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

[cmaier]

I didn't say you needed to give away everything you create for free. It's on you to figure out how to profit off of your creative energy. As a software developer, I can keep my code compiled/private, and if I've generated something unique/special, I can profit from being first to market. Then, if I want to continue to profit while others attempt to copy my ideas, I need to continue to work to keep my product better than the competition's in some way or another.

Again, that's the same argument someone else gave. It's simply not true. People are driven to create for a variety of reasons. I'm pretty sure that IP laws didn't exist back when Leonardo da Vinci was creating things, and it didn't stop him.

Things were a lot harder to copy then.

The first law granting a time-limited monopoly to inventors dates back to 1623.

 

[MadDawg2020]

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

Explain how Apple is ‘overcharging’ for its iPhones? What is your actual basis and facts for ‘punishing Apple hard”?

It is most likely you are just another whiner that cries because Apple does not give away free phones - because you feel entitled to the newest technology. Apple is a company in business to sell products and services to generate a profit, not to give you things just because.

Apple has not and never will be in the market to make low end cheaply made products with 3rd rate components. They never made a sub $500 computer, sub-sub notebook or a $99 phone for a reason! Too many compromises in quality! They have no interest in this.There are plenty of others that do this already.

And please tell us, do you cry like this about Samsung? They charge $999+ for their top of the line phones same as Apple and $2000 for their new folding phones!

 

[hipnetic]

For anyone with an honest interest in the argument against "Intellectual Property" this is a reasonably short article (titled "Owning Ideas Means Owning People") that won't require much of your time to read:
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/19/roderick-t-long/owning-ideas-means-owning-people

A couple of highlights:

If the originator of the design were to claim exclusive rights over it, he or she would thereby be claiming, in practice, the right to control someone else’s property – someone else’s individual mind or individual sheet of paper or individual mousetrap. Intellectual property is thus essentially a claim of ownership over other people and the products of other people’s labor, and so is necessarily illegitimate; in forbidding the free circulation of ideas it constitutes a form of censorship as well.

That [Intellectual Property protections] have existed since the beginning of the republic is true, but not a compelling argument for their legitimacy. (Slavery existed for the first century of the republic also.) As for their being needed to promote “science and the useful arts,” even if this were true it wouldn’t justify the violation of liberty involved – but it is doubtful that it is true, given that most scientific and artistic progress throughout history was accomplished without intellectual property protections, and in many cases was in fact possible only because there were no such protections (as inventions built on previous inventions, and artworks on previous artworks). The protectionist argument that intellectual innovators won’t have sufficient incentive to create unless they’re protected from competition doesn’t seem to hold up historically.

This site/page is also a great resource for articles/podcasts on the subject:
http://c4sif.org/2015/11/a-selection-of-my-best-articles-and-speeches-on-ip/

 

[Tigger11]

True. Even if Qualcommm eventually loses, they still wouldn't have to pay out a billion. They would essentially be at a wash with Apple. Apple would owe QC a billion in royalty payments, QC would owe Apple a billion from the judgement. A wash.

No, you need to read this better. This judgement is for $31 million dollars that Apple owes QC, the other case QC owes Apple 1 Billion dollars, its not a wash, as others said Apple stopped paying the fees (now totaling 31 million), because QC stopped paying the rebates first (now totalling 1 billion dollars) after Apple answered questions by inspectors from several federal governments during court proceedings. Its not like Apple can go lie under oath, but QC decided since they didnt they no longer got the rebates, which are substanitally more money then the issue discussed here.
-Tig

 

[cmaier]

For anyone with an honest interest in the argument against "Intellectual Property" this is a reasonably short article (titled "Owning Ideas Means Owning People") that won't require much of your time to read:
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/19/roderick-t-long/owning-ideas-means-owning-people

A couple of highlights:




This site/page is also a great resource for articles/podcasts on the subject:
http://c4sif.org/2015/11/a-selection-of-my-best-articles-and-speeches-on-ip/

Except it’s nonsense. “Doesn’t seem to hold up historically?”

Consider the progress of mankind before intellectual property laws (prior to the 1600’s) vs after, and explain to me how there’s no apparent correlation between the incentives provided by intellectual property laws and progress.

Tell me who is going to invest a billion dollars to find a cure for an extremely rare disease, knowing that as soon as they produce the medication everyone else can copy it immediately?

 

[69Mustang]

No, you need to read this better. This judgement is for $31 million dollars that Apple owes QC, the other case QC owes Apple 1 Billion dollars, its not a wash, as others said Apple stopped paying the fees (now totaling 31 million), because QC stopped paying the rebates first (now totalling 1 billion dollars) after Apple answered questions by inspectors from several federal governments during court proceedings. Its not like Apple can go lie under oath, but QC decided since they didnt they no longer got the rebates, which are substanitally more money then the issue discussed here.
-Tig

Tee hee. I may need to read better but at least I understand what's going on. Based on your comment to me... you don't. Either that or you don't know what I'm referencing. Regardless, your facts are wrong. Apple has not stopped paying fees totaling $31 million. The $31 million is a damages verdict that Qualcomm received based on infringement (rumored request was $1.40 per infringing phone). The licensing fees owed Qualcomm by Apple's contract manufacturers is already at $1 billion (if not more) since Apple instructed them to stop paying Qualcomm. Apple will be owed a billion from trial, Qualcomm will be owed a billion from licensing fees. It's a wash.

 

[tooltalk]

Qualcomm didn’t withhold the rebates because of failure to pay royalties. They withheld them because they theorized that apple cooperated with government investigations against Qualcomm.

Qualcomm's contract doesn't forbid Apple from cooperating with regulators. There is no "theorizing." Qualcomm's claim here is that Apple misinformed regulators about their contract which resulted in infamous the "rebates for exclusivity" charge by multiple regulators.

 

[cmaier]

Qualcomm's contract doesn't forbid Apple from cooperating with regulators. There is no "theorizing." Qualcomm's claim here is that Apple misinformed regulators about their contract which resulted in infamous the "rebates for exclusivity" charge by multiple regulators.

That’s indeed theorizing. It’s a mere claim. And their contract indeed does forbid making claims against Qualcomm with government agencies.

 

[Wondercow]

Intangible? What dictionary are you citing? Property is something that you can physically hold onto. It possesses the special quality that it's something that can be physically taken away from you.

Absolutely not; I really wish people would stop spreading this lie, er, misunderstanding, and simply use a dictionary:

Oxford Dictionary of English, 2017: 1. A thing or things belonging to someone
American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition: 1a. Something owned; a possession

If you further research thing and something, you’ll see that they include thoughts and other intangibles.

 

[0947347]

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.

Sometimes you win sometimes you lose, sometimes both
[doublepost=1552901200][/doublepost]

Absolutely not; I really wish people would stop spreading this lie, er, misunderstanding, and simply use a dictionary:

Oxford Dictionary of English, 2017: 1. A thing or things belonging to someone
American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition: 1a. Something owned; a possession

If you further research thing and something, you’ll see that they include thoughts and other intangibles.

Maybe he/she never heard of intellectual property

 

[Vege-Taco]

All I know is that Qualcomm's modems are superior (faster and better signal strength) to Intel's. I wish this would all get sorted out and Apple would get back to using Qualcomm modems.

 

[cmaier]

All I know is that Qualcomm's modems are superior (faster and better signal strength) to Intel's. I wish this would all get sorted out and Apple would get back to using Qualcomm modems.

If nobody uses Intel’s modems than Qualcomm’s will always be better, they will have no competition, and they won’t get better either.

Chillax.

 

[djgamble]

You can't patent "quickly connecting to the internet", but you can quickly connect to the internet in nearly infinite ways.

Qualcomm has a patent that does this using specific technological means... this is uncontested because Apple agreed they were doing this. However, Apple disagreed about the calculation method for how much they owed - so they stopped paying until the court decided which method was correct.

While I'm sure you're as excited about the technology as I am, it's a technical case about how to correctly calculate the quantum meruit for the non-contested patent. Pretty boring TBH.

 

[Carnegie]

Qualcomm has a patent that does this using specific technological means... this is uncontested because Apple agreed they were doing this. However, Apple disagreed about the calculation method for how much they owed - so they stopped paying until the court decided which method was correct.

While I'm sure you're as excited about the technology as I am, it's a technical case about how to correctly calculate the quantum meruit for the non-contested patent. Pretty boring TBH.

That isn't correct. Apple disagreed about more than just the damages calculation method. Apple asserted, and continues to assert, that it didn't infringe that patent.

 

[Analog Kid]

Qualcomm has a patent that does this using specific technological means... this is uncontested because Apple agreed they were doing this. However, Apple disagreed about the calculation method for how much they owed - so they stopped paying until the court decided which method was correct.

While I'm sure you're as excited about the technology as I am, it's a technical case about how to correctly calculate the quantum meruit for the non-contested patent. Pretty boring TBH.

I feel like you may have lost the thread of the conversation in the couple weeks since my response. I was addressing your statement that the "details" provided by CNET help inform the conversation. I don't think thin explanations like that add much in general to patent discussions and I can't see how those "details" led to your latest comments...

 

[tooltalk]

As someone who works in intellectual property for a living - if this is how you feel as a software developer, would you mind being a doll and sending over your code that you spent so much time developing so that I can sell it and profit for myself? (Since you don't really own the idea you know). Thanks!

I guess you've been missing out on open source movement that's been going on for decades now? And there are so many to choose from; GNU, BSD, MIT, etc.. You are familiar with the fact that Mac OS borrowed a lot from BSD?