News - HTC One Mini banned from sale in UK after Nokia’s patent victory

[crossy]

Try running it constantly in battery saver mode, if she doesn't need the features running in the background?

Thanks, I'll pass on that info to her.

Nokia phones always seem heavier than their equivalents from samsung et al

If that extra weight is due to extra battery then Nokia have got it right, whereas Apple, Samsung et al have got it wrong. I really don't see the attraction of this "thinner and lighter is better". Apart from anything else these razor-slim featherweights are darned easy to lose in your pocket - try doing THAT with an old Nokia N95 or similar! Actually think that the S3 is too darned thin/light and actually quite like the olde-style "chunkiness", relatively speaking, of the Lumias.

That said, I was looking at a Lumia 625 at the weekend - which seemed way too big for me. Just a shame that Nokia decided not to "do" Android - that could've been good.

[TheAnimus]

That said, I was looking at a Lumia 625 at the weekend - which seemed way too big for me. Just a shame that Nokia decided not to "do" Android - that could've been good.

The 625 is one of those things that in many ways shouldn't really exist. I want to use a car comparison, but that will just make the fanboys unhappy.

Basically a 625 is a bit of a "Sir, you can't really afford 4G". But obviously sales'people' don't like that. So the 625 is for that void. Someone who wants a 4G speed but only for <£200.

Just pick up a 620! It's under £150, heck I saw it in some countries for $150!.

The downside is the capacity. But the physical size is better. The 625 has too cheaper components for its size, the screen isn't very good.

Now as for Android? I dunno, HTC have shown that Android isn't exactly a ticket to making money, ultimately having a focused product range is in many ways helpful, you don't want to make too many SKUs, the channel is still hurting them for the symbian dump.

But moreover, the cheap Android phones tend to not come near the cheap WP in batterylife and general performance. Simple things like having a call always ring are sometimes an issue even on my S3 when I've been using certain applications.

Apps, to be honest there isn't really a problem now, there are some companies which are confusing as to how they decide their platform, famously Instagram, now I guess Tinder. I think some of these people almost want to punish Microsoft, I know a dev who's worked for a company (who's WP is now here) and he basically stated that they where using emotions rather than logic (ie Punish MS, we like Apple).

My main problem with WP is its lost its velocity. One year ago features where coming in like wildfire, innovative things, sometimes catching up things. WP still lacks not just a notification center (which is less of an issue because for many live tiles are better) but a decent notification API. The one it had (still has) from 2 years ago is in some ways best in class, but it is really irritating that I get notified about a Skype message, but have to load skype, then skype re-fetch that data. The notification isn't allowed to actually save the message into some of Skypes memory. This is great for performance, batterylife, security / stability. But needs to be extended. I had kinda expected that this summer, that would have been fitting the pace the team had before. But now it appears they've lost that a bit. I appreciate they might be working on more localisations and stuff, but it's very sad in a way. As I mentioned about 2 years ago when I was saying WP is my favourite platform, it was because it was genuinely innovative (iPhone wasn't, in software HTC / WinMo were) and the pace they had was good. Now sadly that pace appears to have slowed.

[crossy]

The downside is [of the Lumia 620] the capacity. But the physical size is better. The 625 has too cheaper components for its size, the screen isn't very good.

Totally agree - the 620 is "kinda cute" whereas the 625 - even for my hands - wasn't particularly comfortable to hold/use.

Excellent post by the way, especially that last bit (which I dequoted to save space) - if Hexus had a "+1" or "Like" then I'd have pressed it.

[Noxvayl]

Excellent post by the way, especially that last bit (which I dequoted to save space) - if Hexus had a "+1" or "Like" then I'd have pressed it.

You can use the "Thanks" button you know...

[DanceswithUnix]

People seem happy to accept this because it involves technology rather than rounded edges, but if I am reading this right to me it stinks. from the Inquirer:

"This is bad news for the Taiwanese phone maker, as its flagship HTC One smartphone that incorporates certain Qualcomm and Broadcom chips, as well as handful of older HTC devices, infringes the patent."

This makes sense from a quick skim over the first few pages of the patent:
http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publi...4B1&KC=B1&ND=4

So it is the microphone problem again. HTC buy a component (from Qualcomm or Broadcomm this time) & use it in their phone design, and then find that the component infringes a patent. If Qualcomm infringed the patent, then *they* should pay the license fee and it becomes a part of the component price. But no, you wouldn't make as much money with that. Better to let an end user knock up some sales, and then go after them if the law allows you to, and apparently the law is only too happy to help. How can HTC be expected to even know that the component infringes someone's patent? It is just a block of design you buy in. Wilfully or not, it is the component designers that infringe.

If wanted a car and I bought a Honda, I would be pretty irate if lawyers from Alfa came knocking on my door pointing out that they had patents on variable cam timing used in the car's engine and asking me to pay up. I know it isn't exactly the same, but if you think it isn't far off and SCO tried to make that leap and only failed when it was shown they didn't own the IP they were trying to sue over.

HTC do have a license for essential/FRAND patents, this is not essential and falls outside that. Nokia are also suing for infringements within the Android OS, which again HTC didn't design.

My guess is that Nokia are going after HTC because they are having a rough time and can't afford millions in lawyers, and if they can break HTC first then it strengthens their cases against Samsung etc who they are also going after but not quite yet.

Please, for my faith in humanity, someone prove that I have the wrong end of the stick

[TheAnimus]

Do you have a link for the OS infringements, my understanding was it was the usage of the microphones for transmission?

[DanceswithUnix]

Do you have a link for the OS infringements, my understanding was it was the usage of the microphones for transmission?

Sorry, I surfed a lot of sites reading up on this and seem to have lost that article. Easy to do as apparently:

"On a worldwide basis (U.S., UK, Germany and Italy), Nokia has asserted approximately 50 different patents against HTC."

http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/09/n...inst-htcs.html

The microphone patent I was thinking of was some time ago now, possibly even the One-X, where the microphone they used infringed some noise cancelling patent I think. ISTR they changed the microphone anyway.

[TheAnimus]

From memory wasn't it that the Nokia microphone technology involved a little bit of silicon, which they had made by qualcomm who then decided to sell it on.

It isn't clear if Nokia pulled a fast one on the fab firm "sure you can sell it on" but then fell out with royalties, but in that case HTC knew what they were doing and didn't license it, opting to try and avoid the scope of it.

The point is this isn't just a rectangle, HTC haven't tried to license it properly.

[DanceswithUnix]

The point is this isn't just a rectangle, HTC haven't tried to license it properly.

How much should they pay for something they didn't design and probably had no idea it was infringing?

It sounds like only one company has paid a license. Microsoft paid $2.3B for a non essential patent license, but that was negotiated as part of their overall package for buying Nokia's phone division so the value on it's own is meaningless, but will no doubt still be dragged up in damages claims else the terms would be confidential. It is also reminiscent of how Microsoft paid $6M to SCO to fund their lawsuit spree.

If Nokia are demanding that sort of money from HTC, then it is no wonder they are holding out as it looks like they just don't have it.

Apple, Samsung, LG, Sony, Blackberry and probably others are apparently still infringing and still negotiating.

So as I see it: Nokia do not have a competing product, Broadcom/Qualcomm came up with the infringing designs, HTC get taken down. It doesn't have to involve rectangles to be wrong.

I have had a design I worked on stolen by a competitor and it isn't nice and there wasn't any comeback the company could afford to take. The system doesn't protect inventors, it doesn't protect consumers.

[TheAnimus]

Ok, imagine you built an electronic circuit that infringed on a patent. You shouldn't be able to blame the provider of the capacitors.

This is kind of the same, they used qualcomm circuits, which by themselves didn't infringe, in a manner that did. They didn't handle the patent demand properly. Now it's a bit complex if you have two qualcomm chips which by themselves are fine, but when used together in the way that is obvious, its an infringement. This isn't qualcomm at fault.

[Gunge]

Microsoft slagging apart, anyone know if HTC were offered FRAND terms and refused, or is this Nokia being vindictive?

There is no obligation to offer FRAND terms if a patent is not essential to a standard. Patent holders are entitled to a monopoly for the invention in question, if it isn't in your commercial interest then you don't license anyone else - it's not being vindictive, it's your reward for innovation.

[Gunge]

If wanted a car and I bought a Honda, I would be pretty irate if lawyers from Alfa came knocking on my door pointing out that they had patents on variable cam timing used in the car's engine and asking me to pay up. I know it isn't exactly the same, but if you think it isn't far off and SCO tried to make that leap and only failed when it was shown they didn't own the IP they were trying to sue over.

It isn't the same. Private non-commercial use is not an infringement. Your analogy should be something like Honda sell a car which has a Bosch anti-lock brake system and Alfa go after Honda for infringement of patents they have on anti-lock brakes.

Bottom line - if you are in business you are responsible for your actions. You buy a part then you either check it doesn't infringe someone else's rights or you take a risk (mitigated perhaps by indemnity from the seller).

[Saracen]

....
Please, for my faith in humanity, someone prove that I have the wrong end of the stick

Okay, here goes.

You kinda have the wrong end of the stick. Or rather, it's not a stick but an octopus, and you have the wrong tentacle.

First, I'll point out I have read both the relevant patent, and the legal judgement. Not to say I fully understand either, byt I have read them. For the first, I hope your maths and electronic circuit design skills are up to speed. For the second, it is a horrendously tangled web of argument over exactly what the patent is, how it is interpreted, how the law applies to that, and a morass of often conflicting precedents in UK, US and EU patent court jurisdictions.

But hopefully, I can put a little flesh on the bones.

Firstly, the patent is about a method. That is, it is NOT about the use, or otherwise, of a single component, but a way of processing signals. So one major thread of argument was about exactly what the patent covers, such as the way in which driving and switching arrangements are used, and exactly what a modulator consists of, and it's application with a Gilbert cell. Clear so far? Good.

So line 1 of HTCs case was that the patent didn't cover their usage. They lost, pretty comprehensively, from my reading, on that.

Their second line was that, even so, the products were "licensed".

Here, it gets HUGELY complicated, legally.

For instance, if you buy a product, are you getting a licence? Can you get a broader licence than the licence the person you bought the product from? That latter question, for instance, seems to resolve as yes, you CAN, but HTC didn't.

If, for instance, you get a licenxe, then you get whatever licence rights that licence says you get. If you buy a product, you might well get all rights EXCEPT ones specifically withheld from the person you bought it from, but even that may depend on whether you were told of the restrictions, or not. And even that depends on which jurisdiction rules over either the product, or the licence.

I hope you're getting the picture by now, but let me add, this explanation is a huge and gross oversimplification of both the patent, and judgement. In fact, I've taken huge liberties just to try to give a flavour.

Basically, what the judge did was

1) reject HTCs arguments that they did not infringe the patent, at least, in the UK.
2) reject the argument that they got a licence because Qualcomm, for instance, had one.

You could, in fact, use your lack of faith in human nature to assert that HTC were trying to use something invented by someone else, and duly patented, without bothering to pay for it.

The judge certainly used phrases like "wholly unconvincing" in relation to some HTC arguments, and "a complete volte face" to describe others.

It IS a very complicated area, both in design terms and legal ones. I would not like to impute gross motives to either Nokia or HTC. Rather, I'd apply a more generous interpretation that it could well just be a genuine disagreement between exactly what the patent, and or licencing, let HTC do.

Of course, the moon could also be made of blue cheese.

Personally, I find it hard to be personally sure of either this patent fight, or the moon's blue cheese status, though I have a firm belief on the latter. And if I ever visit the moon, I'm taking a french stick and some Branston.

[Saracen]

Do you have a link for the OS infringements, my understanding was it was the usage of the microphones for transmission?

Erm, modulators, between base station and mobile.

I can find the patent link if you want it, and the October judgement is http://www.scribd.com/doc/180191060/...ment-EP0998024

Nothing I read ANYWHERE in either was about Android, or any OS. It's purely about a very specific piece of circuit design.

There are plenty of other patent fights going on, though, including with either Nokia or HTC.

[TheAnimus]

Yes the microphones was the last one.

[crossy]

There is no obligation to offer FRAND terms if a patent is not essential to a standard. Patent holders are entitled to a monopoly for the invention in question, if it isn't in your commercial interest then you don't license anyone else - it's not being vindictive, it's your reward for innovation.

You're misunderstanding me. From what I've read elsewhere the disputed tech looks like it's pretty core - as in yes, there are other ways to do it, but they incur cost penalties or are lower quality. So what I was trying to find out was whether HTC were dodging what may be quite a reasonable "cost of doing business", or Nokia had "done an Apple" and singled out their main competitor for attention whilst ignoring others violating those patents.

Generators of innovation must be rewarded - else there is no revenue to support R&D. What annoys me though is the targetted use of patents solely as a way to maintain commercial advantage over a single close competitor. And of course there's the trollage - gaining superficial patents and then using those.