All too often, I've seen something which Apple marketing or Apple adepts claim Apple invented whereas they bought a corporation which invented and patented it, or other corporations have tried and failed to use the technology on the market, hence failed to innovate the market.
For example, when DEC and SGI went boom they sold a lot of their IP to competitors such as Intel and Nvidia, and often engineers also found a new home there. It may very well be possible an engineer who invented something at corporation X now works for their competitor corporation Y to innovate said invention, but that does not mean competing corporation Y invented the technology. Its the engineer, who did it under flag of corporation X. In case of Apple, many examples can be found by just taking a look at history of Nextstep/Openstep...
I flicked it trough. Few observations that I haven't seen in media so far:
-Nokia claims that it has followed FRAND principles (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) in offering Apple licenses.
-Nokia basicly makes the point that GSM standard has become a global standard and it's based on joint developement between key developers. This takes few pages, and I think that the point is that Apple's actions threaten the basis of how the cooperative GSM development works.
-Nokia is propably seeking out not just lost and future license fees, but also compesation for harm that has come Apple's continued infringement. They make the point that Apple "freeriding" has allowed it to get unfair competive pricing & profit edge against other GSM manufacturers.
Very interesting. The part about compensation not just related to Fair and Reasonable and Non Discriminatory license as Nokia believe that Apple may have not got additional market share if they had to pay for the patents like everyone else.
This may have an impact on Apple beyond just the 200M to 400M that some sites have estimated as the amount of money in dispute. It will have an impact on the Carriers that want to sell the iPhone, as they are now carrying a product that may have a legal issue attached to them. Will this stop carriers taking on the iPhone just as the sole supplier status runs out with the likes of AT&T?
All this at a time when Nokia's products are now clear of litigation following their settlement with Qualcomm in the US.
ONCE AGAIN: it is a logical mistake to confuse bad laws/implementation with the principle
You keep saying that, and it's true that a bad implementation doesn't imply a bad principle. But a bad implementation doesn't rule out a bad principle either, so your statement above doesn't shed much light.
There was plenty of scientific and social advancement before patents existed. Without patents, the barriers to "advancement of the arts and sciences" are lower, and people engage in a constant process of incremental improvement. With patents, you get pockets of more intense (but isolated) development, and a reduction in the number of scientists/engineers together with an increase in the number of lawyers.
There was plenty of scientific and social advancement before patents existed.
True. For comparing, advanced historic research must be provided.
Originally Posted by
Without patents, the barriers to "advancement of the arts and sciences" are lower, and people engage in a constant process of incremental improvement.
Inventors were living like hermits without much collaboration from third parties whereas trusted acquintances were rare, leading to solo projects. So, 'people engage' is misleading as it implies collaboration like you can find in R&D departments nowadays. Instead, it was much more DIY back then which one can partly (not fully) relate to lack of patent system.
Inventions were stolen and spied upon, inventors made mechanisms to protect their invention otherwise (obfuscation in written specifications, for example) which meant some inventors took their invention with them to their grave. Quite funny in the light of Egyptian pyramids, isn't it? Now, this practice does not mix well with 'constant process of incremental improvements'. How is it an 'incremental improvement' when an invention isn't understood therefore not practically applied? When its hidden, burried? The work was done by the inventor already, yet now someone has to do that work again. Again, lack of ability to write should be taken into consideration as well.
If you think the above are 'rare exceptional cases' you're wrong. It was common practice. Heck, tons of artifacts are still not understood, technologies still have to be reverse engineered, and nobody understands the 7 world wonders. It even happens nowadays in copyright related cases. Countless musicians have lost original artwork due to harddrive failures and Windows reformats, lost or gave away their DATs, CD is not readable anymore, or their unreleased work is given to acquintance who gave it to one or more third parties without permission. You can also see the problem in e.g. Lex Nokia. The problem is an inherent result of data, distribution, and networking which all have become incredibly cheap in past century (and more recent even cheaper ofcourse).
Very interesting. The part about compensation not just related to Fair and Reasonable and Non Discriminatory license as Nokia believe that Apple may have not got additional market share if they had to pay for the patents like everyone else.
How is this argued??? I mean, Apple has a huge warchest. They're quite conservative in that regard. Would this mean, that, Nokia would have gotten an advantage if Nokia was aware of Apple iPhone development? Was it perhaps an intended strategy by Apple to evade this awareness?
Other corporations have either invested large sums of money in developping GSM and it's deritives or payed license fees to get right to use that technology. Apple has done neither, so it has gotten edge that has allowed it "leech" marketshare.
Or that is how understand the argument. Not native anglo and lawyer english is even harder to understand.
How is this argued??? I mean, Apple has a huge warchest. They're quite conservative in that regard. Would this mean, that, Nokia would have gotten an advantage if Nokia was aware of Apple iPhone development? Was it perhaps an intended strategy by Apple to evade this awareness?
Nope, what they mean is that by not having to pay royalties, Apple was able to get a better profit margin, which allowed them to invest more money into R&D.
Basically, they got stuff for free, and that gave them an edge. At least, that's what Nokia argues.
How is this argued??? I mean, Apple has a huge warchest. They're quite conservative in that regard. Would this mean, that, Nokia would have gotten an advantage if Nokia was aware of Apple iPhone development? Was it perhaps an intended strategy by Apple to evade this awareness?
No it is not argued like that. Nokia make the statement that compensation should be more than the amount of license that would have been paid had Apple agreed to pay the royalties. ie There has been more value to Apple, and harm to Apples competitors (especially Nokia) as a result of everyone playing by one set of rules, and Apple by another in terms of having to bare the cost of the R&D costs for these technologies.
The example being that of market share gain.
It sounds like negotiations have gone on for some time.
Mike C
Full disclosure, I do not hold Apple or Nokia shares, but am a self confessed Linux and FOSS fanbloke.
