Nokia says: "Without Nokia iPhone would be only iPod"

[rjohnstone]

Actually, one cannot patent an information processing method, algorithm or software, so the patent is not about how it is done, but the hardware for doing it (and hence the use of ROMs in the Mac to prevent cloning).

Incorrect.
You can patent any process, algorithm and even software functions/code if it meets certain criteria. That criteria is fairly simple and clear.

Citation source
Federal law dictates eligibility for patents, and to receive one, ideas must meet four requirements: the invention must have utility; it must be novel; it must not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, and it must be thoroughly explained and documented so that someone else would be able to make it.

Nokia came up with the methods and processes that were new and novel at the time and clearly documented so they were reproducible. Thus it met the criteria to have a patent.

Second, patents should not be awarded for ideas that are not novel or innovative - a standard is not an invention.

A "standard" typically starts off as an invention of some sort.
A "standard" only becomes such when it is widely adopted.

You take something that seems common place today and assume it always was. Someone had to invent it. In this case, it was Nokia.

 

[ViViDboarder]

A "standard" typically starts off as an invention of some sort.
A "standard" only becomes such when it is widely adopted.

You take something that seems common place today and assume it always was. Someone had to invent it. In this case, it was Nokia.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Where did he think standards came from? On the 8th day did God create Ethernet, 802.11 and GSM?

 

[greygray]

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Where did he think standards came from? On the 8th day did God create Ethernet, 802.11 and GSM?

So who created Wifi?

 

[ViViDboarder]

So who created Wifi?

Haha, actually... That brings up another good point... So if 802.11 is a Wifi standard then what was Wifi before 802.11 and who was that?

I guess we all now understand.

 

[greygray]

Haha, actually... That brings up another good point... So if 802.11 is a Wifi standard then what was Wifi before 802.11 and who was that?

I guess we all now understand.

OMGzzz Nokia iz godzz mobile company!!

 

[rjohnstone]

Haha, actually... That brings up another good point... So if 802.11 is a Wifi standard then what was Wifi before 802.11 and who was that?

I guess we all now understand.

WiFi was originally called WaveLAN and was invented by NCR and AT&T(Lucent). This was before 802.11 became a standard.

Wiki has some good info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi

 

[ViViDboarder]

WiFi was originally called WaveLAN and was invented by NCR and AT&T(Lucent). This was before 802.11 became a standard.

Wiki has some good info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi-Fi

Oh... Good to know, but I was just trying to emphasize a point.

It's pretty interesting to see how far back these things go and who was responsible for what we now take for granted as tech standards. Thanks for the info.

EDIT: Just looked at the Wiki... Wifi is just a name REFERRING to the 802.11 standard. WaveLan was a precursur to Wifi.

 

[rasputinj]

The funny thing about this is Nokia was one of the main companies to try to come up with WCDMA to try make an open standard and not have to spend as much money paying Qualcomm for their patents. Fast forward a few years Nokia sues Qualcomm to try to pay them less patent royalties. Qualcomm won in the end 2.3 Billion I believe. Apple has probably hired the lead attorney for the Qualcomm cause that spanked Nokia in court.

This will drag on for years in court. In the end it will be a small article stating that it was settled.

 

[Carniphage]

This will drag on for years in court. In the end it will be a small article stating that it was settled.

Exactly.
And now that Apple intends to vigorously defend its position, it will take three years and not one year to resolve.

My prediction therefore needs revising.

I predict that in three years time, the Nokia smartphone market share will have declined to the point where the outcome is irrelevant.

C.

 

[covisio]

/agreed 100%

This patent system, combined w/ large greedy corporations that are overly concerned w/ protecting their own asses and IP, leads to technological stagnation and impedes innovation. But hey, this is capitalism at its finest.

Oh right, so if you invented something you thought might be worth something, you'd just give it away to the world would you? How very philanthropic. Let me know when you're about to do it, would you, and I'll patent it myself.

 

[Carniphage]

Article on Engaget

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/29/nokia-vs-apple-the-in-depth-analysis/

It asks a question that I thought of:

If Apple buys GSM and WIFI chips from Broadcomm etc.
And Broadcomm pays licence fees to Nokia...
Nokia presumably is not entitled to double dibs.
So is not entitled to more money from Apple.

Because Apple are just buying parts from licensed component vendors.

C.

 

[rjohnstone]

http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/29/nokia-vs-apple-the-in-depth-analysis/

It asks a question that I thought of:

If Apple buys GSM and WIFI chips from Broadcomm etc.
And Broadcomm pays licence fees to Nokia...
Nokia presumably is not entitled to double dibs.
So is not entitled to more money from Apple.

Because Apple are just buying parts from licensed component vendors.

C.

I'm pretty sure Nokia's attorney's are not that stupid.

 

[Carniphage]

I'm pretty sure Nokia's attorney's are not that stupid.

Yeah, but what is the answer to the question?

If the iPhone is a collection of GSM, 3G and WiFi parts, all bought from license-paying vendors, why should Apple have to pay again?

Anyone know?

C.

 

[lamadude]

Frankly, I think the EU should investigate those firms who charging such a high fee for companies entering into the market later as it creates an unfair barrier for entry. It is anticompetitive and smells of price fixing to me.

Nokia should be investigated by the EU. I know it is not going to happen as their like to protect their own but, as an EU/Finnish citizen, I feel strongly that they should be investigated.

The EU Commission has fined a lot more European than US or other international companies, it's just not as often in the news because it's about less flashy industries like breweries, supermarkets or food production rather than IT.

Personally I hate most technology patents especially overly broad ones, but apple is one of the worst offenders, with their overly active legal department so I kind of like it that they get sued, they get a taste of their own horrible medicine.

 

[mrochester]

Yeah, but what is the answer to the question?

If the iPhone is a collection of GSM, 3G and WiFi parts, all bought from license-paying vendors, why should Apple have to pay again?

Anyone know?

C.

The short answer is, they shouldn't, but I'm sure there's more to it than that.

 

[McBeats]

It took Nokia three years to figure this out? So a company waits until something gets popular and threatens its income then decides to sue them?

business as usual

 

[kdarling]

If Apple buys GSM and WIFI chips from Broadcomm etc. And Broadcomm pays licence fees to Nokia... Nokia presumably is not entitled to double dibs.

The chipmaker doesn't pay all the fees. Your fees will depend on your device's design and capabilities.

The key here is that the chips are multi-use. They can be used for a simple pager with just SMS, to a dumbphone with just voice, all the way up to a smartphone with 3G, WiFi and MMS. If you make just a pager, you don't want to pay for 3G fees.

The Infineon chip itself is just a raw processor without the voice and data and radio baseband software that you have to provide, using patented methods from other companies (like Nokia).

So while the chipmakers (Infineon, etc) might pay for any basic hardware patent license fees, it's up to the end user (Apple) to take care of the actual implementation license fees for voice, data, 3G, WiFi switchover, etc.

Think of it this way: let's say you could buy an ARM cpu and build an iPod touch clone under license to Apple. Would the cpu maker pay Apple? No, they're not making the iPod. You are.

 

[Consultant]

Talk about desperation. The first thing people think about the iPhone is not GSM/UMTS.

Why Nokia is suing Apple over iPhone GSM/UMTS patents
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/22/why-nokia-is-suing-apple-over-iphone-gsmumts-patents/

"Nokia has filed suit over patent infringement on Apple’ iPhone, claiming that “by refusing to agree appropriate terms for Nokia’s intellectual property, Apple is attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia’s innovation.” Actually the reverse is true."

Wow, so many arm chair lawyers. Most of you don't even know what is the difference between

And Apple should lose out. Last I read, Apple had just cracked 1% of the worldwide cellphone market

Market share doesn't equal to profit.

 

[kdarling]

Why Nokia is suing Apple over iPhone GSM/UMTS patents
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/10/22/why-nokia-is-suing-apple-over-iphone-gsmumts-patents/

That article manages to blithely push aside the fact that Nokia was a key player in getting cell phones (especially GSM) invented in the first place.

It also leaves out patent history such as Apple having to settle a lawsuit out of court over Visual Voice Mail.

 

[Carniphage]

The chipmaker doesn't pay all the fees. Your fees will depend on your device's design and capabilities.

Thanks for that. That does make sense.

Although, I am still a bit confused about Nokia's position, if Nokia licenses a technology, say voice GSM, to a company who sells a $30 cellphone.

It Nokia entitled to more money from Apple who packages the exact same technology in a $700 cellphone.

In other words - are the licensing fees based on a fixed per-unit cost. Or are they based on a proportion of revenue.

C.

 

[firewood]

In other words - are the licensing fees based on a fixed per-unit cost. Or are they based on a proportion of revenue

It's based on playing poker. Patents are government granted rights to monopoly use. Refuse to license or price the fees too high, and the standards bodies, cell carriers and chip makers won't adopt your technology. Price the fees too low and you donate all your R&D expenses and investment to competitors trying to take all your market share. Neither usually makes good business sense. You don't have to play all poker hands identically.

Lawsuits are expensive. You don't sue until what you could win is a lot more than the cost of the lawsuit. Until then, you negotiate. Or bluff. Or sue as part of a bluff. For years if necessary.

but ianal...

 

[kdarling]

In other words - are the licensing fees based on a fixed per-unit cost. Or are they based on a proportion of revenue.

As far as I can tell, cell patent license fees are usually based on a percentage of the handset or network equipment (tower gear requires license fees as well) price.

Nokia was one of the original companies that called for universal low fees (total less than 5%) based on price, since they sold many of the first phones.

As Firewood said, I'm sure all sorts of terms can be negotiated.

A couple of years ago Broadcom had gotten an injunction against importation to the USA of CDMA phones using Qualcomm chips. Verizon ended up having to step in and negotiate a license themselves... $6 per handset, capping out at $40 million per quarter with a lifetime max of $200 million.