Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If I might... interject... Can we look to build a ten foot circular wall, akin to the Apple Spaceship campus, with a nice glass. Ensure said interior has all of the world's lawyers where they can congregate, plan lawsuits against each other. Once all lawyers have had opportunity to make their case to each other, fill said interior with ten feet of water.

Thank you.

/s

I recently saw a news story about a college class where the instructor wasn't happy that one of the students was an off-duty police officer. The officer was in uniform, and armed. The instructor didn't like police, and didn't like one being in her classroom. Her solution? She called the police. To come remove him.
Some people don't like police. Until they have a problem... and then they call them for help. Same for lawyers. People hate them. Until they need one.
 
Sure about that?


patent troll
noun
informal, derogatory
  1. a company that obtains the rights to one or more patents in order to profit by means of licensing or litigation, rather than by producing its own goods or services.

Hahaha when I see Ericsson labelled a patent troll on here, as I have done, you know to ignore the majority of posters on here.....
Your comment sums up Apple perfectly actually in some of the cases they’ve raised..

I mean. Apple did manage to pursued the patent office of the famous prior art of slide to unlock long enough to sue Samsung, and now that patent is being made invalid..
Or how they patented an oblong shape with round corners in the colours of black and white... and submitted drawings that looked like 10 year olds did them of said shape as evidence in court against Samsung.

Please don’t try to claim Apple isn’t a patent troll and is innocent..
 
  • Like
Reactions: 201717typer
Hahaha when I see Ericsson labelled a patent troll on here, as I have done, you know to ignore the majority of posters on here.....
Your comment sums up Apple perfectly actually in some of the cases they’ve raised..

Kind of hard to follow what you are saying... but can you please provide an example of one of the cases say in which Apple meets his definition of a Patent Troll (a lawsuit for a patent in which Apple does not have a product or service that utilizes that patent)? I'm not saying one doesn't exist, but you sound pretty convinced so i'm curious what you are referring to...
 
Kind of hard to follow what you are saying... but can you please provide an example of one of the cases say in which Apple meets his definition of a Patent Troll (a lawsuit for a patent in which Apple does not have a product or service that utilizes that patent)? I'm not saying one doesn't exist, but you sound pretty convinced so i'm curious what you are referring to...

Easy:

http://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.macrumors.com/2015/02/27/apple-ericsson-patent-lawsuit/amp/

Now I could go and find more but this sums it up perfectly, Apple simply refuses to pay Ericsson for using its patented technology, without which the iPhone is a brick, technology wholly designed developed and made by Ericsson and which everyone else pays for, but Apple with its usual business mo simply refuses to pay, continues using said technology and patents making huge profits from it, all because it wants a cheap deal.
They then settled out of court with the threat of Ericsson ripping them to shreds in it, internationally....

Apple is a patent troll.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 201717typer
Easy:

http://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.macrumors.com/2015/02/27/apple-ericsson-patent-lawsuit/amp/

Now I could go and find more but this sums it up perfectly, Apple simply refuses to pay Ericsson for using its patented technology, without which the iPhone is a brick, technology wholly designed developed and made by Ericsson and which everyone else pays for, but Apple with its usual business mo simply refuses to pay, continues using said technology and patents making huge profits from it, all because it wants a cheap deal.
They then settled out of court with the threat of Ericsson ripping them to shreds in it, internationally....

Apple is a patent troll.

The example you just gave.... ?? Apple doesn't even hold the patent. Ericsson does. They are suing Apple for violating their patent. How does this make Apple a patent troll?

Edit: Ok, i get it. You are one of these people that are mad at Apple and have absolutely NOOOOOO idea what the term Patent Troll means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deanthedev
Why is Apple beating the little guy?
Because the little guy has been overcharging Apple by billions, and has been suing Apple for patent infringement.

And Qualcomm was bigger than Intel not long ago.

Nice of Apple to sue only Qualcomm, but not their customers who are benefitting from it.
[doublepost=1511987814][/doublepost]
Actually if you bothered to read the link it says everything about his post. His post was re: Apple not fitting the definition of a patent troll when in fact Apple was precisely that. Apple bought those Nortel patents with the express purpose of using them as a spear against Google/Android - hence the term NPE due to Apple setting up a shell company to leverage them without producing any products.
Google was in a consortium bidding for the exact same patents. I’d say Apple had to buy these patents to avoid being threatened by Google.
 
Agree. Another valid example of an NPE is the Rockstar consortium that Apple was a part of. They partnered up with some other big companies to put in a joint bid on a group of patents. It made more sense to join forces, than have a bidding war.

There were two different "Rockstars".

First was the Rockstar Bidco consortium to bid on Nortel's patents. As you said, that's fine.

They weren't interested in trying to get the patents to use them to profit off the other guys. They just wanted rights to used the tech. If you have multiple parties that want to go in together, they had to form a separate entity to receive the patents. Nothing malicious about that.

The trouble was, afterwards they wanted to make up the ridiculous amount of money they had (over)spent on the Nortel patents.

So after dividing up 2,000 patents they thought were worth the most, the other 4,000 patents were given to a new tiny NPE formed explicitly to be a patent troll. It was also called Rockstar. It employed less than a dozen engineers, whose entire job was to reverse engineer code and find infringing companies.

They sued everyone from Google to Samsung. In 2012, it was listed as the third most feared patent troll in the US.

That's why some people call Apple a patent troll, because Apple was one of those who set that company up.
 
Because the little guy has been overcharging Apple by billions, and has been suing Apple for patent infringement.

And Qualcomm was bigger than Intel not long ago.

Nice of Apple to sue only Qualcomm, but not their customers who are benefitting from it.
[doublepost=1511987814][/doublepost]
Google was in a consortium bidding for the exact same patents. I’d say Apple had to buy these patents to avoid being threatened by Google.

Anyone living in San Diego would not think of Qualcomm as a little guy. Big presence. For one thing... the [San Diego] Chargers stadium was named Qualcomm stadium, or the Q. (
There were two different "Rockstars".

First was the Rockstar Bidco consortium to bid on Nortel's patents. As you said, that's fine.



The trouble was, afterwards they wanted to make up the ridiculous amount of money they had (over)spent on the Nortel patents.

So after dividing up 2,000 patents they thought were worth the most, the other 4,000 patents were given to a new tiny NPE formed explicitly to be a patent troll. It was also called Rockstar. It employed less than a dozen engineers, whose entire job was to reverse engineer code and find infringing companies.

They sued everyone from Google to Samsung. In 2012, it was listed as the third most feared patent troll in the US.

That's why some people call Apple a patent troll, because Apple was one of those who set that company up.

This makes sense. And to people that use this as an example of calling them that, i understand and can agree. Unfortunately, most of the people posting on here calling Apple a patent troll are using quite a range of explanations and definitions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kdarling
I don't think anyone would pay $1,000 for an iPhone X that used no Qualcomm technology, because it would be missing huge parts of WiFi, 2G, 3G, and 4G. In other words, it'd barely rise to the level of an iPod touch.

Of course there are many ways to wirelessly communicate that don't use any Qualcomm patents, but those aren't standards. Of course, too, Apple could always try and make up its own protocols and see if they can get everyone to go along. That would be an unpleasant universe.
 
Of course there are many ways to wirelessly communicate that don't use any Qualcomm patents, but those aren't standards. Of course, too, Apple could always try and make up its own protocols and see if they can get everyone to go along. That would be an unpleasant universe.

Or they could start putting Intel modems in their phones, and begin phasing out Qualcomm. Oh, wait...
 
I'm just not blinded with unwavering and.absolute loyalty to a brand like most people here who screech patent troll every time someone sues Apple while defending every lawsuit Apple starts.

Thats right, you're not. Instead, you are blinded by unwavering and absolute hate of Apple, and screech "patent troll" each time Apple sues someone, while defending every extortionist suing Apple.
 
Apple the King of patent trolls strikes again, hopefully justice will prevail in favor of Qualcomm.

So not only do you not understand patent trolling, you've somehow decided the proper outcome, no doubt after countless hours of meticulously studying the details of the case.
 
Kind of hard to follow what you are saying... but can you please provide an example of one of the cases say in which Apple meets his definition of a Patent Troll (a lawsuit for a patent in which Apple does not have a product or service that utilizes that patent)? I'm not saying one doesn't exist, but you sound pretty convinced so i'm curious what you are referring to...

see Case No: Samsung Electronics (UK) Ltd v Apple Inc [2012] EWHC 1882 (Pat) (09 July 2012). Apple sued Samsung for a design patent which Apple itself did not utilize.

8. Apple did not contend that either of its famous iPad products should be used as concrete examples of the Apple design. Neither the original iPad nor the iPad 2 are identical to the design. ...

Apple lost every single tablet design claims against Samsung, but it didn't stop them from asserting patents that they weren't using or for which there were prior arts.
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure the Intel modem in my iPhone X works just fine ... :rolleyes:

Well, the trick here is that Apple still has to pay license fees (at least indirectly via their contractors) to Qualcomm whether the wireless modem in your iPhone X is made by Intel, Qualcomm, or anyone else for that matter.

Qualcomm makes a lot of money selling chips, but most of their profit comes from licensing.
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure the Intel modem in my iPhone X works just fine ... :rolleyes:

It does so only because it implements (and/or can implement with the right code) the IP developed by dozens of other companies.

That's why any device maker using any modem chip has to pay royalties to Qualcomm, Motorola, Nokia, Ericsson, LG, Samsung and many others who contributed inventions towards the standards that the modem chip makes use of.

The same rule applies to modem chips made by Qualcomm, of course. Royalties have to be paid by the phone maker to all of the same IP holders. Do you get it now? Who makes the chip itself does not matter. Intel, Qualcomm, MediaTek, Huawei, it makes no difference. They're only supplying the silicon, not the methods of using that silicon.

--

Moreover, in this case you really picked a bad chip maker example, because the Intel modem silicon is ALSO in debt to Qualcomm's non-FRAND chip implementation IP.

You see, Intel did not implement the CDMA standards from scratch. Instead, they bought a core Qualcomm licensed chip design enhanced by others. Intel bought this third party work in order to save years of startup modem R&D, just like how they bought Infineon for its GSM design. In short, even part of Intel's silicon was originally designed by Qualcomm.
 
Last edited:
The example you just gave.... ?? Apple doesn't even hold the patent. Ericsson does. They are suing Apple for violating their patent. How does this make Apple a patent troll?

Edit: Ok, i get it. You are one of these people that are mad at Apple and have absolutely NOOOOOO idea what the term Patent Troll means.

I doooo actually, I mean people on here were lab long Ericsson as the patent troll, because Applewas using its patents without paying for them.. but when it’s Apple being criticised why aren’t a troll... hmm.. Apple doesn’t ever sue others using its patents eh hmm...
 
crazy how people don’t get this, it’s not a phone without Qualcomm’s tech

Yep.

Most people at least vaguely grasp the idea that a phone maker has to pay cellular royalties to Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, LG, Ericsson, and other standards contributors.

I think what confuses some people is that because of their expertise, contributor Qualcomm also happens to optionally sell chips (and chip designs) to make it easier for anyone wanting to build a cellular capable device.

--
But Qualcomm is not unique in being both a royalty taking standards contributor plus chip maker. Broadcom used to sell modem chips until the use of integrated application CPUs became popular. Motorola and Huawei do too, especially on the carrier side. Samsung sells their chips to at least Xiaomi, IIRC. Not to mention Intel:

Intel got smart and is now a fairly big contributor towards 5G standards. So a 5G Qualcomm modem user will have to pay Intel, just as a 5G Intel modem user will have to pay Qualcomm.

Interesting read here on 5G contributors:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/03/31/5g-mobile-networks-next-big-battleground/id=67632/

--
Guess who else got smart? Apple. They've finally realized that if you don't help build the clubhouse, you will pay a lot more to use the club facilities. So now they are willing to contribute some radio patents towards 5G, and I think they are making more cross licensing deals with the big contributors.

In the end, most forum dwellers know only what headline articles tell them. The more details they know though, the more some things can make sense.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.