So, if Nokia is not feeling threaten, then why bother? There is a motivating reason because litigation in any form will cost money and if both sides really dig in their heels, it could end up costing both sides a considerable chunk of change. It all goes back to return on investment (ROI). There has to be some motivation and some outcome that will benefit either side. In Apple's case the counter suit is in response to Nokia's suit, which is pretty standard protocol. So, what does Nokia expect to gain? Well X dollars for every iPhone sold since it was introduced and going forward. This means they need money or they would have done this several years ago. This is based on what I have read about this over the last many months and it makes about as much sense as half the lawsuits filed anymore.
On May 9, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Ricardo Walker wrote: > Hi, > > I don't think Nokia feels particularly threaten in this case. From what I > have read it is Apple and Nokia just trading lawsuits. A month ago Apple > sued HTC. Do you think Apple did it because they were threatened? Maybe. > And about Motorola. lol. If it wasn't for Android and the release of the > Droid in the last year, they would be non existent in the smart phone game. > Motorola is up for sale but no one wants to buy. So I think Motorola being > as cutting edge as a bag of potato chips is more a reason for their business > being killed than the iPhone. lol. Like I said. Motorola didn't have a > smart phone out until the Droid came out in the winter. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MacVisionaries" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/macvisionaries?hl=en.
