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

Apple Violated Qualcomm Patent, U.S. Trade Judge Rules

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 96 posts

Re: Apple Violated Qualcomm Patent, U.S. Trade Judge Rules

#11

Post by gimmeThaBeet »

rudedogg wrote: post #5

Why is Qualcomm suing Apple instead of Intel? The article makes it sound like Apple switched to using Intel chips due to the license fees. If Intel is infringing, wouldn't they be responsible? Or does the law allow you to go after "customers"?

If I'm not mistaken, Qualcomm usually licenses with the handset maker, and not necessarily with the component companies in the case of mobile phones?

My understanding was that Qualcomm is going after Apple because they think Apple is sort of the principal infringer, i.e. they gave Intel access to the infringing IP. But I don't know, maybe they just pursuit all parties in the name of thoroughness.

Re: Apple Violated Qualcomm Patent, U.S. Trade Judge Rules

#12

Post by baybal2 »

rudedogg wrote: post #5

Why is Qualcomm suing Apple instead of Intel? The article makes it sound like Apple switched to using Intel chips due to the license fees. If Intel is infringing, wouldn't they be responsible? Or does the law allow you to go after "customers"?

It is the bizarre legal doctrine in that country that pretty much blesses patent owners doing that with the exact goal of enhancing patent owner earnings, and disruptive power.

Re: Apple Violated Qualcomm Patent, U.S. Trade Judge Rules

#14

Post by krastanov »

spocklivelong wrote: post #2

It looks like outline does not support this article. This is probably the first time I've seen that.

I have always found it somewhat questionable to use a service like outline for paid content... I am very much against DRM services, but DRM-free advocacy efforts are hampered by people flocking to services like outline instead of paying for the content they want to consume (and content creators are pushed to embrace consumer-hostile DRM measures as well).

Re: Apple Violated Qualcomm Patent, U.S. Trade Judge Rules

#15

Post by gvb »

rudedogg wrote: post #5

Why is Qualcomm suing Apple instead of Intel? The article makes it sound like Apple switched to using Intel chips due to the license fees. If Intel is infringing, wouldn't they be responsible? Or does the law allow you to go after "customers"?

"Qualcomm’s business model, which is either ingenious or diabolical depending on whom you talk to, is to allow any chip company to use its technology royalty-free. Phone manufacturers can choose to buy chips from Qualcomm or one of the other five companies that make modems using Qualcomm’s technology. Either way, they (the phone manufacturers) still have to pay Qualcomm its 5 percent."

Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-04/apple-and...

Re: Apple Violated Qualcomm Patent, U.S. Trade Judge Rules

#16

Post by oflannabhra »

I follow Florian Mueller (@FOSSPatents) for his take on most of the Qualcomm v Apple litigation (including the recent FTC antitrust case). He seems to be somewhat anti-Qualcomm (although that might just be based on his perception of their likelihood of winning). His take: [0]

> ITC judge disagrees with ITC staff, sides with Qualcomm against Apple: one patent held infringed, import ban recommended; but patent likely invalid

> Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) MaryJoan McNamara just announced an initial determination ("initial" means the parties can seek a Commission review, and a final ruling is still four months off) according to which Apple is deemed to infringe one of three Qualcomm patents-in-suit... In my observation, decisions by ITC judges that run counter to staff recommendations are virtually certain to be reviewed and more likely than others to be reversed.

Also, the patent is for "multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors" and is currently being reviewed by the USPTO for validity.

[0] - http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/03/itc-judge-disagrees-with-...

Re: Apple Violated Qualcomm Patent, U.S. Trade Judge Rules

#17

Post by writepub »

rudedogg wrote: post #5

Why is Qualcomm suing Apple instead of Intel? The article makes it sound like Apple switched to using Intel chips due to the license fees. If Intel is infringing, wouldn't they be responsible? Or does the law allow you to go after "customers"?

Why not? Remember Apple suing Samsung, other phone manufacturers instead of Google? For "pinch to zoom" type patents?

Re: Apple Violated Qualcomm Patent, U.S. Trade Judge Rules

#18

Post by MagicPropmaker »

krastanov wrote: post #14
spocklivelong wrote: post #2

It looks like outline does not support this article. This is probably the first time I've seen that.

I have always found it somewhat questionable to use a service like outline for paid content... I am very much against DRM services, but DRM-free advocacy efforts are hampered by people flocking to services like outline instead of paying for the content they want to consume (and content creators are pushed to embrace consumer-hostile DRM measures as well).

Apparently this upstanding moral armchair-lawyer on Hacker News wants to comment on an IP theft case by stealing intellectual property! (I'm with you. I pay for my WSJ and don't complain about commercial news sources I don't pay for.)

Re: Apple Violated Qualcomm Patent, U.S. Trade Judge Rules

#19

Post by monocasa »

TomMarius wrote: post #9
icebraining wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a cursory reading, Apple was found guilty based on their importation of infringing devices, under section 337 of the Tariff Act.

I thought Intel technology is considered trade secret, how is the customer supposed to know?

Apple probably had access to nearly all of Intel's IP on the matter, software source, RTL, etc

Re: Apple Violated Qualcomm Patent, U.S. Trade Judge Rules

#20

Post by neya »

oflannabhra wrote: post #16

I follow Florian Mueller (@FOSSPatents) for his take on most of the Qualcomm v Apple litigation (including the recent FTC antitrust case). He seems to be somewhat anti-Qualcomm (although that might just be based on his perception of their likelihood of winning). His take: [0] > ITC judge disagrees with ITC staff, sides with Qualcomm against Apple: one patent held infringed, import ban recommended; but patent likely i…

Florian Mueller is very anti-Google and pro-Apple and has been since the last decade throughout the infamous era of "war against android" by Steve Jobs - Samsung vs Apple, Apple vs HTC, Apple vs Google, Oracle vs Google and many others.
Post reply on HN