Nokia Oyj, the world’s biggest maker of mobile phones, filed a patent-infringement lawsuit against Apple Inc. in its latest salvo over the iPhone and iPad.The lawsuit, the fifth patent complaint between the two companies in the past year over smartphone technology, broadens the fight to include Apple’s iPad touch-screen computer tablet. Nokia’s filing today in federal court in Madison, Wisconsin, helped push Apple shares down 4.2 percent in New York trading, their steepest drop since Jan. 22.In the three years since the iPhone was introduced, Apple has seized Nokia’s position as the company that defines the high-end smartphone market. Nokia, which took mobile phones to the Internet more than 10 years ago with its keyboard-based Communicator, was slow to move to the touch screens featured on the betselling iPhone and on the iPad, introduced this year.
“Nokia has been the leading developer of many key technologies in mobile devices,” said Paul Melin, general manager of patent licensing at Nokia. “We have taken this step to protect the results of our pioneering development and to put an end to continued unlawful use of Nokia’s innovation.”
The legal battle began in October, when Espoo, Finland- based Nokia filed a lawsuit accusing Apple of infringing 10 patents. It demanded royalties on the more than 51 million iPhones sold since Apple Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs, 55, introduced the device in 2007.
‘Nokia is Serious’
The five patents in the newest complaint relate to enhanced speech and data transmission, and antenna configurations that improve performance and save space, Nokia said in a statement. The patents aren’t the same ones at issue in cases in a federal court in Delaware, and before the U.S. International Trade Commission, according to Laurie Armstrong, a Nokia spokeswoman.
“This suit shows Nokia is serious,” said Tero Kuittinen, an analyst at Greenwich, Connecticut-based MKM Partners who advises investors to sell Nokia shares. “Even in the last suit, they brought out everything but the kitchen sink, covering user interface, power consumption, speaker, camera. This is one of the broadest clusters of patent litigation in the sector over the past 10 years.”
Nokia is believed to be planning a range of “jumbo smartphones and tablets,” which could compete with the iPad, he said.
Patent Battles
The complaint today seeks an unspecified amount of cash compensation and an order that would halt Apple’s use of Nokia inventions.
Steve Dowling, a spokesman for Cupertino, California-based Apple, would only refer to the company’s court filings in Delaware when asked for comment today.
In a December filing, the company described Nokia as being “focused on traditional mobile wireless handsets with conventional user interfaces,” while Apple, is “long a leader in computer technology” that “foresaw the importance of converged user-friendly mobile devices.”
“Patent battles will grow in the mobile industry as we continue to see players coming from the PC and Internet worlds,” said Carolina Milanesi, an analyst with research firm Gartner Inc. Hewlett-Packard Co. cited Palm Inc.’s 1,500 patents as key assets when it announced plans to acquire the mobile- device company last month, she noted.
Apple fell $10.39 to $235.86 in Nasdaq Stock Market trading. Nokia’s American depositary receipts, each representing one ordinary share, fell 4 cents to $10.75 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading.
Apple has risen about 83 percent in the past year, while Nokia’s ADRs have dropped 26 percent.
Symbian System
Nokia, which last month posted lower-than-estimated profit on competition from the iPhone, is still working on a touch- optimized version of the Symbian operating system that is supposed to make its phones as easy to use as Apple’s.
“Apple’s wireless communication devices take advantage of the decades of continued investments by Nokia to advance cellular communications and to distinguish Nokia’s handsets from those offered by its competitors,” Nokia said in the complaint.
In court filings in December and February, Apple claimed Nokia was trying to strong-arm Apple into surrendering access to proprietary technology that differentiates the iPhone from other smartphones. Apple said it doesn’t want to license its iPhone- related patents to competitors.
ITC Cases
Apple also accused Nokia of purposefully withholding information on patent holdings while helping to establish an industry standard and then demanding unreasonable royalties on those standards for Wi-Fi and wireless transmissions, among other technologies. The allegations are part of a dispute in federal court in Wilmington, Delaware, with the earliest trial scheduled for 2012.
Each company has filed complaints with the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington in cases that could result in a ban on imports of the other company’s phones. Apple’s ITC complaint against Nokia is scheduled to be heard beginning in October. ITC Judge E. James Gildea yesterday ordered proceedings in Nokia’s complaint against Apple to begin Nov. 29.
Mark Durrant, a Nokia spokesman, said the company expects the lawsuit filed today in Wisconsin to be resolved in 12 to 18 months.
Madison Court
The Madison court is known for holding patent trials more quickly than in other courts. It takes, on average, about 12 months for a patent case to go trial in Madison, compared with a nationwide average of 26.6 months, said Greg Upchurch, director of research for St. Louis-based LegalMetric Inc., which compiles litigation data for law firms and companies.
The patents in the Delaware case are considered essential to follow industry standards, so Nokia is required to license them on fair terms as it does to more than 40 companies, Durrant said in an interview. The patents in the Wisconsin case aren’t essential to any standard, so Nokia can refuse to license them and just ask a judge to block use by Apple, he said.
The case is Nokia Corp. v. Apple Inc., 10cv249, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison).
--With assistance from Bill Koenig in Detroit and Connie Guglielmo in San Francisco. Editors: Romaine Bostick, Steve Geimann.never having to say you're sorry
There is no crying
friends or enemies
can't refuse
There's no place like homehttp://3cylinders.com
http://sieumua.com
http://www.misiamoiatdom.com/forum
http://www.forum.siriust.ru
http://www.top25web.com/bbs
Monday, May 10, 2010
Blame game has no end in sight
While BP says it will pay to clean up the mammoth oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the British oil giant has repeatedly placed blame elsewhere for the tragic rig accident last month that started it all.
How much longer it will be able to keep saying so, however, is another question.
The company likely will face a high legal bar in proving contractors involved in drilling the BP well were at fault and liable for damages, given protections BP agreed to in its lease contract for the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, one industry analyst said.Then, there's the question of how much oversight BP had over contractors during the various stages of drilling and building out the well prior to the April 20 blowout that sent the rig up in flames and killed 11 workers.“I don't see how BP can distance itself from its responsibility associated with being the final decision-maker,” said Bill Herbert, industry analyst with Houston investment bank Simmons & Company International. “Sure, the service providers are recommending and implementing solutions, but it's BP's drilling engineers who are approving the solutions.”
Last week, in an interview with the Houston Chronicle, BP CEO Tony Hayward again sought to downplay BP's role on the rig.“The way the industry works is that the operators are in essence the architects. They design the well. And the drilling contractors drill the well,” he said.“And in terms of the safety and the reliability of equipment on a rig, that is absolutely the accountability of the rig contractor, regulated by the MMS.” he said, referring to the Minerals Management Service, a federal agency.Other parties cited
It could be months before investigations yield answers about the causes of the Deepwater Horizon accident. Judges and juries could take years more to apportion blame.
But BP, knowing its financial health and efforts to promote a green image are at stake, has tried to get in front of the growing crisis — as well as remind the public that it's not the only party involved.
Switzerland-based Transocean, owner of the now-sunken Deepwater Horizon, is responsible not only for the half-billion-dollar rig but also the drilling of the well and safety equipment involved, BP says. The latter includes a large stack of seafloor shut-off valves, called a blowout preventer, which apparently failed.
BP says the blowout preventer, or BOP, should have prevented the accident.
But Transocean appears to face limited financial exposure to the incident under its contract with BP for the rig, said Robert MacKenzie, analyst with FBR Capital Markets. Transocean disclosed parts of the contract in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
If the blowout was caused solely by something it did or didn't do, Transocean might be liable.
“However, given the multiple contributing factors to the blowout, a finding that the blowout was caused solely by an act by Transocean seems highly unlikely if not impossible,” MacKenzie said in a report Friday.
Transocean could lose some protections against liability for cleanup and economic losses if found to be “grossly negligent” in its operation of the rig. Yet, that would be a hard thing to prove, he said.
The question of BP oversight at Deepwater Horizon could also be important. Though oil companies tend not to have many employees aboard a rig, those “company men” are often very closely involved in the operation, particularly at key stages.That would include the final steps of securing the well in preparation for temporarily abandoning it — the stage BP says was in progress at its Macondo well at the time of the blowout — said an industry expert who asked not to be named because of pending investigations.
In that stage, the company would have been ensuring that seals in the well were adequate to hold oil and natural gas in place in the reservoir, so that heavy drilling fluids could be removed and the well secured for going in again later.If problems arose, equipment on the rig should have signaled a change in pressure, and BP should have had time to make corrections long before the blowout preventer was needed to block oil and natural gas from shooting out of the well, the expert said.No prior problems
It remains unclear, however, whether such signals appeared and weren't heeded, didn't show at all for some reason — or if the situation spun out of control so quickly that crews couldn't respond.
Six of 126 people aboard the Deepwater Horizon were BP employees. All survived.
BP's Hayward said he was not aware of problems with the project prior to the incident, calling it a “relatively straightforward well.”As for sorting out responsibility, he said, “The explosion is one incident. The failure of the BOP is another incident. Our focus is on both, but we need to wait for the results of the investigation to understand what happened.”
Officials with Transocean and Cameron, maker of the blowout preventer, declined comment. Officials with both companies, as well as BP and Halliburton Co., which also performed work on the well shortly before the blowout, are scheduled to testify before Congress this week about the Deepwater Horizon incident.
BP, as owner of the federal lease, is required by a 1990 oil pollution law to pay the costs of regaining control of the damaged well.A diffirent moment
Focus on life
Started Ahead
Time is what you make of it
ideas for lifehttp://www.radiocriolla.com.ar
http://www.nibikers.com
http://www.agalico.com/board
http://www.plantgeek.net/forum
http://www.lyberty.org/forum
How much longer it will be able to keep saying so, however, is another question.
The company likely will face a high legal bar in proving contractors involved in drilling the BP well were at fault and liable for damages, given protections BP agreed to in its lease contract for the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, one industry analyst said.Then, there's the question of how much oversight BP had over contractors during the various stages of drilling and building out the well prior to the April 20 blowout that sent the rig up in flames and killed 11 workers.“I don't see how BP can distance itself from its responsibility associated with being the final decision-maker,” said Bill Herbert, industry analyst with Houston investment bank Simmons & Company International. “Sure, the service providers are recommending and implementing solutions, but it's BP's drilling engineers who are approving the solutions.”
Last week, in an interview with the Houston Chronicle, BP CEO Tony Hayward again sought to downplay BP's role on the rig.“The way the industry works is that the operators are in essence the architects. They design the well. And the drilling contractors drill the well,” he said.“And in terms of the safety and the reliability of equipment on a rig, that is absolutely the accountability of the rig contractor, regulated by the MMS.” he said, referring to the Minerals Management Service, a federal agency.Other parties cited
It could be months before investigations yield answers about the causes of the Deepwater Horizon accident. Judges and juries could take years more to apportion blame.
But BP, knowing its financial health and efforts to promote a green image are at stake, has tried to get in front of the growing crisis — as well as remind the public that it's not the only party involved.
Switzerland-based Transocean, owner of the now-sunken Deepwater Horizon, is responsible not only for the half-billion-dollar rig but also the drilling of the well and safety equipment involved, BP says. The latter includes a large stack of seafloor shut-off valves, called a blowout preventer, which apparently failed.
BP says the blowout preventer, or BOP, should have prevented the accident.
But Transocean appears to face limited financial exposure to the incident under its contract with BP for the rig, said Robert MacKenzie, analyst with FBR Capital Markets. Transocean disclosed parts of the contract in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
If the blowout was caused solely by something it did or didn't do, Transocean might be liable.
“However, given the multiple contributing factors to the blowout, a finding that the blowout was caused solely by an act by Transocean seems highly unlikely if not impossible,” MacKenzie said in a report Friday.
Transocean could lose some protections against liability for cleanup and economic losses if found to be “grossly negligent” in its operation of the rig. Yet, that would be a hard thing to prove, he said.
The question of BP oversight at Deepwater Horizon could also be important. Though oil companies tend not to have many employees aboard a rig, those “company men” are often very closely involved in the operation, particularly at key stages.That would include the final steps of securing the well in preparation for temporarily abandoning it — the stage BP says was in progress at its Macondo well at the time of the blowout — said an industry expert who asked not to be named because of pending investigations.
In that stage, the company would have been ensuring that seals in the well were adequate to hold oil and natural gas in place in the reservoir, so that heavy drilling fluids could be removed and the well secured for going in again later.If problems arose, equipment on the rig should have signaled a change in pressure, and BP should have had time to make corrections long before the blowout preventer was needed to block oil and natural gas from shooting out of the well, the expert said.No prior problems
It remains unclear, however, whether such signals appeared and weren't heeded, didn't show at all for some reason — or if the situation spun out of control so quickly that crews couldn't respond.
Six of 126 people aboard the Deepwater Horizon were BP employees. All survived.
BP's Hayward said he was not aware of problems with the project prior to the incident, calling it a “relatively straightforward well.”As for sorting out responsibility, he said, “The explosion is one incident. The failure of the BOP is another incident. Our focus is on both, but we need to wait for the results of the investigation to understand what happened.”
Officials with Transocean and Cameron, maker of the blowout preventer, declined comment. Officials with both companies, as well as BP and Halliburton Co., which also performed work on the well shortly before the blowout, are scheduled to testify before Congress this week about the Deepwater Horizon incident.
BP, as owner of the federal lease, is required by a 1990 oil pollution law to pay the costs of regaining control of the damaged well.A diffirent moment
Focus on life
Started Ahead
Time is what you make of it
ideas for lifehttp://www.radiocriolla.com.ar
http://www.nibikers.com
http://www.agalico.com/board
http://www.plantgeek.net/forum
http://www.lyberty.org/forum
Not choice
“Not choice, but habit rules the unreflecting herd,”cheap ralph lauren polo shirts
cheap ralph lauren polo shirts William Wordsworth said in the 19th century.i clearly know what i have and what i want, and i am just the rare bird you need!First i have a good command of offiice softwares.Second i show competent communication ability,hair straightenershair straightenerswhich is definitely weight for a quailfied applicant.chi hair straightenerschi hair straightenersThird and last my multicultural education background would help you foster an harmonious and creative work environment.i sincerely hope to join your esteemed company!http://www.chamuyeros.com
http://www.hemamtec.com/phpbb
http://dvhk.pl
http://www.madenciyim.com/forums
http://www.luonnossa.net/phpBB
cheap ralph lauren polo shirts William Wordsworth said in the 19th century.i clearly know what i have and what i want, and i am just the rare bird you need!First i have a good command of offiice softwares.Second i show competent communication ability,hair straightenershair straightenerswhich is definitely weight for a quailfied applicant.chi hair straightenerschi hair straightenersThird and last my multicultural education background would help you foster an harmonious and creative work environment.i sincerely hope to join your esteemed company!http://www.chamuyeros.com
http://www.hemamtec.com/phpbb
http://dvhk.pl
http://www.madenciyim.com/forums
http://www.luonnossa.net/phpBB
BSc degree and above
Academic / Professional Qualification: BSc degree and abovechi flat ironchi flat iron
Working Experience:men's nike shoes At least 8 years sales experience in the Semiconductors/components field Expertise /women's nike shoes women's nike shoesSkills: Excellent communication skills and proficiency in speaking English.Personal Attributes: men's nike shoesAggressive, able to identify key business opportunities, able to work as a team member.
http://www.websitedatabases.com/database-forum
http://www.bioshock-game.ru
http://www.egpet.net/vb
http://forum.downsizer.net
http://www.allinoneforum.com
Working Experience:men's nike shoes At least 8 years sales experience in the Semiconductors/components field Expertise /women's nike shoes women's nike shoesSkills: Excellent communication skills and proficiency in speaking English.Personal Attributes: men's nike shoesAggressive, able to identify key business opportunities, able to work as a team member.
http://www.websitedatabases.com/database-forum
http://www.bioshock-game.ru
http://www.egpet.net/vb
http://forum.downsizer.net
http://www.allinoneforum.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)