Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 61 posts

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#11

Post by IBM »

wyldfire wrote: post #7

> There is pretty much no way that Qualcomm could ever get an injunction to stop sales of iPhones... Qualcomm is planning to ask the federal government to ban imports of iPhones. This is the technology equivalent of a Hail Mary pass. It was unclear from the article why this is a Hail Mary, so I looked it up. It initially seemed to me that if Qualcomm offers Apple a licensing agreement, Apple agrees to it, and later d…

Apple doesn't receive a license from Qualcomm. They pay their third party manufacturers which pass it on to Qualcomm (and until recently, Apple was receiving a rebate for some of it in exchange for exclusivity).

Also I doubt anyone is going to ban the iPhone over SEPs.

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#12

Post by newusertoday »

esMazer wrote: post #9
Declanomous wrote: post #5

Given how important standards are in the realm of computers, I think the degree of protection patents provide is ludicrous. Patents ostensibly exist to benefit society while allowing the inventor to benefit from their invention. I feel like in the digital world the balance has tipped too far in favor of the inventor. If we look to the industrial revolution for example, we have the conversion of linear motion to recip…

this is an excellent analogy!

so when apple uses its patents to sue samsung or get import ban it is alright but when the company that invented the tech before apple even sold phones asks for royalties it's theft?

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#14

Post by Declanomous »

logicallee wrote: post #10
Declanomous wrote: post #5

Given how important standards are in the realm of computers, I think the degree of protection patents provide is ludicrous. Patents ostensibly exist to benefit society while allowing the inventor to benefit from their invention. I feel like in the digital world the balance has tipped too far in favor of the inventor. If we look to the industrial revolution for example, we have the conversion of linear motion to recip…

>Functionally, these patents are effectively more like patenting the concept of changing linear motion into rotational motion than patenting a particular mechanism for doing so. And one thing is clear: if the industrial revolution had started 20 years later due to some over-broad patent on a whole class of devices, then today we would be lawless cavepeople without electricity. I mean just think it through! Surely wha…

Well it's entirely possible that if overly broad patents had killed the initial market for steam engines the industrial revolution could have been delayed far longer than 20 years, or perhaps not have even happened at all.

For instance, the Romans had toys that used steam, but the technology never made the leap to a productive use in the form of steam engines. One theory is that the vast use of slave labor in Rome meant that there was no economic impetus for the discovery of labor saving technologies. By the time the market was right for labor saving technology the basic technology used in the toy had largely been forgotten.

Another example is metallurgy in pre-Columbian America. To our knowledge, the Native Americans in North America never developed the technology to melt, smelt, cast or alloy metals. This was despite the fact that bronze alloys had been in use in the old world for over 6000 years by the time Columbus landed on the New World, and iron smelting had been in use for nearly 2500 years.

Innovation and invention do not exist in a vacuum. They are closely tied to the time and place where they occurred. So, yes, it would be entirely possible that electricity never would have existed if patent law was different 200+ years ago.

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#15

Post by Retric »

logicallee wrote: post #10
Declanomous wrote: post #5

Given how important standards are in the realm of computers, I think the degree of protection patents provide is ludicrous. Patents ostensibly exist to benefit society while allowing the inventor to benefit from their invention. I feel like in the digital world the balance has tipped too far in favor of the inventor. If we look to the industrial revolution for example, we have the conversion of linear motion to recip…

>Functionally, these patents are effectively more like patenting the concept of changing linear motion into rotational motion than patenting a particular mechanism for doing so. And one thing is clear: if the industrial revolution had started 20 years later due to some over-broad patent on a whole class of devices, then today we would be lawless cavepeople without electricity. I mean just think it through! Surely wha…

The lazer was patented after several products had hit the market. So, each single patent might block 20 years, but it's easy for a cluster of bad patents to block progress indefinitely.

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#16

Post by tracker1 »

Glyptodon wrote: post #2

So... is obligatory patent licensing subject to patent exhaustion? If so, what prevents a 3rd party factory from building chips and licensing tech, then selling chips and becoming the only party to pay royalties, and only on the cost of the chips, rather than on the final product? Is there some kind of legal differentiation of patent exhaustion based on who the purchaser is?

That would have definitely improved the state of things for the likes of BluRay software playback... Not to mention most electronics where software is a huge part of interaction.

I'm hoping we see some serious reduction in patents in the next few years, including compulsory licensing models for several sectors (namely medical/pharma).

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#17

Post by MBCook »

I'm an Apple fan and agree with their position here... but isn't this close to Apple's claim against Android or Samsung? That Apple's patents around touch screens are so important that they should get a cut of the full phone?

I think Apple's position against Android or Samsung was much stronger than Qualcomm's against Apple... but I see a sneaky similarity and they appear to be switching sides.

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#18

Post by Glyptodon »

tracker1 wrote: post #16
Glyptodon wrote: post #2

So... is obligatory patent licensing subject to patent exhaustion? If so, what prevents a 3rd party factory from building chips and licensing tech, then selling chips and becoming the only party to pay royalties, and only on the cost of the chips, rather than on the final product? Is there some kind of legal differentiation of patent exhaustion based on who the purchaser is?

That would have definitely improved the state of things for the likes of BluRay software playback... Not to mention most electronics where software is a huge part of interaction. I'm hoping we see some serious reduction in patents in the next few years, including compulsory licensing models for several sectors (namely medical/pharma).

I'm not sure I see how it would have much to do with BluRay at all, at least for playback of encrypted content, as I think that's all about licensing non-patent IP and agreeing to non-patent-related contractual terms.

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#19

Post by Glyptodon »

petra wrote: post #8
Glyptodon wrote: post #2

So... is obligatory patent licensing subject to patent exhaustion? If so, what prevents a 3rd party factory from building chips and licensing tech, then selling chips and becoming the only party to pay royalties, and only on the cost of the chips, rather than on the final product? Is there some kind of legal differentiation of patent exhaustion based on who the purchaser is?

>> what prevent a 3rd party factory from building chips and licensing tech ..? Quallcom. they could dictate the licensing agreement such that the phone maker also has to license it.

Only if that's part of the standard compulsory license agreement, and if any such agreement somehow gets around patent exhaustion. Which is more or less what I was curious about.

Re: What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple

#20

Post by Animats »

wyldfire wrote: post #7

> There is pretty much no way that Qualcomm could ever get an injunction to stop sales of iPhones... Qualcomm is planning to ask the federal government to ban imports of iPhones. This is the technology equivalent of a Hail Mary pass. It was unclear from the article why this is a Hail Mary, so I looked it up. It initially seemed to me that if Qualcomm offers Apple a licensing agreement, Apple agrees to it, and later d…

If Apple manufactured in the US, they could rely on eBay vs. MercExchange. But Apple imports from China. The rules for imports are tougher. That's handled by the International Trade Commission.[1] ITC cases take about a year, and if Qualcomm wins, iPhone imports will be seized at Customs. ITC rules favor American manufacturers fighting illegal imports. Qualcomm could win this.

To bring an ITC case, you have to be manufacturing the thing in the US, which Qualcomm does; they make and sell cellular radio ICs. ITC proceedings are thus not available to "patent trolls". This deals with most of the usual complaints about patents.

ITC actions are entirely about blocking imports. There's no issue of what's a "reasonable royalty". Qualcomm can just say "no imports". The Trump administration might view this as a win, as it would force Apple to manufacture in the US.

[1] https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellect...

Post reply on HN