Apple Warns Chinese iPhone Ban Would Force a Settlement With Qualcomm, Result in 'Irreparable Harm' to Apple and Others [Updated]

[barmann]

Actually it is, sadly. He’s arguing against utilitarianism. Basically saying that 15k people making high salaries is better than 5 million making some salary. He’s wrong btw but that was the point of his statement.

I agree, and I should have been more clear .

It's wrong in more respects than I dare to discuss on a computer forum ...
Let's just say Apple remains to be a US based company for the safe and utterly corporation biased governement and judiciary, a decent market size and lack of enforcement of antitrust laws .
Jobs, supply contracts and taxes go to the lowest bidder .

 

[tooltalk]

Do you have a source for that, or any precedence?

“Based on the iPhone models we offer today in China, we believe we are in compliance,” Apple said.

“Early next week we will deliver a software update for iPhone users in China addressing the minor functionality of the two patents at issue in the case.”

Sure, I'm a psychic. I close my eyes and I could feel Apple counsels' having heart palpitation. Now, did you even bother reading the FAQ from Furum Research I cited?

 

[tromboneaholic]

Sure, I'm a psychic. I close my eyes and I could feel Apple counsels' having heart palpitation. Now, did you even bother reading the FAQ from Furum Research I cited?

The FAQ is full of holes. For example they claim Apple is not offering the older phones for sale in China, a fact even Qualcomm acknowledges.

 

[tooltalk]

The FAQ is full of holes. For example they claim Apple is not offering the older phones for sale in China, a fact even Qualcomm acknowledges.

Your reading skill is full of holes:

Why does this matter? Aren’t these “old” phones?

“Old” is a subjective term. It isn’t really relevant to iPhone models if consumers are still buying them in droves. The iPhone 8 is still doing well in some markets, for example. Apple reportedly even brought the iPhone X back from the brink of extinction, presumably to address low sales of newer models. (Newer models like the Xs and the Xr haven’t exactly met expectations, highlighting the fact that “old” and “new” don’t necessarily mean much in the smartphone business.) All of this to say that while these are not the latest iPhones, they are still very important products for Apple. Popularity is a better measure of an iPhone model’s value than how new or old it is.

Note that it isn’t easy to zero-in on the exact number of each iPhone model sold anywhere, not just in China, since Apple no longer makes unit sales numbers available. Still, we estimate that these “old” phones could potentially account for somewhere between half and 60% of iPhones sold in China. Apple’s attempts to minimize the importance of this ban is understandable, but in my view, it doesn’t reflect the reality of iPhone sales on the ground.

ok, your time's up. stop wasting my time.

 

[Carnegie]

iPhone software update to reverse Chinese ban

https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/14/18140540/apple-qualcomm-software-update-china-ban

I can't speak to how much coding would be involved. But designing around the claims in question should be easy enough. The full-screen view / windowed view claims are pretty specific. Apple could get around them with modest changes to the UI of that function. And the functioning that ostensibly violates the other patent could, I think, be turned off without too much affect on users, even if it couldn't easily be designed around.

I too smell desperation from Apple. Apple is over. According to folks at Furum Research,



Apple is probably lying about the soft update out of desperation. Also remember that the preliminary injunction can not be appealed contrary to earlier misreporting that Apple was appealing the court order.

I don't know who that is you quoted in that passage, but I can say that it isn't accurate to suggest that those are the only three options. I have to wonder if the person who wrote that even bothered to read the orders in question before trying to explain the situation to others. The orders themselves make it clear that they've left out the most immediate option.

 

[tromboneaholic]

Your reading skill is full of holes:
ok, your time's up. stop wasting my time.

You quoted the part that questioned the scope of the ban, not the part where they tried to parse Apple's statement about the older phones being "available."

If they are merely “available,” your guess is as good as mine as to what that statement actually means, which may be the point.

The above is an example of the author doing what he is accusing Apple of. Even Qualcomm agrees the phones are for sale, yet the author's bias and/or agenda is clear.

 

[kis]

and YET far cheaper than iPhones with better specs. Only thing is that Android base OS is not developed by them still they need to customise the OS significantly to make it look unique

Yeah - they simply accept lower margins. Android on, say, the Pixel line doesn't have that much in common with iOS really. There are certain manufacturers like Huawei who seems to make their phones look and act exactly like iOS. I have to agree that I'd rather have the unique (and in my ways better) experience that a Pixel offers over the iPhone on all Android phones.
[doublepost=1544797982][/doublepost]

I can't speak to how much coding would be involved. But designing around the claims in question should be easy enough. The full-screen view / windowed view claims are pretty specific. Apple could get around them with modest changes to the UI of that function. And the functioning that ostensibly violates the other patent could, I think, be turned off without too much affect on users, even if it couldn't easily be designed around.

They might have to move some of their Emoji development team back to actual OS though. Not sure if they're willing to do that as the advancement of iOS is clearly measured by the number of new emojis.

 

[wigby]

As a result of the ban, Apple is forced to settle with Qualcomm...

Uh... yeah? That's the idea? That's how things are supposed to end - you're not supposed to just drag things out forever until the other company goes bankrupt, Apple.

Actually, courts are designed to deliver verdicts, not force companies to settle. But since justice is so slow, expensive and unpredictable, companies and individuals generally opt for settlements to get on with their lives without justice.

 

[KPandian1]

They might have to move some of their Emoji development team back to actual OS though. Not sure if they're willing to do that as the advancement of iOS is clearly measured by the number of new emojis.

Kids needed to know a few facts of life by a certain age - say 14+:

Where does Santa live?

Where do babies come from?

Guess now we have to add this for the Apple bashers:

Where do Emoji come from?

 

[alphaod]

Don’t worry Qualcomm. After China is done with Apple, you’re next!

 

[Fender2112]

I get this argument and yet I don’t. If it was a Chinese electronics company vs Apple it would make more sense, but they are both American corporations, China aiding Qualcomm doesn’t really “hurt” the US (at least not anymore than China aiding Apple) if Qualcomm wins, an American company will make more money, if Apple wins a different American company will make more money.

In fact Qualcomm winning would probably be bad for Huawei, as they would be forced to pay more to license their phones.

Thats what Apple is fighting about. Sure, they will lose alot of money. But the bigger issue is about setting precedent. If Apple loses, it opens the door for Qualcomm to go after other phone makers. It can also open the door for other companies, like Qualcomm, to sue of similar patents.

I'm not defending Apple. If they're wrong, own up to it.

 

[stylinexpat]

If the Qualcomm lawsuit was filed in China I could see China ruling in favor of Qualcomm to get back at Apple or America.

 

[Col4bin]

Can't blame Qualcomm swinging for the fences here and Apple getting its comeuppance game on.

 

[tromboneaholic]

If the Qualcomm lawsuit was filed in China I could see China ruling in favor of Qualcomm to get back at Apple or America.

Qualcomm is based in San Diego, California, USA.

 

[Fender2112]

I’m not too well versed on this debacle between Qualcomm and Apple, but it sounds like Apple is trying to break the contracted deal they agreed to. I’m not sure they have much recourse.

The issue in this discussion is about patent infringement. This is different from the ongoing licensing dispute. Which Apple claims Qualcomm broke first by not paying rebates.

 

[stylinexpat]

Qualcomm is based in San Diego, California, USA.

True but they can sue in any country around the world. To get good local enforcement one usually needs a local lawsuit. Qualcomm could sue Apple in the US or in China when it comes to Patents.

 

[tromboneaholic]

True but they can sue in any country around the world. To get good local enforcement one usually needs a local lawsuit. Qualcomm could sue Apple in the US or in China when it comes to Patents.

Your original point was not about jurisdiction. You said that a ruling against Apple could be a move by China to get back at America. They are both American companies. A ruling against Apple would strengthen Qualcomm's position and affect Chinese phone makers negatively.

 

[kreasonos]

I agree, and I should have been more clear .

It's wrong in more respects than I dare to discuss on a computer forum ...
Let's just say Apple remains to be a US based company for the safe and utterly corporation biased governement and judiciary, a decent market size and lack of enforcement of antitrust laws .
Jobs, supply contracts and taxes go to the lowest bidder .

Well said, agreed!
[doublepost=1544803635][/doublepost]

Qualcomm is based in San Diego, California, USA.

Based in San Diego but might as well be based in India. Qualcomm is one of the largest petitioners of the H1B Foreign Worker Visa in the Country. Google it. And, having grown up in San Diego, I've been to the Qualcomm Campus and they don't call it "little India" for nothing. It's almost entirely Indian workers.

 

[stylinexpat]

Your original point was not about jurisdiction. You said that a ruling against Apple could be a move by China to get back at America. They are both American companies. A ruling against Apple would strengthen Qualcomm's position and affect Chinese phone makers negatively.

I was not sure if lawsuit was filed in US or China. I also was not sure if it was just 1 lawsuit or one of others.

If China helped Qualcomm with the lawsuit against Apple in China then China may see it as Qualcomm owes them a favor for ruling on their behalf against Apple. This would work out in their favor as many manufacturers in China need Qualcomm Chipsets. China actually in some ways has more to gain from Qualcomm compared to Apple as many Chinese manufacturers need Qualcomm chipsets for their smartphones. There are both positives and negatives to each. Just depends on which one you are looking at.

 

[Kabeyun]

'Look how much it would cost us' isn't an argument in response to a finding of infringement. It's part of an argument in response to a preliminary injunction being issued. And if the Chinese legal system is like our own in ways which are relevant here (which it seems to be), then that is a proper argument.

The court hasn't made a final decision concerning infringement. But Qualcomm asked for a preliminary injunction in the meantime, such that Apple couldn't import, sale, or offer for sale certain products while the court was hearing and deciding the infringement issue. When considering whether to issue a preliminary injunction (or leave one in place), a court is supposed to consider not only the likelihood that the moving party will succeed on the merits (e.g. in this case, whether Apple will be found to have infringed), but other factors as well. The balance of harms - i.e. how much will not issuing an injunction harm the moving party and how much will issuing one harm the non-moving party - is one such factor.

Good point.

 

[kemal]

This has nothing to do with FRAND and everything to do with photos and home screens.

 

[kis]

Kids needed to know a few facts of life by a certain age - say 14+:

Where does Santa live?

Where do babies come from?

Guess now we have to add this for the Apple bashers:

Where do Emoji come from?

Oh wow, you're not capable of understanding sarcasm, huh?

 

[tgwaste]

Watching Apple struggle lately has been marvelous. I hope it continues and more importantly I hope it drives real customer centric change.

 

[cmwade77]

Do you have the current licensing fees per phone, as well as competitors as well as the licensing fees going back to the original iPhone?

Honestly curious. It would help me settle my opinion on this matter.

I think the point is that if Apple thinks current phone prices are reasonable, which factors in the cost of these licenses, they would hate to think what Apple would consider unreasonable.

 

[tgwaste]

"Unreasonable charging mode." If current prices are reasonable to Apple, I am afraid of their unreasonable.

I bet iPhone prices are lower next year.