5 ms·

Nokia suing Apple over the iPhone

35 points by shivam14 17y ago

jameskilton 17y ago
Dupe: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=896838 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=896838
- rbanffy 17y ago
  Not really. The other one is a Nokia press-release. This is, I suppose, a more balanced point of view.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
ryanjmo 17y ago
This is exactly why patents are not good for the world. Imagine if the iPhone was never built because they respected these patents. The cell phone industry would literally be 3 years behind where it is now. Patents do not encourage innovation, they smother it.
- tjogin 17y ago
  It's not that I disagree with you, but there's also the option of paying patent licenses.
- andreyf 17y ago
  Ugh, what a knee-jerk echo-chamber reaction. If there were no patents, the iPhone would have never been built, because Nokia would have kept this IP as trade secret, or not developed it at all. For companies, patents increase the value of R&D investments by orders of magnitude, and without them, most current R&D spending would be impossible to justify to shareholders. If there were no patents, Apple would have no financial incentive (and that's the only incentive public companies have) to invest so heavily in all of the technologies in the iPhone, as they could easily be copied by others. The world isn't as simple as "competition always yields innovation". Giving companies limited time monopolies on their discoveries (by definition, limiting competition) increases the amount of R&D they do. This was understood hundreds of years go, even before the Copyright Clause was debated, and still holds true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause I'm not saying that the spirit of this holds true here, or in every patent case. I'm saying that responding "ugh! patents suuuck!" is too simplistic of a world view.
  - raganwald 17y ago
    "Giving companies limited time monopolies on their discoveries (by definition, limiting competition) increases the amount of R&D they do." I think this was a public good as long as companies--Nokia and Apple are both examples of this--used their R&D to produce goods and services for the marketplace. Under the circumstances, there may be some merit to Nokia demanding licensing fees. My guess is that there is some back-room stare-down taking place. Perhaps Apple feels that Nokia should cross-license some of Apple's patents. Perhaps Apple is threatening to invalidate some of Nokia's patents. It will be interesting to see this play out. I hope Nokia doesn't devolve into a shell company trolling for license fees :-)
  - antonovka 17y ago
    If there were no patents, Apple would have no financial incentive (and that's the only incentive public companies have) to invest so heavily in all of the technologies in the iPhone, as they could easily be copied by others. No financial incentive other than, you know, a need to compete in order to sell their product? It's not as if you can just photocopy a phone and wind up with the software written and hardware designs necessary to reproduce it -- and if you can, how novel are the ideas? It's disingenuous to state that Apple relied on Nokia's IP (that they would have otherwise kept trade secret), especially given that it's almost certain that Apple engineers ignored existing patents as much as possible when developing the iPhone to avoid additional liability.
    - DougBTX 17y ago
      It's disingenuous to state that Apple relied on Nokia's IP Unless there is any truth in the "we got our patents into industry standards which Apple supports" line from the article.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      No financial incentive other than, you know, a need to compete in order to sell their product? There are many ways to compete and sell products. Investing as much money as Apple does into R&D is only financially reasonable with government guaranteed monopolies in place. Do you seriously have any doubt that Apple would spend less money on R&D if they weren't able to patent their discoveries? Would any of their products be possible without such extensive R&D spending?
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  Aaaah...no. It's one thing to claim patent on something so general or obvious that it strains credibility, but if Nokia's patents were open (as in well-known by the industry) and easily licensable as they claim, then Apple would be acting in bad faith. You think Apple wouldn't sue if you put out a 'miPhone' that used their patented technology, without consulting them? Need more details on this, but Nokia is a respected company, I rather doubt they've decided to take up patent trollery just to see what they can scam out of Apple.
- EastSmith 17y ago
  Wasn't Apple the reason Android spent it's early days without multitouch? Imagine modern touch mobile without multitouch?
  - andreyf 17y ago
    Isn't the reason Apple spent the amount of money they did developing multitouch because they knew they could patent it? If there were no patent protections in place, it would have been very financially foolish to spend most of the R&D money Apple spends.
johng 17y ago
http://www.talkiphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nokia-suing-apple1.gif http://www.talkiphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nokia-s...
senko 17y ago
I would assume Apple has some patents in its portfolio too. So, what happens when one company sues other over patents, and the other has interesting patent portfolio? They settle it and each gets to use some new tech (without fear of similar lawsuit in the future). > "[...] those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for," said Ilkka Rahnasto, vice president of Legal & Intellectual Property at Nokia. "Apple is also expected to follow this principle." So, I think it's not Nokia being evil and suing the disruptive underdog to keep its profits. It's just a (start of) business exchange. (Disclaimer: IANAL and I own a Nokia phone, so :)
RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
See also: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489221111114540.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870422400457448... Referenced from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=897380 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=897380
teilo 17y ago
This line says it all: "Earlier this month, Nokia posted its first quarterly loss in a decade amid falling sales." And that in the same month where Apple has a record quarter. If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.
- jrockway 17y ago
  I have to think that the author of the article added this statement precisely so that the reader would make the same inference that you did. It could be that they legitimately spent time and money researching technology, only to have it brazenly ripped off by Apple, and they just realized it right now. Starting legal proceedings against a big company like Apple isn't something you do between lunch and your afternoon cup of coffee, after all. (But actually, I made the same inference, and I think it's right. I am just pointing out how carefully-picked "facts" can lead you to believe something that you imagined is a fact.)
  - tjogin 17y ago
    I think you are both right.
yish 17y ago
Why would apple be responsible? Last I checked they were using a separate radio processor chip from someone else (I believe Broadcomm), so wouldn't Broadcomm either have already negotiated the patent rights or ultimately be the one responsible for any patent suit?
kqr2 17y ago
Nokia's actual complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21458614/Nokia-vs-Apple-Complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/21458614/Nokia-vs-Apple-Complaint
- yish 17y ago
  Interesting, they claim they own a bunch of patents related to 802.11, does that mean they can sue every laptop manufacturer, and any other device that is wi-fi enabled next?
jacquesm 17y ago
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=898020 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=898020
ramy_d 17y ago
the article is written with bias

35 points by shivam14 17y ago

jameskilton 17y ago

Dupe: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=896838 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=896838

rbanffy 17y ago
Not really. The other one is a Nokia press-release. This is, I suppose, a more balanced point of view.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

ryanjmo 17y ago

This is exactly why patents are not good for the world. Imagine if the iPhone was never built because they respected these patents. The cell phone industry would literally be 3 years behind where it is now. Patents do not encourage innovation, they smother it.

tjogin 17y ago
It's not that I disagree with you, but there's also the option of paying patent licenses.
andreyf 17y ago
Ugh, what a knee-jerk echo-chamber reaction. If there were no patents, the iPhone would have never been built, because Nokia would have kept this IP as trade secret, or not developed it at all. For companies, patents increase the value of R&D investments by orders of magnitude, and without them, most current R&D spending would be impossible to justify to shareholders. If there were no patents, Apple would have no financial incentive (and that's the only incentive public companies have) to invest so heavily in all of the technologies in the iPhone, as they could easily be copied by others. The world isn't as simple as "competition always yields innovation". Giving companies limited time monopolies on their discoveries (by definition, limiting competition) increases the amount of R&D they do. This was understood hundreds of years go, even before the Copyright Clause was debated, and still holds true: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause I'm not saying that the spirit of this holds true here, or in every patent case. I'm saying that responding "ugh! patents suuuck!" is too simplistic of a world view.
- raganwald 17y ago
  "Giving companies limited time monopolies on their discoveries (by definition, limiting competition) increases the amount of R&D they do." I think this was a public good as long as companies--Nokia and Apple are both examples of this--used their R&D to produce goods and services for the marketplace. Under the circumstances, there may be some merit to Nokia demanding licensing fees. My guess is that there is some back-room stare-down taking place. Perhaps Apple feels that Nokia should cross-license some of Apple's patents. Perhaps Apple is threatening to invalidate some of Nokia's patents. It will be interesting to see this play out. I hope Nokia doesn't devolve into a shell company trolling for license fees :-)
- antonovka 17y ago
  If there were no patents, Apple would have no financial incentive (and that's the only incentive public companies have) to invest so heavily in all of the technologies in the iPhone, as they could easily be copied by others. No financial incentive other than, you know, a need to compete in order to sell their product? It's not as if you can just photocopy a phone and wind up with the software written and hardware designs necessary to reproduce it -- and if you can, how novel are the ideas? It's disingenuous to state that Apple relied on Nokia's IP (that they would have otherwise kept trade secret), especially given that it's almost certain that Apple engineers ignored existing patents as much as possible when developing the iPhone to avoid additional liability.
  - DougBTX 17y ago
    It's disingenuous to state that Apple relied on Nokia's IP Unless there is any truth in the "we got our patents into industry standards which Apple supports" line from the article.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    No financial incentive other than, you know, a need to compete in order to sell their product? There are many ways to compete and sell products. Investing as much money as Apple does into R&D is only financially reasonable with government guaranteed monopolies in place. Do you seriously have any doubt that Apple would spend less money on R&D if they weren't able to patent their discoveries? Would any of their products be possible without such extensive R&D spending?
anigbrowl 17y ago
Aaaah...no. It's one thing to claim patent on something so general or obvious that it strains credibility, but if Nokia's patents were open (as in well-known by the industry) and easily licensable as they claim, then Apple would be acting in bad faith. You think Apple wouldn't sue if you put out a 'miPhone' that used their patented technology, without consulting them? Need more details on this, but Nokia is a respected company, I rather doubt they've decided to take up patent trollery just to see what they can scam out of Apple.
EastSmith 17y ago
Wasn't Apple the reason Android spent it's early days without multitouch? Imagine modern touch mobile without multitouch?
- andreyf 17y ago
  Isn't the reason Apple spent the amount of money they did developing multitouch because they knew they could patent it? If there were no patent protections in place, it would have been very financially foolish to spend most of the R&D money Apple spends.

johng 17y ago

http://www.talkiphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nokia-suing-apple1.gif http://www.talkiphone.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nokia-s...

senko 17y ago

I would assume Apple has some patents in its portfolio too. So, what happens when one company sues other over patents, and the other has interesting patent portfolio? They settle it and each gets to use some new tech (without fear of similar lawsuit in the future). > "[...] those companies who contribute in technology development to establish standards create intellectual property, which others then need to compensate for," said Ilkka Rahnasto, vice president of Legal & Intellectual Property at Nokia. "Apple is also expected to follow this principle." So, I think it's not Nokia being evil and suing the disruptive underdog to keep its profits. It's just a (start of) business exchange. (Disclaimer: IANAL and I own a Nokia phone, so :)

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago

See also: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704224004574489221111114540.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870422400457448... Referenced from http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=897380 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=897380

teilo 17y ago

This line says it all: "Earlier this month, Nokia posted its first quarterly loss in a decade amid falling sales." And that in the same month where Apple has a record quarter. If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em.

jrockway 17y ago
I have to think that the author of the article added this statement precisely so that the reader would make the same inference that you did. It could be that they legitimately spent time and money researching technology, only to have it brazenly ripped off by Apple, and they just realized it right now. Starting legal proceedings against a big company like Apple isn't something you do between lunch and your afternoon cup of coffee, after all. (But actually, I made the same inference, and I think it's right. I am just pointing out how carefully-picked "facts" can lead you to believe something that you imagined is a fact.)
- tjogin 17y ago
  I think you are both right.

yish 17y ago

Why would apple be responsible? Last I checked they were using a separate radio processor chip from someone else (I believe Broadcomm), so wouldn't Broadcomm either have already negotiated the patent rights or ultimately be the one responsible for any patent suit?

kqr2 17y ago

Nokia's actual complaint: http://www.scribd.com/doc/21458614/Nokia-vs-Apple-Complaint http://www.scribd.com/doc/21458614/Nokia-vs-Apple-Complaint

yish 17y ago
Interesting, they claim they own a bunch of patents related to 802.11, does that mean they can sue every laptop manufacturer, and any other device that is wi-fi enabled next?

jacquesm 17y ago

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=898020 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=898020

ramy_d 17y ago

the article is written with bias