Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
52,058
13,669



Back in 2017, Qualcomm filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) accusing Apple's iPhones of infringing on six Qualcomm patents.

Qualcomm was hoping to ban imports of select iPhone and iPad models using Intel modems, but as it turns out, the company's efforts have been a poor use of time and money.

qualcomm-iphone-7-800x374.jpg

As outlined by FOSS Patents, in a recent filing with the ITC Apple said that it has implemented an iOS 12.1 workaround to one key patent in the complaint, U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490, which covers "power saving techniques in computing devices."

Apple said that it introduced changes in iOS 12.1 to make sure that it does not violate the '490 patent, though the company claims the original design wasn't in violation to begin with.

Qualcomm's own Chief Technology Officer has said that there are alternate design options to skirt the '490 patent, which Apple submits as evidence that the '490 patent should not be valid in the ITC complaint.
Qualcomm's presentation at the hearing crystallized its theories regarding the scope and coverage of claim 31 of the '490 patent. Against that backdrop, Apple recently changed its software (i.e., iOS) to remove the functionality that Qualcomm has accused of infringing claim 31, by implementing a design change that Qualcomm's own witnesses conceded would fall outside the scope of the patent. [...]

This fall, after the close of the hearing record, Apple implemented a new software-based design for its Accused '490 Products that removed the accused UL/DL synchronization feature that Qualcomm emphasized could be 'simply remove[d]' to avoid infringement of the '490 patent. To be clear, the pre-change versions also do not infringe the '490 patent, and thus there is no legal need to 'design around' it. But to moot any possible allegation of infringement from Qualcomm, Apple changed its products to do precisely what Qualcomm's own witnesses testified would not infringe the '490 patent."
According to FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller, given Qualcomm's prior comments about the ease of implementing a suitable workaround, Qualcomm won't be able to credibly dispute Apple's plan.

Qualcomm's original ITC complaint against Apple mentioned "six inventions" iPhones use that infringed on Qualcomm patents, but as FOSS Patents outlines in the handy infographic below, many are no longer valid.

qualcommfosspatents-800x1037.jpg

Qualcomm has dropped three of the six patents, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the case said that Apple did not infringe on another two, and as for the last, it's the one that Apple added a workaround for in iOS 12.1.

Given the weakness of Qualcomm's complaint, the company is not likely to win its case, and even if it does, it won't cover Apple's iPhones that have the iOS 12.1 software update.

Apple and Qualcomm will go to trial over the original dispute in April, with Qualcomm having been unable to establish leverage over Apple thus far with its U.S. ITC complaints. Apple and Qualcomm will be fighting over royalty payments and anticompetitive patent licensing practices.

Article Link: Qualcomm's U.S. ITC Complaint Falling Apart as Apple Implements Workaround in iOS 12.1
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG

mtneer

macrumors 68040
Sep 15, 2012
3,048
2,447
Given the weakness of Qualcomm's complaint, the company is not likely to win its case, and even if it does, it won't cover Apple's iPhones that have the iOS 12.1 software update.

Thank you for the details. But what about phones already sold that do not carry iOS 12.1 (due to age or their owners choosing not to upgrade). Will QCOM be able to hold those individuals culpable in infringement now (assuming they can find them).
 
Comment

Sasparilla

macrumors 68000
Jul 6, 2012
1,543
2,525
Just saw another article detailing how Google is adding to its chipmaking expertise with new hiring. Because of its lack of vision (smartphone CPU's - sitting on its only CPU for 3 years) and how unpleasant a company it is to deal with - Qualcomm will be lucky to exist in the smartphone CPU market in 5 years (Samsung and Huawei already make their own CPU's, throw out a Google smartphone CPU for the general market and it'll be game over for Qualcomm).
 
Comment

Baymowe335

Suspended
Oct 6, 2017
6,640
12,450
QCOM is another joke company that should have never burned the bridge with Apple.

Without major players like Apple, QCOM is just a book of patents. The general public has no idea what Qualcomm does or even knows they want their products.

They do want iPhones, however.

Really, really stupid to try to pick this fight with the biggest company in the world. Apple is going to leave them at the alter and never look back. And guess what? If Apple does need them, QCOM will come crawling back.
 
Comment

mi7chy

macrumors 604
Oct 24, 2014
7,625
8,490
No working around the inferior radio performance though. One of two things will happen, Apple will make up with Qualcomm or the competition will shorten the huge gap within the next few years if ever. Worst case get an AT&T iPhone with faux 5Ge.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jamesrick80
Comment

Glideslope

macrumors 604
Dec 7, 2007
6,743
3,991
a quiet place in NY.
Time to kiss and make up. It’s over QC. Just be hopeful Apple Licences some of your tech when TSMC starts churning out Apple’s modems in 2 years. There are others they can use. Both parties need to end this nonsense in order to enhance the end user experience. :apple:
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrUNIMOG
Comment

FloatingBones

macrumors 65816
Jul 19, 2006
1,328
430
Anybody who has ever worked on OR reviewed Patent Apps knows full-well that ALOT of patent apps get approved that should NOT.

Absolutely. The most absurd I know of is US Patent 6368227 Method of swinging on a swing -- issue back in April 2002. The 5-year-old (with the aid of his dad) patented a "method" to swing sideways and in oval circles on an ordinary swing. Unbelievable.

US06368227-20020409-D00000.png
 
Comment

calzon65

macrumors 6502a
Jul 16, 2008
918
3,470
So interesting to see these two slug it out. Qualcomm was a leader in wireless telecom, with Intel getting into the space and rumors of Apple maybe getting into the modem space, I wonder if Qualcomm will become the Kodak of the wireless world.
 
Last edited:
Comment

Carnegie

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2012
771
1,888
So it's fine to infringe on patents, sell the devices and software, and then quickly do a workaround when caught?

Apple was only found (by an administrative law judge) to have infringed one out of the six patents originally asserted. And the ITC decided to review that infringement finding, so it may not have stood anyway.

That said, not all infringement is knowing or intentional. Even if Apple was actually infringing one of the patents, it might not have realized that it was doing so. It might not have been aware of the possibility or it might have reasonably believed it didn't infringe. Given that it was able to work around the patent it allegedly infringed, there's a good chance it previously didn't think it was infringing.

Anyway, here's one of the problems with what Qualcomm did in the past. (I don't know whether it's relevant with regard to the patents at issue here, but it could be.) One of the things Qualcomm used to do (as alleged by parties other than Apple and as found by regulatory bodies) is refuse to tell licensees which patents they were licensing. It wouldn't tell them what they were paying for. So a company like Apple might not be aware that something it was doing would, if it effectively stopped making royalty payments, be infringing Qualcomm patents.
 
Comment

cmaier

macrumors Core
Jul 25, 2007
21,221
24,059
California
So it's fine to infringe on patents, sell the devices and software, and then quickly do a workaround when caught?

1) “when caught?” It’s not as if you know ahead of time that you are infringing a patent. There are 8 million of them just in the U.S. alone.

2) you can still be liable for infringement of the patents before you implemented the work-around. However the money you have to pay may be minimal. For example, if working around the patent was cheap and easy, the value of the patent is then minimal. The law takes into account what Apple would have been willing to pay in a licensing negotiation for the patent - if apple could simply spend nothing and design the thing differently, it wouldn’t have been willing to pay anything to license the patent.
[doublepost=1549915648][/doublepost]
Absolutely. The most absurd I know of is US Patent 6368227 Method of swinging on a swing -- issue back in April 2002. The 5-year-old (with the aid of his dad) patented a "method" to swing sideways and in oval circles on an ordinary swing. Unbelievable.

US06368227-20020409-D00000.png

This was invalidated.
 
Comment

Carnegie

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2012
771
1,888
So interesting to see these two slug it out. Qualcomm was one a leader in wireless telecom, with Intel getting into the space and rumors of Apple maybe getting into the modem space, I wonder if Qualcomm will become the Kodak of the wireless world.

Perhaps, but not any time soon.
 
Comment

FloatingBones

macrumors 65816
Jul 19, 2006
1,328
430
This was invalidated.

My point was valid. The "method of moving on a swing" should never have been approved in the first place -- as it was done in April of 2002. Claims were only invalidated after the media had a field day with this. Someone was asleep at the wheel -- or maybe snoozing on a swing.

The US patent system is patently broken.
 
Comment

sfwalter

macrumors 68010
Jan 6, 2004
2,002
1,300
Dallas Texas
Qualcomm is no patent troll. However I think they just got too greedy. Apple is big enough to stand up to them and Qualcomm doesn't like it.

I love this line in the article "Qualcomm was hoping to ban imports of select iPhone and iPad models using Intel modems, but as it turns out, the company's efforts have been a poor use of time and money"
 
Comment

tdar

macrumors 65816
Jun 23, 2003
1,401
990
Alpharetta GA.
Mark my words- It's only a mater of time for this whole misadventure to result in QC being liquidated. Who would choose to use any of their products in a design after this? Samsung, Apple, Intel, LG and others will (and are) designing replacements as we speak. QC's greed will kill it.
 
Comment

sfwalter

macrumors 68010
Jan 6, 2004
2,002
1,300
Dallas Texas
I
Mark my words- It's only a mater of time for this whole misadventure to result in QC being liquidated. Who would choose to use any of their products in a design after this? Samsung, Apple, Intel, LG and others will (and are) designing replacements as we speak. QC's greed will kill it.

I wonder how long before Samsung starts designing their own chips.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.