Qualcomm Asks China To Ban the iPhone XS and XR (theverge.com) 53
After securing a win in court earlier this week to ban Apple's older phones, Qualcomm is trying to get the newer iPhones banned too. "According to the Financial Times, Qualcomm has now asked Chinese courts to issue an injunction that bans Apple from selling the iPhone XS, XS Max, and XR within the country due to the same case of possible patent infringement," reports The Verge. From the report: The new filing will escalate the companies' legal conflict in China, where Apple has so far ignored a court-ordered sales ban. Apple claims the ban only applied to phones running iOS 11 and earlier. Since its phones have now been updated to iOS 12, Apple believes they can remain on sale, and so it has continued to sell them. According to the Financial Times, the Chinese court's order doesn't specifically mention any version of Apple's operating system. That doesn't necessarily mean Apple is wrong, but it does mean that there's more to be hashed out.
Re: (Score:2)
well, it's not so clear cut. Qualcomm has gamed the patent system and made it very near impossible to develop an alternative radio that doesn't infringe which is legal, but douchey. Then, they have the power to push their patent portfolio as standards ensuring the next generation is locked up the same way. That's monopoly.
It doesn't mean it's ok for Apple to ignore the patents (and the law), but it does suggest that the government modify the system so that this type of monopoly isn't allowed to form up.
Re: Omg you are dumb (Score:1)
You want -good- patents but not the -bad- kind that lead to monopoly?
A patent, by definition, is a government granted monopoly for a period of time in exchange for publicly sharing the details of the invention.
You are a complete fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a troll vs troll fight. Remember the Samsung lawsuit over rounded corners? I think it's high time Apple got to cough up some too.
Re: (Score:2)
I dare say, that every single US company is going to have problems in China from now on, none will escape, and any Chinese business doing any favours to a US company will earn a bad social media score. Trade wars start at the top and then spread down and end consumers also trade war ban products. It doesn't even have to be overt it will affect the psychology and judgement of all those involved, negatively. Patent and copyright cases are sure to become really messy. US no longer stands for United States not
Re: (Score:2)
So, I keep hearing folks claim that this trade war is bad for us. Let me ask, should we instead continue to bend over and take it up the ass as China steals more IP, manipulates currency, and does more (http://www.govtech.com/security/204318661.html) cyber attacks on the U.S.? China is not our friend, and until they start acting more responsibly (South China Sea, Tibet, etc.) they should not be treated as such.
What a joke (Score:5, Funny)
Of course China is really big on enforcing Patent Infringement isn't it ?
Re: (Score:2)
It grows their own Communist approved brands with every sale.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course China is really big on enforcing Patent Infringement isn't it ?
Why not? [ft.com] Very soon, Americans will be complaining about Chinese patent trolls.
The United States used to violate other countries' intellectual properties left and right [google.com], after it developed its industry and economy, the U.S. developed into the patent trolling business.
Re: (Score:1)
So, it's not really a patent issue... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Trade wars lead to protectionist trade policies"
So, you're content with the status quo?
Baseband Alliance needed (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be good to see all the big phone players get together to produce a secure open radio platform that could be masked out by whatever fab wants to run the job for a given integration.
I mean, this is commodity today - phone vendors haven't competed on reception quality in over a decade. They gain more by making the radio a commodity together than they do by playing Qualcomm's bitches.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue here is that Qualcomm says Apple gave some of it's secrets to Intel, to help Intel make better modems for the iPhone. Even if the patents covering 4G are available for everyone to use (which they are under RAND terms, basically everyone gets to licence them for a nominal fee or in exchange for licencing their own patents) that doesn't meant Apple can give away trade secrets that help the Qualcomm parts perform better.
Simple solution to this (Score:5, Interesting)
Require "industry standards" to be:
0). Approved by the FCC AND
a). Based on royalty-free technology OR
b). State a simple, VOLUME-BASED royalty structure.
The more devices you sell, the more you pay - perhaps on a regressive scale. The price of the device should be irrelevant. Pay patent owners based on what THEY are selling not the device-makers.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Simple solution to this (Score:2)
Too ambiguous.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much what the standards are. They require all patents relating to the standard to be offered under "RAND" (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory) terms, meaning typically a simple per-device royalty.
Apple has two problems with this. Firstly, often instead of a royalty the manufacturer has their own patents that they offer in exchange and no money changes hands. Apple doesn't have any patents to trade, all theirs are design stuff like rounded corners and UI elements, not the kind of thing that a mo
Re: (Score:2)
0 doesn't make sense because the FCC operates in the US and is headed by the biggest moron in the tech world.
The problem with A is that is that companies that currently invest billions of dollars per year in R&D to develop the standards will stop. They'll wait until someone else does the work and then just implement it. If we took this approach we would still be waiting on LTE, not even dreaming about deploying 5G which has already begun in some areas.
B is a bit more reasonable, but then device makers w
Re: Qualcomm should ask China to ban Huawei (Score:2)
China has no interest in the US-Russia proxy war over Iran.
As a Canadian (Score:2, Interesting)
As a Canadian, I can tell you that *There is no rule of law in China*. There is no independent court in China. Every court decision is a directive by the politbureau. Here is how I know. A few days ago, the US asked Canada to detain a Huawei C.F.O. for extradition. Canada did. China does not seem to realize that Canada has laws, and judges are involved, not politicians. Since that time, China has illegally detained two Canadians (the second just yesterday). Yet China keeps demanding politicians in Ca
Xi's Document 9 emphasizes the rule of law (Score:2)
As a tool to do what the Party dictates.
But you are right. It is probably inconceivable that a Canadian court could be independent of the Canadian government. Simply does not compute.
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with political pressure. The US and Canada cooperate on many things, including keeping an eye out for people that the other nation wants arrested. It's not done willy-nilly, and the Canadian court isn't going to get "political pressure" from anyone in the U.S. So LOL away, but know that you're full of shit too.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but how is the unilateral US any better? They quit the nuclear agreement with Iran, against the opinion and will of all of its "allies" including Canada. Now Canada is helping the US in intimidating the world to get its way w.r.t. Iran, and Canada is an accomplice by collaborating the the extradition. I hope, as much as I dislike China and some of its practices, that Canada will pay be severe price for this, and the USA former allies will finally come to reason and quit helping the US against their o