Slashdot Mirror
Apple Offers Nano-SIM Design Royalty-Free
judgecorp writes "Apple is reportedly offering its nano-SIM design free of royalties, hoping to swing the standards decision its way, for the next generation of even tinier SIM cards for phones and tablets."
Nokia has reportedly responded that they still prefer their own design.
Isn't it just a sim card with a lot of the plastic bits trimmed off? Not exactly rocket Science..
I guess their standard will be the MicroSoft-SIM
The question is, Why the fuck are we still using SIM cards?
They aren't really fighting over where they're going to cut away some of the plastic that makes up most of a regular SIM card, are they? Also, what can the implied patents possibly be about? Certainly physical form of a chip carrier with a bunch of electrical contact pads isn't patentable, is it? Last but not least, is a new SIM format even necessary or is this a ploy to make SIMs go away entirely?
They're not just trying to mess with everyone; the article also states "It [Apple] also asks that all other patent holders accept the same terms in accordance with the principle of reciprocity." It seems to me that Apple wants access to patents that at least one of the other players has control of, and Apple is using this 'offer' to get free licensing, with the threat of trying to kick over the sand castle if they don't get what they want.
Apple is submitting their design to be a standard . If Apple wins or loses, there still will be a new standard. As such, please explain how Apple will fragment the market or how current marketshare in Asia affects how a European standards body will decide the merits of a standard in future smart phones.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
They should have skipped micro SIM and go directly from mini to nano SIM.
The whole point of the SIM card is about not releasing a new form factor every year.
that nano means 10^-9
and this new standard is not 1 billionth of the size of the original SIM
First, it is often an attribute of FRAND terms. Otherwise standards could not exist if a company offered their patented technology free but could get sued if they used other technology in it. Like in SDRAM, all the players agree to FRAND terms so that memory you get from one manufacturer should work with memory from another manufacturer.
Second, what "threat" are you talking about? This is a proposal for a new standard. If ETSI does not like anything in the design, they can tell Apple they are not accepting their proposal. Just a few days ago, everyone here was predicting Apple would leverage their proposal to get more in licensing money. Apple says that they will offer it royalty free and suddenly Apple has dark motives and is personified as a bully.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"It [Apple] also asks that all other patent holders accept the same terms in accordance with the principle of reciprocity."
I don't read that as Apple asking the other tech companies to free up their licenses (lord knows Apple won't open up theirs), but asking the other patent holders on the nanoSIM design to do the same. Basically: "we're not making a dime in order to push this through, guys, you should be doing the same." Just because Apple is the designer doesn't mean they're the sole patent-holder.
They could be, but this is mobile phone technology we're talking about. For every one concept there's at least eight patent holders.
Yeah how selfish of them to give it away royalty-free. Bastards are totally only in it for themselves'
Does anyone get the feeling that this doesn't feel like the Apple we're used to?
Apple's always been found of royalty free standards and products in markets were they need some minimal presence, but aren't actually competing...
'Sensible' is a curse word.
acquired from Nortel for $4.5 Billion, so I'm not sure what you are talking about when you say that Apple has no patents on traditional cellular functionality.
Also, they are offering their patents in this case royalty-free, so I'm not sure what there is here to hang them by.
Apple may be in it for themselves but not the for the reason you are thinking. By accepting Apple's proposal as a standard, Apple does not automatically gain other patents. Apple buys patent protection if they manufacture the cards but don't get any protection in any way. All asking is saying is that if their proposal contains other SIM patents from other companies, they should also offer theirs royalty-free. The main threat to other companies is that they get no money from nano-SIM if Apple's design is accepted. Apple with their cash hoard does not need the money but other companies are not so financially solid.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
What's the catch? If Apple is giving this up royalty-free, what are they getting out of it?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
It is probably more advance than any Apollo... The Apollo series is complex but still cast iron technology by comparison I guess.
There's just one problem with what you said: that's not how licenses work. They're offering a license for royalty-free use of their nano-SIM design, and are asking that other companies holding relevant patents do the same. Just because those patents would be licensed for use in the nano-SIM does not mean that they would be licensed for any application whatsoever.
I don't understand it. They are pretty small as is. What's the point of making them smaller?...so they're easier to lose the few times people have to handle them...like when they get a new phone or transfer there SIM for whatever reason?
I would think the biggest question here is, has Nokia also offered its patents on its design royalty free.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Apple's proposal is a smaller form factor, but it's electrically compatible with existing SIM (it can be inserted into a physical adapter containing no electronics and work with devices designed for micro, or mini SIM cards), making it backward compatible. It doesn't fragment the market any more than micro or mini SIM does.
The Nokia proprosal has changes to technical specs, it would actually create a new, (non-compatible???) standard.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Please note that the "Nokia" standard mentioned here is the Micro SIM. Most famous for being used in iPhone4 and iPads...
What are describe as a new standard in xkcd is a completely different situation that this in that a new, incompatible standard is introduced in addition to the current one. This is not the HD-DVD/BluRay situation. This is more like the BluRay-DVD situation where the new generation is backward compatible but the older generation is not forwards compatible. This happens all the time as progress occurs.
As to answer your second question, the race to become smaller is one way to advance. More powerful, more efficient, more capable are some of the other ways. The manufacturers want more space. Reducing the SIM is one thing to do. Otherwise would you like your phone to weigh more/get larger as the manufacturers cram in more capability?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Apple submitted this because it can help its overall goal of trolling competition. Its solution is a bit more expensive to implement (due to requiring a sleigh of sorts while Nokia's design doesn't), which means a slight price increase in manufacturing process of phones.
Alone this won't matter. When you do this kind of trolling for many factors, it starts to matter a lot in the world where phones cost single digits or low double digits to produce. Which incidentally is where Nokia's, Samsung's and many of the upcoming Chinese offerings get a lot of revenue from, but where Apple isn't present.
No sharp users, no sharp corners.
Look at the upper left corner of the title of your own comment.
SIM cards get around that... They still sell phones that are "locked", but they can be unlocked. Once a phone is unlocked, it can be used with any carrier, when you put the SIM in.
*that* is why we're using SIM cards.
The Verizon Droid 2 Global proves that SIM cards do not get around that.
The Droid 2 Global has a GSM radio technically compatible with AT&T and T-Mobile GSM networks in the US.
However, upon unlocking the Droid 2 Global SIM card it will still not work on American GSM networks.
Some claim that altering the radio firmware allowed the Droid 2 Global to jump on US GSM networks, but I have never found an exploit available.
I always wondered if CDMA phones from say Sprint and Verizon could technically cross carriers. What is stopping them?
I can understand carriers locking their phones or excluding frequency bands to deter you from taking them to another carrier.
But I am not convinced that Verizon/Sprint decided it wanted to force you to use a Verizon/Sprint phone instead of luring you over to their network without the extra cost of a new phone.
I suspect Verizon CDMA phones just are not setup to connect to Sprint CDMA towers, just like the Droid 2 Global is carrier blocked in the firmware.
Sprint/Verizon probably do not want to mess with trying to flash competitors firmware to their own network.
If CDMA authentication is anything like GSM authentication, then Sprint needs to have some info that only Verizon has about the keys in the Verizon phone and vice versa.
However, I have heard of some of the smaller CDMA carriers activating Verizon phones on their networks, but I always suspect it was because they were just reselling connections to Verizon towers anyway.
If the carrier got in league with each other, then why did T-Mobile and AT&T not get in on it?
My understanding is that GSM networks could use IMEI white lists just the same as CDMA networks use ESN white lists.
Of course SIM card locking and excluding frequencies is fairly effective. But why not go a step further like the Droid 2 Global and exclude specific carriers?
Perhaps AT&T is just not as evil as Verizon?
Apple may be in it for themselves but not the for the reason you are thinking. By accepting Apple's proposal as a standard, Apple does not automatically gain other patents. Apple buys patent protection if they manufacture the cards but don't get any protection in any way. All asking is saying is that if their proposal contains other SIM patents from other companies, they should also offer theirs royalty-free. The main threat to other companies is that they get no money from nano-SIM if Apple's design is accepted. Apple with their cash hoard does not need the money but other companies are not so financially solid.
What Apple wants is hand at the neck of the throats of other companies.
The Mini-Dport license is royalty free but has an express provision that voids the license if the licensee were to "commence an action for patent infringement against Apple". So sue-happy Apple gets to hold this over other companies, as a result no-one has taken up mini-dport.
It would not surprise me in the least if Apple has similar retroactive terms in their SIM licenses.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
It's the same Apple, they are just using a new form of bait and switch.
Apple's released their mini-DisplayPort royalty free, but burred deep down inside the license agreement is an exclusion that voids the license if the licensee "commence an action for patent infringement against Apple".
I'd be very surprised if Apple hasn't got a similar trap planned for their SIM standard.
The point of Apple's plethora of patents and multitude law suits against their competitors was never money, they get enough of that from the suckers who pay for their products. The point was to stop competitors from being able to compete.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Apple's released their mini-DisplayPort royalty free, but burred deep down inside the license agreement is an exclusion that voids the license if the licensee "commence an action for patent infringement against Apple".
Ever read the license agreements for some other standards (especially single-vendor "standards", which mini-DP is not)? There's some scary stuff in there, the only reason people freak out about Apple in these cases is because it's Apple so some guy with a chip on his shoulder is likely to sit down and look for stuff that could make them look bad.
Since the transition to OS X Apple has been quite fond of open standards (but considering that a lot of people seem to still think that Apple computers can only handle a single mouse button I'm not surprised the myth of the locked-down proprietary protocols and other tech of the Apple walled garden thrives).
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Wow, someone needs to get laid...
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
"the principal issues remain the technical superiority of our proposal and that Apple's proposal does not meet the pre-agreed ETSI requirements... Apple's proposal for royalty free licensing seems no more than an attempt to devalue the intellectual property of others."
That last part of it, about devaluing the IP of others looks like Nokia wants the licensing fees for their patents. Apple's no saint, but in this case I'm either with Apple or a third design that belongs to neither of them.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Are they still the largest mobile phone manufacturer on the planet though? I live in Asia (not the poorest part, but certainly not the richest either), and it seems that Samsung is cleaning up the market here, with Apple and HTC the only other players with any significant market share. And the China and India markets are not all that different from here, except perhaps the brands are different in China.
The Mini-Dport license is royalty free but has an express provision that voids the license if the licensee were to "commence an action for patent infringement against Apple". So sue-happy Apple gets to hold this over other companies, as a result no-one has taken up mini-dport.
Other than the fact that VESA controls the specification, not Apple you might have had a good conspiracy going. Other than the fact that many other companies have put them in their laptops, you might have had a valid point. But don't let facts get in your way.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
That is actually counter-trolling to apple's initial troll of "we'll just register a lot new names to get more votes and outvote everyone else alone". Also, backward compatibility is not really an issue here, there are semi-incompatible SIMs on the market today and operators inquire what phone model you have before sending you an appropriate SIM card when you request one.