Slashdot Mirror


Nokia: Google's Nexus 7 Tablet Infringes Our Patents

walterbyrd writes with a story at The Inquirer outlining the latest volley in the patent wars surrounding mobile hardware, this time aimed at the new Aus-built Nexus 7 tablet from Google by Nokia, in which the company's spokesman says, "Nokia has more than 40 licensees, mainly for its standards essential patent portfolio, including most of the mobile device manufacturers. Neither Google nor Asus is licensed under our patent portfolio. 'Companies who are not yet licensed under our standard essential patents should simply approach us and sign up for a license.'"

183 comments

  1. Good ol' Microsoft by Severus+Snape · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can't prove it but we all know this is another one of Microsoft's proxy wars.

    1. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't prove it but we all know this is another one of Microsoft's proxy wars.

      Never know, Apple might have caught on and started a few themselves.

    2. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, nowadays each time I see Nokia I just mentally substitute it for Microsoft and it all makes far more sense.

      I don't know how Elop and Ballmer pulled it off, but getting Elop to pull off the coup he did in turning Nokia into a defacto subsidiary of Microsoft was pretty fucking impressive.

    3. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by hsmith · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wouldn't doubt it. It is really amazing the difference between debuting the Surface v the Nexus 7. The demos were unbelievable different.

      Hell, look how the demo of Google Glass went v the Surface. A toy project performed light years better than the Surface. MS has fallen from grace, badly.

    4. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how Elop and Ballmer pulled it off, but getting Elop to pull off the coup he did in turning Nokia into a defacto subsidiary of Microsoft was pretty fucking impressive.

      A large bloc of Nokia shareholders insisted on Elop's placement. It wasn't much of a coup, rather something the right people wanted.

    5. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Or it could be Nokia being ridiculously desperate. Microsoft has NOTHING to gain by patent trolling Google. Zero. The Nexus 7 isn't competing with the Surface.

      Nokia on the other hand, does.

      So which is more likely, Nokia is trashing about in an attempt to remain relevant or Microsoft is fighting a secret proxy patent war?

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    6. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Good old Nokia....

      so this is their "Plan B": become a patent troll.

      Good move Nokia.

    7. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Circuit+Breaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      MS ever had grace?

      They've been having demos crash and bluescreen since forever.

    8. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by toriver · · Score: 2

      Don't know about that: When Apple released the iPhone, Nokia pounced with a lawsuit then, too, long before Microsoft were their partners.

    9. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by MikeMo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Come on, they're not a "troll". Patent trolls are regularly regarded as companies that make no product, have never implemented their patent, and exist only to sue. Nokia clearly invented a lot of the basic stuff that makes cell phones work today, and many of the standards in existence use these patents.

      This is a FRAND issue. Nokia is stating that Google is using technology covered in the standards, which require FRAND licenses, and which they have not acquired. They just need to step up and get them.

      Further, as far as I can tell, Nokia has been one of the best-behaved FRAND licensors in the business.

    10. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but Nokia has been more than willing to sue everyone in the past, so it's not surprising that they'd do it now, even on their own.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      Microsoft DOS 6.22 with the 4DOS command.com replacement was seriously graceful.
      Almost better than a linux command line. Power, Grace, and Beauty.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    12. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by wulva · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are forgetting that Nokia as a company has done a major share of R&D in mobile space since 90's, thus they have huge chunk of patents covering the fundamentals. Now that their phone business is suffering they have to monetize somehow, and that how is their IP portfolio.

      It would be irresponsible of Nokia not to sue, as their shareholders want to see money.

      Most manufacturers have licensing agreements with Nokia besides some of the new comers such as Apple and Google and Apple already paid them off after getting sued.

      Now there is no question that Nokia fucked up. The fuck up was mainly caused by internal politics where different division screwed with others. I mean they had a mapping company bought years before google but they only got to market a year after them.

      Shit happens and now they've only got the low end and what ever IP they've developed. As they have to rebuild their credibility on the high end they need some cash to cover it, as such IP is the best source.

    13. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      Uh...they can probably expect more of this:

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303649504577496991190742010.html

      I submitted this story yesterday, but submissions seem to drag ass at Slashdot.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    14. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by dc29A · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or it could be Nokia being ridiculously desperate. Microsoft has NOTHING to gain by patent trolling Google. Zero.

      Care to explain why HTC and Samsung are paying Android royalties to MS? MS always wanted to prove that Android is not free, what better method to achieve this than patent trolling.

    15. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Riceballsan · · Score: 0

      If my memory serves right, microsoft was one of the first to fire in the patent wars, possibly the first. What i recall was microsoft made the anouncement that microsoft would handle defending the cases and legal fees for all phones using windows phones, and then promptly fired the first offensive shot at one of the android manufactures, starting a large random surge of lawsuits firing in every direction.

    16. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Riceballsan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nokia was under completely different management 2 years ago, which essentially makes every point on behavior prior to the microsoft deals entirely unrelated points.

    17. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      Microsoft has much to gain by smacking down Google whenever they can.
      Bing / Google, WP8 / Android, Windows 8 on ARM / Chrome OS.
      I am not sure that Microsoft is pulling the strings on this one but....
      I am sure that you have to be a shill to put forth the idea that Microsoft has nothing to gain on ANY attack on Google.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    18. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Missing.Matter · · Score: 5, Informative
      Right because Google never experienced any crashes during a demo. Apple as well, known for their presentations, have always put on a perfect show with everything performing exactly as expected.

      Have you ever given a high-stakes presentation? Have ever given hundreds of them? Shit happens, and the more you get up there and put yourself on the line, the more shit happens.

      Steve Jobs had the right take on it.

      Even though Steve was a fierce competitor, he actually drew the line at taking advantage of competitors’ demo woes. I remember one time during the “think different” years when Bill Gates suffered a terrible failure demoing a new Microsoft technology. We at the agency thought it would make a very funny commercial for Apple. It seemed like an idea being handed to us on a silver platter. We would simply show Gates failing and end the ad with a clever line about Apple.

      Steve laughed — but he rejected it immediately. He said that demo crashes are an unavoidable part of the business, and that his own demos could fail as easily as Gates’.

      Source - The Joy of Demo Crashes

    19. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by jimicus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Microsoft has NOTHING to gain by patent trolling Google. Zero.

      Not true, I'm quite sure they'd love to bring their office furniture repair costs down.

    20. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

      I don't recall Nokia ever leading the way in smart phone or tablet development and innovation. In fact, they seriously lagged behind and dragged their feet for years, which is what got them in their present situation. They deserve to fail. Going down as patent trolls just makes them look worse. BTW, I used to work for Nokia as a developer, but not in their mobile phone division.

    21. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by kanto · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Nokia was under completely different management 2 years ago, which essentially makes every point on behavior prior to the microsoft deals entirely unrelated points.

      How exactly is this shit insightful? Afaik they went after Apple for freeloading and now they're going after Google... or maybe I just answered myself. Microsoft and Nokia have a deal on patents so Windows Phones aren't being targeted, go cry me a river.

    22. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by aliquis · · Score: 1

      And still 40 other companies had paid for their use ...

    23. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by msauve · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Google is using technology covered in the standards, which require FRAND licenses, and which they have not acquired."

      Just because Google doesn't license WiFi patents directly from Nokia doesn't mean they don't have legitimate licenses. It's not uncommon for chipset vendors to license patented technologies for use in their silicon, freeing those who use those chipsets from having to negotiate a separate license.

      I'm not claiming that's the case here, but even if Nokia's claim that Google hasn't directly licensed the patents is true, it doesn't mean that Google doesn't have a right to use the technology, or that they're not paying Nokia (indirectly).

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    24. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by aliquis · · Score: 1

      So you're poorly informed.

      What are we going to do about it?

      Also the technology mentioned in this thread was wifi.

      I'd rather say "they _do_..." because Nokia for instance had their communicators and experimented with touch. The products may not have been perfect or bought by all but it's a false claim that they lagged behind and didn't do anything back then.

      What did you do for them then?

    25. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's more to smart phones than just pretty GUIs and touch screens. You know, stuff that matters like the actual mobile technology.

    26. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Motorolla (now google) didn't seem to care when they Sued apple over stuff they claimed to have via Qualcomm chipsets.

    27. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by h4rr4r · · Score: 0

      What product does Nokia make now?
      Name one that actually sells well. This appears to be their Plan B.

    28. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Can't prove it but we all know this is another one of Microsoft's proxy wars.

      Obviously, Google's legal team is not fooled. This is the most direct attack by Elop/Microsoft on Google so far. In this high stakes patent trolling I'm betting on Google, just going by the severe schooling Google's legal team handed out to Oracle. My crystal ball shows a whole lot of sucessful patent busting on the way, with the enthusiastic and effective support of the open community. Can you spell Groklaw. I can see a big debilitating fight ahead for Nokia that it can't afford, but of course that just fits the pattern of everything Elop has done so far. I'm still wondering where the shareholder lawsuits are. Oh wait, there is one but there should be more.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    29. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Which bloc of Nokia shareholders was that, and what was their connection to Microsoft, or to Bill Gates?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    30. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right because Google never experienced any crashes [youtu.be] during a demo. Apple as well, known for their presentations, have always put on a perfect show with everything performing exactly as expected [youtube.com].

      Although I thoroughly enjoyed watching Jobs and Co. deal (pretty diplomatically) with "demo woes" (and I have had my share, too!), I hasten to add that, in all those failures, some not even related to Apple, and going back clear into the last century, not one of those showed the COMPLETE FAILURE of a product. Yeah, a feature wouldn't work here, an app crashed due to stage fright over there, and a wireless network was overstressed beyond belief, causing one "blooper". But in NONE of those instances did MULTIPLE SAMPLES of the product fail EVERY SINGLE TIME.

      Sorry. MS richly deserved a good rib-poking over the Surface NON-demo-"Demo".

    31. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Microsoft DOS 6.22 with the 4DOS command.com replacement was seriously graceful. Almost better than a linux command line. Power, Grace, and Beauty.

      I love your sense of humour. Remember how DOS wildcards work? If it sees an asterisk it fills the rest of the name (or extension, remember those?) on the right with ? chars. Nice. Right up to Microsoft's usual standards of truth and beauty.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    32. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Have you ever given a high-stakes presentation? Have ever given hundreds of them? Shit happens...

      Shit seems to happen a lot more to Microsoft demonstrations. Having a warship towed back to port was a lovely demonstration.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    33. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has much to gain by smacking down Google whenever they can.

      Trying to smack down Google you mean. On the face of it, Google seems to pack considerably more smack than Microsoft.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    34. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      You can hate all you want.
      Microsoft has never done better than DOS 6.22
      If you replace most of it with 4DOS. :)

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    35. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Patent trolls are regularly regarded as companies that make no product, have never implemented their patent...

      You haven't been reading your wikipedia lately, have you? A patent troll is now anyone who trolls a patent, that is, uses it as an offensive weapon. Microsoft and Apple both qualify solidly.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    36. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      I bet you don't even see what is wrong with the Microsoft approach to wildcards.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    37. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can someone tell me WHY they need to get them? Surely the company that built the wireless chip used in the Nexus 7 already paid for a license? I thought we had the concept of exhaustion that says a license only needs to be paid once for any one use of it? If the chip maker (I don't know, Intel, Broadcom, etc.) paid this, then why would Asus need to pay again? That just seems stupid.

    38. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nokia had best watch out... Google happens to own it's own little pile of LTE and similar patents now.

      Wouldn't want the FRAND terms on those getting them pulled over this stupidity...

    39. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Great post. I applaud your impartiality and objectivity, defending MS and showing Jobs in a positive light in the same breath.

    40. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Tough+Love · · Score: 1
      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    41. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > You are forgetting that Nokia as a company has done a major share of R&D in mobile space since 90's,

      By that you mean phones, not tablets. I don't know if there are a lot of 1990s era phone patents that relate to Google new tablet.

    42. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by jrumney · · Score: 1

      The GP is wrong. Very few, if any, silicon vendors indemnify their customers from patent claims. You can buy 3G modules that come with patent indemnification, but 3G chipsets usually only have the minimum patents the manufacturer can get away with by claiming that their components alone cannot implement the patents, they have to first be combined with other components into a more complete product.

    43. Re:Good ol' Microsoft by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Patent trolls are regularly regarded as companies that make no product, have never implemented their patent...

      You haven't been reading your wikipedia lately, have you? A patent troll is now anyone who trolls a patent, that is, uses it as an offensive weapon. Microsoft and Apple both qualify solidly.

      Oh, was it a Microsoft or an Apple loser who modded that post "disagree"? Well they would, wouldn't they. Whowever you are, sucks to be you.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  2. Built in Australia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Apparently.

    1. Re:Built in Australia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone tell Asus they've been dropped from the project

  3. Transformer Line? by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Asus has been making the transformer line for years. If Asus is not licensing required patents for Wifi, why has Nokia delayed on demands for so long?

    1. Re:Transformer Line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why now? Because Microsoft can't innovate worth a shit, and they suddenly got caught with their pants down, again. So they do what they know best: throw chairs out the window and shout how they'll "fucking bury" them.

    2. Re:Transformer Line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would imagine because Microsoft doesn't have a beef with Asus (or doesn't see them as a threat), but does with Google.

    3. Re:Transformer Line? by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      The patent in question is allegedly to do with WiFi, so more to the point- Asus have been making computers for years, full stop. Every single one of their laptops has WiFi that would presumably infringe in some way.

      But then I'm not even going to pretend that I even slightly understand patent law...

    4. Re:Transformer Line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Google is involved. Microsoft (via Nokia), Apple, and Oracle are colluding to attack Google. Microsoft and Apple for obvious reasons (and because they're buddies, despite all the marketing), and Ellison and Jobs were best friends. Notice who they're suing (everyone touching Google/Android) and who they aren't suing (namely each other).

    5. Re:Transformer Line? by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Because it didn't sell well enough? Because Asus still moves a lot of Windows licenses?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  4. Patents? by fatphil · · Score: 1

    Do they have any left after selling so many off to patent trolls?
    Apparently so, if they're turning into litigious patent trolls themselves.

    Ahhhhh, feels good to be able to use the third person to refer to them - now Nokia-free for 2 days! (But still a dedicated n900 fan.)

    --
    Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    1. Re:Patents? by duranaki · · Score: 1

      It would be hilarious for them to retract the statement. "Oops, turned out we sold that and no one told me." I'm now Nokia-free for 6.5 years. Welcome to the ex-Nokia club!

    2. Re:Patents? by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      Refering to a company in the first person because you use their products is like refering to a sports team in the first person because you bought a jersey and went to a few games.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    3. Re:Patents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, get lost, you haters. Nokia's phones are a head above Apple's/Samsung's/HTC's and others'.

      -- Proud owner of Nokia 3310 (had to change batteries, but otherwise still going strong)

    4. Re:Patents? by hendridm · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hear SCO makes a solid UNIX product as well.

    5. Re:Patents? by duranaki · · Score: 2

      I think, like me, the original poster is a former Nokia employee, not just a user.

    6. Re:Patents? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      I left Nokia about 7 years ago too! (And 11 years ago too.) I must be like one of those beaten wives who keeps returning to their abusive husband!

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    7. Re:Patents? by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

      (me) --Also a former Nokia employee....Was a developer there for 8 years. LOL. We should start a support group

    8. Re:Patents? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      It would be, were it to have happened. It's a disease iWeenies have, that's certainly true.

      My employed life there's ended - meaning independence!

      (and you may read between the words to deduce what I was working on.)

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    9. Re:Patents? by snookiex · · Score: 1

      And the Vikings used to make great ships, you know.

      --
      Open Source Network Inventory for the masses! Kuwaiba
  5. Which patent? by ameen.ross · · Score: 4, Informative

    FTFA

    It's believed that the patents in question have to do with the IEEE 802.11 WiFi standard

    --
    $(echo cm0gLXJmIC8= | base64 --decode)
  6. I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, Google and ASUS may not be licensed.... But I wonder about Motorola Mobility (if it has to do with IEEE 802.11 WiFi standard, that "belongs" to WiFi Alliance, well, Motorola Mobility is part of it.. and Motorola is Googles now).

    1. Re:I wonder.... by firex726 · · Score: 1

      I remember there being a lot of objections about including patented designs in industry standards.

  7. Wifi patents by chrb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I guessed that this was probably something GSM related, but TFA says "It's believed that the patents in question have to do with the IEEE 802.11 WiFi standard". It's hard to imagine that Asus doesn't already have a license for essential wifi patents, they must have sold millions of devices over the last few years that have featured wifi as standard.

    Bit odd that this has not been an issue until the moment that they release a Google branded device.

    1. Re:Wifi patents by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      It's hard to imagine that Asus doesn't already have a license for essential wifi patents, they must have sold millions of devices over the last few years that have featured wifi as standard.

      It's also hard to imagine that Google doesn't already have a cross-license agreement in place through the Motorola Mobility acquisition. Also, what about the various Nexus phones -- surely they included WiFi?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Wifi patents by fa2k · · Score: 1

      I guessed that this was probably something GSM related, but TFA says "It's believed that the patents in question have to do with the IEEE 802.11 WiFi standard". It's hard to imagine that Asus doesn't already have a license for essential wifi patents, they must have sold millions of devices over the last few years that have featured wifi as standard.

      Bit odd that this has not been an issue until the moment that they release a Google branded device.

      Well, you know how it goes with SW patents, it could be something silly like displaying an icon next to the SSID while connecting to a network and then changing the icon when the connection is complete.

    3. Re:Wifi patents by fa2k · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I don't seem to have RTFS. "standards essential patent" is a stretch for my example. Please ignore.

    4. Re:Wifi patents by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's hard to imagine that Asus doesn't already have a license for essential wifi patents

      It was also hard to imagine that Microsoft didn't already have a license for essential MPEG-4 patents, and yet Motorola sued them over one that applies to Xbox.

      There's no guarantee that a patent pool for a given technology contains all patents necessary to implement that technology, even if everybody believes it to be the case. It only takes one submarine patent to prove that theory wrong.

    5. Re:Wifi patents by Zebedeu · · Score: 2

      It's unlikely that it's GSM related, since the Nexus 7 doesn't have cell data connectivity.
      The complaint is pretty odd to me too.
      Even if ASUS's existing licenses are not appliccable since they are selling the tablet under Google's brand, Google still owns the mobile branch of Motorola, and is hard to imagine that they don't have those patents.

      Furthermore, all of the nexus devices up to now have had WiFi. Why complain only about the tablet?

    6. Re:Wifi patents by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      "It's believed that the patents in question have to do with the IEEE 802.11 WiFi standard".

      Of course, it's believed that. The Nexus 7 is wifi-only.

      Perhaps, Nokia probably just assumed that the Nexus 7 was cell-phone network enabled, because all the previous Nexuses were cell phones.

    7. Re:Wifi patents by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      The Motorola licence would probably only cover Motorola devices and not devices made for them (ie Asus hardware).

    8. Re:Wifi patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the nature of the cross-licensing Moto Mobility had in hand on the stuff they own.

      Not a good/wise idea on Nokia's part right now...

    9. Re:Wifi patents by fferreres · · Score: 1

      If you look at the big picture, Apple believes that Android is the new PC and having been been burned by PCs two decades ago, they want to destroy it before it's too late. And Microsoft thinks the PC is them, and Android is eating their lunch, and want it destroyed as soon as possible. Apple and Microsoft have a love/hate relationship. But don't forget Gates' investment in Apple in the late nineties plus the release of MS Office for Mac saved Apple. Each firm believes they can trump the other, but hate Google vehemently.

      These lawsuits are testing the waters and signaling something bigger. And they are setting up the stage for the masses to start believing Android is just a cheap imitation. I prefer Apple phones, but would side with Android if Ms and Apple get nasty. I despise abusive oligopolies for what it means long term.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
  8. MS's lapdog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    MS's lapdog attacks again.
    What a sad end for an amazing 130 years old company...

  9. Oh you, silly you. by kiriath · · Score: 1

    Silly Patent Thievery You. All you had to do was ask. Tsk. Anyone else sick of the "MY patent - no MY patent" douchebaggery?

    1. Re:Oh you, silly you. by Trashcan+Romeo · · Score: 3, Funny

      And what's the deal with airplane peanuts? Am I right, people?

  10. I think Sidorovich put it best.. by DC2088 · · Score: 1
  11. Dear Nokia... by JasonDT · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Fuck off and die already... A shame too, I really used to like their hardware... Why oh why does patent trolling have to become the new business model for dying companies...

    --
    "It's not that I don't understand what your going through. Its that I just don't care"
    1. Re:Dear Nokia... by hendridm · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I owned a few Nokia phones in the 90s. Good stuff. :P

    2. Re:Dear Nokia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love your sig, especially the number of spelling and punctuation errors.

  12. Can no one else see where this is going? by gman003 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The whole massive patent portfolios thing was hinged on mutually assured destruction. Everyone was violating at least one of everyone's patents, but as long as you either had enough of an armory yourself, or paid your dues to the patent portfolios, you were safe (disregarding wild patent trolls). Sort of like the actual Cold War - as long as you had enough nukes, or allied yourself with someone who did, you were safe (disregarding "rogue nations" and proxy wars).

    Well, this Patent Cold War is becoming a Patent World War.

    It's been going on for a while now, ever since the smartphone lawsuits first stated, but it's ramping up. They're coming faster and faster now, and going for bigger and bigger things. Pretty soon, you'll be seeing injunctions against entire companies, or multi-trillion-dollar fines.

    I expect, in the end, most of those involved will end up out-of-business. And, hopefully, it will end with a massive patent system reform.

    1. Re:Can no one else see where this is going? by savuporo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I expect, in the end, most of those involved will end up out-of-business. And, hopefully, it will end with a massive patent system reform.

      You know, i get scared whenever anyone calls for a reform. I mean no doubt that the current system is broken, but i dread to see what the current powers would come up with to replace the current system.

      There was some sanity and integrity still around when the last system was designed - and now it has outlived it's usefulness, but we are also all out of sanity and integrity.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    2. Re:Can no one else see where this is going? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Predictions:

      Google will get through this pretty well. So far, nothing has really stuck to them.

      OEMs will struggle through this because they will be targeted for supporting Google's platform. Google will help, but it will still burden the OEMs. Despite this, the OEMs will not stop supporting Android though one or more may throw Microsoft a bone by making a device or two featuring Microsoft's platform... they will fail despite the added marketing push simply because Microsoft keep s failing on the support side. (Count how many Microsoft mobile devices you have ever seen and then count how many are currently supported.)

    3. Re:Can no one else see where this is going? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone was violating at least one of everyone's patents, but as long as you either had enough of an armory yourself, or paid your dues to the patent portfolios, you were safe (disregarding wild patent trolls).

      It's apparently gotten to the point that nobody can make or do anything anymore without running afoul of some patent somewhere. Devices are complex and require hundreds of individual components or technologies, so there are potentially hundreds of patent licenses/royalty agreements to be negotiated for the event the simplest phone. If a company wishes to engage in anti-competitive behavior, it need only refuse to license the patent at a reasonable price and then seek an injunction to shut down the competition. That should be unacceptable.

      Predicated upon the realization that mobile communications has gone from luxury to critical industry in the world economy, we can no longer tolerate patent disputes/nonsense that cripple anybody's ability to do anything. It's time for the US and EU to step in and compel cooperative behavior by establishing a mandatory patent consortium/pool/clearinghouse for mobile tech. Everybody in mobile should be compelled to pool their patents, license all requestors without discrimination, and accept reasonable royalties.
         

    4. Re:Can no one else see where this is going? by gehrehmee · · Score: 1

      With all these companies suing each other out of doing business, exactly what is the impact on the economy? Can a weakened economy afford this kind of nonsense?

      Of course, the law firms on laughing to the bank.

      --
      "You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
    5. Re:Can no one else see where this is going? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I expect, in the end, most of those involved will end up out-of-business.

      Why? Is that how it happened in previous patent wars?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:Can no one else see where this is going? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think this is broken?

      I see all the patent wars lately in a very positive light.
      This is an extremely competitive market. You have all these companies competing for 2nd place ( and lets face it, that's the way it's going to be for a few years more ) and trying desperately to climb above and take on Apple. You have Apple trying their best to beat people down from the top of the hill.
      There's nothing broken about this. Similar things happened during the industrial revolution. With that, though, you didn't have such world wide adoption at such fast rates. There was time for companies to succeed regionally. The ultimately got gobbled up by bigger corporations.
      Ultimately the consumer will benefit from all this fighting. It will force Apple to innovate to stay ahead, and it will force all the other companies to innovate ( instead of copy... had to get one small jab in there ) to leap ahead.

      Everyone should just stop being so sensationalistic about all these battles. It's not a religion.
      These patent battles are absolutely valid, no matter who your racehorse is. It's necessarily complex and the impacts and differences between systems is subtle at times.

    7. Re:Can no one else see where this is going? by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 1

      Don't worry we already had patent reform. The America Invents Act. All fixed! Thank you Congress!

    8. Re:Can no one else see where this is going? by savuporo · · Score: 1

      I work in the same industry, sort of. You have no clue what you are talking about. In your little world view, the only people that would have anything to gain from anything, would be lawyers.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
  13. Ugh by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even though it's got nothing to do with Apple, I'm still going to blame them anyway since, as we all know, everyone copies off Apple, be it rounded corners or patent trolling

    :P

    1. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5 Insightful? Really?

  14. Someone Call Kyle's Dad by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

    The case of Everyone v. Everyone is set to begin!

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
  15. Apple owns that idea by AshFan · · Score: 0

    The way things are going, we will all need a license to post comments online, as it will infringe on someones intelectual property.

  16. Balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ASUS have about a million different models of tablet and laptop and what-not out there. They've been doing this for donkey's years - how can they not have the proper licenses for the tech at this point? Not believable.

  17. WTF! by kurt555gs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I used to be a total Nokia Fanboi. Hell, I use a Nokia N9 as my everyday cell phone. I cried like John Boehner when Elop took over and made Nokia Microsoft's bitch.

    Now I'm mad! I just ordered one of those Google 7 tablets, and my former love, Nokia is trying to stop me from having it!

    Phuque!

    Where is this world going?

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:WTF! by hendridm · · Score: 1

      I pre-ordered a Nexus 7 for my wife as well. I am impatiently holding out for the Nexus 10 for myself. I really hope this doesn't delay it!

  18. ..you mean the CSIRO's Wifi patent? by Sneeze1066 · · Score: 1

    Nokia claiming that "their" wifi patent is being infringed? It's already been decided that Australia's CSIRO invented Wifi and that and manufacturers using the technology would need to licence it from them. http://slashdot.org/story/12/04/01/2011245/australian-wifi-inventors-win-us-legal-battle

    1. Re:..you mean the CSIRO's Wifi patent? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Nokia claiming that "their" wifi patent is being infringed? It's already been decided that Australia's CSIRO invented Wifi and that and manufacturers using the technology would need to licence it from them

      And in related news, SCO continues to claim that THEY, not Novell, owns the copyrights to Unix and therefore, to all Unix derivatives (like Linux).

      The precedent makes me mildly skeptical of Nokia's claim. A Microsoft business partner (and investee) claims that a competing product infringes on a numbered but unnamed pool of patents? Where have I seen that "numbered but not enumerated patents" thing before... Oh, yeah

      More to the point, what patents on Wi-Fi would be in play that aren't automatically licensed when you buy the appropriate hardware? Maybe I'm naive, but I thought all of the important IP was implemented in silicon, and the license was satisfied by the chip manufacturer.

      Seriously. Microsoft proxy FUD, until demonstrated otherwise in an actual court of law.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:..you mean the CSIRO's Wifi patent? by russotto · · Score: 1

      More to the point, what patents on Wi-Fi would be in play that aren't automatically licensed when you buy the appropriate hardware? Maybe I'm naive, but I thought all of the important IP was implemented in silicon, and the license was satisfied by the chip manufacturer.

      They get sneaky about this. They'll patent both the new hardware containing the actual inventive stuff, and the combination of that hardware with all and sundry. Then they claim that when you buy the hardware, you still need a separate license to combine it with any of the things they claim. It's like buying a fancy new unobtainium hammer, and finding out they've also patented hitting nails with said hammer in order to fasten materials together, so you need a license for that.

    3. Re:..you mean the CSIRO's Wifi patent? by kanto · · Score: 1

      Okay, seriously you need to stop snorting the urinal cakes... your comment is a new low even for /. in failing to understand how patents (plural, google it) work.

  19. Re:"standard essential patents"?!?!? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0, Troll

    So, basically, you're an utter fucking moron. I am not sure it's useful knowledge, but I don't mind picking up a bit of trivia now and then.

  20. $29 Billion by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 2

    That's the cost to US taxpayers* for all this patent trolling. It wouldn't be so egregious if there was actually some legitimacy to the claims but it's all about competing by litigation, which ought to be as illegal as stealing actual inventions.

    [*] - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/new-study-same-authors-patent-trolls-cost-economy-29-billion-yearly/

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  21. Ahh... I remember my last Nokia phone! Oh, wait... by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    ...No I don't. Because most of their stuff is low end crap. Samsung and Apple ate their lunch.

  22. Barnes and Noble was right all along by andydread · · Score: 2

    B&N warned that this attack from Nokia and MOSAID was coming. B&N said this was conspired with Microsoft. Microsoft's Steven Elop (Nokia CEO) is doing his former company's bidding. Now we see what B&N warned about mestastisizing. brace yourselves. The days of writing your own code and having it become successfull without paying a patent license fee for your OWN code is coming to an end. Thanks particularly to MS and their partners oh and Apple. And of course the geeks will sit back and take it lying down. I for one has influenced a few hundred people away from Microsoft and Apple products. Will continue that push along with more donations to the EFF.

    1. Re:Barnes and Noble was right all along by kanto · · Score: 1

      Idiot... software patents vs tech patents, big difference.

  23. Plan B by jbell99999 · · Score: 1

    I guess litigation is their plan B for when WP8 tanks. Who would have guessed?

  24. Are we reading too much into this? by IrrepressibleMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's not a lot to go in the Inquirer article (there never is in my experience), but isn't it possible that Nokia's stance is entirely reasonable? Maybe it does hold standards essential patents relevant to the Nexus tablet and is entitled to FRAND payments. It's not threatening to seek injunctions. On the face of it, Nokia is seeking payment for licenses that it believes it is entitled to.

    Not sure how we get from here to alleging Microsoft-led conspiracies... At least wait for the Google/Asus responses before taking sides.

    1. Re:Are we reading too much into this? by spire3661 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The Nexus 7 isnt fundamentally different from their other tablets/phones in regards to these patents. Why bring suit now?

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:Are we reading too much into this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because this one looks like it'll actually sell.

    3. Re:Are we reading too much into this? by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Maybe it took them a while to realize it, maybe they've been insisting and wanted to escalate it, to pressure them...

    4. Re:Are we reading too much into this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not sure how we get from here to alleging Microsoft-led conspiracies

      This is Slashdot. The starting point here is a Microsoft-led conspiracy until proven otherwise.

    5. Re:Are we reading too much into this? by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      Considering the first post in this story is "Can't prove it but we all know this is another one of Microsoft's proxy wars" that seems about right

    6. Re:Are we reading too much into this? by Zebedeu · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is also releasing a tablet.

    7. Re:Are we reading too much into this? by perrin · · Score: 1

      Because unlike most other tablets, the Nexus 7 does not have much profit of a margin. Many commentators are speculating that Google is selling the cheapest version at loss. So if Nokia is interested in money, this is a particularly bad target. Those hunting for a piece of the profit cake go after the big money makers, not products with razor thin margins. The explanation that makes more sense is that this is an extension of the shenanigans that Microsoft and Nokia have been playing against Android for a while through patent troll proxies (MOSAID et al). This is an ugly game that those familiar with Microsoft history would not be surprised by, but which is quite new to Nokia. And in the financial state that Nokia is right now, they really should be focusing on making products that people actually want to buy, not supporting another company's soon to be released tablets by hoping to torpedo Google's.

    8. Re:Are we reading too much into this? by kanto · · Score: 1

      The Nexus 7 isnt fundamentally different from their other tablets/phones in regards to these patents. Why bring suit now?

      They haven't sued, RTFA... they're telling them to license the damn tech and I'd be surprised if they hadn't approached the subject before.

    9. Re:Are we reading too much into this? by kanto · · Score: 1

      Google isn't interested in the HW so much as the fact that they need to control the OS and the ecosystem... you're essentially saying that since Google isn't out to make money with the devices they should be allowed to minimize their losses by not licensing tech developed by others.

    10. Re:Are we reading too much into this? by Paradigma11 · · Score: 1

      Is licensing really done on a share of profit basis?`

      Otherwise ist would make lots of sense to sue a high volume target that is being subsidized.

  25. Well THAT didn't take long. by Dega704 · · Score: 2

    And the saddest part is how surprised I am; which is to say not at all. In fact I will be surprised if Nokia is the last one to make claims about Google's tablet. No company can announce any new significant mobile device without patents hitting the fan.

  26. Re:"standard essential patents"?!?!? by Missing.Matter · · Score: 2

    That makes it blindingly clear that these patents utterly fail every possible test as far as non-obviousness, inventiveness, etc.

    Um, this isn't an issue of rounded corners or unsubstantial software patents. Nokia was a pioneer of mobile wireless technologies, none of which were obvious at the time. These patents were then incorporated into an operability standard, not the other way around.

  27. Agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This, along with Apple's latest bullshit, is all it took to convince me to buy the Nexus 7 tablet. And I'm now seriously considering the newly upgraded Galaxy Nexus phone (4.0.4) as well.

  28. I really hope that by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1

    Google has enough patents in his portfolio to blow this fucked-company out of the water and finish it off for good.

    1. Re:I really hope that by Missing.Matter · · Score: 1

      Problem is, unlike Google with Android, Microsoft will step in. Part of the Windows Phone license is patent protection by Microsoft. So if Google wants to go after Nokia, they're effectively going after Microsoft, which is not the best idea in a patent war.

    2. Re:I really hope that by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      if Google wants to go after Nokia, they're effectively going after Microsoft, which is not the best idea in a patent war.

      neither is directly attacking Google. until now the trolls have been attacking everyone except Google out of fear of Google going full nuclear on them but nokia is getting brazen and has decided to attack Google this will be a very very long drawn out battle. Google will protect the nexus line of phones because it is theirs. they will throw their whole mobile war chest at it including all of those patents they bought off of IBM and the Motorola Mobility Patents, Nokia which is struggling financially will call in their big brother Microsoft to defend them then this will get really ugly because then we will see the OS and Search and Mobile patents all three. OS patent will mean we might actually get to see those patents that Microsoft has been claiming Linux infringes on and that would possibly open up the patant war to end all patent wars with Microsoft vs World(anyone with a vested interest in Linux like say IBM Redhat Oracle HP VMware just to name a few). In search Gooogle will totally dominate MS and possibly kill bing. this could be a very long patent war. It could be fun to watch at least it would from a country without software patents as for us still in the states it will be a pain in the A**.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  29. Cowardice by Microsoft by belgianguy · · Score: 0

    Even their legal strategies are taking a chapter or two from the Apple playbook... They sat on their asses and missed the mobile boat, but instead of pursuing original ideas and providing competition, they'll just try to slow Android down with frivolous patent lawsuits with the ultimate target to create a void where their outdated and locked-down toy OS can compete on a tilted playing field. I'm pretty sure they'll move in to try and land some free punches once Apple starts going after Android again. Evidently Apple won't even peep about Microsofts' tablet products, as they both want to split up the market among themselves, after eliminating Google by using every dirty trick in the book.

    Such cowardice of Microsoft, having a once deeply-respected company like Nokia do its dirty work. But it's not surprising in the current climate.

    Enjoy your walled gardens, as an unlimited stream of frivolous software patent suits (and the USPTO will make sure there are enough to go around) will make sure only those survive.

    1. Re:Cowardice by Microsoft by kanto · · Score: 1

      Nokia missed the mobile boat? Fucking news to me. Considering Nokia sued Apple before MS deal I think you really need to try and get over the fact you were literally born yesterday compared to Nokia.

    2. Re:Cowardice by Microsoft by belgianguy · · Score: 1

      Microsoft missed the boat, remember how a certain Microsoft exec laughed at Apple's attempt at creating a mobile phone and how much more features Microsoft packed in theirs? Remember what happened to Courier? Have you any recollection of how the mobile landscape evolved since then? Do you see much influence by Microsoft?

      That's what I would dare to call "missed the boat".

      Now they (Microsoft) have to play catch-up, but instead of accelerating their own R&D, they're falling back on harassing the competition. And they're (ab)using Nokia to do their dirty work for them. Nokia is a mere husk of what it used to be, it has been relagated to being Microsoft's IP bulldog. It was a formidable company, but it has been plucked of anything valuable and has someone at the helm with more allegiance to that other company than to Nokia itself. It's a sinking ship, but it might be able to broadside some others before the waves pull it under completely.

      The rest of your reaction does not merit further explanation and is a pretty baseless ad hominem.

    3. Re:Cowardice by Microsoft by kanto · · Score: 1

      Well, you obviously did not RTFA (because it's about Nokia, not MS) and were just prepared to go on the 'oh, the M$' rant about how they're using Nokia to do their dirty work... Nokia and MS have a deal, they're not going to sue MS & WP, try processing that.

      I think Nokia would/should require Google to license their tech even without MS deal; there's no reason for Nokia to subsidise Google even if they aren't out to make real money on the HW itself. They've told Google to get in touch, but since it's an American company expect a minimum 2 years of litigation for tax reasons or just because the US courts are what they are.

    4. Re:Cowardice by Microsoft by belgianguy · · Score: 1

      Good to know the author contacted you with all the necessary information about the infringing patents and details concerning exactly how (and if) the Nexus 7 infringed them, why not share your superior knowledge with us poor peons? There's no need for an M$ rant. They're far behind any other player in the mobile market and they have a lot of polishing to do with the turd that is Windows 8. So it's only logical that they compensate their inability to innovate with an increased drive to litigate. Nokia is their zombie, a sockpuppet if you will, which abides by Microsoft orders. The big phone powerhouse is no more. I would call it stating the abundantly obvious that they would not sue each other, but at least you got that right.

      Nice cheap jab at the judicial process btw, why not become a lawyer and do something about it? But then again, it nicely ties together your theme of aggressive, yet devoid of information type of posts, adorned with one or more per rectum theories.

    5. Re:Cowardice by Microsoft by kanto · · Score: 1

      Nice jab at being specious, but all I know is the article. Nokia has been succesfully suing over their patents before MS deal and will continue to do so; they do have patents which actually are standards essential as in they were a big part of making the standards themselves possible.

      Try looking in the mirror and seeing how you parrot someone elses per rectum theories; the amount of pure stupidity and mallaced bias in /. these days begets aggression, this submission will most likely be the last one I respond to.

  30. Re:"standard essential patents"?!?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahah, based on your comment history, you must be off your meds. Why such hate? I guess that's what being on Slashdot for so long does to you, although the parent poster has apparently been around for much longer and manages to not be such an asshole.

  31. What to do about it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi, I'm a peon. I can send letters, emails, and texts to my representative and I just get a formed response back.

    Frankly, I don't know enough to go all point by point - disputing- what they say.

    As far as I'm concerned as a consumer, I just take it or leave it. Hence why I'm buying less and less of - well - everything.

    Corporate America is a rip off. No exceptions.

    1. Re:What to do about it? by gman003 · · Score: 1

      See, there's the beauty of this.

      We don't have to do anything. We just sit back and watch the various factions of Corporate Earth (it's not just America) kill each other off.

    2. Re:What to do about it? by DM9290 · · Score: 2

      See, there's the beauty of this.

      We don't have to do anything. We just sit back and watch the various factions of Corporate Earth (it's not just America) kill each other off.

      That isn't what happens. Corporations are not like natural human beings. When a human kills another human, you end up less than what you started with.

      When 1 corporations kills another, the victor often becomes more powerful than both corporations were as separate entities. This is the accumulation of capital. The trend is that, in time, there will be only 1 corporation left, and it will own absolutely everything.

      --
      No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
    3. Re:What to do about it? by gman003 · · Score: 1

      In traditional buyouts, yes. But this war is different. They aren't conquering, they're destroying. They're killing each other's profits and expending huge amounts of capital in lawsuits.

      They aren't in a period of increasing strength. They're in a period of vulnerability. Small, light companies can rise up and exploit the situation, gain a significant market share while still being relatively untouched by the war.

      Yes, the "one winner uber-mega-corporation" outcome is a possibility. But it's more a worst-case than a probable-case.

    4. Re:What to do about it? by mattr · · Score: 1

      Make a SuperPac like Colbert

    5. Re:What to do about it? by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      This is what I don't understand. Cooperating with each other explicitly or implicitly is a positive sum game. Some might win more than others, but everyone wins. Traditional corporate warfare is at least approximately zero sum, one company buys out the other, they lose control but they still get the money. But this patent war crap? It's massively and obviously negative sum. Who was the guy sitting in his office that thought this was a good idea and why does it keep going on? Even the winners are spending as much in court costs, lawyer bills, and PR losses as they could possibly hope to gain.

    6. Re:What to do about it? by gman003 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem is that you are assuming the "guy sitting in his office" is rational. People are *not* rational. I know I'm not, and I've yet to see a truly rational person. Oh sure, at times, maybe even most of the time, people are somewhat rational. But "homo sapiens sapiens" isn't nearly as wise as he thinks he is.

      Their chain of thinking is relatively simple. In the beginning, it was simple - you have a Good Idea, one worth money, one that lets you make good products that you sell for more money.

      Patents were invented to protect those Good Ideas, to reward the people who came up with Good Ideas. So obviously, when you have a Good Idea, you should patent it.

      Eventually, the distinction between Good Ideas and patents was lost. Every Good Idea becomes patented; every patent covers a Good Idea. And, as Good Ideas are good things that you want a lot of, patents must be good things that you want a lot of.

      So the men in suits pushed for more patents. They pushed their thinkers to file more patents, and pushed the laws so they could patent more ideas (because, after all, if an idea is patented, it must be a Good Idea that brings in money!)

      But they pushed too far. They ended up with patents that were not Good Ideas, maybe just good ideas. Maybe just ideas, or bad ideas, or just ideas for ideas. And they had so many, they covered almost everything. You can't make a product without using hundreds, even thousands, of patents.

      And there are *two* ways to make money from patents. First, you can use it to make a Good Product. But you can also use it to get money from someone else who is making a Good Product.

      And more and more, the men in suits focused more on the second way than the first way. Which fed the cycle more - driving more and more patents. Which drove more and more patent suits.

      It's a common error of human psychology to never see yourself as the aggressor. People almost always see themselves as the one *being* attacked, not the one *doing* the attacks. So now the men in suits are scared, because they feel as though they're under attack by patents.

      But in the system we've ended up with, there really is no defense against patents. All you can do is go on the offensive yourself.

      And so they fight back, because that's the only option they can see. They probably can tell it will end badly for them, but I imagine they blame the other companies for "forcing" them into this situation (because, after all, most people prefer to blame others rather than their own short-sightedness).

      They can't see that there is an option to change the game, because few men can truly see that option while they play the game. We outsiders can see it, because we aren't in the middle of it.

  32. Good timing by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    If something goes wrong they don't have anything left to lose anyway

  33. Ceo elop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Nexus 7 also violates Nokia’s patent for “a method for losing money on hardware sales.”

    1. Re:Ceo elop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That patent was invalidated, Sony claimed prior art.

  34. Yeah, nokia is microsoft's bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *Going down the drain... lalalalalaa*

  35. Wait a minute! by corvax · · Score: 1

    Doesnt broadcom make the wireless chipset? Doesnt broadcom pay for a license and pass the costs on to manufacturers when they buy said chipset? Why doesnt google just buy nokia pay double what its worth if they have to dump windows phone and stop the insanity?

    1. Re:Wait a minute! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Motorolla (now google) didn't seem to care that apple used qualcomm chipsets.

  36. Jigsaw puzzle patents by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 1

    Public support for patents appear to be premised on the idea that patents protect inventions. An invention is generally understood to be some useful thing like the lightbulb or the telephone. The reality, of course, is that most patents don't cover standalone objects but bits and pieces of them.

  37. Desperate Nokia? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    For a company near deaths door it sure do sound like it...

  38. Nokia is sinking to new lows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is a sign of utter desperation when a company resorts to abusing patents in an anti-competitive way, like this.
    The rats are on floating above deck, as the Nokia ship sinks below the waves, full steam ahead; the deranged captain still screaming that he his heading in the right direction (and perhaps in a twisted sort of way, he is - to the bottom of the sea, never to be seen again)

  39. Lets not overract by morcego · · Score: 1

    So far, all we have is a statement from Nokia. They are not taking legal action, trying for an injunction or anything. From what I can see and read on the article, it seems Nokia is only trying to force Asus/Google to come and talk to them, which is ok in my book.
    Trying to compare this to the stunt Apple is pulling is, at best, sensationalism ... and at worst (and thus, correct), stupid.

    --
    morcego
  40. Defending royalties is obligate by goombah99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can't prove it but we all know this is another one of Microsoft's proxy wars.

    Never know, Apple might have caught on and started a few themselves.

    Apple had to license the Nokia patents a while back. It is likely the agreement specified that if there were royalties they could not be larger than anyone else pays. This puts the onus on Nokia to defend it's patents in the future or apple might clawback the agreement.

    More to the point, noika's patent portfolio is prodigious and that R&D was not created for trolling but to pave the early and future path of mobile. It is thus not surprising that many things we now (a few years later) take for granted were patentable innovations not very long ago, and Nokia holds them. Even though Nokia is now a crippled weakling in the smart phone market, you have to remember they once were a top athlete before they started taking Performance enhancing drugs (windows). Their future return to profitability is going to depend on a steady patent royalty stream to be able to attract new investors.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:Defending royalties is obligate by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      See, Nokia is talking about "standards essential" patents. A situation that needs to be outlawed. Granting a monopoly on a new invention is one thing, mandating by a standard that everybody must use that new invention is quite another. And quite outrageous. This widespread practice has only flourished in the past because it has flown under the radar of the average citizen. It can't be allowed to continue.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:Defending royalties is obligate by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      That's a mischaracterization. Patents that are knowingly included in a standard are typically subject to FRAND, and this is agreed to by all parties voting on the standard usually because the patented method is desirable. The standard itself is required as it benefits all to have interoperability in a given field, i.e. cellular communication. To preclude the patented method, the group would need to find an alternate to base the standard on, which is jut as likely to be patente by someone.

      The idea is then that the FRAND rates are low enough that no one will object to them. Nokia's assertion here is that ASUS and Google have failed to license the patent at all.

      Assuming there are to be patents at all, without standards essential patents and FRAND, standards could not effectively exist, as no one would submit their methods to standards bodies. They'd duke it out with incompatible systems until one prevailed (like beta/VHS, BD/HDDVD, etc.)

      Now if you want to talk about overhauling patents as an overall concept, I'm with you. But FRAND for standards essential patents in one of the few aspects of patents that makes good sense within the current framework.

    3. Re:Defending royalties is obligate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not that terrible. As part of standards bodies, each company puts their block up on the same terms for everybody else. In practical terms, everybody passes a check to the right and shakes hands.

      The only time it really breaks is when an ENTIRELY NEW player comes into an industry. They haven't been part of the standards bodies, so they get to be "initiated" by paying everybody off. Once they get over it, they get a seat in the circle and everybody's happy.

    4. Re:Defending royalties is obligate by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Patents that are knowingly included in a standard are typically subject to FRAND

      FRAND is a cynical joke, as we all know, even you.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  41. Going the way of Polaroid by silviuc · · Score: 1

    Hey look, we're has-beens and now all we can do is patent trolling. Looking forward to buying my "Nokia" branded light bulbs.

  42. Mark my words: Nokia will become the next SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a big chest of patents, and no consumer base left, a mere appendage of MS, and a shadow of its former awesome self, MS will use them, to troll half the planet, in a story that will make the SCO debacle look like a children's birthday party.

    Poor Nokia. :/

    I hope everyone who works/worked there, is leaving, and forming a new company making successors to the N900.

  43. Re:Ahh... I remember my last Nokia phone! Oh, wait by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    Has Samsung pulled their head out of their ass yet? The last Samsung phone I had (M900 - Moment) was a total piece of shit.

  44. I hope they get it banned by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 2

    I hope it gets to the point where no devices can be launched on time. Hopefully then someone will pull their damned finger out and fix the patent problems.

    1. Re:I hope they get it banned by ProfessorChaos111 · · Score: 1

      So instead of sitting around pointing the finger and complaining about the broken intellectual property law why don't you try writing some new laws and sending it to your local member. Legislation is hugely complicated, especially when you have huge companies with massive legal resources and the most outstanding legal minds trying to exploit every vulnerability in the legal fabric. The legal structure is never going to be perfect because it is a social construct that evolves when creative people engage with it and evolve it. So get out there and contribute.

      --
      'Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail'. Emerson
    2. Re:I hope they get it banned by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      I have done as have many others but for the time being it seems corporate money speaks louder than people who are concerned about doing things right.

  45. Im sure they do not need to pay Nokia anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Basically, it depends on how google has added wifi. When good has made their own chip, then indeed they do need to pay nokia.
    I would be willing to bet however that google is using a pre-certified broadcom module or similar. In which case, they just plug it in, stick on the device, contains FCC ID blah blah and Bobs your uncle. No need license anything. Thats one of the points of going with a module.

    1. Re:Im sure they do not need to pay Nokia anything by jrumney · · Score: 1

      I'd be very surprised if they are using a module in a slim tablet form factor. More likely they are buying the chips and putting them directly on the main PCB, in which case there are likely to be patents which the chip manufacturer did not license (as a chip is not capable by itself of implementing many of the patents).

  46. Using a Module?? by pablo_max · · Score: 1

    I would be willing to bet however that google is using a certified Broadcom module, in which case, they just plug it in, stick on the device, contains FCC ID blah blah and Bobs your uncle. No need license anything.

  47. Re:Ahh... I remember my last Nokia phone! Oh, wait by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    My Galaxy S2 Epic (sprint touchscreen) kicks ass. I have it rooted and run an Ice Cream Sandwich rom. Excellent phone. I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade to the Galaxy S3 once 4g LTE becomes available in my area.

    The Moment is ~3 years ago. It was a fair phone at the time, a bit chunky. It had a decent processor from what I heard. Both Samsung hardware and Android have come a long way.

  48. PJ, from Groklaw, had this to say. by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    [PJ: So, Nokia is suing over a FRAND license. That explains something I was wondering about. With Apple and Microsoft telling the ITC that FRAND licensors should never be allowed to seek an injunction, Nokia sent in a letter [PDF] of support for Microsoft against Motorola, but unlike other supporters of Microsoft it didn't go that far on the FRAND-injunction issue. In footnote 1, it wrote:

    "Nokia owns thousands of patents that have been declared essential to various industry standards. Yet in spite of the fact that Nokia has participated in several International Trade Commission investigations as both complainant and respondent, Nokia has never sought an exclusionary order before this Commission based on the infringement of a declared-essential patent. In Nokia’s view, the RAND commitment would not require the relinquishment of the right to seek or enforce an injunction in exceptional circumstances such as the total refusal to negotiate with the holder of an essential patent or the complete refusal to fulfill, or even acknowledge the existence of, a party’s FRAND payment obligations on patents that are valid, essential, and infringed." As you see, it is holding its options open. And suing Google/Android is very much part of the Nokia-Microsoft partnership, I've long said. If you won't buy their phones, they'll narrow your choices or make money from taxing the successful. Do you love patents yet?]

  49. I figured Apple would file the suit by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    But it seems that Microsoft has stepped up to the plate. FWIW: I was right about Google being sued over this. And the lawsuit is coming from the same patent abuse machine.

    1. Re:I figured Apple would file the suit by IrrepressibleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Read the article that YOU submitted. It's an insubstantial piece from the Inquirer, but it certainly doesn't claim that Nokia has filed suit. It has nothing to with Apple either.
      I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your comment here makes me believe that the poor quality article was submitted to troll.

  50. Just like the scox scam by walterbyrd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft chose scox as a proxie for the same reason. Scox was dead in the water before they filed their lawsuit against IBM - about ten years ago now.

    Scox had gobs of msft money to gain, and nothing to lose.

    Nokia is the sequel to scox.

  51. Nokia, the loser, will try anything (no surprise) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nokia, after losing the mobile market due to lack of innovation and years of changing the power and earphone jacks on each new model phone so as to attempt to tie customers to their proprietary plugs, is broke and a loser in the market. They're grasping at straws to stay solvent. I am saying nothing about the merits of the patent dispute, just saying they're starving and desperate and nobody should be surprised to see how low they stoop. They simply missed the boat on software and the market spoke loud and clear about their proprietary plugs. Let big daddy Microsoft take care of you :) Oh, and good luck there :)

  52. Re:Ahh... I remember my last Nokia phone! Oh, wait by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

    Just because you bought low end crap doesnt mean Nokia does not make quality phone. I love my N9, and I wish they would make more like it.

  53. Are you serious? by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    Reading comprehension is important, you should work on it. I have one of the best Android phones on the market the Galaxy S2 (Sprint Epic Touch version).

    And I said MOST of Nokia's phones are shit. And they are. For every one decent phone Nokia builds they make ten pieces of crap aimed at the pay-as-you-go no contracts market.

    1. Re:Are you serious? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension is important, you should work on it. I have one of the best Android phones on the market the Galaxy S2 (Sprint Epic Touch version).

      I took it as you dont remember your last nokia phone, because most of the stuff they make is crap. It is only natural to assume that you dont remember your phone because it was crap. Hence my comment. If you did not mean that, you should work on your writing.

      And I said MOST of Nokia's phones are shit. And they are. For every one decent phone Nokia builds they make ten pieces of crap aimed at the pay-as-you-go no contracts market.

      Ahh, so your problem is they make cheap crap. And you would be happy if they stopped making cheap crap that some people apparently buy, and they only sell high end stuff. Mmm, interesting.

    2. Re:Are you serious? by Picass0 · · Score: 1

      >> "And you would be happy if they stopped making cheap crap that some people apparently buy, and they only sell high end stuff."

      I imagine their shareholders would be happier too.

      Tech companies either innovate or litigate. If Nokia is going to act like SCO and become a serial lawsuit filer they can go away.

    3. Re:Are you serious? by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      I imagine their shareholders would be happier too.

      Tech companies either innovate or litigate. If Nokia is going to act like SCO and become a serial lawsuit filer they can go away.

      I would imagine shareholders would be happy if Nokia does well in both markets - high-end innovative stuff and cheap previous generation crap. But thats just me, I guess. And I would be unhappy if Nokia starts acting like SCO too. Fortunately, it is not. Nokia has tons of valid FRAND patents, that is really the bread and butter of the industry.

  54. Re:Ahh... I remember my last Nokia phone! Oh, wait by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    I know it's an old phone. I just had such a horrible experience with it that I moved to HTC phones after it. :) My problem wasn't with it's age or power. It was with things like random shutdowns, hard locks, the infamous radio issue, etc...

  55. NULL topic by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    (Microsoft || Nokia) ... same company. Enough said.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"