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

71–80 of 96 posts

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

#71

Post by Twisell »

ksec wrote: post #42
ChuckMcM wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sho…

There is another lawsuit in which Apple and chipmakers are both plaintiffs against Qualcomm. But it’s overly complicated with cross appeal all over the place. It’ll probably end up with a settlement and this specific case should be seen as leverage for Qualcomm and nothing else. I don’t think an US iPhone ban could actually be enforced in forseable future.

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

#72

Post by Angostura »

jcranmer wrote: post #54
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

Here is a brief guide to reading patents: * Ignore the title, it will only confuse you. * Ignore the abstract, it will only confuse you. * Ignore the figures, it will only confuse you. * Ignore the description, it doesn't matter. * Jump straight to the claims (the only thing left in the patent). This is literally the only thing that matters in the entire document. * Ignore most of the claims--anything that says "the…

I for one thank you - I found this a very useful comment

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

#73

Post by Angostura »

gpm wrote: post #38
dkonofalski wrote: post #23

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…

What you say about the guidebook and rounded corners is (afaik, don't actually recall the guidebook part of the case but I do know they won on some other patents as well) true, but it doesn't change the fact that one of the things Apple did win on was "Apple patented rounded corners". The patent that literally just consisted of rounded corners, not the rest of the stuff, was upheld as a valid patent and Samsung was f…

Its worth pointing out that this protection was a Design Patent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent) which despite the name is quite different from a utility patent - it basically allows decorative doohickeys to be protected.

Coke's curvy bottle is covered by a design patent, for example.

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

#74

Post by oflannabhra »

gpm wrote: post #27
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…

I wouldn't Florian Mueller as far as I could throw him. He has a long history of being a paid shill, lying about it, and being flat out wrong. (Paid by oracle) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103 (Paid by microsoft) http://techrights.org/2012/08/18/vile-lobbyist/ (Paid by apple? I can't find other/primary sources to back up this claim though it does seem likely.) https://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21…

I was unaware of his history of bias. Is there another source who reports as in depth on the proceedings as he does?

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

#75

Post by oflannabhra »

neya wrote: post #20
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.

I was unaware of his history of bias. Is there another source who reports as in depth on the proceedings as he does?

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

#76

Post by oflannabhra »

AtlasLion wrote: post #66
neya wrote: post #20

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.

I'm really impressed people are still listening to this guy, he has been outed multiple times before. http://techrights.org/2010/08/21/florian-blames-ibm-for-deat...

Do you have another source you can recommend?

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

#77

Post by Marsymars »

Angostura wrote: post #73
gpm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you say about the guidebook and rounded corners is (afaik, don't actually recall the guidebook part of the case but I do know they won on some other patents as well) true, but it doesn't change the fact that one of the things Apple did win on was "Apple patented rounded corners". The patent that literally just consisted of rounded corners, not the rest of the stuff, was upheld as a valid patent and Samsung was f…

Its worth pointing out that this protection was a Design Patent ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent ) which despite the name is quite different from a utility patent - it basically allows decorative doohickeys to be protected. Coke's curvy bottle is covered by a design patent, for example.

Was covered. Coke's bottle design patents have been expired for close to 70 years or more.

I had to look this up, because I figured there was somehow a risk that Coke had managed to get century-long patents in America.

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

#78

Post by gpm »

fxfan wrote: post #67
gpm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't Florian Mueller as far as I could throw him. He has a long history of being a paid shill, lying about it, and being flat out wrong. (Paid by oracle) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103 (Paid by microsoft) http://techrights.org/2012/08/18/vile-lobbyist/ (Paid by apple? I can't find other/primary sources to back up this claim though it does seem likely.) https://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21…

There is no source on 'paid by microsoft'. The article you linked just links another (dead) article. Please quote original sources, not 'he said she said'

Here's the original source for oracle: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraclevGoogle-1236.pdf

The original source for Microsoft is Mueller: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of...

I elected to not link the first because most people dislike being linked to court documents, and the second because it contains no context. I did check both existed before I posted this.

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

#79

Post by gpm »

oflannabhra wrote: post #74
gpm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't Florian Mueller as far as I could throw him. He has a long history of being a paid shill, lying about it, and being flat out wrong. (Paid by oracle) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103 (Paid by microsoft) http://techrights.org/2012/08/18/vile-lobbyist/ (Paid by apple? I can't find other/primary sources to back up this claim though it does seem likely.) https://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21…

I was unaware of his history of bias. Is there another source who reports as in depth on the proceedings as he does?

Sadly, not that I'm aware of. Prior to 2013 I would have said groklaw - so if you're ever looking for historical articles (and court documents) I can recommend it.

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

#80

Post by [deleted] »

Angostura wrote: post #73
gpm wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you say about the guidebook and rounded corners is (afaik, don't actually recall the guidebook part of the case but I do know they won on some other patents as well) true, but it doesn't change the fact that one of the things Apple did win on was "Apple patented rounded corners". The patent that literally just consisted of rounded corners, not the rest of the stuff, was upheld as a valid patent and Samsung was f…

Its worth pointing out that this protection was a Design Patent ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent ) which despite the name is quite different from a utility patent - it basically allows decorative doohickeys to be protected. Coke's curvy bottle is covered by a design patent, for example.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN