Merry patent wars: Nokia fires back at Apple

Merry patent wars: Nokia fires back at Apple

Summary: Nokia said that it has filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Apple, Mobility, Nokia, Wi-Fi
58

Nokia said Tuesday that it has filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission. In the latest volley in its patent spat with Apple, Nokia argues that its rival "infringes Nokia patents in virtually all of its mobile phones, portable music players, and computers."

The spat focuses on seven Nokia patents. Apple countered with its own suit alleging that Nokia swiped intellectual property.

In a statement, Paul Melin, head of patent licensing at Nokia, said:

This action is about protecting the results of such pioneering development. While our litigation in Delaware is about Apple's attempt to free-ride on the back of Nokia investment in wireless standards, the ITC case filed today is about Apple's practice of building its business on Nokia's proprietary innovation.

Also:

Topics: Apple, Mobility, Nokia, Wi-Fi

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

58 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • they should joined forces (patents)

    and sue M$ out of the market.
    Linux Geek
    • Interesting idea .... except

      MS does not make MS branded phones and nobody wants to claim that any of their ideas is in the Win Mobile OS.
      wackoae
  • Both Apple and Nokia are wrong here

    Nokia is complaining about Apple using a standard, while Apple is complaining about Nokia copying usability.

    Regardless on what patents they have ... standard should have a single license from a single organization, not hundreds of patents from multiple companies and usability should never be patentable.
    wackoae
    • Your are wrong!

      Nokia's protocols are de-facto industry standards, not open standards. It's the same that Intel CPU cannot be produced by other manufacturers without license from Intel since instruction sets are Intel's own protocol standards. For Apple to be in business, rotten China Apple should get license from Nokia. No free lunch here.
      meusterer
      • You are more wrong and don't even know it.

        Nokia is NOT the "de-facto" standard. They are only one of many companies who own a small piece of the technologies that makeup the GMS standard.

        But I guess people are too dumb to understand what a standard is.
        wackoae
        • Then the solution is simple

          [i]Nokia is NOT the "de-facto" standard.[/i]

          All Apple needs to do is remove from the iPhone whatever parts of the GSM standard are Nokia's IP. If, on the other hand, GSM works [b]because[/b] of the research and investment that Nokia put into GSM, then Apple needs to pay up. End of story.

          A Mac uses IP from [b]many[/b] different companies yet it certainly wasn't okay for Psystar to sell a PC with OS X, pay for Intel IP, and not pay for Apple IP. The solution for Psystar was the same as the solution is for Apple here. You can [b]only[/b] sell your product if it contains IP that you have paid for. You [b]must[/b] remove any IP that you haven't paid for.

          Apple, remove all Nokia IP from your iPhone. Immediately.
          NonZealot
          • Of course, it's just as likely

            that Nokia is trying to compete through litigation as iPhone eats into their
            market.

            But, of course, considering that possibility would cause you to suffer
            seizures and foam at the mouth.
            frgough
          • You See NZ that is where your argument falls down.

            "All Apple needs to do is remove from the iPhone whatever parts of the
            GSM standard are Nokia's IP. If, on the other hand, GSM works because of
            the research and investment that Nokia put into GSM, then Apple needs
            to pay up. End of story."

            Yes, at fair and reasonable rates. The problem here is that Nokia were
            asking Apple for rates way beyond what they charge other companies
            because they want to regain some of the profit that Apple are
            hemorrhaging from them.

            It's quite simple. If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.
            jgpmolloy
          • Source?

            To be clear, there is NO evidence anywhere that suggests Nokia was attempting to charge Apple more/double/triple what the others had paid.

            Repeating the same speculation again and again won't make it true.
            rtk
          • This should be an interesting read.

            http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/29/nokia-vs-apple-the-in-depth-
            analysis/

            They have a pretty good take on the situation. Logically written, rather
            than the hype here at ZDNet, just thought I would share.
            Rick_K
          • @rtk

            Just like there is no evidence that Apple is infringing on Nokias patents.
            So far it is all alleged, that is why it is going to court for a judge to
            decide. If Apple is, then they should pay. But then again, what if Nokia is
            trying to extort more money out of them than anybody else?
            Axsimulate
          • Huge difference

            [i]Just like there is no evidence that Apple is infringing on Nokias patents.[/i]

            It is a [b]fact[/b] that Nokia sued Apple and that is what we are talking about. It seems more and more likely that the "Nokia is asking for 3 times more money from Apple" statement is something that the Apple cultist community has [b]completely[/b] fabricated. If not, and if I may quote you: [i]put up or shut up[/i].
            NonZealot
          • So correct. Same old same old.

            And don't try and make it sound like all the same cheese ball IP complaints against MS haven't been largely of the same nonsensical ilk.

            Patent law suits only get brought into existence once a company is big enough to pay, or if what they are doing is a real threat to profitability. Psystar was one of those "profitability threats". Or at least the potential was certainly there. After all, if one is going to be claiming that OSX is a fantastic OS, superior to Windows in some way, as Apple who charges a premium on their computers cannot allow anyone, ever, to simply set up some system where OSX can be installed on reasonably priced hardware. It would put Apple in the same place as MS is in the computer market, just a software/OS manufacturer.

            The more attention Apple draws, the more attention Apple will get, in all ways. Count on it.
            Cayble
          • @NonZealot

            "A Mac uses IP from many different companies"

            Really? Wow! gives us this list that you have of all the IP that Apple uses
            without paying royalties. We would like to know not to mention the DOJ.

            Or in short, put up or shut up.
            Axsimulate
          • Poor Axey

            [i]Wow! gives us this list that you have of all the IP that Apple uses without paying royalties.[/i]

            Where on earth did I say that Apple used IP in their Mac products that they didn't pay for? I said, and I quote: [i]A Mac uses IP from many different companies[/i] No where did I say they didn't pay for it. I was talking about how, just because there is a lot of IP in a product that you [b]did[/b] pay for, doesn't give you the right to include IP that you didn't. You either pay for all of it, you take out the stolen IP, or you stop selling your product. I shouldn't have to explain this to someone who cheered about the Psystar bankrupcy so loud.

            [i]Or in short, put up or shut up.[/i]

            Either try arguing against what was actually written or shut up.
            NonZealot
      • Funny what you said about Intel

        for years AMD did just that. They copied the chip bit by bit.
        rparker009
  • It's time for an end to software patents

    Patents that are over-broad and have prior art are being issued every day. Software should NEVER have been allowed to be patented. If it is covered by copyright then it should NOT be patentable!

    A patent should be for a machine or physical process. Ideas and concepts and business procedures and other horse hockey should be laughed out of the patent office.
    sismoc
    • Would kill innovation...

      Why make a product only to have it instantly made cheaper elsewhere? Or worse, write code and just have it swiped? Who would pay anyone to do such work? I wouldn't.
      Fark
      • Software patents have got to change...

        or go all together. First off getting rid of patents wouldn't mean people would be able to swipe others code. The software itself is covered by copy right law. Patents try to cover ideas, which makes them very hard to hand out without effecting others who never even saw your product.

        Right now it is almost impossible to write even a trivial piece of software without infringing on at least one patent. And you can't possibly think all of the rampant patent litigation going on right now is actually promoting competition.

        To summarize, on software copy right = good, patent = bad. A very good analogy is a book. While I can't copy the Lord of the Rings books I am allowed to write a story about a bunch of short people along with elves and dwarfs off to destroy a magic piece of jewelry. If books were patented I couldn't write about any of that, and over time we would end up not being able to write even a simple story without paying 30 other people for their story "ideas".
        Rabayn
      • BLATANTLY INCORRECT

        The software industry was doing just FINE until the State Street decision screwed everything up. Microsoft built their fortune on a world before software patents were enforcable.

        If Bilski goes down hard when the skeptical-SCOTUS makes their decision (and they have a history of reducing the scope of patents), at least the business method patents will be significantly reduced making the situation in the USA at least somewhat sane for new upcoming developers.
        DonRupertBitByte