Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Qualcomm wins preliminary China import ruling against some iPhone models

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 77 posts

Re: Qualcomm wins preliminary China import ruling against some iPhone models

#41

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

eganist wrote: post #30
ballenf wrote: post #13

So in some recent version of ios 12, Apple changed the way they resize photos and manage applications on screen to get around Qualcomm's patents. It would be fascinating to see just what features on which devices are missing due to patents as opposed to the manufacturer not wanting to do it. Sure, most of the time the features can be designed in a non-infringing way, but that takes additional resources that might mak…

That same argument could be levied against all patents more generally, and as a result, I don't think it really helps the anti-software-patent cause. Physical patents have been licensed for this reason (to avoid the r&d of alternative methods) since nearly the advent of patents.

Are patent holder obliged to license a patent?

Re: Qualcomm wins preliminary China import ruling against some iPhone models

#42

Post by [deleted] »

zackmorris wrote: post #36

Does anyone know if there is a software license that bans software patents? So for example if a large majority of open source projects adopted it on sites like GitHub, especially at the OS level, it would begin to squeeze out patented software. Maybe a clause for the ban could be added to the next version of the most commonly used software licenses. My personal feeling on software patents is that nearly all algorithm…

[deleted]

Re: Qualcomm wins preliminary China import ruling against some iPhone models

#44

Post by monocasa »

konschubert wrote: post #31
eganist wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That same argument could be levied against all patents more generally, and as a result, I don't think it really helps the anti-software-patent cause. Physical patents have been licensed for this reason (to avoid the r&d of alternative methods) since nearly the advent of patents.

The hard thing in software is not idea, but execution. Patents that patent trivial ideas are nothing but roadblocks. Edit: There are some ideas in software that were non-obvious. Algorithms and protocols. Those might make sense to be patent-able.

Algorithms should be the least patenable as math is explicitly not granted patent protections.

Re: Qualcomm wins preliminary China import ruling against some iPhone models

#45

Post by joshstrange »

dis-sys wrote: post #11
entity345 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees usually get RSUs when they get a patent filed and granted, and that's it.

For Qualcomm, it seems that you get $1500 USD when your patent is filed and another $1500 USD when granted. I guess one can pocket more rewards once your patent is proven to be more valuable to the company. The question is how much and in what form.

> I guess one can pocket more rewards once your patent is proven to be more valuable to the company. The question is how much and in what form.

I doubt most companies are going to further compensate employees for this. And Qualcomm doesn't strike me as super loyal to their employees but I might be wrong.

Re: Qualcomm wins preliminary China import ruling against some iPhone models

#46

Post by throwy67i4 »

onetimemanytime wrote: post #23

IMO: Trade war Courts in China are not independent, let's be honest. Hurting Apple, the crown jewel, is a warning to USA (even if Qualcomm is US based) Edit: also see Huawei CFO getting jailed etc etc. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-05/huawei-cf... China answered....with hundreds of billions in market cap for Apple.

And what if Qualcomm had lost this lawsuit?

I’m sure there would be people saying, “This is a political move against an American company. No way would a Chinese judge rule in favor of an American company right now.”

Re: Qualcomm wins preliminary China import ruling against some iPhone models

#47

Post by throwy67i4 »

enraged_camel wrote: post #22
dis-sys wrote: post #9

Qualcomm got this win because of two patents relate to software. For their inventors, they are probably not working on Qualcomm's core business (licensing and modem), wondering what will happen to them? An email from their superiors saying "well done and thank you", a cash bonus maybe some extra RSU, a promotion or maybe nothing? Anyone has experience on this?

No, they won because they wanted to retaliate against the USA arresting a top Huewei executive.

Retaliate by awarding an American company a favorable judgement and enforcing American IP laws?

Re: Qualcomm wins preliminary China import ruling against some iPhone models

#48

Post by zackmorris »

aey wrote: post #37
zackmorris wrote: post #36

Does anyone know if there is a software license that bans software patents? So for example if a large majority of open source projects adopted it on sites like GitHub, especially at the OS level, it would begin to squeeze out patented software. Maybe a clause for the ban could be added to the next version of the most commonly used software licenses. My personal feeling on software patents is that nearly all algorithm…

Apache 2.0 is pretty good. If the licensee sues for any patent infringement they loose all Apache 2.0 licenses in that product. But it is hard to defend against trolls that are not shipping any code themselves.

Thanks I didn't know that. For those interested, here are the top 5 results I found from searching "apache 2 license software patent" on duckduckgo.com:

https://opensource.com/article/18/2/how-make-sense-apache-2-...

https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1881/against-...

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences...

https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html

Edit: looks like Apache 2 is compatible with GPLv3 but only in one direction. So if an Apache 2 work is derived from a GPLv3 work then it must be distributed under GPLv3 as well. Personally I've always preferred the MIT license over the GPL because I feel that the emergent effects of the spread of free software are more important than any incentive to create free software, but I might switch to Apache 2 now.

I wonder if there is any precedent from other cases where a company sued a competitor but the case was thrown out because the plaintiff was ruled to not really be a competitor (because it never sold anything).

Re: Qualcomm wins preliminary China import ruling against some iPhone models

#49

Post by Retric »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #41
eganist wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That same argument could be levied against all patents more generally, and as a result, I don't think it really helps the anti-software-patent cause. Physical patents have been licensed for this reason (to avoid the r&d of alternative methods) since nearly the advent of patents.

Are patent holder obliged to license a patent?

In some situations yes, but generally no.

Re: Qualcomm wins preliminary China import ruling against some iPhone models

#50

Post by Nomentatus »

zackmorris wrote: post #36

Does anyone know if there is a software license that bans software patents? So for example if a large majority of open source projects adopted it on sites like GitHub, especially at the OS level, it would begin to squeeze out patented software. Maybe a clause for the ban could be added to the next version of the most commonly used software licenses. My personal feeling on software patents is that nearly all algorithm…

You're going to get a lot of answers that say "yes" but don't answer your question: because there are a lot of licenses that require (or imply) free licensing of all relevant patents BOTH hardware and software patents. However these licenses have led to countless billions being spent recreating such GPLish software as open software under a more liberal license.
Post reply on HN