Microsoft owns PureView, ClearBlack and four other Nokia trademarks
0. phoneArena 16 Jun 2014, 00:49 posted on
When Microsoft purchased Nokia Devices and Services, there were questions about what Redmond would do with certain Nokia created names, like PureView. The latter title was used by Nokia to denote a high-end camera on the back of some of its higher-end Lumia models like the Nokia Lumia 1020. ClearBack is another name now owned by Microsoft...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. Reality_Check (Posts: 277; Member since: 15 Aug 2013)
ClearBlack* is another name...
The ClearBlack* technology is...
4. -box- (Posts: 3959; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
Yep. The title is correct, the paragraph isn't.
23. tasior (Posts: 262; Member since: 04 Nov 2012)
They alreaddy trashed the ClearBlack technology...
Nokia 630 has ClearBlack brand, but has no ClearBlack technology. that means, Microsoft plans using ClearBlack as a buzzword, nothing more.
Here are more details on subject:
29. steelicon (Posts: 315; Member since: 02 Apr 2011)
31. elitewolverine (Posts: 3126; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
2. -box- (Posts: 3959; Member since: 04 Jan 2012)
Glad to see Lumia and PureView won't be disappearing.
I read an article the other day implying the Surface team and Lumia team were disagreeing on the names of future models, and it occurred to me that both could/should exist: Lumia would be the range of low, mid, and uniquely-featured Windows Phones (so everything from the 520 to the 1020 and 1520 would be included) with polycarbonate bodies and established Lumia designs, and Surface phones could be higher-end models with metal or other materials for the body, and focus on premium design and perhaps the best of the entire platform's offerings, much like the Surface tablets offer some of the best overall design, functionality, build quality, and appeal in not just Windows tablets, but the entire tablet market.
14. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
Just because MS is keeping the trademark, doesn't mean they are going to move product under the mark. Do you really think MS is in the feature phone biz? More like they are keeping Nokia from getting back into the phone biz any time soon.
15. Beijendorf (Posts: 335; Member since: 27 Aug 2013)
That just wouldn't make any sense.
Keep it simple.
17. ihavenoname (Posts: 1580; Member since: 18 Aug 2013)
And who would want a Surface smartphone? Everybody who is going for WP wants Nokia Lumia (note: NOKIA Lumia).
32. elitewolverine (Posts: 3126; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
I went for WP, and the Camera, Not because of Nokia.
Only a fool would be so much of a brand blow hard that they would think this.
I preferred brand of choice is Samsung, but didnt get the ativ s, went for the OIS, 6 lenses, Nokia instead. Even now it matches up beautiful with the much more powerful s5, and out does the s4. Most recent one was at a party, where we were both taking shots of our kids at the bday event, side by side the s4 lost in every shot to the 925. To the point my friend literally just put his phone in his pocket and stated "email them to me mine sucks".
36. corporateJP (Posts: 2322; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)
You contradict yourself.
You say if you go for Nokia, you're a blowhard, but you talk highly of Samsung and how it's your brand of choice.
Lot's of doubletalk, boss...
41. elitewolverine (Posts: 3126; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
No i was not saying if you go for nokia you are a blowhard. I was saying only a fool, who is a fan blowhard would think that people only went to WP because of Nokia. Where i was the opposite, i owned 3 different WP, right along side droids, before i owned a Nokia.
And it wasnt cause of nokia, it was cause of the camera.
As well, my brand of choice is samsung, they are usually within my price range for electronics while offering same or more features. My tv's, fridge, washer/driver, pc monitors, hard drives, etc have all been Samsung because of price vs features. Discounts help too.
However on the phone front i have not been so happy.
3. express77 (unregistered)
22. Liveitup (Posts: 1770; Member since: 07 Jan 2014)
No need for the hostility, some of us thinks that Microsoft is an awesome company, who in many ways changed the world and continues to do so. Celebrate choice, don't hate it.
5. Alex123 (Posts: 241; Member since: 17 Oct 2012)
Microsoft is definitely afraid of Nokia licensing it's technology to others competitors, I think.
9. microsoftnokiawin (Posts: 1123; Member since: 30 Mar 2012)
nokia can still licence the technolofy they still own it microsoft just owns the trademark :) !
6. tigermcm (Posts: 821; Member since: 02 Sep 2009)
im very curious why MS took mural and surge
33. elitewolverine (Posts: 3126; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
patents most likely or just wanting to lease the name etc.
8. microsoftnokiawin (Posts: 1123; Member since: 30 Mar 2012)
but nokia still owns the technology :) !
10. volcano (Posts: 273; Member since: 25 Jan 2013)
no worries they have 10 years license for things they don't own plus teams who develop cameras now in microsoft
52. microsoftnokiawin (Posts: 1123; Member since: 30 Mar 2012)
the original team that developed pureview is long gone now :) !
11. chocowii (Posts: 383; Member since: 30 Jan 2014)
Use those trademarks wisely. Its better than Smart apps and iApps.
12. corporateJP (Posts: 2322; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)
Good luck, MS.
The Nokia name is what really sold phones, and that isn't yours much longer...
13. strikercho (banned) (Posts: 156; Member since: 20 Mar 2012)
I really wish good luck to MS. Everything that Google bought, was destroyed, includeing oneof my favorite brands, like Motorola. I hope MS would be wiser and develop the Lumia and Asha brands with all the goodies like Pureview, Maps, etc. present.
16. tech2 (Posts: 2899; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)
lolwut .........Google SAVED Motorola from shutting down completely. They gave them that all important cash flow when they needed most. Infact, Google never dictated any terms to Motorola. Watch Motorola's CEO's statement.
28. NokiaFTW (Posts: 2058; Member since: 24 Oct 2012)
'Google save Motorola'. lol yeah they saved Motorola by selling them to a Chinese PC manufacturer. Google just wanted the patents, as their own innovation within the company is pretty limited, unlike MS or Nokia.
35. tech2 (Posts: 2899; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)
Re-read my comment. Motorola's cashflow was so dire back then that would've had to shut down for business IF google didn't help them. Was Lenovo ready to buy them when google bought them ?
Also google practically sold motorola at loss discounting the patent of course. With regards to patent, Google signed a bond that'll only use patent for defensive purpose and will not litigate Motorola i.e. Motorola and google effectively share the patent.
42. elitewolverine (Posts: 3126; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
Effectively share but Motorola no longer owns. You see MS went the other way, Nokia still owns and MS shares.
Regardless of how Google use the patents, the effectively stripped the company bare. Patents define a company in the business world.
As well Nokia was in the same boat during their symbian days before MS.
44. tech2 (Posts: 2899; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)
'Nokia still owns and MS shares.'
The article of the title itself says MS OWNS the patents and no where it mentions about Nokia sharing or even owning for that matter.
I don't even see any conditions which Nokia might have put forward towards patents.
45. elitewolverine (Posts: 3126; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
Microsoft has agreed to purchase Nokia's Devices & Services unit, as well as license Nokia's patents in a deal that will be worth €5.44 billion (~$7.17 billion). Source -http://www.phonearena.com/news
Owning a name is not the same as owning a patent. Trademark =/ Patent.
46. tech2 (Posts: 2899; Member since: 26 Oct 2012)
Here I found something useful.
'Microsoft didn’t acquire Nokia’s entire patent portfolio, either. It bought the design patents outright but will license Nokia’s 30,000 utility patents patents for 10 years.'
'Nokia will also transfer its patent licensing agreements, including its big one with chipmaker Qualcomm, to Microsoft. Other patent agreements transferred to Microsoft includes those with IBM, Motorola Mobility (owned by Google), Motorola Solutions. Nokia also passes on patent agreements with Apple, LG, Nortel and Kodak to Microsoft.'
Seems we both were partly wrong :/
48. elitewolverine (Posts: 3126; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
This is true.
From my understanding, the design patents from phones and devices that are not leased to other companies, will go with them. However utility which i am assuming is 2g, 3g, 4g patents along with thousands of others, will stay with nokia, like the here drive etc.
The patent licensing agreements are huge, but make sense since they are buying nokia devices which those agreements belong to and get transferred.
In the end though Google has more than stripped Moto than what MS did to Nokia by all means.
Great dig by the way.
18. mayur007 (Posts: 500; Member since: 10 Apr 2012)
ms was not wiser instead ms is responsible for what nokia is right now ..
when nokia was nokia ms was too slow to launch major updates . and when they bought after that they instantly announced the major update ...
your post regarding Google is totally wrong.
and windows os is still a smart os wanna be
20. billgates (banned) (Posts: 555; Member since: 29 May 2014)
I'll give you plus one for baiting these two spermdroids.
Anyways, I dont fully agree with you but do agree they took all the good stuff from Motorola and moved them to a new home.
37. corporateJP (Posts: 2322; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)
Says the mudhut kid with the MS fanboy name.
Make sure you hit the report button again...
19. Liveitup (Posts: 1770; Member since: 07 Jan 2014)
Google stripped one if the last American smartphone companies, kept the patents and sold the rest to Lenovo.
21. mayur007 (Posts: 500; Member since: 10 Apr 2012)
what ms did they did even worse they brought nokia down and then they bought it.
when they sold moto was in good shape.. and still is
24. Liveitup (Posts: 1770; Member since: 07 Jan 2014)
I disagree with that, Nokia fall from grace started long before Elop entered the picture, Nokia was too slow in reacting to Apple and upcoming platform called Andoid back then. Actually under Elop Nokia was turning the corner when D&S divison was sold to Microsoft.
MS kept Nokia employees and all the plants that they could, Nokia smartphone division is now an American company in essense regardless of what MS may or may not call it, Nokia and MS was already in a partnership they just solidified it.
Google on the other hand bought allegedly from day one just for its patents.
The plants they opened up in texas are now closing.
25. rodneyej1 (Posts: 3575; Member since: 06 Jul 2013)
This is exactly right!... That's the mature reality of the situation,, which so many immature haters refuse to admit.
34. elitewolverine (Posts: 3126; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
shhh reality for google lovers is not rosey
38. corporateJP (Posts: 2322; Member since: 28 Nov 2009)
I agree with nothing Google did with Moto, but using that scenario to justify MS Trojan Horsing Nokia is just recockulous.
Proof you do live it up...under a rock.
40. tasior (Posts: 262; Member since: 04 Nov 2012)
"I disagree with that, Nokia fall from grace started long before Elop entered the picture, Nokia was too slow in reacting to Apple and upcoming platform called Andoid back then." - that is true, but You're omitting the fact, that, when Elop came to Nokia, it was still the largest smartphone (yes - smartphone, not only phone) manufacturer in the world. Everybody knew, that Nokia's strategy needed to be reinvented, but Elop has chosen the worst possible scenario, that was profitable only for MS not for Nokia. I'm not comparing this case to Google Motorola, but I'm tired of hearing, that MS-Elop combo was good for Nokia.
How is turning the largest smartphone company, into a MS division owning 5% of a market good?!
43. elitewolverine (Posts: 3126; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
They were not selling more 'smartphones' than iphones or droids. They were selling symbian smartphones that were like BB and WinMobile.
They were a sinking ship, and when Elop came on board Meego didnt have a phone to show them and Symbian was in a worse state with the tools and software.
There is a reason it was called a burning platform. There is a reason major companies including cisco, samsung etc, walked away from symbian before their choice of Android. There is a reason, Meego couldnt be sold off either.
Both platforms were nearly dead in terms of products (not consumer buying) and they were a money pit to develop internally on a struggling and lagging field that they were quickly over taken by Android and iOS in less than 3yrs from late 07 to 10'. Considering MS didnt enter the picture until 2010, MS was not a trojan. They were its 'savior'.
49. tasior (Posts: 262; Member since: 04 Nov 2012)
1 Symbian smartphones are smartphones. Moreover Symbian was most capable system at that time. It had smoothness problem, that was mostly solved by the end of its being...
2. It was called burning platform, because Elop called it that. Other companies left Symbian, because they were unable to compete with Nokia at that field..
3. Nokia was able to release MeeGo phone 6 months, before they were able to adopt WP, despite most of their resources were into WP. MeeGo was killed before its release, and still it sold great.
4. At the end of 2010 (when Elop came to Nokia) Symbian was far more alive, than Windows Phone.
One more time:
Everybody knew, that Nokia's strategy needed to be reinvented, but Elop has chosen the worst possible scenario, that was profitable only for MS not for Nokia.
54. elitewolverine (Posts: 3126; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
Symbian was not considered 'most' capable by the time, nor had it's issues been worked out.
Other companies left symbian because it was not that they could not compete with Nokia it was because the OS was already outdated, it is exactly why Maemo/Meego project was born to begin with.
MeeGo phone 6 months...Great? It took how long to release a MeeGo phone vs Windows phone? Less than a year for Windows, while MeeGo had set back after set back.
Here is a transcript from probably the most informative article one could ever read about Nokia's Maemo/Meego Symbian fall from grace.
"Soon after beginning his job at Nokia, Elop started the ”Sea Eagle” project whose purpose was to sort out and analyze alternatives to Nokia’s smartphone strategy. In addition to tens of their own people they hired consultants from outside of Nokia. As a result a decision was made that the combination of Symbian and MeeGo was not sufficient for a succesful long term strategy.
In the United States AT&T would have agreed to sell N9, although hardware vice it was considered outdated compared to its Android rivals. Apparently another version of N9 was in development for Verizon, codenamed RM-716. Even if N9 would have been released in North America in 2011, Nokia could not have had a successor with LTE support to offer for a long time in the fast paced smartphone market.
Elop stated in a memo sent to his employees that Nokia might only have one MeeGo phone in the market by the end of year 2011. During the analysis the MeeGo team didn’t have any device that could have been shown to Elop or the Nokia Board of directors that would certainly have been available for the winter holiday season of 2010."
26. rodneyej1 (Posts: 3575; Member since: 06 Jul 2013)
Microsoft is a great company worldwide, and rightfully so deserves these trademarks.. Good for Windows Phone, and MS Lumia brand smartphones... Looks like the future of WP is getting brighter every day..
27. sip1995 (Posts: 1227; Member since: 07 Feb 2014)
Hopefully these things will be used only on Windows Phones.
30. 7thspaceman (Posts: 1311; Member since: 14 Feb 2011)
Heads up folks Microsoft intends to create a NEW OS that will work on Windows 8.1 smart phones and Windows RT/Nokia 2520 Tablets. Since Microsoft already has the good old
"Windows Mobile " Operating system Trade mark I suggest to Microsoft to name this new OS "Window mobile 2" that way Microsoft wont have to fight a trade mark infringement case with anyone. all Windows smart phones and Windows RT OS tablets use ARMS CPU"S these CPU will not run any Standard x86 Windows XP, Vista , Windows 7 or any
Windows 8/8.1 Desktop/Server Programs so it is logical for microsoft to make one NEW OS that will work on Windows Smart phones and tablets that use ARMS CPU's. Don't worry the current and future apps written in the new OS code will probably work on Windows 8.1 smart phones and Windows RT/ Nokia 2520 tablets
39. AeroPrime (Posts: 173; Member since: 21 Feb 2011)
Isn't it obvious on why they wanted to keep a 5 year trademark..... To recreate again. Just like how other industries so it.
47. Jillsandwich (Posts: 62; Member since: 24 Oct 2011)
Nokia was going nowhere before MS took hold of it. Or when Elop came in. Stop acting like Nokia was this apex smartphone maker when it was obvious it wasn't. The Nokia name wasn't the meat of the WP devices. Notice any ad that really pushed the Nokia name, so much as it did the Pureview camera? Not many, if any at all.
Stop being buttmad about branding. If MS starts to do crappy things like not using Clear Black or Pure View cameras, or making solid hardware, THEN you can start crying wolf. Until then, stop with the doom and gloom crap. MS made a lot of mistakes, but they've also come a long way when it came to mending and fixing them. The issue with the X1? Fixed (more or less). Cortana remaining the actual name for the VA? They saw it through. Seriously, the MS hate is getting so insanely old now. If you don't like WP, fine. That's your prerogative. Don't like the name of MS? Again, your call. But trying to nitpick over something so trite as the branding of a company that was all but obscure as the saving grace for an up and coming platform? That's just cherry-picking an argument to suit your needs.
50. tasior (Posts: 262; Member since: 04 Nov 2012)
"If MS starts to do crappy things like not using Clear Black(...) "
Read post 23.
51. Jillsandwich (Posts: 62; Member since: 24 Oct 2011)
That's pretty bad indeed. That being said, my 1520 and the 920 I had before it had CB (or whatever else it's touted as), so, i'm not going to nitpick over a device that I don't own. I'd like to have the same amazing tech as before, but unfortunately, the watering down of technology is something that isn't uncommon, whether it be the cost of producing it, or change of ownership. This happens to all companies, MS or not, so people harping "MS sucks!" kindly knock it off, as everyone does it. It's not pretty, nobody wants it, but unfortunately, it's going to happen. I do appreciate in-depth analysis like the one you provided though. Hopefully people also take notice.
This also doesn't really change the fact that the name of Nokia branded on a device really wasn't the saving grace for WP. Saying that it was is just wishful thinking of whatever is left of Nokia's OG camp. They're not. After iOS and Android came to power, the niche Nokia brand was hardly anything worth grandfathering into a new generation of smartphones. The damage was already done. Nokia was next to nothing.
Hopefully, in the future, MS will implement true definitions of such technology instead of watered down versions. Regardless, it'll most likely be better than the crap that Samsung, HTC and whatever else Android produces, so it'll always be ahead of that lag camp, while keeping it interesting with IOS.
53. tasior (Posts: 262; Member since: 04 Nov 2012)
"After iOS and Android came to power, the niche Nokia brand was hardly anything worth grandfathering into a new generation of smartphones." - that's not entirely true. It seems that You're looking at Nokia from US perspective, where Nokia was almost non-existent. In EU, Asia etc. Nokia was number one brand. So when Elop came, everyone was eager to see, how the things will change. When he moved to WP7, and everybody saw, how poor this system was, people turned their back to Nokia. So from US point of view Elop came to almost dead company, tried something but failed. From majority of the world perspective Elop came to market leading company, that needed some fresh perspective, and burned it to the ground...
55. elitewolverine (Posts: 3126; Member since: 28 Oct 2013)
I suggest you actually read up on a site posted from actual internal NOKIA employees who described the internal ecosystem that was anything but 'good'.
Maemo/Symbian teams fought each other, Symbian was a mess, yes a mess that other OEM's jumped from when something better arrived.
Meego, was not the future, LTE was barely added this year, this year to the Meego platform.
So no, Elop did not kill a company, Nokia killed a company. When Elop came Meego Didn't have a single phone to show Elop that would run it's OS and be ready for a shopping fall release.
56. razraptre (Posts: 121; Member since: 21 Oct 2014)
Am I the only one who thinks that Microsoft kept the patents to the technology?
Because it seems everyone else on the internet thinks that Microsoft only has the rights to the names, and not the technology itself. What point is a name without the product?