The difference is a radical one. iPod owners only need iTunes. Everyone else needs iTunes too, but also needs a separate synching application as well, software easily broken by apples next alteration to how they store their music library.
My point is that it doesn't have to be "integrated into iTunes" to work.
Now you're the one being disingenuous. "software easily broken by apples [sic] next alteration to how they store their music library".
So, you're saying that Apple's publicly documented method for syncing with iTunes is going to be "easily broken" compared to a totally hackish USB-ID spoofing where a Palm Pre pretends to be an iPod. Come on!
One way is supported and documented by Apple, the other is a hack and you think the supported way is the one likely to break? It's documented for a reason - so that when Apple makes changes to its software, the things they have put in place for 3rd party developers still work. It's the reason some APIs are pubic and some are private - private ones have no guarantee that they won't change, so if you have a dependancy on one, you may find your app breaks if the API does.
The Missing Sync has been working just fine through many different iterations of iTunes.
The fact that it's *not* integrated and all fancy and seamless really isn't the point. Apple has no obligation to provide that experience for third party players/phones with iTunes, but they have offered a way to get the same results (even if it's not integrated) with documented methods. You can sync playlists, address book, calendars, photos - pretty much everything that the iPod/iPhone can do - has a public documented API for syncing on OS X.
I'm not refusing to admit anything. I didn;t claim one way or the other about whether it was integrated, I just stated that Apple didn't have to provide an integrated method for anything but its own players.
And while the iTMS has a 70% marketshare, and may be considered a monopoly, this is not illegal. They are not forcing you to use an iPod (or even to use the iTunes store), and their music purchases work on any player that can play back AAC formatted music (a codec that is patented, but not proprietary to Apple) and offer an easy way to get your music purchases into CD audio format, and offer a third party syncing method, and an XML formatted copy of the iTunes library.
Hardly "forcing" anyone to use an iPod.
The only reason that Palm users need a separate sync application is because Palm stopped providing one with their hardware - they used to have one for the Mac but stopped development of it. Hence the rise of The Missing Sync.
I'm not taking sides here - I'm just pointing out that the details of this case get conveniently omitted when it is discussed.
I'm not sure who is "right" here (and am generally not a proponent of software patents).
Any time it's brought up, it's painted in the summary like Apple is being run by Darl McBride with a rusty pipe with a hook on the end and Nokia is the innocent baby seal. I don;t think it's that cut and dried.
Apple does not have a monopoly on online music, or on mp3 players, or on smartphones.
You also don't need to keep your iTunes music purchases in the Apple ecosystem - they are un-DRM'ed AAC files. You can also trivially burn them to Audio CD if you like if you really can't deal with AAC (and take the quality loss when you re-rip in your format of choice).
My point about The Missing Sync is that it does *exactly* what Palm needed to do when they wanted syncing with iTunes, and it does it in a totally non-USB-ID-spoofing way. It is *clearly* possible to sync on OS X (even with iTunes) without resorting to what Palm did. They just chose not to do it that way because it was cheaper to resort to what is essentially a bit of an ugly hack that may or may not work, and doesn't assure compatibility or future availability. The greatest trick they then pulled was convincing the/. community that somehow it's *Apple's* fault that their attempts at syncing are half-assed and broken (even if Apple left them alone, there is no assurance that something in the iPod sync code wouldn't change and break it anyway - that's the risk you take with a hack).
This is not about monopolies, not that Apple even has one here. There are numerous other online music download stores, and you're not even locked into the iTunes one (since the removal of DRM, which they didn't want in the first place). You can even use third party software like The Missing Sync to use your Pre with the iTMS. Apple has documented methods to enable you (a developer) to do this. The methods are certainly not "spoof our vendor ID" - of course Apple were going to put a stop to that. Apple is not stopping Palm from writing a piece of software to *properly* sync with iTunes though, as other people have already done.
The client as it comes (free) from Apple only syncs with Apple's own products. This does not mean that you can't sync other products with it - you just need to write a little code. Apple aren't under any obligation to make seamless "plug in and go" syncing for third party players, and it is not anticompetitive of them to not offer this.
You also appear to be confusing Apple with a company that was convicted in a court of law for monopoly practices - if the iTunes store and iPod/iPhone vertical integration is deemed to be such a thing, the courts will act on it.
Also, there's no need to resort to name calling. Feel free to think "asshole" - you don't have to type it and lower the tone. I'm not calling you names, we can at least be civil.
Well, the rules are pretty simple - GSM is patented, and you need to pay a licence fee. It's not like they suddenly realised - however, the question of the bill is what is at issue.
It's like you going to a restaurant with 4 friends and then being billed for 10 meals.
They could do what The Missing Sync does - funnily enough, the software that came about because Palm abandoned the Mac platform in the first place, so a 3rd party piece of software was needed to sync your Palm device.
They didn't need to write an iTunes replacement - they just needed to go the proper route to write a piece of software that would allow the Pre to sync, but spoofing Apple's vendor ID was cheaper that either writing their own software to interface with iTunes (and iCal/Entourage/Address Book etc), or bundling copies of The Missing Sync with Palm Pres that they sold.
There are documented ways to sync on the Mac. None of the are of the form "1. spoof Apple's vendor ID, 2.?????? 3. Profit". Interoperation exists, it's just not seamless unless you write an interface - iTunes doesn't do it all for you like it does with the iPod/iPhone.
And they don't sell any music in that format. They offer it as an option for ripping your CDs in the simplified encoder frontend built into iTunes, but none of their store purchases use it - they are all AAC.
Ask the movie/tv industry about that one. Again, it is a goal of Apple to remove it, but they can only do so with the product owner's consent, or they will just refuse to allow Apple to sell it in the first place. No doubt negotiations are in play. I would imagine that Disney will be the first to do this, given the ties with Apple already. It's not easy though.
The Missing Sync has been around (and has matured into an amazing product) ever since Palm abandoned the Mac platform. Palm is perfectly capable of writing a piece of software that syncs with the Pre (or anything else it makes) just as well as the iPod syncs with iTunes. They chose not to go that route, but instead decided to spoof Apple's vendor ID (it's much cheaper).
If they didn't want to write software from scratch, they could have bundled a copy of The Missing Sync with each phone, but again that would have cost them money. They took the easy way out, which featured a method that is not allowed under the rules of the USB IF - vendor IDs are unique. If someone else is using yours, they are in the wrong, regardless of why they are doing it.
Also, the music on the iTMS currently has no DRM - it is perfectly interoperable with anyone who can play AAC files (a standard, that while patented [like mp3], is open and licenceable). The DRM initially was to appease the music industry (who had the product), and was removed as quickly as possible. iTunes even encouraged you to back up your DRM purchases to audio CD (which removed the DRM) when you purchased them, which was not ideal (quality loss when re-ripping to non-DRM) but was the best they could do until they could remove DRM entirely.
If you are having problems with Quicktime on Windows, then I suggest you reinstall it. It's never been a source of kernel panics on any windows machine I've ever used.
If zeroconf (Bonjour!) is "spamming your local network" turn off the "look for shared libraries/airtunes speakers/apple TVs" in the iTunes options.
And the part defending Apple are not only consistently and intentionally wrong[1], they are actively advertising Apple, just because they follow the company as if it were their favourite football team. Of course there had to be a back-lash against them, since that kind of fraudulent PR can't go unchallenged.
[1] Examples: That the iPad is crippled because it's simplified for grandmothers (it's not, it's designed for internet addicts who already have at least one computer);
Who says these are mutually exclusive? Can't it just be a product for a product's sake. The fact that it is simple allows your grandma to use it, but just because she can doesn't mean 'an internet addict with at least 1 computer' can't also make use of it, if it does what he wants it to do.
that the walled garden is for security (it's for profit and lock-in);
No, the walled garden is for a consistent and seamless user experience. One store to get apps, that is easy to use, convenient and consistent across all apps in terms of function (ie, the way you shop, the way you buy, the way the apps download and install). It's not really about profit - Apple has stated that it doesn't make much, if any profit on the store, since most of the cut they take goes into upkeep [servers, bandwidth, staff, etc]. Whether you believe them really makes no difference - it is their stated position. You are free to call it "consistently and intentionally wrong", but it is part of their financial statements.
that solutions that are prohibited by Apple (tethering the iPad to the iPhone, for instance) are there because Apple always need to design things so lusciously simple (they don't, and that's not the reason why: it would compete against their otherwise prohibitively expensive 3g version of the iPad).
No, tethering is not on the US iPhone because AT&T forbids it. My iPhone, bought in the UK on O2 had tethering working out of the box. No jailbreaking, no extra fees, no extra apps. The iPhone has always been capable of doing it, but it's a carrier decision. The 3G iPad will also be available in the UK too - are you telling me that they are going to stop selling iPhones here that have tethering out of the box when the iPad goes on sale?
All of these claims are creative excuses proposed by freelance advertising agents, a.k.a. fanboys; they are wrong, and they are repeated ad nauseam, and most people who read this site are fed up with them.
Well, if I'm a freelance advertising agent I'd love to pick up a paycheque. I think you'll find that calling *everything* that "fanboys" post on/. about Apple "wrong and repeated ad nauseam" to also be "wrong". It's very tricky when you start dealing in absolutes.
What I think you'll find you just posted was your opinion on each of the statements you made about specific things to do with Apple, and then claim these are facts that you can use to "disprove Apple's fraudulent PR". Opinions are not facts.
"Most people who read this site" is also a huge generalisation. I think you mean "I" where you said "most people".
Apple offers choice (ie, buy or do not buy). There are other options that provide the opposite experience: Android, for one, that exist as an option.
Choice in the market is good. Just because Apple has been successful with one business model doesn't exclude others from also being successful.
ICQ failed because they were constantly pushing their users towards the "new, awesome" ICQ client which was bloated and horrible (and had adverts built into it) when people were quite happy using the old clients. They started changing the protocol to block the older clients to force people to use the bloated shitty client with the adverts and people jumped ship to IM/MSN or their OSS client/protocol of choice. (and yes, I had a low-digit ICQ number way back in the day, client quality peaked at ICQ 98a - small enough to carry on a floppy, so portable between uni machines that used network boot, and no adverts).
Microsoft, Steve Jobs and Rupert Murdoch certainly didn't kill ICQ.
But users also care about: Are there many cool apps ? Can I get a app to look at porn ?
Or put more bluntly; can apps exist, that the producer of the phone don't like ?
The "porn apps" that were removed were factory-farm template apps that had a few pics on (or deep linked to a few) and were then sold. Then the developer changed the urls to the images and released it as a new app, and then again, and again...
If it was an actual, proper app (for example, the Playboy app is still up there [whether you think of that as porn or not]), so the nature of the content is not the issue, merely the quality of the apps themselves in this case.
All that being said, the app store is under Apple's control, so if that affects you as a user (or a developer) there are other options you can take (Android).
They don't want to "get away with not paying" - they *want to pay* and know they have to - they just want to pay what is fair, as described by the terms under which the GSM patents are covered.
Ah, you picked the dog in the litter (and I'll agree, they are fallible like any company). The Finder itself is pretty woeful and really needs some love.
A window is supposed to be grabbable from any grey portion that is visible, so for a Finder and a Safari window that is the top and bottom. Some windows have side borders though, some don't - that really should be consistent.
Well, if that's the case, Apple would have paid up already. They aren't going to fight a case they don't see merit in, especially if Nokia are asking for legit terms. It has to be more complex than that.
That, I believe is exactly what this case is about. Nokia's terms will have been set out at the time the GSM standards were all finalised. It probably isn't just a cash value though, and will almost certainly involve patent trading - the value of the other company's patents likely being the crux of the argument.
Well, Apple has every right to demand the same rate as everyone else - if Nokia wants to change the licencing fee, it is unable to. Even if it only goes up 0.5%, that is still a large amount when you are selling millions of phones.
The RAND terms specify what Nokia can do. If Apple thinks it has a case, it will fight it out.
The whole point of the RAND terms are to ensure that everyone is paying equally - Nokia can't charge Apple more just because it wants to.
This page explains it. In exchange for the patents being part of the GSM standard, Nokia agreed to put them under RAND terms. It doesn't apply to all patents, or to companies, just these ones.
The disagreement is most likely because Apple thinks (rightly or wrongly, hence the lawsuit) that the terms Nokia are asking for are unfair, based on their RAND terms. I don;t know who is actually in the right here, and the lawsuit will ultimately determine it, but it's a lot more complex than "Apple don;t want to pay up".
Slashdot Mirror
The difference is a radical one. iPod owners only need iTunes. Everyone else needs iTunes too, but also needs a separate synching application as well, software easily broken by apples next alteration to how they store their music library.
My point is that it doesn't have to be "integrated into iTunes" to work.
Now you're the one being disingenuous. "software easily broken by apples [sic] next alteration to how they store their music library".
So, you're saying that Apple's publicly documented method for syncing with iTunes is going to be "easily broken" compared to a totally hackish USB-ID spoofing where a Palm Pre pretends to be an iPod. Come on!
One way is supported and documented by Apple, the other is a hack and you think the supported way is the one likely to break? It's documented for a reason - so that when Apple makes changes to its software, the things they have put in place for 3rd party developers still work. It's the reason some APIs are pubic and some are private - private ones have no guarantee that they won't change, so if you have a dependancy on one, you may find your app breaks if the API does.
The Missing Sync has been working just fine through many different iterations of iTunes.
The fact that it's *not* integrated and all fancy and seamless really isn't the point. Apple has no obligation to provide that experience for third party players/phones with iTunes, but they have offered a way to get the same results (even if it's not integrated) with documented methods. You can sync playlists, address book, calendars, photos - pretty much everything that the iPod/iPhone can do - has a public documented API for syncing on OS X.
I'm not refusing to admit anything. I didn;t claim one way or the other about whether it was integrated, I just stated that Apple didn't have to provide an integrated method for anything but its own players.
And while the iTMS has a 70% marketshare, and may be considered a monopoly, this is not illegal. They are not forcing you to use an iPod (or even to use the iTunes store), and their music purchases work on any player that can play back AAC formatted music (a codec that is patented, but not proprietary to Apple) and offer an easy way to get your music purchases into CD audio format, and offer a third party syncing method, and an XML formatted copy of the iTunes library.
Hardly "forcing" anyone to use an iPod.
The only reason that Palm users need a separate sync application is because Palm stopped providing one with their hardware - they used to have one for the Mac but stopped development of it. Hence the rise of The Missing Sync.
I'm not taking sides here - I'm just pointing out that the details of this case get conveniently omitted when it is discussed.
I'm not sure who is "right" here (and am generally not a proponent of software patents).
Any time it's brought up, it's painted in the summary like Apple is being run by Darl McBride with a rusty pipe with a hook on the end and Nokia is the innocent baby seal. I don;t think it's that cut and dried.
Apple does not have a monopoly on online music, or on mp3 players, or on smartphones.
You also don't need to keep your iTunes music purchases in the Apple ecosystem - they are un-DRM'ed AAC files. You can also trivially burn them to Audio CD if you like if you really can't deal with AAC (and take the quality loss when you re-rip in your format of choice).
My point about The Missing Sync is that it does *exactly* what Palm needed to do when they wanted syncing with iTunes, and it does it in a totally non-USB-ID-spoofing way. It is *clearly* possible to sync on OS X (even with iTunes) without resorting to what Palm did. They just chose not to do it that way because it was cheaper to resort to what is essentially a bit of an ugly hack that may or may not work, and doesn't assure compatibility or future availability. The greatest trick they then pulled was convincing the /. community that somehow it's *Apple's* fault that their attempts at syncing are half-assed and broken (even if Apple left them alone, there is no assurance that something in the iPod sync code wouldn't change and break it anyway - that's the risk you take with a hack).
This is not about monopolies, not that Apple even has one here. There are numerous other online music download stores, and you're not even locked into the iTunes one (since the removal of DRM, which they didn't want in the first place). You can even use third party software like The Missing Sync to use your Pre with the iTMS. Apple has documented methods to enable you (a developer) to do this. The methods are certainly not "spoof our vendor ID" - of course Apple were going to put a stop to that. Apple is not stopping Palm from writing a piece of software to *properly* sync with iTunes though, as other people have already done.
The client as it comes (free) from Apple only syncs with Apple's own products. This does not mean that you can't sync other products with it - you just need to write a little code. Apple aren't under any obligation to make seamless "plug in and go" syncing for third party players, and it is not anticompetitive of them to not offer this.
You also appear to be confusing Apple with a company that was convicted in a court of law for monopoly practices - if the iTunes store and iPod/iPhone vertical integration is deemed to be such a thing, the courts will act on it.
Also, there's no need to resort to name calling. Feel free to think "asshole" - you don't have to type it and lower the tone. I'm not calling you names, we can at least be civil.
So are you conceding that iPhone OS is a "major platform" that could make or break the next trend in computing?
(/tounge in cheek)
Well, the rules are pretty simple - GSM is patented, and you need to pay a licence fee. It's not like they suddenly realised - however, the question of the bill is what is at issue.
It's like you going to a restaurant with 4 friends and then being billed for 10 meals.
They could do what The Missing Sync does - funnily enough, the software that came about because Palm abandoned the Mac platform in the first place, so a 3rd party piece of software was needed to sync your Palm device.
http://www.markspace.com/products/pre/mac-features.html
They didn't need to write an iTunes replacement - they just needed to go the proper route to write a piece of software that would allow the Pre to sync, but spoofing Apple's vendor ID was cheaper that either writing their own software to interface with iTunes (and iCal/Entourage/Address Book etc), or bundling copies of The Missing Sync with Palm Pres that they sold.
There are documented ways to sync on the Mac. None of the are of the form "1. spoof Apple's vendor ID, 2.?????? 3. Profit". Interoperation exists, it's just not seamless unless you write an interface - iTunes doesn't do it all for you like it does with the iPod/iPhone.
And they don't sell any music in that format. They offer it as an option for ripping your CDs in the simplified encoder frontend built into iTunes, but none of their store purchases use it - they are all AAC.
Ask the movie/tv industry about that one. Again, it is a goal of Apple to remove it, but they can only do so with the product owner's consent, or they will just refuse to allow Apple to sell it in the first place. No doubt negotiations are in play. I would imagine that Disney will be the first to do this, given the ties with Apple already. It's not easy though.
Then how does this program work then? http://www.markspace.com/products/pre/mac-features.html
The Missing Sync has been around (and has matured into an amazing product) ever since Palm abandoned the Mac platform. Palm is perfectly capable of writing a piece of software that syncs with the Pre (or anything else it makes) just as well as the iPod syncs with iTunes. They chose not to go that route, but instead decided to spoof Apple's vendor ID (it's much cheaper).
If they didn't want to write software from scratch, they could have bundled a copy of The Missing Sync with each phone, but again that would have cost them money. They took the easy way out, which featured a method that is not allowed under the rules of the USB IF - vendor IDs are unique. If someone else is using yours, they are in the wrong, regardless of why they are doing it.
Also, the music on the iTMS currently has no DRM - it is perfectly interoperable with anyone who can play AAC files (a standard, that while patented [like mp3], is open and licenceable). The DRM initially was to appease the music industry (who had the product), and was removed as quickly as possible. iTunes even encouraged you to back up your DRM purchases to audio CD (which removed the DRM) when you purchased them, which was not ideal (quality loss when re-ripping to non-DRM) but was the best they could do until they could remove DRM entirely.
If you are having problems with Quicktime on Windows, then I suggest you reinstall it. It's never been a source of kernel panics on any windows machine I've ever used.
If zeroconf (Bonjour!) is "spamming your local network" turn off the "look for shared libraries/airtunes speakers/apple TVs" in the iTunes options.
You seem to know a lot about exactly who the iPad was designed for. Were you on the design team? Did you write the brief?
You decry the GP's anecdotal evidence and then claim your own opinion as fact to disprove him. You're quite fond of doing that.
And the part defending Apple are not only consistently and intentionally wrong[1], they are actively advertising Apple, just because they follow the company as if it were their favourite football team. Of course there had to be a back-lash against them, since that kind of fraudulent PR can't go unchallenged.
[1] Examples: That the iPad is crippled because it's simplified for grandmothers (it's not, it's designed for internet addicts who already have at least one computer);
Who says these are mutually exclusive? Can't it just be a product for a product's sake. The fact that it is simple allows your grandma to use it, but just because she can doesn't mean 'an internet addict with at least 1 computer' can't also make use of it, if it does what he wants it to do.
that the walled garden is for security (it's for profit and lock-in);
No, the walled garden is for a consistent and seamless user experience. One store to get apps, that is easy to use, convenient and consistent across all apps in terms of function (ie, the way you shop, the way you buy, the way the apps download and install). It's not really about profit - Apple has stated that it doesn't make much, if any profit on the store, since most of the cut they take goes into upkeep [servers, bandwidth, staff, etc]. Whether you believe them really makes no difference - it is their stated position. You are free to call it "consistently and intentionally wrong", but it is part of their financial statements.
that solutions that are prohibited by Apple (tethering the iPad to the iPhone, for instance) are there because Apple always need to design things so lusciously simple (they don't, and that's not the reason why: it would compete against their otherwise prohibitively expensive 3g version of the iPad).
No, tethering is not on the US iPhone because AT&T forbids it. My iPhone, bought in the UK on O2 had tethering working out of the box. No jailbreaking, no extra fees, no extra apps. The iPhone has always been capable of doing it, but it's a carrier decision. The 3G iPad will also be available in the UK too - are you telling me that they are going to stop selling iPhones here that have tethering out of the box when the iPad goes on sale?
All of these claims are creative excuses proposed by freelance advertising agents, a.k.a. fanboys; they are wrong, and they are repeated ad nauseam, and most people who read this site are fed up with them.
Well, if I'm a freelance advertising agent I'd love to pick up a paycheque. I think you'll find that calling *everything* that "fanboys" post on /. about Apple "wrong and repeated ad nauseam" to also be "wrong". It's very tricky when you start dealing in absolutes.
What I think you'll find you just posted was your opinion on each of the statements you made about specific things to do with Apple, and then claim these are facts that you can use to "disprove Apple's fraudulent PR". Opinions are not facts.
"Most people who read this site" is also a huge generalisation. I think you mean "I" where you said "most people".
Is that why there's zero growth in desktop Linux?
I didn't think so.
Apple offers choice (ie, buy or do not buy). There are other options that provide the opposite experience: Android, for one, that exist as an option.
Choice in the market is good. Just because Apple has been successful with one business model doesn't exclude others from also being successful.
ICQ failed because they were constantly pushing their users towards the "new, awesome" ICQ client which was bloated and horrible (and had adverts built into it) when people were quite happy using the old clients. They started changing the protocol to block the older clients to force people to use the bloated shitty client with the adverts and people jumped ship to IM/MSN or their OSS client/protocol of choice. (and yes, I had a low-digit ICQ number way back in the day, client quality peaked at ICQ 98a - small enough to carry on a floppy, so portable between uni machines that used network boot, and no adverts).
Microsoft, Steve Jobs and Rupert Murdoch certainly didn't kill ICQ.
Almost true, I guess.
But users also care about: Are there many cool apps ? Can I get a app to look at porn ?
Or put more bluntly; can apps exist, that the producer of the phone don't like ?
The "porn apps" that were removed were factory-farm template apps that had a few pics on (or deep linked to a few) and were then sold. Then the developer changed the urls to the images and released it as a new app, and then again, and again...
If it was an actual, proper app (for example, the Playboy app is still up there [whether you think of that as porn or not]), so the nature of the content is not the issue, merely the quality of the apps themselves in this case.
All that being said, the app store is under Apple's control, so if that affects you as a user (or a developer) there are other options you can take (Android).
Go look up RAND licence terms, then come back.
I'll wait.
They don't want to "get away with not paying" - they *want to pay* and know they have to - they just want to pay what is fair, as described by the terms under which the GSM patents are covered.
To a superfast electron, a tinfoil hat is 99% empty space. They'll just pass right through.
Ah, you picked the dog in the litter (and I'll agree, they are fallible like any company). The Finder itself is pretty woeful and really needs some love.
A window is supposed to be grabbable from any grey portion that is visible, so for a Finder and a Safari window that is the top and bottom. Some windows have side borders though, some don't - that really should be consistent.
The "group" is anyone who wants to use the GSM patents.
A Venn diagram of "everyone" and "wants to use the GSM patents" would have Apple in the bit where the two circles intersect.
That depends on your definition of stupid.
Have you ever tried to grab a window and move it on Windows? You click the side and it just resizes it! Madness!
Different strokes for different folks.
(perhaps there should be a toggle in system prefs that changes the behaviour, or holding option while dragging swapped to resize mode).
Trust was the wrong word - "believe" might have been better. Either way, I'm not certain who is "right" in this lawsuit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_Non_Discriminatory_Licensing
Go read. GSM patents are a special case.
Also stop posting AC. Makes you look silly.
Well, if that's the case, Apple would have paid up already. They aren't going to fight a case they don't see merit in, especially if Nokia are asking for legit terms. It has to be more complex than that.
That, I believe is exactly what this case is about. Nokia's terms will have been set out at the time the GSM standards were all finalised. It probably isn't just a cash value though, and will almost certainly involve patent trading - the value of the other company's patents likely being the crux of the argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_Non_Discriminatory_Licensing
This is what I mean. The GSM patents are a special case. As an exchange for being part of the standard, Nokia agreed to put them under RAND terms.
Well, Apple has every right to demand the same rate as everyone else - if Nokia wants to change the licencing fee, it is unable to. Even if it only goes up 0.5%, that is still a large amount when you are selling millions of phones.
The RAND terms specify what Nokia can do. If Apple thinks it has a case, it will fight it out.
The whole point of the RAND terms are to ensure that everyone is paying equally - Nokia can't charge Apple more just because it wants to.
No, the GSM patents are a special case. No reality distortion field in effect, just a little googling about how the GSM patents are covered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_Non_Discriminatory_Licensing
This page explains it. In exchange for the patents being part of the GSM standard, Nokia agreed to put them under RAND terms. It doesn't apply to all patents, or to companies, just these ones.
The disagreement is most likely because Apple thinks (rightly or wrongly, hence the lawsuit) that the terms Nokia are asking for are unfair, based on their RAND terms. I don;t know who is actually in the right here, and the lawsuit will ultimately determine it, but it's a lot more complex than "Apple don;t want to pay up".