Apple in Advanced Talks to Buy Intel’s Smartphone-Modem Chip Business

Post by olliej » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 5:41 PM UTC

sunstone wrote: post #7

olliej wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone already has to pay a % of the end device whether or not they use Qualcomm parts, regardless of the cost of the device. Because Qualcomm is only interested in “standards” where they are the only provider so get to cut anyone who doesn’t accept their novel interpretation of FRAND

If I'm not mistaken Qualcomm recently lost the lawsuit related to their licensing process. Not sure if it's in appeals now or not though.

Post by scarejunba » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 6:13 PM UTC

samdoidge wrote: post #74

londons_explore wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could argue that perhaps the computer shouldn't have built in WiFi either - after all, it could tether to a phone (via a cable or Bluetooth) to use wi-fi. Except WiFi modems are cheap because there is lots of competition and most of the patents are easy to license, so everything has WiFi now.

For me to have 4G access, I need to connect to a network, and for that I need to pay. I currently do this through my phone which I need to be connected when there is no wifi more than my laptop. Is the price of 4G access low enough to have this on my laptop in addition to my phone? Not currently.

Post by kennywinker » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 7:26 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #111

kennywinker wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think apple has a particularly bad track record with abusing patents... they’ve used them in big ip battles with major competitors who also used patents against them, never to crush small innovators that I am aware of.

I think they are quite infamous in this regard, like going after rounded corners, "slide to unlock" and similar trivial ideas that not only have prior art, but shouldn't be even patentable to being with. So I don't have any trust in them not abusing any new patents. Small innovators are often simply too worried to enter some markets due to this. Because they don't have the arsenal of big competitors to fend off paten…

Post by rhymer » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 8:06 PM UTC

throwaway2048 wrote: post #115

Spooky23 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with Apple margins, the cellular radio adds like $150 to an iPad. The technical issues are accommodating it with the design decisions made. Personally, I think it’s a smarter decision to make the iPhone/iPad pairing model low friction, as Apple has. This is also a small/minority use case. LTE laptops are a very small product category — nobody wants to add a cellular plan. This feature will only matter if carrier…

The only reason it adds $150 is the ridiculousness surrounding Qualcomm licensing.

Post by kennywinker » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 8:22 PM UTC

shmerl wrote: post #126

kennywinker wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you remember the early samsung galaxy phones? They were blatant ripoffs of all the original design apple was doing in the phone space. From the basic form factor down to small interactions. You can argue that slide-to-unlock should not be patentable (I agree) but if it is, using it to deter your largest competitor from cloning your product is actually what patents are supposed to be for... i.e. come up with your o…

Whether they were a rip off or not, I won't argue (I use neither Samsung, nor Apple and I don't see such style aspects to be a required matter of exclusivity). But Apple didn't hesitate to attack using trivial (which means invalid) patents like that. The end doesn't justify the means. Just because they thought they were ripped off, doesn't excuse their abuse of the broken patent system. Next thing they can imagine th…