Microsoft deal delay may mean more Nokia patent concessions

Comments (6)
RahJ wrote:

Nokia Chennai plant also might become part of the deal sooner or later as they will settle the case with indian IT dept . India is a big market and ignoring it or closing threats by nokia are only going to damage its sales. ~ http://www.aamindia.com/

Mar 24, 2014 3:04am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SLks wrote:

India just became irrelevant. It would appear Msft is willing to pay substantially the same amount with or without the indian plant. Indian tax thugs overplayed their hand, now they will get nothing:

“Nokia reiterates that ongoing tax proceedings in India have no bearing on the timing of the closing or the material deal terms of the anticipated transaction between Nokia and Microsoft.

Mar 24, 2014 5:12am EDT  --  Report as abuse
SLks wrote:

My read is, they’re waiting on confirmation from china…that sounds like they already have informal agreement in place…as hinted at by nokia’s India counsel in testimony before the Indian SC a week ago.

Just paperwork. We could be a couple weeks away from close.

Very encouraged that they say the indian situation will NOT materially affect the ‘terms’ of the closing…very possibly Nokia will get the same amount for the sale despite the lack of the indian plant.

I expect the china approval will resemble the taiwan one recently out…most of the patent fee burden will be placed on msft as the enlarged entity, Nokia as the divesting entity should not be subject to any significant burden (this after all is supposed to be anti-trust review) Taiwan only asked that nokia commit to FRAND for standard essential patents; which is what nokia has already committed to.

Mar 24, 2014 3:33pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SLks wrote:

As Nokia is the divesting firm; and the Chinese review is supposed to be an anti-trust anti-monopoly review, it would be highly unusual to place any burden on Nokia. The Chinese may attempt to impose more burden on Msft as the enlarging entity…but with windows phone at 3% of the Chinese market, Msft is far from having a dominant market share pursuant to even Mofcom’s own definition of what constitutes ‘dominant’ market share.

China’s Mofcom’s mandate does not extend to patents. Not all monopolies are illegal, patents and IP being case in point..they are legal monopolies granted for a limited duration to encourage innovation, something the Chinese has recently said they wish to encourage thru stronger IP enforcement. China has its own patent office and IP courts with appropriate jurisdiction that are better equipped to deal with any future patent issues that may arise. Here the issue is moot as Nokia has largely supported FRAND pricing for its standard essential patents and it has been widely acknowledged to be one of the weaker IP enforcers to date.

Moreover, you cannot preemptively limit a company’s property rights for something they have not yet in fact done. If mofcom does in fact impose patent limitations on Nokia, then the WTO, US and EU needs to seriously examine any such decision for restraint of trade and protectionism by the Chinese in the guise of anti-trust regulation; and take appropriate retaliatory trade sanctions. 15 Countries have already approved this deal without restrictions…for the simple reason that there are NO anti-trust issues existent. It is the height of hypocrisy to use regulatory approval as disguise for domestic trade protectionism, especially in this case where a company is divesting and in fact exiting altogether from an industry.

Mar 26, 2014 8:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SLks wrote:

As Nokia is the divesting firm; and the Chinese review is supposed to be an anti-trust anti-monopoly review, it would be highly unusual to place any burden on Nokia. The Chinese may attempt to impose more burden on Msft as the enlarging entity…but with windows phone at 3% of the Chinese market, Msft is far from having a dominant market share pursuant to even Mofcom’s own definition of what constitutes ‘dominant’ market share.

China’s Mofcom’s mandate does not extend to patents. Not all monopolies are illegal, patents and IP being case in point..they are legal monopolies granted for a limited duration to encourage innovation, something the Chinese has recently said they wish to encourage thru stronger IP enforcement. China has its own patent office and IP courts with appropriate jurisdiction that are better equipped to deal with any future patent issues that may arise. Here the issue is moot as Nokia has largely supported FRAND pricing for its standard essential patents and it has been widely acknowledged to be one of the weaker IP enforcers to date.

Moreover, you cannot preemptively limit a company’s property rights for something they have not yet in fact done. If mofcom does in fact impose patent limitations on Nokia, then the WTO, US and EU needs to seriously examine any such decision for restraint of trade and protectionism by the Chinese in the guise of anti-trust regulation; and take appropriate retaliatory trade sanctions. 15 Countries have already approved this deal without restrictions…for the simple reason that there are NO anti-trust issues existent. It is the height of hypocrisy to use regulatory approval as disguise for domestic trade protectionism, especially in this case where a company is divesting and in fact exiting altogether from an industry.

Mar 26, 2014 8:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SLks wrote:

As Nokia is the divesting firm; and the Chinese review is supposed to be an anti-trust anti-monopoly review, it would be highly unusual to place any burden on Nokia. The Chinese may attempt to impose more burden on Msft as the enlarging entity…but with windows phone at 3% of the Chinese market, Msft is far from having a dominant market share pursuant to even Mofcom’s own definition of what constitutes ‘dominant’ market share.

China’s Mofcom’s mandate does not extend to patents. Not all monopolies are illegal, patents and IP being case in point..they are legal monopolies granted for a limited duration to encourage innovation, something the Chinese has recently said they wish to encourage thru stronger IP enforcement. China has its own patent office and IP courts with appropriate jurisdiction that are better equipped to deal with any future patent issues that may arise. Here the issue is moot as Nokia has largely supported FRAND pricing for its standard essential patents and it has been widely acknowledged to be one of the weaker IP enforcers to date.

Moreover, you cannot preemptively limit a company’s property rights for something they have not yet in fact done. If mofcom does in fact impose patent limitations on Nokia, then the WTO, US and EU needs to seriously examine any such decision for restraint of trade and protectionism by the Chinese in the guise of anti-trust regulation; and take appropriate retaliatory trade sanctions. 15 Countries have already approved this deal without restrictions…for the simple reason that there are NO anti-trust issues existent. It is the height of hypocrisy to use regulatory approval as disguise for domestic trade protectionism, especially in this case where a company is divesting and in fact exiting altogether from an industry.

Mar 26, 2014 8:28pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.