*sigh* I've tried before. Many MacRumors readers seem to think any IP transaction they don't understand means "PaTeNt TrOlL derrr."
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
*sigh* I've tried before. Many MacRumors readers seem to think any IP transaction they don't understand means "PaTeNt TrOlL derrr."
Honestly, do you think every patent that Apple owns, (there are I believe thousands), are in use now and/or have been used in the past?
Be honest when you answer this.
If you come to the conclusion that even a single one is 'dormant', then you must by your line of thinking declare them patent trolls also?
They can settle it by paying the royalties they owe Qualcomm. Which, by the way, according to everything I’ve read, Apple agreed to paying said royalties when they signed a deal with Qualcomm. It was only after Apple signed the deal that they decided they shouldn’t be required to pay the formerly agreed-to amount. So, Qualcomm is now finding every possible way that they can make doing business more of a challenge for Apple.
For not collaborating with Apple to resolve any licensing issues, and opting instead to become a patent troll while making Snapdragon mobile processors that are at least 2 generations behind Apple, Qualcomm is laying off 10-15% of its employers every year since.
Crock, I own a Xs, it's been rock solid, I have no problems whatsoever with the INTEL modem inside.
I may be wrong but...........
A signs deal with B. B reneges on that deal and A takes them to court.
- Is A under ANY obligation at all to collaborate with B?
- Should B pay up as per the legal agreement?
[doublepost=1545243728][/doublepost]
Who said it's not rock solid? Who said there were problems?
The inference is that the Qualcomm modem is better performing than the Intel part. That's not what you got from that original post?
The nature of the lawsuit is no doubt complicated, but here's what I know about the original lawsuit. I too, could be wrong.
Apple's deal with Qualcomm called for:
- Apple agreed to pay Qualcomm a certain percentage of iPhone's selling price.
- Apple agreed use Qualcomm exclusively, which spanned iPhone 4S to iPhone 6S.
- Qualcomm agreed to pay Apple a quarterly rebate for honoring the terms.
- Korea's Fair Trade Commission (FTC) slaps $853M fine on Qualcomm for anticompetitive practices.
- Apple was also targeted by Korea's FTC.
- Apple agrees to work on a deal with Korea's FTC.
- Since Apple's deal with Korea's FTC, Qualcomm began withholding rebates, to the tune of $1B.
- Apple sues Qualcomm for withholding rebates.
Should be at least utilizing a technology you claim to own, nothing like shelving an idea and trying to profit off of others.
Not sure where to go with that as on the one hand it was out of Apples hands but on the other they still went back on the deal?
[doublepost=1545246118][/doublepost]
Again, wouldn't mind betting Apple are not doing that with every patent they own, which amounts to holding it so others can't use it?
Does that not define patent troll?
I hold the patent on patent troll definitions, expect your cease and desist letter soon.
OP "getting their butt kicked big time by qualcomm"
That to means he says Intels modems are crap, I then said that's not the case, or in other words, crock.
Just FYI they actually messed with ours in USA too. It's much more glitchy now. Maybe it was unintentional but they did indeed screw it up a bit.
I think you're still missing the point - I think everyone understands that Apple only has to do this in China and doesn't have to do it anywhere else; but that's not a reason for them not to just implement this as a global change, even though they didn't have to for the other regions. I think that's the question being asked.
The invokimg incantation seems to have failed. Lets hold hands and chant together until @AngerDanger blesses all with his jiffy gifs
I thought the issue was that Apple didn't receive the rebates from Qualcomm that was in the contract. This happened after Apple cooperated with Korean Fair Trade Commission. Qualcomm began witholding payments to Apple close to $1 billion. Korean Fair Trade Commission placed a $853 million fine on Qualcomm for their anticompetitive practices (which Apple was victim of, although Apple did willingly sign the contract with Qualcomm). Similarly, Qualcomm is facing a $1.2 billion fine from antitrust regulators in Europe. Here too Qualcomm had been paying Apple to use its chips over chips from competitors. I don't know the fine details.
Any more ridiculous than Apple patenting the rubber banding on iOS when you reach the end of a page or a list?
The thing is, USA and China are probably the only places where such stuff can be patented. Although, if Apple didn't patent it, others would -- and it was novel when the first iPhone came out.
But the issue, in the end, is Qualcomm and their inadequate FRAND practices. There's the issue of double dipping, because the chip makers have to pay a license fee, and then Apple has to pay a license fee for using the said chips. There's also the issue of having to pay a percentage of the wholesale price of the phone to Qualcomm, instead of having to pay a reasonable fixed fee related to the said patents. Apple also was in battle with Nokia over similar practices, and that eventually was settled -- I think Apple got a good deal out of that dispute. Also Nokia now practices flat rate fee for 5G, 3 Euro per device. Qualcomm still wants a percentage of the wholesale price of the phone (with a cap).
Apple designs UIs, so they're right to patent stuff that's part of the look and feel of their interface.
Qualcomm doesn't. But then again their modems are great and Intel's are complete, utter, disgraceful garbage
Don’t other phone’s have similar animation too? Are they all paying Qualcomm? I can’t imagine that they all are.
You can patent with intent to attack or you can patent with intent to stop some one else from patenting and suing you.
The whole software patent thing is a sham that should be ended.
Damn, Apple are only releasing 12.1.2 exclusively for iPhones, now my Nokia is going to be stuck on the buggy 12.1.1.
hahaha
Yeah, that was one of the patents at the core of Apple v. Samsung.
As opposed to also applying to iPads, for example...as iOS updates usually do...