Wanna bet Apple's response to this will be to discontinue those SKUs? They already discontinued the X.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
U.S. ITC Judge Says Apple Infringed on Qualcomm Patent, Import Ban Recommended [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
These boards here on MacRumors are toxic.
I hope this motivates Apple to do increasingly more in-house work. Seems to work wonders on their chip design.
I hope this motivates Apple to do increasingly more in-house work. Seems to work wonders on their chip design.
That's like saying if someone steals millions of iPhones from Apple what does Apple win by reporting it to the police? Millions of advertisements for their product taken off the streets for a one time monetary reward? And they lose all that potential subscription business.
Apple, Apple, Apple, if you're going to get into legal disputes over millions and billions of dollars, you really need to make sure you are the one on the right side of the law. Otherwise, you need to just quietly settle out of court for a whole lot less money and a whole lot less embarrassment. This is really reaching the absurd level.
It's interesting that it's just an import ban... if Apple actually manufactured in the US, would it be as simple to shut down Apple's sales of these devices in the US?
That would cost upwards of $121 billion and be about 10 times more expensive than just paying Qualcomm what they owed in the first place even assuming the saving applied to every iPhone ever sold rather than just going forward.
I would also love for these stories to include at least one sample claim from the asserted patents. In this instance, they should include the infringed claim. I think that would preempt a lot of the silly presumptions about what these patents cover.
Those SKUs represent the $500-$800 segment. Nobody is silly enough to discontinue those. The iPhone X remains one of the best selling iPhones from AT&T and Best Buy.
1. They have their patents validated. Making them possibly stronger in future litigation.
2. This would be a possible ban on Intel iPhones that violate their patents
3. QC isn't going to lose future business. Apple is still going to have to license QC patents in the future. That was always the case. Apple just wants better terms. As long as QC patents remain a large part of 3G, 4G, and 5G tech... Apple will need to license it. Again, at issue for Apple is the cost of the licenses.
I am an attorney and used to litigate patent cases. In my opinion, import bans are asinine in 99% of cases, including this one. An iPhone has hundreds of patents that cover its various aspects. Banning import of the device because of a finding of infringement of a single, obscure power management patent is so laughably, grossly disproportionate that I have to marvel at the fact that it’s even a possibility under our patent laws.
I haven't read all of the documents from this USITC case. But in Qualcomm's original complaint, it only asserted that the '674 patent (the one which ALJ McNamara determined that Apple infringed a claim from) was infringed by iPhone 7s and iPhone 7 Pluses. Qualcomm didn't alleged that the '674 patent was infringed by later iPhone models, though it did allege that other asserted patents were infringed by later iPhone models. Qualcomm lost its infringement claims with regard to those other patents.
That said, it's possible that Qualcomm at some point argued that later iPhone models infringe the '674 patent. I think that's unlikely, but it's possible.
The point is... we'll have to wait to see ALJ McNamara's full analysis of the issues to see which models this recommendation (in favor of both an exclusion and a cease and desist order) applies to, but I'd guess it only applies to some iPhone 7s and iPhone 7 Pluses.
That said, it's possible that Qualcomm at some point argued that later iPhone models infringe the '674 patent. I think that's unlikely, but it's possible.
The point is... we'll have to wait to see ALJ McNamara's full analysis of the issues to see which models this recommendation (in favor of both an exclusion and a cease and desist order) applies to, but I'd guess it only applies to some iPhone 7s and iPhone 7 Pluses.
This addiction to "innovation" is tiring. What more do you want? An iPhone that reads your mind? Today's technology is amazing!
Yeah, this USITC case isn't being handled (at least not solely) by in-house Apple lawyers.
Or is it? Maybe Fish & Richardson PC is an Apple subsidiary.
The only point of these USITC actions is to find some bits of leverage which Qualcomm can use in order to, hopefully from its perspective, negotiate a better (read: less bad) settlement of all the outstanding issues with Apple. Qualcomm and Apple will likely eventually settled all their disagreements. But as it is, Apple has most of the leverage.
So you’ve never bought an iPhone before the XS and XR and never bought a cellular iPad then?
How so? If they work for Apple, they get paid a salary and likely work their butts off.Being an Apple patent lawyer seems to be a lucrative job.
They don't get paid by the case or the billable hours.
Last edited: