Apple Agrees To Pay Licensing Fees To Nokia

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."

Comments

$1 up front $0.01 per device

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[UnknowingFool]

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

[Teufelsmuhle]

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

[Chrisq]

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.

Re:$1 up front $0.01 per device

[gnasher719]

And to remember: Nokia wanted access to some of Apple's user interface IP, probably to use that IP in Symbian. Now Nokia is going to build Windows phones, these patents wouldn't be Nokia's problem anymore, but Microsoft's problems. And the public's perception of the lawsuit may have changed: Two years ago it was the phone giant suing the little newcomer; now it looks more like a desperate move (when you can't succeed in the market you try to "monetize your intellectual property").

Re:$1 up front $0.01 per device

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

That wouldn't be "speculation"

Re:$1 up front $0.01 per device

[cyberstealth1024]

Sweet! Lisa FTW!

Re:$1 up front $0.01 per device

[shutdown -p now]

Wasn't Nokia specifically asking for multitouch patents?

wait a sec

[StripedCow]

I thought Apple was the company doing all the innovation.

Re:wait a sec

[MusedFable]

As if software patents had anything to do with innovation.

Re:wait a sec

[cgeys]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Apple was the company doing all the innovation.

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

Re:wait a sec

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[ByOhTek]

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

Re:wait a sec

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:wait a sec

[LoganDzwon]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[StripedCow]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Apple was the religion doing all the immolation.

There, I fixed that for you. ;)

Re:wait a sec

[UnknowingFool]

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

[makomk]

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.

As far as I'm aware, most of Apple's multi-touch patents are for the software end of multi-touch. For example, they've patented a wide variety of gestures and uses for them within applications. The actual hardware is developed and built by other companies, and presumably they're the ones that own most of the hardware patents.

Re:wait a sec

[mjwx]

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.

In all fairness, your post is misleading.

Apple was trying to claim that Nokia patents not covered under RAND were covered under RAND and not pay the fee's that other companies who want to use these patents pay.

Re:wait a sec

[UnknowingFool]

Fingerworks never made software. They only made peripherals. It is unlikely that Apple bought a hardware company for software patents.

Re:wait a sec

[makomk]

Their peripherals were based on pre-existing third party hardware designs for multitouch surfaces, though; the only new feature of the Fingerworks producs was the gesture set. In their peripheral designs, those gestures might've been implemented in firmware, but Apple's since moved them all to pure software.

All this fighting...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why can't we all be friends?

No not really

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[GordonBX]

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

[tripleevenfall]

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

Re:Windows Phone 7

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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

[elrous0]

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

[pandrijeczko]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Windows Phone 7

[Anonymous Coward]

/. needs a +1 Deluded mod tag.

Re:Windows Phone 7

[Anonymous Coward]

It would apply well to your post...

Re:Windows Phone 7

[pandrijeczko]

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

[pandrijeczko]

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

[petteyg359]

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.

Re:Windows Phone 7

[UnknowingFool]

I have to disagree with you in that Zune was a good product; I have to remind you that it is now dead. Also MS spent a lot of money marketing it; they just did a fantastically bad job. As for the Xbox, it hasn't made back initial investment yet. MS has been known to spend lots of money on products; outside their core software products it has not been financially successful for most of them.

Re:Windows Phone 7

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect, you may have a higher level of delusion. Adding to your level of delusion (+1) means you are more deluded while subtracting your level of delusion (-1) moves you more towards a fact based understanding of the world.

Re:Windows Phone 7

[fermion]

Patent infringement lawsuits can be dramatic, but almost always are not. Case in point is that we still see MS selling MS Office.

There has been much written about Nokia failures to respond to the disruptive market conditions caused by RIM and Apple. Remember 5 years ago RIM was the object of lawsuits because it was the company that was going to make all the legecy mobile phone manufacturers go bankrupt. Now that Apple is the big new kid on the block, the legacy mobile firms refused to let it into the club, so Apple had to fight for entry. There is no danger, consumers are not going to let the iPhone go away any more than they are going to let MS Office go away. It is just a question of how the law can be applied so that the victim can be compensated enough not to lose face, and the product can remain available.

Sure Nokia has a lot of basic research patents, and Apple does not. This makes Apple vulnerable. Do you think this is why it took an Apple to get a phone that is for the end user, not the telco, out the door? Because the patent holders wanted to keep the inflated profits flowing even with no real benefit to the end user? Apple pays for any all half-ass patents. Just look at the one-click thing. Nokia tried to avoid original products by misusing it's patent and market share. It got slapped and now is teamed with MS that doesn't have a mass market phone because it also abuses market share rather than coming out with original products. A match made in heaven.

Re:Windows Phone 7

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 Pedantic

Re:Windows Phone 7

[s73v3r]

That were never really popular.

Re:Windows Phone 7

[node 3]

"Fanboi" is a compound word, with one part based on the word "fanatic". It's quite clear that "anti-Apple fanatic" sums up your posts here quite well.

And, since you are so eager to use the term yourself, anti-Apple fanboi.

Re:Windows Phone 7

[wavedeform]

While Nokia has taken a hammering because they can't seem to get a smartphone out the door

They've gotten lots of smart phones out the door. Just not ones that very many people wanted.

Re:Windows Phone 7

[Pierre-Arnaud]

A year or two ago ? When Apple was a quarter of what it is now ?

Have you any proof of a threat Google ever was for Apple, or are you just bragging ?

What you want is not the biggest market shares, it is the good ones... Google's good shares are the ones bringing advertisement, Apple's ones are the ones bringing upfront cash.

Surprise, so long, cash proved much more monetizable than advertisement.

The only threat here is Freetardism opposing Fanboism.

Re:Windows Phone 7

[Kalriath]

The Nokia N-Series was.

Re:Windows Phone 7

[mjwx]

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.

That says more about Sony's hubris then MS's acumen. Nintendo's response was to look at what console gamers actually wanted and produce a system that was radically different to both MS's and Sony's offerings which earned bucketloads of cash for Nintendo.

The Xbox program is a massive money sink for MS, even now the Xbox 360 is being sold for a profit but it took over 6 years to get to that point, they still haven't managed to return to profitability.

MS is still funded by OS sales, Office sales and Server products. Almost nothing else shows up as black on their P&L statements. The fact is, MS can afford this where as Sony (and Nintendo) cant.

Finally, yes, I had an (original) Xbox because of it's hackability, as for this generation, I have a Wii because I've got friends.

Re:Windows Phone 7

[mjwx]

That were never really popular.

Blackberry was never popular?

Re:Windows Phone 7

[pandrijeczko]

Erm, you get modded -1 Troll or -1 Off-Topic, both of which are negative attributes.

Therefore you need to accept you are wrong and have lost.

Re:Windows Phone 7

[pandrijeczko]

And, since you are so eager to use the term yourself, anti-Apple fanboi.

Thanks. I take that as a compliment.

Re:Windows Phone 7

[s73v3r]

In the business market they were. But they were never popular in the consumer market, and still aren't.

Re:Windows Phone 7

[mjwx]

In the business market they were. But they were never popular in the consumer market, and still aren't.

So what you're saying is that Blackberries were popular, in the larger market (yes, business was and is still the more significant market for phones, especially smart phones).

Re:Windows Phone 7

[s73v3r]

yes, business was and is still the more significant market for phones, especially smart phones

I would STRONGLY disagree with that statement. Especially if you look at the growth of smartphones in the consumer market since the introduction of the iPhone, and later the Android phones. Even more so if you look at the marketshare graphs over the same time, and see Apple/Android eating Microsoft and RIM's lunch.

It won't keep Nokia alive

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[tripleevenfall]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[sunderland56]

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

[Luckyo]

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

[Luckyo]

"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

[peppepz]

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.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive

[SenseiLeNoir]

I humbly disagree. I am European, and i can say, that although Nokia was never "bad", they didn't always have the "tech" hardware, or software, their price tags warrented.

I have owned, or had access to a huge variaty of phones from 1997, to present, including the Nokia 8110 ( the Matrix phone), 6150, 6210, 8210, Ericsson T68, T610, P800, S700, K800, N95, Moto v3i, and many other brands, including HTC, and Apple.

Take the early days (1995 - 1996) when i first got my mobile phone. Of the "big three", Nokia Ericsson and Motorola. Moto was known for "cheaper" but relatively solid, if basic phones. Nokia's flagship was the 2110, and Ericsson had the EH337. The Ericsson phone was by far better build quality, was more robust, had more "features".

Nokia then brought out the 8110 in 1996 (the same phone that later appeared in the Matrix) and that phone pushed Nokia into the market due to its style, and "number of ringtones". However, the phone was not as well built as Ericsson, and arguably lacked many key features (keyguard, clock, etc). the Phone was a marketting success for Nokia, not nessesarily a tech one. I had one myself.

After that, Nokia improved their platform, starting with the 6110, the 2110, which launched the infamous "nokia ui" together with the prorietry Ringtones/Logos, etc. The current Series 40 is an evolution from that. Right up until 2001 with the release of Ericsson T68, Nokia had the UI experience that beat other manufacturers.

Their tech may have not always been the most advanced: indeed Others had POP email, Bluetooth, open ringtones/picture support. Nokia's first bluetooth implementations were a joke, with phones being shipped with bluetooth on and discoverable as standard, resulting in those Nokia users being easy pickings for BlueJacking. Even today, Nokias implementation of Bluetooth although a lot better than android/iphone/ and most others, are still not as good as most comparable Sony Ericsson feature phones, still not supporting multi connections. Their email support still doesnt support IMAP idle in a sane way (Sony ericssons have been supporting that since the K800i)

However the Nokia UI, and propritry customisations drove the market. The problem for nokia came when they originally released the Series 60, they wanted to emulate the Original Nokia UI as much as possible. It was argued that UIQ by Symbian was a better implementation, which would have been more "touch friendly" from the go, as it was already a pen interface.

This was what caused the huge legacy problems in the future. When I got my Nokia N95, although i was really impressed by the hardware, the tech was amazing, the software was really confusing, and long in the tooth. For example:
- Nokia still has the same T9 implementation it had on earlier phones, whereas other manufactureres have improved the technology incredibly.
- 3 different places to set varies WiFi parameters (grrr)
- disjointed settings, lack of clarity.

This was the reason Nokia messed up. IT wasnt as much that the Apple iphone touch interface was soo "good", whcih admittedly it was, it was more the case that Series 60 became so "bad", and apple just polished up.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive

[Zebedeu]

a bastardised java VM driving OS in android

Admittedly though, a VM is the best bet for a current smartphone OS, since nobody can say in which architecture your phone will be running in 2 years, let alone 5.

Besides, Android's now moving from smartphones to tablets, to car stereos, TVs, and who knows what else.
Using native code for apps would kill their options to grow in the future. MS also saw that, and so did Palm.

I don't know about Apple or RIM, I think they compile their apps to native code. While that's a better idea on the short term, eventually they'll want to run on a different architecture, and have to choose between using an inferior arch; dropping all legacy apps; or running them in "emulation mode", which is usually worse than a VM.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive

[tripleevenfall]

Having handsets turned on today is no indication that your place in the market will be there in a year. They had residual market share with a dying OS that was being left further and further in the dust over time.

RIM has a big chunk of market share too, but that doesn't mean they are in wonderful shape. I'm certain that RIM sees the bottom coming up at them too.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive

[exomondo]

In Q1 2011, even after Elop killed it at the beginning of the year, Symbian's worldwide marketshare was 24%.

To which had plummeted around 40% in past couple of years.

The sales of Windows Phone, the supposed saviour of Nokia, sum up to 2.5%, ten times lower than the dead Symbian.

But with potential to grow, unlike Symbian that is rapidly dying. The question is would you rather jump on board an existing established OS (Android) where you bring little to the market or be responsible for bringing marketshare to a fledgling operating system?

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive

[peppepz]

But with potential to grow, unlike Symbian that is rapidly dying.

But I question the factual consistence of both of these statements: what theoretical suppositions support WP's hope of growth, and what pratical facts confirm them?
What made it impractical to keep the declining Symbian alive, while the switch to Maemo was being completed?

The question is would you rather jump on board an existing established OS (Android) where you bring little to the market or be responsible for bringing marketshare to a fledgling operating system?

If I was to launch a new product line to suit the specific taste of the USA market, while keeping alive the products that are successful in the rest of the world, then I could think about betting on an emerging operating system, yes.

On the other hand, if I was to kill all of my current products, destroy my development and services ecosystem, irreversibly burn all bridges toward any "plan b", then of course I would make sure to choose a successful OS instead of an unproven one.
And moreover, I wouldn't have done it one year before the new products are ready; but that's another story.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive

[exomondo]

But with potential to grow, unlike Symbian that is rapidly dying.

But I question the factual consistence of both of these statements: what theoretical suppositions support WP's hope of growth, and what pratical facts confirm them?

I don't see how you can question the factual consistence of the rapid decline of Symbian, it's all blindingly obvious.
Given that WP has a good user experience and rapidly growing app store coupled with an announced update bringing it to general feature-parity with iOS and Android means it certainly is a viable competitor and thus has potential for growth in the market.

What made it impractical to keep the declining Symbian alive, while the switch to Maemo was being completed?

Probably the fact that it was completely uncompetitive in terms of user experience. Maemo just wasn't successful (great for hackers, not so much for the general populace), so they merged with Moblin for Meego, but even then the versions that were available and progress being made were painful, who knows how long it would take to get it working much less have a competitive user experience.

On the other hand, if I was to kill all of my current products, destroy my development and services ecosystem, irreversibly burn all bridges toward any "plan b"

They aren't killing all of their current projects, not sure where you got that from. They aren't destroying their services ecosystem, again not sure where you got that from. Irreversibly burn all bridges? I don't see any evidence to support that either.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive

[peppepz]

I don't see how you can question the factual consistence of the rapid decline of Symbian, it's all blindingly obvious.

decline != death. If you put things this way, the commercial failure (in the same time span) of WP7 is even more obvious.

Given that WP has a good user experience

Subjective. So far very few users found that interface worth of being bought.

and rapidly growing app store

Its growth was "doped" by microsoft funding applications development, and letting developers post more than 20 "applications" per day. Nokia already had an app store up and running, with a bigger, and growing, download count. But they announced overnight they'd be closing it. This is what I call "burning bridges".

coupled with an announced update bringing it to general feature-parity with iOS and Android means it certainly is a viable competitor and thus has potential for growth in the market.

I don't know about iOS, but certainly it's not even remotely on feature parity with Android. If we look at features, WP7 is the most disadvantaged OS, missing some features which can be found on Nokia's S40 featurephones.

Probably the fact that it was completely uncompetitive in terms of user experience.

There were plans to fix that using Qt, which is perfectly competitive in terms of development experience. Nokia failed to execute those plans in a reasonable amount of time, but much smaller companies (e.g. Opera) managed to obtain much better results on the very same platform. This means that the problem was more within Nokia than in the OS.

Maemo just wasn't successful (great for hackers, not so much for the general populace), so they merged with Moblin for Meego, but even then the versions that were available and progress being made were painful, who knows how long it would take to get it working much less have a competitive user experience.

That's why they were developing Maemo 6, which is in a much more advanced state of completion than Meego. The few ones who knew about Maemo, could afford it, and bought the N900, were satisfied with the product (not so much with the support that Nokia gave to the platform...).

They aren't killing all of their current projects, not sure where you got that from.

They are ditching Symbian in one year, with no future plans for it. This means that nobody wise will develop anything for it. This means in turn that nobody wise will buy Symbian handsets (if not for the "Nokia" brand printed on them). They are ditching Meego as well, and before launching their first handset they announced that they won't release any more phones running it. Does that bode well for future sales of those products?

They aren't destroying their services ecosystem, again not sure where you got that from. Irreversibly burn all bridges? I don't see any evidence to support that either.

They're dropping the Ovi services (while Apple announces similar services for the iPhone as the "big new feature" of iOS 5). They're dismantling their development network. They provide no migration path from Qt to Windows Phone 7 after they had been telling all of their developers to invest in Qt training. They're killing all their development tools to adopt Microsoft's ones. I call this "burning bridges" because in the future people will think twice before investing again in development for Nokia platforms, imho.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive

[exomondo]

decline != death. If you put things this way, the commercial failure (in the same time span) of WP7 is even more obvious.

No, get your facts right, WP7 has not had a decline like Symbian.

Subjective. So far very few users found that interface worth of being bought.

A hell of a lot less users found Maemo to be worth using, so by your logic WP7 is miles in front of Maemo.

I don't know about iOS, but certainly it's not even remotely on feature parity with Android. If we look at features, WP7 is the most disadvantaged OS, missing some features which can be found on Nokia's S40 featurephones.

You clearly haven't looked through the Mango update changes. The fact is the features in nokia's smartphones clearly aren't enough to attract users away from platforms like Android and iOS even though Nokia had over a decade headstart in the market.

There were plans to fix that using Qt, which is perfectly competitive in terms of development experience.

And they took far too long and got left behind with a MASSIVE decline in marketshare.

Nokia failed

Damn right, they needed a drastic change of plans.

The few ones who knew about Maemo, could afford it, and bought the N900, were satisfied with the product (not so much with the support that Nokia gave to the platform...).

The only people that bought them were geeks, it has never been a consumer-level platform. I had an N900 and as a handheld linux computer it was great, as a phone it was not, the problem is the general populace does not want a handheld linux computer, they prefer something like android where linux is invisible to them. It is bulky, heavy, the touchscreen isn't great, it lacked the responsiveness of modern smartphones (unless you overclocked the crap out of it), the built in applications are slow (the mail client is particularly awful).

They are ditching Symbian in one year, with no future plans for it.

They aren't killing all their current products though, all their low-end phones will still exist.

They're dropping the Ovi services (while Apple announces similar services for the iPhone as the "big new feature" of iOS 5).

Show me where they've said that, AFAIK they are integrating features from their Ovi services (particularly maps) into MS's offerings.

They provide no migration path from Qt to Windows Phone 7 after they had been telling all of their developers to invest in Qt training.

Of course not, they aren't compatible platforms.

If Nokia had focussed on Maemo in the early days of the project it could have been a viable competitor by now, but it never progressed enough to appeal to the general consumers and it's too late now.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive

[peppepz]

No, get your facts right, WP7 has not had a decline like Symbian.

Nobody talked about decline for WP7. Of course WP7 isn't declining, it's new, so when compared to zero, any sale would be better than that. However, if you compare its sales to Windows Mobile, then it's more than a decline, it's a crash. And by the way, Windows Mobile is still selling more than WP7.

My facts are, that a lot less people buy Symbian than in the past, and almost nobody buys WP7.

A hell of a lot less users found Maemo to be worth using, so by your logic WP7 is miles in front of Maemo.

And it would be entertaining if it wasn't so, given the difference in the amount of resources thrown behind the two projects.

You clearly haven't looked through the Mango update changes.

Yes I did, they're the bare minimum to call an OS "smartphone" in 2011. HTM5? Multitasking? Threaded messages? Podcasts? I would be surprised if they sold "smart" phones in 2010/2011 without them. And in fact, they didn't sell many.

The fact is the features in nokia's smartphones clearly aren't enough to attract users away from platforms like Android and iOS even though Nokia had over a decade headstart in the market.

The fact is that today, after almost five years of decline, Nokia still sells more smartphones than Apple. I'll repeat it, Nokia still sells more smartphones than Apple. So whatever they had done wrong in the past, they still had margins to fix it.

The only people that bought them were geeks, it has never been a consumer-level platform.

That's because Nokia relegated it in that position with their stupid internal competition. This was going to change when Maemo became Nokia's flagship platform. We'll see what the potential results could have been when the N950 is out.

They aren't killing all their current products though, all their low-end phones will still exist.

S40 tough. They've been very clear about canceling their plans to move Symbian to low-end phones (and I don't understand why - such an announcement unnecessarily damaged Symbian and was only advantageous to Microsoft).

Show me where they've said that, AFAIK they are integrating features from their Ovi services (particularly maps) into MS's offerings.

Go to ovi.com and see what's remaining - only music, store (soon to become only a "channel" in WP7 store or something like that) and maps (soon to become the mapping provider for WP7).

Of course not, they aren't compatible platforms.

A migration path was still possible. I'm not talking about binary compatibility.

If Nokia had focussed on Maemo in the early days of the project it could have been a viable competitor by now, but it never progressed enough to appeal to the general consumers and it's too late now.

Then it would be too late for WP7 too, since on the market it's almost non-existent now, and Mango won't be here before autumn.

The truth is that it's impossible to develop a competitive mobile OS in a little more than a year. Apple took much longer than that, and Google took much, much longer than that. It wasn't too late when Apple kicked in, and likewise it wasn't too late when Android arrived.

Re:It won't keep Nokia alive

[exomondo]

My facts are, that a lot less people buy Symbian than in the past, and almost nobody buys WP7.

Symbian is declining rapidly, WP7 is growing very slowly.

Yes I did, they're the bare minimum to call an OS "smartphone" in 2011. HTM5? Multitasking? Threaded messages? Podcasts? I would be surprised if they sold "smart" phones in 2010/2011 without them.

So what are the features missing that make it so far from feature-parity with Android and iOS?

And in fact, they didn't sell many.

Yet they sold an absolute boatload more in 8 months than Maemo in its 5 year life.

The fact is that today, after almost five years of decline, Nokia still sells more smartphones than Apple. I'll repeat it, Nokia still sells more smartphones than Apple. So whatever they had done wrong in the past, they still had margins to fix it.

Nokia's margin on phones is *FAR* less than Apples, they make *FAR* less profit on the phones they sell.

That's because Nokia relegated it in that position with their stupid internal competition. This was going to change when Maemo became Nokia's flagship platform. We'll see what the potential results could have been when the N950 is out.

That's absolutely nothing but baseless speculation. The product was there, basically no-one wanted it.

Go to ovi.com and see what's remaining - only music, store (soon to become only a "channel" in WP7 store or something like that) and maps (soon to become the mapping provider for WP7).

So like i said the haven't killed all their services.

A migration path was still possible. I'm not talking about binary compatibility.

Like what? The OS paradigms are completely different.

Then it would be too late for WP7 too, since on the market it's almost non-existent now, and Mango won't be here before autumn.

Maemo had been on the market for 5 years before WP7 came out and yet it still has gotten nowhere.

Why isn't this public information

[Super Dave Osbourne]

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

[tripleevenfall]

I agree. It are scandalous.

Re:Why isn't this public information

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it are!

Re:Why isn't this public information

[bws111]

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

[peppepz]

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

[drinkypoo]

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

Re:Why isn't this public information

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the Board of Directors of both companies will know all the details, maybe even knew ahead of time and voted approval already.

Re:Why isn't this public information

[Tjp($)pjT]

They (the litigants) cross licensed some of their patents according to the publicly available news. They don't want this public because in all likelihood they don't want the other potential licensees to have any idea of the deals details so they can get a fair value in licensing the others those same patents. Just like MS makes $5 off each Android phone, there may be other people lining up to get something from the other phone makers based on these Apple and Nokia patents. The balance of payments favors the one with the weaker portfolio of patents usually. If they publicize the settlement they also would inform competitors of which patents were thought to be weak, which they don't want to do either. Much of this amounts to corporate marketing and competitive strategy. You don't, as a company, want to tell everyone, for example, that you have negotiated a deal with some chinese manufacturer to create a second stream of parts for 1/2 the current price because it allows all your competitors to jump on and potentially make a better deal too. There is little difference in licensing agreements.

Terms of the agreement has not been disclosed

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[bill_mcgonigle]

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

Re:Nokia agressed and won

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Nokia agressed and won

[pinkushun]

It sounds like a schoolyard grudge:

Here is a brief history of the patent lawsuits between Nokia and Apple.

- In October 2009, Nokia started off the patent war against Apple with a lawsuit claiming that Apple’s iPhone infringes on 10 Nokia patents related to GSM, UMTS and Wi-Fi.

-In December 2009, Apple counter sued Nokia claiming that Nokia infringes on 13 patents owned by Apple.

-Almost two weeks after Apple countersued them, Nokia filed a complaint against Apple in the International Trade Commission. The complaint claims that virtually all of Apple’s devices infringe on one of seven patents owned by Nokia that covers the UI, camera, antenna and power management.

-A few days (January 2010) after the complaint to the ITC, Nokia again went to the ITC and asked that they ban the import of all Apple products – from MacBooks to iPods.

-Two weeks after Nokia asked the ITC to ban all Apple devices, Apple responded in the same vein by asking the ITC to ban import of Nokia devices to the US.

-In May 2010, Nokia again sued Apple saying that the iPhone 3G infringes on five Nokia patents. At this point, Nokia is accusing Apple of infringing on 22 patents and Apple is accusing Nokia of infringing 13 Apple patents.

-In December 2010, Nokia again sues Apple in the UK, Germany and Netherlands claiming that the iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch infringes on 13 Nokia patents which cover issues such as UI, antenna design, messaging etc.

-In March 2011, Nokia again returned to the International Trade Commission to complain against Apple and added seven more patents to the list that they are accusing Apple of infringing. The seven new patents that Nokia is accusing Apple of infringing are related to technologies about multitasking, bluetooth, data synchronization etc.

-Finally in June 2011 (today), Apple has succumbed and has agreed to pay Nokia to license the Nokia patents.

Re:Nokia agressed and won

[gnasher719]

Fine summary, except that you leave one detail out: Apple always agreed to pay Nokia the same license fees that other phone makers are paying. Apple just disagreed with having to pay more, and allowing Nokia to use iPhone user interface patents on top of that.

From what is publicly known, nobody can say whether this is a win for Nokia, or for Apple, or a compromise. Apple was willing to pay $X + no patents, Nokia wanted $Y + patents, and now Apple is paying $Z + some patents but not the ones Nokia asked for. Since we don't know what X, Y and Z are, we don't know who won. (We can probably find out what Apple was offering and what Nokia was demanding originally; that would be a number X' less than X, and a number Y' greater than Y.

Re:Nokia agressed and won

[mjwx]

Fine summary, except that you leave one detail out: Apple always agreed to pay Nokia the same license fees that other phone makers are paying.

Fine excuse, except you leave out one detail. Apple wanted to use patents in Nokia's portfolio that were not covered under the RAND license Apple was paying.

The defending parties only make out of court deals when they know they are wrong and don't want to run the risk of paying the other sides legal fees. Apple figured out this couldn't be obfuscated in court any longer. Apple has more then enough money to fight this, so if they had a chance of wining, why wouldn't they?

Common Enemy

[MrDoh!]

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).

Big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[bogaboga]

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

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[CurryCamel]

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?

[MightyYar]

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?

[jovius]

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?

[Carewolf]

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.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Please mod OT. This is stupid.

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

[clifyt]

If someone has something in their sig that is stupid, I'm going to comment on it...it was an Apple topic, so it really isn't that far off.

You are just upset that I have a belief different than your own...and that you realize yours is wrong.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Just install Cygwin on windows boxes to get a great shell. After doing that I have no complaints and I think Windows + Cygwin is better than OSX, but that is just personal preference (and yes, I have a macbook and iPad).

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, someone has to pay, their only source of revenue is via law suits. Who purchases Nokia phones anymore, they are just junk?

Ruby

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

[s73v3r]

No, they thought they weren't special, and thus didn't have to give Nokia more in addition to the same license fees everyone else was paying.

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

[makomk]

It's mostly a question of how broad the standard cross-licensing agreements between phone manufacturers, I guess. I get the impression the reason this ended up in court is because they're broad enough that Apple didn't want to sign them.

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

[Kalriath]

Well everyone else was paying cash+crosslicense. Apple only wanted to pay cash, and only the same amount as the others. I.e. they wanted to pay less than everyone else.

Hence... ah screw it. You'll just revise history like every Apple fanboi does when confronted with something they don't like.

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

[pandrijeczko]

Isn't "belief" something you apply to a religion, rather than anything to do with an operating system?

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

[pandrijeczko]

This sounds like a definite attempt at verbal "depth-charging" - i.e. slinging criticism at every OS you can hoping that you will get a bit from me. So let me help you out a bit.

I'm an 80% Linux / 20% Windows user with 30 years working and hobbying with computers. Never in all those years has it once crossed my mind to part with good money for anything made by Apple, and that is unlikely to change any time soon.

Now go ahead and do your worst. But understand that I treat a computing platform as a productivity and entertaimment tool, not a fashion accessory or religious motif.

Well earned death

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Well earned death

[Anonymous Coward]

Maemo was never a factor in the market. The n900 was a sub-sub-sub 1% share. It might as well not have existed.

Re:Well earned death

[wmlele]

It *was* a factor. Sub-sub-sub 1%, but most of them were developers they managed to push away from their future platforms.

Re:Well earned death

[exomondo]

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.

Great phone for hackers, but not so much for end-users.

Re:iPhone 5...

[Splab]

Really? So iPhone 5 is dropping GSM support?

Pure VoIP phone or what?

The Lawyers won

[arcite]

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

this sucks

[martiniturbide]

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

[neurosine]

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.

womp

[Hotweed Music]

terms have not been disclosed*

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

[miffo.swe]

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.

Re:msft

[miffo.swe]

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

No means no!

The summary is wrong. Apple got what they wanted.

[CountBrass]

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

[E IS mC(Square)]

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

Bad news for Android makers

[turb]

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

[Splab]

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Bad news for Android makers

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Ah, the fun of a seeing an misinformation at work :)

No, Apple was not paying *anything*. Read the damned case filings - well, not you, but anyone who actually wants to really know what happened. Nokia approached Apple for royalties and Apple said no. Then they offered some crappy (non-essential, read irrelevant) patents as 'cross-licensing', saying those are the terms others have (where 'others' means companies who were offering actual GSM patents in return). Also note that Nokia never asked for patents in the first place, that's another piece of Apple FUD that propagated in the media. For a bag of laughs compare the patents Nokia asserted against Apple with the ones Apple used to counter-sue. Hilarious.

Disclaimer: I'm not even a Nokia fan. They had a chance to stay close to the top and blew it big time, to the point that I'd bet the company won't survive for 10 more years. But I despise the way Apple brandishes ridiculously obvious patents to stop others from eroding their mobile market share, then turns around and tries not to license patents that are actually essential in the field. And I despise even more the random schmucks that try to argue that somehow this is *right* when done by Apple. At least the company is (barely) within the normal bounds of 'try to squeeze everyone else' corporate evil.

Re:Bad news for Android makers

[ergo98]

I see that you're getting talking points from the internet's biggest misinformed windbag, Fleurian Miller (seriously, that guy is just a stream of baseless, misinformed bullshit. How he gets linked by anyone is a marvel).

Nokia sued over GSM patents, as clearly Nokia had a pretty good lead in that area. Motorola, HTC, Samsung, and others already license those patents. Apple refused. Nokia litigated and won. Those are the breaks.

So....no. Every single person who pulls the "Now they're going after Android" bit is just ignorant of basically everything about this lawsuit.

Re:Bad news for Android makers

[Anonymous Coward]

You should heed your own advice. Apple was paying the licensing fees for the mobile phone technologies managed by the 3G / CDMA consortiums which included Nokia's patents but Nokia decided it wanted more from Apple that what the consortium regularly charges.

I would like to see the terms of the agreement cause this might give Apple access to a wider range of Nokia's patents than what members of the 3G consortium provides.

This settlement might also indicate that Apple might not be bidding for Nortel. That patent portfolio would have been enough to make Nokia back off and accept it's standard 3G royalties.

Re:Bad news for Android makers

[gnasher719]

Spread some fud will ya?

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

A complaint about FUD shouldn't be followed by misinformation. Apple always _agreed_ to pay the licensing fees _everyone else_ was paying. Nokia wanted _more_ from Apple than from others, plus some iPhone user interface patents thrown in, and Apple disagreed with that.

Re:Bad news for Android makers

[turb]

You are of course assuming that only Motorola, HTC and Samsung make Android devices. I didn't make any claims wrt those companies and what they have or haven't licensed. You're right, not all makers of Android devices are in trouble unless say the Oracle case goes bad.

Rather my point is that if you make an Android device and you don't have your license agreements in place, that's not exactly a warm cozy place to be. Nokia wants (and needs) their licensing revenue.

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

[NatasRevol]

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

Better article

[LoganDzwon]

http://thisismynext.com/2011/06/14/nokia-and-apple-settle-patent-disputes-apple-to-pay-one-time-fee-and-ongoing-license-fees/ This article explains the situation much better.

Re:Better article

[chemicaldave]

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

A slice of apple pie

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:A slice of apple pie

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod up - it is only fair they pay!

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

[Carewolf]

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?

Not a cross license deal so only $$$ to Nokia?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[SeeSp0tRun]

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?

[bomanbot]

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.

Re:Patents are nothing more than a legal abstracti

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

In their defense...

[Kamiza Ikioi]

...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.

Re:In their defense...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Mozart did get's lot of free musical equipment as gifts. (Such as the piano from the pope that was said to be his primary instrument).

But to be honest that doesn't disprove your point just skew's your analogy a bit.

Re:In their defense...

[Anonymous Coward]

They design in such a way as to make people say, "What an innovation!"

No, they merely market that way. And Jobs drives his employees so that they beat everybody else to market by a few months--even if it requires cutting corners--which further makes it appear as if Apple innovates.

Re:In their defense...

[tyrione]

...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.

Two paragraphs of back handed bull shit. Bravo! Now get back to the end of the line.

Re:In their defense...

[Anonymous Coward]

to use your analogy, the problem is not about paying for the instruments. It was about the demand that Apple pay more for the instruments than other companies, plus the music store should get access to use all the previous compositions of said composer.

In other words, Nokia wanted a larger licensing fee, plus access to Apple's private patent portfolio, something that was not required from any other licensee.

If Apple managed to only settle for a monetary payment, I'd think they actually lost the battle but won the war.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the Apple Reality Distortion Field.

I remember...

[PerfectionLost]

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

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

[UnknowingFool]

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

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

[E IS mC(Square)]

Wow! Really! Never thought about it.

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

[UnknowingFool]

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

[NatasRevol]

Subsidies are what has made Apple very, very rich.

Re:Patents are nothing more than a legal abstracti

[pauljlucas]

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

[chemicaldave]

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.

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

[moronoxyd]

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

[NatasRevol]

A perfect example of where percentages are meaningless.

Nokia makes an infinite percent, but actually only $10 per phone.
Apple makes about 83 percent, but actually makes about $500 net per phone.

And why would you rather be Nokia?

No, everyone else wasy cross licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

No, everyone else wasy cross licensing. Apple thought it's look and feel patents were worth far more than the GSM patents the GSM pool had and refused to chip in like everyone else.

Most important info not released...

[manonthemoon]

The most important info was left out. The reason this all played out was that Nokia was unwilling to license to Apple on the same RAND terms that they had committed to, and used with everyone else. They wanted access to specific 'touch' patents held by Apple in addition to the usual monetary payments that Apple had always expected to pay.

We now know Apple is paying to access Nokia's patents, but:

Did Apple give access to their iPhone-related patent portfolio in return?
Did Apple pay a premium over RAND terms?
Did Nokia no longer need access to Apple's patents due to indemnity from Microsoft since they are moving to WP7?

Re:Most important info not released...

[Missing.Matter]

According to Apple:

"Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each other’s patents, but not the majority of the innovation that makes the iPhone unique"

So it seems Nokia has access to some of that portfolio, although we'll probably never know exactly what

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/technology/15nokia.html?_r=1

Re:Most important info not released...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can they keep this kind of information secret ? This seems to be the kind of information that can have a serious impact on either companies bottom line and therefor stock value.
Doesn't the SEC require this kind of information to be disclosed ?

Re:Most important info not released...

[Udo Schmitz]

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/technology/15nokia.html?_r=1

And half that NYT article consists of: "Florian Mueller, an intellectual property analyst ...", "Mr. Mueller said ...", "Mr. Mueller said ...", "Mr. Mueller said ..." and "... said Mr. Mueller".

Why does that guy still get such an amount of attention?

Re:Most important info not released...

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason this all played out was that Nokia was unwilling to license to Apple on the same RAND terms that they had committed to, and used with everyone else.

I hear this quoted all the time and I haven't seen anything else but Apple statement of this, which Nokia, iirc, denied. The other side of the story was that Nokia asked for the same percentage they asked everyone else

Apple said "Na-a"
Nokia "Well how about a fixed sum per phone"
Apple: "Hell no"
Nokia "Well how about a lower rate and we make some sort of crosslicencing deal"
Apple "Screw you guys. I'm going home"

Does anyone have anything other than "He said / She said" to support either side and if not why the hell I see only one side of this unproven claim presented as a fact? RDF?

Apple is a software company?

[Brannon]

Since when? They've been buidling hardware for >30 years and have thousands of hardware patents.

The whole case was that Nokia insisted on unfettered access to Apple's intellectual property as a condition of Apple implementing a global standard (which was supposed to be offered under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms).

Re:Apple is a software company?

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole case was that Nokia insisted on unfettered access to Apple's intellectual property as a condition of Apple implementing a global standard (which was supposed to be offered under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms).

Source? I think you are getting your news from AppleLeaks, none original terms have ever been published. As an RF engineer and having worked for Nokia I am hardly unbiased but it reminds me of a day on the beach when I was ten. Ten year old spends 4 hours building sand castle, fat twelve year old says "nice, I want it", fat twelve year old sits on ten year old's face, sticks flag in castle spire and says "mommy look".

Don't feel too bad for Apple, they will pay peanuts for a license fee, even compared to what Samsung and Motorola are paying.

Reread what you just wrote

[Brannon]

"Normally these licenses involve some sort of cross licensing".

Apple wanted to license the technology necessary to implement a global standard in telecommunications, which Nokia is required to offer via reasonable and non-discriminatory terms as per their agreements to get that global standard adopted. Nokia said, "Here's reasonable and non-discriminatory for you, send us all the patents over the iPhone so we can make an exact copy of it and we'll let you use the global standard."

But yeah, somehow Apple is the bad guy in all this.

Re:Reread what you just wrote

[s73v3r]

Doesn't "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" mean that they have to offer the same terms to Apple that they would offer to Motorola, HTC, et al?

reward for failing to run the business well

[skidisk]

Nokia innovated in the 1990s, led the industry, and then totally gagged. Apple innovates over the last few years in a new area for them (phones) and has to pay Nokia. I guess this makes sense. A little. Sorta.

Ha ha

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you Apple!

Re:So Is This An Indirect Payback...

[UnknowingFool]

Why is it you bring up the $150M payment as a "bailout" when Apple's own financial statement at the time state clearly that they were sitting on $1B in cash. Is your hatred of Apple so much that you have to invent things?

Does it matter?

[alvinrod]

I'm not even sure if most/any of patents that Apple is suing over are relevant now that Nokia has decided to use Windows Phone 7 instead of their own work that's been done on Maemo, etc. If that's the case, Apple would have to go after Microsoft too, and any damages caused to Apple by sales of Maemo devices would be laughable given the low sales figures. Apple probably got the same price as everyone else in the end and had to give up some of their own technology for it, but I don't think they care all that much now that Nokia is going to be using Microsoft's OS instead of their own (or expects Nokia's downwards spiral to continue for several more years, making them irrelevant).

When you next complain about US patent law...

[93 Escort Wagon]

Remember that European patent law apparently isn't any more enlightened. Nokia was able to sue Apple because they have patents covering GSM, UMTS, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth (or some aspects thereof)?

Re:When you next complain about US patent law...

[JAlexoi]

What's wrong with hardware patents? That was the original area of impact of patents, not what they can cover today...

Ha!

[dogx]

Ha! The next iPad and iPhone just got more expensive.. have fun with that! :)

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

[Carewolf]

Fair enough. Sounds like Apple backed down from their lawsuit, but settlements does have the benefit of being possible to portray as a win for both sides, especially if the details are kept secret.

\o/

[sixtuslab]

hooray! =)

Link

[Brannon]

http://seekingalpha.com/article/177955-apple-launches-countersuit-vs-nokia-no-punches-pulled-in-court-documents

Which of these statements is false?:

1. GSM is a global standard.
2. Nokia agreed to F/RAND standards for licensing all patents required to implement GSM as a condition of making it a global standard
3. Nokia was insisting on disproportionate value from Apple (compared to other licensees) in exchange for the licenses to implement GSM. They wanted either far more money than they were charging other licensees, or unfettered access to Apple's intellectual property (not part of any standard) on a hundred billion dollar business.

So, who is the bully and who is the victim here?

Re:Link

[shutdown -p now]

The false statement here is #3. Nokia was not insisting on disproportionate value from Apple compared to other licensees, because other licensees have brought their own patents to the table, and not just money (in some cases, those were purely cross-licensing deals). At that point, the "disproportionality" boils down to the value of those patents, which is a rather subjective measure.

However, I think that the proposed deal was likely fair to Apple, because otherwise they would have sued Nokia in EU courts for anti-competitive practices, precisely because Nokia agreed to license patents under RAND; and these things are generally taken more seriously in Europe than in US. It's also likely why they have now settled.

This article is old but a fairly thorough treatment of the matter.

Re:Link

[AmiMoJo]

Patent lawyers and consumers?

Re:Link

[Xest]

"However, I think that the proposed deal was likely fair to Apple, because otherwise they would have sued Nokia in EU courts for anti-competitive practices, precisely because Nokia agreed to license patents under RAND; and these things are generally taken more seriously in Europe than in US. It's also likely why they have now settled."

From what I understand, the RAND terms only applied to GSM association members which Apple was not one of, and if this is the case, then Nokia did nothing wrong in this respect.

More realistically I think Apple is beginning to realise it's fighting on multiple front not just other companies over patent/trademark violations but even become a target of regulators now. I'd imagine it just wanted to get cases like this that it stood a much lesser chance of winning done and dusted so it could focus it's lawyers on other threats that it might have a more reasonable chance of winning.

That said, it's also worth noting that Nokia is basically just a Microsoft subsidiary right now for all intents and purposes with Elop at the helm and his ousting of everyone who wasn't happy with thw WP route. It's quite possible that because Microsoft has hedged it's bets on Nokia as it's vessel for pushing Windows Phone it also stuck it's oar in and made it clear to Apple that it was willing to get involved with it's patents too.

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

[node 3]

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

Nokia gets some undisclosed amount of money for licensing their patents to Apple (as the law requires), you mean. You can be sure it's not $10/iPhone.

Re:So Is This An Indirect Payback...

[node 3]

Is your hatred of Apple so much that you have to invent things?

Based on his posts to this story, I'd have thought this was obvious. The poor guy has clearly blown a fuse.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it is, fanboi. It's difficult to accept for an Apple bitch, but that's how life rolls. Deal with it.

RAND for GSMA members, not for everyone...

[AliasMarlowe]

Doesn't "Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory" mean that they have to offer the same terms to Apple that they would offer to Motorola, HTC, et al?

The requirement for RAND terms applies only to members of the GSMA. Apple is not a member, initially because it saw no need to become one twenty years ago, and more recently perhaps because membership would require it to grant RAND terms on some of its own patents to the other members of GSMA. Hint: GSMA membership includes Ericsson, HTC, Intel, Microsoft, Nokia, RIM, Samsung, and many others, but not Apple or Motorola.

Re:RAND for GSMA members, not for everyone...

[icebike]

You are essentially correct, but apple refused to join the GSMA even AFTER they decided to jump into the GSM market place.

And contrary to many posters in this thread, GSMA was not asking for ALL apple iphone patents, simply those patents pertaining to GSM radio and feature space which were pertinent to handsets.

But Apple invented practically nothing in this regard, they simply used chipsets manufactured by others. They therefore, initially, claimed that all royalties were paid by Infineon and Broadcom and their other suppliers. This was wrong, of course, as the charter allowed no such escape, and indeed had pre-established rated for patent use by non-reciprocating companies.

And since Apple had very little to offer in return for the use of the pool patents, they were obligated to pay these rates. Apple stomped their foot and refused, and actually got away with it for far longer than they should have.

Had they joined the alliance, they would have had to offer a few minor patents they held, none of which are central to iPhone designs. They would have lost nothing virtually nothing, and paid much lower royalties. Now, they have more patents, largely regarding antenna design (flawed as that may be). Since LTE is based on GSM, Apple had no option but to settle this, because these patents are not going away anytime soon.

There are other patent holders in this pool, and I would expect to see the other member coming after Apple soon. With the precedent set, Erickson and Rim are going to want their royalties as well.

If I were Apple, I might be looking for a new Legal team. The one they have is the same one that told them to thumb their nose at the GSMA, and lost. You can bet they lost big, VERY BIG, or Apple would be crowing about how little it cost them to settle the issue.

Re:RAND for GSMA members, not for everyone...

[UnknowingFool]

I can't personally speak for Apple since I don't work there but their stance may not have been the doing of the Legal team. They have been doing what Jobs and the board wanted them to do. Second we don't know how much it cost them. We should know next quarter if we see any major shifts in the financials but anything in $100M range will stil be clouded by the revenue numbers of the iPhone.

Re:RAND for GSMA members, not for everyone...

[icebike]

The numbers won't be in the 100M range.
It might even be a number with a B behind it.

Royalties probably have a low estimate of around $5 per handset, and perhaps as high as $15.
Microsoft makes $5 per android handset for software licenses alone.

With something approaching 80 million iPhones sold, you can easily see this could be rather larger
than 100M.

Re:RAND for GSMA members, not for everyone...

[UnknowingFool]

If Nokia made any kind of money you would think they would have announced it. We'll see.

The winner???

[Anonymous Coward]

The winners are the lawyers. Everyone else is a loser.

Not so sure about that

[Anonymous Coward]

Nokia has a whole slew of patents, some of which are used by other manufacturers who find it much easier and less expensive to pay licensing fees rather than develop their own solutions. Apple wanted to do that, but Nokia refused to sell at the going rate, insisting instead on getting access to patents that Apple doesn't license to anybody.

Since Apple and Nokia couldn't come to terms amicably, they both started using some elements of the other's technology without paying for it, relying upon lawsuits to settle what their respective negotiators couldn't.

Apple wanted to pay the going rate, and was convinced that the court would not uphold Nokia's demand for considerably more than that.

Nokia wanted access to Apple technology. Apple didn't want to do that, but may have reconsidered in the meantime due to developments between Nokia and MS as well as the increased threat from Android. This makes all kinds of sense if Apple considers the Nokia/MS combination to be a weaker competitor than Android.

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

[shutdown -p now]

You're wrong. The summary is correct:

"Apple and Nokia have agreed to drop all of our current lawsuits and enter into a license covering some of each other’s patents"

Nokia may have got less than what they originally wanted, but it's certainly not just cash.

Android: going, going, soon to be gone...link

[Anonymous Coward]

Why isn't anyone talking about this big story, thanks to Oracle?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/06/07/businessinsider-oracle-wants-to-put-android-out-of-business-2011-6.DTL

Re:So Is This An Indirect Payback...

[pandrijeczko]

One question - why would a company as profitable as you say it was take the $150M from Microsoft in the first place then? I remember the uproar from the fanbois when it happened, it strikes me as a very stupid thing to do, from Apple's perspective, if it results in pissing off your users so much. ...unless, of course, they needed the money.

Oh, and the $1 billion you mentioned is a figure plucked from the air by you - it was $1.5b *revenue* not profit - big difference.

Re:So Is This An Indirect Payback...

[pandrijeczko]

Not at all.

I find it constantly amusing that Apple survives today purely because Microsoft allowed it to. In which case you fanbois should show Microsoft much better respect than you seem to currently - how about going out to buy a Microsoft Mouse or Webcam occasionally, just as a little "Thank You" to them?

Re:So Is This An Indirect Payback...

[UnknowingFool]

Your memory needs an upgrade. We discussed this same topic not four days ago.

Oh, and the $1 billion you mentioned is a figure plucked from the air by you - it was $1.5b *revenue* not profit - big difference.

Again we discussed that 4 days ago, but to refresh your memory: Apple's financial results again. Under assets--> Cash and cash equivalents: $1,193M == $1.193B . Again cash != revenue in accounting. This shows you have little either have understanding of basic accounting principles or you don't care on being accurate.

Some numbers (albeit speculative) to the deal

[walter_f]

See The Guardian (Great Britain):

"Apple to pay Nokia big settlement plus royalties in patent dispute
Tuesday 14 June 2011 18.20 BST

The Finnish phone-maker Nokia could receive a one-off payment of more than €800m (£700m) from Apple and receive further royalties of €8 per iPhone sold in future, after winning a settlement in a long-running patents dispute.

Although terms of the settlement were not disclosed, previous patent licensing deals in the phone industry have been worth up to 5% of the price of the device involved. At €8, or $11.50 (£7), they would represent about 4.5% of the estimated average $264 cost price of an iPhone, which Apple sells to retailers and phone networks for an average of $660. Apple has sold 108m iPhones since their launch."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jun/14/apple-nokia-patent-case

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

[Tjp($)pjT]

If you actually know, you violated a court order in saying this. If as I suspect you are just blowing smoke, then it's a pretty shade of pink out your butt. If you violated the court order of the settlement I'm happy I am not you. Neither side wants the details released. You think MS is happy that it was leaked that every Android phone pays them a royalty of $5... Not at all as it boosts Android at the expense of sales of MS phones. The only clue that is public is that Nokia updated their next quarter to break-even financially. If you found an online source of this info, then point it out for fact checking.

Re:So Is This An Indirect Payback...

[pandrijeczko]

Yes, and you talked complete bollocks 4 days ago also...

Re:So Is This An Indirect Payback...

[UnknowingFool]

Your exact quote:

Oh, and the $1 billion you mentioned is a figure plucked from the air by you

It's on Apple's financial statements. It's not something I made up. But you say it's all bollocks. That is covering up (1) you can't read a financial statement and (2) you have a horrible memory. Either that or you are not really a person but multiple people and paid shill account.

Copycat

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple is a copycat