Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Nokia vs iphone Case Study and iPhone PPT template
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Nokia vs iphone Case Study and iPhone PPT template


Published on

This is a ppt. I made for my Business Law class when I was presenting on the Nokia vs. iPhone patent case. …

This is a ppt. I made for my Business Law class when I was presenting on the Nokia vs. iPhone patent case.
The iPhone is completely made up of the shapes in ppt. You can click on the 'apps' to take you to different pages and press the 'home' button on the slide to go back to the main apps page. There is also animations to slide the arrow across so it functions like a real iPhone! This ppt. was awesome to use on the SMARTBOARD!

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide
  • Paridelicto:  Latin for "in equal fault (better is the condition of the possessor)"[1] is a legal term used to indicate that two persons or entities are equally at fault, whether the malfeasance in question is a crime or tort.The phrase is most commonly used by courts when relief is being denied to both parties in a civil action because of wrongdoing by both parties. The phrase means, in essence, that since both parties are equally at fault, the court will not involve itself in resolving one side's claim over the other, and whoever possesses whatever is in dispute may continue to do so in the absence of a superior claim. The doctrine is similar to the defense of unclean hands, both of which are equitable defenses. Comparative fault and contributory negligence are not the same as in paridelicto, though all of these doctrines have similar policy rationales.Patent Infringement: Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States, or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
  • June 29, 2007 – Apple starts sales of iPhone.Late 2007 – licensing talks between the two begin.Spring 2008 – Nokia asks to pick Apple patents it wants to use as part of the settlement. Apple denies request.May 2009 – Nokia demands royalties roughly three times higher than in 2008, and to pick some Apple patents.Sept 2009 – Nokia demands have dropped to level of late 2007. Apple sees them still highly excessive.Oct 22, 2009 — Nokia filed a suit in the District Court of Delaware, saying Apple had infringed its patents.[ID:nLM664007]Dec 11, 2009 — Apple countersued Nokia, accusing it of anti-competitive practices and patent breach. [ID:nN11260646]Dec 29, 2009 — Nokia filed a complaint with the U.S. trade body ITC, seeking to ban Apple from importing iPhones and other products into the United States. [ID:nLDE5BS173]Jan 15, 2010 — Apple filed its own ITC complaint, seeking to ban Nokia from importing infringing phones into the United States. [ID:nLDE60F03W]April 9, 2010 — U.S. court in Delaware splits main court case into three different trials and to hold these in 2012.————————Oct 2010 — ITC hearing over Nokia’s use of Apple patentsNov 2010 — ITC hearing over Apple use of Nokia patentsMay 31, 2011 — deadline for final ITC decision on Apple’s alleged use of Nokia patentsJune 27, 2011 — deadline for final ITC decision on Nokia’s alleged use of Apple patentsMay 2012 – the key trial over patents to start in DelawareJune 2012 – trial over Apple’s contract-related claims against Nokia in DelawareOct 2012 – trial over Apple’s antitrust claims against Nokia in DelawareIt is then of course imperative for this and other cases down the road to determine which patents are actually essential to a standard. Trouble with determining this is that essentiality is not an exact science that takes a lot of time, money, and specialized resources. There is one group, Fairfield Resources International, which has looked at every patent in the ‘essential’ debate and assigned it to an expert to determine whether or not it is actually essential. The results are fascinating and one can see Nokia has by far the most patents acknowledged as essential to the operation of GSM, by more than double (Fairfield Resources International, 2007).
  • The original conflict wasn’t really about patent infringement, but always about what rate Apple would pay for Nokia’s patents on various “essential” GSM and WiFi-related technologies. (I’m putting “essential” in quotes because determining what’s essential to a standard and what’s not is anything but simple.) For all we know, Apple finally decided that simply paying Nokia’s price was cheaper and less risky than ongoing litigation across multiple lawsuits in multiple venues; losing any one of those cases would have likely cost Apple far more than whatever fee they negotiated.On the flipside, Nokia might have decided that having Apple challenge the validity of some 30-odd patents in multiple venues was too risky and offered up a cheaper license rate. Nokia licenses its “essential” patents across the industry, a revenue stream that’s becoming vitally important as the company begins a rocky transition to Windows Phone 7 and tries to reassure investors that things will get better. It may be somewhat telling that Nokia’s press release announcing the deal is subtitled “Apple payments to Nokia to settle all litigation and have positive financial impact” (Nokia Corporation, 2011).Lastly, it’s entirely possible that Nokia’s decision to adopt Windows Phone 7 as its preferred platform played a major role in ending this fight. Apple claimed that Nokia demanded a cross-license to various iPhone patents as part of its patent fees, and that always seemed like too high of a price for Apple, which clearly views its iPhone interface as a key competitive advantage. All Nokia and Apple had to do was figure out a reasonable cash royalty. One may never know the real reason the case was finally settled on June 14, 2011.
  • Transcript

    • 1. 6:00 Tuesday, October 11 V S. Click HereCase 1:09-cv-00791-UNA ( October 22, 2009)
    • 2. Issues 6:00 Tuesday, October 11Rule PRESENTATIO N NAME Analysis Click HereConclusion
    • 3. 6:00CORE TERMS Tuesday, October 11from Case: counterclaim,reexamination, patent, judicialestoppel, discovery, patentinfringement, scheduled,citations omitted, injunctiverelief, pari delicto, infringed, trialdate, prior proceeding, Click Hereirreconcilably, repudiation,simpl-ify, estopped, survive,court, reasons stated, answered
    • 4. Ruling 6:00Settled Out of Court. Tuesday, October 11Nokia and Apple signed apatent license agreement.Whereby, Apple agrees to paysome undisclosed upfront sumas well as “on-going royalties tobe paid by Apple to Nokia forthe term of the agreement. The Click Herespecific terms of the contractare confidential” (NokiaCorporation, 2011, para. 2).
    • 5. Nokia says, isnt 6:00 Tuesday, October 11asking for moneydamages beyondinterest on past dueroyalties, it justwants a fair licenserate for its patents. Click Here
    • 6. 6:00• The original conflict Tuesday, October 11 wasn’t really about patent infringement, but always about what rate Apple would pay for Nokia’s patents on various “essential” Click Here GSM and WiFi-related technologies.
    • 7. 6:00 Tuesday, October 11 Happy 2ndBirthday Mac! NAME Click Here