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

21–30 of 61 posts

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

#21

Post by wyldfire »

Animats wrote: post #20
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 man…

> it would force Apple to manufacture in the US.

But wouldn't a decision to support the ITC injunction just bring Apple back to the negotiating table? Seems hard to believe that Qualcomm would go scorched earth on a customer like that. Especially one from whom it's getting big royalties from.

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

#22

Post by logicallee »

Declanomous wrote: post #14
logicallee wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 me…

>Well it's entirely possible that if overly broad patents had killed the initial market for steam engines

yep, it's entirely possible that overly broad patents would have completely killed all innovation in the 20th century and we would not have electricity, internal combustion, patent medicines, flight, and in fact we would probably be flinging feces at each other. We would have probably forgotten how to read and write, under too broad of a patent regime.

(Sorry I'm dripping with sarcasm again, the statement I quoted you making is just so ridiculously wrong.)

By the way as wrong as you are, don't you think you should expand on your wrongness by at least trying to apply a wrong analysis of patent law to Roman times? Can't you at least speculate that somehow your wrong ideas are what kept the Romans from having an industrial revolution of their own?

I know they didn't have a patent law but for the sake of the narrative can't you lie and say they had very broad patents which completely stifled innovation? It would help your comment hang together better than your historical example from societies that did not have the benefit of patent law.

Just make the argument, somehow, that patents are what led firstly to the Roman civilization never developing internal combustion, electricity, modern metallurgy, or a host of modern inventions, and, secondly, maybe you could somehow expand the lie to show that the patent regime is what caused their downfall as a civilization. I know you could work it in there. you're already so wrong, it really is within your reach. just try your best.

Thank you for standing up for innovation. I think we can all agree that lying and being wrong about truth and history is a small price to pay in exchange for preventing our grandchildren from growing up in an illiterate world without electricity and where they have to eck out a living scrawling modern art out of feces. clearly this is where broad patents lead, and the fact that history has never shown this to be the case is just a coincidence.

Is the fact that something has never happened a good reason to believe that it doesn't happen inevitably, and all the time?

No, it just means that as a society we've been incredibly lucky. Like astronomically. It's all been one lottery win after another after another - the whole industrial revolution and all of the twentieth century. It can't go on forever.

We need to take a stand against (broad) patents. They lead to the exact opposite of what they have been shown to lead to in every society that has ever had them. What happens is NOT descriptive of what happens.

Only a fool would study history to see how things happen. Much better would be to write some lies about patent law in Roman times. I look forward to reading it.

(sorry about my tone - you're just so wrong, I can't reply in any other way.)

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

#23

Post by IBM »

MBCook wrote: post #17

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.

The Apple patents in question weren't SEP and aren't subject to FRAND terms.

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

#24

Post by logicallee »

Retric wrote: post #15
logicallee wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

great example! It's probably why the Laser was never commercialized and is not used anywhere in anything. Good example.

(/s - sorry. your example is a great example of patents working exactly and precisely like they should. I have a cheap and perfect laser in my mouse next to me right now, that's perfect and great and cost its manufacturer pennies. couldn't have picked a worse example.)

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

#25

Post by rhino369 »

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…

I've come to the same conclusion you have re: software patents. And it is the courts' fault. The use of functional language in patent claims is allowed without applying means-plus-funtion case law.

If you say "engine means for creating torque" in your patent claim, when you try to enforce your claim the court will look at the actual engine you disclosed in your patent's specification. You can't disclose a crank and flywheel and then assert it against sun and planet.

But if you call it an "engine module configured to provide torque" courts will let you assert that claim against pretty much anything vaguely like an engine that provides torque.

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

#26

Post by asafira »

Not to hijack this thread (ok, maybe to hijack this thread), does anyone know how Qualcomm is doing? It always seemed to me that their processors never really caught up to Apple's tech (with almost all benchmarks), and I was wondering if it had to do with the company just not doing so well nowadays (people leaving, etc.)

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

#27

Post by josaka »

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 phenomenon, where the need to license a patent is driven primarily by the need to comply with standard, rather than the advantages of the invention relative to alternatives, is accounted for in recent changes in the law of patent damages. See https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=175128776687856....

Under this 2015 case, the patent owner gets less money if people just use their patent to comply with the standard, and not because it's a better way of doing something.

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

#28

Post by Animats »

wyldfire wrote: post #21
Animats wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 man…

> it would force Apple to manufacture in the US. But wouldn't a decision to support the ITC injunction just bring Apple back to the negotiating table? Seems hard to believe that Qualcomm would go scorched earth on a customer like that. Especially one from whom it's getting big royalties from.

Cisco has done that to Arista in the past. Apple has done that to Samsung. Samsung tried to do it to Apple, but Obama overruled that. (The President can block ITC injunctions.)

Usually what happens is a very fast settlement by the infringing party.

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

#29

Post by Retric »

logicallee wrote: post #24
Retric wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

great example! It's probably why the Laser was never commercialized and is not used anywhere in anything. Good example. (/s - sorry. your example is a great example of patents working exactly and precisely like they should. I have a cheap and perfect laser in my mouse next to me right now, that's perfect and great and cost its manufacturer pennies. couldn't have picked a worse example.)

"Finally, in 1987, Patlex won its first decisive enforcement victory, against Control Laser corporation, a manufacturer of lasers.[29] Rather than be bankrupted by the damages and the lack of a license to the technology, the board of Control Laser turned ownership of the company over to Patlex in a settlement deal"

I am not sure that's working as intended in any way shape or form, considering the invention was "Gould's name for the device was first introduced to the public in a conference presentation in 1959"

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

#30

Post by logicallee »

Retric wrote: post #29
logicallee wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

great example! It's probably why the Laser was never commercialized and is not used anywhere in anything. Good example. (/s - sorry. your example is a great example of patents working exactly and precisely like they should. I have a cheap and perfect laser in my mouse next to me right now, that's perfect and great and cost its manufacturer pennies. couldn't have picked a worse example.)

"Finally, in 1987, Patlex won its first decisive enforcement victory, against Control Laser corporation, a manufacturer of lasers.[29] Rather than be bankrupted by the damages and the lack of a license to the technology, the board of Control Laser turned ownership of the company over to Patlex in a settlement deal" I am not sure that's working as intended in any way shape or form, considering the invention was "Gould…

oh I see, by "indefinitely", where you wrote,

>it's easy for a cluster of bad patents to block progress indefinitely

you meant like from 1959 to 1987. Sure is indefinitely. Imagine, if the world had ENDED in 1988 or 1989, then the world never would have gotten a patent-free laser.

/s - nothing else to reply to you. get some perspective before throwing words like indefinitely around. I remember when I was 12 I thought like 4 years ago was an eternity ago, I poo-poo'd books published more than 2 or at the most 3 years ago and I thought everything was instantly out of date.

turns out societies actually operate on a different timescale from 12 year-olds.

but otherwise everything you wrote makes sense. and if the world were to end in the next 24 months, then a lot of patent-encumbered technologies simply will NEVER be brought to market by certain companies, due to patents and patents alone.

I absolutely do believe that. The only thing is that I plan on the world existing longer than this time-frame - but if not, you're totally right and a lot of technology is being held back. only time will tell which of us is right.

Post reply on HN