6 ms·

I like "And in regards to Nokia’s accusations, Apple argues that some of Nokia’s patents aren’t valid, and moreover, asserts that even if they were found to be

I like "And in regards to Nokia’s accusations, Apple argues that some of Nokia’s patents aren’t valid, and moreover, asserts that even if they were found to be valid, Nokia refuses to license them on 'fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms.'" Basically - these patents aren't valid, but if they WERE valid they won't let us use them so we copied them and that should be OK. It reminds me of OJ's book - IF I did it, here's how it happened.

jws 17y ago
I believe the "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" keyword phrase comes the standards committee work where Nokia voluntarily promised that any patents relevant to the standards would be licensed as such. (Think GSM, UMTS, and all the cell phone protocols). Remember, just because legalese looks like English doesn't mean it is. In order for standards committees to work without degenerating into a self serving orgy of "hide the patent requirement" the players generally agree to this. RAMBUS is a good example of why this is needed. This may come down to: Does Nokia have patents, which are not covered by any of their standards obligations, that Apple is infringing. I expect there are some or Apple would not also have the "not valid" card on the table. Apple's pockets are deep enough to fight a patent validity suit. Meanwhile, Nokia will be doing the same in reverse for Apple's patents, except that Apple won't have the "reasonable and non-discriminatory" obligation.
- boucher 17y ago
  But are standards committee members actually bound by promises they made to said committees? In other words, as members of the organization did they sign a legally binding contract? It may be a jackass thing to do, but if they aren't actually legally obligated to license under "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" then the standards argument won't hold any water.
  - delayclose 17y ago
    I doubt Nokia is willing to burn the bridges with standardization bodies like that.
    - boucher 17y ago
      The argument would be that they've already burned those bridges. In other words, all that matters here is really how vulnerable they are to Apple's legal threats.

jws 17y ago

I believe the "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" keyword phrase comes the standards committee work where Nokia voluntarily promised that any patents relevant to the standards would be licensed as such. (Think GSM, UMTS, and all the cell phone protocols). Remember, just because legalese looks like English doesn't mean it is. In order for standards committees to work without degenerating into a self serving orgy of "hide the patent requirement" the players generally agree to this. RAMBUS is a good example of why this is needed. This may come down to: Does Nokia have patents, which are not covered by any of their standards obligations, that Apple is infringing. I expect there are some or Apple would not also have the "not valid" card on the table. Apple's pockets are deep enough to fight a patent validity suit. Meanwhile, Nokia will be doing the same in reverse for Apple's patents, except that Apple won't have the "reasonable and non-discriminatory" obligation.

boucher 17y ago
But are standards committee members actually bound by promises they made to said committees? In other words, as members of the organization did they sign a legally binding contract? It may be a jackass thing to do, but if they aren't actually legally obligated to license under "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" then the standards argument won't hold any water.
- delayclose 17y ago
  I doubt Nokia is willing to burn the bridges with standardization bodies like that.
  - boucher 17y ago
    The argument would be that they've already burned those bridges. In other words, all that matters here is really how vulnerable they are to Apple's legal threats.