Slashdot Mirror


Nokia Officially Lists Patents Google's VP8 Allegedly Infringes

An anonymous reader writes "Google just settled video codec patent claims with MPEG LA and its VP8 format, which it wants to be elevated to an Internet standard, already faces the next round of patent infringement allegations. Nokia submitted an IPR declaration to the Internet Engineering Task Force listing 64 issued patents and 22 pending patent applications it believes are essential to VP8. To add insult to injury, Nokia's declaration to the IETF says NO to royalty-free licensing and also NO to FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing. Nokia reserves the right to sue over VP8 and to seek sales bans without necessarily negotiating a license deal. Two of the 86 declared IPRs are already being asserted in Mannheim, Germany, where Nokia is suing HTC in numerous patent infringement cases. A first VP8-related trial took place on March 8 and the next one is scheduled for June 14. In related Nokia-Google patent news, the Finns are trying to obtain a U.S. import ban against HTC to force it to disable tethering (or, more likely, to pay up)."

180 comments

  1. I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe then, the US Congress will finally take notice and do something serious about patent reform.

    1. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by symbolset · · Score: 2

      The winning strategy has never been to list the patents up front. As long as they do that, people will now go about invalidating them. VP8 was already designed to work around patent restricions - one of the few software projects to take that strategy.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    2. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The status quo wouldn't be affected by this, so probably no.

    3. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Carewolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The winning strategy has never been to list the patents up front.

      Well, the FUD strategy has been to never list the patents. If you actually do have patents there is no good reason not to list them. One of the big problems with software patents is exactly that they can be so broad that working around them is actually impossible.

    4. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by crizh · · Score: 1

      What is it going to take for Google to get its finger out and buy Nokia already.

      If they can't afford it I'm sure Samsung, HTC et al will chip in. With Nokia's patent portfolio they could bitchslap Apple/M$ but good.

      --
      Trust The Computer, The Computer is your friend.
    5. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 1, Insightful

      VP8 was already designed to work around patent restricions

      Anyone who follows codecs will know that VP8 is extremely similar to H.264 baseline, enough that patent infringement is an almost certainty. As much as we wish that wasn't true, it is. Their "work around" was to give identical technologies different names and put their fingers into their ears screaming "LA LA LA LA LA" denying any patent infringement. When they realized this wasn't going to work, Google finally licensed the patents from MPEG LA.

      The more interesting (though not entirely surprising) bit from this news is that MPEG LA might not actually own all the patents required for H.264 to work.

    6. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by larry+bagina · · Score: 2

      There seems to be a lot of confusion about what MPEG LA is and isn't. They're a patent pool. They don't own any patents themselves, they just make it simple to license out a large basket of many (but not all) H.264 patents (one of the conditions is that you also put your own H.264 patents into the pool). You could go out and negotiate patent licenses from the original holders if so inclined.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    7. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Microsoft is pulling Nokia's strings. They're the MS attack team's heir apparent to SCO.

      This one will play out over as many years as the SCO FUD machine did.

    8. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course its just a Microft shill bashing Google.

    9. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is still a FUD-filled article.

      If you look at the list, the 86 patents turn out to be just a few basic concepts, with each patent obtained in multiple jurisdictions.

      It appears Florian Muller is preparing to resume his old SCO role as Microsoft-sponsored pundit.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    10. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by steveha · · Score: 5, Insightful

      patent infringement is an almost certainty.

      I'm not a lawyer, but I think I am "anyone who follows codecs" and I'm not as sure of this as you are.

      A lot of patents are very narrow. Many of the famous software patents, like One-Click, are disturbingly broad, but many of the patents related to video compression are narrow. The VP8 strategy, as I understand it, was to study the patents and make sure that everything in VP8 was just different enough that it doesn't infringe.

      This means that VP8 is an inferior codec compared to H.264; some of the patented techniques really are better. However, it should be a "good enough" codec for most purposes.

      Their "work around" was to give identical technologies different names and put their fingers into their ears screaming "LA LA LA LA LA" denying any patent infringement.

      -1, flamebait.

      When they realized this wasn't going to work, Google finally licensed the patents from MPEG LA.

      I don't purport to have a secret pipeline into Google management and be able to tell what they were thinking. Do you have such a secret pipeline?

      An equally workable summary is: Google had an opportunity to throw a few dollars at MPEG-LA and end the FUD forever, and they did so. Even if Google was convinced they could win on the merits in court, it was worth something to just make the problems vanish.

      Note that Google specifically has not agreed that there was any patent infringement:

      "This agreement is not an acknowledgment that the licensed techniques read on VP8. The purpose of this agreement is meant to provide further and stronger reassurance to implementors of VP8," said Google executive Serge Lachapelle in a post on a forum.

      Source: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2030241/google-licenses-video-codec-from-mpeg-la-to-bolster-vp8.html

      P.S. I am somewhat bemused by your tone. It seems you are eager to see VP8 get shackled by patents... why is that? Are you so certain that Google is a bad actor here that you just want to see Google get punished? Or do you hate freedom, or what exactly?

      Please for one moment stipulate that VP8 contains technologies that are just enough different from the patents that they don't infringe... would you still have a problem with VP8 in that case?

      MPEG-LA has claimed that it is impossible to make a video codec without infringing patents, because all the fundamental technologies are patented... is this, in your opinion, a good situation?

      I'm personally cheering for Google in all this. They spent over $100 million to buy On2, just so they could set VP8 free. As far as I can tell, they did this for two reasons:

      • So they could ensure that their costs would not skyrocket on YouTube. They weren't looking forward to choosing between paying possibly-ruinous patent royalties, or using lame video codecs and burning far too much bandwidth.
      • To help keep us all a bit more free. Lots of the people who work at Google are geeks like us and value freedom as we do.
      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    11. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by caspy7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The more interesting (though not entirely surprising) bit from this news is that MPEG LA might not actually own all the patents required for H.264 to work.

      In which case it might be in MPEG LA's interest to work to invalidate the patents.

    12. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by isdnip · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sad but apparently true. Microsoftie Steven Elop took over the reins at Nokia a couple of years ago, abandoned their Linux plans and other OSs, and declared that the company would stake its future on Windows Phone. Which Nokia now makes, not that it's a big hit. So the struggling company will happily swim in Microsoft's spit as it hopes to rely on them for a lifeline.

      It won't work in the long term either. Microsoft has no strategic partners, only strategic victims.

    13. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that you are 'cheering' is irrelevant and speaks to the 'LaLala' bit in the upper threads. Anyone with any knowledge of MPEG basics could see this coming, which is why the industry avoided VP8 like the plague. The fact that Google licensed these is just an acknowledgement that their case wasn't strong enough.

      The basics of MPEG motion encoding is pretty much a settled tech, and VP8 didn't offer anything 'new' in that arena, but used those same basic technologies.

      This was inevitable. Is it a blow for freedom? I don't think so in this case. It was never free to begin with. It was already patented.

    14. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hur dur Google apologist out in force.

    15. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that Google licensed these is just an acknowledgement that their case wasn't strong enough.

      I thought it was because MPEG-LA said that it is "impossible" to create a video codec that won't infringe on at least one patent in their pool. That's it, video codecs can never get better because every possible codec is already patented.

    16. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by recoiledsnake · · Score: 0, Troll

      It won't work in the long term either. Microsoft has no strategic partners, only strategic victims.

      Except for Dell, Lenovo, Acer, Samsung, HP who made and continue to make tens of billions by being Microsoft's partners. Stop this revisionist simplistic nonsense, please.

      --
      This space for rent.
    17. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Microsoft just back stabbed all his 'partners' by making his own laptop hardware and undercut all manufacturers that has to pay the Microsoft tax to get an OS on their machine. Partnership with Microsoft is stupid. What ever you do, software or hardware, if you ever become successful they going to clone you for cheaper. DON'T DO THEIR RESEARCH FOR FREE. If you are wise enough to develop long-term get your customer on Linux and build your product around free software. Not only you become free of Microsoft corruption but your product end up been cheaper and more competitive.

    18. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...

      Or do you hate freedom, or what exactly?

      I couldn't read past this point without wondering... when did you stop beating your wife?

    19. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Ozmanjusri, you're in serious danger of earning the coveted "+5 Troll" /. achievement. This is a Holy Grail I have aspired to for 10 years and more. I certainly hope some few folks with mod points give you "underrated" to put it over for you.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    20. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      You really think the US congress cares about anything but the oodles of money they got from MAFIAA ??

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    21. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      To add to the confusion, they have no relationship other than the name to the MPEG itsself. They are called MPEG LA because they were first formed to pool patents related to the MPEG standard.

    22. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      This is a patent issue, not copyright. They are indebted to their corporate masters, but different ones. The US is still home to many of the tech industry giants (Intel, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, etc) - and strong patent laws at home and around the world make sure those industry giants stay giant, rather than being displaced by upstarts from competing countries. Similar situation in drug development. It's basic economic protectionism, and every government does it to some extent. It's only common sense to protect those industries which contribute more to exports than imports if you wish to maintain a healthy balance of trade.

    23. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by ais523 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work any more; Slashdot just deletes the word altogether if it contradicts the score. I think the highest score you can get on a "Troll" post is 2.

      --
      (1)DOCOMEFROM!2~.2'~#1WHILE:1<-"'?.1$.2'~'"':1/.1$.2'~#0"$#65535'"$"'"'&.1$.2'~'#0$#65535'"$#0'~#32767$#1"
    24. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      As are the AC trolls, apparently.

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    25. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by symbolset · · Score: 1

      I've seen it done. It can be done.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    26. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      And which of these do you believe enjoys the relationship?

      Before you answer too quickly, ponder which ones would continue selling Windows exclusively if there was a viable mainstream alternative? They tolerate the conditions imposed upon them because they feel they must, not because they feel like "partners".

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    27. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by akanouras · · Score: 1

      Rooting for software patents, or the ones asserting them, only keeps the barriers to entry in place for FLOSS projects and small businesses.

      Unless you are a shareholder of the patent-asserting company, or in its payroll, it doesn't make any sense to defend them.

    28. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since you said it:

      Dell just went private because they have LOST so much share they didn't want to stay public. Looks like it was Mike that was paying back the stockholders,.. Not Steve, ouch.

      Lenovo, IBM outsourced PC maker that IBM finally just gave up trying to make money on.

      HP has bought Compaq and several other brands trying to stay solvent making PCs and gone through how many CEOs?

      Lastly, Samsung and Acer are only on the game because they WERE the CHEAP LABOR 10 years ago, and now as OEMs they had enough parts and/or assembly tied up to bring their own brand when the First String players all went under. They are bodies and screwdrivers, nothing more.

      Of this whole list only two companies (HP & Dell) have ever had any input at all into WRITING SOFTWARE that is important enough to Microsoft Windows to make the copyright blurb. The rest of the parties build boxes and put its good enough effort into making the machines boot up properly.. Microsoft or chipmakers do all the rest. Only Dell and HP were ever vaguely "partners" the rest were BENEATH MS customer status a very long time they built boxes.

    29. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by magic+maverick+ · · Score: 1

      http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=22890&cid=2463249

      See my journal for +4 redundant and offtopic links as well.

      --
      HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
    30. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more interesting (though not entirely surprising) bit from this news is that MPEG LA might not actually own all the patents required for H.264 to work.

      No shit? I've been saying precisely this during the entire "VP8 must infringe patents unlike good 'ol H.264! Use H.264, it's safe!" troll fest.

      H.264 never was, never is and never will be any safer than any other alternative. Which, really, means there's no good reason not to use VP8 anyway. You're just as likely to be infringing on someone's patents, so you may as well go for the cheapist option.

    31. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anyone with any knowledge of MPEG basics could see this coming, which is why the industry avoided VP8 like the plague

      So now that it's evident that On2/Google hold patents that are essential to MPEG, and that Nokia also hold patents that are essential to MPEG and are willing to sue over them, I assume everyone is now avoiding MPEG like the plague?

      No? Oh, why's that then?

    32. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Explain why, tough boy, to me, th reader.

    33. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Khalid · · Score: 1

      Yes this is exactly what I tought, here we go again, what's next ? bankrupcy like SCO. So bad for this ex-glory !

    34. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Florian, you're not a reader, you're an active participant. You've already been outed in threads further down.

      Why don't you log in and discuss this honestly?

    35. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Christian+Smith · · Score: 1

      You're half right. Moderating as troll knocks off points (back to 4).

      This reply is also partly to undo the moderation.

    36. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Just another example of why Slashdot needs to get rid of ACs, if they don't have the balls to stand by their comments they should probably STFU.

      And I'm sorry to the Google fanbois but anybody who had taken more than a minute to glance at the MPEG patents could have told you this, short of inventing an entire new way to encode and decode video you are royally fucked because those MPEG patents cover pretty much every way we know to encode and stream video, as much as I think they are a douchebag company MPEG-LA pretty much has and the patents are specific enough that I doubt the courts will knock 'em down.

      Now if you just want to complain how it sucks? hey I'm right there with ya, patenting software is retarded but as long as that is the law of the land MPEG-LA is gonna control video for quite a few years.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    37. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Kartu · · Score: 1

      Sorry but I don't get how patent being just a "basic concept" makes this article or the fact that Google will have problems FUD?
      Microsoft managed to get 20-25$ per device for patents like "loading status icon":
      http://androidcommunity.com/barnes-noble-reveals-microsofts-android-patents-in-detail-20111114/

      USPO grants patents for such crap, and it is SUCCESSFULLY used as a weapon.
      And here we come, Nokia, multi-billion company, former leader of the mobile industry, now de-facto delivery boy of the Microsoft (and, what a coincidence, ran bu ex MS manager) goes after Google with this crap.

    38. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      The claim that VP8's inferior isn't a foregone conclusion based on what it doesn't infringe upon. Really? You actually believe that tripe?

      The only way one can determine if it's an inferior or superior codec is on the quantitative and qualitative results of the compression- and pretty much nothing else.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    39. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by node+3 · · Score: 1

      Maybe then, the US Congress will finally take notice and do something serious about patent reform.

      What's the worst that can happen here? Google can no longer distribute or license WebM video/codecs/players, and everyone goes back to using H.264 (and soon, H.265)?

      Isn't that how things already are? So, the "havoc" is that things are the same???

    40. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by node+3 · · Score: 1

      I want a reliable, high quality, widely available video standard. Through patents and the MPEG-LA, we have just that. Without patents, we'd have a mess. That's what sense it makes.

    41. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by node+3 · · Score: 1

      No, VP8 *is* infringing, H.264 "might be". That's a huge difference. Taking on Google over WebM is easy, taking on the MPEG-LA will be a tall order indeed. That's another huge difference.

      Seriously, if you're going to use a video coded, you might as well go with the safer bet, especially when that safer bet is superior in quality, directly supported in silicon all over the world, and the dominant format on the Internet.

      You're sort of right with this, though:

      you may as well go for the cheapist option.

      Yes, you may as well go for H.264. Supporting WebM is far too expensive in terms of quality, end-user battery life, fewer customers even capable of playback, increased server load, and just outright being non-standard.

    42. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by qbast · · Score: 1

      At least not until you make codec that is radically different. All current codecs are based on the same stuff - some variant of cosine transform, macroblocks, motion vectors. Just small improvements of concepts from MPEG2.

    43. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because Nokia have agreements that force them to licence patents related to H264 on FRAND terms. They have no such agreement in relation to VP8, so they can potentially force you stop stop selling your product, or charge exorbitant fees.

      Why are you commenting on this story when you obviously know nothing about the background?

    44. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Consider that you need a court case to work out if you do in fact infringe on a patent and in video codecs with the likes of the MPEG-LA there are sometime like almost 1000 of them or more. Getting just a summary/option thing from a patent attorney is about 10k last we checked and its non binding. That is a lot of cash.

      Also some of these patents are probably too broad and would be invalidated. But its a lot of em and a lot of time money to do so.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    45. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      That is why I have said that any innovation in this area will come from Asia, because the USA has become such a minefield you can't get anything done. Ironically that is exactly how the USA got a leg up on the old world in the industrial revolution, we ignored their patents and our guys could see what worked and what didn't and improve upon it, not anymore.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    46. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      I'm not certain, but I hear that's the reason Hollywood is in California. The patent-ignoring producers moved cross country to prevent litigation (back when that was feasible).

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    47. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by gd2shoe · · Score: 2

      Just another example of why Slashdot needs to get rid of ACs, if they don't have the balls to stand by their comments they should probably STFU.

      Nah, we'd just have more sock-puppets. At least this way we've got a really good clue about which posts are probably shallow (or outright inflammatory).

      (Disclaimer, I do use AC from time to time, but not for trolling.)

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
    48. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Google?

    49. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, VP8 *is* infringing

      There you are people, you heard it from judge node 3's mouth directly. Judge node 3 for the 9th circuit!

      Oh wait no it's just some guy posting his unsubstantiated opinion on Slashdot again.

    50. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by node+3 · · Score: 1

      If I was the only person saying that, then you might have a point. Even Google has admitted this implicitly.

    51. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just another example of why Slashdot needs to get rid of ACs, if they don't have the balls to stand by their comments they should probably STFU.

      I rarely see actual conversations on Slashdot between posters, merely shots fired from the darkness. Including this one. If that is the case, what is the relevance of a username if I am not interested in an identity, post history, or moderation?

    52. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people like having their balls clamped in a vice.

    53. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want a reliable, high quality, widely available video standard. Through patents and the MPEG-LA, we have just that. Without patents, we'd have a mess. That's what sense it makes.

      And I want a reliable, high quality, widely available standard for still images. We have several: JPEG, PNG, and GIF, plus a few less common ones. Despite these not being patented and despite these not being controlled by MPEG-LA, we have them and not too much of "a mess".

      So I reject your idea that only patented technologies should be used for video compression. There is nothing magical about the patents that makes things better.

      Now, thanks to some fundamental patents, there are some technologies in H.264 that make it the most efficient codec currently available. Using VP8 would mean spending more bits per second for the same video. This might be an acceptable tradeoff; for example, Wikipedia will likely choose a free codec rather than the most efficient one. But VP8 should be good enough for most purposes.

      Before H.264, the web served up video in H.263 or Sorenson or whatever. VP8 is better than those, so it clearly can be used. And the spec for VP8 is frozen, so there is no uncertainty or ambiguity about it. It really isn't "a mess".

    54. Re:I hope Nokia's lawyers wreaks havoc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The claim that VP8's inferior isn't a foregone conclusion based on what it doesn't infringe upon.

      Maybe not, but there are some clever bits that are locked away by patents so VP8 cannot use them. For example, B-frames. Are you going to claim that B-frames are not useful when trying to encode video?

      Also, see the actual results of actual tests.
      http://www.compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/h264_2010/vp8_vs_h264.html
      https://gist.github.com/Hupotronic/4645784

  2. A change of business model for Nokia? by digitig · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The making-and-selling-mobile-phones business model hasn't been working so well for Nokia of late. so maybe they're switching to SCO's business model.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    1. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      "What Nokia is doing here is simply the normal course of business if a patent holder (Nokia) does not share the vision of another company (Google) with respect to a proposed standard and reserves all rights. What motivation could Nokia possibly have to donate something to a Google initiative? None. No motivation, no obligation, no license. Simple as that"

      quoted from http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/setback-for-googles-vp8-nokia-refuses.html

    2. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yuck. Kinda makes you wonder how many other companies MS will puppet in the same way before they go under.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    3. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Could be quite bad if they do. Nokia's set of patents is a lot larger than SCO's was, and covers more recent things.

    4. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by caspy7 · · Score: 0

      I wish them the same success!

    5. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by Karzz1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't recall there ever being a patent argument in any of the SCO cases. All I recall are copyright infringement claims.

      Wikipedia agrees with this.

      From the previously linked article:

      SCO has not claimed patent infringement, as according to the US Patent and Trademark Office database, no AT&T or Novell patent was ever assigned to SCO.

      ....Microsoft paid SCO $6M (USD) in May 2003 for a license to "Unix and Unix-related patents", despite the lack of Unix-related patents owned by SCO.

      If you are aware of SCO owned patents, please do tell.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    6. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, such business model has been working great for many American, Japanese, etc. Companies. Why shouldn't they try it out?

    7. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by fsterman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Renaming the invisible product doesn't make it any less of a bullshit argument.

      --
      Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
    8. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't doing this on their own. Microsoft is currently holding the reigns forcing them to attack from another front while Microsoft tries a sneak attack up the rear.

      Sneak attacks are all Microsoft has left, their operating systems suck, their tablet sucks, their phones suck, their gaming platform sucks, in short, they suck.

    9. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like Apple.

    10. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by recoiledsnake · · Score: 0

      Yuck. Kinda makes you wonder how many other companies MS will puppet in the same way before they go under.

      Before they go under? What? Looks like Slashdot has it's own version of reality.

      --
      This space for rent.
    11. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They could collect license fees on what looks to be the big new video format. They have plenty of motivation, so I can only assume there is some reason they want to scupper it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, first, I'd think decades, surely, giving MS ample time to screw around; and second, I meant before the puppet companies go under. Caldera/SCO had lost something like 90% of its stock value a year or two before they started their campaign against Linux.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    13. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by digitig · · Score: 1

      IP trolling is IP trolling. Same business model, different product.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    14. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by node+3 · · Score: 1

      They could collect license fees on what looks to be the big new video format.

      That's amazingly lolworthy. WebM "looks to be the big new video format"? It's significantly worse than H.264, while H.265 (which raises the bar) is right around the corner!

      They have plenty of motivation, so I can only assume there is some reason they want to scupper it.

      Yes, money. And a sense of ownership (it's their patents, after all). And probably at least a bit of just wanting to fuck with Google for kicks.

    15. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by node+3 · · Score: 1

      Slashdot: Where MS has been "going under" since 1997!

      Though to be fair, MS has been on the decline lately, with a series of notable misses. Sadly, those misses have nothing to do with the Slashdot logic used to herald the end of MS.

    16. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by node+3 · · Score: 2

      And calling them both "invisible" doesn't make them the same, nor does it make them bullshit.

    17. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by node+3 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Apple has just sold more iPhones than ever, the iPhone 5 is currently the top selling smart phone, the iPhone 4S is in second place, and the iPhone 4 is in third. Apple has just had their most profitable quarter ever (and the second most profitable quarter of any public company in history).

      So, yeah, clearly selling phones hasn't worked out for Apple at all...

    18. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      ... But probably mostly because their lawyers want more money.

    19. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by node+3 · · Score: 1

      Their lawyers don't get to decided for Nokia based on whether the lawyers want more money. It's Nokia who decides whether or not to sue. No need for cynicism.

    20. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      That would depend if the lawyers have a stake in the company

    21. Re:A change of business model for Nokia? by node+3 · · Score: 1

      Sure, but that's not the case here, and is rarely ever the case that they have enough of a stake to make such a call.

  3. Is this where I say "lol"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, the last gasps of a dying company, and a dying way to make money. Good riddance to both.

  4. A patent on tethering? by russotto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So Nokia apparently has some trash "routing data from one network to another ON A MOBILE DEVICE" patent, and Florian Mueller is breathless about it. What's new?

  5. Not possible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Google said that VP8 is patent free!

    1. Re: Not possible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Google said that Google Wave is the future of email.

      Yeah. Right.

  6. How many? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's truly remarkable that a video codec can actually contain that many patents. Then consider that according to Nokia there are 86 infringing patents. Are they patenting 1+1=2? What's going on here?

    1. Re:How many? by r1348 · · Score: 1

      Method to display a video... ON A PHONE!

    2. Re:How many? by jrumney · · Score: 1

      Nokia's 87 steps to recover their position as #1 phone company in the world.

      • 1. File a patent for Method to display a video... ON A PHONE!.... IN USA!
      • 2. File a patent for Method to display a video... ON A PHONE!.... IN CANADA!
      • ...
      • 86. File a patent for Method to display a video... ON A PHONE!.... IN TIMBUKTU!
      • 87. Profit!!!
  7. Re:Who is behind these Finns? by forkazoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Microsoft. Basically, when Elop took over, Nokia became an MS Vassal. That's when they dumped the world's most popular phone OS and their internal modern OS development projects for Windows Phone, and why Windows Phone ads use Nokia phones. It's basically the same play they ran when they got SGI to start building NT workstations. And, not that far off from the investments in SCO to enable the fight against Linux. Note that the MS Vassal is actively using their patent portfolio specifically to fight one of Google's strategic plays, despite the fact that a phone vendor that has given up on OS development would probably do much better if they added Android to their phone portfolio.

  8. What else do you think Microsoft's slave can do? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What else do you think Microsoft's slave can do?

  9. WARNING - Shill is the main information source by Curupira · · Score: 5, Informative

    Almost every single link in the summary leads to fosspatents.com, home of the infamous shill Florian Mueller. I guess I'll wait for more credible sources, thanks.

    1. Re:WARNING - Shill is the main information source by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      What's the goal here? Pay a blogger to convince geeks that google is being a douche and MS is the good guy when it comes to intellectual property rights, and so we all buy windows phones?

      I can't see any way paying Florian Muller more than ten dollars a year makes any sense for their interests.

    2. Re:WARNING - Shill is the main information source by halivar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Florian, you forgot to log in.

    3. Re:WARNING - Shill is the main information source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheap shill marketing. Miller is clearly aspiring to be the lowest type of marketing bunny --the sock puppet--. He is even going about it by trying to be a troll. I could invent a new term for such a creature: a Trock puppet: --The unholy union of a troll and a sock puppet.

    4. Re:WARNING - Shill is the main information source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stallman, go for a walk and work up a fresh batch of toejam so you have something to munch on later.

  10. It's official by sjames · · Score: 2

    SCOkia is going belly up!

  11. Jesus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Enough of this shit. You want to know what hurts innovation? Shit like this. No one knows what petty (or even not petty) patents they're going to infringe upon if they try to make anything, so they just don't bother.

  12. Re:Who is behind these Finns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quite simply, this is SCO v2.0

    A dying company that's no longer relevant getting on tiptoes frantically waving its arms screaming "look at me, look at me!", all the while being propped up behind the scenes by Microsoft.

  13. Re:Who is behind these Finns? by r1348 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Nokia is now, by all extents, a Microsoft proxy.

  14. Correct me if I'm wrong but... by mindwhip · · Score: 1

    Surely with VP8 being around for about 5 years now iirc any pending patents must have been lodges after VP8?

    Can Nokia expect to win when the software they are trying to shut down with patents is usable as prior art to invalidate the same patents?

    --
    [The Universe] has gone offline.
    1. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nokia has been in phone business and phone related software business since the start. One could argue that they started the business in the first place and would be at least partially right.

      They most definitely hold at least some patents that came to be before google was formed. And a whole lot more from time after google was formed but before it purchased android.

      The problem is how they are choosing to use them. Normally you'd just negociate a licensing agreement and be done with it. But here, they're actually patent trolling. "We don't share the vision and do not want to help". So we sue to block. Ouch.

      That's not the way nokia of old got to be on top. Elop and his microsoftism shines through.

    2. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think at this point, we can all look back on their history and realize that patents suck. Their concept was noble... protect the new inventor from having his invention stolen by a large corporation. But in practice, that happens anyway. Whomever has the most money for lawyers wins. The inventor of something is completely irrelevant at this point. Patents are nothing more than a legal artifice used by corporations to siphon money from one another. So lets just give it up, drop patent law and see how it goes. It can't be any worse than what we have now.

    3. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Nokia is not a patent troll by any reasonable definition. They are a practicing entity who developed their own technology and has been in this from the beginning.

      Patent trolls rarely sue to block. As non-practicing entities there would be no commercial reason for that sort of behavior.

      This is going to be a mess unless Google just buys Nokia.

    4. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by symbolset · · Score: 1

      VP8 is evolved from TrueMotion S, released in 1990. So 22 years, not 5. Google acquired its developer ON2 in 2010.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From Wikipedia

      For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the term of patent is either 20 years from the earliest filing date as above (excluding provisional applications) or 17 years from the issue date, whichever is longer. Extensions may be had for certain administrative delays.

      so given we are in 2013 there should not even be many patents with extensions still valid at this point that covered the original...

    6. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by jcdr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nokia is not a patent troll by any reasonable definition.

      This was certainly true for a long part of the Nokia history. But the actual Nokia is something that have lost an extremely large amount of connections with the Nokia "mobile phone world leader" of the past. We are now forced to take notice that the actual Nokia is more and more close to the definition of patent troll. The latest new just confirm this trend.

    7. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      VP8 is evolved from TrueMotion S, released in 1990. So 22 years, not 5. Google acquired its developer ON2 in 2010.

      Do you mean to say nothing was done on VP8 since 1990 that could possibly infringe any patent Nokia has? Is Google trying to feed us a 23 years old technology to revolutionize youtube?

    8. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Nokia is still a major cell phone company. While they missed the boat with their smartphones, they still have large market share in other areas.

      Nokia is actually 2nd to only Samsung in total phone sales, and has a world wide market share of 20%.

      The idea they are a patent troll is completely and 100% absurd.

    9. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by Lennie · · Score: 2

      Let's see I looked at the one patent filed in my country. Patent filed at 2001, granted in 2011, valid to 2021.

      What I hate the most is these hidden patents which are first filed, but they delay it for as long as possible (so they also remain hidden) and 10 years (!) later they get granted and are valid an other 10 years.

      VP7 is from 2005, VP6 is from 2003, VP5 is from 2002. All based on TrueMotion S created in 1995 or so.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    10. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The 'evolved' part is sure to matter. There must be a lot of new techniques added. Even if there weren't, I expect many of those patents are of the 'X, but on a mobile device' form. Not the strongest of patents, but throw enough of them into court and a few are going to survive challenge just on luck alone.

    11. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by SpzToid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Methinks both the eric conspiracy and jcdr are correct in their assertions. Nokia of late, under Elop is has both business models in use at the moment: selling phones to the developing world *and* patent trolling.

      This btw is the same guy that sold the Nokia headquarters building, while agreeing to lease it back long-term.

      He closed several factories in Europe, sending production (and build-quality) to Asia.

      He's has and is paid many millions, although he's only been with the company just a few years. Coincidentally he came from Microsoft with millions of MS shares in the bank. He's Ballmer's Tool.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    12. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by symbolset · · Score: 1

      While I admire your point you already know it was lost in the noise. It may raise its head in the 9th circuit- or not.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    13. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by jcdr · · Score: 1

      The idea they are a patent troll is completely and 100% absurd.

      If you listen to a large amount of comments about Nokia this last two years, you will probably notice a dramatic increase of opinions that there is a lot of absurdities in the actual Nokia. The most absurd one is still that Nokia blindly ignore this reality...

    14. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Most of the modern "intellectual property" related legislation sucks at this point for one simple reason: it went from "give creative people more incentive to be creative" to "how can big conglomerates maximize profits by exploiting both authors and consumers as much as possible".

      Because authors and artists get screwed under modern legislation almost as badly as consumers do.

    15. Re:Correct me if I'm wrong but... by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Note that only applies if you live in the USA. In most of the rest of the world, it's a straight 20 years from date of filing, and anything published prior to the date of filing is prior art.

      Practical application of which is that give the final version of the MPEG1 specification was published in August 1993, then the later this year MP3 audio becomes patent free to decode outside the USA, as does MPEG1 video decoding. We have another three years to wait for MPEG2 video.

      Note most of the MPEG2 patents have or are about to expire anyway. MP3 decoding is patent free everywhere from September 2015, and MP3 becomes fully free in April 2017. MPEG2 video becomes free in February 2018.

      On the other hand H.264 does not become patent free till 2027. My preferred solution is to bury my head for the next few months to years and just use MP3 and MPEG2.

  15. follow the money. by span100 · · Score: 0

    Is M$ behind this ? No idea, Is it the last gasp of a company in it's death throws having drunk from the poisned m$ chalice ? No idea, Will i buy another nokia product ? Never ever ever again....

  16. Took them long enough. by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

    4.5 years after VP8 was released.
    3 years after VP8 was made open source and freely available

  17. "anonymous reader"... sure. by eddy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can someone please change the "anonymous reader writes" to "The paid shill Florian Mueller? Thanks.

    --
    Belief is the currency of delusion.
  18. The tethering patent is about to expire by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1

    ...if it hasn't already (in the US) Assuming it's a valid patent to begin with. 1995 was a long time ago.

  19. nokia,nokia..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yes...that company that used an SLR to fake their smartphone performance. Now I remember.

  20. V8, VP8, too many T.L.A.s out of my A.S.S. by hermitdev · · Score: 1

    When I first read this, I thought to my self, what does a javascript engine implementation have to do with video encoding? TLAs are annoying, often ambiguous, and easily confused when similar. I wish they would die, to a certain extent. I'm working an a project currently where a certain TLA refers to both and external system we're interfacing with, and a separating 3rd-party library we're using. To say this causes confusion would be and understatement.

    1. Re:V8, VP8, too many T.L.A.s out of my A.S.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      V8 is not a TLA and is therefore completely different. Technically, neither is VP8. In fact, since 8 is not a letter, V8 would be more of an abbrev. than an acronym.

    2. Re:V8, VP8, too many T.L.A.s out of my A.S.S. by gagol · · Score: 1

      Please define TLA. Seriously.

      --
      Tomorrow is another day...
    3. Re:V8, VP8, too many T.L.A.s out of my A.S.S. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Three letter acronym, probably, since the first acronym in the post has only two letters.
      Often also referred to as three letter agency, when talking about CIA, FBI, NSA, MI5.

  21. Hey Florian Mueller by blind+biker · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Suck my big dongle.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  22. Well that claim is not possible. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Google have patents in VP8, they cannot have said it was patent free.

    I think you're a fuckwit.

  23. Hey Florian! by symbolset · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How is consulting for Microsoft and Oracle working out?

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Hey Florian! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I'm just any reader who didn't bother to create an account to post a comment

    2. Re:Hey Florian! by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Yeah sure. And I'm Niklaus Wirth.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    3. Re:Hey Florian! by node+3 · · Score: 0

      How is consulting for Microsoft and Oracle working out?

      Probably about as well as claiming anyone with a different opinion from you is a shill.

  24. Sounds Like a Nice Pair of Antiques by rgriff59 · · Score: 1

    I'm more than happy to let Nokia claim a patent on tethering a cell phone with a cable to a PCMCIA card. Doesn't Nokia have any patents with vacuum tubes?

    1. Re:Sounds Like a Nice Pair of Antiques by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I'm not. A patent that is effectively "Routing data from one network to another through a device specifically designed to transfer data" should not be granted in the first place.

  25. Re:Who is behind these Finns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nokia became an MS lapdog

    ftfy

  26. Nokia = Microsoft, VP8 = H264 knock-off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Firstly, this is Microsoft vs Google, so why can't the summary be grown up enough to acknowledge this? Secondly, VP8 was originally a closed-source project, and the company behind this used the fact to illegally rip-off CODECs whose spec and mechanisms were published openly. When Google bought VP8, and made the specs and code-base available, it was immediately apparent that the CODEC was a VERY bad knock-off of MPEG4.

    The payment Google made to MPEG LA was a direct admittance of this fact. There seems to be zero reason why Google should be able to offer VP8 at better terms than H264, unless Google always swallows at least the same cost that deploying H264 in similar circumstances would cost. This being so, and given that VP8 is a vastly worse CODEC than MPEG4 AVC, and AVC has a brilliant open-source video encoder called x264, and AVC is supported in hardware on every modern mobile computer, why on Earth would anyone wish to use VP8?

    In an age of mobile computing, we don't need open-source solutions crippled by 'politics'. Instead, we need the best high efficiency computing solutions- solutions that respect the battery, not a bunch of junky useless abstraction layers that require watts to achieve what otherwise could be done with milliwatts. VP8 is a very poor solution that should be consigned to the dustbin of history (something Google seems to have little problem doing to so many of its other projects and purchases).

    1. Re:Nokia = Microsoft, VP8 = H264 knock-off by fsterman · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know I am not supposed to feed it, but just in case...

      Second, When MPEG LA first announced the VP8 pool formation, a rush of companies applied to be in the pool, partly because everyone wanted to see what everyone else had. That gave way to some amount of disappointment. And by 'some amount' I mean 'rather a lot really, more than the MPEG-LA would care to admit.'

      Eventually, things whittled down to a few holdouts. Those '11 patent holders' do not assert they have patents that cover the spec. They said '_may_ cover'. The press release itself repeats this. Then these patent holders said 'and we're willing to make that vague threat go away for a little cash'. Google paid the cash. This is what lawyers do.

      That's why it's a huge newsworthy deal when companies like NewEgg actually take the more expensive out and litigate a patent. It is always more expensive than settling, even if you'd win the case, and very few companies are willing or able to do it. Google was probably able, but not willing.

      As for the quality stuff, WebM is close enough that it doesn't matter. We could argue details of that point, but the real reason Google is doing this is because the use cases for a web-centric codec are VERY different than the use cases for Hollywood and broadcast media. For example, web programmers don't care about encoding speed, we care about battery usage on cell-phones.

      --
      Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?
    2. Re:Nokia = Microsoft, VP8 = H264 knock-off by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      VP8 still has room for a lot of improvement at the encoder. It took many years to get x264 to the world-class piece of software it is today, and VP8 has yet to catch up. The standard may be as good at h264 in quality/bitrate potential, but what can really be achieved is limited by the encoder.

    3. Re:Nokia = Microsoft, VP8 = H264 knock-off by Goaway · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how the fact that VP8, when trying as hard as it can, just about manages to match h.264 in high-speed mode means it is "close enough that it doesn't matter".

  27. Re:Who is behind these Finns? by kllrnohj · · Score: 0

    That's when they dumped the world's most popular phone OS and their internal modern OS development projects for Windows Phone

    When they dumped Symbian it was the *FORMER* world's most popular phone OS - Android had already dethroned Symbian when Nokia switched to Windows Phone.

    As for MeeGo - would it have taken off? Maybe, but probably not. And the hardware it launched with was decidedly not modern at the time, which was perhaps a reason Nokia killed it. If they couldn't keep up with SoC developments, they would never manage to catch up to the competition.

  28. Not Finns anymore ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Nokia has gone south once Americans took over ownership and decided to put Eflop at helm.

  29. Real Patent Reform by slacka · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wow! Back in 1999 after I purchased my first cellphone, one of the first things I did was to investigate how to connect it to my laptop to give me a mobile modem. Sure enough there was serial cable I could buy for it.

    I don't care how early Nokia was to enter the mobile phone market. There is no way they should be able to patent any part this process. I'd rather have no patents at all than grant a 20 year monopoly to some company for tacking "on a mobile device" to some obvious idea like tethering.

    We need real patent reform like:
    * Eliminating Software patents
    * Fix the "obviousness test" and throw out all the existing ones that fail to meet this standard.
    * No patents granted to logical evolution of current technology like tethering
    * Grant a theoretical patent (i.e. where invention has not yet been realized) for no more than 7 years
    * Allow a patent extension/modification upon successful invention
    * Mechanical and physics-technology patents should last no more than 15 years

    1. Re:Real Patent Reform by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just eliminate all patents. Ownership of ideas is a travesty of capitalism and an insult to the human intellect.

  30. Re:Who is behind these Finns? by jbolden · · Score: 1

    No it isn't. SCO was suing IBM for things they never did and if any did them Caldera (SCO) did them. Their filings were filled with lies.

    Nokia at least invented the stuff they are suing for. Bad yes, but they are not in SCO's league.

  31. More infringement claims coming from Nokia! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    1 + 0 = 1 ON A PHONE
    1 + 1 = 2 ON A PHONE
    1 + 2 = 3 ON A PHONE
    1 + 3 = 4 ON A PHONE
    etc
    2 + 0 = 2 ON A PHONE
    2 + 1 = 3 ON A PHONE
    2 + 2 = 4 ON A PHONE
    2 + 3 = 5 ON A PHONE
    etc

    The 86 patents infringed were just the first installment. The lawyers took a break in filing the paperwork because they were running low on crack.

  32. How is this different from prior art? by Cacadril · · Score: 1

    A mobile computer is still a computer. A mobile phone is a device containing a computer. What the tethering device is doing is not different from what any router does, and what any router does used to be done by general computers since the advent of the tcp/ip protocol suite. Or can you patent routing with a pink computer, declaring that after today, pink computers are a different kind of device? Or patent routing with a computer having a wooden case? (But that patent would not be worth much since few people need to put their computers inside wooden cases.) Or patent routing with a computer having sub x-nanometer techonoly (substitute a suitable number for 'x'), in case you are the first to achieve sub x-nanometer feature chips? What about patenting multiplication of numbers using a computer having sub x-nanometer technology?

    --
    There is no substitute for common sense. Especially, no body of rules will do.
  33. A scathing analysis of VP8 came out 3 years ago by isdnip · · Score: 1

    A blog post from "Diary of an X.264 developer" http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/377 looked at VP8 and noted a number of probable infringements. The killer argument, though, was this:

    The spec consists largely of C code copy-pasted from the VP8 source code -- up to and including TODOs, âoeoptimizationsâ, and even C-specific hacks, such as workarounds for the undefined behavior of signed right shift on negative numbers. In many places it is simply outright opaque. Copy-pasted C code is not a spec.

    So while I don't like Microsoft's business practices or Nokia's for that matter, the idea that VP8 is patent-free seems rather optimistic.

  34. Nokia declares war on the internet by kawabago · · Score: 1

    This isn't going to go well for Nokia. Already no one wants their products and Microsoft has already hinted they'll abandon Windows phone next year. Nokia is now a patent troll with no other business model. Well, it has a business model, but it's so broken it will never recover. Hiring that nitwit Elop. Elost!

    1. Re:Nokia declares war on the internet by recoiledsnake · · Score: 0

      Microsoft has already hinted they'll abandon Windows phone next year.

      This bullshit is why I hate Slashdot and posters like SymbolSet who make up lies and FUD and then you have others regurgitating this nonsense for years like dumb sheep., like Microsoft abandoning .NET.

      --
      This space for rent.
  35. Re:Who is behind these Finns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    That's when they dumped the world's most popular phone OS and their internal modern OS development projects for Windows Phone

    When they dumped Symbian it was the *FORMER* world's most popular phone OS - Android had already dethroned Symbian when Nokia switched to Windows Phone.

    No. Android was not even close to Symbian at that time.

    As for MeeGo - would it have taken off? Maybe, but probably not. And the hardware it launched with was decidedly not modern at the time, which was perhaps a reason Nokia killed it. If they couldn't keep up with SoC developments, they would never manage to catch up to the competition.

    Meego hat much better changes than Windows Phone (which did not take off and still does not sell anywhere close to what Symbian was selling in the past
    in a much smaller market.). What ever you are mumbling here about SoC development does not make any sense considering that Linux supports much more
    hardware than Windows Phone.

  36. Re:Who is behind these Finns? by gagol · · Score: 1

    It has been a while... welcome to the brave new world!

    --
    Tomorrow is another day...
  37. Re:Who is behind these Finns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    You are kidding right? The Maemo / Meego N900 and N97 received great reviews by people who actually used them.

    Pity there was fuck all advertising and then Elop came along.

  38. Nokia and HTC should merge... by bayankaran · · Score: 0

    Both Nokia and HTC are under serious threat from their competitors. They can survive if they merge. The resulting hybrid can put out the Windoze phones - which no one buys right now - and Androids which can be a credible alternative to Samsung.

    Plus they should stop patent cases...the issue with the patent trolling / litigation is not the cost of lawyers, it is the shift of focus of upper / senior management / C Level from innovation and better products to courtrooms. We all have - including the evil and socio-path chief executives - only 24 hours a day.

    The recent troubles of Apple (to an extent) can be attributed to Steve Jobs shift of focus from 'better rounded corners' to 'lawyers defending rounded corners'. Its a pity Jobs died before he could experience his idiocy first hand...all we have is the great beautiful multimillion dollar Philip Starck yatch and lawyers defending rounded corners. Tim Cook is an unlucky bugger...he is sloshing in the poop Jobs left behind as his legacy.

    --
    Tat Tvam Asi
    1. Re:Nokia and HTC should merge... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      If HTC goes Windows they are dead. Today the market for Windows phones is small, the amount of apps low compared to Android and iPhone, so no thanks Windows.

      I would say that the majority of patent cases like these are actually not valid and the only reason why they exist is that the courts are incompetent.

      The fact that they pursue this is more a sign that Nokia is dying, and their connection to Microsoft doesn't help. The patents they refer to are either obvious or there are prior art.

      Just go ahead and dig deep into the history of various technical solutions including WiFi and the old NMT and D-AMPS mobile phone systems to name a few.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Nokia and HTC should merge... by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 2

      Don't kid yourself. That yacht is the form of the insanity that his anti-cancer and anti-boredom drugs caused. Ugly as sin.

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    3. Re:Nokia and HTC should merge... by xiando · · Score: 1

      If HTC goes Windows they are dead. Today the market for Windows phones is small, the amount of apps low compared to Android and iPhone, so no thanks Windows.

      Bullshit: Only Nokia is stupid enough to put all their eggs in one basket say "We only make Windows phones and nothing else and that's smart because we say so.". HTC makes Windows Phones. Samsung makes Windows Phones. But you don't see them because HTC and Samsung also make Android phones and they make a lot more of them and they sell a lot more of them. IF Windows Phone 8 becomes a "hit" / popular then you'll instantly see everyone making Android also becoming Windows Phone makers. If HTC were to be equally stupid and say "From now on we ONLY make Windows Phones" then that would be bad, making a lot of different phones and seeing what sells is smart.

  39. What I want to know is. by TheRealDevTrash · · Score: 1

    How you can patent speech. Because, isn;t code speech, or was PZ wrong?

    --
    I used to be /dev/trash but Slashdot no longer allows slashes for usernames.
  40. Re:Who is behind these Finns? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree . MS tried years to buy Nokia to be MS locked and finally, after Apple and Google scared Nokia, succeeded.
    Now, as you said, Nokia is managed by MS. And MS is using Nokia as a tool to kill free mobile markets and competition, which do not exist in pc-world.

  41. This shouts for collective action! by udippel · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Nokia's declaration to the IETF says NO to royalty-free licensing and also NO to FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) licensing"

    Good, NOKIA; just as you like. Shoot yourself into the foot or sign your own death-knell. From here on you are a NO-NO company, and I suggest to everybody in my circles to make a large stroll around any Nokia product and I will do so myself.
    This calls for collective punishment.

    DIE, NOKIA; DIE!

  42. Personally, saddened... by Ian.Waring · · Score: 1

    I used to have tons of respect for Nokia. Then one of their employees got VLC knocked off the Apple App Store for incredibly selfish reasons (certainly didn't help VLCs market share). Now becoming a patent bully in the footsteps of their OS provider. Not pretty.

    1. Re:Personally, saddened... by 21mhz · · Score: 0

      I used to have tons of respect for Nokia. Then one of their employees got VLC knocked off the Apple App Store for incredibly selfish reasons (certainly didn't help VLCs market share).

      What makes you think it was the company's doing? The guy had been developing VLC since before he came to Nokia, and he correctly pointed out that Apple store's terms of use are incompatible with the licensing of VLC, while everybody else were going "lalalaaa, I don't want to hear anything, let me have VLC on my locked down iPhone because I love free software".

      I won't even get into the subject of "VLCs market share". Who develops open software to grab market share, anyway?

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
  43. wooow by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

    That title really is making my head hurt. I reallys hates that.

  44. Submarine patents -- disgusting! by backslashdot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Country:US:Filing date:19.01.2001, Filing number:09/766035, Pub.number:20010017944, Grant number:NA

    It's disgusting they have patents filed in 2001 that are still pending that means they have will have a monopoly on that particular invention until abotu 2030, due to a loophole in the patent law that states that if the patent takes longer than 2 years to grant .. the time until the actual grant date doesn't count. This allows companies to extract royalties for 30 to even 40 years, especially if they had other patents that were granted for a particular type of technology.

    The US Patent Office is to blame for this mess!!!

    1. Re:Submarine patents -- disgusting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not how it works. The 2 year period is subject to restrictions, and we'd need to know more about the patent prosecution history to know if there would be any extension (let alone a 9 year extension). A 12 year pendency is highly unusual and likely not the PTO's fault.

    2. Re:Submarine patents -- disgusting! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh not its not highly unusual .. There are many HDTV related patents from the late 1990s in this same state. It means that HDTV patent fees will be extorted well into the 2030s even though HDTV was invented in the 90s.

  45. Re:Who is behind these Finns? by 21mhz · · Score: 1

    That's when they dumped the world's most popular phone OS

    Gosh how hate for Microsoft makes you say stupid things. Or did you actually prefer Symbian?

    and their internal modern OS development projects

    I worked on those projects and believe me, a credible alternative from Microsoft wasn't the biggest of their problems.

    --
    My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
  46. Dear Nokia, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my current phone is from you. My next one dead sure won't be.

    An ex-customer.

  47. Re:Who is behind these Finns? by 21mhz · · Score: 1

    You are kidding right? The Maemo / Meego N900 and N97 received great reviews by people who actually used them.

    You seem to be confusing N9 with N97; funny, because the latter was perhaps Nokia's lowest fall.
    Yes, the several hundred thousand Linux enthusiasts gave the devices great reviews. There were not-so-great reviews too, but our memory is selective... Now Lumia phones receive great reviews too.

    --
    My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
  48. The shareholders by 21mhz · · Score: 1

    Basically, the company is obliged by its shareholders to make money in any legal way. Milking the patent system is one such way. The answer is to fix the system.

    --
    My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
  49. Re:Who is behind these Finns? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

    When they dumped Symbian it was the *FORMER* world's most popular phone OS

    That depends on when you count the dumping. Nokia had a problem that they had an OS kernel (EXA2) that was beautifully designed for mobile devices, but had a userland that was somewhat archaic and designed to work around hardware limitations that didn't really exist anymore. Their solution was to throw away the kernel and replace it with Linux. They'd already begun relegating Symbian to the low end before Android was released. They had multiple strategies internally, none of which was working and all of which were competing.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  50. Go back to making crappy boots by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

    Seriously, other than a few models Nokia phones have been patently awful. Every project Noka has bought out has ended up turning to absolute crap. They make awful alliances with awful companies. Now pulling tricks with vague algorithm patents? Fucking die Nokia. On and your boots suck too. Just spare us and give up on everything.

  51. Nothing to do with Finns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is Microsoft, pure and simple.

  52. I made a decision I boycott nokia from now on by SergeyKurdakov · · Score: 1

    If you like me does not like the situation - boycott nokia products.

  53. I already said it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and I'll say it again. Burn in hell, Nokia. Finally. Please.

  54. This AC takes issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just another example of why Slashdot needs to get rid of ACs, if they don't have the balls to stand by their comments they should probably STFU.

    I'm posting AC because I can't be bothered to enable cookies. Not for Slashdot. I'd subscribe if there was a cookieless (and for that matter javascriptless) way of doing that.

    1. Re:This AC takes issue by gd2shoe · · Score: 1

      In 2013? Seriously? Do you know just how easy it is to do a cookie white-list?

      --
      I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
  55. Has Microsoft already taken over Nokia??? by asola · · Score: 1

    The behaviour is certainly there.

  56. Re:Enough with this! Act like grown-ups, for once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how you proved my point by using the moderation.