Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The first Qualcomm patent reportedly enables users to "adjust and reformat the size and appearance of photos," while the second is said to relate to "managing applications using a touch screen when viewing and navigating apps."

This is such a blindingly obvious patent with prior art I don't see it standing up at all.

True. But this is China, the People's Republic of IP Theft. So it's not about the Chinese courts even honoring what is "obvious" with patents. It's simply about China taking sides during a political fight with the USA. Apple (being a symbol of American corporate success) is the target here…. until President Trump somehow releases that arrested Huawei executive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: R3k and DEXTERITY
While Qualcomm may be winning this battle in the short term, they're just forcing Apple's hand who are now focusing on creating their own. In the end I don't see this working out well for Qualcomm.
Don't really think they care. They're the main supplier for Android phones and wearables. Apart from that, Apple's mobile division is in a desolate state anyway. Products don't sell, about 10 years behind Google when it comes to Siri vs Google Assistant and next year's phones will look the same as this year's and last year's. Outlook's not that rosy, so Qualcomm's much better off betting on Android.
 
The first Qualcomm patent reportedly enables users to "adjust and reformat the size and appearance of photos," while the second is said to relate to "managing applications using a touch screen when viewing and navigating apps."

This is such a blindingly obvious patent with prior art I don't see it standing up at all.
Yeah, I mean Apple would never go after Samsung over their patent on rounded edges and swipe to unlock, right?
 
You seem to not have an idea who is bulling on this case. The "smart ass" Qualcomm seem to want a % for every iPhone sold (regardless if they do or they do not have their chips in them) and not for the actual chips. And only for Apple. What a wonderful idea he?? Talk about bulling!!
Well, the other companies actually have patent agreements with Qualcomm and pay for using their intellectual property. Apple just steals it, just like the EU's tax money. First they had to pay the EU 14 billion Euro in back taxes and now they're being sued for patent infringement. Being a crook company seems to be Apple's new deal. If you can't innovate, cheat and steal instead. Works just fine until you get caught.
 
You seem to not have an idea who is bulling on this case. The "smart ass" Qualcomm seem to want a % for every iPhone sold (regardless if they do or they do not have their chips in them) and not for the actual chips. And only for Apple. What a wonderful idea he?? Talk about bulling!!
If they agreed they have to pay.

Hi BvizioN, could you lend $1000?
You want $3000 back? ok fine.

-next month-

BvizioN I'm giving you $1500 only because I found our past deal to be unfair.
 
I suspect not. Apple seems pretty determined to put an end to Qualcomm's percentage pricing and double charging schemes. I don't think they'll accept an agreement for anything less than per unit pricing inclusive of license fees unless the courts force something different on them.
[doublepost=1544720976][/doublepost]

Please read up on FRAND. That changes the playing field significantly.

The patents mentioned don’t seem related to telecoms standards so would FRAND still apply?
 
Absolutely. Patents should not be issued for things like this. It wasn't that long ago Apple was suing Samsung for using the "swipe to unlock" and "pinch to zoom" gestures. Patent law has gotten ridiculous and is being used to protect generic ideas rather than the specific implementation of those ideas.
That's exactly what I came here to say!

If those Patents don't fail upon review for the "must be non-obvious" rule, then our Patent system is TRULY and COMPLETELY broken. IOW, it looks like the Patent and Trademark Office has taken the position of "Approve EVERYTHING, and let the Courts sort it out."

Ridiculous.
[doublepost=1544728072][/doublepost]
Please read up on FRAND. That changes the playing field significantly.
Exactly.

The FRAND Doctrine is being blatantly ignored by Qualcomm; especially egregious when coupled with the USPTO seemingly taking the "Approve Anything and Everything" approach to Patent Applications these days, and it results in these years-long, often wrongly-decided court battles in which the REAL losers are CONSUMERS, who must absorb the cost of this most frivolous and vexatious litigation.
 
It isn't illegal nor unfair to take a percentage. Apple signed the contract. No one had a gun to Tim's head.
I get the contract thing but it is a two way street when you bring it up. Both sides have to honor it.
From the reading over time I have been doing on this topic, it appears Apple agreed to buy and pay a percentage and Qual. would send Apple a rebate based on some formula. Again, from what I remember reading Apple stopped paying after Qual. stopped sending Apple the agreed upon rebate amount.
Maybe my recollection is inaccurate but it seems to have begun with Qual. not honoring their end of the deal first.
If you have different info. I'd be happy to hear it.
 
Yeah, I mean Apple would never go after Samsung over their patent on rounded edges and swipe to unlock, right?
Oh, PUH-LEEZE, Not THIS tired-old meme again!!!

Apple's (most righteous) lawsuit against Slamdung was about a LOT more than "rounded corners and swipe to unlock"; it was for COLD-COPYING the ENTIRE look and feel of what was at that time called "iPhone OS" AND the iPhone itself. Take a look at this, and tell me that "rounded corners" were all that was copied:

https://money.cnn.com/2015/09/17/technology/apple-samsung/index.html


From more than about a foot away, those two products are nearly IDENTICAL.
 
Am I incorrect in that the first Chinese decision only applies to devices not sold with iOS 12 installed at production? Is this new attempt targeted at iOS 12 devices?
Also seems as if Foxconn and Apple seem to be the targets more than Pegatron. Is Pegatron making the payments that Foxconn and Apple are withholding? :apple:
 
Qualcomm are clearly the bad guys here. There's no way Apple can possibly have stolen intellectual property. Only others do that.

Apple have done plenty of things that are wrong in the past, however this time Qualcomm are in the wrong and should simply fess up and deal with it.
[doublepost=1544732313][/doublepost]
Uh... they already successfully banned all your other products. Doesn't seem like a desperate move to me.

With respect it is a very desperate move because without the money they get from Apple Qualcomm they are screwed.
[doublepost=1544732470][/doublepost]
The first Qualcomm patent reportedly enables users to "adjust and reformat the size and appearance of photos," while the second is said to relate to "managing applications using a touch screen when viewing and navigating apps."

This is such a blindingly obvious patent with prior art I don't see it standing up at all.

Except that at least on elf those patents is no longer valid.
[doublepost=1544732785][/doublepost]
It isn't illegal nor unfair to take a percentage. Apple signed the contract. No one had a gun to Tim's head.

The FTC disagree with you. They say it is illegal to charge twice. I am sure that if you went into shop to buy a bag of flour to use to make a cake that you sell, you would be hacked off if the shop then said to you "Hey we know we charged you already for that bag of four but we now want a % of the total cost that you sell the cake for.
[doublepost=1544733110][/doublepost]
Don't really think they care. They're the main supplier for Android phones and wearables. Apart from that, Apple's mobile division is in a desolate state anyway. Products don't sell, about 10 years behind Google when it comes to Siri vs Google Assistant and next year's phones will look the same as this year's and last year's. Outlook's not that rosy, so Qualcomm's much better off betting on Android.

Except that Android is in an even bigger state of chaos and disarray due to poor build quality and poor safety. Remember Samsung at all and those phones that had a tendency to explode!!
or shall we go on about how Huawei are accused of having secret back doors into their equipment hence why they are banned in certain places.
Or shall we go on about how security in general on play store was lousy for many years and still is? The amount of apps that contain malicious code is uncountable.
Without Apple, qualcomm is screwed in terms of profits.
They do not charge android makers twice or in the way they do with Apple.
They will take about 80% profit loss when they no longer are used in Apple iPhones.
Sends pretty dire for Qualcomm, hence the lawsuits.
[doublepost=1544733469][/doublepost]
Well, the other companies actually have patent agreements with Qualcomm and pay for using their intellectual property. Apple just steals it, just like the EU's tax money. First they had to pay the EU 14 billion Euro in back taxes and now they're being sued for patent infringement. Being a crook company seems to be Apple's new deal. If you can't innovate, cheat and steal instead. Works just fine until you get caught.

Sorry to correct you but you are wrong.
Firstly Apple got charged by Qualcomm twice. Qualcomm do not do that to any other company so how is that fair? Answer, it is not!
Imagine that you bake your own cakes to sell. Imagine that you buy flour from a shop to use in your cakes. Imagine that the shop sells flour to other cake makers but they only charge them once. Now also imagine that they charge you twice. They charge you for buying the bags of flour but they also then demand a % of each cake sale. If you then decide to make cost savings and decide to stop using their flour, instead you use another supplier of flour that the shop sues you and tries to get your cakes forbidden from being sold. How would that be fair to you?

it would not would it? So Apple stole nothing. Next the EU declared that Apple got state aid from Ireland but that was disputed by both Apple AND irelands. So perhaps the EU could be wrong. I mean, plenty of governments have been known to be wrong in the past. So do you think that the EU are never wrong, ever?
So your argument has just been proven wrong.
Thank you anyway.
 
FRAND does not mean cheap nor does it mean free. It means they can't charge apple more than they charge Samsung.

That's an absurd oversimplification. For example, R = Reasonable. When phones were primarily phones and their functionality was largely dependent on the cellular modem technology it may have been reasonable to license the technology based on a percentage of the final product price, but it's arguable that the cellular technology is a much smaller piece of the overall technology and those terms are no longer reasonable. The two sides disagree on this point and the courts are sorting it out.
 
The first Qualcomm patent reportedly enables users to "adjust and reformat the size and appearance of photos," while the second is said to relate to "managing applications using a touch screen when viewing and navigating apps."

LOL. Lame. Too broad an idea and there's no hope of defending your exclusive rights to it - "Your Honor, I patent using a lateral swiping movement to clean your ass after defecating!" "The original idea of using a bow knot to connect the laces of shoes is mine! And I will sue your ASS, Mister, if you don't a-loose them laces this instant!"

Nothing to see here... puhlease.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cote32mt
The patents mentioned don’t seem related to telecoms standards so would FRAND still apply?

Probably not, but I brought FRAND up in response to a comment about the percentage licensing lawsuit in which FRAND does apply.
 
Oh, PUH-LEEZE, Not THIS tired-old meme again!!!

Apple's (most righteous) lawsuit against Slamdung was about a LOT more than "rounded corners and swipe to unlock"; it was for COLD-COPYING the ENTIRE look and feel of what was at that time called "iPhone OS" AND the iPhone itself. Take a look at this, and tell me that "rounded corners" were all that was copied:

https://money.cnn.com/2015/09/17/technology/apple-samsung/index.html


From more than about a foot away, those two products are nearly IDENTICAL.
Don't poop your pants please. Righteous? Patenting age-old designs and then suing the competition - that sounds super righteous. But if they end up evading taxes and stealing intellectual property - you're still defending them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9081094
Apple have done plenty of things that are wrong in the past, however this time Qualcomm are in the wrong and should simply fess up and deal with it.
[doublepost=1544732313][/doublepost]

With respect it is a very desperate move because without the money they get from Apple Qualcomm they are screwed.
[doublepost=1544732470][/doublepost]

Except that at least on elf those patents is no longer valid.
[doublepost=1544732785][/doublepost]

The FTC disagree with you. They say it is illegal to charge twice. I am sure that if you went into shop to buy a bag of flour to use to make a cake that you sell, you would be hacked off if the shop then said to you "Hey we know we charged you already for that bag of four but we now want a % of the total cost that you sell the cake for.
[doublepost=1544733110][/doublepost]

Except that Android is in an even bigger state of chaos and disarray due to poor build quality and poor safety. Remember Samsung at all and those phones that had a tendency to explode!!
or shall we go on about how Huawei are accused of having secret back doors into their equipment hence why they are banned in certain places.
Or shall we go on about how security in general on play store was lousy for many years and still is? The amount of apps that contain malicious code is uncountable.
Without Apple, qualcomm is screwed in terms of profits.
They do not charge android makers twice or in the way they do with Apple.
They will take about 80% profit loss when they no longer are used in Apple iPhones.
Sends pretty dire for Qualcomm, hence the lawsuits.
[doublepost=1544733469][/doublepost]

Sorry to correct you but you are wrong.
Firstly Apple got charged by Qualcomm twice. Qualcomm do not do that to any other company so how is that fair? Answer, it is not!
Imagine that you bake your own cakes to sell. Imagine that you buy flour from a shop to use in your cakes. Imagine that the shop sells flour to other cake makers but they only charge them once. Now also imagine that they charge you twice. They charge you for buying the bags of flour but they also then demand a % of each cake sale. If you then decide to make cost savings and decide to stop using their flour, instead you use another supplier of flour that the shop sues you and tries to get your cakes forbidden from being sold. How would that be fair to you?

it would not would it? So Apple stole nothing. Next the EU declared that Apple got state aid from Ireland but that was disputed by both Apple AND irelands. So perhaps the EU could be wrong. I mean, plenty of governments have been known to be wrong in the past. So do you think that the EU are never wrong, ever?
So your argument has just been proven wrong.
Thank you anyway.
Qualcomm's going after the big offenders first. Plus again: the other big players, like Google, Samsung and Microsoft actually do pay to use Qualcomm's intellectual property.

As for the EU: no, they're not wrong. Apple thought that paying 0.05% tax while everyone else paid 30% was completely legal and not the least bit fishy. Honestly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9081094
Oh, PUH-LEEZE, Not THIS tired-old meme again!!!

Apple's (most righteous) lawsuit against Slamdung was about a LOT more than "rounded corners and swipe to unlock"; it was for COLD-COPYING the ENTIRE look and feel of what was at that time called "iPhone OS" AND the iPhone itself. Take a look at this, and tell me that "rounded corners" were all that was copied:

https://money.cnn.com/2015/09/17/technology/apple-samsung/index.html


From more than about a foot away, those two products are nearly IDENTICAL.

Not really. Firstly, Apple lost trade dress (ie, overall look-and-feel) part of the lawsuit. Apple's win was based on frivolous design elements -- which included rounded-corner -- and utility patents like slide-to-unlock. Further, Qualcomm cited Apple vs Samsung in their counter-suit against Apple to illustrate the absurdity of Apple's royalty basis & rates demand.
[doublepost=1544737661][/doublepost]
Am I incorrect in that the first Chinese decision only applies to devices not sold with iOS 12 installed at production? Is this new attempt targeted at iOS 12 devices?
Also seems as if Foxconn and Apple seem to be the targets more than Pegatron. Is Pegatron making the payments that Foxconn and Apple are withholding? :apple:

No, the preliminary ruling said nothing about iOS. Please see the following for clarification:

https://futurumresearch.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-chinas-iphone-ban/
[doublepost=1544738130][/doublepost]
That's an absurd oversimplification. For example, R = Reasonable. When phones were primarily phones and their functionality was largely dependent on the cellular modem technology it may have been reasonable to license the technology based on a percentage of the final product price, but it's arguable that the cellular technology is a much smaller piece of the overall technology and those terms are no longer reasonable. The two sides disagree on this point and the courts are sorting it out.

That's your own definition, not what industry participants, licencees and licensors, have agreed for decades. The standard is not determined by one entrant who comes late to the game and now demands to pay as little as possible.
[doublepost=1544738458][/doublepost]
Probably not, but I brought FRAND up in response to a comment about the percentage licensing lawsuit in which FRAND does apply.

Nonsense. There is nothing in FRAND about specific rates or basis being acceptable. The SSOs (standard setting organizations) are not in the business of setting rates or basis for fear of crossing path with anti-trust regulators. IEEE recently announced a policy statement on royalty basis, but it is the only exception to this.
 
Last edited:
Not everything is for sale no matter how much money you have.

Uh, yes it is. It’s a listed company on the stock market. They can buy a majority of their shares and gain control in a very short period of time.
[doublepost=1544740683][/doublepost]
Qualcomm's going after the big offenders first. Plus again: the other big players, like Google, Samsung and Microsoft actually do pay to use Qualcomm's intellectual property.

As for the EU: no, they're not wrong. Apple thought that paying 0.05% tax while everyone else paid 30% was completely legal and not the least bit fishy. Honestly?
Everyone else? Are you kidding? Paying little or no tax in the EU and particularly Ireland is par for the course.
 
That's an absurd oversimplification. For example, R = Reasonable. When phones were primarily phones and their functionality was largely dependent on the cellular modem technology it may have been reasonable to license the technology based on a percentage of the final product price, but it's arguable that the cellular technology is a much smaller piece of the overall technology and those terms are no longer reasonable. The two sides disagree on this point and the courts are sorting it out.

The terms of the licensing from Qualcomm has not changed.
Apple signed the contract, so they should pay.
Qualcomm charges a percentage up to a point then it maxes out.
So Apple is posing a specious argument saying it is becoming cost prohibitive.
It is not, the percentage caps out at a phone cost of about $300 (give or take), so Qualcomm does not get more for an X vs an 8.

You can claim it's a smaller part of the phone, but without the connectivity, it's a fancy iPod touch.
 
Don't poop your pants please. Righteous? Patenting age-old designs and then suing the competition - that sounds super righteous. But if they end up evading taxes and stealing intellectual property - you're still defending them?
I'm really not sure what you mean; but I'd better stop now before I am too "blunt".
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.