Active Topics
-
Porting apps to Leste (34)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Arno_11 - 7 hrs, 29 mins ago -
Which is the best N95? What software modifications could be made to it? (0)
to General by Kalatti - 1 day, 5 hrs ago -
Installing CSSU Stable in year 2024 (1)
to Maemo 5 / Fremantle by Maemish - 1 day, 21 hrs ago -
[ANNOUNCE] CSSU-thumb thread - stable Thumb2 on N900 (2,266)
to Maemo 5 / Fremantle by pali - 1 day, 23 hrs ago -
Firefox with Leste (7)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 2 days, 3 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2010-01-04
, 17:38
|
|
Posts: 861 |
Thanked: 734 times |
Joined on Jan 2008
@ Nomadic
|
#202
|
I wonder how these patents fare in light of some of the discussion that Apple is merely reselling these devices as they are actually produced by Foxcon (or some other ODM). Because if they are reselling, would they be guilty of the patent violations, or making profits off of another's violation (or not) of those patents.
|
|
2010-01-04
, 17:57
|
|
Posts: 1,400 |
Thanked: 3,751 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Arctic cold of northern .fi
|
#203
|
Originally Posted by ARJWright
That would be interesting tactic, but I don't think that Apple will use it.
I wonder how these patents fare in light of some of the discussion that Apple is merely reselling these devices as they are actually produced by Foxcon (or some other ODM). Because if they are reselling, would they be guilty of the patent violations, or making profits off of another's violation (or not) of those patents.
Apple's defense in their countersue papers is that Nokia has FRAND obligation concerning GSM technologies, and Apple as one of implimentors and adopters of GSM technology is entitled to receiving licenses on FRAND basis (I.e they are saying that they desing and manufacture iPhones).
 |
|
2010-01-04
, 18:02
|
|
Posts: 1,878 |
Thanked: 646 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ San Jose, CA
|
#204
|
Originally Posted by ARJWright
I believe that it's classified as "Foxcon is making devices for Apple", not "Apple is reselling Foxcon devices". The difference being that no one else can buy and re-sell those same devices, and they were designed by Apple, not Foxcon.
I wonder how these patents fare in light of some of the discussion that Apple is merely reselling these devices as they are actually produced by Foxcon (or some other ODM). Because if they are reselling, would they be guilty of the patent violations, or making profits off of another's violation (or not) of those patents.
The underlying question, though, as I understand it, depends on the licensing. If Foxcon paid the patent license fee, then that ends it: the patent license fee is paid, and not passed on to the down-stream seller. It's like sales tax: you don't pay it twice (unlike VAT, which gets applied at every stage where value is added).
If Foxcon, however, did NOT pay the patent license fee, passing that process on to Apple (the actual device owner), then there's the rub. And who is at fault will depend upon who dropped the ball. Was it explicitly in the agreement between Foxcon and Apple that Foxcon was selling the devices without patent licensing, leaving that to Apple. Or did both assume the other was taking care of it?
Given that Apple's defence is "we haven't been given reasonable terms to pay", it doesn't sound like they can go down the "we thought Foxcon paid it" path. They're clearly acknowledging that they need to pay _something_, they just haven't agreed to reasonable terms with Nokia about it.
So, that would, in turn, imply that, in whatever agreement Apple and Foxcon have, Apple is the party responsible for paying the patent license fees.
__________________
My Personal Blog
My Personal Blog
 |
|
2010-01-04
, 18:19
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#205
|
Originally Posted by johnkzin
Surely though in order to allow a device design to be retained by Apple rather than by Foxconn then Apple would need to pay the fee? Interesting point though as that would effectively give Foxconn Apple over a barrel! LOL
I believe that it's classified as "Foxcon is making devices for Apple", not "Apple is reselling Foxcon devices". The difference being that no one else can buy and re-sell those same devices, and they were designed by Apple, not Foxcon.
The underlying question, though, as I understand it, depends on the licensing. If Foxcon paid the patent license fee, then that ends it: the patent license fee is paid, and not passed on to the down-stream seller. It's like sales tax: you don't pay it twice (unlike VAT, which gets applied at every stage where value is added).
If Foxcon, however, did NOT pay the patent license fee, passing that process on to Apple (the actual device owner), then there's the rub. And who is at fault will depend upon who dropped the ball. Was it explicitly in the agreement between Foxcon and Apple that Foxcon was selling the devices without patent licensing, leaving that to Apple. Or did both assume the other was taking care of it?
Given that Apple's defence is "we haven't been given reasonable terms to pay", it doesn't sound like they can go down the "we thought Foxcon paid it" path. They're clearly acknowledging that they need to pay _something_, they just haven't agreed to reasonable terms with Nokia about it.
So, that would, in turn, imply that, in whatever agreement Apple and Foxcon have, Apple is the party responsible for paying the patent license fees.
|
|
2010-01-04
, 18:22
|
|
Posts: 1,400 |
Thanked: 3,751 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Arctic cold of northern .fi
|
#206
|
Originally Posted by Fargus
It's doable. That's the way Apple is currently dodging most of license fees to Qualcomm. Nokia also used same tactic during the Nokia vs. Qualcomm legal-warfare.
Surely though in order to allow a device design to be retained by Apple rather than by Foxconn then Apple would need to pay the fee? Interesting point though as that would effectively give Foxconn Apple over a barrel! LOL
 |
|
2010-01-04
, 18:26
|
|
Posts: 876 |
Thanked: 396 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
|
#207
|
If the lawsuit takes place in the USanything is possible...
The more the patents, the greater the win, no matter how stupid they are.
The more the patents, the greater the win, no matter how stupid they are.
|
|
2010-01-04
, 18:32
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#208
|
Originally Posted by Rauha
Is it just me that thinks this is starting to resemble a 'Carry On' film as they start the food fight scene? LOL. Well even if nothing comes of it for either party it at least has provided some entertainment for me!
It's doable. That's the way Apple is currently dodging most of license fees to Qualcomm. Nokia also used same tactic during the Nokia vs. Qualcomm legal-warfare.
|
|
2010-01-04
, 19:11
|
|
Posts: 1,400 |
Thanked: 3,751 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Arctic cold of northern .fi
|
#209
|
Originally Posted by Fargus
Absolutely agree. I'm fairly certain that both Nokia and Apple have their Legal entertaiment divisions working over-time to produce even more fun.
Well even if nothing comes of it for either party it at least has provided some entertainment for me!
Can't wait to see the battle jump over to this side off the Atlantic. Nokia allready has a finnish legal firm hired for the case.
Last edited by Rauha; 2010-01-04 at 19:15.
|
|
2010-01-05
, 05:41
|
|
Posts: 1,878 |
Thanked: 646 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
@ San Jose, CA
|
#210
|
Originally Posted by Fargus
Isn't that pretty much what I was saying? :-)
Surely though in order to allow a device design to be retained by Apple rather than by Foxconn then Apple would need to pay the fee?
__________________
My Personal Blog
My Personal Blog
 |
| Tags |
| apple, intellectual property, lawsuit, nokia, nonsense magnet, patent infringement |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:37.
-Patent number 6,895,256. Combining several camera functions in a single chip (iPhone, iPod Nano, MacBook, MacBook Pro and MacBook Air).
-Patent number 6,714,091. Energy saving in mobile phones (iPhone).
-Patent number 6,34,181. Is about saving space within a mobile device by combining building of antennas and speakers in a way that allows both saving space and good sound quality. “Using this innovative speaker arrangement, Nokia is able to make some of the world's smallest and lightest mobile phones, while still providing excellent hands-free operation and speaker audio quality”.(iPhone)
-Patent number 6,518,957. Switching screen off when phone is placed close to cheek, I.e proximity sensor in a telephone. (iPhone).
-Patent number 6,262,735. Method about higlighting telephone numbers and web addresses in SMS messages and allowing simple click for connecting to these. (iPhone, iPod Touch, MacBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, iMac, Mac Mini and Mac Pro).
-Patent number 6,073,036. Touchscreen keyboard that enlarges the letters when they are pressed. (iPhone and iPod touch).
-Patent number 6,924,789. UI and hardware related patent about highlighting and choosing items from a graphical options menu. (iPod click wheel) LOL !
Personally, these seem just about as silly as Apple's claims in the last round. Basically a legal pressure tactic to use as bargaining tool in negotiations about the GSM patents that started the whole mess.