For the GSM patents, yes - they are a special case. In exchange for being accepted as part of the standard, Nokia agreed to put them under RAND conditions.
It's a good way to recoup costs of R&D, since the patent becomes a standard, and companies pay equally and fairly for the use of it, fostering compatibility between different systems.
Well, I have no doubt they have tried to do just that. They're not going to let something as basic as licensing GSM patents slip during the iPhone development cycle. I think this is just the later, public revelations about a long drawn out fight.
They probably didn't set out to violate the patent laws, and are using off-the-shelf GSM chips that other manufacturers use, so likely assumed, based on advice/enquiries about the length of time it would take to get the patents paid for.
This is what I suspect it is about. Nokia wants particular patents, and is claiming that they are worth the price of the GSM patents, Apple presumably is disagreeing and claiming they are worth more.
I'm just guessing, but it's going to be something like this.
I doubt that most of the deals to use the GSM patents from other phone manufacturers are pure cash payments to Nokia - it's always going to be about trading patents.
I don't know who to trust here. Apple may be litigious, but it's not stupid - if it was a simple case, they would have settled it by now. Their GSM hardware isn't even unique - they use off the shelf chips, which other phone makers have been using for a long time with no issues (unless they paid up over the odds under the threat of Nokia's legal stick and didn't tell anyone).
It shouldn't be this hard to pay up for the use of GSM and other wireless patents that are covered by RAND, and it's unlikely to be something Apple has overlooked.
I think it is probably more likely that Nokia wants something equivalent in cash value from Apple, and there is a disagreement over just how much Apple's patents are actually worth, but I am only guessing.
It's almost certainly *not* that Apple just flat out refuse to pay for the use of the patents - they're using 3rd party hardware that other people use, who do pay Nokia. It's something else.
By RAND terms - in exchange for the GSM patents being included in the standard for cellular communication, Nokia agreed to licence them under RAND terms. Otherwise, they would not have been included in the standard: it's a way to ensure that there is still profit in allowing others to use your work, and enable a standard (which is handy for a large radio communication network)
If Apple wants to use GSM hardware, Nokia is obliged to licence it to them under RAND terms. RAND is not an organisation (in this sense, although there is a non-profit called "the RAND corporation", but it has nothing whatsoever to do with this) it means Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory licensing; which applies to the GSM patents Nokia holds. They are required to licence them fairly and equally to anyone who wants to use them, in exchange for the patents being part of the standard for cellular communication.
Apple doesn't need to be part of anything to be able to licence the patents. You could set up your own mobile phone company in your basement and Nokia would be obliged to licence the patents to you too - at the same rate that everyone pays to use them.
This is what the court case is all about. Apple's GSM hardware is all third party, and used by other cellphone makers. The procedures for paying the licences are well understood. It seems (according to Apple) that it was only further into the process that Nokia decided to change the game up.
Apple went to the standards body when Palm started spoofing Apple's USB Vendor ID - that went well for them, right?
Apple must pay the RAND terms for the use of GSM patents. Nokia must allow them to pay in those terms. It cannot ask for more. Where it may get fuzzy is just what "fair" is - if Nokia is attempting to put a cash value on some of Apple's IP and claiming that as payment equal to the RAND terms, and Apple is claiming that it is worth more than that.
Either way, this is not simple - Apple is not foolish enough to launch a phone filled with stardards-based (3rd party driven) GSM and other cellphone radio hardware without paying to use the patents involved.
No, they are asking (according to Apple) more than they are allowed to - Apple wants to pay what everyone else pays for the GSM patents. Nokia is obliged to charge them that rate. Apple claims Nokia is strongarming them unfairly to get access to other patents that Apple holds.
They want to pay the *fair* rate - which Nokia is obliged to give them. They are claiming that Nokia is attempting to charge them more (in terms of cash and cross licenced patents) than they are allowed to charge.
They want to pay what other people pay. Nokia is not allowed to charge more to whoever it chooses.
And Apple want to pay up - they just don;t want to pay more than other cellphone companies to use the GSM patents. Nokia is obliged (not by Apple) to licence those patents equally to anyone who wants them, not to strongarm anyone it chooses if it fancies some of the IP the company holds. Apple here is claiming that Nokia is unfairly leveraging its GSM patents (the standards) to get more in return than it should really be asking for (by the terms of its obligation to licence them).
Apple isn't trying to *not* pay - it just wants to pay what other cellphone makers pay.
Like the poster who already replied to you, I also get different rates for the utilities in my house depending on whether I use it for heating or cooking.
Well, marketing will only get you so far - just ask Sony (PS3) - if your product is poor, eventually you will get found out and people will go elsewhere. There must be *something* to the iPhone interface.
Which generation of iPod were you using btw? The iPhone/iPod Touch interface is totally different to the iPod, and (warning, anecdote alert) have given my iPhone to a number of different people while I've been driving so they can use the maps application, or browse the music, or send a text/make a call etc and they all pick it up right away (only one of them had an Apple device of any kind before that time).
You are one of the few people who has said they found the iPod interface unintuitive.
And these 3G phones are different how... oh I see, they're not 3G.
Either way, it is a carrier issue *NOT* an Apple issue - my iPhone has been able to tether since I bought it, in the UK, on my carrier. Apple have no desire to prevent tethering - they're not "out to screw you". Talk to AT&T about that: they are.
Tethering is a service provided by the carrier. It is AT&T's decision if they want to allow it.
Since you have an outlet on the outside of your house, and a tap for your hose you won;t mind if I connect up a plug and a hosepipe and run my AC off your power, right? You have the ability to provide me with the power, so I can just take it.
If you put a lock on your outlet I can complain that you should take it off and allow me to take your electricity.
And what do 3rd party apps on the desktop have to do with it?
Apple does not have this policy for OS X, only for the iPhone OS.
Everyone knows that you need to use the App Store to distribute on the iPhone - if you want the full freedom experience, either write desktop software or write for Android.
Except that the word is iPod spelled backwards, very deliberately. Even if it is obvious that it can't be confused, it is something they have to take beyond a polite letter of annoyance.
No, it's not a childish argument at all when RMS himself goes to just such rhetoric. RMS is very vocal about Free meaning totally free - not using any proprietary stuff at all (eg, video drivers, H.264 codec, mp3 etc), so why not extend that to the computer he is using. I assume he has all the schematics in his house, including board layouts and component lists, and none of the individual components use any patented or non-free technology like the CPU, chips etc.
The FSF here has chosen to exploit the messy business from PA and use it to say "hey look, this is why proprietary software is bad" when it's really not the software's fault here - this was entirely a human decision. It's no different to someone campaigning to have violent video games banned because the guy who shot up a school played Counterstrike.
Also "child" really is unnecessary, especially when posting AC - you are trying to look wizened and experienced, but you just come off looking silly.
It has no choice. If they do not bring a suit (even one that may lose) later trademark cases that are more blatant have stronger grounds to argue that the term is now generic since Apple hasn't been protecting it.
No one said that trademark law was sensible.
The Woolworths one was about a blanket trademark - Woolworths wanted a blanket trademark for their new logo (ie, to cover every sector of business, including computing) and Apple sued to exclude them from that section due to infringement. It's highly unlikely Woolworths will ever release a computer product, but again - you have to do these things in advance. If you do nothing (ie, "goodwill" then that can be used against you as "you don;t care if we use this name... it never bothered you before".
It would be better if there was some other way to lodge a complaint about a name that didn't involve a court, so that there wouldn't have to be a trademark suit in clear cases like this that still have a fringe connection (eg, iPod backwards, made for mp3 players) so that Apple's (or anyone's) trademark protection requirement is met without them having to sue.
No, they are protecting their trademarks, which they are required to do, else they are in danger of becoming generic. Even if they lose the case, they have to bring the case in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
For the GSM patents, yes - they are a special case. In exchange for being accepted as part of the standard, Nokia agreed to put them under RAND conditions.
It's a good way to recoup costs of R&D, since the patent becomes a standard, and companies pay equally and fairly for the use of it, fostering compatibility between different systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_Non_Discriminatory_Licensing
Well, I have no doubt they have tried to do just that. They're not going to let something as basic as licensing GSM patents slip during the iPhone development cycle. I think this is just the later, public revelations about a long drawn out fight.
They probably didn't set out to violate the patent laws, and are using off-the-shelf GSM chips that other manufacturers use, so likely assumed, based on advice/enquiries about the length of time it would take to get the patents paid for.
RAND license terms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_Non_Discriminatory_Licensing
This is what I suspect it is about. Nokia wants particular patents, and is claiming that they are worth the price of the GSM patents, Apple presumably is disagreeing and claiming they are worth more.
I'm just guessing, but it's going to be something like this.
I doubt that most of the deals to use the GSM patents from other phone manufacturers are pure cash payments to Nokia - it's always going to be about trading patents.
I don't know who to trust here. Apple may be litigious, but it's not stupid - if it was a simple case, they would have settled it by now. Their GSM hardware isn't even unique - they use off the shelf chips, which other phone makers have been using for a long time with no issues (unless they paid up over the odds under the threat of Nokia's legal stick and didn't tell anyone).
It shouldn't be this hard to pay up for the use of GSM and other wireless patents that are covered by RAND, and it's unlikely to be something Apple has overlooked.
I think it is probably more likely that Nokia wants something equivalent in cash value from Apple, and there is a disagreement over just how much Apple's patents are actually worth, but I am only guessing.
It's almost certainly *not* that Apple just flat out refuse to pay for the use of the patents - they're using 3rd party hardware that other people use, who do pay Nokia. It's something else.
By RAND terms - in exchange for the GSM patents being included in the standard for cellular communication, Nokia agreed to licence them under RAND terms. Otherwise, they would not have been included in the standard: it's a way to ensure that there is still profit in allowing others to use your work, and enable a standard (which is handy for a large radio communication network)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_Non_Discriminatory_Licensing
Read the wiki page - it even uses the GSM patents themselves as an example. Bonus.
It has nothing to do with licensing copies of Windows, which are not covered by RAND conditions.
If Apple wants to use GSM hardware, Nokia is obliged to licence it to them under RAND terms. RAND is not an organisation (in this sense, although there is a non-profit called "the RAND corporation", but it has nothing whatsoever to do with this) it means Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory licensing; which applies to the GSM patents Nokia holds. They are required to licence them fairly and equally to anyone who wants to use them, in exchange for the patents being part of the standard for cellular communication.
Apple doesn't need to be part of anything to be able to licence the patents. You could set up your own mobile phone company in your basement and Nokia would be obliged to licence the patents to you too - at the same rate that everyone pays to use them.
This is what the court case is all about. Apple's GSM hardware is all third party, and used by other cellphone makers. The procedures for paying the licences are well understood. It seems (according to Apple) that it was only further into the process that Nokia decided to change the game up.
Apple went to the standards body when Palm started spoofing Apple's USB Vendor ID - that went well for them, right?
Apple must pay the RAND terms for the use of GSM patents. Nokia must allow them to pay in those terms. It cannot ask for more. Where it may get fuzzy is just what "fair" is - if Nokia is attempting to put a cash value on some of Apple's IP and claiming that as payment equal to the RAND terms, and Apple is claiming that it is worth more than that.
Either way, this is not simple - Apple is not foolish enough to launch a phone filled with stardards-based (3rd party driven) GSM and other cellphone radio hardware without paying to use the patents involved.
Where's the trolling in my post? I am merely pointing out what seems to be being left out of these discussions - the actual nature of the cases.
I guess there's someone with a serious axe to grind against Apple with mod points. Shame.
That will be difficult - Apple buys its GSM chips off the shelf.
No, they are asking (according to Apple) more than they are allowed to - Apple wants to pay what everyone else pays for the GSM patents. Nokia is obliged to charge them that rate. Apple claims Nokia is strongarming them unfairly to get access to other patents that Apple holds.
They want to pay the *fair* rate - which Nokia is obliged to give them. They are claiming that Nokia is attempting to charge them more (in terms of cash and cross licenced patents) than they are allowed to charge.
They want to pay what other people pay. Nokia is not allowed to charge more to whoever it chooses.
And Apple want to pay up - they just don;t want to pay more than other cellphone companies to use the GSM patents. Nokia is obliged (not by Apple) to licence those patents equally to anyone who wants them, not to strongarm anyone it chooses if it fancies some of the IP the company holds. Apple here is claiming that Nokia is unfairly leveraging its GSM patents (the standards) to get more in return than it should really be asking for (by the terms of its obligation to licence them).
Apple isn't trying to *not* pay - it just wants to pay what other cellphone makers pay.
Like the poster who already replied to you, I also get different rates for the utilities in my house depending on whether I use it for heating or cooking.
Well, marketing will only get you so far - just ask Sony (PS3) - if your product is poor, eventually you will get found out and people will go elsewhere. There must be *something* to the iPhone interface.
Which generation of iPod were you using btw? The iPhone/iPod Touch interface is totally different to the iPod, and (warning, anecdote alert) have given my iPhone to a number of different people while I've been driving so they can use the maps application, or browse the music, or send a text/make a call etc and they all pick it up right away (only one of them had an Apple device of any kind before that time).
You are one of the few people who has said they found the iPod interface unintuitive.
And these 3G phones are different how... oh I see, they're not 3G.
Either way, it is a carrier issue *NOT* an Apple issue - my iPhone has been able to tether since I bought it, in the UK, on my carrier. Apple have no desire to prevent tethering - they're not "out to screw you". Talk to AT&T about that: they are.
Tethering is a service provided by the carrier. It is AT&T's decision if they want to allow it.
Since you have an outlet on the outside of your house, and a tap for your hose you won;t mind if I connect up a plug and a hosepipe and run my AC off your power, right? You have the ability to provide me with the power, so I can just take it.
If you put a lock on your outlet I can complain that you should take it off and allow me to take your electricity.
Because everywhere else on the globe uses GSM.
And what do 3rd party apps on the desktop have to do with it?
Apple does not have this policy for OS X, only for the iPhone OS.
Everyone knows that you need to use the App Store to distribute on the iPhone - if you want the full freedom experience, either write desktop software or write for Android.
Hence this lawsuit being in Australia....
US trademark law is not at issue here.
iPod spelled backwards, with a small i, for a case designed to hold a portable music player (among other computer things).
How is that not infringement?
Except that the word is iPod spelled backwards, very deliberately. Even if it is obvious that it can't be confused, it is something they have to take beyond a polite letter of annoyance.
No, it's not a childish argument at all when RMS himself goes to just such rhetoric. RMS is very vocal about Free meaning totally free - not using any proprietary stuff at all (eg, video drivers, H.264 codec, mp3 etc), so why not extend that to the computer he is using. I assume he has all the schematics in his house, including board layouts and component lists, and none of the individual components use any patented or non-free technology like the CPU, chips etc.
The FSF here has chosen to exploit the messy business from PA and use it to say "hey look, this is why proprietary software is bad" when it's really not the software's fault here - this was entirely a human decision. It's no different to someone campaigning to have violent video games banned because the guy who shot up a school played Counterstrike.
Also "child" really is unnecessary, especially when posting AC - you are trying to look wizened and experienced, but you just come off looking silly.
It has no choice. If they do not bring a suit (even one that may lose) later trademark cases that are more blatant have stronger grounds to argue that the term is now generic since Apple hasn't been protecting it.
No one said that trademark law was sensible.
The Woolworths one was about a blanket trademark - Woolworths wanted a blanket trademark for their new logo (ie, to cover every sector of business, including computing) and Apple sued to exclude them from that section due to infringement. It's highly unlikely Woolworths will ever release a computer product, but again - you have to do these things in advance. If you do nothing (ie, "goodwill" then that can be used against you as "you don;t care if we use this name... it never bothered you before".
It would be better if there was some other way to lodge a complaint about a name that didn't involve a court, so that there wouldn't have to be a trademark suit in clear cases like this that still have a fringe connection (eg, iPod backwards, made for mp3 players) so that Apple's (or anyone's) trademark protection requirement is met without them having to sue.
No, they are protecting their trademarks, which they are required to do, else they are in danger of becoming generic. Even if they lose the case, they have to bring the case in the first place.