U.S. ITC Judge Says Apple Infringed on Qualcomm Patent, Import Ban Recommended [Updated]

[ROGmaster]

Of course others can replicate the curved OLED but why bother when it just necessitates programming a digital chin for swiping up easily and designing cases that leave the lower edge of the phone exposed?

It was a decision that put form ahead of function but doesn't even make artistic sense given the horror show of the notch on the opposite edge.

FaceID is just incremental XBox Kinect tech. Ultrasonic fingerprint is novel.

Yeah I don't think it makes financial sense to fold the screen at the bottom just to make the chin 1-2mm smaller. That's why other companies didn't do it. The same way other companies weren't interested in implementing something similar with 3D touch for example. Also the P30 Pro doesn't use the FaceID type sensors on the front and instead opted for a single tear drop camera notch, so facial recognition on the Mate 20 Pro doesn't appear to be a huge asset.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Of course others can replicate the curved OLED but why bother when it just necessitates programming a digital chin for swiping up easily and designing cases that leave the lower edge of the phone exposed?

It was a decision that put form ahead of function but doesn't even make artistic sense given the horror show of the notch on the opposite edge.

FaceID is just incremental XBox Kinect tech. Ultrasonic fingerprint is novel.

Notch isn’t a horror show lol. And Samsung would have loved to have small bezels at top and bottom with their hole punch camera—but couldn’t manage it without violating Apple’s patents. Digital chin with full screen video? Sure lol. But if you want to think they could have done, but just didn’t want to, feel free. Just realize you have no basis for this claim.

Furthermore, reducing something the size of Kinect to something that’ll fit inside a very small portion of an iPhone is not just an incremental change; it is at least an order of magnitude if not multiple orders more advanced. That’s like saying 10nm lithography is “just incremental” over 90nm. Ultrasonic fingerprint reader is a cakewalk in comparison. Take a look at the patents/apps if you don’t think FaceID is novel.

 

[Khedron]

Notch isn’t a horror show lol. And Samsung would have loved to have small bezels at top and bottom with their hole punch camera—but couldn’t manage it without violating Apple’s patents. Digital chin with full screen video? Sure lol. But if you want to think they could have done, but just didn’t want to, feel free. Just realize you have no basis for this claim.

Furthermore, reducing something the size of Kinect to something that’ll fit inside a very small portion of an iPhone is not just an incremental change; it is at least an order of magnitude if not multiple orders more advanced. That’s like saying 10nm lithography is “just incremental” over 90nm. Ultrasonic fingerprint reader is a cakewalk in comparison. Take a look at the patents/apps.

Kinect was larger for full body tracking. Tracking a face from half a metre away is nothing, and Apple still gets the bokeh wrong.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Kinect was larger for full body tracking. Tracking a face from half a metre away is nothing, and Apple still gets the bokeh wrong.

Please stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Kinect-type motion tracking is about as far from using 30,000 discrete points to build a depth map of a face—that’s so accurate it can be used for biometric authentication on a phone—as an Apple II is from an iMac Pro. Don’t take my word for it; look at the patents.

And Samsung buying Qualcomm’s fingerprint reader isn’t exactly what I’d call innovation.

 

[Khedron]

Please stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Kinect-type motion tracking is about as far from using 30,000 discrete points to build a depth map of a face—that’s so accurate it can be used for biometric authentication on a phone—as an Apple II is from an iMac Pro. Don’t take my word for it; look at the patents.

And Samsung buying Qualcomm’s fingerprint reader isn’t exactly what I’d call innovation.

Kinect also had 30,000 IR dots, 8 years earlier. But it was used to track multiple people in a room. Of course if you focus the same IR projector on a face you have more dots per inch. No one cared about using it for biometric authentication because that's a solution in need of a problem.

Patents mean nothing from the point of view of innovation. Apple recently succeeded in getting a patent just for saying that warming something up prevents damage due to cold in a sufficiently obtuse way.

 

[ROGmaster]

Kinect also had 30,000 IR dots, 8 years earlier. But it was used to track multiple people in a room. Of course if you focus the same IR projector on a face you have more dots per inch. No one cared about using it for biometric authentication because that's a solution in need of a problem.

Patents mean nothing from the point of view of innovation. Apple recently succeeded in getting a patent just for saying that warming something up prevents damage due to cold in a sufficiently obtuse way.

Yeah also:

In 2013, Apple bought PrimeSense. Depth cameras continued to evolve: Kinect 2.0 for the Xbox One replaced PrimeSense technology with Microsoft's own tech and had much higher accuracy and resolution. It could recognize faces and even detect a player's heart rate. Meanwhile, Intel also built its own depth sensor, Intel RealSense, and in 2015 worked with Microsoft to power Windows Hello. In 2016, Lenovo launched the Phab 2 Pro, the first phone to carry Google's Tango technology for augmented reality and machine vision, which is also based on infrared depth detection.

But but FaceID is the greatest and most inovative thing ever. Under display ultrasonic fingerprint sensors are just trash by comparison.

 

[shplock]

Indeed still plenty of challenges and counter challenges ahead.

My point about baby steps and the addition of a single transistor wasn't aimed at you so much as the crowd who keeps acting like innovation is some massive and unambiguous leap forward. There are far more patents like this and remarkably few that look like divine inspiration.

I think it's because we tend to take a lone hero view of history. We say "Edison invented the lightbulb". He didn't-- there were vacuum sealed incandescent carbon bulbs before him. He patented a particular improvement to the carbon filament. EdisonRumors.com at the time was full of people yelling about how Edison wasn't really innovating and how he was just another American trying to steal credit for a British invention.

It's the incrementalism that makes patent defense so contentious. An incremental improvement that nobody else thought of seems obvious in hindsight. The lightbulb patent was also fought, invalidated, revalidated and then finally protected by a business agreement with Swan.

Likewise, the Wright Brothers patent wasn't for an airplane, it was for a specific type of control surface and there were lawsuits in all directions.

Swipe to unlock was really about moving a graphic onscreen along with the user's finger. Other companies had used the swipe gesture itself.

We don't stand on the shoulders of giants, we stand on the shoulders of people standing on shoulders all the way down...

Not to be pedantic but Edison essentially stole the lightbulb from a group of interns who did all the work. All he did was put his name on the paperwork and take the credit. He did a similar tho to a real genius who worked for him called Nikola Tesla. Tesla was a genius in ways Edison could never be. Edison electrocuted dogs and cats and even an elephant just to smear Tesla with his discovery of AC electricity. Who does that apart from a sociopath or psychopath ?

 

[Khedron]

Yeah also:

In 2013, Apple bought PrimeSense. Depth cameras continued to evolve: Kinect 2.0 for the Xbox One replaced PrimeSense technology with Microsoft's own tech and had much higher accuracy and resolution. It could recognize faces and even detect a player's heart rate. Meanwhile, Intel also built its own depth sensor, Intel RealSense, and in 2015 worked with Microsoft to power Windows Hello. In 2016, Lenovo launched the Phab 2 Pro, the first phone to carry Google's Tango technology for augmented reality and machine vision, which is also based on infrared depth detection.

But but FaceID is the greatest and most inovative thing ever. Under display ultrasonic fingerprint sensors are just trash by comparison.

If you buy the whole company rather than just incorporating their product into your phone that counts as your "innovation", apparently.

BTW vivo also has a 300,000 dot sensor, 10 times better than FaceID, but I suppose that doesn't count as progress for some reason.

 

[GuruZac]

If you buy the whole company rather than just incorporating their product into your phone that counts as your "innovation", apparently.

BTW vivo also has a 300,000 dot sensor, 10 times better than FaceID, but I suppose that doesn't count as progress for some reason.

If Face ID was easy, why didn’t anyone else integrate it? Do you own any Apple products or just come here to trash Apple’s products? I can’t imagine there is anything you own that has the on it.

 

[FFR]

If you buy the whole company rather than just incorporating their product into your phone that counts as your "innovation", apparently.

BTW vivo also has a 300,000 dot sensor, 10 times better than FaceID, but I suppose that doesn't count as progress for some reason.

Yup. Buying a company, miniaturizing it’s technology and applying said invention for a different application is the definition of “innovation”

I tell you what’s not innovation, going to qualcomm and picking up one of their off the shelf ultrasonic fingerprint sensors that doesn’t work very well, and calling it a day.

Vivo copying apple and adding extra dot sensors is not “progress”, that’s just copying and a poor attempt at that, didn’t “progress” anywhere did it?

Just to be clear which iPhone are you currently using?

 

[Khedron]

If Face ID was easy, why didn’t anyone else integrate it? Do you own any Apple products or just come here to trash Apple’s products? I can’t imagine there is anything you own that has the on it.

Because no one else cares about FaceID. Of course some niche applications will exist where you really care about hands-free secure unlocking but it just isn't worth the cost. There's nothing illegal, classified, or so personal on my phone that my every interaction with it must accommodate FaceID's limitations. In fact I'd prefer it if the front cameras (and notch) were dropped entirely and the ~$200 worth of tech was put into improving the rear cameras instead. A Samsung style hole punch is sufficient for video chat.

I used to use Apple products for almost everything but have gradually moved away as alternatives become better for me. No new MacBooks since 2014. No new iPhone since 5s (briefly had 8+). I still prefer iTunes for the couple of albums I buy each year, and will probably get AirPods 2 in the near future. I'd probably have an Apple Watch too if not for the iPhone requirement.

 

[ROGmaster]

If Face ID was easy, why didn’t anyone else integrate it? Do you own any Apple products or just come here to trash Apple’s products? I can’t imagine there is anything you own that has the on it.

Yeah sure.
https://www.theverge.com/circuitbre...vo-faceid-3d-tof-biometrics-mwc-shanghai-2018

 

[PickUrPoison]

Kinect also had 30,000 IR dots, 8 years earlier. But it was used to track multiple people in a room. Of course if you focus the same IR projector on a face you have more dots per inch. No one cared about using it for biometric authentication because that's a solution in need of a problem.

Patents mean nothing from the point of view of innovation. Apple recently succeeded in getting a patent just for saying that warming something up prevents damage due to cold in a sufficiently obtuse way.

If you buy the whole company rather than just incorporating their product into your phone that counts as your "innovation", apparently.

BTW vivo also has a 300,000 dot sensor, 10 times better than FaceID, but I suppose that doesn't count as progress for some reason.

1) You can minimize the innovation in shrinking the original Kinect system down to the affordable, manufacturable, very small TrueDepth system all you want, but that doesn’t make it any less innovative and truly an amazing feat.

2) You can claim the Kinect could have done biometric authentication, but you’re just making that up.

3) The patent system is hardly perfect. Some patents are rather unimportant, low tech and one might say trivial. Some are also granted in error and do not stand up to scrutiny, and are invalidated. But some are for incredibly innovative inventions. The existence of the former two categories does not take away from the latter. You actually have to read and understand the claims and the prior art—at a minimum—to have any chance of determining whether a patent is “innovative”.

4) Yes, exactly. If Apple buys the company, hires the scientists/engineers/inventors, is assigned the patents and then those Apple employees spend several years doing R&D to create an affordable, manufacturable, reliable, accurate and miniaturized version of the technology—yes that is Apple’s innovation. They spent over half a billion dollars to create the TrueDepth sensing package, whose innovation would you call it, if not Apple’s? Apple IP, Apple R&D, Apple employees, Apple funding... yes I think that qualifies as Apple’s innovation.

Compare that to Samsung buying Qualcomm’s fingerprint sensor... pretty sure that qualifies as Qualcomm’s innovation. I’m sure Samsung does a great job assembling it though.

5) Don’t pretend like I belittled or minimized the Vivo tech as you’ve done with Apple’s tech. I never mentioned it or commented on it at all. Keep your straw man to yourself. I’m sure it’s wonderfully innovative and they will sell millions of additional phones as a result.

 

[Khedron]

Yeah.
https://www.theverge.com/circuitbre...vo-faceid-3d-tof-biometrics-mwc-shanghai-2018

That's detection at 6 times the distance of FaceID. Just a "poor copy" though I suppose.

1) You can minimize the innovation in shrinking the original Kinect system down to the affordable, manufacturable, very small TrueDepth system all you want, but that doesn’t make it any less innovative and truly an amazing feat.

2) You can claim the Kinect could have done biometric authentication, but you’re just making that up.

3) The patent system is hardly perfect. Some patents are rather unimportant, low tech and one might say trivial. Some are also granted in error and do not stand up to scrutiny, and are invalidated. But some are for amazingly innovative inventions. The existence of the first two categories does not take away from the latter. You actually have to read and understand the claims and the prior art—at a minimum—to have any chance of determining whether a patent is “innovative”.

4) Yes, exactly. If Apple buys the company, hires the scientists/engineers/inventors, is assigned the patents and then those Apple employees spend several years doing R&D to create an affordable, manufacturable, reliable, accurate miniaturized version of the technology—yes that is Apple’s innovation. They spent over half a billion dollars to create the TrueDepth sensing package, whose innovation would you call it, if not Apple’s? Apple IP, Apple R&D, Apple employees, Apple funding... yes I think that qualifies as Apple’s innovation.

Compare that to Samsung buying Qualcomm’s fingerprint sensor... pretty sure that qualifies as Qualcomm’s innovation. I’m sure Samsung does a great job assembling it though.

5) Don’t pretend like I belittled or minimized the Vivo tech as you’ve done with Apple’s tech. I never mentioned it or commented on it at all. Keep your straw man to yourself. I’m sure it’s wonderfully innovative and they will sell millions of additional phones as a result.

Kinect biometric authentication paper: http://www.indjst.org/index.php/indjst/article/view/121126

 

[PickUrPoison]

That's detection at 6 times the distance of FaceID. Just a "poor copy" though I suppose.

Kinect biometric authentication paper: http://www.indjst.org/index.php/indjst/article/view/121126

Just imagine how much innovation it took to go from the 95% confidence interval mentioned in that paper to the 1 in 1,000,000 false positive rate of Apple’s TrueDepth system for a random stranger to be able to open your iPhone.

Incredible, right? It’s made possible by the 600 billion ops/sec Neural Engine in the A11 SoC. Just one year later, Apple had increased that performance to a nearly unbelievable 5 trillion ops/sec in the A12. So FaceID works better/faster than ever. Apple’s silicon group is world-class, isn’t it?

 

[FFR]

Just imagine how much innovation it took to go from the 95% confidence interval mentioned in that paper to the 1 in 1,000,000 false positive rate of Apple’s TrueDepth system for a random stranger to be able to open your iPhone.

Incredible, isn’t it? It’s made possible by the 600 billion ops/sec Neural Engine in the A11 SoC. Just one year later, Apple had increased that performance to a nearly unbelievable 5 trillion ops/sec in the A12. So FaceID works better/faster than ever. Apple’s silicon group is world-class, isn’t it?

Don’t think he will admit anything until Samsung comes up with a copy, then he will call it true innovation and claim apple copied them .

 

[GuruZac]

Because no one else cares about FaceID. Of course some niche applications will exist where you really care about hands-free secure unlocking but it just isn't worth the cost. There's nothing illegal, classified, or so personal on my phone that my every interaction with it must accommodate FaceID's limitations. In fact I'd prefer it if the front cameras (and notch) were dropped entirely and the ~$200 worth of tech was put into improving the rear cameras instead. A Samsung style hole punch is sufficient for video chat.

I used to use Apple products for almost everything but have gradually moved away as alternatives become better for me. No new MacBooks since 2014. No new iPhone since 5s (briefly had 8+). I still prefer iTunes for the couple of albums I buy each year, and will probably get AirPods 2 in the near future. I'd probably have an Apple Watch too if not for the iPhone requirement.

Ok fair. You don’t own iPhone, iPad, and no new computers since 2014. You may buy AirPods 2. Why spend so much time bashing Apple? You essentially own none of their products and are clearly not interested in virtually anything they offer. And you did not answer my question. Nobody else has successfully delivered a 3D mapping facial detection hardware/software suitable for biometric unlocking of passwords, banking, etc. Huawei offers a hacked 3D mapping but I am unsure if it offers the level of security Face ID does. And while you may not care about having a secured device, many of us do as there is a lot of personal info on our devices we prefer to be as locked down as possible. After all, iPhone is the central computing device for millions of users.

 

[BootsWalking]

Spoken like someone who doesn't know the difference between utility patents and design patents.

You seem to not know the difference between a point being made and completely unrelated details like whether the patent is a utility or design.

 

[sundog925]

That ship has probably sailed, as Apple reportedly stopped R&D on that feature several years ago. Arguably, FaceID is more innovative than Qualcomm’s ultrasonic fingerprint reader.

A higher megapixel count doesn’t necessarily equate to higher quality, by any means. But sure, who wouldn’t want better pictures? I’m sure Apple wants this more than you do; it’s a major selling point for both new and upgrade customers, and one of the few features that actually drive purchase decisions.

This wouldn’t as much take innovation as it would simply higher cost and a change in design philosophy, i.e. switching to an in-ear (likely not possible) or a sealed design. But sure I’m all-in for better sounding AirPods, even at a $200-400 selling price.

Incidentally, Apple has one of the most innovative inventors ever in audio engineering, Tomlinson Holman—the “TH” in THX—who has been at Apple since 2011. He was likely key to some of the innovative technologies and the excellent sound in general of HomePod, and he's probably also partly responsible, along with the larger audio engineering group, for the improvement in overall sound of Apple’s Macs in recent years. (He may also have some part in AirPods, who knows.)

Industry is spending billions on battery R&D but progress is more of the slow and steady variety rather than technology breakthroughs. Apple is likely spending tens/hundreds of millions a year on its own battery R&D, with results including the innovative terraced battery used in the 12” MacBook. Effective power management is also an important factor in prolonging battery life, and Apple just acquired part of Dialog, including some IP, to enhance their efforts in this key strategic technology.

Yikes, please no. Too much optical distortion, in addition to guaranteed glare from almost any viewing angle. People also complain about inadvertent touch events but I can’t speak to that.

btw, the flexible display that allows Apple to have such a small chin on their OLED iPhones is definitely innovative, and no one else has been able to duplicate that, afaik.

Ready when you are

Not a bad list, though some (not me) would complain that this type of incremental improvement, for which Apple is famous, isn’t “real” innovation. Not true.

wow, you sure have a lot of time.
yeah its true when another company already has done it lol. but ok.

 

[realtuner]

Yeah sure.
https://www.theverge.com/circuitbre...vo-faceid-3d-tof-biometrics-mwc-shanghai-2018

Vivo "announced" their sensor 9 months ago and I still haven't seen it appear in any of their devices. You have any links to devices actually shipping? Or is this just another example of vaporware?
[doublepost=1553702556][/doublepost]

So what? It will just allow Qualcomm to keep suing them.
Designing a competent all in one 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G modem without touching any of Qualcomm's patents is like trying to walk through a minefield while wearing a blindfold.

Too bad Qualcomm has been told they are required to license their cellular patents. Apple doesn't care if they have to pay FRAND rates to use Qualcomm SEPs. They just don't want to be charged more than what's fair, or charged twice for the same IP.
[doublepost=1553702605][/doublepost]

wow, you sure have a lot of time.
yeah its true when another company already has done it lol. but ok.

As much time as people who don't even use Apple products but spend a significant amount of their time on an Apple website?

 

[Khedron]

Ok fair. You don’t own iPhone, iPad, and no new computers since 2014. You may buy AirPods 2. Why spend so much time bashing Apple? You essentially own none of their products and are clearly not interested in virtually anything they offer. And you did not answer my question. Nobody else has successfully delivered a 3D mapping facial detection hardware/software suitable for biometric unlocking of passwords, banking, etc. Huawei offers a hacked 3D mapping but I am unsure if it offers the level of security Face ID does. And while you may not care about having a secured device, many of us do as there is a lot of personal info on our devices we prefer to be as locked down as possible. After all, iPhone is the central computing device for millions of users.

Sorry I didn't realise facial recognition was the only possible method of securing a phone. I guess my memories of banking on phones for years with apps unlocked using fingerprint scans and even alphanumeric passwords are all false.

FaceID isn't just one possible method that is more convenient in some circumstances and less convenient in others, it's the only possible option for mobile security and no product without it is worth considering. Except iPads of course. Somehow they still get by just fine with TouchID.

 

[I7guy]

...Except iPads of course. Somehow they still get by just fine with TouchID.

Your right except they are damn inconvenient to use with Apple Pay. iPhone with Face ID is much easier.
[doublepost=1553710364][/doublepost]

...But but FaceID is the greatest and most inovative thing ever. Under display ultrasonic fingerprint sensors are just trash by comparison.

According to posts here ultrasonic finger printer innovation made faceid look like a tinker toy.

 

[realtuner]

Sorry I didn't realise facial recognition was the only possible method of securing a phone. I guess my memories of banking on phones for years with apps unlocked using fingerprint scans and even alphanumeric passwords are all false.

FaceID isn't just one possible method that is more convenient in some circumstances and less convenient in others, it's the only possible option for mobile security and no product without it is worth considering. Except iPads of course. Somehow they still get by just fine with TouchID.

Not the only way, but the best way. Numerous reviews of FaceID show that it's better than TouchID. Not better under all possible circumstances (sometimes TouchID is better), but better overall. And that's all that really matters.

iPad Pro uses FaceID. As will all future iPads.

 

[cmaier]

Not the only way, but the best way. Numerous reviews of FaceID show that it's better than TouchID. Not better under all possible circumstances (sometimes TouchID is better), but better overall. And that's all that really matters.

iPad Pro uses FaceID. As will all future iPads.

All future iPads? Apple just started selling new iPads without faceid.

 

[macfacts]

Please stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

Kinect-type motion tracking is about as far from using 30,000 discrete points to build a depth map of a face—that’s so accurate it can be used for biometric authentication on a phone—as an Apple II is from an iMac Pro. Don’t take my word for it; look at the patents.

And Samsung buying Qualcomm’s fingerprint reader isn’t exactly what I’d call innovation.

Apple just bought the faceid camera, samething.