Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Iphone The Courts Intel Apple

Qualcomm Accuses Apple of Stealing Trade Secrets and Giving Them To Intel (betanews.com) 100

Posted by msmash from the he-said-she-said dept.
Mark Wilson writes: Chip-maker Qualcomm has today accused Apple of stealing trade secrets and sharing them with Intel. The company alleges that Apple wanted Intel to be able to improve its own chips so it could move away from using Qualcomm's. Qualcomm and Apple are already engaged in a legal battle, and with its latest accusations, the chip-maker wants the court to amend its existing lawsuit against the company. Apple stands accused of engaging in a 'multi-year campaign of sloppy, inappropriate and deceitful conduct'. In the new filings, Qualcomm says that upon Apple's request it allowed the iPhone maker deep access to its software and tools, but with strict limits on how those products could be used. It said, "Indeed, it is now apparent Apple engaged in a years-long campaign of false promises, stealth and subterfuge designed to steal Qualcomm's confidential information and trade secrets for the purpose of improving the performance of lower-quality modem chipsets, with the ultimate goal of eliminating Qualcomm's Apple-based business."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Qualcomm Accuses Apple of Stealing Trade Secrets and Giving Them To Intel More

Qualcomm Accuses Apple of Stealing Trade Secrets and Giving Them To Intel

Comments Filter:

  • "Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it." - George Costanza

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Qualcomm to Intel: Stop using our move

      Intel: Oh, that modulation was *so* obvious. We would have figured it out anyway. We didn't need Apple to tell us that stupid twist.

      Qualcomm: Swirl

      Intel: Whatever, we don't do it anyway

  • Apple stands accused of engaging in a 'multi-year campaign of sloppy, inappropriate and deceitful conduct'.

    Duh. What multi-billion dollar company isn't [rightfully] accused of this?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Costco

  • If Apple handed Qualcomm's Trade Secrets over to Intel, don't you think that Intel would have delivered a better-performing MODEM than what is evidently in the iPhone Xs and Xs Max?

    Intel's not THAT stupid. If someone handed them those secrets, they have enough smart people to implement them. So, I submit that Qualcomm's allegations are as trumped-up as most of their Patents.

    Qualcomm is just a damned cry-baby. And an evil greedy one at that!

    Next iPhone will have an APPLE-Designed MODEM. Apple doesn't put up

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Probably not documents marked "top secret, property of Qualcomm", but having had a close relationship for years and probably designed certain aspects of the iPhone around Qualcomm parts when it came to getting Intel to provide a suitable modem some of that built up knowledge leaked out.

      "We did it this way with Qualcomm, it worked better..." and the NDA was just violated. Which is why NDAs are generally a bad idea but you can't avoid them when designing stuff like this.

      • Probably not documents marked "top secret, property of Qualcomm", but having had a close relationship for years and probably designed certain aspects of the iPhone around Qualcomm parts when it came to getting Intel to provide a suitable modem some of that built up knowledge leaked out.

        "We did it this way with Qualcomm, it worked better..." and the NDA was just violated. Which is why NDAs are generally a bad idea but you can't avoid them when designing stuff like this.

        I would think that the "knowledge" would have to be SOLELY QUALCOMM's to begin with for it to be considered a "Trade Secret". No NDA can keep Apple from revealing knowledge that IT has generated, or that was developed in concert by Apple and Qualcoimm.

        For example, If Apple engineers take Qualcomm's part and then find out ON THEIR OWN that it works better when they adjust the antenna-impedance by a certain amount that isn't suggested in Qualcomm's documentation, THAT knowledge does not magically transmogrify

    • Not that I believe Qualcomm but it Is possible that Apple stole some tech and gave it to Intel and that Intel's implementation is less than adequate. After all, it's not a guarantee that any tech was complete or that Intel can use the tech adequately. The capacitor plague problem of the early 2000s was caused by partially stolen IP.

      • Not that I believe Qualcomm but it Is possible that Apple stole some tech and gave it to Intel and that Intel's implementation is less than adequate. After all, it's not a guarantee that any tech was complete or that Intel can use the tech adequately. The capacitor plague problem of the early 2000s was caused by partially stolen IP.

        I fully believe that the capacitor debacle was caused by INTENTIONALLY-INCORRECT formulas placed where they could be easily found.

        For example, when Eli Lilly publishes a Patent for some drugmaking process, they INTENTIONALLY include unnecessary steps, JUST to make the process more EXPENSIVE for the competition to COPY.

        But in this case, I think that Qualcomm is simply lying through their teeth, and want to try and force Apple to "prove a negative".

    • Next iPhone will have an APPLE-Designed MODEM

      Is it going to work as well as the Apple chargers that overheat and the Apple phones that explode?

      • Next iPhone will have an APPLE-Designed MODEM

        Is it going to work as well as the Apple chargers that overheat and the Apple phones that explode?

        Show me an Apple RELEASED Wireless Charger that overheats, AND an EXPLODING iPhone (that means not just smoking or bulging; but a VERIFIED EXPLOSION.

    • Intel's not THAT stupid. If someone handed them those secrets, they have enough smart people to implement them. So, I submit that Qualcomm's allegations are as trumped-up as most of their Patents.

      No Intel is not that stupid. If Apple delivered proprietary information to it - it would simply hand it over to Qualcomm with a pointer to where it came from. That way they are perfectly innocent. If they took and used proprietary information that they didn't have rights to, Qualcomm would simply sue the pants off of Intel as well.

      • Intel's not THAT stupid. If someone handed them those secrets, they have enough smart people to implement them. So, I submit that Qualcomm's allegations are as trumped-up as most of their Patents.

        No Intel is not that stupid. If Apple delivered proprietary information to it - it would simply hand it over to Qualcomm with a pointer to where it came from. That way they are perfectly innocent. If they took and used proprietary information that they didn't have rights to, Qualcomm would simply sue the pants off of Intel as well.

        Well, curiously enough, Qualcomm was stupid enough to NOT name Intel as a Co-Defendant!

        I am pretty sure that they are not one of the "Does 1-25" listed in the caption of the case, as seen on MacRumors:

        https://www.macrumors.com/2018... [macrumors.com]

        Personally, I would consider that a SERIOUS mistake on the part of Qualcomm. Generally, you sue everyone and their dog, and let THEM argue to be Discharged as a Party.

        This tells me that Qualcomm is just trying to stir up bad press on Apple, and that they KNOW they don't have a

  • ...is that Apple has no hesitation in dumping Intel as a supplier.

    Apple announced that Intel modems would not be used [extremetech.com] after the current generation of iPhones.

    Apple will also move away from x86 [latimes.com] towards their own desktop/laptop ARM processors.

    Is Apple dumping Intel because they broke Qualcomm's NDA? Or is it the 10nm debacle? Or both?

    • ...is that Apple has no hesitation in dumping Intel as a supplier.

      Apple announced that Intel modems would not be used [extremetech.com] after the current generation of iPhones.

      Apple will also move away from x86 [latimes.com] towards their own desktop/laptop ARM processors.

      Is Apple dumping Intel because they broke Qualcomm's NDA? Or is it the 10nm debacle? Or both?

      Or because they have perfected their own MODEM.

      Remember, they now have produced in-house Bluetooth chips (at least 2 generations thereof); so they obviously have enough in-house RF Engineering talent to take on a WiFi MODEM.

      Intel and Qualcomm are both just stopgaps.

      • Unlikely. With NDA access to Qualcomm designs, the cleanroom requirements will be dire.

        • Unlikely. With NDA access to Qualcomm designs, the cleanroom requirements will be dire.

          I understand what you are saying; but just because, for example, Intel shows Apple under NDA the internals for one of their x86 CPUs, doesan't mean that Apple can never create its own CPU. It just means that Intel could sue if they thought they were ripped-off.

      • they have perfected their own MODEM.

        Is it as perfect as the exploding PHONES and the overheating CHARGERS?

      • Apple began to staff up on mixed signal and RF ASIC designers with a list of job titles that looked like they were going after making a modem about 4-5 years ago, so yeah, they likely are ready to do their own by now. They already make their own CPU/GPU chips that leap frogged what Qualcomm offered in their SOC lineup.

        Several years back I worked at a cellular amplifier supplier to a fruit themed cell phone maker (one with onerous secrecy BS in the contracts). On three ways calls with Qualcomm it was quite

        • Apple began to staff up on mixed signal and RF ASIC designers with a list of job titles that looked like they were going after making a modem about 4-5 years ago, so yeah, they likely are ready to do their own by now. They already make their own CPU/GPU chips that leap frogged what Qualcomm offered in their SOC lineup.

          Several years back I worked at a cellular amplifier supplier to a fruit themed cell phone maker (one with onerous secrecy BS in the contracts). On three ways calls with Qualcomm it was quite clear that even 5+ years ago there was a "frenemy" relationship with lots of frustration all around. Qualcomm's specifications for their envelope tracking technology was a real shit-show, and eventually when Qualcomm's 800 lb Gorilla tactics made it impossible for any of the suppliers to succeed the fruit themed company dropped it for 2 years in a semi-vindictive fashion. It was quite clear that Apple only tolerated Qualcomm so long as they had no viable alternative. When Intel got business it was clear they were willing to take a hit on performance just to have a second source.

          In the end, it is hard to root for one 800 lb Gorilla over another when they are wrestling in the mud.

          QUITE Insightful!!!

          You don't think those hires were for the Bluetooth (W1,W2) chips?

          My feeling is that they thought they were ready to cut both Intel and Qualcomm loose with the Xs/XR series; but perhaps didn't get Agency Approvals worldwide in time for Production, and so had to use the Intel chips.

          But wasn't the use of Intel also tied to some RF-bands that Qualcomm didn't support? Or was that just a smokescreen?

          And are there REALLY only just TWO Cell MODEM chip Designers (well, three, if you count that App

    • Re:The funny thing... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Gabe Ghearing ( 3618909 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @12:49PM (#57373782)

      Extremetech's article seems to be mostly mistaken. Intel's Sunny Peak project that Apple isn't using isn't a 5G modem, it's a WiFi/Bluetooth chipset.
      https://www.theregister.co.uk/... [theregister.co.uk]

    • Re:The funny thing... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @01:29PM (#57374016)
      This isn't about picking Intel over Qualcomm. The allegation (which I'm not qualified to judge if it has merit) is that Apple doesn't like paying higher prices to the one player dominating the market, so is trying to help give a competitor a leg up. The long-term plan being if Intel's chipset improves enough to become a viable alternative to Qualcomm's, the two will compete with each other and lower their prices. Basically like if some company were to sell hardware which could install MacOS on instead of having to buy a Mac. (MacOS will actually run on most PC hardware - the Macs are just PCs running a different OS. It's only Apple's software license which prohibits MacOS from being sold or installed onto generic PC hardware.)

      That's what gives the allegation a veneer of credibility. Apple has done exactly this (albeit legally) with Samsung - going with slower Toshiba NAND and SK Hynix RAM in their devices instead of Samsung. Trying to have LG manufacture the OLED panels for their iPhones as an alternative to Samsung. Apple's MO among suppliers is like Walmart - use its market dominance to bully suppliers into accepting extremely thin margins ("Well if you won't sign this hundred million dollar contract with us at a lower unit price, then we'll just ink a deal with your competitor instead."). That's partly how they maintain such a huge profit margin (over 20%, vs about 5% for the rest of the computer industry), not just by overcharging customers. But it's a tactic which doesn't work when only one supplier dominates the market.

      Apple will also move away from x86 towards their own desktop/laptop ARM processors.

      x86 is CISC. ARM is RISC. CISC vs RISC has played out numerous times since the 1980s. CISC has won every time. I like the idea behind RISC, but its advantages don't seem to beat out the advantages of CISC when it comes to optimized processor performance. RISC seems to have an advantage when rapidly transitioning to new processing regimes (previously high-end data processing with MIPS, currently with low-power processing with ARM). But it's like once the transition has been made or slows down, CISC allows you to optimize it further, resulting in CISC beating out RISC long-term.

    • Apple announced that Intel modems would not be used after the current generation of iPhones.

      Impressive, Apple will follow up removing the headphone jack by removing the radio. That takes courage.

  • So Americans steal too? news for me, uh

  • Well, if only if.... (Score:3)

    by registrations_suck ( 1075251 ) on Tuesday September 25, 2018 @12:52PM (#57373796)

    Maybe if Qualcomm hadn't wanted ridiculous royalties from Apple, it wouldn't have this problem.

  • "Apple stands accused of engaging in a 'multi-year campaign of sloppy, inappropriate and deceitful conduct'." None of which is illegal. This accusation is sloppy, inappropriate, and unless an actual legal violation emerges somewhere, deceitful conduct.

Slashdot Top Deals

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Close