31–40 of 96 posts
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"?
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I'm also pro-Apple in most of these scenarios, I just think he appears pro-Apple and anti-Google because he has a better understanding of the situations than most laypeople. Most people who don't have a deep understanding of the topic at hand, for example, think that the Apple vs. Samsung case came down to "Apple patented rounded corners" whereas the reality is that Samsung literally had a guidebook of thing…
Are there things they copied from the guidebook that you feel are more valid subjects of patent protection than rounded edges?
(Edit: Not exactly what I was looking for but this is part of it: https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evalua...)
In other words, I'd give the benefit of the doubt if an automaker released an electric car with a trunk in the front and the back. If they released an electric car with a single touchscreen console and no dashboard, a front and back trunk, a panoramic glass roof, and bladed wheels, I'd think that they were ripping off the Model 3 from Tesla. A lot of what the iPhone did was simply a natural evolution of what was happening. Even more of it, though, was a leapfrog of combined technologies that surpassed every other phone out on the market. Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I'm also pro-Apple in most of these scenarios, I just think he appears pro-Apple and anti-Google because he has a better understanding of the situations than most laypeople. Most people who don't have a deep understanding of the topic at hand, for example, think that the Apple vs. Samsung case came down to "Apple patented rounded corners" whereas the reality is that Samsung literally had a guidebook of thing…
Not necessarily.. I've been following him since Samsung's battle with Apple in early 2010's. His lopsided depiction of the legal proceedings (see his commentary on Judge Grewal's adversal jury instruction on Samsung and how he belittled Samsung's response) or the evidence -- the "guidebook" you cited -- that Apple was able to get away with, but not Samsung. Just so you understand, the "guidebook" or benchmarking your…
(Edit: Not exactly it but this makes the point I was after: https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evalua...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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/…
How is Qualcomm's approach supposed to work under US patent law? That Qualcomm made no money seems immaterial – either they licensed (e.g.) Intel to use their IP, or they didn't. In the former case, patent exhaustion should apply and Qualcomm is out of luck. In the latter, it again seems that Intel is the infringer, not Apple or any other Intel-using handset maker. Put another way: I'm looking for a clear statement o…
I'm not sure if patent exhaustion applies since QTL (licensing) and QTC (chip-making) are technically two separate business entities (subsidiaries). I'm assuming this is all legit, since Apple had funneled their IP and oversea profit to Irish subsidiaries to avoid taxes for years -- meaning they were treated as entirely separate businesses. Qualcomm also argued that QC's patent portfolio goes beyond chip-making and there are other wireless technologies that are not embedded in the baseband chip (hence no exhaustion). The USFTC's lawsuit against Qualcomm ended about a month ago and now we are all patiently awaiting for Koh's decision.
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…
It's kind of surreal that two large tech companies who design and produce technology of staggering complexity are in a dispute over something so simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Although I'm also pro-Apple in most of these scenarios, I just think he appears pro-Apple and anti-Google because he has a better understanding of the situations than most laypeople. Most people who don't have a deep understanding of the topic at hand, for example, think that the Apple vs. Samsung case came down to "Apple patented rounded corners" whereas the reality is that Samsung literally had a guidebook of thing…
The patent that literally just consisted of rounded corners, not the rest of the stuff, was upheld as a valid patent and Samsung was found to be infringing it. Theoretically, if Samsung hadn't violated any other Apple IP, the court should still have found them to be infringing the rounded corners patent.
This is worth ridiculing, and outlines the state of the patent system, which clearly needs adjusting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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.
>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.
Well, they are two separate issues.. If you are familiar with GT Advanced Tech or had any past experience working with Apple as a supplier, it's not difficult to see why Apple and Qualcomm are here. TLDR, Apple doesn't want to pay; claims Qualcomm is overcharging and Qualcomm is a monopoly.
Apple is also known for making onerous demands to supplier for winning their iPhone order. In this case, Apple demanded Qualcomm's source code for their chipset and now Qualcomm alleges that Apple gave QC's trade secret to Intel, who is now Apple's baseband supplier.