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 Countersues Qualcomm for Patent Infringement Related to Snapdragon Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MacRumors, could you please create a new section SUE BLOG so we don't need to cover this never ending story on the front page any more?
You don't need to read it if you don't want to. By the number of responses in this thread, many people are interested.
I was wrong, the zealots and cultists have convinced me and should have known better, Apple is suing so they are absolutely be right and the other company obviously was stealing their shouldn't even be a trial. Apple should just be awarded what every think feel they are owed and no their should be no appeals process.
You are trying really, really hard. Who cares about facts, when you can just make them up. "Please don't try to claim..." - Anyone can judge for themselves, and when they do, you look very sad indeed.
Apple has a design patent for a mobile phone, which among other elements has a rectangular shape with rounded corners. Plus many other design elements. To infringe on a design patent, you have to copy _all_ elements. That's what Samsung did. Samsung has design patents as well, for mobile phones with a rectangular shape with rounded corners. Looking totally different from an iPhone.
The drawings that you think look like they were made by a ten year old are not "evidence". They are the design. These drawings are what is patented. It's not "here's the iPhone, here's the Samsung phone, it's copied, these drawings are the evidence". It's "here are drawings for which we have a design patent, and Samsung copied it". The infringement isn't copying the design of the phone, the infringement is copying the design from the drawings. So you are effectively saying that these Samsung phones looked like copies of a ten year olds drawings, right?
Small team? Pretty sure Apple’s legal team consists of nearly 500 layers, etc. Not exactly a small number.
Also I believe a lot of work for companies on a permanent basis since the companies want them to be familiar with their products so that they have a better chance of winning.
No, they have around a dozen in house patent litigators, not 500. And your second paragraph is also incorrect. I’ve been a patent litigator for more than a decade, btw.
Nope. Apple used case design patents that were basically just rounded rectangles. There were not "many other design elements".
Yeah, but there was very little to them. Apple could not use a full iPhone case design drawing, since Samsung's phones all had different curves, back, and certainly no circular home buttons. So instead Apple went simple.
Here's the design patent that the jury found all Samsung's phones to infringe:
To a layman it looks like a full drawing. But with design patents, dashed lines don't count. So when you look at just the solid lines, all that remains to infringe is a rounded rectangular front with a rectangular display area and a rounded rectangular speaker slit:
The simple 2D design outline on the right is what was found to be infringed by Samsung. And it's such a simple design that it was later invalidated due to its similarity to previously registered designs from LG, Sharp and even Samsung itself, designs which the USPTO had not been aware of at the time they gave Apple its patent. The Sharp one had all the same frontal design elements:
Virtually ditto for the tablet design patent Apple used, which really was just a rounded rectangle, but even the poorly led jury saw through that generic attempt and found Samsung had not infringed.
Last edited:
I'd love to know how well an iPhone would fare if it couldn't connect to any of the cellular wireless networks.
Almost all of what you listed here, might be true. But would be absolutely meaningless without this capability. the iPhone is Apple's biggest revenue producer and the current image of their company. Without it being a "phone", it would just be an iPod, which is a dead product category (That Apple themselves helped kill by having a Phone that could connect to wireless networks)
[doublepost=1512326072][/doublepost]
Clearly *any* product with Qualcomm cellular modems in it will be *wildly* profitable / successful then ...
[doublepost=1511974559][/doublepost]https://seekingalpha.com/article/86862-the-ripple-effect-of-the-qualcomm-nokia-settlement
The move to Qualcomm’s chipsets certainly worked out well for Nokia... Lol.
Having cellular connectivity doesn't guarantee success. NOT having cellular connectivity would likely have killed the iPhone's success.
you had a logic failure in your post.
[doublepost=1512326605][/doublepost]
Pretty sure the Intel modem in my iPhone X works just fine ...
Intel pays a different license deal to Qualcomm for the ability to create those modems.
the lawsuit's here between Apple and Qualcomm isn't about the physical hardware, but the technologies those hardware use to connect. it's been long standing practice in the mobile field that the end device seller pays a separate license to actually use the technology.
What you call cellular capability is a standard that was only made a standard because Qualcomm agreed to license its standards essential patents on a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory basis. Qualcomm must also comply with anti trust law and with patent law concepts such as exhaustion, Impression Products v. Lexmark, Vernon v. Monsanto, quanta computer v LG, etc . This was the deal. Otherwise everyone would still be able to connect to cellular networks, but we’d be using a different technology that didn’t use Qualcomm’s patents. The penalty you pay when you want your technology to be the standard is you have to comply by these rules.
You cannot charge for the chip and then charge a license fee to use the chip, for example. (Longstanding practice or not. The Supreme Court says if the chip substantially embodies the patent you exhaust all patent rights in the chip when you sell it.
My friend,
I'm loving that you have obviously become so very familiar with Bowman v. Monsanto, that you now refer to Bowman by his first name.
What next? Tim v. Samsung?
Last edited: