Qualcomm Says It Won Case Banning Sale of Older iPhones in China (bloomberg.com) 67
Qualcomm says it has won a ruling in China against Apple that bans the sale of some iPhone models in that country. From a report: The Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled that Apple is infringing two Qualcomm patents and issued injunctions against the sale of the iPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X, the San Diego, California-based chipmaker said in a statement Monday. The most recent models introduced in September, the iPhone XS, XR and XS Max, are not covered by the ban.
Re:Don't worry! (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents make everything better! Imagine trying to be a startup competitor to Qualcomm - ha, the USPTO will maintain their market dominance for them, no matter how bad the security is on their baseband radios. Which is interesting, because high-clearance individuals also use those phones. Even Intel is having trouble inventing around what Qualcomm got to first.
Re:Don't worry! (Score:4, Interesting)
I do find it hard to believe that it's impossible to design around Qualcomm's patents. It may merely be expensive and difficult, but I suspect that has to do with the nature of the industry and the limited number of individuals capable of producing meaningful work within it.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, patents should have variable term lengths depending on the industry. At this rate, each generation of wireless is patent-encumbered the whole time it's current-gen and beyond.
Re: (Score:1)
you trade one problem (market dominance by patent holder) for another (market dominance by large established manufacturers) and I'm not sure there's an argument for the latter being ultimately better than the former.
Odd...seems like we have both those problems right now
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Don't worry! (Score:2)
No they're asking that China ignore some of the shadier dealings of Qualcomm. For those that have been following the case Qualcomm has a questionable way of licensing patents. Normally you pay for a license directly or you buy a product from a licensee that paid for a license. For example if you want an ARM chip you can pay ARM directly and have a chip made by a foundry or you buy a chip from the likes of Samsung, TI, NVidia, etc.
That's not Qualcomm's model. You must pay for chip from a 3rd party AND you h
Re: Don't worry! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't design around an idea, then they made a GOOD patent. Qualcomm actually produced something of intellectual value. Good on them. So either A) Pay the man, B) Produce something that's a shoddy knockoff, or C) Invent your own *** **** stuff. If you don't want do to either of those three, you don't belong in business.
Side note. I acknowledge the abuse of the patent system for obviously/overly broad patents in general. While this case in particular does not seem to fit that issue. It is a fundamenta
Re: (Score:1)
D: Get enough legal power so the patent can be invalidated.
The funny thing is that I don't feel much sympathy for Apple, especially their scorched earth patent campaigns where they are not letting anyone else license their stuff, forcing other companies to sue back or go under. Microsoft just asked for their $3/device, people paid them, and now, their biggest source of income is Linux based stuff because of this. Had Apple done this, likely this whole Qualcomm mess would never have happened.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
If you can't design around an idea, then they made a GOOD patent. Qualcomm actually produced something of intellectual value. Good on them. So either A) Pay the man, B) Produce something that's a shoddy knockoff, or C) Invent your own *** **** stuff. If you don't want do to either of those three, you don't belong in business.
Side note. I acknowledge the abuse of the patent system for obviously/overly broad patents in general. While this case in particular does not seem to fit that issue. It is a fundamental patent needed by modern communications equipment, that however, does not mean it is obvious, it means it is VALUABLE.
Being able to put something into a semi-sleep state to save energy (same as battery life) is not obvious? I'm pretty sure that VCRs and TVs have been doing this since the invention of the remote control. It's similar to the patents the people complain about where they take an idea and add "but on a computer" and then patent it....
Re: (Score:2)
I am not informed enough on the specific aspects of this patent to judge the obviousness of it, nor do I want to be. But I would agree that Qualcomm should have to defend itself against that accusation in court.
But....... I will disagree with your blanket argument that "but on a computer" patents are inherently faulty. Applying tried and true ideas to a new problem is a valuable innovation. It can both create true value and be non-obvious. Perhaps a higher hurdle is needed but a blanket dismissal of that
Re: Don't worry! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gee, I "power up" when I must transmit information to others. Receiving I can generally be in partial sleep at my desk but then "power up" to receive the )&(*^% information from that fellow that won't leave me alone. I've been doing this all my life that I can recall. I'm just glad this behavior wasn't obvious to anybody else...with a pulse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Don't worry! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did mobile radios not do this before 2011? Did we not used to have phones with small batteries and weeks of standby time?
Re: Don't worry! (Score:2)
Apple has already found a workaround on their new models, so, yeah, there are workarounds.
Re: Don't worry! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With cellular communications in particular:
1. The CDMA patents granted are fairly broad. It was very novel at the time so one can see why it was granted but it covers a very large swath of "communicating over airwaves".
2. The actual transmission of data through public frequency bands is regulated (in the US by the FCC but other countries have their equivalents). This cuts down on the degrees of freedom wireless protocols can have.
Huawei (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Is this a coincidence that this injunction has occurred just in the last week since the VP at Huawei Technologies was arrested in Canada, British Columbia. Is this a tit for tat?
Qualcomm also stated: (Score:2)
All your base are belong to us.
China? The IP thief? Wuh? (Score:1)
China has courts that judge patents? Isn't this the same China that thumbs it's nose at Intellectual Property laws and makes high-volume low-quality copies of any and all products?
Re: (Score:2)
I know this is hard to believe, but that court in East Texas that hears patent cases and this Chinese court are actually the same court. It's a secret agreement they do not want you to know about...now you know!
Probably can't twist iPhones, so no iPhones (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The simplest and most obvious answer is China is pissed about the woman in Canada being arrested. Get the popcorn out if she gets extradited to the US. This is going to get ugly very fast if Canada/US cannot find a way to let her go and save face. Imagine if Taiwan snagged Ivanka and was prepping to give her to the mainland.
Re: (Score:2)
Qualcomm is an American company. They are trying to turn the screws on Apple any way they can.
It's the same tactic that Apple used with Samsung a few years back when there was a patent dispute over rounded corners. Sue in multiple jurisdictions.
Missing details; nothing actually banned (Score:4, Informative)
What's missing from the summary is the fact that, in addition to not covering this year's models, this injunction doesn't bar sales of any iPhone running iOS 12, which is the latest version of iOS. Given that every model Apple currently sells can be updated to iOS 12 (and were likely being sold with iOS 12 installed, straight out of the box, even prior to this ruling), Apple has issued a statement making it clear that all iPhones remain available for purchase in China. I.e. This injunction did absolutely nothing at all.
As for what Qualcomm's patents are/were covering, MacRumors' article [macrumors.com] indicates they were used to "adjust and reformat the size and appearance of photos", for "managing applications using a touch screen when viewing and navigating apps", and a third patent of which has apparently already been invalidated in court.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple's lawyers were successful in delaying the proceedings until their new models were ready to ship.
I want to say something about it being easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, but it seems it's even easier to delay rulings in the legal system until the plaintiff's claim is no longer relevant.
Makes sense now (Score:1)