He probably read the article. He's asking why the change is ONLY in China, as opposed to being made in ALL countries.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Confirms iOS 12.1.2 Addresses Qualcomm Patents, Introduces New Force Closing App Animation in China
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He probably read the article. He's asking why the change is ONLY in China, as opposed to being made in ALL countries.
I have, but it is still a little vague if this new animation will be coming to all the other phones. It doesn't escape me that the point of the new animation is to bypass the Qualcomm injunction against phones in China due to patent infringements, but the point that still escapes me is that Apple hasn't stated equivocally that this would be coming to next iOS version, globally. I did read the part that said the 12.1.2 expected changes will now be in 12.1.3 (inferring that 12.1.2 was an emergency critical patch for the lawsuit).
Pretty dumb. I can't see why any court would say Apple needs to stop selling iPhone's due to such a patent.
Does anyone happen to know when Qualcomm filed these patent applications and when they were approved? It's confusing to know that they applied for these patents in China but not in US. I asked because I have a "theory".
1. No reasonable companies would file a patent in China and not in US
2. These patents could have been applied AFTER apple began using it (iPhone 6 was a long time ago)
3. Qualcomm could have influenced Chinese authorities to get approval on those patents to turn around and target Apple
So I'm not having this theory because I'm an apple fan. I'm just not really fond of Qualcomm's way of handling business in the past couple years. They've been nothing but a cry baby and a bully at the same time. I really like to see Apple turn the table, prove my theory and throw Qualcomm back to dark ages.
But Apple has already taken another approach to begin with: They are developing their own modems for 5G and they will ditch Qualcomm entirely. With that much loss of business I'd like to see how Qualcomm spends more of their time and money doing silly things.
1. No reasonable companies would file a patent in China and not in US
2. These patents could have been applied AFTER apple began using it (iPhone 6 was a long time ago)
3. Qualcomm could have influenced Chinese authorities to get approval on those patents to turn around and target Apple
So I'm not having this theory because I'm an apple fan. I'm just not really fond of Qualcomm's way of handling business in the past couple years. They've been nothing but a cry baby and a bully at the same time. I really like to see Apple turn the table, prove my theory and throw Qualcomm back to dark ages.
But Apple has already taken another approach to begin with: They are developing their own modems for 5G and they will ditch Qualcomm entirely. With that much loss of business I'd like to see how Qualcomm spends more of their time and money doing silly things.
I worked for a 'laser' company in Sunnyvale that had a lawsuit against DirecTV because DirecTV was using a menu system for displaying their tv schedule that violated a patent previously filed by that laser company. What?
Why would a laser company develop a patent around digital menu displays... to get money! I.P. is super important and infringements are critical to keeping some companies afloat.
Seems pretty simple. Apple prefers the animation that existed previously but for legal purposes can't use that animation in China. So, change it for Chinese devices and leave it with the previous animation for non-Chinese devices. Just like all of the other region-specific nuances that exist.
I figured he hadn't read the article because reading the article and having a basic level of reading comprehension would lead one to this conclusion.
Qualomm had developed their own OS(BREW OS) before Android and iOS came into existence. Obviously, they had huge expertise in OS development as well. They have inventions in almost every aspect related to mobile/smartphone both in software and hardware. Also they used to develop phones back then before selling it to kyocera : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyocera_Communications
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_Ru ... r_Wireless
That doesn't negate the fact that they hold patents on items they don't produce in order to win litigations. Patent trolls.
No, not in the least. Providing protection on the look and behaviour of a product (much more than the tired "round corners" meme) so that competitors cannot make a cheap (or expensive) knock-off that is easily mistaken for the original product so as to gain a benefit from the original product or cause damage to the original product's reputation is not dumb. Making a finding that a product that could not possibly be confused with another manufacturer's product should be banned because of one small element that happens to be an analog to the way everything else in the world works (push something and it moves in the direction it's pushed) isn't just dumb, it's malicious. There's no brand image or great intellectual accomplishment being protected here. Compare this to how the US courts refused to issue an import ban on Samsung products during the Apple suit. Patent law may lead to some mind boggling decisions, but the fundamentals of Apple's case against Samsung and Qualcomm's case against Apple are radically different.
Ahh yes, BREW part of the old QIS division at Qualcomm who always butted heads with QCT across the street.
They tried to be a consumer facing company which didn't turnout well. They mostly operate in B2B segment. And the whole point of having patents is to license them to OEMs who produce them. They spend lot of money on R&D, and then license their inventions to OEMS. Typically OEMs rebrand most of the technology Qualcomm provides.
What's interesting is that the Don Roseberg, the Qualcomm attorney quoted in the article was formerly an attorney for Apple.
"" Prior to joining Qualcomm, Mr. Rosenberg served as senior vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary of Apple Inc.""
"" Prior to joining Qualcomm, Mr. Rosenberg served as senior vice president, general counsel and corporate secretary of Apple Inc.""
Wow, there's a lot of aggression out there today! He said why is it only in China, i.e. why doesn't Apple just role this new animation out globally rather than fragment things? It's not as if it's worse than the current one, and some people seem to prefer it.
Because the patent is in China, as clearly stated by the article.
C'mon, you don't need to have a PhD in intellectual property to understand there is no such thing as a global patent.
I guess people are just stingy about having the same iOS since at least iOS 9 with 30 new versions and no new features.
Has everybody here woken up on the wrong side of the bed? So much aggression.
I call on the magic of an @AngerDanger GIF to bring us all closer together in this festive time.
What goes around comes around when Apple abused the patent system over rectangle with rounded corners to get an injunction against other companies. Except this is avoidable if Apple had paid their bills as agreed.
Impossible to ditch Qualcomm entirely if you are doing 5G modems [Edit: _legally_ ditch Qualcomm]. They must pay Qualcomm for the use of 5G patents. And Qualcomm will happily take the license fees if somebody else develops a modem that utilizes 5G patents.
These 'silly things' that Qualcomm are doing is an effort to force Apple to the table after Apple has refused to pay Qualcomm for the last 2 years for patents that Apple had previously paid Qualcomm for the previous 10 years. Apple is stealing from Qualcomm. Hopefully this brings things closer to a settlement.
Patent trolls .... Made up name by haters. It is called business and it is legal. The so called troll company bought the patent, that means the original inventor got paid.
Or are you wanting the original inventor to not be able to sell his inventions/patents? Why didn't Apple by these patents? Because it is cheaper to not buy them and still use them for "free". Crooks
Last edited:
I don’t know what’s worse, qualcomm or the patent system. Seems like they should get rid of both.
Stupid post. So what if they don't have a mobile OS.
I'd bet you a pound to a pinch of ** that Apple have loads of patents they came up with and don't use and bought and don't use for applications they don't and never have made.
Do companies now have to meet certain criteria to own a patent?
