Apple Countersues Qualcomm for Patent Infringement Related to Snapdragon Chips

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Nov 29, 2017.

  1. Glideslope macrumors 603

    Glideslope

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Location:
    A quiet place in NY.
    #101
    Or, Apple will acquire Broadcom. ;)
     
  2. Plutonius macrumors 604

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    #102
    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.
     
  3. Mirice99 Suspended

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2017
    #103
    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.
     
  4. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #104
    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?
     
  5. SashJ macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2017
    #105
    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.
     
  6. cmaier macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #106
    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.
     
  7. BoulderAdonis macrumors regular

    BoulderAdonis

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Location:
    Palo Alto, CA
    #107
    Last I checked ... I don’t use it as a phone. ;)
     
  8. Phonephreak macrumors 6502a

    Phonephreak

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Location:
    Here and there
    #108
    Yes you do. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
     
  9. kdarling, Dec 2, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2017

    kdarling macrumors P6

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    First university coding class = 47 years ago
    #109
    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:

    image.png
    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:

    image.png

    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:

    image.jpeg

    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.
     
  10. LordVic Suspended

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #110
    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)
    --- Post Merged, Dec 3, 2017 ---
    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.
    --- Post Merged, Dec 3, 2017 ---
    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.
     
  11. cmaier macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #111
    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.
     
  12. kdarling, Dec 3, 2017
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2017

    kdarling macrumors P6

    kdarling

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2007
    Location:
    First university coding class = 47 years ago
    #112
    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? :D
     

Share This Page