In October Nokia announced it was suing Apple over patent infrignements with regards to the iPhone and GSM, UTMS and WLAN technologies. Today Apple announced that it had filed a countersuit against Nokia. In the countersuit, which has been filed in US District Court of Delaware, Apples denies all claims of infringement against it and further alleges that Nokia 'chose to copy the iPhone' and as a result has infringed on 13 of Apple's own patents. Such countersuits are common in patent disputes where each side tries to establish as strong as negotiating position as possible.
Read on in the full article.
So what exactly has Nokia copied from the iPhone. The homescreen of the XM5800 or N97, the N900 multitasking ? What exactly ?:icon13:
It is a well known fact that Apple is the patent thief in chief - remember scroll wheel of iPod which they stole from creative to mention but a few.
This is the company that threatened to sue an Aussie grocer for using what according to these annoying gits 'looked like Apples logo'.
What are these smug crooks up to now ?
I'd imagine this will end like most of these high-profile tech lawsuits do, with an out of court settlement for an undisclosed amount of money, but until then let the fanboy wars begin.😃
P.S. I'm sorry if I'm not taking this too seriously but that excerpt is so dramatic that I can't help but imagine it read out in a loud booming voice like the one from movie trailers. :tongue:
I call this BS, I'm sure Apple will be thrashed in court, if the case isn't settled out of court. Nokia created 7710 before Apple which carried the original buttonless design, as it goes for the UI, Nokia wouldn't be receiving such bad press from Americans, had they copied the iphone UI.
Doesn't matter if the case settles inside or outside the court, its time for Mr. Jobs to cough up the money.
This is the hole reason why Apple exist, they steal everything around them and call it theres, Apple is the BORG's in disguise, assimilate it all!!!
This is standard procedure. Expected nothing else.
Is kinetic scrolling patented by Apple, or is there prior art? Does anyone know for sure?
I know pinch-to-zoom is patented in the US. Motorola couldn't ship the Droid in the US with it. The European version of the Droid (Milestone) has it, however.
This could potentially spell trouble for the future of the Symbian and Maemo UIs. Oh well, if push comes to shove, Nokia could stop selling in the US altogether. It wouldn't be a big loss.
I am so glad that software pattents don't exist in Europe.
Apple bought the gesture based stuff from some other company. The lawyers will be the only winners. Apple NEEDS Nokia's technology for sure why Nokia can needs anything to make Symbian look relevant. They will exchange technologies and announce a wonderful agreement. The lawyers will get paid.
13 Eternal Apple Patents :
1 electron 2 locked in battery
3 aluminium 4 justice
5 plastic 6 books
7 circular building 8 1 year warranty
9 big mac 10 micmac
11 illusion 12 scottish prefix
13 in a dozen
😊 Regards jApi NL
An increasing amount of articles on here have nothing to do with Symbian.
Which is fine since Symbian is becoming marginalised, but maybe a relaunch with a new name isn't out of order?
@Unregistered
Correct me if I am wrong, but I guess you missed the part where the site was going to move towards covering more general smartphone subjects, not just Symbian, or didn't you notice that stories regarding Android and Windows Mobile have also appeared.
P.S. How is Apple suing the company which has had the largest impact on Symbian in recent years, and which once wholly owned (for a short time, but still), not related to Symbian?
Also, what does Symbian's name have anything to do with... anything, actually? Or should I remind you there exists an OS called BaDa, and that the leading PC OS is named after part of a building (cough Windows cough).
@adi_pie -> @unregistered
And furthermore, if Nokia did as alleged by Apple "chose to copy the iPhone" what OS did Nokia use to do that?
rafiii wrote:I am so glad that software pattents don't exist in Europe.
Actually, they do. You simply phrase a patent claim as a computer-implementation of a method; as long as the method itself is patentable (ie. novel and inventive), the software-implementation of the method is also patentable. The only thing you can't patent is the code itself....
buster wrote:Marginalised? Really?
Indeed. For 0.0001% of the phone purchasing market, mostly people who like to post on forums like this one, there is a fashionable anti-symbian feeling in their own little world. There little world where the number 1 seller is "marginalised" LOL!
Meanwhile out in the real world there is an entirely different view. I can tell you from the frontline that whilst people are impressed by the UI on some other phones, when it comes down to it they buy something that suits them for other reasons and the breadth of choice that Nokia offer with Symbian is holding them up well this christmas.
Unregistered wrote:An increasing amount of articles on here have nothing to do with Symbian.
Actually this bit of news has lot to do with Symbian. In Apple's papers to court Symbian is mentioned consistently as the platform which infringes on Apple's patents. S40 is mentioned only once and apparenty Maemo breaks just one Apple patent.
Nokia sues apple over a bunch of technologies fundamental to GSM based phones.
So Apple sues Nokia back over what is a bunch of fluffy and quite possibly baseless software patents :
No. 5,555,369: Method of creating packages for a pointer-based computer system
No. 6,239,795 B1: Pattern and color abstraction in a graphical user interface
No. 5,315,703: Object-oriented notification framework system
No. 6,189,034 B1: Method and apparatus for dynamic launching of a teleconferencing application upon receipt of a call
No. 7,469,381, B2: List scrolling and document translation, scaling, and rotation on a touch-screen display
No. RE 39, 486 E: Extensible, replaceable network component system
No. 5,455,854: Object-oriented telephony system
No. 5, 379,431: Boot framework architecture for dynamic staged initial program load
No. 5,634,074 : Serial I/O device identifies itself to a computer through a serial interface during power on reset then it is being configured by the computer
No. 5,915,131 : Method and apparatus for handling I/O requests utilizing separate programming interfaces to access separate I/O services
No. 7,383,453 B2: Conserving power by reducing voltage supplied to an instruction-processing portion of a processor
No. 5,848,105: GMSK signal processors for improved communications capacity and quality
No. 6,343,263 B1 : Real-time signal processing system for serially transmitted data
clonmult wrote:Nokia sues apple over a bunch of technologies fundamental to GSM based phones.So Apple sues Nokia back over what is a bunch of fluffy and quite possibly baseless software patents :
On that basis, Apple need to be suing all the phone companies.
buster wrote:Actually, they do. You simply phrase a patent claim as a computer-implementation of a method; as long as the method itself is patentable (ie. novel and inventive), the software-implementation of the method is also patentable. The only thing you can't patent is the code itself....
Quite right. The European Patent Office has approved tens of thousands of software patents, through this "loophole". For several years, the big industry players (such as Nokia and Microsoft) have also tried to lobby the EU to "officially" apporove "pure" software patents. The attempts have been thwarted a couple of times already. But might have been successfully sneaked in by now through some subitem in an agricultural ballot or some such.
Plenty of info on that topic on, e.g., http://www.groklaw.net/
N/A wrote:Quite right. The European Patent Office has approved tens of thousands of software patents, through this "loophole". For several years, the big industry players (such as Nokia and Microsoft) have also tried to lobby the EU to "officially" apporove "pure" software patents. The attempts have been thwarted a couple of times already. But might have been successfully sneaked in by now through some subitem in an agricultural ballot or some such.Plenty of info on that topic on, e.g., http://www.groklaw.net/
Funny you should mention the EPO, as that's where I work, as a patent examiner...
However, the EU has no (direct) control over how the EPO functions, as the EPO is a self-financing, self-governing organisation, with many more member countries than the EU. If the Community Patent ever gets off the ground, the EU may have more influence on how the EPO functions, as most of the work will be carried out by us...
Unregistered wrote:On that basis, Apple need to be suing all the phone companies.
Therein lies the problem - software patents are kinda difficult, and shouldn't be patents in their own right.
What Nokia patented wasn't software as such, but underlying technologies. Some of those apple patents appear to be based around the user interface and themes - which is something that has been proven before (between Apple and M$) to be unenforcable.
It'll definitely be an intersting show, and a damn good earner for their lawyers.