U.S. International Trade Commission Declines to Block iPhone Imports in Ongoing Apple v. Qualcomm Case

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Sep 28, 2018.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    The United States International Trade Commission will not be blocking imports of the iPhone in the ongoing Apple v. Qualcomm case, reports Reuters.

    Qualcomm had asked the ITC to ban imports of the AT&T and T-Mobile iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X models that use chips from Intel, citing multiple patent violations.

    [​IMG]

    Qualcomm did not ask for a ban on iPhones that use Qualcomm LTE chips, with the reasoning that a more limited exclusion order was more likely to be granted.

    An ITC judge said on Friday that while Apple's iPhones infringe on a patent related to power management technology, a ban will not be put in place. The judge cited "public interest factors" as one of the reasons why the court ruled against Qualcomm.

    Neither Apple nor Qualcomm have commented on the decision as of yet, but it marks a major victory for Apple in its months-long legal battle with Qualcomm.

    The two companies have been embroiled in an increasingly tense legal feud that kicked off in January 2017. Qualcomm and Apple have filed several more than a dozen lawsuits against one another since then.

    Apple has accused Qualcomm of charging unfair royalties for "technologies they have nothing to do with," while Qualcomm claims that its inventions form the "very core" of modern mobile communication.

    Earlier this week, Qualcomm further escalated the dispute by accusing Apple of providing confidential trade information and trade secrets stolen from Qualcomm to Intel.

    Article Link: U.S. International Trade Commission Declines to Block iPhone Imports in Ongoing Apple v. Qualcomm Case
     
  2. Zwhaler macrumors 604

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #2
    I thought it said "decides" I was like WOAH!!! But then I realized it was declined. It was pretty bogus and Qualcomm being desperate in my opinion. They better step their game up big time because Apple is entering into their competitors businesses (SoC, displays...) Qualcomm knows they're not safe!
     
  3. mitso macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    #3
    Qualcomm tells the government it should stop printing money.. rrrriiight..
     
  4. djcerla macrumors 68000

    djcerla

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Location:
    Italy
  5. Baymowe335 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2017
  6. velocityg4 macrumors 601

    velocityg4

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Location:
    Georgia
    #6
    Sorry Qualcomm. Apple is now a big part of the US economy. As far as a single company is concerned anyway. Their sales and profit volume are too important. It would take a lot more than a simple patent dispute to convince the government to stop imports. Their net income is double your net sales. With Apple switching to Intel for their modems. Your net sales are going way down.

    Even if Apple loses and has to pay. It will be many years from now. The victory will be a pyrrhic victory.
     
  7. keysofanxiety macrumors G3

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #7
    Don’t forget this is the same Qualcomm that got fined for gross corruption and antitrust violations.
     
  8. KPandian1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2013
    #8
    Qualcomm has not heard of reverse engineering and IP looting across the industrial world. They are just angry that Apple is not giving them $100-400 per new iPhone across the price range.

    Meanwhile, we found out in a rant by a nominee that US judges (or world over) are non-partisan, uninfluenced by money or party affiliation!
     
  9. AngerDanger, Sep 28, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2018

    AngerDanger macrumors 68040

    AngerDanger

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    #9
    I can't help but think of that terrible Batman v Superman film whenever I see the names of court cases anymore.

    apple v qualcomm.jpg
     
  10. Quu macrumors 68030

    Quu

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    #10
    Aka the iPhone is too popular to block so we won't be doing that.
     
  11. busyscott macrumors regular

    busyscott

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2015
    Location:
    California
    #11
    Macrumors, can we get a blog explaining in detail the patents at question here and the history of the technology? I feel like I keep reading that same “technologies they have nothing to do with” sentence and have no idea if that’s actually the case.
     
  12. zorinlynx macrumors 603

    zorinlynx

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #12
    Not just that, the case is still ongoing. Why shouldn't Apple be able to continue to sell their product until the case is decided?

    Once that happens, the court can award damages if there are any, etc. But while the case is ongoing, blocking imports is ludicrous.
     
  13. m0sher macrumors 6502

    m0sher

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    #13
    All this means is IF QUALCOMM wins, they’re going to sue for the damages of all the sold units as compensation For their intellectual property used.
     
  14. justperry macrumors G3

    justperry

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Location:
    In the core of a black hole.
    #14
    Blocking it would be insane, it's just a tiny fraction of the phone, if Apple loses and that's a big if they just pay up, that's it
     
  15. Princejb134 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2012
    #15
    Qualcomm has been taking many L’s recently. So Qualcomm here’s another L
     
  16. WBRacing macrumors 6502a

    WBRacing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2012
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    You obviously managed to dodge the Alien vs Predator garbage that came before it. :)
     
  17. apolloa, Sep 28, 2018
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2018

    apolloa macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #17
    ‘Public interest factors’.. or in other words a US company in the US, but if we were being asked to ban Samsung devices we wouldn’t of even thought twice about it, hell we wouldn’t have even bothered coming to court before rubber stamping those ban papers! We would have brought that ban hammer down hard Judge Dredd style...

    Yes I remember when APPLE DID get Samsung devices banned in America on PATENT DISPUTES, damn those round corners.. but hey this is nothing but the usual hypocrisy in the US court system when it invokes big US company’s.

    IMO going off on one, because I’ve seen far too many times the sheer hypocrisy when the shoes on Apples foot...
     
  18. cmaier macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #18
    Remember that this proceeding is in the ITC; it's purpose is to protect U.S. trade interests. This is very different from the related patent cases in the U.S. federal District Courts. You refer to the "usual hypocrisy in the US court system," but unlike the Samsung case you refer to, this case is NOT in the U.S. court system. You are comparing Apple's and Oranges (or Samsungs).
     
  19. rom3o macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2014
    #19
    Qualcomm is an US company, too. But probably not as popular as Apple. :)
     
  20. Tazadrt macrumors newbie

    Tazadrt

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2017
    #20
    ITC judge states Applle has infringed on Qualcomm patent
     
  21. cmaier macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #21
    So? Since they declined to ban imports, what matters is what an Article III judge says, not what an administrative law judge says.
     
  22. matram macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Location:
    Sweden
    #22
    I believe the core of the conflict is that Qualcomm wants a licensing fee based on the total value of the phone. So if Apple would use the same modem chip in the Xr and Xs Max, Qualcomm wants morse money for the Max. Apple argue that they should not pay Qualcomm for other Apple innovations that add value to the phone. I do not think they have have refused a fair fee on the modem chip itself.
     
  23. apolloa macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #23
    Ah I see, seems a bit daft for the case to go through these systems but I guess they want to protect the money, not that it won’t be kept in an off shore bank account! But still I forgot Qualcomm was a US company. Thanks you for reminding me.
     
  24. makr macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2016
    #24
    Yeah afaik that's what it was about. Apple says they make a small part of the end product, whereas Qualcomm argues their chip is in very heart of iPhone etc.
     
  25. Tazadrt macrumors newbie

    Tazadrt

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2017
    #25

    Think you missed my point buddy.
     

Share This Page