Qualcomm Accuses Apple of Stealing LTE Modem Trade Secrets and Giving Them to Intel [Updated]

[FFR]

Tech press headlines are just clickbait.

Although an infringement means they could, nobody expected the ITC to actually issue a ban. iPhones are too popular. Thus the administrative law judge advised that a ban would not be in the public interest and recommended against it. (The last presidential administration overturned a previous iPhone ban.)

However, the decision is a win for Qualcomm, as it validated Apple's infringement of a useful power saving feature.

This was unexpected. Just a few weeks ago, tech sites were reporting that no patents were likely to be found to be infringed. Moreover, all the Qualcomm patents were found to be valid.

But what happened to all the other patents?

Weren’t there like 5 or 6 dedicated lte parents?

And only the power management was found to infringe?

Don’t see how that’s good news.

 

[rjohnstone]

But what happened to all the other patents?

Weren’t there like 5 or 6 dedicated lte parents?

And only the power management was found to infringe?

Don’t see how that’s good news.

Different cases.
The LTE patent case is still working its way through the court.

 

[FFR]

Different cases.
The LTE patent case is still working its way through the court.

Your right, found this.

“Qualcomm in late 2017 had asked the ITC to prevent iPhones that had Intel 4G chips from being sold because of allegations of patent infringement. Administrative Law Judge Thomas Pender on Friday agreed that Apple infringed one Qualcomm patent related to power management, but it didn't infringe two other patents. “


Does anyone know what the other two parents were, are they lte based?

 

[5232152]

Weird thing to say.

If I am accused of theft, then would you really say that I can‘t know if I am guilty or not, because I „only see half of the battlefield“? I think I can know quite well whether I stole something or not without seeing all of the „battlefield“.

You cannot. In your thought up scenario someone snug a product into your bag or whatever. That still makes you a thief, even if unknowing.

Regardless of what you think - the law obeys the factual and provable truth - not private opinions.

 

[Substance90]

That is an utterly insane proposition...

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/b...etwork-to-help-protect-linux-and-open-source/
You were saying...?

 

[ersan191]

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/b...etwork-to-help-protect-linux-and-open-source/
You were saying...?

First of all it's kind of petty to necro a month old post for this.
Secondly, what the hell does that have to do with open sourcing Microsoft's core software or any of its hardware - the answer is absolutely nothing. This is a patent licensing program.

 

[Substance90]

First of all it's kind of petty to necro a month old post for this.
Secondly, what the hell does that have to do with open sourcing Microsoft's core software or any of its hardware - the answer is absolutely nothing. This is a patent licensing program.

It has a lot to do with your statement that open source and sharing is an insane proposition. Microsoft sharing their patents with members of the Open Invention Network would have been called "insane" a week ago too. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, Apple embracing open source some time in the near future wouldn't be as insane as you think, and that's a good thing.

By the way, joining OIN is as close to open-sourcing the patents as it gets because anyone can become a member free of charge simply by submitting a form. You don't even need to be a legal company.