What the hell is going on here? All this should start with the patent license of the car networking system.
"Cultural differences" between industries
Since the car is equipped with the car networking system, the car can not do without 3G, 4G and other communication technologies, and now even 5G has been applied. Therefore, Daimler has a relationship with Nokia, which is completely reasonable. After all, Mercedes-Benz has also been equipped with a car networking system, and it also relies on 3G and 4G networks. As a world-renowned mobile communication equipment company, Nokia is still one of the giants in the field of communication equipment, although the mobile phone business is no longer brilliant.
The focus of this dispute between Daimler and Nokia is mainly the patent license of communication technology. The reason for the controversy stems from the industry habit of "bull's head does not make a horse's mouth".
The spare parts supply system of the automobile industry is accustomed to the procurement mode of "deep pockets". When parts manufacturers provide patented parts products to automobile enterprises, they often don't ask automobile manufacturers to pay extra license fees, because the license fees of these intellectual property rights are usually included in the parts supply contract during the negotiation.
However, the communication industry is different. It is very cautious about licensing patented technology. Even if you buy their equipment, you should charge according to the "minimum sales unit".
Simply put, as long as you use the module with patented technology, you have to pay the corresponding patent fee independently. It's like bulk biscuits sold in the supermarket. Each piece has its own small package, which is equivalent to the patent fee. Based on this peculiar model, even a mobile phone giant like Apple has suffered the same loss. Prior to this, Apple and Qualcomm also had a big legal dispute over baseband patents.
The problem is that the parts manufacturer has paid the corresponding patent fee when purchasing Nokia's mobile communication module in theory, but after these parts are supplied to Daimler, Nokia thinks it is illegal. They are not authorized to Daimler, and they need to pay patent fees separately, and according to the modules carried by each car. Daimler certainly refused to accept it. They think this charging method is unfair, suspected of double charging, and infringes on the interests of parts manufacturers and Daimler.
Despite Daimler's reluctance, the German court did not favor Daimler and finally ruled that Daimler lost the case.
Daimler is not wronged.
In fact, there is nothing wrong with Nokia's logic of charging patent fees. They only grant patents to component manufacturers, not to Daimler. Although Nokia has no right to interfere with the use and destination of these patented products by component manufacturers, Nokia has the right to control its own patents.
Although Daimler thinks this logic is unfair, it can effectively protect the legitimate rights and interests of patentees. Because, if we operate according to Daimler's idea, Nokia's competitors are likely to obtain their patented technology products under the cover of third-party companies, and patent protection is like a dummy. Nokia's operation is actually a reasonable awareness of intellectual property protection.
Therefore, Daimler's loss this time is not unjust at all. After all, as a world-renowned automobile giant, it is impossible for their legal team not to know this simple intellectual property protection issue.
This patent dispute is also a good warning to our own brands, especially those that "rush out of overseas". Because many independent brand models have been equipped with various intelligent technologies, including some advanced technologies. If you don't pay attention, it's easy to step on a patented mine.
This article comes from car home, the author of the car manufacturer, and does not represent car home's position.