Qualcomm Urges US Regulators To Reverse Course, Ban Some iPhones (reuters.com) 36
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Qualcomm is urging U.S. trade regulators to reverse a judge's ruling and ban the import of some Apple iPhones in a long-running patent fight between the two companies. Qualcomm is seeking the ban in hopes of dealing Apple a blow before the two begin a major trial in mid-April in San Diego over Qualcomm's patent licensing practices. Qualcomm has sought to apply pressure to Apple with smaller legal challenges ahead of that trial and has won partial iPhone sales bans in China and Germany against Apple, forcing the iPhone maker to ship only phones with Qualcomm chips to some markets. Any possible ban on iPhone imports to the United States could be short-lived because Apple last week for the first time disclosed that it has found a software fix to avoid infringing on one of Qualcomm's patents. Apple asked regulators to give it as much as six months to prove that the fix works.
Qualcomm brought a case against Apple at the U.S. International Trade Commission in 2017 alleging that some iPhones violated Qualcomm patents to help smart phones run well without draining their batteries. Qualcomm asked for an import ban on some older iPhone models containing Intel chips. In September, Thomas Pender, an administrative law judge at the ITC, found that Apple violated one of the patents in the case but declined to issue a ban. Pender reasoned that imposing a ban on Intel-chipped iPhones would hand Qualcomm an effective monopoly on the U.S. market for modem chips, which connect smart phones to wireless data networks. Pender's ruling said that preserving competition in the modem chip market was in the public interest as speedier 5G networks come online in the next few years.
Qualcomm brought a case against Apple at the U.S. International Trade Commission in 2017 alleging that some iPhones violated Qualcomm patents to help smart phones run well without draining their batteries. Qualcomm asked for an import ban on some older iPhone models containing Intel chips. In September, Thomas Pender, an administrative law judge at the ITC, found that Apple violated one of the patents in the case but declined to issue a ban. Pender reasoned that imposing a ban on Intel-chipped iPhones would hand Qualcomm an effective monopoly on the U.S. market for modem chips, which connect smart phones to wireless data networks. Pender's ruling said that preserving competition in the modem chip market was in the public interest as speedier 5G networks come online in the next few years.
So rule of law is nonexistent in the USA, then. (Score:1)
Tell me, when you rioted against your lawful British owners, that was due to the laws being biased and only enforced to help the british corporations. You at the time HATED that the rule of law was not obeyed, so your constitution demanded that the laws rule even the congress.
But now, rather than have congress remove the laws they want to ignore, you want them to just ignore the laws for the benefit of USA corporations.
And when that black man was in charge, you collectively lost your shit over congress now
Patent == monopoly (Score:1)
Isn't that the whole purpose of a patent anyway? You invent something and get the right to be the only one to sell it for X years.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, . . . to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
The purpose of the patents really doesn't matter. What matters is the purpose DECADES AFTERWARDS, where the cumulative IP pool is general public prosperity.
But thats a derail. This is a case where you have corporations creating large collective patent agreements, patent pools, a lot of deals, and where Qualcomm has managed to essentially corner the marked. Because the patent pool is as large as it is, the general assumption is that if you are going to make a 4G cellular chip you are going to want to get a g
Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing (Score:3)
The core issue here is Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing [wikipedia.org]. Qualcomm has patents on what is considered to be the best (if not the only) way for that wireless stuff.
You may like or you may hate both Apple and/or Qualcomm, but let's discuss the real problem: is Qualcomm trying to screw Apple on the price because they're bigger than the other manufacturers, or is Apple trying to screw Qualcomm on the price because they're bigger than the other manufacturers?
Pricing (Score:2, Interesting)
From what I've read when the fracas started, so I may be wrong, but Qualcomm was selling Apple the base-band chips, AND wanted a cut of the sale price of the phone as a licensing fee. Which, of course, is insane, and an end-run around FRAND rules. If Qualcomm wants a bigger cut of the phone market then they can sell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The patent in question, 9,535,490 [google.com] is not nearly a "technology", though. If I skimmed it correctly, it amounts to basically this:
To save power, the device talking to the cellular modem should collect data for a period of time, and then send it as soon as the timer expires or when the cellular modem provides data in the other direction, whichever comes first, to reduce the number of times you have to power up the modem.
And for that trivial idea, Qualcomm wants $13 per device.
I'll let you ponder how bonkers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
F**k Qualcomm.
The patent is absurd, granted, but Qualcomm is using the US Patent System exactly as designed.
I don't want to say, "hate the game, not the player", because Qualcomm engages in some repugnant behavior, but this is only possible because of the whiners who think they need Big Daddy Government to protect "their" inventions.
The reality is the big corporations just accumulate warchests of offensive patents and then go after each other and small competitors with them, to keep those very small invento
Re: (Score:2)
No, not really. Most companies accumulate war chests of patents, but most companies only use them defensively, either so they can negotiate cross-licensing terms when threatened by a real company or as a means to say, "Nope. We had a patent on that ten years before you filed yours" when sued by a non-pract
Re: (Score:3)
It's like ads for get hard pills (Score:1)
They keep coming and coming and coming (unlike you).
They will not stop. Can both sides lose? Apple and Qualcomm are both loathsome megacorps.