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

61–70 of 96 posts

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

#61

Post by tyingq »

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…

The point is that it isn't novel. Novelty is supposed to be a requirement for a patent claim to be patentable. This patent is like making a drink by mixing 4 different fruit juices, but stirring it with a teak spoon. No identical prior art, very specific claims. Not novel.

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

#62

Post by GeekyBear »

rudedogg wrote: post #5

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"?

Apparently, the EU has started yet another preliminary antitrust investigation into Qualcomm's behavior over this.

http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/09/qualcomm-facing-additiona...

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

#63

Post by sneak »

tyingq wrote: post #61
jcranmer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The point is that it isn't novel. Novelty is supposed to be a requirement for a patent claim to be patentable. This patent is like making a drink by mixing 4 different fruit juices, but stirring it with a teak spoon. No identical prior art, very specific claims. Not novel.

The patent office has been granting technology patents for non-novel things for ages, sadly. There does not appear to be any fix for it, as it even ensnares one of the world’s richest companies. Presumably there would need to be consequences to the government for granting non-novel patents, and there appear to be none.

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

#65

Post by Twisell »

saidajigumi wrote: post #29
gvb wrote: post #15

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/…

How is Qualcomm's approach supposed to work under US patent law? That Qualcomm made no money seems immaterial – either they licensed (e.g.) Intel to use their IP, or they didn't. In the former case, patent exhaustion should apply and Qualcomm is out of luck. In the latter, it again seems that Intel is the infringer, not Apple or any other Intel-using handset maker. Put another way: I'm looking for a clear statement o…

Actually there are multiple suits worldwide against Qualcomm exactly because this business model is in question. Plaintiffs are Apple, chipmakers, regulations agency, and many concurrents if not plaintifs supported case against Qualcomm. Apple was countersued in part as a defense mechanism.

In the long run today decision have probably more chances than not to be reverted.

Even if he should not be considered indépendant, I always take a tour to Florian Mueller blog to have a broader context when a new like that pop out http://www.fosspatents.com

Ps: and be sure to actually read the article his titles are often very misleading/ironic/cryptic.

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

#66

Post by AtlasLion »

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'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...

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

#67

Post by fxfan »

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…

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'

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

#68

Post by kurthr »

tyingq wrote: post #61
jcranmer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The point is that it isn't novel. Novelty is supposed to be a requirement for a patent claim to be patentable. This patent is like making a drink by mixing 4 different fruit juices, but stirring it with a teak spoon. No identical prior art, very specific claims. Not novel.

Well, I kinda agree, but in that case it should be easy for the defendant to find prior art that meets the elements of the claim or to modify their implementation to avoid the teak spoon. That they haven't makes me wonder if they find some novel utility in the teak spoon.

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

#69

Post by tsimionescu »

gleenn wrote: post #51
chrischen wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like Qualcomm is just pulling its arsenal of patents out to fire some small shots...

Some small billion dollar shots

At Apple's level, they're probably only concerned with these amounts like that famous government spending admonition - I understand it's just a billion dollars, but a billion here, a billion there, soon we'll start talking about real money.

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

#70

Post by reacweb »

gvb wrote: post #15
rudedogg wrote: post #5

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/…

IANAL but I feel this has sense. The patents focus generally on high level aspects. The chips are more and more versatile and integrates more and more features. As a result, a chip can be used in a way that does not violate patents but has the potential to be used in infringing ways. If you want to tax the chip maker, you have to take into account these potential uses. The development of versatile chips would be discouraged.
Post reply on HN