We didn't have much (well, anything) to say about the recent iPhone launch because it certainly seemed as though the rest of the tech press/blogworld had that one... um... thoroughly covered. However, with the glowing reports earlier this week about how amazing it was that Apple had sold 1 million iPhones over the weekend, Carlo Longino has put that into perspective, noting that it's not quite as impressive as most people seem to think. First, as he notes, since the launch was international (rather than the original iPhones US-only launch), it's no surprise that it would sell many more. But, more importantly, he notes that recent stats on mobile handsets shows that 282 million handsets were sold in the first quarter of this year, and that Nokia alone appears to sell approximately 1.28 million handsets per day. So, yes, selling 1 million handsets over the weekend is a nice round milestone -- and certainly other handset makers are probably jealous of the attention it's getting. But, it's not having a huge impact on the overall handset market just yet.

Originally I wasn't going to write about Nokia's decision to purchase the rest of Symbian and then open source the code, but a few people have written in to ask about our take, and the more I think about it, the more interesting it becomes. There's certainly been a palpable fear lately among some that things like the locked-down iPhone represent a dangerous "future" to be avoided.

But that doesn't seem to have much historical support. New markets often are driven initially by locked down and proprietary solutions, but openness tends to prevail in the long run. The reason many markets start out with closed and proprietary solutions is that you need a comprehensive enough solution to address the market, and it's often difficult to do that in an ad hoc manner. A proprietary solution gives control to one person or a small group of people who can easily drive the project to where it needs to be to drive adoption. However, in the long run, more open solutions then win out, because competitors realize that the real game is being a platform, which is more important than being the comprehensive supplier. And the way to become a platform is to sign up as many developers as possible, and free them to make your platform much more valuable. That's much easier to do in an open or open source environment.

This is why we're seeing this particular decision to open up Symbian, and also explains Google's open approach with its Android offering. It also explains why Apple's iPhone, which was totally closed at the beginning, has been slowly opening up to try to combat the rise of more open competitors.

Finally, this move by Nokia is a recognition of the economics of infinite goods. Just as IBM helped massively boost its services business by betting big on Linux, Nokia recognizes that freeing up Symbian helps turn it into a services company as well. Freeing up that infinite good (the software) helps generate more demand for the scarce "services" provided by the company. There may be some stumbles along the way, but on the whole this is exactly the type of bet the company needs to be making. And, at the same time, it shows that there's little to fear concerning a future world of "closed" systems a la the iPhone. Every such closed system is merely an opportunity and an invitation for competitors to become more open.

In recent years, we've seen the entertainment industry suddenly embrace mobile as a platform, incorrectly believing that its more locked-down nature would mean that it wouldn't face the same "threats" (which they should see as opportunities) of file sharing and open networks and services. However, as is always the way, more open systems are catching on and getting more usage, and more closed systems are having trouble getting traction. Rather than embracing that, however, it appears Nokia is pushing to hold back the tide.

Ben S writes in to highlight a rather unconvincing talk given by a Nokia VP trying to explain to open source developers why they need to embrace DRM, intellectual property, digital locks and subsidies in the mobile world. However, his reasoning basically amounts to "because I say so."

"Why do we need closed vehicles? We do. Some of these things harm the industry but they're here [as things stand]."

In other words, there's no actual reason to use these things, other than that Nokia says you must -- even though it knows such things harm the industry. Way to show leadership in the mobile industry. No wonder it seems like most innovation in the mobile space is coming from folks other than Nokia.

This past Tuesday, the US Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent on "a mobile entertainment and communication device." Reading the patent, you realize it describes the quite common smartphone. It's a patent for a mobile phone with removable storage, an internet connection, a camera and the ability to download audio or video files. The patent holding firm who has the rights to this patent wasted no time at all. At 12:01am Tuesday morning, it filed three separate lawsuits against just about everyone you can think of, including Apple, Nokia, RIM, Sprint, AT&T, HP, Motorola, Helio, HTC, Sony Ericsson, UTStarcomm, Samsung and a bunch of others. Amusingly, the company actually first filed the lawsuits on Monday, but realized it was jumping the gun and pulled them, only to refile just past the stroke of midnight.

As the link above explains, the patent itself is based on a bunch of continuation filings, which are commonly used by patent holders who want broad patents to cover the latest technologies well after they've already come about in the market. It would seem like the concept itself, merely combining a bunch of things that people were already talking about, should never have been granted based on the Supreme Court's recent KSR ruling that merely combining existing concepts doesn't deserve a patent. Also, as noted in the comments to the link above, it would appear that there's a fair amount of prior art. In fact, Apple even sent over some prior art concerning the patent just before it was originally supposed to be issued last summer -- but somehow patent holder's lawyers talked their way around it. In the meantime, it looks like we've got yet another case of an overly broad and obvious patent being used against a huge number of firms. I'm sure that's exactly what Thomas Jefferson expected when he created our patent system.

It really was just last week, right, that Microsoft was last seen totally screwing over all those partners who had signed up to use its misnamed "PlaysForSure" DRM? Apparently, bygones are bygones and other companies have no problem stepping right up into Microsoft's embrace on a new DRM solution -- this time in the mobile space. Nokia is apparently agreeing to use Microsoft's mobile DRM offering dubbed "PlayReady" on a variety of Nokia devices. You would have thought that after the PlaysForSure debacle, Microsoft would avoid dubbing its DRM anything similar. Give it a few years and perhaps Microsoft will support some totally different DRM on its own phones (like it did with the Zune) and then we can ask again what Nokia was thinking.

Qualcomm has always been a strong supporter of the patent system, as it was the basis for much of its revenue over the past decade. However, lately, the company has been getting hit left and right by patent lawsuits against it. Last week, though, the company ended up with a few minor (and perhaps temporary) victories against opponents. First, the International Trade Commission tossed out a complaint from Nokia asking the ITC to ban the import of Qualcomm chips. Nokia had simply taken a page from Broadcom, who had successfully used the ITC loophole to get a second shot at Qualcomm over its patents. Given how often companies have been starting to use this loophole, it's nice to see that the ITC doesn't always rollover for patent holders.

In the meantime, speaking of Broadcom, we had noted last month that thanks to a Supreme Court ruling that raised the bar for declaring "willful" infringement of a patent, the judge in the Qualcomm-Broadcom suit had given Broadcom a choice. Either retry the case under the new rules, or drop the "willful" part and get less money from Qualcomm. Broadcom has now chosen the latter option, and will accept a smaller payout from Qualcomm for infringement. Of course, it's not all good news for Qualcomm. Nokia still has lawsuits going against Qualcomm, with one getting underway in the UK this week. Broadcom is still seeking the courts to rule for an injunction blocking the import of certain Qualcomm chips as well (even as the ITC is already helping out on that front). Once again, no one seems willing to explain why Broadcom gets to take two whacks at Qualcomm over the same exact issue. In the meantime, while it would be nice to think that these recent messy lawsuits would give Qualcomm a chance to rethink some of its beliefs about the patent system, somehow that seems unlikely to happen any time soon.

Nokia made a bit of a splash this morning by announcing plans to buy digital mapping/navigation firm Navteq for $8.1 billion. Navteq is definitely the leading player in the space, followed by TeleAtlas -- and the two companies basically dominate the market. Earlier this year, you may recall, navigation device maker TomTom announced plans to buy TeleAtlas, though that deal is not yet completed.

Many people are speculating on what this could mean for Garmin, TomTom's main rival in the navigation device space. Garmin uses Navteq for its maps, but it seems hard to believe that Nokia would simply cut off Garmin. That would take a huge chunk of revenue out of the deal, making it a lot less worthwhile. What's much more interesting is how this shows the strength of Nokia's commitment to really leveraging mobile devices for location-based services and navigation information. People have talked about such things for years, and Nokia's purchase certainly suggests that they're about to make a big push into moving navigation info and location-based services out of a separate device and into mobile phones.

Back on June 29th, when the iPhone launched, we had some of the experts in the Techdirt Insight Community give their thoughts on how competitors should respond. There were, as per usual with the experts in the community, some really insightful and interesting responses. From that, we've been able to sign new business helping companies formulate and execute on their latest strategies. However, it seems that not everyone is taking a proactive approach to responding to the iPhone (or, at least they're not willing to admit it publicly). Gizmodo points us to an unintentionally amusing article where Laptop Magazine tried to get four competitors to give their thoughts on the iPhone. Rather than admitting that the iPhone has really shifted how many people view mobile phones and what they can do, all of the companies basically toe the corporate line, look the other way on iPhone questions and make sure to mention their own phones as many times as possible. Given the market response, however, it seems pretty clear that Apple is delivering what the market wanted, while these other guys have not. Insisting that you do have what it takes when the market is shifting elsewhere isn't going to be a winning strategy. Of course, we're here to help. If companies want to formulate a real strategic response to the iPhone, they might want to give us a call.

A few months ago, we pointed out that since the Supreme Court made it clear that patent injunctions were being used too often, many companies were starting to use a loophole. Rather than just going through the courts to get an injunction, they would go to the US International Trade Commission and ask it for an injunction against those they accused of patent infringement. While courts need to follow the lead of the Supreme Court, the ITC could make whatever decision it wanted on whether or not a particular product actually did infringe and whether or not an injunction should be granted. It gives patent holders a second shot, outside of the court system, to get an injunction. In fact, right after we discussed this, Broadcom used exactly that loophole to get an injunction against certain Qualcomm chips. Qualcomm has been fighting this injunction without much luck, and it seems to have encouraged others to try the same thing. Nokia and Qualcomm have been engaged in a rather vicious patent fight recently -- and suddenly Nokia has come up with a strategy of (you guessed it) asking the ITC to ban the import of Qualcomm chips for patent infringement. Wonder where that idea came from? The folks at the ITC might want to start staffing up in the division that has to review these patent injunction requests. It sounds like there's going to be plenty to do in the near future.