Nokia sues Apple for patent infringement
Nokia is suing Apple over 10 patents the Finnish phone maker says it owns related to wireless handsets.
The largest handset maker in the world is suing the maker of one of the most popular, the iPhone, because, according to a statement released by Nokia on Thursday, Apple has refused to license any of the patents in question. All iPhone models dating back to the original introduced in 2007 are infringing, according to Nokia. Nokia is asking the U.S. District Court in Delaware for an injunction (PDF) on sales of iPhones and for unspecified damages.
"The basic principle in the mobile industry is that 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, legal and intellectual property at Nokia. "Apple is also expected to follow this principle. By refusing to agree to appropriate terms for Nokia's intellectual property, Apple is attempting to get a free ride on the back of Nokia's innovation."
Nokia has already reached licensing agreement on the patents in question with 40 other companies, including "most of the major device makers," according to Nokia spokesman Mark Durrant. Apple has thus far refused to cooperate, and filing the lawsuit was a "last resort." The two companies have been in negotiations for "some time," he added.
Nokia says it has spent more than $60 billion (40 billion euros) on R&D related to wireless technology. The 10 patents it accuses Apple of violating are related to making phones able to run on GSM, 3G, and Wi-Fi networks. They include patents on wireless data, speech coding, security, and encryption, according to Nokia.
Apple did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
For every kind of technology you can think of (USB, wall plugs, video game controllers) there's an agreed upon standard. It's arrived at by companies making products that use the technology in question in the context of a standards-setting organization. They'll gather, debate over whose patented technology is best, and also agree in advance that every other company in the standard group will be able to license their patent at a reasonable rate.
Apple is one of a few companies--Nokia wouldn't expand on who the others might be--that is not licensing Nokia's 10 patents. Nokia says that for any phone to run on a GSM, 3G, or Wi-Fi network, it would have to license one of its patents.
Though it is asking the court to halt sales of the iPhone, the general consensus by legal observers and those who follow Nokia, is that it's not actually trying to pull the iPhone off the market permanently--injunctions are always used as leverage in these cases--but rather that it wants Apple to pay its fair share.
"There are companies that are patent trolls, that don't participate in the creation of technology, or they secretly acquire them. Nokia's not one of these companies. They're pretty up front about the patents they own," noted Jason Schultz, director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the UC Berkeley School of Law. "They're probably not trying to put Apple out of business...but force Apple to play the same game that every other phone company has to play."
Apple analyst Gene Munster thinks Nokia is looking to extract a royalty payment of 1 percent to 2 percent of every iPhone sold from Apple, which would be about $6 to $12 per phone. With 34 million iPhones sold to date, that would be $204 million to $408 million in back payments Apple would have to pay if Nokia were successful in court. There's also the added risk of something called "willful infringement." Basically, if Apple were to be found in violation it'd have to pay three times the amount of whatever the judgment won by Nokia.
Apple could settle out of court, or it could try to show that Nokia either doesn't own the patents or that they're not valid in this case, both of which would be difficult, said Schultz.
"Invalidating 10 patents is a lot, that's like running the Boston Marathon. It's really hard to do. You might get one, two or even five," he said. "But 10 is a lot."
If it does go to court, strap in for a long ride. This kind of case could take up to two or three years of litigation.
This post was updated throughout at 12:35 p.m. PDT.
Erica Ogg is a CNET News reporter who covers Apple, HP, Dell, and other PC makers, as well as the consumer electronics industry. She's also one of the hosts of CNET News' Daily Podcast. In her non-work life, she's a history geek, a loyal Dodgers fan, and a mac-and-cheese connoisseur. E-mail Erica. 
So Apple-like !
Better to steer standards towards patented tech and it's pay-day.
Palm isn't selling iTunes or making profit from it. There's a huge difference. They attempted to make their own product compatible with iTunes, but they didn't modify or use iTunes itself in any way. Now if Palm had released their own branded version of iTunes and sold it with the phone, then you'd have a case.
Palm didn't use iTunes. They modified their own device to synch with iTunes, but they didn't modify, distribute, or use iTunes. There is a difference.
I'd have to give you that one. I don't like that Palm tried to use iTunes at all- should have gone through some third party synch platform like Red Chair to do it in my opinion. Heck, I wonder if they could have licensed to have it hook up with the Zune sync.
Dunno really.
I suppose the best solution to that problem would be a fee to permit non-iPods to use the iTunes store in some manner - but I doubt Apple would go for that...
Your statement makes absolutely no sense. iTunes is a free software, you don't need to buy an iPod to get it. The money you spend on media downloaded from iTunes goes to Apple. Yes, it was wrong for Palm to sync with iTunes in the way it did, but it doesn't neccisarily rob Apple of money.
Of course, to give the benifit of the doubt, I may have misunderstood the meaning of your statement. It just makes no sense to me
This is stupid. Intellectual property cannot be applied to common sense. How can running mobile phone on GSM be infringement if the phone can only run on GSM??? This kind of litigation is appalling, I think RIM will support Apple on this one and Nip Nokia in the bud ...
1) They may have been trying to negotiate a license for some period of time.
2) The scope of the infringements may have taken a long period of time to be fully uncovered.
3) Tactically its better to wait until the new product has established itself in the market as it drives up the potential penalties and makes it more compelling to reach a settlement.
Just look at the RIM settlement as an example for all of these.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason running a phone on GSM infringes Nokia's patents might be because Nokia owns patents on *parts of GSM itself*? No? Didn't think so, after all Apple could NEVER do wrong! Not like, oh, stealing Cisco's trademark or anything?
It might interest you to know that the patents in question *are* part of the GSM, WCDMA and CDMA specs. It'll also interest you to know that Research in Motion licenses these patents like any respectable company (that isn't Apple) does.
After Droid and all the other Android phones hit the market (soon) they would not get as much.
Android phones are expected to put a big hit on iPhone sales , as they hit critical mass in the next few months. Timing is everything in this case.
Oh wait, it's you and you don't listen to reason.
Aaaaaand when droid peaks . . . Payday!
Unless you really are in the third grade....
Grow up and get a clue. Seriously.
Calm down- take your happy pill if need be. You're getting too worked up over this. When you start shouting in all caps like that, can you truly be a 'Happy_Switcher'?
I stated that they were guilty of infringing upon the rights of Nokia. That was *me* saying that, not the state of Delaware or whever else you want say. I can only speak for myself and based upon the information here, it was pretty darn clear they are guilty of patent infringment. I'd say that Nokia must feel they have a strong case if they are going to go to trial over this. They don't have to have your permission or approval.
Now you have said they will countersue. Could you elaborate on why you feel this to be the case? I would be curious to find out what leads you to believe Apple has any grounds to countersue a company for using their patents without their permission.
Now I have been able to state all this without using insults, name calling, or all caps. Which of our two posts will be treated with more respect and credibility as a result?
That would be awesome! We can have a cage match duel as well.
RIM is not stupid. I`m sure they did the proper thing.
Smug , secretive , walled-garden Apple likes to see what they can get away with.
If you steal another person's property- even in the form of techology patent violations, what possible justification can you come up with to sue them for your own violation?
I know you love Apple, but even you can't be this blind.
I'm not sure what Apple could countersue *for*. Would you care to elaborate your thoughts on the matter?
That's like the burglar suing the police because the had the audacity to catch them in the act of burglary. I just don't understand how you can defend this sort of behavior on Apple's part.
I do believe the point here is that Nokia's been in the industry with these patents long before Apple brought out the iPhone. Unless Apple can demonstrate that they own prior art, then it will be a rather difficult situation. Nokia's patents are from before the first 2007 iPhone came out.
I am trying to follow your logic here, really, but it just doesn't make sense. Perhaps someone else here can fathom it and present it a manner in which I can understand more fully?
This is a very very serious charge. Apple will likely just settle out of court with an agreement, pay a few licensing fees and the issue will go away.
Nokia was one of the key developers of GSM (Global System for Mobile Communications),[47] the second-generation mobile technology which could carry data as well as voice traffic. NMT (Nordic Mobile Telephony), the world's first mobile telephony standard that enabled international roaming, provided valuable experience for Nokia for its close participation in developing GSM, which was adopted in 1987 as the new European standard for digital mobile technology.[48][49]
Nokia delivered its first GSM network to the Finnish operator Radiolinja in 1989.[50] The world's first commercial GSM call was made on July 1, 1991 in Helsinki, Finland over a Nokia-supplied network, by then Prime Minister of Finland Harri Holkeri, using a prototype Nokia GSM phone.[50] In 1992, the first GSM phone, the Nokia 1011, was launched.[50][51] The model number refers to its launch date, 10 November.[51] The Nokia 1011 did not yet employ Nokia's characteristic ringtone, the Nokia tune. It was introduced as a ringtone in 1994 with the Nokia 2100 series.[52]
GSM's high-quality voice calls, easy international roaming and support for new services like text messaging (SMS) laid the foundations for a worldwide boom in mobile phone use.[50] GSM came to dominate the world of mobile telephony in the 1990s, in mid-2008 accounting for about three billion mobile telephone subscribers in the world, with more than 700 mobile operators across 218 countries and territories. New connections are added at the rate of 15 per second, or 1.3 million per day.
We can all plot the government takeover of American freedom.
Patents and Copyrights- Phooey! How dare someone be compensated for their hard work when they could just give it away for free.
/sarcam
@ celticbrewer... that would be wonderful, if EVERYONE who worked hard got paid great sums. Can't make a patent item work if you don't have people to build it. Can't get it to the public without advertising, sales and delivery. Why should the people who work hard at those tasks be paid 400% less than the person who owns the idea? His idea wouldn't exist if not for them.
Trolling would only work if I was pro one product at the exclusion of all else. Nah... I'm anti-dumb and all the companies are entirely too guilty of stupid things.
In addition: Rules are known and following good principle of "no trespassing on (intellectual) property". If you do it in purpose you get triple damages.
ETSI data base definition to essential cases: "THE ETSI IPR DATABASE contains IPRs, particularly patents and patent applications, which have been notified to ETSI as being essential, or potentially essential, to ETSI standards. Unless otherwise specified, all IPRs contained herein have been notified to ETSI, with an undertaking from the owner to grant licenses according to the terms and conditions of Article 6.1 of the ETSI IPR POLICY (Annex 6 of the Rules of Procedure)"
Uh... okay, whatever you say. I'm not entirely sure you are even reading comments before posting at this point. Nevermind, I'm done with you on it. Go play elsewhere, kid.
@ericaatnews:
Thanks! I would be most curious to see the complaints as listed. I know there will be those here who will complain about CNET bias or twisting the facts, so if the original source is available online, please link to it. That will avoid any confusion.
1. You didn't know the lawsuit was in America.
2. You decided, without the court's input, that Apple was already guilty of infringement. This grand conclusion is based on your never-wrong gut-feeling, I suppose, and not on any facts yet to be presented in a court of law.
3.By the way, what YOU think vis a vis alleged infringement is irrelevant.
4. Apparently you know nothing about patent lawsuits so I'll enlighten you: Patent counter suits happen ALL the time and are very common. Nokia has a touch screen phone, right? Apple filed for over 200 apps on touch screen technology, how many have issued or are pending I have no idea. Apple legal is pretty smart, I'm sure they'll think of something.
5. Likeliest outcome? Apple will pay some small change to Nokia and Nokia wil make some grand announcement to make themselves seem important. Bottom line effect for Apple: chump change.
2. You're right. I didn't ask the court for their input in what is purely my own opinion. But then again, you didn't either in your own comments. Nobody should be expected to. That's just silly.
3. What I think matters not in this case. Again, neither does your opinion mean anything. Nobody's opinion is going to make any differnce in this except for those parties involved. It's just opinion.
4. I cannot speak for Apple's legal abilities. I would not assume to make such a comment without basis of fact. As Apple currently has not addressed the issue publically, all we can do is guess. If you know more than Apple does on this subject, then all the more power to you. I will not make such an assumption myself though.
5. I agree with you on this one. A one time licensing fee as a slap on the wrist is the most likely result, but the fact that they didn't ask Nokia for permission is going to be a PR hit on their reputation. That's the sort of thing that other companies will jump on. Look at the recent Droid phone ad for a prime example of what letting your competition make use of your actions can lead to.
Here's a bonus #6:
6) I don't care.
From second paragraph: Nokia is asking the U.S. District Court in Delaware for an injunction (PDF) on sales of iPhones and for unspecified damages.
Now was that so hard?
If nokia wins and gets a monetary judgement, could they then refuse to license the technology to apple for any future use? If it was me and somebody stole my patents, I wouldn't be very inclined to license it to them later.
""My claim" was simply based on actually reading the article above which apparently you didn't:"
Wow. Apparently you didn't even remember your own accusations. Okay, that's fine. If you don't read your own comments, then I don't expect anyone else will either.
Whatever- say what you will- your credibility is already shot.
Software patents are just as ridiculous! :-)
I think the USA patent system sucks, they allow anything to be patented even without investigating if it already exists.
Apple did a great job with the iPhone, great design and UI, great music and video player. But they have to pay the fees to the creators of other technology, just like many other companies pay apple for stuff they invented.
To me, this is accounting Voodoo. Is paying the several mistresses of the executives and their big bonus payments part of R&D also? The actual R&D spent would be less than $60 million. You don't count the infrastructure and capital investments as part of R&D. If indeed the $60B is all R&D, they must have the dumbest engineers and scientists around.
What about the fact that Apple licensed the wifi technology from Lucent years ago. Airport anyone?
Apple has a strong case here - trust me they will win.
And the patent that Nokia claim with Wifi is the use of this in phones not just PC's or Laptops.
Nokia went to court with the company Apple got the GSM technology from and just recently won, they now is telling Apple to pay up. (And I assume anyone else that has bought this company's stolen/unlicenced/whatever the term is technology)
I don't know why this is going anywhere near a court, it's just dumb paying for 2 years of lawyers in a case that was already decided.
- by AppleSuxLeo October 22, 2009 5:37 PM PDT
- And in related Apple news...
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Gromit801 October 22, 2009 7:39 PM PDT
- Apple stunned by Windows 7...... heh. he heh. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (116 Comments)This is likely to point with Apple this month as they sit stunned that Windows 7 is doing so well and they are left looking foolish with products priced out of the segment. Their big news this week was a couple of PCs, a new keyboard and a multi-touch mouse. This last will likely go down in history as one of the lamest devices yet as they should know, given the iPhone, that touch is connected to the screen and not anything else. They likely would have done better putting fir on the damn thing and building it to fart the star spangled banner at least that would have been patriotic.
No Nokia patents were used in the making of the Magic Mouse. I smell a rat LOL
Oh god no more jokes like that, you'll do me an injury. Go back to your Redmond Koolaid.