Thread: Nokia vs. Apple Patent Lawsuits and Countersuits
View Single Post
allnameswereout's Avatar
allnameswereout is offline allnameswereout
2009-12-12 , 14:03
Posts: 3,397 | Thanked: 1,212 times | Joined on Jul 2008 @ Netherlands
#183
Originally Posted by Laughing Man View Post
So the only thing Apple has in their example that predated the Nokia tablets is the iPod. Which came out 23 October 2001.
Regarding the article from Betanews the following is quoted incorrect and hence vague:

"When mobile wireless handsets or cell phones were first introduced," Apple's counterclaim continues, "the technology focused on the ability to make and receive traditional voice calls. Nokia was an early participant in the development and sale of these traditional voice call-focused mobile phones. Over time, however, mobile phone technology converged with computer technology and other technology advances, including many advances pioneered by Apple...Today's 'smartphones' are sophisticated, portable computing devices with immense capabilities...Apple foresaw the importance of converged user-friendly mobile devices...designed a business strategy based on the convergence of personal computers, mobile communications, and digital consumer electronics, and produced...devices such as the iPod, iPod Touch and the iPhone.
After Apple counterclaim continues the quote is opened, but never closed.

As for iPod since 2001. Not every iPod allows convergence, and convergence is a relative term.

Take into account what Apple wrote about themselves is quoted by the article, innovative; not inventive. Patents are about inventions; not innovations. Innovations are popular implementations of [one or more] inventions. The first innovation may or may not be by same entity as owner of one or more patents related to inventions implemented by innovation. In practice, an innovation builds on tons of previous inventions some of which are patented, some of which are not (or not anymore). This is important because some patents do not (yet) have a popular implementation, so for example public devices which were not popular such as but not limited to Apple Newton might be interesting in this context, especially if you're going to search for prior art. This does not take into account any internal R&D never published or marketed.

The following quote from article is striking

The complaint finally declares, "This attempt by Nokia to leverage patents previously pledged to industry standards is an effort to free ride on the commercial success of Apple's...iPhone while avoiding liability for copying the iPhone and infringing on Apple's patents."
Because from what I read other corporations do license GSM technologies, and an industry standard may or may not include patented technologies which require a license fee. Is Apple not aware of both points? Why such is not researched or taken into account by the author, I don't understand.

I don't know if anti competitive applies here, but Nokia is market leader, not monopolist. According to Apple's reasoning, I should be able to implement for free without paying royalties for license MPEG-1 (e.g. Layer 3; MP3), MPEG-2/MPEG-4 (e.g. DVD), because they are 'industry standards'. Meanwhile, don't have to license own technologies because they don't allow this, they're proprietary, and only work with Apple products! (Quartz, COCOA, iPod/iPhone synchronization.) whereas some are now industry standards they don't want royalties on (iCalendar, Bonjour).

Also, isn't USB an industry standard:

Apple singles out the 5310, E71, N900 by name, but includes the Series 40, S60 and Symbian platforms, Carbide C++ (because it's developed in an environment that enables the compiler to generate a GUI), and any Nokia product that identifies itself through USB.
Products identify themselves over USB by vendor_id and product_id. The vendor_id are assigned by USB consortium. Apparently, Apple claims the product_id is a patented Apple invention?
__________________
Goosfraba! All text written by allnameswereout is public domain unless stated otherwise. Thank you for sharing your output!