Yet it is still a part of the ongoing patent war. Right now each side is just trying to scare the other into submission so to speak.

I don't know enough about how the patent game is played. But I'd imagine it could play out similar to this:

- Apple is developing a new product that needs a few patents from Nokia.
- They try to negotiate for the patent licensing fees, but Nokia puts an unreasonably high asking price for strategic reasons (and it's their right to put whatever asking price they want for it).
- Apple decides that settling this in court may still be cheaper than Nokia's asking price, and they don't mind the public exposure.
- Game on!

These companies have homongous legal department and their moves are all dictated by dollar and cents. These things are almost always calculated moves for them.

It's all about so called essential patents, which are standardized in the mobile industry. Their inventor cannot deny other manufacturers their usage but the inventor has the right to have a reasonable compensation for the patent use. These patents are e.g. for gsm, 3g and wifi technologies i.e. basic cellular radio electronics.

Usually other manufacturers pay compensation for the patents but Apple has decided that they'll benefit to market their product without paying to get market share and pay when they absolutely must to.

Someone asked how many patents do Apple and Nokia have. I don't know about Apple but Nokia has over 10 000 patents which is a very large amount in this industry. It's more than any other manufacturer have.

This is the way of the mobile industry.

Nokia remains important for Finland for other reasons than just the "glamour" of having a high tech company. For instance the city where Nokia has its factory, 90% of their business taxes come from Nokia and before the market slump Nokia's taxes equalled the amount that would pay the child benefits for the entire country. This is why it pisses me off about Nokia vs. Apple comparisons. It's not all about phones and business.

Ok, that's enough ranting about that issue...

Apple likely has more patents in general, but Nokia's are probably more focused in the realm of phones and mobile devices.

Ok I might be wrong on the details and there may have been other developements since last time i looked into the case, but my understanding is basically:

1. Nokia has "essential" patents that they during the standardization work have promised to license to anyone under "reasonable non-discriminatory terms"
2. Price is based on cost of handset.
3. I becomes clear that Apple gets more than the up front cost of the handset, through % of charges from telcos.
4. Nokia goes: "That's just a trick to weasel out of paying us for lisences according to the real value of the device. Gimme more monies!"
5. Apple goes: "F.U."
6. Nokia goes: "See you in court"

The big problem here is that Apples iPhone business model didn't fit with the basic "sell hardware price - cost = profit" value model, so it's hard to say what is resonable terms by looking at the other manufactureres, and the water is muddied further by patent deals where one two companies exchange lisences (usually in addition to a little money from the one with the least patents)

This may be only one aspect of the case now, since their lawyers are probably looking up any little thing that can be added to the claim. It's also unclear exactly what Nokia wants, they could be after the money or they could be trying to force a cross licensing deal to get access to som apple patented tech.

In the end it's the lawyers that will win no matter the outcome, and us customers that will be picking up the bill in one way or another.

Nokia have much more patents than apple. they use six times more money for Research and Developing.

Not sure where to find related patents for apple. But for the telecommunication industry, its quite clear who leads the way between the two in patents.

Engadget actually had an intelligent article for once about the whole Nokia vs Apple thing when the fuss originally started.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/29/n...epth-analysis/

They referred to a firm called, "Fairfield Resources International" which had researched on patents related to LTE/GSM/WCDMA.
http://www.frlicense.com/recent.html

And if Nokia is looking for compensation while offering FRAND(fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms for patents that are classified as essential. Which they were, last time I looked. Then I don't see anyone stopping them from getting their dues, whether it gets settled in court or out of court is a completely different issue.

@Laughing Man - Yes, this second case hasn't revealed many details, so its difficult to say what exactly the patents in question are and how different they are from the original complaint. But, considering they went only after the iPad 3G and not the Wifi model makes it seem they are going after similar patents as in the first case.

id back nokia in this war, as nokia are the old boys with all the pioneering tech, where as apple are new boys who will do anything to get up there.

While I think the lawsuit is all about Nokia rightfully protecting their patents; how many times have these type of lawsuits ever benefited the consumer?

This was a great article. Thanks for pointing it out. It really helps clarify the issues, especially that this is not just a case of iPad envy on the part of Nokia, but an attempt to fit new revenue models into an existing patent royalty system.