Jury Rules in Favor of Qualcomm, Says Apple Infringed on Three Qualcomm Patents [Updated]

[MikeMo]

Apple was quite happy to sign a contract with them when it suited them, the contract stated the amount they pay would be based on the price of the product using there technology and Apple had no issues but today Apple is over charging it’s customers for iPhones and relies it will have to pay more in royalties but Apple is greedy it wants it all and that is wrong they signed a contract, perhaps lower the price of the iPhone oh can’t do that we are Apple we want as much as we can from you for a phone that just looks different but basically just the same you have now just a s on the end and that will cost you ££££ more.

Apple needs be punished hard

In those early days, Apple was forced to sign with Qualcomm. There were no alternatives. As for the price of your iPhone: just don't buy it if you think it's too much. Punishing Apple is silly. Of course they charge as much as they can. All companies do that. EVERY one.

 

[cmaier]

Dumb question of me, I apologise, but… Unless I am a manufacturer how would I?

Genuinely curious.
Thanks!

You wouldn’t. Just like a manufacturer wouldn’t. There are well over 10 million patents, just in the United States alone. Each patent has multiple claims which can be independently infringed. Nobody in industry could possibly look at every patent that is issued, analyze it, and compare to every product. So the law distinguishes between infringement and “willful” infringement. This is also one of the reasons that the law requires marking products with patent numbers - to provide notice to people. But claims for processes don’t require marking. And many companies don’t mark (you don’t have to, but then you can’t get money for sales that occur before you file suit).

 

[MikeMo]

No one wants to hear the answer to your question but the answer is one word:

courage.

I’m not being sarcastic. Apple could’ve paid the royalties and continued to make buckets of money. Instead they went after Qualcomm for a much bigger reason. Now that they appeared to have failed, we can all expect to pay more for Android and Apple phones for outdated but intensely defended patents not being treated as FRAND.

Call Apple greedy all you want but this only raises prices on already overpriced phones for everyone. The only positive things that will come from this is that it puts Apple’s own modem engineering into high gear and will also usher in a plethora of cheaper Chinese phones into the US marketplace.

Sorry, Apple hasn't failed on that larger issue. That is still going to trial. I think people are confusing the two sets of issues. This case is entirely unrelated to the other FRAND/royalties case.

 

[Khedron]

What happened with that email Apple said proved they invented all the technology in the first place but didn't bother patenting?

 

[gnasher729]

Agreed. People get all salty when Apple has judgments against it. IMO part of it is that MR is so scarce on details.

The reality is that lots of companies have lots of payments. I’m sure Apple has a few patents to sue Microsoft and Google, and Microsoft has some patents to due Google and Apple, and google has some patents. They all don’t sue each other because it just keeps the lawyers busy. Qualcomm and Apple decided to get nasty. Has nothing to do with what the patents are about.

 

[techwhiz]

(Presumably that will be changing as Judge Koh has now told Qualcomm it has to.) Who knows how long it will take to settle these Qualcomm-Apple issues. There may be 4 or 5 years worth of unpaid royalties owed to Qualcomm. Even at 5% of modem cost, that could be a couple billion dollars worth of royalties owed to Qualcomm. And, again, that would be in addition to the royalty payments withheld from when the BCPA was still in effect.

I doubt it will be changing.
The current last item in the chain works because you can see the features of the device and adjust the payment.
If you force Qualcomm to license SEPs to Intel then there is no tracking of the actual license per device.
Multimode devices pay different from SingleMode and the chip may be exactly the same.

 

[Khedron]

Apple was quite happy to sign a contract with them when it suited them, the contract stated the amount they pay would be based on the price of the product using there technology and Apple had no issues but today Apple is over charging it’s customers for iPhones and relies it will have to pay more in royalties but Apple is greedy it wants it all and that is wrong they signed a contract, perhaps lower the price of the iPhone oh can’t do that we are Apple we want as much as we can from you for a phone that just looks different but basically just the same you have now just a s on the end and that will cost you ££££ more.

Apple needs be punished hard

Apple lawyers legit tried to argue that phones were now costing upwards of $1000 because of the $7 Qualcomm fee

 

[techwhiz]

The reality is that lots of companies have lots of payments. I’m sure Apple has a few patents to sue Microsoft and Google, and Microsoft has some patents to due Google and Apple, and google has some patents. They all don’t sue each other because it just keeps the lawyers busy. Qualcomm and Apple decided to get nasty. Has nothing to do with what the patents are about.

I wouldn't call it getting nasty unless you don't want people to pay you when they owe you? -> Qualcomm

Apple decided the agreement was too expensive then went on a tirade and encouraged others to engage in lawsuits and investigations. They had suppliers withhold payment to Qualcomm.
Apple started this ball rolling. Not Qualcomm.

 

[69Mustang]

They had no choice. And contracts aren’t valid if they are against public policy, illegal, etc.

What do you mean they had no choice? Balderdash. Of course they had a choice.
I have no idea what you're referencing regarding the validity of their contract.

 

[ksec]

So Qualcomm created technologies that allows us to have the network we have today, but Apple doesn't seems to want to contribute to it. They think they pay too much. In the link, replace "Apple" with "Qualcomm", "Music" with "Network" and "Spotify" with "Apple", Apple are such hypocrites.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/03/addressing-spotifys-claims/

And if you read through how they defend it in court, it was absolutely appalling. As much as I wish they both would sit down and talk, I don't think there are any chance of that happening.
[doublepost=1552681729][/doublepost]

I wouldn't call it getting nasty unless you don't want people to pay you when they owe you? -> Qualcomm

Apple decided the agreement was too expensive then went on a tirade and encouraged others to engage in lawsuits and investigations. They had suppliers withhold payment to Qualcomm.
Apple started this ball rolling. Not Qualcomm.

At the start of the saga I wished Apple would win. Now with all the numbers publicly available, I think Qualcomm has a strong case, and the price Qualcomm is charging as it turns out, to be much lower than what we initially expected, especially after rebate. On one hand Apple complained Qualcomm uses these rebate to force competition out of the market, on the other hand Apple complained Qualcomm's Modem price were too expensive.

 

[DNichter]

I can never get a good read on patent disputes, but if Apple did something wrong here - they should pay up. Ultimately makes zero difference to me.

 

[az431]

1 billion dollar judgment for one side and 31 million dollar for the other side. I think I know which side I’d want to be on.

Depends on the patents.
[doublepost=1552682218][/doublepost]

And if you read through how they defend it in court, it was absolutely appalling. As much as I wish they both would sit down and talk, I don't think there are any chance of that happening.
[doublepost=1552681729][/doublepost]

At the start of the saga I wished Apple would win. Now with all the numbers publicly available, I think Qualcomm has a strong case, and the price Qualcomm is charging as it turns out, to be much lower than what we initially expected, especially after rebate. On one hand Apple complained Qualcomm uses these rebate to force competition out of the market, on the other hand Apple complained Qualcomm's Modem price were too expensive.

It’s not a basketball game.
[doublepost=1552682395][/doublepost]

Patents and copyrights are evil. The notion that the state can enforce this notion of someone "owning" an idea and prevent anyone else from using the same idea is ridiculous and evil. But it's even sadder that so many people have been hoodwinked into buying into this nonsensical, evil idea.

Ummm ok. Except patents and copyrights don’t protect “ideas.” Ideas cannot be patented or copyrighted.
[doublepost=1552682618][/doublepost]

Thanks for posting this so others can understand.

It's not $1B vs. $31M.

Apple owes Qualcomm $1B and vice versa due to the rebate arrangement. It's basically a wash.

The $31M is actual news.

You need to brush up on the facts. Qualcomm has to pay Apple $1 billion.

That money was part of royalty payments made by Apple to Qualcomm, and Apple was contractually entitled to a rebate if certain conditions were met. Qualcomm argued that it should not have to pay the rebate because Apple cooperated with an investigation against Qualcomm.
[doublepost=1552682688][/doublepost]

I wouldn't call it getting nasty unless you don't want people to pay you when they owe you? -> Qualcomm

Apple decided the agreement was too expensive then went on a tirade and encouraged others to engage in lawsuits and investigations. They had suppliers withhold payment to Qualcomm.
Apple started this ball rolling. Not Qualcomm.

But of course you can’t proivde a source for the nonsense you just posted (because none of it is true).

 

[MoreRumors?]

During the trial, Apple argued that one of its engineers, Arjuna Siva, had a hand in inventing the technology included in the first patent mentioned above in an attempt to get the patent invalidated, but the jury did not buy Apple's argument.

If that was the case, then Apple dropped the ball and should have had their lawyers iron this out with Qualcomm's lawyers. It's too late to argue this and expect to win.

 

[itr81]

At some point I just don’t care anymore.
Someone is always going to sue you if you ever become very successful and a very public company. The 31 will probably get reduced just like the 1 billion. One day we’ll get some judge that goes for the 2 billion mark.

 

[MikeMo]

So Qualcomm created technologies that allows us to have the network we have today, but Apple doesn't seems to want to contribute to it. They think they pay too much. In the link, replace "Apple" with "Qualcomm", "Music" with "Network" and "Spotify" with "Apple", Apple are such hypocrites.

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/03/addressing-spotifys-claims/

Qualcomm did invent a lot of things, important things, but not everything. In addition, they are required - and agreed - to license those patents at FRAND rates. However, they are charging a percentage of the entire cost of the phone - not just their patents - but everything, things which clearly were not invented by Qualcomm. It is this fee that Apple, along with many other companies and governments, finds unfair.

 

[Jay3846]

Dumb question of me, I apologise, but… Unless I am a manufacturer how would I?

Genuinely curious.
Thanks!

Have you ever used WiFi? (I don’t mean created or built a WiFi System, I mean USED WiFi.) Have you ever used a scanner? Have you ever used a stick to play with a dog? Have you ever used a laser pointer to play with a cat or dog? Have you ever used a swing? Guess what...you’ve infringed a patent!

Don’t believe me? Watch this video which talks all about patent trolls and some of the ridiculous things that have been granted patents. It also talks about how the patent system is rather rigged, especially in the Eastern District of Texas where an abnormally large percentage of patent troll lawsuits are filed (and won by plaintiffs).

Now, with that being said, I’m not accusing Qualcomm of being a patent troll in the usual sense of the word, since they do actually manufacture things. However, all of the shady (IMO) things that went on with Arjuna Siva, look a little funny to me.

 

[wigby]

Sorry, Apple hasn't failed on that larger issue. That is still going to trial. I think people are confusing the two sets of issues. This case is entirely unrelated to the other FRAND/royalties case.

These series of cases are confusing but I still believe this ruling will set a precedent affecting all of Apple's future battles with Qualcomm and that also affects the entire industry.

 

[cmaier]

These series of cases are confusing but I still believe this ruling will set a precedent affecting all of Apple's future battles with Qualcomm and that also affects the entire industry.

Why?

How would this set a precedent?

 

[tridley68]

Apple has probably spent more than $31 million in legal fees on this case. I don't understand why Apple just doesn't buy Qualcomm.

After this escapade Tim and his investors just may very well Buy Qualcomm just out of spite.

 

[chatin]

Steve Jobs needed to get real with the legacy of telephone development but he passed in favor of protecting iPhone like a computer. For the first few generations iPhone didn't even hold a call but Steve didn't care.

 

[mi7chy]

After this escapade Tim and his investors just may very well Buy Qualcomm just out of spite.

US government won't allow the sale of national security interest to foreign front.

 

[cmaier]

US government won't allow the sale of national security interest to foreign front.

Nobody is buying your ad how evidence-free attacks. Maybe go sell it in an android forum?

 

[hipnetic]

If we couldn't do that, no one would do research and development, and the world would stagnate. Your world view is flawed, sir.

That's the line that is spouted quite often, and it has no real basis behind it. You want me to believe that if patents didn't exist that people would never spend creative energy on ideas, simply because they'd worry that they wouldn't be able to be rewarded financially for it. That's nonsense. Creative people are driven by their own creativity.
[doublepost=1552695005][/doublepost]

Copyrights, ownership of your own intellectual properly- its not evil.

There's no such thing as "intellectual property" except as defined by the state. The entire concept of a type of "property" being "intellectual" (in the ether) is absurd.
[doublepost=1552695244][/doublepost]

Ummm ok. Except patents and copyrights don’t protect “ideas.” Ideas cannot be patented or copyrighted.

Patents absolutely do that.

 

[cmaier]

That's the line that is spouted quite often, and it has no real basis behind it. You want me to believe that if patents didn't exist that people would never spend creative energy on ideas, simply because they'd worry that they wouldn't be able to be rewarded financially for it. That's nonsense. Creative people are driven by their own creativity.
[doublepost=1552695005][/doublepost]There's no such thing as "intellectual property" except as defined by the state. The entire concept of a type of "property" being "intellectual" (in the ether) is absurd.
[doublepost=1552695244][/doublepost]Patents absolutely do that.

No they don’t.

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/11/17/protecting-idea-can-ideas-be-patented/id=103389/
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/can-you-patent-an-idea
https://www.upcounsel.com/can-you-patent-an-idea


35 USC 101: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

 

[brenton289]

Now Qualcom only owes Apple $969m.

Well done Qualcom.

/slowclap