21–30 of 96 posts
Another source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-26/apple-inf...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qualcomm-apple/china-cour...
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.
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…
He seems to have knowledge of court procedures than the knowledge of actual cases where he appears either biased or incompetent. I don't know which is worse.
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…
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/…
“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 contract law, but they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell.” Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1523, 1531 (2017)
“First, Univis held that ‘the authorized sale of an article which is capable of use only in practicing the patent is a relinquishment of the patent monopoly with respect to the article sold.’ Id., at 249, 62 S.Ct. 1088. The lens blanks in Univis met this standard because they were ‘without utility until [they were] ground and polished as the finished lens of the patent.’ Ibid. Accordingly, ‘the only object of the sale [was] to enable the [finishing retailer] to grind and polish it for use as a lens by the prospective wearer.’ Ibid. Here, LGE has suggested no reasonable use for the Intel Products other than incorporating them into computer systems that practice the LGE Patents.[6] Nor can we discern one: A microprocessor or chipset cannot function until it is connected to buses and memory. And here, as in Univis, the only apparent object of Intel's sales to Quanta was to permit Quanta to incorporate the Intel Products into computers that would practice the patents.” Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, 128 S.Ct. 2109, 2119 (2008)
I am no expert in law except Qualcomm cannot receive patent license fees from manufacturers who use Qualcomm chips just sounds utter non sense to me.
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…
(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/apples-paid-shillconsultant-....
(More examples of him being wrong) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257
Refuting legal arguments takes time and expertise I don't have. He's good at his job, and I have no knowledge about this case. So while I put no faith whatsoever in his analysis I can't tell you how it is wrong, and yes this is an ad hominem.
(This is a copy and paste from my previous comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332647)
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…
Just so you understand, the "guidebook" or benchmarking your competitors' product is nothing special in any industry. That piece of evidence was submitted at the last minute for the trade dress part of the lawsuit and Samsung also tried to present theirs in response, but was rejected on procedural ground (on "untimeliness").
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/…
Put another way: I'm looking for a clear statement of what legal theory is Qualcomm using in its attempt to leapfrog the chip manufacturer and bring patent suit against handset makers?
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/…
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…
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 transaction.
Imagine if you had to repay all the patent holders for stuff in a car when you bought it used. Not practical.
Qualcom has created what they believe is a new system where they "forego" royalties from the person who makes the chip and instead charge the person who designs in the chip, in this case Apple. Apple continues to push the patent exhaustion angle saying they don't owe anything.