Nokia: Google's Nexus 7 Tablet Infringes Our Patents 183
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.'"
Good ol' Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Hell, look how the demo of Google Glass went v the Surface. A toy project performed light years better than the Surface. MS has fallen from grace, badly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
MS ever had grace?
They've been having demos crash and bluescreen since forever.
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft DOS 6.22 with the 4DOS command.com replacement was seriously graceful.
Almost better than a linux command line. Power, Grace, and Beauty.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft DOS 6.22 with the 4DOS command.com replacement was seriously graceful. Almost better than a linux command line. Power, Grace, and Beauty.
I love your sense of humour. Remember how DOS wildcards work? If it sees an asterisk it fills the rest of the name (or extension, remember those?) on the right with ? chars. Nice. Right up to Microsoft's usual standards of truth and beauty.
Re: (Score:2)
You can hate all you want. :)
Microsoft has never done better than DOS 6.22
If you replace most of it with 4DOS.
Re: (Score:3)
I bet you don't even see what is wrong with the Microsoft approach to wildcards.
Re:Good ol' Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever given a high-stakes presentation? Have ever given hundreds of them? Shit happens, and the more you get up there and put yourself on the line, the more shit happens.
Steve Jobs had the right take on it.
Even though Steve was a fierce competitor, he actually drew the line at taking advantage of competitors’ demo woes. I remember one time during the “think different” years when Bill Gates suffered a terrible failure demoing a new Microsoft technology. We at the agency thought it would make a very funny commercial for Apple. It seemed like an idea being handed to us on a silver platter. We would simply show Gates failing and end the ad with a clever line about Apple.
Steve laughed — but he rejected it immediately. He said that demo crashes are an unavoidable part of the business, and that his own demos could fail as easily as Gates’.
Source - The Joy of Demo Crashes [kensegall.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Have you ever given a high-stakes presentation? Have ever given hundreds of them? Shit happens...
Shit seems to happen a lot more to Microsoft demonstrations. Having a warship towed back to port was a lovely demonstration.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or it could be Nokia being ridiculously desperate. Microsoft has NOTHING to gain by patent trolling Google. Zero. The Nexus 7 isn't competing with the Surface.
Nokia on the other hand, does.
So which is more likely, Nokia is trashing about in an attempt to remain relevant or Microsoft is fighting a secret proxy patent war?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or it could be Nokia being ridiculously desperate. Microsoft has NOTHING to gain by patent trolling Google. Zero.
Care to explain why HTC and Samsung are paying Android royalties to MS? MS always wanted to prove that Android is not free, what better method to achieve this than patent trolling.
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft has much to gain by smacking down Google whenever they can.
Bing / Google, WP8 / Android, Windows 8 on ARM / Chrome OS.
I am not sure that Microsoft is pulling the strings on this one but....
I am sure that you have to be a shill to put forth the idea that Microsoft has nothing to gain on ANY attack on Google.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft has much to gain by smacking down Google whenever they can.
Trying to smack down Google you mean. On the face of it, Google seems to pack considerably more smack than Microsoft.
Re:Good ol' Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft has NOTHING to gain by patent trolling Google. Zero.
Not true, I'm quite sure they'd love to bring their office furniture repair costs down.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Good old Nokia....
so this is their "Plan B" [techradar.com]: become a patent troll.
Good move Nokia.
Re:Good ol' Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
This is a FRAND issue. Nokia is stating that Google is using technology covered in the standards, which require FRAND licenses, and which they have not acquired. They just need to step up and get them.
Further, as far as I can tell, Nokia has been one of the best-behaved FRAND licensors in the business.
Re:Good ol' Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good ol' Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Just because Google doesn't license WiFi patents directly from Nokia doesn't mean they don't have legitimate licenses. It's not uncommon for chipset vendors to license patented technologies for use in their silicon, freeing those who use those chipsets from having to negotiate a separate license.
I'm not claiming that's the case here, but even if Nokia's claim that Google hasn't directly licensed the patents is true, it doesn't mean that Google doesn't have a right to use the technology, or that they're not paying Nokia (indirectly).
Re: (Score:2)
Patent trolls are regularly regarded as companies that make no product, have never implemented their patent...
You haven't been reading your wikipedia lately, have you? A patent troll is now anyone who trolls a patent, that is, uses it as an offensive weapon. Microsoft and Apple both qualify solidly.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't know about that: When Apple released the iPhone, Nokia pounced with a lawsuit then, too, long before Microsoft were their partners.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 aft
Re: (Score:3)
Can't prove it but we all know this is another one of Microsoft's proxy wars.
Obviously, Google's legal team is not fooled. This is the most direct attack by Elop/Microsoft on Google so far. In this high stakes patent trolling I'm betting on Google, just going by the severe schooling Google's legal team handed out to Oracle. My crystal ball shows a whole lot of sucessful patent busting on the way, with the enthusiastic and effective support of the open community. Can you spell Groklaw. I can see a big debilitating fight ahead for Nokia that it can't afford, but of course that just fi
Re: (Score:2)
Defending royalties is obligate (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't prove it but we all know this is another one of Microsoft's proxy wars.
Never know, Apple might have caught on and started a few themselves.
Apple had to license the Nokia patents a while back. It is likely the agreement specified that if there were royalties they could not be larger than anyone else pays. This puts the onus on Nokia to defend it's patents in the future or apple might clawback the agreement.
More to the point, noika's patent portfolio is prodigious and that R&D was not created for trolling but to pave the early and future path of mobile. It is thus not surprising that many things we now (a few years later) take for granted
Re:Defending royalties is obligate (Score:5, Insightful)
See, Nokia is talking about "standards essential" patents. A situation that needs to be outlawed. Granting a monopoly on a new invention is one thing, mandating by a standard that everybody must use that new invention is quite another. And quite outrageous. This widespread practice has only flourished in the past because it has flown under the radar of the average citizen. It can't be allowed to continue.
Re: (Score:2)
Which bloc of Nokia shareholders was that, and what was their connection to Microsoft, or to Bill Gates?
Built in Australia? (Score:2, Funny)
Apparently.
Transformer Line? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
The patent in question is allegedly to do with WiFi, so more to the point- Asus have been making computers for years, full stop. Every single one of their laptops has WiFi that would presumably infringe in some way.
But then I'm not even going to pretend that I even slightly understand patent law...
Patents? (Score:2)
Apparently so, if they're turning into litigious patent trolls themselves.
Ahhhhh, feels good to be able to use the third person to refer to them - now Nokia-free for 2 days! (But still a dedicated n900 fan.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Patents? (Score:5, Funny)
I hear SCO makes a solid UNIX product as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Refering to a company in the first person because you use their products is like refering to a sports team in the first person because you bought a jersey and went to a few games.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My employed life there's ended - meaning independence!
(and you may read between the words to deduce what I was working on.)
Which patent? (Score:4, Informative)
FTFA
It's believed that the patents in question have to do with the IEEE 802.11 WiFi standard
Wifi patents (Score:5, Insightful)
I guessed that this was probably something GSM related, but TFA says "It's believed that the patents in question have to do with the IEEE 802.11 WiFi standard". It's hard to imagine that Asus doesn't already have a license for essential wifi patents, they must have sold millions of devices over the last few years that have featured wifi as standard.
Bit odd that this has not been an issue until the moment that they release a Google branded device.
Re: (Score:3)
It's also hard to imagine that Google doesn't already have a cross-license agreement in place through the Motorola Mobility acquisition. Also, what about the various Nexus phones -- surely they included WiFi?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guessed that this was probably something GSM related, but TFA says "It's believed that the patents in question have to do with the IEEE 802.11 WiFi standard". It's hard to imagine that Asus doesn't already have a license for essential wifi patents, they must have sold millions of devices over the last few years that have featured wifi as standard.
Bit odd that this has not been an issue until the moment that they release a Google branded device.
Well, you know how it goes with SW patents, it could be something silly like displaying an icon next to the SSID while connecting to a network and then changing the icon when the connection is complete.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I don't seem to have RTFS. "standards essential patent" is a stretch for my example. Please ignore.
Jigsaw puzzle patents (Score:2)
Public support for patents appear to be premised on the idea that patents protect inventions. An invention is generally understood to be some useful thing like the lightbulb or the telephone. The reality, of course, is that most patents don't cover standalone objects but bits and pieces of them.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to imagine that Asus doesn't already have a license for essential wifi patents
It was also hard to imagine that Microsoft didn't already have a license for essential MPEG-4 patents, and yet Motorola sued them over one that applies to Xbox.
There's no guarantee that a patent pool for a given technology contains all patents necessary to implement that technology, even if everybody believes it to be the case. It only takes one submarine patent to prove that theory wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
It's unlikely that it's GSM related, since the Nexus 7 doesn't have cell data connectivity.
The complaint is pretty odd to me too.
Even if ASUS's existing licenses are not appliccable since they are selling the tablet under Google's brand, Google still owns the mobile branch of Motorola, and is hard to imagine that they don't have those patents.
Furthermore, all of the nexus devices up to now have had WiFi. Why complain only about the tablet?
Re: (Score:2)
"It's believed that the patents in question have to do with the IEEE 802.11 WiFi standard".
Of course, it's believed that. The Nexus 7 is wifi-only.
Perhaps, Nokia probably just assumed that the Nexus 7 was cell-phone network enabled, because all the previous Nexuses were cell phones.
I think Sidorovich put it best.. (Score:2)
Can no one else see where this is going? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole massive patent portfolios thing was hinged on mutually assured destruction. Everyone was violating at least one of everyone's patents, but as long as you either had enough of an armory yourself, or paid your dues to the patent portfolios, you were safe (disregarding wild patent trolls). Sort of like the actual Cold War - as long as you had enough nukes, or allied yourself with someone who did, you were safe (disregarding "rogue nations" and proxy wars).
Well, this Patent Cold War is becoming a Patent World War.
It's been going on for a while now, ever since the smartphone lawsuits first stated, but it's ramping up. They're coming faster and faster now, and going for bigger and bigger things. Pretty soon, you'll be seeing injunctions against entire companies, or multi-trillion-dollar fines.
I expect, in the end, most of those involved will end up out-of-business. And, hopefully, it will end with a massive patent system reform.
Re:Can no one else see where this is going? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, i get scared whenever anyone calls for a reform. I mean no doubt that the current system is broken, but i dread to see what the current powers would come up with to replace the current system.
There was some sanity and integrity still around when the last system was designed - and now it has outlived it's usefulness, but we are also all out of sanity and integrity.
Re: (Score:2)
Predictions:
Google will get through this pretty well. So far, nothing has really stuck to them.
OEMs will struggle through this because they will be targeted for supporting Google's platform. Google will help, but it will still burden the OEMs. Despite this, the OEMs will not stop supporting Android though one or more may throw Microsoft a bone by making a device or two featuring Microsoft's platform... they will fail despite the added marketing push simply because Microsoft keep s failing on the support
Re: (Score:2)
With all these companies suing each other out of doing business, exactly what is the impact on the economy? Can a weakened economy afford this kind of nonsense?
Of course, the law firms on laughing to the bank.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect, in the end, most of those involved will end up out-of-business.
Why? Is that how it happened in previous patent wars?
Re: (Score:2)
See, there's the beauty of this.
We don't have to do anything. We just sit back and watch the various factions of Corporate Earth (it's not just America) kill each other off.
Re: (Score:3)
See, there's the beauty of this.
We don't have to do anything. We just sit back and watch the various factions of Corporate Earth (it's not just America) kill each other off.
That isn't what happens. Corporations are not like natural human beings. When a human kills another human, you end up less than what you started with.
When 1 corporations kills another, the victor often becomes more powerful than both corporations were as separate entities. This is the accumulation of capital. The trend is that, in time, there will be only 1 corporation left, and it will own absolutely everything.
Re: (Score:2)
In traditional buyouts, yes. But this war is different. They aren't conquering, they're destroying. They're killing each other's profits and expending huge amounts of capital in lawsuits.
They aren't in a period of increasing strength. They're in a period of vulnerability. Small, light companies can rise up and exploit the situation, gain a significant market share while still being relatively untouched by the war.
Yes, the "one winner uber-mega-corporation" outcome is a possibility. But it's more a worst-cas
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I don't understand. Cooperating with each other explicitly or implicitly is a positive sum game. Some might win more than others, but everyone wins. Traditional corporate warfare is at least approximately zero sum, one company buys out the other, they lose control but they still get the money. But this patent war crap? It's massively and obviously negative sum. Who was the guy sitting in his office that thought this was a good idea and why does it keep going on? Even the winners are spen
Re:What to do about it? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Make a SuperPac like Colbert
Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Even though it's got nothing to do with Apple, I'm still going to blame them anyway since, as we all know, everyone copies off Apple, be it rounded corners or patent trolling
Someone Call Kyle's Dad (Score:2)
The case of Everyone v. Everyone is set to begin!
WTF! (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I pre-ordered a Nexus 7 for my wife as well. I am impatiently holding out for the Nexus 10 for myself. I really hope this doesn't delay it!
$29 Billion (Score:3)
That's the cost to US taxpayers* for all this patent trolling. It wouldn't be so egregious if there was actually some legitimacy to the claims but it's all about competing by litigation, which ought to be as illegal as stealing actual inventions.
[*] - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/new-study-same-authors-patent-trolls-cost-economy-29-billion-yearly/ [arstechnica.com]
Ahh... I remember my last Nokia phone! Oh, wait... (Score:2)
...No I don't. Because most of their stuff is low end crap. Samsung and Apple ate their lunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Has Samsung pulled their head out of their ass yet? The last Samsung phone I had (M900 - Moment) was a total piece of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
My Galaxy S2 Epic (sprint touchscreen) kicks ass. I have it rooted and run an Ice Cream Sandwich rom. Excellent phone. I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade to the Galaxy S3 once 4g LTE becomes available in my area.
The Moment is ~3 years ago. It was a fair phone at the time, a bit chunky. It had a decent processor from what I heard. Both Samsung hardware and Android have come a long way.
Barnes and Noble was right all along (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Idiot... software patents vs tech patents, big difference.
Are we reading too much into this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure how we get from here to alleging Microsoft-led conspiracies... At least wait for the Google/Asus responses before taking sides.
Re:Are we reading too much into this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it took them a while to realize it, maybe they've been insisting and wanted to escalate it, to pressure them...
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is also releasing a tablet.
Re: (Score:2)
The Nexus 7 isnt fundamentally different from their other tablets/phones in regards to these patents. Why bring suit now?
They haven't sued, RTFA... they're telling them to license the damn tech and I'd be surprised if they hadn't approached the subject before.
Re: (Score:2)
Because unlike most other tablets, the Nexus 7 does not have much profit of a margin. Many commentators are speculating that Google is selling the cheapest version at loss. So if Nokia is interested in money, this is a particularly bad target. Those hunting for a piece of the profit cake go after the big money makers, not products with razor thin margins. The explanation that makes more sense is that this is an extension of the shenanigans that Microsoft and Nokia have been playing against Android for a whi
Re: (Score:2)
Google isn't interested in the HW so much as the fact that they need to control the OS and the ecosystem... you're essentially saying that since Google isn't out to make money with the devices they should be allowed to minimize their losses by not licensing tech developed by others.
Re: (Score:2)
Well THAT didn't take long. (Score:2)
Good timing (Score:2)
Just like the scox scam (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft chose scox as a proxie for the same reason. Scox was dead in the water before they filed their lawsuit against IBM - about ten years ago now.
Scox had gobs of msft money to gain, and nothing to lose.
Nokia is the sequel to scox.
Ceo elop (Score:4, Funny)
The Nexus 7 also violates Nokia’s patent for “a method for losing money on hardware sales.”
Desperate Nokia? (Score:2)
For a company near deaths door it sure do sound like it...
Lets not overract (Score:2)
So far, all we have is a statement from Nokia. They are not taking legal action, trying for an injunction or anything. From what I can see and read on the article, it seems Nokia is only trying to force Asus/Google to come and talk to them, which is ok in my book. ... and at worst (and thus, correct), stupid.
Trying to compare this to the stunt Apple is pulling is, at best, sensationalism
I hope they get it banned (Score:3)
Using a Module?? (Score:2)
I would be willing to bet however that google is using a certified Broadcom module, in which case, they just plug it in, stick on the device, contains FCC ID blah blah and Bobs your uncle. No need license anything.
PJ, from Groklaw, had this to say. (Score:2)
[PJ: So, Nokia is suing over a FRAND license. That explains something I was wondering about. With Apple and Microsoft telling the ITC that FRAND licensors should never be allowed to seek an injunction, Nokia sent in a letter [PDF] of support for Microsoft against Motorola, but unlike other supporters of Microsoft it didn't go that far on the FRAND-injunction issue. In footnote 1, it wrote:
"Nokia owns thousands of patents that have been declared essential to various industry standards. Yet in spite of the fa
I figured Apple would file the suit (Score:2)
But it seems that Microsoft has stepped up to the plate. FWIW: I was right about Google being sued over this. And the lawsuit is coming from the same patent abuse machine.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I owned a few Nokia phones in the 90s. Good stuff. :P
Re: (Score:2)
I remember there being a lot of objections about including patented designs in industry standards.
Re: (Score:3)
That makes it blindingly clear that these patents utterly fail every possible test as far as non-obviousness, inventiveness, etc.
Um, this isn't an issue of rounded corners or unsubstantial software patents. Nokia was a pioneer of mobile wireless technologies, none of which were obvious at the time. These patents were then incorporated into an operability standard, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia claiming that "their" wifi patent is being infringed? It's already been decided that Australia's CSIRO invented Wifi and that and manufacturers using the technology would need to licence it from them
And in related news, SCO continues to claim that THEY, not Novell, owns the copyrights to Unix and therefore, to all Unix derivatives (like Linux).
The precedent makes me mildly skeptical of Nokia's claim. A Microsoft business partner (and investee) claims that a competing product infringes on a numbered
Re: (Score:2)
They get sneaky about this. They'll patent both the new hardware containing the actual inventive stuff, and the combination of that hardware with all and sundry. Then they claim that when you buy the hardware, you still need a separate lice
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, seriously you need to stop snorting the urinal cakes... your comment is a new low even for /. in failing to understand how patents (plural, google it) work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if Google wants to go after Nokia, they're effectively going after Microsoft, which is not the best idea in a patent war.
neither is directly attacking Google. until now the trolls have been attacking everyone except Google out of fear of Google going full nuclear on them but nokia is getting brazen and has decided to attack Google this will be a very very long drawn out battle. Google will protect the nexus line of phones because it is theirs. they will throw their whole mobile war chest at it including all of those patents they bought off of IBM and the Motorola Mobility Patents, Nokia which is struggling financially will ca
Re: (Score:2)
Nokia missed the mobile boat? Fucking news to me. Considering Nokia sued Apple before MS deal I think you really need to try and get over the fact you were literally born yesterday compared to Nokia.