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

81–90 of 96 posts

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

#81

Post by tooltalk »

ksec wrote: post #42
ChuckMcM wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a lawyer, so this may be all incorrect and you certainly shouldn't rely on it as legal advice! 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…

>Apple continues to push the patent exhaustion angle saying they don't owe anything. Thanks for the pointer, will look it up when I have time. But is that what they are really pushing though? I don't seems to read anything in regards to this. Apple has a dispute with pricing, and whether it should be charged a flat rate instead of % of devices. But I don't see Apple trying to argue for patent exhaustion and Intel sho…

> Apple has a dispute with pricing, and whether it should be charged a flat rate instead of % of devices.

No. Apple isn't saying it should be charged a "flat rate," but that a percentage rate should be based on the price of component, ie, modem, not system, ie, smartphone. According to documents/testimony revealed during the last trial, before the 4G license hike, Apple was on average paying $7.50 per device, but Apple "wanted" to pay $1.50 for Qualcomm's entire wireless portfolio, a bargain considering how much Apple had asked for a handful of frivolous utility/design patents from Samsung, around $7.0 for each patent per device.

Again, it's common wireless industry practice embraced by wireless participants for decades now. Apple is way late to the game and is trying to change the rule of the game to maximize their bottom line.

Apple's past legal challenge to change this has fallen flat, so this time around Apple is using the FTC as proxy to fight their battle. While Apple's hometown judge Koh surprisingly had given Apple an upper hand on this as JML (pretrial judgement as matter of law), this would be appealed and, many expect Koh's biased, flawed theory to be reversed.

> I don't see Apple trying to argue for patent exhaustion and Intel should be paying for it.

Apple has in fact been arguing "patent exhaustion" and that Intel should also be able to license at component-level, against the industry convention where royalties are collected at device/system level. Koh's decision was obviously in Apple's favor, but again this remains to be seen. Qualcomm is not going to take this lying down since this cuts into their most profitable licensing business.

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

#82

Post by tooltalk »

dkonofalski wrote: post #33
paulgb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there things they copied from the guidebook that you feel are more valid subjects of patent protection than rounded edges?

Maybe not individually, but, as a collection of choices, absolutely. Considering that most phones from Samsung, at that time, had a physical keyboard and were more like Blackberry devices, I think it's incredibly telling that their next iteration was a full-screen, touch-based device with a single button at the bottom and rounded corners. The guidebook wasn't simply about the physical design either. It included large…

>Considering that most phones from Samsung, at that time, had a physical keyboard and were more like Blackberry devices, I think it's incredibly telling that their next iteration was a full-screen, touch-based device with a single button at the bottom and rounded corners.

https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-ju...

Please see the link above. There are plenty of evidence to indicate that Samsung had released touch screen phones before Apple and had considered a few dozen other designs in the pipeline. The problem here was that again both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to bring anything that would confused the jury on trade dress and design patent infringement parts of the lawsuit. Apple suddenly changed their mind and turned in the "benchmarking" paper by Samsung. When Samsung turned their defense in, Apple's judge Lucy Koh said no.

> Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer.

ever heard of LG Prada?

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

#83

Post by tooltalk »

Marsymars wrote: post #77
Angostura wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its worth pointing out that this protection was a Design Patent ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent ) which despite the name is quite different from a utility patent - it basically allows decorative doohickeys to be protected. Coke's curvy bottle is covered by a design patent, for example.

Was covered. Coke's bottle design patents have been expired for close to 70 years or more. I had to look this up, because I figured there was somehow a risk that Coke had managed to get century-long patents in America.

No. design patents only last 15 years. Coke's bottle design I believe is protected under trade dress/mark, which allows Coke's unique design to be protected in perpetuity.

https://www.upcounsel.com/trade-dress:

"When deciding whether to obtain a trade dress trademark, a design patent, or both, you should first consider what each protects:

Design patent - protects the design of a product giving you exclusivity over the design for a certain period. Even if you don't manufacture or sell the product, you are still protected by a design patent. Trade dress - protects your investment in marketing and advertising where you have created a particular image for your product, and consumers exclusively associate that image with your product. As design patents and trade dress protect different things, the requirements are different for both:

Design patent - the design firstly has to be new and cannot be a variation of a design that already exists. The design must also be ornamental in nature, rather than purely functional. That said, it can have some functionality. Trade dress - a trade dress must be something that is distinctive and connects the consumer to the product, i.e. the consumer instantly recognizes the source of the trade dress. Unlike a design patent, it cannot be functional in any way. Design features that have a function should be protected with a design patent."

Do note that all of Apple's 'trade dress' claims were thrown out because of their failure to meet "non-functionality"/ornamental requirement.

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

#84

Post by Angostura »

Marsymars wrote: post #77
Angostura wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its worth pointing out that this protection was a Design Patent ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent ) which despite the name is quite different from a utility patent - it basically allows decorative doohickeys to be protected. Coke's curvy bottle is covered by a design patent, for example.

Was covered. Coke's bottle design patents have been expired for close to 70 years or more. I had to look this up, because I figured there was somehow a risk that Coke had managed to get century-long patents in America.

I stand corrected. Thank you.

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

#85

Post by chrischen »

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

Are these billion dollar lawsuits? The one that Apple lost so far was only for about 30 million—basically a pellet gun shot. Apple's the one seeking billions in rebates which is probably why Qualcomm is shooting back.

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

#86

Post by wbl »

tyingq wrote: post #58
jcranmer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it improves on existing practice even if someone would have thought of trying it it is patentable. Think of a steel with a particular alloying element: only 92 to pick from!

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

#87

Post by tooltalk »

Twisell wrote: post #71
ksec wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Apple continues to push the patent exhaustion angle saying they don't owe anything. Thanks for the pointer, will look it up when I have time. But is that what they are really pushing though? I don't seems to read anything in regards to this. Apple has a dispute with pricing, and whether it should be charged a flat rate instead of % of devices. But I don't see Apple trying to argue for patent exhaustion and Intel sho…

There is another lawsuit in which Apple and chipmakers are both plaintiffs against Qualcomm. But it’s overly complicated with cross appeal all over the place. It’ll probably end up with a settlement and this specific case should be seen as leverage for Qualcomm and nothing else. I don’t think an US iPhone ban could actually be enforced in forseable future.

I think you are referring to Apple and Apple's CMs (contract manufacturers) lawsuit against Qualcomm?

These are really one single lawsuit orchestrated by Apple. The issue isn't overly complicated -- they are essentially refusing to pay Qualcomm licensing fees for their wireless patents on the ground that Qualcomm's licensing practice is in violation of antitrust laws. Thus, their claims rest heavily on the outcome of the FTC case.

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

#88

Post by tooltalk »

reacweb wrote: post #70
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/…

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 disc…

Well, you are talking about something else.

The baseband chips only handle wireless communication and these are really special purpose chips. We are not talking about Qualcomm's SOC, ie Snapdragon, GPU, AI chips, etc,.. these are not in the scope of this lawsuit (or licensing).

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

#89

Post by jcranmer »

wbl wrote: post #86
tyingq wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If it improves on existing practice even if someone would have thought of trying it it is patentable. Think of a steel with a particular alloying element: only 92 to pick from!

But what if I want to alloy steel with livermorium?

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

#90

Post by fxfan »

gpm wrote: post #78
fxfan wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'

Here's the original source for oracle: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraclevGoogle-1236.pdf The original source for Microsoft is Mueller: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of... I elected to not link the first because most people dislike being linked to court documents, and the second because it contains no context. I did check both existed before I posted this.

Wow you're shamelessly stretching the definition. He particularly worked on a study commissioned by Microsoft. That does not make him a paid shill
Post reply on HN