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

51–60 of 96 posts

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

#51

Post by gleenn »

chrischen wrote: post #47
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...

Some small billion dollar shots

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

#52

Post by herniatedeel »

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

Both the patent and the finding of patent infringement are a bit more complicated than that.

In order for a finding of patent infringement, one or more claims of the patent must be infringed.

Claim 1 recites:

A multiple supply voltage device comprising:

a core network operative at a first supply voltage; and

a control network coupled to said core network wherein said control network is configured to transmit a control signal, said control network comprising: an up/down (up/down) detector configured to detect a power state of said core network;

processing circuitry coupled to said up/down detector and configured to generate said control signal based on said power state;

one or more feedback circuits coupled to said up/down detector, said one or more feedback circuits configured to provide feedback signals to adjust a current capacity of said up/down detector;

at least one first transistor coupled to a second supply voltage, the at least one more first transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered down and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered on;

at least one second transistor coupled in series with the at least one first transistor and coupled to said first supply voltage, the at least one second transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered on and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered down;

at least one third transistor coupled in series between the at least one first transistor and the at least one second transistor.

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

#53

Post by tyingq »

herniatedeel wrote: post #52
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

Both the patent and the finding of patent infringement are a bit more complicated than that. In order for a finding of patent infringement, one or more claims of the patent must be infringed. Claim 1 recites: A multiple supply voltage device comprising: a core network operative at a first supply voltage; and a control network coupled to said core network wherein said control network is configured to transmit a contro…

That's what I paraphrased, other than it involves 3 transistors wired in a way that accomplishes that.

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

#54

Post by jcranmer »

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

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 thing of claim N". You can't violate those without violating other parts of the patent, by definition. The Google patent view helpfully puts these in lighter gray.

* You can also generally go straight only to the first claim, because the other claims end up being subtly-reworded variations of the first claim.

* This claim is, in short, "A thing comprising A, B, and C." You have to have all of A, B, and C to violate the patent. If you have just A and B and no C, you don't violate it. If you have A, B, and something that is similar to C but you used a relay where C says to use a transistor, you don't violate it.

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

#55

Post by jcranmer »

tyingq wrote: post #53
herniatedeel wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both the patent and the finding of patent infringement are a bit more complicated than that. In order for a finding of patent infringement, one or more claims of the patent must be infringed. Claim 1 recites: A multiple supply voltage device comprising: a core network operative at a first supply voltage; and a control network coupled to said core network wherein said control network is configured to transmit a contro…

That's what I paraphrased, other than it involves 3 transistors wired in a way that accomplishes that.

If you don't have 3 transistors wired in a way that accomplishes that, you don't violate the patent. (Actually, at least 2 transistors, the other two independent claims cover cases where you replace the third transistor with something else). You don't violate a patent by violating a loose summary of the patent, you have to specifically violate the claims in full.

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

#56

Post by kattuviriyan »

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

Yes. Like "bounce to scroll" by Apple.

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

#57

Post by jacobolus »

jcranmer wrote: post #55
tyingq wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I paraphrased, other than it involves 3 transistors wired in a way that accomplishes that.

If you don't have 3 transistors wired in a way that accomplishes that, you don't violate the patent. (Actually, at least 2 transistors, the other two independent claims cover cases where you replace the third transistor with something else). You don't violate a patent by violating a loose summary of the patent, you have to specifically violate the claims in full.

Or in pictures, this circuit is the prior art: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/c5/d0/e9/e4eedeb...

And these circuits are what they are patenting: (a) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/91/c4/35/775214e... (b) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a1/66/be/985aac1... (c) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a8/93/45/09b4add...

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

#58

Post by tyingq »

jcranmer wrote: post #55
tyingq wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what I paraphrased, other than it involves 3 transistors wired in a way that accomplishes that.

If you don't have 3 transistors wired in a way that accomplishes that, you don't violate the patent. (Actually, at least 2 transistors, the other two independent claims cover cases where you replace the third transistor with something else). You don't violate a patent by violating a loose summary of the patent, you have to specifically violate the claims in full.

Yes. I'm claiming that's not novel. I wouldn't try and patent a 2 stage amp with an optional 3rd stage either.

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

#59

Post by [deleted] »

judge2020 wrote: post #50
tyingq wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#60

Post by monochromatic »

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

Do the claims sound ridiculous? Because I'm guessing you have not even looked at the claims...
Post reply on HN