O death, where is thy vespiary?
|
|
|
Nokia sues Apple over patents
FINNISH PHONE FIRM Nokia has filed a lawsuit in its latest round of patent infringement allegations against Apple.
According to Bloomberg, Nokia has once again gone to court against Apple's technology in its Iphone and Ipad 3G. The biggest maker of mobiles in the world claims that Apple has infringed five of its patents.
Nokia said the patents relate to enhanced speech and data transmission technologies. These use positioning data in applications and antenna configurations for smaller mobile connected devices.
Both companies have been going toe-to-toe over patents ever since Nokia first lodged a lawsuit back in October 2009. Nokia then alleged that the Iphone infringed patents on its wireless GSM technology. Since then, Nokia has set its legal attack dogs on Apple three times and complained that the cappuccino company won't play ball on licensing mobile technology.
"Nokia has been the leading developer of many key technologies in mobile devices," said Paul Melin, general manager of patent licensing at Nokia.
"We have taken this step to protect the results of our pioneering development and to put an end to continued unlawful use of Nokia's innovation," he said. µ
Share this:
Share
I have no account to paste a comment at The Register , but they have this contest going to finish a joke punchline here is link to the joke
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/07/fotw/
well I have a punchline for their joke you can ad for me , and you can even keep the prize if you win ! And my punchline would be.....
....icrap my ipants
Please just credit the punchline to the INQ, THANKS for your help.
Apple have said precisely what I said in their legal counterclaim. In typical lawyer speak (known as alternate pleading) they start by declaring that the patents aren't essential to GSM/UMTS, that they don't infringe them, that they're invalid and/or unenforceable and finally that Nokia wanted unreasonable licence terms, including the cross-licensing of Apple patents. You can read about it here.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/12/11/apple-countersues-nokia-for-infringing-13-patents/
That's pretty black and white as far as I can see.
Now if Nokia are REQUIRED to license patents that are part of the GSM/UMTS standards under RAND terms, but refuse to do so under their usual RAND terms then Apple should stop using GSM/UMTS technology? Meanwhile Nokia should blithely continue infringing Apple patents without hindrance? Interesting viewpoint you have there.
Is it Steve T or Steve J?
I was just wondering who was prepared for what and how do you know that. There have been rumors about negotiations between the two companies but I certainly don't know what was said. Now, let's suppose that Nokia did offer FRAND terms and Apple refused. Given that these licensing negotiations are "take it or leave it", Apple should have abandoned the technologies in question. If so, they are now willfully infringing on these patents and it may well mean that FRAND terms are no longer required. I noticed that you used "RAND terms". That's probably because "Apple" and "fair" should not be used in the same sentence.
to license the patents in question under RAND terms (ANY company should be able to licence them on a published and reasonable fee scale) as they committed to this when they included their patented technology in GSM/UMTS standards. This means that they are NOT allowed to apply different terms and conditions to different users of the patent.
Apple were quite prepared to pay the standard RAND fees to use the technology in the iPhone. Nokia tried to use the patents in question to force Apple to cross-license their own technology. Apple's patents are NOT covered by RAND and attempting to force a cross-license breaks RAND terms.
Nokia are therefore the party in the wrong. They are both misusing technology patented by Apple and refusing to honour their commitment to license their own technology under RAND terms.
Apple has always been an amoral wolf in sheeps clothing.
While exploiting the naive with overpriced gismos is not illegal, stealing the technology to do it is.
So if Nokia can make it stick then good luck to them. If Apple have done something wrong they should pay for it.
There are two kinds of people in this world, those with guns and those that dig.. No, wait, that's another setting.
In this regard there are at least three types:
1. Those that invent stuff.
2. Those that acknowledge inventions and get a license to use them.
3. Those that rip-off ideas and pretend they invented it themselves.
Nokia did the first part and Apple skipped the second part and went straight for the third.. or so it's alleged. Guilty until proven.. Erm, shoot first, ask later.. If only it was so simple, but..
Whether or not a company knows how to use the technology they invented and patented doesn't give another company the right to exploit it without a license.
There seem to be two types of companies:
1. The type that make money by producing products that people want.
2. The type that try to make money by suing type 1. companies. If Nokia had so many great ideas, where are the products?
I don't like to see anyone or any company get sued...except Apple (OK, yes and Microsoft, too). If they can dish it out, they had better be ready to take it as well. All companies exist in legal "glass houses", and therefore wise ones do not start throwing rocks at others.
Hopefully, in terms of software patents (which may or may not be the issue here in Nokia's action), the Bilski ruling will help abolish the madness, hostility, and obstruction of innovation and progress that the current software patent laws have facilitated.
I don't like to see anyone or any company get sued...except Apple (OK, yes and Microsoft, too). If they can dish it out, they had better be ready to take it as well. All companies exist in legal "glass houses", and therefore wise ones do not start throwing rocks at others.
Hopefully, in terms of software patents (which may or may not be the issue here in Nokia's action), the Bilski ruling will help abolish the madness, hostility, and obstruction of innovation and progress that the current software patent laws have facilitated.