active community.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434636)

Nokia's problem is software. They have always made the best hardware of anybody but their software was always outdated and clunky compared to whatever was current.

If they had just embraced Android from the beginning I'm positive they would be dominating the market on every side. The "phone" side of their hardware just plain works better than everything else (better reception, better sound, better reliability, etc).

It's a similar situation to AMD/ATI versus nVidia. ATI's drivers have always sucked and that has held them back even at times when their hardware was better.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434946)

"Always" != "Couple of recent years".

n95 with its symbian 9.2 was the #1 smartphone in the world at the time of release, absolutely no doubt about it anywhere except maybe some truly hardcore anti-nokia folks.

But then touchscreen phones came and essentially disrupted the market. That's when nokia's problems started.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434654)

Of course it will keep them alive - Nokia will just shift from being an engineering company to being a patent troll. All they need to do now is to get rid of those pesky engineers.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive (2)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434900)

They had the MeeGo option, which was the real linux on a smartphone rather then a bastardised java VM driving OS in android, which microsoftie boss dropped like a hot cake.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435906)

bastardised java VM driving OS in android

It isn't a bastardised java VM. It won't run Java bytecode.
It's just a VM that's been designed for mobile devices.

Why isn't this public information (1)

Super Dave Osbourne (688888) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434560)

Why isn't the details of this transaction public information, it completely destroys both company's credibility to not immediately disclose the financial costs in this agreement.

Re:Why isn't this public information (0)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434608)

I agree. It are scandalous.

Re:Why isn't this public information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434668)

Yes it are!

Re:Why isn't this public information (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434642)

exactly, they're both publicly traded companies and this is a major development on at least one partys share price and future views, and nokia gave a profit drop warning just a little while ago. it's not just about credibility, it's about the law and investor protection.

Re:Why isn't this public information (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435006)

Nonsense. Companies are not required (and do not) report on every single transaction that can affect profit. If Apple had been paying Nokia all along would anyone know the details of that? No. This is just a cost increase to Apple, and an income increase to Nokia. That is normal, everyday business.

Re:Why isn't this public information (1)

peppepz (1311345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435532)

Revealing details of confidential information can give undue advantage to their competitors, which of course would be against the interest of their investors.

Re:Why isn't this public information (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435846)

Perhaps that is why. Kept up with who's calling the shots at Nokia lately?

Terms of the agreement has not been disclosed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434566)

This means little without knowing which patents were infringed upon. Apple and Nokia filled suits over dozens of patents raging from Wifi to touchscreens and everything in between.

Nokia agressed and won (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434588)

I had to look it up, it's hard to keep track of who's starting the wars and who's responding. Nokia sued [engadget.com] and sued again [betanews.com] . Apple counter-sued in the middle there.

Re:Nokia agressed and won (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434664)

Unless you have access to more details than I do, it is impossible to say who actually won. Apple always knew they had to license patents, but wasn't satisfied with the deal Nokia offered. Thats where all this began.

The Lawyers won (2)

arcite (661011) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434736)

I bet Lawyers from both sides are buying each other drinks today. ;)

Common Enemy (1)

MrDoh! (71235) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434610)

I'm sure part of the agreement was to gang up and start slapping Google around a bit more.
So, that's Apple and Nokia together (and through Nokia now, Microsoft too).

iPhone 5... (-1, Offtopic)

dotsandot (2265856) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434616)

According to this leak [aeonity.com] Apple will be making iPhone 5 nokia patents free.
At least they hope that...
Hate patent trolls....

goatse-warning! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434670)

Long time since I've been rickrolled with goatse!

Re:iPhone 5... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434700)

Nice. Asshole.

Re:iPhone 5... (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434710)

Really? So iPhone 5 is dropping GSM support?

Pure VoIP phone or what?

Re:iPhone 5... (-1, Troll)

dotsandot (2265856) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434734)

Dunno. Maybe they work-around the patents. Here [thoughts.com] you can find more info

Big deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434622)

So 50 years of genuine innovation in the mobile field will now provide some resources to prop up a company castrated by microsoft. It will only serve to slow the death of a once-great company.

Apple lost? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434628)

The way the story was told a year ago was that Apple was willing to license from Nokia, but Nokia's terms were considered unreasonable. Nokia was trying to leverage its patents to gain access to Apple’s iPhone patents.

Why spin this as one company winning and another losing? We have no idea of the terms, and apparently the companies involved decided they are mutually satisfactory.

Here's the question...Who is next? (0)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434630)

Who will be paying Nokia next? Samsung, HTC? Anyone?

Re:Here's the question...Who is next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434724)

That's a stupid question. EVERYBODY BUT APPLE is either a member of the 3GPP or paying licensing fees.

Apple thought they were special and didn't have to, because their software patents were so valuable... yeah, turns out not so much.

Re:Here's the question...Who is next? (1)

CurryCamel (2265886) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434864)

TFA suggests that Nokia sued also in the areas of WLAN, UI, camera, antenna and power management.

Re:Here's the question...Who is next? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434906)

Yeah, turns out not so much.

Do you know something that we don't? Did they cut their licensing costs or not? Are they worse off than if they'd just paid Nokia in the first place?

Re:Here's the question...Who is next? (1)

jovius (974690) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435014)

They will make profit anyway. And they have been making more profit than the others by using something for free and asking money for it.

This is sort of like deciding whether to commit a crime or not. If you get only to pay for it it'st just matter of having enough money.

It would be interesting to see what the ethics would be if the executives were personally responsible.

Re:Here's the question...Who is next? (-1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434926)

I personally hope Nokia repeatedly bum-rape Apple in all honesty.

Re:Here's the question...Who is next? (-1, Troll)

clifyt (11768) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435908)

Note on your sig...most of the people I know that are hardcore unix fans have moved to OSX simply because you can get around the GUI shell to do mundane things...and yet, we can still pull up the terminal to do the heavy lifting.

Compare this to Microsoft...horrible shell, horrible GUI. Compare to Linux...same exact killer shell and CLI...mixed with a GUI that borders on unusable unless you want to pull up a terminal. I don't believe there is any paradox here...other than the freetards who want to get exactly what they pay for...the rest use OS X because it is the best of both worlds. I still own a few Linux / BSD boxes for various businesses of mine. I think your paradox is one you've invented in your mind...

Re:Here's the question...Who is next? (4, Informative)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435316)

Who will be paying Nokia next? Samsung, HTC? Anyone?

No one, everybody but Apple was already paying the licensing fee, or was a co-developer of the technology. This is part of the reason why Apple's case has been so weak.

msft (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36434648)

a wet cunt wrapped around my penis

awwww yeea

Re:msft (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434970)

I would rather see msft as a pinapple up the a**

No means no!

this sucks (1)

martiniturbide (1203660) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434756)

I was hoping this will end detonating all the patents nuclear weapons by going to court. This only delays the atomic patent war. My hopes goes now with "Microsoft vs Barnes & Noble"

Patents are nothing more than a legal abstraction (1)

neurosine (549673) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434800)

Patents were originally intended to protect the designers of original and novel means from others copying or replicating their ideas in the interest of profit seeking. The system has been often exploited by organizations or individuals who have patented an idea which is too general or universal, or who have simply purchased licensing rights from the original creator. I think the right to sell a patent has deteriorated the purpose of patents.

Re:Patents are nothing more than a legal abstracti (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435394)

It seems likely Apple is using technology and inventions developed by Nokia. That is Apple copied or replicated the original or novel inventions patented by Nokia. The usual argument that perhaps Nokiia's patents are invalid due to obviousness, prior art, etc could easily have been made by Apple who has the financial resources to litigate endlessly. This case seems to fall squarely in what you claim is the original goal of patent legislation. Why shouldn't Nokia deserve compensation?

Re:Patents are nothing more than a legal abstracti (1)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435800)

The system has been often exploited by organizations or individuals who have patented an idea which is too general or universal ...

That implies that the system (in particular, the patent examiners) should be improved, not abandoned.

... or who have simply purchased licensing rights from the original creator. I think the right to sell a patent has deteriorated the purpose of patents.

I don't see why that's bad. If I invent a new widget and patent it, but I don't have the means to mass-produce and market my widget, why shouldn't I be allowed to sell the patent rights to some company who can and will for a tidy sum?

Re:Patents are nothing more than a legal abstracti (2)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435858)

So Nokia spends billions of R&D helping to develop wireless standards like GSM and you expect them to eat the costs? I'd hardly call that "exploitation" by Nokia.

womp (1)

Hotweed Music (2017854) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434866)

terms have not been disclosed*

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. (1)

miffo.swe (547642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36434956)

I suspect this is because Nokia or rather Microsoft and Apple realize that by the time they would be through bickering, Android had already taken the market. I expect Nokia to sue everyone with even a hint of mob* and Android in their product portfolio about the same time as Nokia manages to get some crappy WP7 phones out the door.

Bad news for Android makers (1, Troll)

turb (5673) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435070)

Now with Apple and Nokia making up, users of Android are likely in for it next. Consider Apple has more than enough money to make Nokia go away and settle this suit. Apple almost makes more money in this space this all the mobile handset makers combined. This does imply that while the Android makers ship plenty of devices, (more than apple) they don't make a great deal of profit at it.

Nokia is in need of money. A lot of money. So they went after Apple and Apple gave them what they wanted and needed. Apple while no friend of Nokia is slaughtering them in the market... course so is everyone else.

However the next competitors to Nokia are the Android handset makers. Nokia needs more money, so I don't doubt we'll see more lawsuits but now aimed at Android.

Re:Bad news for Android makers (3, Informative)

Splab (574204) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435418)

Spread some fud will ya?

Apple got sued because they didn't want to pay the licensing fees *everyone* else are paying.

Android isn't going to be sued by Nokia.

Re:Bad news for Android makers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435646)

Spread some fud your self.
Apple got sued because they were paying the same amount as *everyone* else. Nokia wanted more money.

Better article (2)

LoganDzwon (1170459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435126)

Re:Better article (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435932)

And this one [engadget.com] does a good job explaining the story behind the years-long battle.

A slice of apple pie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435158)

Nice to know Apple are not beyond being required to pay for the technology they choose to use.

Nice to see Nokia will receive a slice of apple pie (money per unit sold).

Don't worry steve, as you have told others many times before - not such a big deal! :p

Not a cross license deal so only $$$ to Nokia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36435308)

Apple always knew it was going to have to license Nokia's GSM patents (Google "Apple Nokia and FRAND"). Apple thought Nokia's terms did not reflect FRAND plus there was a statement by Apple that Nokia demanded a cross license agreement to get at Apple's patents. Apple said 'NO' and sued. This may actually be a win for Apple since it may have only cost them money which they knew was going to happen just not under Nokia's terms. Nokia announces the settlement but you notice the terms are confidential. Nokia wins the battle but I think Apple wins the war since Nokia is now set to go after Android.

Pay for a no-show? (1)

SeeSp0tRun (1270464) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435392)

I have been following this somewhat without interest... /. only...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Nokia demand to see new Apple products before they were announced and released? Did this ever happen, or did Apple protect their cult/marketing steamroller and pay Nokia instead of potentially leaking new products ahead of time?

I could see that damaging the mystique of the "will they release it" factor of Apple. Was this their way of protecting that?

Re:Pay for a no-show? (1)

bomanbot (980297) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435750)

Nope, you mixed the lawsuits up, I think. That happened in the Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit, which is a whole different can of worms. Nokia never demanded anything close to that and the Nokia vs. Apple lawsuit was about cell radio technology licensing in most parts anyway, not so much about any specific shipping product.

Besides and with the caveat that IANAL, as far as I understand it the new product demand by Samsung is kinda weak anyway, because it was done in reaction to Apple demanding to see Samsung products which were already announced and shown to the public or even be on retail shelves already and Samsung wanting to see future unannounced products in counter.

Again, IANAL and I have not watched those lawsuits in great detail, that is just what I gathered. But even I found that to be an odd request from Samsung and I am not sure why they even bothered trying to make that demand.

I remember... (0)

PerfectionLost (1004287) | more than 3 years ago | (#36435654)

I remember when Nokia phones were good enough on there own merit. Now they rely on their patent wallet.

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>