Chinese court sides with Oppo over Nokia patent dispute

15 December 2023
The Chongqing First Intermediate People's Court set a rate that Oppo is willing to pay.

Sort by:

Marco M, 17 Jan 2024Again, the summary is very simple. Nokia does discrimina... moreAbsurd conclusion drawn (again)....

The whole point is that for a ruling to be fair both parties must be able to believe that the court is impartial. And this has absolutely nothing to do with any nation, region or race... That is all in your racist oriented head....

I doubt you would have considered it fair, if it was a Finnish court that had ruled the same case in favour of Nokia...

On top of that, several countries all over the world (Including but not limited to China) have a political system where the courts can not be considered independent. Making it even less likely that the ruling can be seen as impartial.

The ruling is governmental sanctioned theft, nothing more...

But SURE it will give the consumer cheaper goods in the short run, when they in this way fence others work.

The flip-side is that governmental legalised theft reduces the incentive to make new development. So in the long run it damages the consumer, as we get poorer products.

    EskeRahn, 02 Jan 2024Racism?? Is that really your panic card to draw in lack of ... moreAgain, the summary is very simple.

    Nokia does discrimination. 100%
    This is not disputed by anyone and Nokia is 100% transparent about the fact that they charge some more than others for the same license fee in the same region.
    We know that this causes unfair advantages for some and disadvantages for others. We as consumers loose as a result of this. In other words, Nokia license scheme is very bad.

    Oppo won in court making sure that ALL get to pay the same license fee in that region. ALL. Not just Oppo, ALL. Leveling the playing field and healthy competition which is good for us consumers.

    We also know that this is nothing new, it is in fact fairly standard for the cellular industry to operate with FRAND licensing. Ericsson, Motorola, Huawei and others offer FRAND licensing.

    Hence the ruling meant a change in Nokia's licensing fees going from unfair, unreasonable (for some at least) and discriminatory to fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory in that region. This is great. This is wonderful. This is justice for ALL.

    Based on other well known license cost in the cellular space, we know with certainty that the license fee is similar to the global industry average. This is also well known and public information.

    Your only argument against this is that a Chinese court made the ruling. This makes you a racist, because instead of looking the the case and the fair outcome, you judge the Chinese court just for being . . . Chinese.

    So no panic card was drawn. Just an obvious conclusion from your comments and your point of view, which has a complete lack of logic and only bias against the Chinese, despite them marking a fair ruling here. Meaning your bias is 100% motivated by the fact that the court was Chinese and nothing else. That is racism. Plain and simple. Sorry if you didn't already realize this. Now you know. I hope you improve and become a better person with a better attitude. There is always room for improvement.

    No more time will be wasted on you on this subject.

      • C
      • Carol
      • skK
      • 11 Jan 2024

      Of course....

        Marco M, 02 Jan 2024Your racism is a bit to strong for my liking. We have to ag... moreRacism?? Is that really your panic card to draw in lack of sensible arguments??

        There are REALLY poor juridical systems in countries where the ruling people are just as pinkish pig coloured that I am... e.g. Hungary and Russia.

          EskeRahn, 28 Dec 2023....Last I checked Australia was outside Europe... ;) And ... moreYour racism is a bit to strong for my liking. We have to agree to disagree.

          I love fairness and you love discrimination. We're just different. That's all.

            Marco M, 27 Dec 2023Why would a European court decide what happens in the Chine... more....Last I checked Australia was outside Europe... ;)
            And I explicitly chose two non-EU countries as examples, on each side of the globe...
            I could have written e.g. India or Indonesia also. But I do not now anything on how robust their juridical systems are to 'influence'.

            And on the electrician example, well I usually do not take just one quote for a job, unless it is trifles, so does not really relate, and anyway I would have been free to say no to the quote.

            ...And you obviously miss the point as you prefer a judge close to the buyer and not the seller... Not much impartial in that....

              EskeRahn, 22 Dec 2023Well fine by me if the seller agrees to a FRAND licence. Th... moreWhy would a European court decide what happens in the Chinese market?
              Why would it be okay if a European court came to the same conclusion and not a Chinese court? Should we treat all European rulings the same and reject them if a European company is involved and hint to unfair play? No matter how obvious it is that the ruling was fair? Stop being such an r-word.

              Your last two paragraphs shows how you missed the point of the last part of my comment entirely. "In the same region" was mention and very intentionally so.


              "something immaterial like your workforce for a year, "

              Again your insight and understanding seems way off. A more comparable thing again is that you and me, neighbors in the same street both, call the very same electrician for the same exact job and you are charged 10 times as much as me for the exact same amount of time and materials. Just because I am me and you are you.

                • S
                • Sin
                • HCj
                • 22 Dec 2023

                Really pleased with china a lot of lawsuits coming now
                better regulations on crime is the answer

                  Marco M, 21 Dec 2023#1 FRAND patents are extremely common in this industry. Wit... moreWell fine by me if the seller agrees to a FRAND licence. The problem is it is imposed on the seller, especially if the imposing body can not safely be assumed to be impartial (I would even call it highly unlikely that they are in this case).

                  Had it been say a Swiss or Australian court and thus not directly related to neither the seller or buyer it would have been another matter.

                  The simple example with the house could be replaced with something immaterial like your workforce for a year, it would still be unfair if a judge friendly to me could rule the price I should pay for your work.
                  Or to take music as you suggested, suppose you composed a symphony, And I would sell that and give you a minute price per copy. same thing.

                  Different prices for different recipients happens all over the world. Take e.g. medicine. Rich countries pays elevated prices. Or to put it more positive, poor countries get a humanitarian discount.

                  Or to stay in my region: The base price for cars sold for sale in Denmark are lower than if to Germany, because we in Denmark have extreme taxes on cars, so to have sales at all in DK, the sellers push their profit margins down... (That the consumer prices end much much higher in Denmark after tax, is another story)
                  But notice it is not prices imposed on the seller...

                    EskeRahn, 20 Dec 2023Well I got no inside information on who is offered what pri... more#1 FRAND patents are extremely common in this industry. Without them one could risk that the total license cost for one company for the essentials for a smartphone to work could be 100 times greater, or more, than a competitor. Essentially killing their business and therefor killing competition. The reality here is that Nokia's 5G-licenses should have been under FRAND long ago.

                    #2 It is not the buyer, but a court that set the price in this case. The court did not take price out of thin air. Most likely they demanded Nokia show their hand and used an average, or median, as a basis. Or they used the average known licensing fee.

                    #4 The average FRAND license fee for 4G was EUR 0.66 in 2020. Add some inflation and it seems about right for 5G in 2023.

                    #5 Nokia informs publicly only the maximum they charge for their 5G licenses per unit, $3.24. Likely what they charge Oppo. They withhold from us the minimum. The reason likely being that one, or more, have a very favorable license fee that they simply don't want anyone of their customers, nor end users, to see.

                    The FRAND system exists for a very good reason. It is to benefit us consumer ultimately.
                    It demands a level playing field.

                    When Nokia, and others ,are not licensing under FRAND they can disrupt/manipulate the playing field. Let's say that with company A they charge them $0.1 per unit and $3.24 to company B. Historic relations, cultural differences, politics and under the table deals can all be a part of this. In any case, this puts company B at a disadvantage and they cannot compete fairly as they face discriminatory prices - regardless of the reason.

                    This means less competition and worse products at higher prices for us consumers.

                    Your comparison with a house makes no sense. This is not a physical product, nor was it a friend setting the price and based on the average 4G licensing costs, it seems fair and reasonable. Also this will now be the price for all their customers in this market, not just Oppo.

                    Usually EU is good on this and have enforced FRAND licensing across the mobile industry, yet strangely they have seemingly dropped the ball on 5G. At least with regards to Nokia's patents. A house is sold on the open market. It is a limited resource. The market decides the price. Not me, not the real estate agent nor the appraiser. If the market is slow and I essentially only have one potential buyer, then said buyer is in a very good position to lower the price and not pay asking price. A completely different market and product from 5G license fees.

                    Here is a better one. We both want to be subscribers of a particular streaming service, the same exact one. We live in the same region, yet your offered amonthly price of $32.49 and I only pay $6.49. Regardless of criteria used here for the unfair prices, it wouldn't change the fact that they are unfair.

                    If you then took said streaming service to court and the court found their pricing scheme to be unfair, unreasonable and discriminatory, for then to rule that from that day on they have to charge the same exact cost to all users in said region, wouldn't you say that this is now fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory and that justice has been served?

                      Marco M, 19 Dec 2023I don't think many, if any at all, here oppose intelle... moreWell I got no inside information on who is offered what prices and at what conditions, so I think we could well be in guessing territory there, unless you got some inside knowledge....

                      But the principle that it is the seller that decides the price and conditions, sound fair to me, anything else would be theft or confiscation.
                      It is absolutely absurd that it should be the buyer alone that decides the price.
                      Obviously the buyer and seller can bargain to see if they can reach a price high enough to keep the seller happy and low enough to keep the buyer happy.
                      If they can not agree, well then no sale - as simple as that...

                      If some authority body find something important enough for a wider public, they can expropriate ownership for a compensation. Just like what happens if the state want to build say a highway, a rail road or a military facility across a piece of land you own.

                      Just take this ruling to an extreme. Imagine I want to buy your house for $1 and persuade a local court about this, because the judge is a friend of mine. How would that in ANY way be fair to you???

                        EskeRahn, 18 Dec 2023It is really surprising to see how many opposing the princi... moreI don't think many, if any at all, here oppose intellectual ownership. What we oppose is the abuse of it.

                        Nokia is using their patents to skew the market and cause unfair advantage with discriminatory prices. They are not offering their licenses for the same cost to Oppo as they do others.

                        Others parties in this cellular patent space does offer FRAND licensing and this is for the good of competition and for the good for us consumers.

                        I am very happy with this ruling by the Chinese courts and you should be to. Hopefully European courts will follow and Nokia will have to offer fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory license fees for Oppo (and like some others) in Europe as well.

                          • ?
                          • Anonymous
                          • Iby
                          • 18 Dec 2023

                          Anonymous, 16 Dec 2023Some posters seem a little confused here. So, as a reminder... moreIt's amazing how quickly any article even remotely touching upon the Sinosphere gets taken over by wumao.

                            potato4k, 16 Dec 2023Actually, you should be the one reading the article.Many patents in the mobile sector are FRAND licensed, because the patents are crucial for the functionality of the devices. Without them, no 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, wifi, chipsets in general and so on and so forth.

                            Motorola, Ericsson even Huawei, offer FRAND licensing of the cellular technology. Hence, their customers pay the same fair and non-discriminatory license fee per unit.

                            Nokia on the other hand has a model where Customer A pays less (minimum unknown, but equivalent of EUR 0.66 mention by some) than Customer B (maxiumum $3.24) per unit. This makes it more difficult for some to compete than others, as the playing field is not fair. Nokia's licensing scheme is unfair and unreasonable. Yes, I want their 5G licensing to go under FRAND licensing, after all why shouldn't it when others have been forced to license their patents as FRAND?
                            This is by far the best from a consumer perspective with fair comparison for the various smartphone manufacturer's

                              Anonymous, 15 Dec 2023How is oppo being treated unfairly when other pay what noki... moreOthers pay a lower price. . . Of course they are content. Nokia charges different rates for Oppo than others, Oppo wanted a fair playing field and non-discriminatory prices. Simple and understandable.

                                Anonymous, 16 Dec 2023Your argument makes sense, but what you missed is that the ... morePer unit. Not in total.

                                  It is really surprising to see how many opposing the principle of intellectual ownership.

                                  I really wonder if any of you would find it fair if others profited millions or billions of dollars by your work without offering compensation.

                                  That said there sure are things that seems like it should never have been possible to take out a pattern on - but that is a different matter.

                                    • ?
                                    • Anonymous
                                    • Mkm
                                    • 18 Dec 2023

                                    Oppo is a Chinese company, so there.

                                      • T
                                      • Tactictaylor
                                      • BiP
                                      • 17 Dec 2023

                                      Anonymous, 16 Dec 2023Some posters seem a little confused here. So, as a reminder... moreThe US is a democratic country, yet, it's exactly the same! Maybe worse, it's a one-way street America for America!

                                        • T
                                        • Tactictaylor
                                        • BiP
                                        • 17 Dec 2023

                                        I think Nokia is very lucky to get awarded an amount by their courts. Nokia do actually very little except never adopting android years back and joining Microsoft for the worst time up in history. What a bunch of LOSERS! Even HMD which now make 'their' phones seems often at odds with Nokia. How about being a pragmatic international company for once? Way to go Nokia ...not!

                                          1 of 6