Well, the first of the big patent litigations is over. Since this one involves Apple, the big winner is obviously the highly innovative company from Cupertiono, right? The company from which all others copy, right? Well, no, not exactly. The big winner is Nokia.
As was to be expected, the patent disagreements between Apple and Nokia have ended with a big settlement. Interestingly enough, and the reason why Nokia is the big winner, money is only flowing to Espoo – and Cupertino is only paying, not receiving. Apple will pay Nokia a one-time fee, as well as ongoing royalty fees. In return, both companies drop all litigation and complaints.
“We are very pleased to have Apple join the growing number of Nokia licensees,” said Stephen Elop, president and chief executive officer of Nokia, “This settlement demonstrates Nokia’s industry leading patent portfolio and enables us to focus on further licensing opportunities in the mobile communications market.”
A good outcome, this, and also the most logical; Apple entered this fight with a bunch of measly software patents, while Nokia presented cold and harsh hardware patents it had been successfully licensing for decades. Still, I would’ve preferred seeing Apple’s software patents invalidated, but alas, that’s probably the reason Apple backed out in the first place.
Taking all Apple love / hate out of the equation this was logically going to be the conclusion to this. I don’t see anything in that Nokia press release that indicates Nokia “won” anything.
From a purely logical business perspective Apple have more than likely taken their “bunch of measly software patents” to the negotiating table and received a reasonably hefty discount on the license they would have otherwise been paying Nokia, which is likely what they were after in the first place.
The details of the settlement are unknown so different people will put their spin on it depending where their loyalties lie. Logically I suspect it’s been a win-win; Nokia got an Apple licensing deal – and cash – Apple got a discount.
That’s my take anyway.
“We are very pleased to have Apple join the growing number of Nokia licensees,” said Stephen Elop.
Sounds quite like “We are very pleased to FU Apple” to me.
That rather sounded like sing of a rising patent trolling star.
Most of what you write is speculation.
Fact are: Apple didn’t want to pay, so Nokia sued and now Apple is paying. That sounds like a win to me.
Nokia and Apple will have to disclose the $ amounts at some point and then we may see if there was a discount.
Most of what YOU write is just wrong. Apple wanted RAND terms Nokia wanted more. Unless the terms of the settlement are revealed we’ll never know who got what they wanted.
Correction: Apple had their own interpretation of what FRAND terms should be. Nokia had their own.
Both parties dropped all complaints and Nokia got paid. Seems like Nokia got patents and $$$(kaching!), not just money.
In these kind of statements you have to read between the lines. Because they are designed to reveal as much as possible without actually blatantly spelling out the terms. A big pointer is that Nokia came out with the statement first, not Apple.
Nokia and Apple are both public companies. The amounts will be disclosed on their respective financial statements.
Thinking that Apple got a discount is speculation. You too are speculating, as your implication is that Apple didn’t get a discout. Either is of course possible.
Why would they “have to disclose” that?
I didn’t say they didn’t get a discount. Nobody knows.
You cannot prove the “not existence” of something. Does not work for God and also doesn’t work for discounts.
They are publically traded companies that owe to their share holders that they disclose where all the money went and came from. Basic business 101.
Yes it is. Speculation based on plenty of business experience and something called common sense, and interestingly echoed by numerous non-aligned commentators both here and on other news sites.
Unfortunately in order to see common sense requires being dispassionate, taking any Apple love / hate out of the picture. That is something that many people, despite cries to the contrary, just don’t seem to be capable of. As I said in my original post:
To spell that out just in case someone doesn’t understand; Apple haters / Nokia fanboys will see it as a win to Nokia; the Apple fanboys / Nokia haters will see it as a win to Apple; those with no leaning either way will see it as win-win. The Apple haters / Nokia fanboys will call anyone who sees it as win-win an Apple fanboy, and the Apple fanboys / Nokia haters will do the reverse.
And it’s very likely that this comment will attract more flames by the same people.
I’m surprised it lasted this long; Nokia has a huge arsinal of patents for both hardware and software – for Apple to hope that maybe some brut force bullying would persuade Nokia to see things ‘the Apple way’ is really naive on the part of Apple.
If Apple had any common sense they would enter into agreement with all the major players in mutual patent sharing agreements – there is no need for Apple to be as anal as they are given that the Apple brand will always result in people wanting the ‘genuine thing’ rather than a cheap knock off. To me when I see organisations go to the extent in which Apple has it really does show a level of insecurity.
If anyone was wondering. I’m an iMac and MacBook Pro user but I have a LG Optimus 7Q phone – I enjoy the Apple products I have but that doesn’t mean I have to defend Apple’s business decisions
But you forget – Apple has Steve Jobs, Nokia as Steven Elop – and they both have a relationship with Bill Gates, probably one where Elop gets orders^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z^Z directions from Gates too.
I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but the evidence that Apple, Microsoft, and now (through Elop) Nokia are working together is getting harder and harder to ignore.
I’d love some EU investigation into possible cartel-forming there. Not because it’s justified at this point, but just because it’d be interesting to get a peek into what’s going on there.
Er, don’t you think it behooves governments to have justification before taking such an investigative action?
As I said: “I’d love some EU investigation into possible cartel-forming there. Not because it’s justified at this point, but just because it’d be interesting to get a peek into what’s going on there.”
:).
I read what you wrote. Let’s try this a different way:
<ul><li>”I’d love to see some government investigation into possible union-forming there.”</li>
<li>”I’d love to see some government investigation into possible church-forming there.”</li>
<li>”I’d love to see some government investigation into possible newspaper-forming there.”</li>
</ul>
I’m not saying that you would agree with any of those statements. But I think you see my point.
I’m sorry^aEUR”really, it was just the way you put it that rubbed me the wrong way. If you’d phrased it something like “It’d be interesting to get a peek to what’s going on there. Unfortunately, unless the three start exhibiting enough cartel-like behavior to prompt an EU investigation, we’re unlikely to get one,” I don’t think I’d’ve given it a second glance.
EDIT: Also, if the site’s going to show my HTML, it shouldn’t work in the preview.
Edited 2011-06-14 17:53 UTC
No, your analogies are wrong. He’s saying it’s more like
“I’d love to see some government investigation into possible gang-forming there.”
“I’d love to see some government investigation into possible extortion-racketing there.”
“I’d love to see some government investigation into possible fraud there.”
You *do* know Bill Gates doesn’t run Microsoft anymore, right? Still owns a fair chunk of the company, but hasn’t been in charge for about 3 years now… spends most of his time on charity work…
But he’s still the Chairman for Board of Directors, chairman (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/bod/bod.aspx) so very, very influential even aside from his stock.
FTFY
Edited 2011-06-15 09:22 UTC
If I remember correctly, Apple’s case was that Nokia demanded a cross patent licensing agreement instead of a simple license fee. If this is indeed the case, it seems that it is Apple that won.
I would also be cautious with calling Nokia the winner here.
It depends on how big is the agreed one-time compensation: if it is substantially lower than what Apple should have been paid for the license(s), it could be a draw.
Or at least a big savings tactics for Apple.
No the case was that Apple didn’t want to pay Nokia at all, arguing the license fee had been paid when they bought the GSM-chips, and Nokia were double-dipping.
Cross-licensing was only a predicted outcome by pundits, not something Nokia has ever demanded.
Anyway this means that it is actually legal to first license a patent to allow someone manufacture the chip, and then license the same patent again to someone making a product with the chip.
Hardware patents or not, there is something awfully software patent about it when the licensing follows concepts of ‘application’ instead of strictly following the hardware.
Could you buy a piece of hardware, but then not get all the rights for it? — “To upgrade your CPU, buy a license upgrade”?? — Software does it all the time, but it is not something I would readily accept for hardware.
Yes, I remember this too; and because of the legal concept of patent exhaustion, the whole claim that Nokia could demand GSM related license fees from Apple, after the component supplier of the GSM chips had already paid the license, should have been discarded. The patents dealing with antenna design, etc. not already being licensed, were obviously still Apple’s responsibility.
I’ve been thinking about this comment all day and got to wondering, regardless of whether you believe software patents should exist or not because that’s a moot point at present, if you agree with Nokia about this shouldn’t you also by default agree with Lodsys about their claim against iPhone developers – and eventually Android / Windows Phone / WebOS devs? It is after all exactly the same thing isn’t it? Nokia are now double dipping, why shouldn’t Lodsys?
I’m interested to hear perspectives on this.
I am not partial in this matter, as I also pointed out my follow-up comment. I just tell what I know from the first articles about the case(s).
I would expect this depends entirely on the licence terms that were granted by Nokia to the chip manufacturer, and the licence Lodsys granted to Apple.
It’s possible Nokia licensed their technology for manufacture in a way that didn’t transfer a licence to the buyer of the chips. Similarly it’s possible Lodsys granted a licence for Apple to use their IP but only in ‘Apple-badged’ software. Until the details of the licences are made public (e.g. if it goes to court), probably it’s impossible to know.
I could be wrong about this, and I’m no lawyer, but that would be my take.
Are you missing that Apple dropped their lawsuit also? The one that claimed Nokia’s devices infringing on Apple’s patents.
Let’s see:
Apple – got licenses to patents and has to pay (no wonder there)
Nokia – got patent infringement claims dropped*, got paid and licensed out patents for a fee.
I frankly wish that I’d be “loosing” every day, like Nokia “lost” this time.
* – not the same as licenses to patents, but a major indicator of that.
Not a quest for better patent system
Apple has loads of money so they’ll pay,
while Nokia needs some cash to secure its future.
And now it’s clear Apple can’t be stopped, they simply have enough cash to even buy Nokia if they wanted.
This is frustrating. Who is reporting the value? WHAT IS THE COST! Do we know? If we don’t know, say we don’t know, PLEASE DONT LEAVE ME HANGING AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Lets try this again:
How much?
How much?
How much?
How much?
I will find the news for us. The settlement was not disclosed. That is all you had to say. This reporter did more:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent…
This is just about money and which company has a bigger penis, this case reminds me Microsoft suing HTC over the switch to Android (i think, no clear for me why they sued), you can read it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2011/may/31/microsoft-htc…
Worst off all Microsoft wins a lot of money due to the settling with HTC, I think we should wait for the numbers to see which one of these warriors gets the trophy and the cash.
Please ^^’ I imagined for a second how this could look like graphically XD
Considering current ‘status quo’ shouldn’t the header sound like ‘Microsoft Wins Patent War with Apple’?
Nah,
It should read
The Microsoft Finland Subsidiary (Nokia) today …
Thom, you are such a freaking hypocrite.
So, according to Thom, software patents are bad except when used against Apple. Look at most of Thom’s posts, patents bad, patents bad… then Apple gets hit by a patent troll, now patents are good, next week, XYZ corp will be hit by a patent troll, then all of a sudden, patents will be bad again.
These patents are ridiculous, all of them should have been thrown out, all of Nokia’s, all of Apple’s, all of them. I’m no fan of Microsoft, but I still can’t believe the supreme court let that i4i troll extort all that money from Microsoft based on their ridiculous patent. At least Microsoft produces stuff that people want to buy.
Why innovate when you can litigate.
Looking at your nickname, this gun’ be good.
Nokia filed with HARDWARE patents. Apple filed with SOFTWARE patents. Software patents = bad. Hardware patents (generally) good. Simply, huh?
SOFTWARE patents are by definition bad. SOFTWARE patents. SOFTWARE. SOFTWARE. SOFTWARE.
Nokia had done more innovating in its lifetime than Apple has. Without Nokia (and Motorola) no worldwide mobile phone network. Apple innovates white plastics and pretty buttons. Nokia innovates a technology that has changed the world forever, and has allowed people the world over to share knowledge and to organise themselves, improving their lives.
Call me when Apple comes up with something that will change more lives than the lives of people at Starbucks and Hipster cafes.
Maybe you have different hipsters. Ours are required by law to wear skinny jeans. iPhones wouldn’t fit in them. Apple’s gear is more for the techno-yuppies.
I think the correct term is “hipster dufus”. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
By definition? Who’s definition? Your’? Stop stating things as if they are fact, when the reality is they are just your own biased opinion.
Plastics and pretty buttons that you seem to buy up anytime Apple comes out with a new product. Is it like the KMFDM song “Dogma”? You can’t stop, because you are addicted to the things you hate?
But you are one of those hipsters Thom. Just the other day you were telling us about your new iPad 2. Like I said, it seems you criticize everything Apple does, but yet you can’t resist buying their products. What’s up with that?
I don’t understand why you sit here and criticize Apple’s products as being nothing innovative except “white plastic and pretty buttons”, and yet you can’t seem to resist the urge to buy them. If they are so bad, and so un-innovative, then why do you buy them?
Edited 2011-06-14 15:49 UTC
Yes, by my definition. And, judging by what our readers post, most of OSAlert’ readership, too.
Really? Considering I’m pretty much a redneck born and raised, that’s an interesting observation. I guess making a clearly facetious comment about some of Apple’s userbase now means that anyone who buys Apple is automatically a hipster. Interesting.
You might want to read up on my Apple product reviews. They’re always positive.
You see, this might be a little hard for you to understand, but other than being the managing editor of OSAlert, I’m also a consumer. If you had actually read my Apple product reviews instead of acting like a jerk, you would know that I generally recommend people to buy Apple products because they’re generally good value.
Look, contrary to most other bloggers out there, I have always been open and honest about my positions, including those regarding Apple. I dislike companies on principle, and Apple is no exception. That, however, does not preclude me liking their products, and buying them in my role as an ordinary, clueless consumer with limited funds. I have always been open and honest about that – unlike some others.
I’m getting sick and tired of people like you ACTING like I’m sort of scheming dishonest fcukbag, while I’m actually the more honest and open bloggers out there. My positions are clear and free from fanboyistic influences. And yes, as I’ve said on numerous occasions, I can be a massive hypocrite.
At least I have the intellectual honesty to admit that – unlike some other (truly popular) bloggers out there.
It’s still your opinion. It is not established fact. So it is not “by definition”.
Sure. But you criticize Apple every chance you get. You hate everything about them except their products. So it seems everything you hate about them works quite well for them. Even people who hate Apple, love their products, and will buy them anyway, so Apple has no motivation to change the way they do business. They are so astronomically successful that even people who hate the company will willingly buy their products.
Well, we will have to agree to disagree on that. I still think Apple products are ridiculously overpriced. I wouldn’t call them a “good value”.
So really this site should be called “OsBlog” then. Not “OsNews”. because it’s not news. It’s one man’s highly biased and vocal commentary. It’s a soapbox basically. I remember years ago, when it wasn’t like that.
But you still buy their stuff, even though you dislike them. As I said above, that must mean their methods, even though you hate them, are wildly successful. Because even people who hate them because of their practices will still knowingly buy their products.
Actually, I never implied that you were scheming or dishonest. Only that it sort of baffles me how anyone can hate Apple as a company as much as you seem to hate them, and yet you will still support that which you hate by buying their products. But oh well, at least you admit you are a hypocrite.
I dislike all companies (well, the bigger ones at least). However, I still need and want their products to make my life easier. So, I look at what makes the most sense to buy, and in the case of tablets, it’s no question at the moment that the iPad 2 is far ahead of the other offerings (at least here in NL).
When it comes to my reviews, even though *I* might dislike Apple as a company, most other people don’t give a shit. Infusing my opinion on a *company* into a review of a *product* is dishonest – so I either mention it on the side, or just ignore it altogether.
Hmm, see I’ve been here for years too, and I don’t remember a time when it wasn’t like that. No offense, Thom. No offense, Eugenia. I always assumed that was part of the appeal of the place, because if a person just wanted news, they get could get that from any number of news sites. It’s still news from the link they provide, but you’re also getting an editorial on the subject which you don’t really have to read.
At some point, the editorials got a lot more “sensationalist tabloid” like though. I don’t know exactly when that happened. There’s little point in reading the editorials when they are as predictable as the value of x, when x + 2 = 3. Basically, they are going to rant and whine about software patents, rant and whine about Apple’s business practices, maybe mention how great Apple’s products are.
As I said, it’s kind of like Fox News. It’s extremely far to one side of the issues. And the extremely one sided view points get rather old and tiring to read after awhile.
Why are you still at this site? You must be getting something out this site otherwise you wouldn’t return.
I don’t think this site ever claimed to be “fair and balanced” which is what fox news does. Also there are links in the articles so you can go to the source and draw your own opinions.
Because the discussions are sometimes interesting. That’s the only reason I still come here. Not for the one sided predictable editorials.
Right. People have been saying this very line for a decade now. I’m not kidding. I’ve been around almost that long, and said line has been said for that long – in 2002, 2007, and 2011.
I don’t pay much attention to it. OSAlert is a tabloid when the editorial isn’t to your liking, a regular blog when you agree with the article. It’s been like this forever, and it’s been like this for most other similar sites too. As far as I know, you have never contributed a single article or even a submissions. We WILL publish your stuff if you submit an article or a news item, and the fact that most people who complain about OSAlert never actually submit anything speaks volumes.
In the meantime, I’ll keep doing my thing, and the countless submitters we do have will do so as well.
I’ve submitted several actually. One was published. One was not. The story was published, but it was not the text I wrote. And from what I could see in the queue, no one else had submitted it. So, I dunno. Doesn’t really inspire me to submit content when it doesn’t get published, and the another editor publishes the same story, but doesn’t use my content.
Also, I had another count before this one, but I don’t remember the username for it.
Again, I’ve submitted several things in the past. Some under a different account. Only one of the things I ever submitted actually got published. That kind of led to “Slashdot” syndrome for me. (“Slashdot” syndrome being the idea that it’s pointless to submit content to Slashdot, because the chances of it getting published are almost nil).
I have been a registered member here for 5 years now and OSAlert has been like it is for the whole time. And well, there’s nothing wrong with that. Atleast I like OSAlert exactly as it is.
Besides, how do you define news in this case anyways? I mean, they DO report on new stuff happening here and there, and well, that does sound a lot like ‘news’ to me. The fact that there’s an editorial in place doesn’t make it less of a news item, and doesn’t mean you have to agree with the editorial.
There is nothing hypocrite about that. It’s 2 different things. I use nuclear power but I don’t like the reason why nuclear power was invented. The two are completely separated. You can like and use the product and hate the way it was created, it’s not hypocrite.
That’s not really a valid analogy. It’s a bit like saying you won’t fly in airplanes because airplanes can be used to drop bombs.
Nuclear weapons, and the nuclear power plant that produces your electricity are largely completely separated. The same is not true in this case. Apple as a company is definitely not completely separate from its products.
Even if you were very anti-nuclear power, the situation is it exists pretty much doesn’t give you any alternative choices except to go without electricity. You can’t choose what power company you use. You can, however, choose to buy a different brand of computer, or a different brand of tablet.
Perhaps, SUVs might be a better analogy than nuclear power. I like the roominess, cargo area, and utility that an SUV has. But as an environmentally conscious consumer, I won’t buy one because of their impact on the environment. That’s probably a more accurate analogy when it comes to buying or not buying Apple products based on your feelings about the company and how it conducts its business.
If your nuclear power plant’s reactors were doubling as breeder reactors to produce plutonium for bombs, then that analogy would be accurate. But since they aren’t, it’s not.
Really? At least in Finland you can buy your electricity from any company you like. You only have to pay transfer fees to the company that owns your local branch of the grid.
Doesn’t work that way in the United States. Pretty much there is one electrical utility company that serves most areas, and you have to buy it from them. It used to be the same way with phone companies, although phone company deregulation pretty much stopped that. It’s now possible to use any phone company you want. But you can’t do that with electric companies.
Yeah… Liberal market my ass.
Wasn’t US supposed to be the free-market capitalist state?
If this is your statement and what you would use as a counter analogy to highlight Thom’s hypocrisy, then let me add my own.
I moderately “hate” Microsoft for their business practices. Yet I would buy an XBox360(if I needed a game console). And applied to planes and bombers: I will choose to fly on a Boeing, but I will criticize Boeing as a company. Or I will happily fly on an Airbus, yet hate EADS for supplying fighters to Saudis and bribing them.
If an inventor comes up with some “new or novel” way of doing something, please explain what is the real difference between it being implemented in software or in hardware as far as patentability is concerned?
Using your kindergarten logic: Inventing a new algorithm to increase video compression by x3 is not patentable, but inventing a new type of drill bit design that can drill through a material x3 more efficiently should be? I guess so, since software patents = bad, hardware patents = good.
Software is written, and source code is protected by copyright.
Hardware is designed and constructed, and is protected by patents.
Both are artificial, government-granted monopolies. There is ZERO reason why software should be covered by BOTH copyright and patents. You can’t patent the contents of a book, now, can you?
This is all pretty basic stuff.
Even if there are technical drawings of patented hardware in it ?
Edited 2011-06-15 12:52 UTC
Here’s the fun part on why patents a needed. If you buy a book with a copyrighted drawing(and all of them are copyrighted BTW) there is nothing in copyright preventing you from making products based on that drawing.
Anybody who considers themselves a professional software developer will tell you that software is designed also.
You are confusing the design of something with the copying of bits. The patent protects the design, copyright protects the bits.
But maybe your dogmatic view is too basic to understand the distinction.
How about being a professional(as in being paid to do their work) software developer for the last 14 years and working The Big software? Does that meet your criteria? Maybe add to that, actually working on patents that have been filed and granted by USPTO.
And I still know that software patents are absurd. Software design is very much generic in all software and is based on too much prior art, that it must not be patented.
Today, software differs only in particular algorithms, everything else has been done over and over(talking about software design).
The last truly innovative patent I personally reviewed, was a case of “Mmm… I remembered that formula from mathematical analysis courses in the university. It was created to solve my problem, so I used it and here’s the patent application”
This exposes you as a marginally knowledgeable blogger with a weak agenda, dude. Several tens of millions of satisfied users at all levels of computer savvy would disagree with you.
Edited 2011-06-16 10:10 UTC
I cannot stand patents, but taking such a harsh stand against anyone suing using them is absurd. To have a functioning free market, you need to limit companies abusing each other. Hopefully the next stage is shorter term patents, and a more watchful eye over licensing agreements from ombudsmen.
I4I attempted to work with Microsoft closely to bring some features to Office, their partner ship fell through but Microsoft still used their shared work. If it were easier to take MS to court for abusing their business partnerships, I’m sure i4i would have gone that route.
Nokia has developed hardware technology for telephony and Apple didn’t have a licence. That’s just the way the hardware market exists atm.
from Thom’s article:
Software patents are not the same as hardware patents.
I agree with you both that software patents are in general a stupid idea; but protecting actual innovations in hardware, well that is what the patent system was invented for. Now whether these hardware patents that Nokia hold actually are innovative, I couldn’t say*, but since they were pretty integral to the creation of GSM I am guessing they have a few innovations up their sleeves
*I am sure there is a list somewhere, but I haven’t had the inclination to go through them
[Edit: Damn, I got to be quicker with my comments, Thom’s already said all of this while I was still spell-checking and previewing]
Edited 2011-06-14 13:37 UTC
I’d like to highlight a point for this case: Software and art have copyright and hardware has patents.
Make software non-copyrightable, then I’ll agree on patents for software.
The fact that Apple and Nokia settled with Apple paying a royalty was very much a fait accompli.
Who ‘won’ is really a matter of the size of the settlement.
However, given that the ITC ruled against Nokia in March and there is all new Nokia management in place I would wager the settlement was far less then what Nokia initially asked for (and it obviated large legal costs for both parties).
All in all I don’t think there are any ‘big’ winners here but only time will tell.
Mueller is an idiot. He claims Android is in trouble because the same Nokia patents apply to Android. This is the biggest drivel I have ever seen.
Nokia’s patents are hardware patents, that have already been licensed by all the Android hardware makers (Apple was the only big one not licensing Nokia’s patents). Android as a software package does not infringe on the Nokia hardware patents – Android hardware does. However, as Motorola, HTC, Samsung, etc. have already licensed said patents, this is ZERO threat to Android.
You really sure read what the man wrote. He is not saying Android is in trouble. He is saying that other HANDSET MAKERS are going to have to pay the same or greater royalties then Apple to Nokia (Elop said as much in his statement.)
Android is only a casualty here because it’s so popular. It will impact Windows phone too.
This is obvious right? I mean HTC and Sansung and everyone else is going to need to pay these royalties just like Apple but without significant patent portfolios of their own their going to have to pay more.
(This is in addition to the license fees HTC pays to Microsoft for using Android.)
The problem is that the other handset makers ARE ALREADY PAYING. Unlike Apple, other phone makers have long since partaken in the global patent licensing of mobile phone technology. It has NOTHING to do with Android, since those other phone makers were already making phones when Apple was still struggling to not die. The operating system is irrelevant here, as it has to do with hardware – hardware other phone makers have been using for god knows how long, and have been licensing the patents for since god knows how long.
The only reason he mentions Android is for page hits, and so that clueless folk like Gruber pick it up.
Wait… Are you saying Samsung does not have a significant patent portfolio? I would be surprised if Apple had one hundredth of Samsung’s patents.
Never underestimate the company which sued Microsoft about an implementation of overlapping windows in a computer GUI.
Apple executives would patent their genetic markup if they could.
Those are already patented (or at least the method to access and generate genettic markup)
I wouldn’t call him an idiot, because when it comes to legal issues his knowledge is wide. But when it comes to technical and business issues, his statements look very much out of place and quite often stupid(statements, not him).
The critical fact of the matter is that the biggest Android manufacturers are long time players in GSM area and have all licenses and x-licensing agreements to look Nokia in the face without blinking.
And remember the patent portfolio of Nortel? The one that Google is bidding on? It looks like some UMTS essential patents are in that portfolio…
Source:
http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewabstract.php?id=5587&cf=32
Nokia is a huge winner here
A) Apple will not pursue any existing Symbian devices
B) Apple can’t pursue any future WP7 devices, because Microsoft licenses cover licensees.
With point B in mind, Nokia basically had a win-win situation in any case. But they got even more than they expected.
At least the software patent system^aEUR|
Also: is it really that wrong to be more critical of Apple than smaller companies? They are among the biggest companies in the world. According to some estimates *the* biggest technology company. I think it’s fine to reserve to extra scepticism for the bigger companies. (Sure, Nokia is a big company too^aEUR| but Apple currently scares me more.)
And no, I am not particularly anti-Apple. I’m actually a fan or their products. I don’t see why I should give a company the benefit of doubt just because I like their products.
Any big company is generally a spooky thing IMHO.