Apple fires back at Nokia, requests that all Nokia imports be stopped

Seth Weintraub
|
January 16, 2010
|
Share

The tit-for-tat continued yesterday as Apple lawyers fired back at Nokia over the patent portfolio dispute by asking the ITC to ban all imports of Nokia phones to the US.  This follows Nokia's attempt to do the same to Apple.  

The dispute originated when Nokia demanded that Apple share its iPhone patents to gain broad access to Nokia's portfolio.  Apple, unwilling to do so, didn't follow the industry in licensing Nokia's patents.   The dispute has been escalating ever since.

Nokia gave a typical rebuttal:

“Nokia will study the complaint when it is received and continue to defend itself vigorously,” Nokia spokesman Mark Durrant said by text message today. “However this does not alter the fact that Apple has failed to agree appropriate terms for using Nokia technology and has been seeking a free ride on Nokia’s innovation since it shipped the first iPhone in 2007.”

Seriously?  We are all big boys here.  Why not just get yourself an arbitrator and sit down for a few days and work it out.  If not go to court.  The one upmanship is just costing customers and shareholders money and lining the pockets of the respective legal teams.

Comments (18)

grogall (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 6:43am

Wait, so I can buy some popcorn and then enjoy the schlamschlacht!

John 9852 (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 7:01am

" Why not just get yourself an arbitrator and sit down for a few days and work it out.  If not go to court.  The one upmanship is just costing customers and shareholders money and lining the pockets of the respective legal teams. "

 

It is the lawyers who make the decision to use arbitration and as you point out, that would cost them money.

the Cappy (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 8:57am

Yeah, and a camel is a horse designed by a committee.

 

Arbitration is often portrayed as being a nonpartisan process by which fairness happens. But it can degenerate into a play-school version of litigation in which the arbiter divides up all the blocks and says, "Okay, both of you get half". Fairness is then declared. Sometimes that's actually the fair solution. But sometimes it just isn't. We really don't know what happened behind the scenes here, and I suspect we won't even after the lawyers have had their say. I suspect Nokia offered different prices to Apple than it offered to other companies, trying to extort cross-licensing agreements. Apple, having been taught by Microsoft that a little bit of license can allow wholesale theft, said "No one gets their toe in the door this time. Please let us have your usual terms." Nokia said "No." Apple said, "Okay, we'll do a clean-room version." And both sides now have to play it out in the courts.

 

I hate the idea of feeding lawyers as much as anybody else. But although "arbitration" and "fairness" have significant overlap, their relationship is not "identity". 

9to5mac noob (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 9:37am

I don't know how it works in the US, but in England & Wales the court will look unfavourably upon parties to a civil dispute that have not taken steps to attempt to resolve the dispute out of court first. It's all in the CPR 1998. Hence any lawyer that artificially keeps their parties out of arbitration loses money in the long term by becoming known as the sort of lawyer that loses cases.

Aaargh! (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 3:01pm

I'm in agreement there.

With all due respect, it seems to me as an outsider that US patent laws are a ramshackle mess; IMO Congress seriously needs to tidy things up here, the way things are at present it must be detrimental to business efficiency [as well as being highly irritating to the observer].

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 7:21am

or take away their car privileges for a month. Big babies!

A symptom of two many attorneys with nothing important to do.

There must be some trademark infringement for them to look into.

 

Splif (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 9:19am

I'm thinking the Lawyers involved here work directly for their respective companies. They are not lawyers that are retained from outside agencies. They do not get a piece of the pie. They probably are paid salaries from their respective companies. The argument that the lawyers are the ones to gain in this instance falls flat.

9to5mac noob (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 9:39am

I'm always optimistic that this sort of stuff will one day have even the big companies accepting the need for patent reform. I don't actually believe it though.

MadDog (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 11:05am

I really don't see what needlework has to do with it...

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 10:49am

WOOOO GO APPLE CRUSH THOSE MOTHERF#&#*$ !!!

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 3:22pm

I think you need a new keyboard.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 7:31pm

What is tat and can you really exchange it for the other?

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 7:35pm

What is tat and can you really exchange it for the other?

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 9:32pm

Good, those iPhone wannabes, copycatters, late on their lawsuites people, can take their technology elsewhere. We got a better future with Apple! 

edie (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 9:34pm

Good! those iPhone wannabes/coppycatters/late on their lawsuites people, can take their technology elsewhere. We already have Apple to fix up our future!

edie (not verified) | January 16, 2010 - 9:35pm

Good! those iPhone wannabes/coppycatters/late on their lawsuites people, can take their technology elsewhere. We already have Apple to fix up our future!

jennifer2012 | January 17, 2010 - 5:46am

It is the war of smart phone. Recent year. Apple iPhone and RIM grows up. Nokia's market decrease great.

iPod to Mac transfer

buy memory cards (not verified) | January 18, 2010 - 2:50am

I guess now we have a new war. In the 90's and 00's it was AMD and Intel, so now I guess its going to be Apple and Nokia.