This patent game is getting out of control. Ban this in china but a Chinese Jumpman brand is total legal right?
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
My understanding is quite a bit different. Qualcomm is not double dipping. This is because Qualcomm doesn't charge the chip maker any licensing fee. The fee is charged on the end product and only paid once. The fee is based on the value of the product to encourage both low and high end products. Further the fee has a cap, where the max fee is in the neighborhood of $10. --So anyone can make a 5G chip and not pay Qualcomm anything. When they sell that chip, they pay based on the product the chip goes into. Further, I believe the fee is split among all the essential patent holders. This includes other companies who contributed patents to the standards body.
Another perspective might be that Apple is a predatory monopsony who has taken the property of more than one company. How many remember the company Sigmatel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SigmaTel Look it up to see how Apple works. Its what Apple tried to do to Qualcomm and Qualcomm has fought back.
Last edited:
I misunderstood the double dipping. At issue is that Qualcomm first sells their own chips directly to the customer, which should include all the licensing fees. Then after they sell it, they say you still have to pay royalties for using those chips on a per phone basis. I don't know how the courts are going to decide on this one.
Then there's the issue of Qualcomm not giving competitors a license to make and sell the chips, which FRAND actually obligates Qualcomm to do. So Intel and Samsung also have trouble with Qualcomm. Samsung produces chips for Qualcomm under a license, but they can't sell the chips to others, only use in their own phones, and they still have to pay a royalty on a per phone basis.
Well, the license fee based on the price of the final product might be an issue under the FRAND terms and conditions. Nokia used to do that too, but since numerous litegations have now stopped doing it and moved to flat fee. Ericsson still does a variable fee, I believe, but the final fee seems more reasonable.
Yes, the whole idea of the patent system is that the inventor can make their novel things profitably before others start making the same stuff. If the inventor for whatever reason stops, or decides not to, make said things, the patent should become void as it loses the entire point of patents. Selling the patents is ok assuming that the new owner is making use of the patent, or intending to do so soon. Unfortunately, this is not how the patent system works, particularly in the US (and apparently in China), but it's instead used to prohibit innovation and stifle small businesses.
thats because u didnt have a qualcomm radio chip to compare it to. otherwise u be like where did all my speed go
Thank you for this post. If what I bolded is true, I actually prefer this method for consumers.
There still are poorly educated people out there that believe that someone "patented round corners"? oh wait... no wonder these forums are somewhat messy :-D
[doublepost=1545288792][/doublepost]
Which companies did they use their "patent on rounded corners" against?
By rounded corners i assume you mean the Samsung clone of the earlier iPhones? Of course you do. And this never gets old!
Attachments
I agree with you, but stop with the round corners argument! It was never about that, but the whole, overall appearance, defined by the rounded corners. Big difference.
[doublepost=1545293253][/doublepost]
That was Apple's argument — that the software patent was fixable with an update, and the hardware sales should not be blocked.
a few things that are missing or need to be corrected:
A(greed) -- or what was agreed:
1) Apple does not have license with Qualcomm. Apple's contract manufactures pay Qualcomm a certain percentage of iPhone's manufacturing, not retail (/selling), price
2) Apple has a master software agreement (MSA) with Qualcomm, which in turns allows Apple to take full advantage of Qualcomm's baseband.
3) Apple proposed "rebates" for exclusive use of Qualcomm chips. Qualcomm agreed to their demand and stipulated Apple, while allowed to talk to regulators, couldn't lie about their agreement.
P(roblem):
1) KFTC's fine was based on testimony from Qualcomm's baseband OEM's (eg, Samsung, Intel, Mediatek, etc) and customer (eg, Apple).
2) Apple claimed that Qualcomm forced exclusivity for rebates, contrary to A)3 to regulators.
3) Apple now in violation of A)3, Qualcomm withhold rebates.
Now, I'm not too familiar with KFTC's targeting of Apple. Do you have any detail on this?
There are two additional consideration with the double-dipping. Qualcomm's basebands are made by QTC and wireless IPs by QTL, they are subsidiaries of Qualcomm. It is my understanding that patents held by a subsidiary are not owned by its parent company (Qualcomm) and therefore Qualcomm's practice of selling chips by QTC and collecting license fee by QTL is not really double-dipping. American companies use similar scheme to funnel their IPs to an oversea subsidiary and hide their income (eg, Apple's former Irish operation). Second, Qualcomm IPs span all aspects of wireless communication tech ranging from baseband chips/station to encoding schemes to other wireless components that are not all embedded in the baseband chips sold by QTC and not covered within the scope of the baseband IPs, which become exhausted after the first sale.
As for Qualcomm's failure to comply with FRAND terms with respect to OEM chipmakers, no doubt Qualcomm is in the wrong here.
For your last point on royalty rates and basis, SSO's are not in the business of setting rates or basis and have long left it up to the wireless industry participants to come to a FRAND compliant rates through negotiation. It's not that Nokia, Ericsson or Samsung or other wireless patent holders are doing anything different -- all their licensing is also based on the same end-user device and similar rate based on significance and sizes of their patent portfolio (often lower than that of Qualcomm). Apple challenged them in court for violatiing FRAND terms, but without any evidence or legal theory to back it up. It subsequently lost or settled without gaining any ground for well over a decade now.
Nokia has recently announced that in a pre-emptive workaround against possible adverse ruling against Qualcomm, their 5G license would cost $3.50 per unit, contrast to their old model based on a certain percentage per end-user device. Nokia's new $3.50 is similar to what it would have charged under older licensing model, but Nokia won't have to deal with Apple's accusation of non-FRAND royalty rates or basis nonsense.
Last edited:
2 updates to counter this Qualcomm patent in the space of a week, but of course they were guilty of infringing on it in the first place...
Funny how china is enforcing a patent from a Chinese company on an American company, yet fully ignores Chinese companies continued theft of American intellectual properties and continued defense of Chinese companies in regards to these thefts. Apple should have told the Chinese to pound sand and enforce the laws equally.
To go through all of the things that Qualcomm was doing wrong (as alleged by Apple, Intel, Samsung and others, and as found by regulatory bodies in Taiwan, Japan, China, South Korea, and the U.S.) would take a while. There are a lot of pieces to the puzzle. But a few things:
Qualcomm was double dipping. It was charging for modems and then requiring, e.g., Apple's contract manufacturers to pay licensing fees for a group of patents which included patents which were substantially embodied in the modems it sold. Qualcomm's patent rights were exhausted when it chose to sell components which substantially embodied those patents. Different subsidiaries sell the modems and own the IP, but that doesn't matter in this context because they are controlled by the same entity.
Qualcomm also refused to license SEPs to other modem suppliers (e.g. Intel). That was a violation of its FRAND commitments. But that allowed Qualcomm to base royalty rates on the cost of devices rather than on the cost of modems. It's since been order to license SEPs to modem suppliers. As I indicated, it would take a while to go through all the things Qualcomm was doing which were improper. It would also take a while to go through all of the things which various regulatory bodies or courts have now ordered it not to do. This is one such thing.
Qualcomm and Apple have never had a direct licensing agreement. Qualcomm says that's because Apple wouldn't accept appropriate terms, Apple says that's because Qualcomm wouldn't offer appropriate (e.g., FRAND) terms. Numerous entities reiterate Apple's claims in this regard. Regardless, that meant that Apple was reimbursing contract manufacturers for the licensing fees they paid to Qualcomm. Apple and Qualcomm did enter into some agreements though, but some of those agreements have now expired. That affected the timing of Apple's actions with regard to Qualcomm.
Qualcomm had an effective monopoly on certain kinds of modems (which it was able to maintain, in part, because of other improper things it did). It used that monopoly to force Apple and others to accept Qualcomm's unilateral terms (many of which have been found to be illegal or otherwise improper). This has been referred to as the no license-no chips policy. Handset makers had little choice if they wanted to make handsets which worked on certain networks. This is another thing which Qualcomm has been ordered not to do.
Qualcomm also structured the costs effectively paid by Apple in such a way that if Apple had bought modems from a different supplier, it would have been paying higher licensing costs than if it bought modems from Qualcomm. I want to be clear, this isn't just a claim made by Apple. This has been found to be the case by regulatory bodies. Qualcomm in effect overcharged for licensing fees. Then it agreed to make incentive payments to Apple if Apple agreed to only buy modems from Qualcomm. So if Apple had bought modems from other suppliers, it would still have had to pay the high licensing fees and wouldn't have gotten the incentive payments which effectively reduced those licensing fees. It would have been paying higher licensing fees for using modems from a different supplier.
Qualcomm had been doing a lot of other things which it's now been told not to do: For instance, requiring licensees to pay for non-SEP licenses in order to get SEP licenses, not telling licensees what patents they were actually paying for, effectively requiring licensees to pay for expired patents, requiring licensees to cross license their own IP without offsetting compensation. The extent of Qualcomm's improper behavior was massive. And, again, this isn't just what's been claimed by Apple. Qualcomm has been accused of such things by numerous parties and has been found to have done such things by numerous regulatory bodies.
Qualcomm recently announced tha they would reduce the royalty basis the cap to $400 from $500 per device. Nokia's 5G is now $3.50 per unit while Qualcomm's 5G license is likely to cost between 2.275% to 3.25%, or around $20 per top of the line device.
Let's wait and how this plays out. While I'm pretty sure that Qualcomm won't get fair trial in Apple's hometown, Qualcomm will get theirs elsewhere!
Just in (December 20, 2018 8:06 AM EST): Qualcomm (QCOM) Wins Injunction Against Apple (AAPL) in Munich Court - Bloomberg
Last edited:
It enables the power management to kick if needed, meaning it won't apply to most for a while, and when it might apply -- when the battery isn't in that good of a shape -- it can also be disabled by the user.
Why, download a website 0.1 second faster (if not smaller) than an Intel Modem, again...crock.
Poorly educated? I was once temp banned for saying that on the forums so I would watch yourself. Seriously. They take that as a serious insult.
Now on to the pot calling the kettle black…
So then what, precisely, is this then?
"The broken lines in the figures show portions of the portable display device which form now part of the claimed design."
What this means is they patented the outer solid line—the round rectangle portion only. Mars56, you can't just go around making up stuff. You need to educate yourself on matters before you speak and say the wrong thing. Look at the supplied figures and the descriptions. This was only patenting the front rounded rectangle. Of course it's not just a patent on round rectangles itself, but a patent on a portable display device that has rounded rectangle corners. Way too broad and ridiculous, and that's coming from one of the biggest Apple fans around.
See what I wrote above. That patent in particular actually dismisses the rest of the design and only focuses on the round front part. Look at the patent itself and the descriptions and the figures with the solid black line on the front part only. It's ONLY about the rounded rectangle. A patent that broad should have never been granted and is an abuse of the patent system which should be overhauled.
Of course Apple had the justification to file a lawsuit for the overall design that was stolen, down to the icons, but the broad patent for a portable display device with rounded rectangle corners was too broad and should have never been issued. It's an abuse of the patent system which needs to be overhauled. But at the same time I am glad that Samsung got in trouble for ripping off the entire thing as a whole. It was shameful what they did, and they very likely wouldn't be the large phone company juggernaut that they are today if they hadn't found early success copying the iPhone.