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

41–50 of 96 posts

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

#41

Post by tooltalk »

dkonofalski wrote: post #34
tooltalk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think you're thinking of something different. The "guidebook" that I'm referring to was an internal Samsung document that Apple was able to get its hands on during the trial discovery period that showed pages of hardware and software features of the iPhone along with the progress Samsung had made on copying those features. It included the touchscreen and also the UI of the OS. (Edit: Not exactly it but this makes t…

Sure, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Evaluating/comparing/benchmarking your competitors is something that everyone, including Apple, does daily.

Now, my understanding is that both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to present any evidence from the "trade dress" part of the lawsuit that might mislead the jury's ruling on other part of the lawsuit (eg, design patent infringement). Apple waited until the last minute to submit the 140+page document. Samsung in response submitted theirs, but was rejected. Samsung's lawyer Quinn went a bit batsh*t crazy at this point (https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-ju...).

This kind of shenanigan went on over and over again throughout the trial -- for example, see again Mueller's comment on adversal jury instruction that was granted to Apple, but not Samsung because Samsung's motion (or "me too" complaint as Mueller described) was filed after the supposed deadline that never existed, or just two days after Apple had filed theirs. (this was reversed after a brief public uproar).

You know it wasn't pure coincidence that the FTC brought the Qualcomm case to Lucy Koh's desk in Apple's backyard.

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

#42

Post by ksec »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #30
ksec wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet someone claimed that Qualcomm cannot receive patent license fees from manufacturers who use Qualcomm chips. “First up are the Return Program cartridges that Lexmark sold in the United States. We conclude that Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in these cartridges the moment it sold them. The single-use/no-resale restrictions in Lexmark's contracts with customers may have been clear and enforceable under cont…

I am not a lawyer, so this may be all incorrect and you certainly shouldn't rely on it as legal advice! The term you are looking for is "Patent exhaustion" which is a system whereby the first person who makes the device incorporating the patent is on the hook to pay fees/royalties but then you can resell it and the person buying it doesn't have to pay the patent fees again, because they were "exhausted" in the first…

>Apple continues to push the patent exhaustion angle saying they don't owe anything.

Thanks for the pointer, will look it up when I have time.

But is that what they are really pushing though? I don't seems to read anything in regards to this. Apple has a dispute with pricing, and whether it should be charged a flat rate instead of % of devices. But I don't see Apple trying to argue for patent exhaustion and Intel should be paying for it.

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

#43

Post by [deleted] »

MagicPropmaker wrote: post #18
krastanov wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

[deleted]

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

#44

Post by tyingq »

rl3 wrote: post #37

The patent in question is for "Multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors, and it sounds ridiculous on the face of it. Upon cursory glance, that appears to be the case.[0] 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. [0] https://patents.google.com/patent/US8063674B2/en

Oh, geez. It really does look like a patent for (paraphrased):

A method for reducing power consumption by detecting a power-on of a second supply voltage while a first supply voltage is already on and adjusting current draw from the first supply as a result

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

#45

Post by saidajigumi »

tooltalk wrote: post #35
saidajigumi wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The common industry practice is to collect royalties at the end of the supply chain -- from smartphone OEMs. So, SEP holders, Qualcomm, Ericsson, Nokia, etc, usually don't after each other or chip makers for royalties. Now, Apple's judge, Lucy Koh, in a pretrial decision last year, declared that Qualcomm is obligated to license their SEPs to all willing licensees under ATI/TIS FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discrimi…

I'm not sure if patent exhaustion applies since QTL (licensing) and QTC (chip-making) are technically two separate business entities (subsidiaries).

I wasn't aware of that; that's quite interesting. But it's unclear whether it affects exhaustion, in that QTL would still have (or have not) licensed Intel (or QTC). So either (Intel or QTC) have a license and exhaustion applies, or they do not, and are the actual infringers.

Now, the law being the law, "the actual infringers" is not going to be a strict legal concept, but in some areas of law and/or some jurisdictions, there are legal structures that produce similar outcomes – where a suit cannot be brought against someone one or more "jumps" away, e.g. just to find a defendant with deeper pockets. I'm absolutely out of my depth re: US patent law on this topic, except that it seems insane for a patent holder to be able to sue all the users of an infringing product. But then patent law so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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

#46

Post by marshray »

tyingq wrote: post #44
rl3 wrote: post #37

The patent in question is for "Multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors, and it sounds ridiculous on the face of it. Upon cursory glance, that appears to be the case.[0] 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. [0] https://patents.google.com/patent/US8063674B2/en

Oh, geez. It really does look like a patent for (paraphrased): A method for reducing power consumption by detecting a power-on of a second supply voltage while a first supply voltage is already on and adjusting current draw from the first supply as a result

In my 1972 Ford Maverick, I could turn on the headlights and the lighting in the interior console would adjust accordingly.

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

#47

Post by chrischen »

rl3 wrote: post #37

The patent in question is for "Multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors, and it sounds ridiculous on the face of it. Upon cursory glance, that appears to be the case.[0] 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. [0] https://patents.google.com/patent/US8063674B2/en

Sounds like Qualcomm is just pulling its arsenal of patents out to fire some small shots...

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

#48

Post by openloop »

rl3 wrote: post #37

The patent in question is for "Multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors, and it sounds ridiculous on the face of it. Upon cursory glance, that appears to be the case.[0] 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. [0] https://patents.google.com/patent/US8063674B2/en

Thank you.

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

#49

Post by tyingq »

marshray wrote: post #46
tyingq wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, geez. It really does look like a patent for (paraphrased): A method for reducing power consumption by detecting a power-on of a second supply voltage while a first supply voltage is already on and adjusting current draw from the first supply as a result

In my 1972 Ford Maverick, I could turn on the headlights and the lighting in the interior console would adjust accordingly.

My 80's boombox did this in a pretty binary way. Plugging in the AC adapter mechanically lifted the contact to the batteries. Still a detection followed by a current draw adjustment.

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

#50

Post by judge2020 »

tyingq wrote: post #49
marshray wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my 1972 Ford Maverick, I could turn on the headlights and the lighting in the interior console would adjust accordingly.

My 80's boombox did this in a pretty binary way. Plugging in the AC adapter mechanically lifted the contact to the batteries. Still a detection followed by a current draw adjustment.

Watch out, Qualcomm is going after you next.
Post reply on HN