Nokia isn't happy with the iPhone. In a suit filed today in U.S. District Court, Nokia claims that Apple has violated 10 of Nokia's wireless technology patents. The company says the patents "relate to technologies fundamental to making devices," that are compatible with the GSM, UMTS, or 3G WCDMA, and wireless LAN standards.

The claims involve cover wireless data, speech coding, security and encryption technologies. Nokia says Apple has been in violation of these patents since the iPhone launched in 2007.

Nokia says it has invested more than 60 million billion dollars in research and development, but says Apple has not adequately compensated the firm. Nokia is the world's largest supplier of smartphones, but most recently reported a loss of U.S. $836 million dollars, while company shipments of phones has dropped.

Apple, on the other hand, reported 4th quarter results Monday with iPhone sales up 7% from the same period a year ago.

Nokia sued Qualcomm over wireless patents and settled that dispute in July of 2008, but the terms remains confidential.

[Thanks to many of our readers for sending this in]

As if the waters surrounding the App Store approval process weren't murky enough, one developer has just hit an unprecedented wall. Apple rejected his app, iKaraoke, citing that it duplicated functionality of the iPod application. Of course, the "duplicate functionality" reason is nothing new, but Apple's next step is: just a few weeks after rejecting the application, they have filed a patent for including karaoke functionality into the iPod app.

A brief look at the demo iKaraoke's website will quickly tell you that, while the app does bear a light resemblance to some of the menus found in the iPod application, the actual interface that the user interacts with to select and download a song is far from duplicating the iPod's polished interface. Another key point is that the file format used by iKaraoke is known as the .kar format -- an unofficial extension of the MIDI specification that enables lyrics to appear in time with music. The lyrics are then displayed on the screen, and highlighted as the song is played. Does any of this sound like functionality found in the iPod app? We didn't think so.

So what exactly was duplicated then? According to apple, iKaraoke "duplicates the functionality of the built-in iPhone application, iPod, without providing sufficient differentiation or added functionality." But they didn't just stop there. The reviewer went on to say that the application "downloads media files that are not managed by the iTunes application, which also manages media files, we believe this would be confusing to the user." Now, hold on a minute here... it's fine for several other apps to stream and download media files that are supported by the iPod without being managed by iTunes, but it's not OK for an app to download media that isn't natively supported, and provide functionality that isn't natively provided by the iPod?

This wouldn't be much different from your typical app rejection if the story stopped there, but it doesn't. This morning, Apple filed a patent [application here] which details built-in Karaoke functionality being added as part of the iPod application, with some additional bells and whistles such as monitoring the pitch of the user's voice. So it seems the functionality that was duplicated is functionality that Apple has not yet released, and possibly not yet even begun to develop. Maybe the $99 iPhone Developer Program fee should include a crystal ball for testing apps before submitting them.

As with the many other patents Apple has filed, this feature may never see the light of day. But is it really acceptable to reject an application, based solely on what appears to be a duplication of a feature that may or may not even be released in the future? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

Update: As a few of you have pointed out in the comments, although the patent application was published today, it actually was originally filed back in April of 2008. While this does indicate that the patent was indeed filed long before the SDK was even released, questions still remain about whether or not Apple may choose to reject applications based on functionality found in unreleased features.

Similar rejections have occurred with apps that offered podcast downloads prior to the inclusion of podcasting functionality in iTunes, for example. Essentially, what needs to happen is that Apple needs to clear the air on what exactly is considered a duplication of functionality, and to be clear with the developer on exactly what aspects of their application are in violation of this requirement, rather than sending a vague form letter and ignoring inquiries for additional information from the developer.

There's been some growling and teeth-baring between Apple and Palm lately, but Engadget wanted to know: does Apple really have a case against Palm for their patented technology? They put their (and our) legal correspondent, Nilay Patel, on the case, and in this long but very interesting analysis piece, he answers: probably.

But things, as usual, aren't that simple. Apple's patents don't just cover "multitouch" -- they cover very specific behaviors using the multitouch feature, and if Palm's Pre phone doesn't use those behaviors, there's no infringement. Of course, Patel is only going off of video of the Pre -- they don't have it in hand yet -- so things could change before the unit is released, but they do find significant evidence that Palm may have stepped on some lines it shouldn't have.

Then again, as Patel and patent attorney Mathew Gavronski discovered, Palm's got some tricks of their own -- they've got a whole slew of easily findable patents that the iPhone appears to infringe upon, including using an ambient light sensor to define brightness, looking up contacts just by using initials, and a number of other functions. Then again again, Apple's got pending patents in the fire that it can revise in case they think Palm is really trying to hone in on their business.

So bottom line, this could be really messy or it could be really simple, and Engadget concludes that the ball is in Apple's court -- if there's going to be a war, they say, the first shot will be from them. Personally, I think it's all corporate posturing -- as Patel points out, Palm has much less to lose, not having sold a single unit yet, and Apple is just making sure they know what's what. But there is a lot of money here, and if one side decides it'll cost less to go after the other, the fur could fly.

Apple Insider's got the latest on yet another Apple patent application, this one for not just touch sensitive screens, but for pressure sensitive touchscreens. Right now, the iPhone can tell where you're touching it, but not how hard you're pressing on it. The device described in the patent could do just that, and use the force information "for purposes of providing command and control signals to an associated electronic device."

Pretty interesting. I can't think of a great use for it besides the one Wacom and other high-end input tablets already use (the harder you press, the darker mark you can make with a virtual pencil), but then again, I'm not an award-winning user interface designer (just a pretty average user interface user). Who knows what Apple could come up with using an interface like this-- maybe flip through CoverFlow albums front-to-back as well as horizontally?

Of course, like all patents, as AI notes, Apple has no obligation to actually use this design in any of their products. But just in case you needed any more hints that they're not walking away from a touchscreen interface anytime soon, here you go.

Ryan from Cybernet (thanks!) dropped a note about his find of a new Apple patent. These things spring up faster than mushrooms (or rabbits, depending on your preference for down home expressions), but sometimes they are a good indication of what Apple is at least considering producing in the future.

This one's all about the iPod, by the looks of it, and giving it the ability to "wirelessly control and access a media server." Ryan speculates that means iTunes, which would mean that you could listen to streaming music from your iTunes install, through your iPod. But I think he's thinking small on this one-- what if Apple wanted to create an iPod that actually hooked up to AppleTV. You could sit in your bedroom watching the latest Daily Show, streaming from the AppleTV in the other room, while someone else watched the latest episode of Lost on the television. The possibilities there are very interesting-- combine a widescreen iPod with a wireless function like this (and we might as well throw in MobileSafari, right?), and you're looking at a very droolworthy multimedia gadget.

Of course, as with all Apple patents, this is total and complete speculation-- this patent may never actually be built, and even if it is, we might be looking at something planned years from now. But it's always fun to guess at what Apple's doing next.

MacNN reports on the latest Apple patents, published today by the US Patent & Trademark Office. The new patents include a centralized printing queue, a variable-sized icon GUI, a thermal-contact arrangement between chips and heat sinks, and an audio battery status patent. This last may provide audible status information for the upcoming iPhone. If reading about patents is your thing head on over and check these out. MacNN provides links to the actual patent filings.

It always surprises me that certain things that seem fairly brainless and obvious like "monitor a device condition, obtain an audio snippet based on the device condition, output the audio snippet" are patentable, but I am not a lawyer.

Apple Insider uncovered a pretty futuristic Apple patent filing that discusses inductive, optical and wireless devices for transferring data and power without physical contact. The filing talks about how inductive coils, which can be hidden from view, fit more in line with Apple aesthetics (look Ma, no visible ports!) and how they avoid the problem of exposed contacts which can oxidize or get dinged and bent over time. Induction is, as far as I can google, a pretty hot area of technology development, especially for transmitting data and power to implanted devices for bio-medical telemetry. I'm curious to see whether Apple follows through on this filing and what kinds of products get developed.

Here we go with the Apple patent game again, and this time around it looks like we have blasts from the past and the future. Engadget first tracked down a patent filed by Apple yesterday (pictured right) for "A cubical computer housing assembly comprises first and second ends and four sides, which define an interior compartment for housing the various computer component." Could this be the comeback of the cube? Apple obviously hasn't let the concept go gently into that good night with their cubed New York store, but since this patent is so fresh, don't expected anything to come of it anytime soon - if ever.

The next patent is a bit more interesting in part because AppleInsider has quite a few juicy details, but also because it was filed over a year ago and references a phone-like Apple device which has received almost constant speculation during that time.

Remember all that talk of Creative beating Apple to the punch with patenting various elements of the iPod's UI? Today these talks came to an end, with Apple whipping out the checkbook, and Creative (I'm assuming) throwing a party. That's right: Apple has shelled out USD $100 million to Creative for "a paid-up license to use Creative's recently awarded patent in all Apple products." Fortunately, Apple might be able to get some of that cash back if Creative is successful in suing their way to profitability licensing their patents to anyone else.

There is yet another bright side for Apple, however: Creative has also hopped on board the 'Made for iPod' program, and has a slew of accessories on the way for everyone's favorite little DAP, such as speaker systems, headphones and a family of X-Fi 'audio enhancement products.'

Isn't it great when everyone can just get along and play nicely together - especially when $100m says so? Check out Apple's press release for the rest of the details on the settlement.

[via MacMinute]

In a move that screams 'I was waiting for the right time to mention it,' Burst.com yesterday filed a patent counterclaims lawsuit against Apple Computer, claiming that their iTunes, iTMS, iPod and QuickTime Streaming infringe on four of their patents.

It appears that this time around Apple actually fired first. Earlier this year, Apple asked the courts to render Burst's patents invalid, which sparked this counterclaim they filed yesterday. Burst has stated that they had hoped to avoid the courts and negotiate a "reasonable license fee," but it seems that a court is exactly where these two companies will need to settle the dispute.

Check out Macworld's article if you're interested in more details surrounding the case.