Slashdot Mirror
Nokia Claims Apple Does "Legal Alchemy" To Mask IP Theft
CWmike writes "Nokia asked a federal judge last week to toss out Apple's antitrust claims, saying the iPhone maker indulged in 'legal alchemy' when it tried to divert attention from its infringement of Nokia's intellectual property. The filing was the latest salvo in a battle that began in October 2009 when handset maker Nokia sued Apple, saying the iPhone infringed on 10 of its patents, and that Apple was trying 'to get a free ride on the back of Nokia's innovation.' Apple countered in December with a lawsuit of its own that not only claimed Nokia infringed 13 of its patents, but that Nokia also violated antitrust law by legally attacking Apple after it declined to pay what it called 'exorbitant royalties' and refused to give Nokia access to iPhone patents. 'These non-patent counterclaims are designed to divert attention away from free-riding off of Nokia's intellectual property, a practice Apple evidently believes should only be of paramount concern when it is the alleged victim,' Nokia charged in the motion. Apple is on a legal roll, having also recently sued the maker of Google's Nexus One, HTC, for patent infringement."
Hopefully the Bilski decision will come out and invalidate software patents. Then these companies can get back to competing on innovation.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
It's a bunch of phones.
You press buttons, make calls with them to other people. Thank goodness that's not a patentable idea or we'd all be shafted.
The tweaks on how to make these calls really seem.... unimportant apart to the lawyers.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Nokia has a huge R&D organisation. Everything from software down to silicon.
Deleted
After being screwed by Microsoft in the past, it's pretty obvious why Apple is so aggressive nowadays. It's taking taking some pages from Microsoft.
I am with Nokia because they're quite nice with Qt and they are definitely rightly responsible for a lot of technology that no doubt Apple just implemented without permission. I think the fact that about 40 firms* paying royalties is evidence enough.
I will not buy an iPhone and never will be part of that monopoly. iPods, iPhones are engineered to fail and you paying ~£30 for the privilege to do very little.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8321058.stm
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
As long as there is profit in suing for such things, a lot of companies will keep doing it. After a few decades of stealing from each other, software and hardware companies are waking up, looking around and realizing there is money to be made from suing each other for practices they have all engaged in... damn near all the patent infringement lawsuits I have read about seem on the surface, to be frivolous... it really is time for patent reform
I put on my robe and wizard hat...
They are much less exciting than REAL wars. When will Apple and Nokia build up militias and shoot each other to death while I watch it on my major news source in night vision?
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Now, someone else may have more recent information that contradicts this, but...
My understanding was that Apple tried to license these patents from Nokia. They are part of the GSM specification, which no GSM phone can function without. Because they are part of the standard, they must be licensed under Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms.
But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.
What, exactly? I don't know. Either the articles I've read didn't say, or I've since forgotten. I think it was cross-licensing with some of the specific patents on the iPhone, but as I say, I'm not sure.
Either way, if Nokia isn't licensing the original patents under RAND terms to Apple, then they should be burned to hell and back for this. They knew the price when they put patents of theirs into the GSM spec, and now they have to live with it.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Here's what I've gathered so far about these:
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
If the invention isn't something that could one day be plausibly taught in computer science classes which are academically oriented (as opposed to training for a specific platform, language, application suite, etc.), at either the undergraduate or graduate level, then it shouldn't be patentable. A similar test could be devised for hardware patents.
It's that simple.
Remember when Apple resembled the androgynous athlete more than the creepy old Big Brother dude on the TV? I do...
Multi-touch has been invented many times. It was even publicly documented in 1985:Multi-touch prior art.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.
What, exactly? I don't know
Nokia demanded in addition to the money that Apple let them use, royalty free, a number of Apple patents.
As you note, this is not exactly "non-discriminatory" since Nokia makes no-one else do this.
That is why in the end the Nokia suit will be dismissed, and as you note they may well face additional punishment from the standards body they claimed to offer the patents under RAND terms to.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But Nokia wanted more from Apple for these patents than they did from anyone else.
Really? So, exactly how much did Nokia want from Apple?
And exactly how much did the other licensees pay?
Deleted
Digital Daily's posted Nokia's Motion to Dismiss in its entirety: http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100315/nokia-appl-follo/
Legal Alchemy? iPad Magic?
Is this Cupertino we're talking about or Hogwarts?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Stop using the title to write your comments and you will be fine.
Magic. Cause Apple dose not employ alchemists. They have Wizards.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
RAND terms only applied IF you developed and contributed to the standard.
RAND terms SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED everyone who came along afterwards and wanted to use / licence GSM.
Apple DID NOT help develop GSM.
Apple REFUSED to accept non-RAND GSM licencing terms.
These are the facts. These are ALL the facts.
http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
Yes, that is true. Apple is not part of RAND, so RAND term do not apply to them.
That goes counter to how I've always understood the whole point if RAND to be. If you're correct, then no company that ever wanted to use a GSM chip, but was unable to have participated in the creation of the standard due to, oh, I don't know, not having existed at the time or some other equally lame reason would be effectively excluded from being able to make use of this standard in any practical way.
I suspect you're thinking of more normal cross-licensing agreements. Because that's what you've described. If not...extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
jefferson as in thomas jefferson
It has been pretended by some that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.
he basically says patents are bullshit.
Read radical news here
The lawyers are happy, and everyone is paying lots of money. At this rate, at some future point it will hopefully become unaffordable to litigate over software patents, and all companies who do so will go the way of SCO.
Where's the trolling in my post? I am merely pointing out what seems to be being left out of these discussions - the actual nature of the cases.
I guess there's someone with a serious axe to grind against Apple with mod points. Shame.
You keep posting these 'facts' about cross-licensing. You're basically wrong. RTF Filing. From Statement of facts, p 4-5
In late 2007, Apple and Nokia began negotiating a potential license agreement for Nokia's patents essential to the ETSI standards (id. 86). Apple admits that, at the start of the negotiations, and again in September 2009, Nokia offered license terms to Nokia's essential patents that did not require Apple to grant any license back to Apple's non-essential patents (id. 86, 91).3 Apple acknowledges its rejection of Nokia's "standard" license terms (id. 85, 91, 92). Apple's unhappiness about these offers seems only to be that Nokia was asking for what Apple considered too much money for Nokia's essential patents (see id. 91).
Apple also admits that "Nokia defined both a portfolio rate and an average per patent royalty rate" that did not require any
license-back of non-essential patents (id. Answer to 44). Once again, Apple's only problem with these offers is the amount of money involved (id. 91).
Again, according to Nokia's filing, there was an offer to cross-license, but it was Apple that first made it.
Apple further admits that it was willing to grant Nokia a cross-license to certain Apple patents that are not claimed to be essential to any of the standards listed above (id. 87). Apple avers that, in Spring 2008, Nokia made another license offer, proposing Apple expand its prior offer to give Nokia the right to pick a limited number of Apple non-essential patents that would be licensed (id. 89). Apple states that it rejected the proposal (id.).
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of righteous anger.
RAND terms only applied IF you developed and contributed to the standard.
Um, wrong much?
From everyone's favorite source:
"companies agree that if they receive any patents on technologies which become essential to the standard then they agree to allow other groups attempting to implement the standard to use those patents and they agree that the charges for those patents shall be reasonable"
There is absolutely nothing involved in being part of the standards body to receive RAND terms. If you're part of the standards body you have to extend RAND terms.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Apple, Microsoft and every other company in the business seems to do this pretty often. Did Apple sue Microsoft on the Window's GUI way back when- something they both stole from Xerox?
Else Apple HAS to sell me in Holland music for 1 dollar and NOT 1 euro. Or are there different rules for companies then for consumers?
And Nokia doesn't sell the licenses, it uses cross-licensing which every other player in the industry does all well to ensure against patent cases like this. But Apple has no patents. So, Apple is not asking to pay what everyone else pays because nobody else pays with just cash.
Jobs reality distortion field seems to be fully in effect on you.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
The early phone industry faced very long and complex wars over patent thickets for quite some time. Who had the patent on what parts of the Telephone? Who had patents on various bits of electromechanical switch technology? Cell phones too are very, very patent-laden.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Nope.
Chuck Manson got to it first.
Though some ancillary patents are held by the estate of Jim Jones.
There were even a couple filed afterwards by some guy named Khoresh in Waco Texas.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Wikipedia is always 100% correct and always 100% legal... mmmhummm. Thats why my university profs want me to quote ONLY from it.
Nokia's case just continues to get more ridiculous. This is the kind of thing you say when you have nothing to say.
What Nokia is doing is like if Intel declared that NVIDIA can't use USB wihoit turning over a free license for all NVIDIA GPU's to Intel. There's no excuse for it. Whatever RIM pays Nokia for 3G is what Apple should pay, no more, no less.
Of course there will be Slashdot posters who feel that all Apple IP should be liberated for use by the whole industry rather than the industry having to design their own gear. Nokia is calling that tune and you will dance to it. After all, why should there be any competition in tech, right? If Apple spent the last 15 years building next-generation software and Nokia spent the same time making feature phones, why shouldn't Nokia be able to just take what they need from Apple in order to catch up in the smartphone era? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.
If Apple is buying off the shelf chips for its GSM transmitter, those come with a hidden "Tax" to actually use the chips? Why aren't the chip makers paying the royalty to Nokia if it really has patents on what those chips do?
Apple acquired lots of touch control related patents when they acquired Fingerworks several years ago.
Please shut up when you don't know what you are talking about instead of spouting off like you actually know something about the subject.
But Apple is not a member of that group and therefore not entitled to those rates.
If they invalidated software patents, Apple's whole bullshit portfolio would evaporate, meaning fewer bullshit patent cases. Nokia's parents would remain valid of course because they're actual technological patents resulting from serious research.
In fact, best possible outcome technologically speaking would be Apple's software patents being invalidated, while Apple owing Nokia some small but non-trivial fee for every iPhone shipped, and then Nokia reinvesting that money in further technological advances and MeeGo.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Nokia's claim against Apple involves patents Nokia has that are based on industry standards. Where does Nokia's innovation start and where does industry standard end? Can you patent an industry standard? Can you charge license fees that rely on an industry standard? What of the companies involved in the standard - do they now have to pay to use what they developed? Apple's claim against Nokia does not involve's standards but rather patents it owns on mobile device hardware, software, interface... Apple is in a good position on a few of its claims against Nokia. Industry experts believe Nokia and Apple will Settle based on the strength of Apple's claims against Nokia.
I herewith propose the use of the expression "legal alchemy" to describe the creative usage of ones own patents, but with more effort put into legal than technical creativity.
Not to be confused with the Patent Troll, which refers to maliciuos use of aquired patents with no creativity at all.
bickerdyke
You linked to the general definition of RAND. There's nothing in the definition that precludes some form of "limited RAND", where the terms are only applied to a members of a specific group, and not outside of it.
In any case, every time this Nokia vs Apple topic is raised on Slashdot, I see this very same exchange about RAND. However, neither the side that claims GSM is RAND-licensed to everyone, nor the side which claims some kind of "limited RAND", have offered any definite sources. I've tried to find it on GSM Association website on my own, but wasn't successful.
Until then, both yours and GP's claims are just speculation, and the actual licensing terms for GSM specs, and how they apply to this situation, are unclear.
so the downfall really begins. When as a company you realize that the only way you are going to survive is to sue those that compete with you out of business, you are on the way out. If like the Music Business, Hollywood and now Apple, you have a huge amounts of money and a large eager fan base you might pull it out for awhile, but unless you 'think different' you are on the way out. I think MS might be on the same ride, the major difference between MS and the others is the number of profitable areas it has (Consumer electronics, Office software, operating systems, business systems, consumer application market, gaming, etc, etc). unlike the others that are very highly focused. Apple only makes consumer electronics an some software to support it, Hollywood and the Music industry only make the one product each (expect the parent companies to make it though as they are mostly more like MS) This might allow MS to survive the death of one or more core market areas in the long run (Like Sony could survive the loss of BMG).
Nice editing to bad you missed a key part.
" The normal case is that when joining the standardization body , companies agree that if they receive any patents on technologies which become essential to the standard then they agree to allow other groups attempting to implement the standard to use those patents and they agree that the charges for those patents shall be reasonable. RAND licenses allow a competitive market to develop between multiple companies making products which implement a standard."
You must be a part of the standardization body to get the full benefits.
EOM
people keep bringing up apple's complaint of nokia charging higher license fees to them
the thing is though the other companies that are paying the license fees
the larger names in the game actually contribute their r&d back for everyone to benefit
companies like toshiba, sony/ericsson, motorola, nec, ti, etc
they continue their r&d into wireless communications for everyone to benefit
then there are vanilla phone designers that are paying the higher license fee
why? because they don't do r&d.
now lets take a look back at apple
they want the benefits of a wireless r&d company, without actually doing the r&d
so if apple got the rate they want, wouldn't the terms be unreasonable?
i'm not saying apple are bad here
if they didn't try to get the most benefit for the least cost their shareholders would bail
i'm just saying there's two sides to every story
Good God, did you even read what you pasted?
The normal case is that when joining the standardization body , companies agree that if they receive any patents on technologies which become essential to the standard then they agree to allow other groups attempting to implement the standard to use those patents and they agree that the charges for those patents shall be reasonable. RAND licenses allow a competitive market to develop between multiple companies making products which implement a standard.
That paragraph says what diamondsw and I were saying. Not what GuyFawkes was trying to say.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
"Well, if that's the case, Apple would have paid up already" How do you know that? How do you know that Apple didn't WANT to license their patents (say, their look n feel that Apple feel are their market advantage) and so refuse.
The FAQ on 3GPP.org is very clear on the terms:
What is the 3GPP IPR Policy?
The 3GPP Organizational Partners have agreed that their IPR policies should be respected and that their respective members should be encouraged to declare "their willingness to grant licenses on fair reasonable terms and conditions and on non discriminatory basis" (Article 3.1 of the Third Generation Partnership Project). For more information Look Here >>>
The above-mentioned principles are further reflected in Article 55 of the 3GPP Technical Working Procedures which request that each Individual Members should declare "at the earliest opportunity, any IPR which they believe to be essential, or potentially essential, to any work ongoing within 3GPP".
What is the 3GPP policy on licensing?
Some aspects of 3GPP systems are covered by essential Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) - that is, patented technologies without which equipment cannot be implemented. The IPR vests in - i.e. the patents are held by - individual companies, and not by 3GPP itself or any of its Organizational Partners (OPs). All Individual Members of 3GPP abide by the IPR policies of the OP to which they belong; all such policies are broadly similar (see FAQ 3.1), and require IPR holders to make licences available to all third parties, whether or not they are 3GPP Individual Members, under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.
A good find, thank you. That said, if I understand it correctly, 3GPP only covers GSM 3G patents, not the older GSM patents; the latter is what GSM Association is all about.
3GPP includes as well the original GSM (2G, phase 1) specification and my interpretation therefore is that patents related to GSM phase 1 fall under RAND as well.
GSM standardization activities started in 1982 (GSM == Groupe Spécial Mobile). In 1989 the responsibilities were transferred to ETSI and in 1990 Phase 1 was completed. That means, the original GSM technologies should be patent free (20 year).
3GPP initially copied the ETSI specifications and started working with that as a basis.
The GSM Association you refer to is according my knowledge not working on any technical standardization. They seem to be more operator focused.
Thanks that's very clarifying. But how are the contracts actually implemented?
It appears the patents are not simply offered under a fixed license, like say a GPLed program. Each case requires separate negotiation. So what happens if a patent holder blocks that process?
I'd naively imagine that, as the patents are not distributed under a fixed license, the licensee must ultimately appeal to 3GPP itself if they feel the terms are unfair, no?
If A and B enter into a contract, and A reneges, then B has a very strong case against A. If C is hurt by A reneging, they won't have nearly so strong a case.
We've then got all the sticky issues like : Apple declining the initial offer that places essential IPR under FRAND terms. Apple's ongoing infringement. And all how both companies will throw in tangentially relevant patents. etc.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Yes, but the issue seems far more complex :
(1) Nokia says their first offer placed GSM essential patents under FRAND terms, proposing additional cross licensing only for non-essential patents.
(2) Who enforces Apple's access to FRAND terms? I'd imagine the FRAND obligations are spelled out in contracts between Nokia and 3GPP.
(3) Apple has now been violating these patents for several years now. It's doubtful that FRAND terms apply to past infringement.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
The implementation of this all is left to the owners of the IPR. 3GPP only wants to ensure that nobody can block others from implementing the specification. Guess it is up to the local courts to decide what is fair.
Without having insight, I assume that in this case the discussion is more about the value estimation of the IPR portfolios. My guess is that Nokia does not consider the Apple portfolio as very valuable for them as the only need a part of the Apple IPRs.
And as an other poster pointed out, the discussion could be as wel regarding a per-unit fee based on sales price. As Apple is into deals with operators (keeping initial price low) they might not like Nokia going for the secondary payments.
Again, all is guessing. We will need to wait.
If Apple can create "Legal Alchemy" that must mean Nokia is a witch!
I say burn the witches!
As in usually but not always.
Just because most RAND agreements are written in such a way does not mean that the GSM RAND was written that way.
Till we actually see the terms no one really knows.
Sure, but if you wanted to show that the GSM patents were not meant to be available under RAND terms to non-members, why the hell did you quote that passage? All it says is, "Usually when you patent something and get it added to a standard, you have to license it under RAND terms."
That would be like being asked for evidence that the grass outside your window was red, and saying, "Well, usually, grass is green."
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.