Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Google Patents Microsoft Technology

Nokia: Google's Nexus 7 Tablet Infringes Our Patents 183

Posted by timothy
from the this-is-a-storm-and-that's-got-ports dept.
walterbyrd writes with a story at The Inquirer outlining the latest volley in the patent wars surrounding mobile hardware, this time aimed at the new Aus-built Nexus 7 tablet from Google by Nokia, in which the company's spokesman says, "Nokia has more than 40 licensees, mainly for its standards essential patent portfolio, including most of the mobile device manufacturers. Neither Google nor Asus is licensed under our patent portfolio. 'Companies who are not yet licensed under our standard essential patents should simply approach us and sign up for a license.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nokia: Google's Nexus 7 Tablet Infringes Our Patents

Comments Filter:
  • Transformer Line? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brunes69 (86786) <slashdot@nosPam.keirstead.org> on Tuesday July 03, 2012 @11:33AM (#40528601) Homepage

    Asus has been making the transformer line for years. If Asus is not licensing required patents for Wifi, why has Nokia delayed on demands for so long?

  • WTF! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kurt555gs (309278) <kurt555gs@@@ovi...com> on Tuesday July 03, 2012 @11:48AM (#40528881) Homepage

    I used to be a total Nokia Fanboi. Hell, I use a Nokia N9 as my everyday cell phone. I cried like John Boehner when Elop took over and made Nokia Microsoft's bitch.

    Now I'm mad! I just ordered one of those Google 7 tablets, and my former love, Nokia is trying to stop me from having it!

    Phuque!

    Where is this world going?

  • by gbjbaanb (229885) on Tuesday July 03, 2012 @12:05PM (#40529181)

    Good old Nokia....

    so this is their "Plan B" [techradar.com]: become a patent troll.

    Good move Nokia.

  • by spire3661 (1038968) on Tuesday July 03, 2012 @12:06PM (#40529201) Journal
    The Nexus 7 isnt fundamentally different from their other tablets/phones in regards to these patents. Why bring suit now?
  • by wulva (564057) on Tuesday July 03, 2012 @12:33PM (#40529673)

    You are forgetting that Nokia as a company has done a major share of R&D in mobile space since 90's, thus they have huge chunk of patents covering the fundamentals. Now that their phone business is suffering they have to monetize somehow, and that how is their IP portfolio.

    It would be irresponsible of Nokia not to sue, as their shareholders want to see money.

    Most manufacturers have licensing agreements with Nokia besides some of the new comers such as Apple and Google and Apple already paid them off after getting sued.

    Now there is no question that Nokia fucked up. The fuck up was mainly caused by internal politics where different division screwed with others. I mean they had a mapping company bought years before google but they only got to market a year after them.

    Shit happens and now they've only got the low end and what ever IP they've developed. As they have to rebuild their credibility on the high end they need some cash to cover it, as such IP is the best source.

  • by kanto (1851816) on Tuesday July 03, 2012 @01:28PM (#40530707)

    Nokia was under completely different management 2 years ago, which essentially makes every point on behavior prior to the microsoft deals entirely unrelated points.

    How exactly is this shit insightful? Afaik they went after Apple for freeloading and now they're going after Google... or maybe I just answered myself. Microsoft and Nokia have a deal on patents so Windows Phones aren't being targeted, go cry me a river.

  • by gman003 (1693318) on Tuesday July 03, 2012 @02:38PM (#40531707)

    The problem is that you are assuming the "guy sitting in his office" is rational. People are *not* rational. I know I'm not, and I've yet to see a truly rational person. Oh sure, at times, maybe even most of the time, people are somewhat rational. But "homo sapiens sapiens" isn't nearly as wise as he thinks he is.

    Their chain of thinking is relatively simple. In the beginning, it was simple - you have a Good Idea, one worth money, one that lets you make good products that you sell for more money.

    Patents were invented to protect those Good Ideas, to reward the people who came up with Good Ideas. So obviously, when you have a Good Idea, you should patent it.

    Eventually, the distinction between Good Ideas and patents was lost. Every Good Idea becomes patented; every patent covers a Good Idea. And, as Good Ideas are good things that you want a lot of, patents must be good things that you want a lot of.

    So the men in suits pushed for more patents. They pushed their thinkers to file more patents, and pushed the laws so they could patent more ideas (because, after all, if an idea is patented, it must be a Good Idea that brings in money!)

    But they pushed too far. They ended up with patents that were not Good Ideas, maybe just good ideas. Maybe just ideas, or bad ideas, or just ideas for ideas. And they had so many, they covered almost everything. You can't make a product without using hundreds, even thousands, of patents.

    And there are *two* ways to make money from patents. First, you can use it to make a Good Product. But you can also use it to get money from someone else who is making a Good Product.

    And more and more, the men in suits focused more on the second way than the first way. Which fed the cycle more - driving more and more patents. Which drove more and more patent suits.

    It's a common error of human psychology to never see yourself as the aggressor. People almost always see themselves as the one *being* attacked, not the one *doing* the attacks. So now the men in suits are scared, because they feel as though they're under attack by patents.

    But in the system we've ended up with, there really is no defense against patents. All you can do is go on the offensive yourself.

    And so they fight back, because that's the only option they can see. They probably can tell it will end badly for them, but I imagine they blame the other companies for "forcing" them into this situation (because, after all, most people prefer to blame others rather than their own short-sightedness).

    They can't see that there is an option to change the game, because few men can truly see that option while they play the game. We outsiders can see it, because we aren't in the middle of it.

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurence of the improbable. - H. L. Mencken

Working...