Nokia Gets a Cool $630 Million from Europe to Spend on Symbian

by Sam Dean - Feb. 19, 2009Comments (16)

Nokia has just reported that it has received a $630 million loan from the European Investment Bank to help it develop the Symbian operating system and stay relevant in the increasingly competitive mobile operating system war. Looks like Nokia's move last summer to buy out the remaining shares of Symbian for $410 million was more prescient than many people realized. Along with that move, Nokia also put the Symbian operating system on an open source course. Just this week, at the Mobile World Congress in Spain, vendors lined up behind Symbian, LiMo's Linux-based operating system, and Android. $630 million is a lot of money. Will it change Symbian's fate, and how does it affect LiMo and Android?

Stacey Higginbotham at GigaOm notes that a post from the European Investment Bank's web site says the following:

 

"The task of the Bank is to contribute towards the integration, balanced development and economic and social cohesion of the EU Member States. The EIB raises substantial volumes of funds on the capital markets which it lends on favourable terms to projects furthering EU policy objectives. The EIB continuously adapts its activity to developments in EU policies."

 

Stacey also associates this latest loan with Europe's increased wariness of U.S.-based technology monopolies, which I agree with. The European Commission  has been steadily policing Microsoft on topics such as offering browser choice on new computers. With this loan, though--given its size--the Android and LiMo mobile open source operating systems are likely to feel the brunt of the blow.

According to Nokia's statement on the loan (it quotes the amount at 500 million Euros), the money will be used in more than one way, but there's no question that the open source Symbian OS will benefit big time:

 

"Nokia envisages that the R&D activities supported by this loan will also benefit the work of the Symbian Foundation and its development of open source software for mobile devices."

 

The loan will be delivered over a five-year period, not all at once. I'm guessing that Google is going to have to answer this funding with some significant funding for Android development. On the proprietary mobile operating system front, Apple has a $100 million fund supporting the iPhone, RIM has a $150 million fund behind the BlackBerry, and Microsoft, well, Microsoft is Microsoft. Google can more than afford to financially support the growth of Android, and now the pressure is going to be on to do so. I'm betting that LiMo will be the odd man out here. Money, or rather big money, is going to be an increasingly important factor as open source mobile operating systems compete fiercely in the coming years.


Browse Blog

D J uses OStatic to support Open Source, ask and answer questions and stay informed. What about you?



16 Comments
 

My only concern with Nokia is that it belongs (in the copyrights sense) to a company that promotes software patents in Europe. It also defends DRM and it is sometimes hostile towards the GPL.


I believe that like all companies they have the chance to show that they can change and that Symbian open-source is not just a PR ploy intended to save a platform from the bitbucket (remember Palm OS?).


0 Votes

@Roy

Supporting patents and supporting Open Source are 2 different things. Open Source =/= the FSF or GPL. There are a ton of other licenses, like the LGPL and FreeBSD that allow people to use them as they please.


Nokia is looking to encourage developers to adopt its platform. The bigger concern to me is the fragmentation that will take place in the marketplace with Android, LiMo and now Symbian all vying for FOSS developer attention.


0 Votes

Also, Google supports patents. They support Open Source too. If content owners want to protect their work via DRM - more power to them. Don't use their sh*t if you don't want to pay for it. If there is a better model that will still allow innovation, great - the companies will adopt, or fail.


0 Votes

It's about Free software, not Open Source. Open source means all sort of things these days, including wine, energy, even sex.


When open source mixes with software patents and DRM, then it's time to remember what it's all about (not just a marketing ploy).


0 Votes

But that's the thing. Is it all about 'free software'? (Even free as in speech?). If I take free software, build something that is of value and wish to capture that value via a patent or a DRM to prevent abuse of my hard work, and do give back via a free product (e.g. Google Search), am I going against the grain of the movement? Which movement?


0 Votes

Google still snubs AGPL(v3). I'm surprised almost no-one reports about this anymore.


0 Votes

Does it matter that they do? There are a ton of other more 'user-friendly' and 'liberal' licenses that do not require you to release ALL the code you do and not capture the value from it. If I can keep my code proprietary and make a billion dollars a quarter and provide OTHER great code into the community and great free services by keeping their IP confidential, is that a loss?


0 Votes

What is IP? You mean patents?


There is no "IP".


0 Votes

Patents need reform in a big way. Look at how companies abuse patents, including the trolls who went after RIM (not that they are scott-free). Look at the number of patents companies like MSFT and AMZN file. Basic things like 'single-click checkout'? Give me a break!


0 Votes

@Roy, "IP", as in "Intellectual Property" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property (I know you know this, but since you asked...


There is IP. If I create something, regardless of whether I used Open Source or not, and I do not want others to use it or build on it without paying me a fee, I should be (and am) entitled to do so. And, the law should protect others from 'ripping off' my stuff when I do not want them to.


Frivolous patents? Junk 'em. Patent protection? Stick with it. Why is DRM bad? Badly implemented DRM is bad. But, just because you want to watch The Dark Knight and not pay for it and be a freeloading mooch, doesn't mean the MPAA should suffer. Yes, they need to figure out better ways to distribute their content and monetize it, but until then, if you do not like their distribution, do not use their product.


0 Votes

@Peter - I agree, but not all the way. If you can prove 'prior art' on any patent, it will really not stand up in court, so what is the concern? The issue is the sky-high legal costs, but if Amazon comes up with a novel process and wants to protect that novelty from others, why not? Better to take a defensive patent stance than wait for someone else to come after you. It is now up to them to be 'philanthropic' with their inventions.


0 Votes

"IP" is a propaganda term, like "Piracy".


Call patents "patents".


0 Votes

IANAL, but IP ain't propaganda. IP is real. It includes Copyrights (launching a cola and calling it 'Koke'), Trademarks (Selling non-Nike shoes with a 'swoosh'), Patents (securing your processes and methodologies) are all forms of IP. P = Property. Something you 'own'.


Piracy is stealing. It is not propaganda. Download illegally or violate "IP" and you are pirating/stealing - call it what you want.


0 Votes

@Roy: What is the point you are trying to make? Right now, you are throwing out poor definitions of terms, most of which are wrong.


Patents are a form of protecting something YOU create. As is Copyright. Different animals, same genus.


Patents do not protect knowledge. They protect an invention. Something meant for 'value extraction', should the inventor choose to do so.


Get off your "FSF/GPL is the only way" rhetoric and make a point, if you have one.


Are you saying there should be no patents?


Are you saying it is okay to 'steal' music and movies?


What are you trying to say?


0 Votes

There should be no software patents* and patents are not "IP", they are patents.


__

*few countries got corrupted by shill groups like BSA, ACT and CompTIA to enable these.


0 Votes

Why should there be no software patents? Do you have a reason, or just because you should be allowed to take whatever you want without making the effort to reward the creator? Why should I not be afforded protection for my creations?


You might argue that "I did not create it". If I wrote the code from scratch and used code from people who said I could do with their code as I pleased, that does give me the right to protect my invention.


Patents are patents? Is that supposed to be some zen statement or are you just ignorant about what IP means and what patents are meant to protect?


0 Votes
Share Your Comments

If you are a member, to have your comment attributed to you. If you are not yet a member, Join OStatic and help the Open Source community by sharing your thoughts, answering user questions and providing reviews and alternatives for projects.