Pinterest says "don't upload things you don't own" and when a copyright holder complains they take it down. So is it legal for Outline to offer this service? Sure, if they comply. Is it legal for users to use it like this? Probably not.
Since you're in the mood to speculate on legal matters, in which legal jurisdiction is it likely illegal for users to do this? All of them? What if you're sailing in international waters at the time of your post?
As a first approximation, I'd guess the 176 countries or other entities [1] that are parties to the Berne Convention.
Parties can have exceptions and limitations to the rights from Berne, so it is not necessarily illegal in all of them, but I'd expect it is in a large fraction of them.
Iceland based hosting is often suggested for sites with potential copyright issues because of their freedom of speech laws. No idea if that's actually true, but it is used as a selling point. See https://www.orangewebsite.com/articles/freedom-of-speech-ame... for one example.
They claim their site is for the above, and people can submit a notice to have content removed that doesn't fit that description. However, the reality is they want people to post and share content from other sites, and they'll happily remove their advertising, and add their own.
I searched site:outline.com on Google, because I wanted to see for myself what people are sharing, and if I might be mistaken. The first result was this article...
The source is The Free Thought Project. Hmm, I thought maybe this is some type of public domain news source, so I visit them. Nope, they're not. When I visited The Free Thought Project, I instantly get a popup saying, "Thanks to a coordinated attack on independent media by the establishment, this website is at risk of shutting down due to our ads being pulled and our social media pages entirely deleted. We need your help to survive, click below to see how you can make sure we stay around." This is the first Google result for an Outline article, and the company being stolen from has a popup that literally says they're struggling to stay afloat.
I haven't previously heard of Outline, but that is definitely a disgusting business model.
speaking from experience I can relate. As an automotive mechanic by trade I once won $11,000 at a Keno machine in a bar. As you can imagine I was super excited to put this to a new set of boots, and a new set of welding gloves.
Now seven billion dollars is a far cry from Keno money but let me just offer a bit of advice. If your cousin with the SCRAM anklet breaks into your garage at 5 PM and insists you owe him a bench grinder with your newfound wealth, you may wish to politely decline. Im sure being fingered as the first trillion dollar company has nothing to do with being asked to pay child supp--er, Qualcomm royalties.
I think he/she is making an analogy between his life experience and the claim against Apple. That is, 'I [won/built a business worth] a lot of money. [Family/other companies] suddenly felt I owed them something. You should refuse as they are only seeing dollar signs.'
Qualcomm has bullied players like Samsung to prevent them from using their own LTE modems, and has done everything possible to ensure they are the only reasonable choice for LTE chipsets.
In Samsung's case, only Samsung branded devices can have their LTE modem per the settlement with Qualcomm, and US bound phones always ship with a Qualcomm SoC (part of that whole home territory thing for Qualcomm).
Another affected group is Mediatek, they only recently got LTE support, and their ability to get chips with LTE is entirely controlled by Qualcomm. There is no competition in the modem space, which is absolutely appalling.
No they weren’t. NTT DoCoMo and Ericsson did the heavy lifting on it. Qualcomm owns patents on OFDM that they received when they bought Flarion in 2006. They saw an ability to corner the patent market like they did for CDMA and took it.
OFDM was invented at Bell Labs in the early 1960s.
Anyway, one of their most litigated patents is as follows.
>In a data communication system capable of
variable rate transmission, high rate packet data trans-
mission improves utilization of the forward link and de-
creases the transmission delay. Data transmission on
the forward link is time multiplexed and the base station
transmits at the highest data rate supported by the for-
ward link at each time slot to one mobile station. The
data rate is determined by the largest C/I measurement
of the forward link signals as measured at the mobile
station. Upon determination of a data packet received
in error, the mobile station transmits a NACK message
back to the base station. The NACK message results in
retransmission of the data packet received in error. The
data packets can be transmitted out of sequence by the
use of sequence number to identify each data unit within
the data packets.
That's the entire thing. No math, no "show your work". Just that paragraph.
No that is not the entire thing. That's just the abstract. The patent makes 63 claims. Claims are the only part of the patent document that matters for litigation.
“Qualcomm bullied Samsung” you got to be kidding. Samsung has internal Modem team working hard to replace QC chipsets, but never successful wrt performance, it was pathetic. So Samsung took approach of using QC chipset in premium market segments and dumped their own modem chipsets in countries like India, Korea.
That is the narrative we have been fed, but when a company purposefully purloins the highest volume, highest profit market and force all phones sold there to provide your company significant royalties, its unsurprising said company can afford many more of the brightest minds to push the bleeding edge of technology.
In spite of this, Samsung has persisted in pushing forward their own LTE chipset, despite the significantly hobbled ROI caused by Qualcomm's actions on such a chipset.
The reasoning I have heard for Samsung handsets shipping with Qualcomm chips in the US is the need to be compatible with legacy CDMA networks (which is the patent issue).
Flagship Samsung handsets everywhere except the US and China ship with Exynos SOC.
Check again, they've been pushing lots of code upstream recently. I couldn't believe it myself until I saw all these @codeaurora.org authors on commits in git log.
Also, project treble is fixing soc fragmentation. Won't fix last gen, but is stopping the bleeding for current gen.
With royalties no physical goods are trading hands and the theif can continue to use/make the thing upon which royalties are owed until such time as a legal injunction stops them.
So it's very easy for Qualcomm to say "hey you owe us money" and for Apple to say "nuh uh" and then stall negotiations or legal proceedings for years.
If Qualcomm proves victorious in a lawsuit there I always appeals and at the same time Apple can argue down damages.
It's highly unlikely that Qualcomm would ever recoup the claimed amount or all of its legal fees.
Because of this most lawsuits alledge ridiculous damages so that when they're reduced they fall closer to what is actually owed.
Apple's argument for not paying is that the royalties are for patent licenses which they have an implicit right to. They purchase Intel's radios and due to patent exhaustion, they have a right to those patents for use of the radio (since Intel has already paid those license fees).
My understanding is its Apple's designs and Intel just manufactures Apple's designs which infringes on Qualcoms patents, this is a very dangerous game to play.
That’s an interesting assertion, one that definitely requires a citation.
Even if Intel is only making these chips because of Apple, the real test is whether or not Intel is offering these chips to other companies. I would be surprised if they weren’t, even if nobody else is actually buying them.
After all, if you’re a smaller player, why would you buy anything other then Qualcomm? It takes a big, assertive company like Apple to play these games.
> Even if Intel is only making these chips because of Apple, the real test is whether or not Intel is offering these chips to other companies.
Even if they are, I think that may not matter specifically for the Apple case. In that case, it likely matters whether Intel paid, and whether the contract outlined who was to pay. It's entirely possible for Intel to have been working thinking Apple was to pay that royalty since it was work for hire and to sell chips to other companies while paying the royalty themselves (if the contract allowed selling to others).
If Qualcomm is legally due some money, it will come from someone if it hasn't been paid (and it sounds like it hasn't). It may come down to a contract dispute between Intel and Apple, but I don't see that preventing Qualcomm from getting money in the end.
It's also your problem at $7, because extracting that isn't worth the time it takes.
For $7,000 you can use small claims and probably make it their problem. But the range where it's in your favor might be pretty small; they can afford a lot of lawyers.
>When Apple owes you $7,000,000,000 in royalties, that's your problem
Not really. This isn't due to the fact that they forgot to send Apple a bill. Both parties have likely been negotiating this since day one, and both parties probably decided even then that it was better to continue doing business together despite this disagreement than cutting off ties. This lawsuit is just the next step in the negotiation process.
Get an injunction to prevent Apple from selling their products with stolen Qualcomm tech until they pay. I mean, it's stolen if they didn't pay for it, right? You know, just like Apple does to companies like Samsung who they claim use stolen Apple IP. https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/09/17/apple-v-samsung-samsu...
If they think they are correct stopping Apple selling products would have a huge negative effect on their royalty collection, they need to walk a line that does not impact revenue but does not undermine their belief that Apple are wrong.
I'm not in this business so I don't know the answer to this. Does Apple only have to pay Qualcomm a royalty for sold devices, or manufactured devices? To me, it seems it should be for the quantity of manufactured devices since the tech is in the phone regardless of whether it has been sold or not.
Their FRAND Agreements with the standards bodies says other wise which Qualcomm voluntary committed to when they submitted their patented technology for consideration into international standards
That's not important. Apple argues they are buying chips from companies that already paid to use Qualcomm's patents. So, Qualcomm can't double dip and have Apple pay the same patent for the same psychical device.
I think it is linked to devices sold - and it is priced as percentage of the retail price. My understanding is that Apple do not agree with the price paid to Qualcomm being linked to the purchase price of the phone, which you can understand - why as a consumer should you pay more for the same IP if you want extra storage in your iPhone? I think this disagreement came around before Apple ramped up the prices with the X / XS / XS Max... We should have seen the canary in the coal mine :)
or stop Qualcomm from coercing money out of companies that they shouldn't. see Qualcomm's convictions and massive fines in china, europe and korea for precedent.
Would it ever be worthwhile to do this as a means of devaluing a company so that you could purchase it? In this case, if Apple wanted to buy Qualcomm, would this be an effective means of reducing their valuation?
Existing Qualcomm shareholders would probably sue the heck out of them during the merger, and it would be difficult to close, raising the overall cost.
Maybe, but not for Apple, who could be in for a world of regulatory hurt if they owned a monopoly in the cell phone stack.
Apple wants to commoditize their complement to take the most profits for each finished device. This is why the quote from their lawyer is to not let Qualcomm walk away from Apple presenting a challenge to their patent legitimacy.
Apple isn't doing this because they want to acquire Qualcomm. They don't like having their biggest competitor in their supply chain but there's few viable modem vendors.
I doubt it would pass antitrust review were that the case. Qualcomm is the only viable US market chip company that high-end phones can use. All the existing patents and agreements don’t go away if it were to be acquired.
Maybe you misunderstood my comment, here's some additional context for what I wrote: (1) Apple competes with Qualcomm today (indirectly via many vendors who ship snapdragon-based phones). (2) Apple is pretty good at supply chain controls. (3) Apple uses [until recent designs] Qualcomm modems in their iphone/ipad.
I'm not an expert, but it seems that may be something like the oldest trick in the book. Commodore under Jack Tramiel, for example, had a reputation for doing this kind of thing: it's rumoured to be how they ended up owning their CPU supplier MOS Technology. (Not that I think Apple is up to that kind of thing in this case.)
>Apple argues that Qualcomm is using its intellectual property to bully customers into paying excessive royalties even as it tries to duck scrutiny over whether its patents are valid. “You can’t just let Qualcomm walk away from this,” Apple’s lawyer, Ruffin Cordell, told the judge at Friday’s hearing.
not all iphones are compatible, tough.
List is here: https://www.apple.com/iphone/LTE/ i.e. for america there are special models that support cdma, but most countries do not need that.
If Apple buys a cellular modem from Intel, for instance, and Intel has already paid Qualcomm to use their standards essential parents to manufacture those cell phone modems, then patent exhaustion holds that Qualcomm cannot force Intel's customers to pay to license those patents all over again.
Until a judge rules on this, you really can't say that Apple owes Qualcomm anywhere near that figure.
There is more information on the FOSS patent blog:
Bloomberg reporters have a incentives model¹ which encourages incorrect stories. This isn't the only example; they still haven't retracted the supermicro hardware hack story even though there is no evidence and it's denied by all the parties.
Jeez. This type of false narrative creation (especially impacting financial markets) seems like it should be illegal. With journalistic integrity out the window for the sake of attracting an audience, I could imagine why some group of traders would want to intentionally feed Bloomberg false information or "nudge" them to publish a story knowing they could significantly profit from the resulting reaction.
This is bad, but come on! Any reporting has an interest in being exciting and juicy. If it's not for markets it'd be for ratings. And while one can argue that inflated ratings don't cost you your investment money in the way the effect on the markets does, it can still have big impact on the debate and the discourse in the US, where we're all feeling the pain at least as hard, in this age.
Beginning in the third quarter of fiscal 2017, GAAP and Non-GAAP results have been negatively impacted by our dispute with Apple and its contract manufacturers (who are Qualcomm licensees). We did not record any QTL revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2018 or the third or fourth quarter of fiscal 2017 for royalties due on sales of Apple’s products. We expect the actions taken by these companies will continue until these disputes are resolved. QTL revenues in the third quarter of fiscal 2018 included $500 million paid under an interim agreement with the other licensee in dispute (which dispute was previously disclosed). This represents a partial payment for royalties due after the second quarter of fiscal 2017 by that other licensee while negotiations continue. This payment does not reflect the full amount of royalties due under the underlying license agreement. We did not record any revenues from the third quarter of fiscal 2017 through the second quarter of fiscal 2018 for royalties due on the sales of the other licensee’s products. If we do not reach a final agreement with the other licensee, it may not make any other payments or may not make full payments under the underlying license agreement, which may result in increased legal costs and will negatively impact our GAAP and Non-GAAP results.
“Contract manufacturers” seems like a very particular choice of words to describe intel here.
If Intel is manufacturing an Apple design as a contractor, Intel’s licenses don’t matter and it’s Apple who’s on the hook to pay royalties. If Apple is buying an off-the-shelf Intel product, it’s Intel’s licence terms that matter.
I wouldn't trust FOSS patents and the author Florian Mueller as far as I could throw him. He has a long history of being a paid shill, lying about it, and being flat out wrong.
Refuting legal arguments takes time and expertise I don't have. He's good at his job, and I have no knowledge about this case. So while I put no faith whatsoever in his analysis I can't tell you how it is wrong, and yes this is an ad hominem.
You're sourcing Techrights to denounce someone else? And Groklaw was run by a completely anonymous person who was suspected of being paid by IBM and Google.
Groklaw was run by Pamela Jones, a paralegal. This can be verified by checking the footer on every page on Groklaw, or alternatively the above IBM court filing.
You will have to be more specific about your techrights complaints. I'm not aware of any issues with the site, but I admit that unlike Groklaw I do not have much knowledge about their integrity.
Thank you! I still remember when news sources always quoted him as a "patent expert" during the Oracle vs Android/Google battle and it was so obvious he was as far from a nonpartisan expert as one can be.
I didn’t spend time to read all articles related to him. But I read his blog from time to time notably because of his Oracle vs Google coverage. While he may not be impartial (and who really is?) he impressed me quite a few time notably when he was consistently stating against all odds and other analysts that ruling against copyrightability of Java API would be overturned on appeal.
He was right, and even if at time everybody was mad because it hurt Android. I think this ruling was ultimately a good thing for FOSS.
He was also one of the first to criticize half-FOSS approach of Android. Whereas today everybody seems to regret that we still lack a popular real FOSS OS for smartphone.
One can only wonder now if Firefox OS or another could have superseeded Android should Google reinterpretation of Java copyright had been deemed unfair sooner.
PS: sorry for this long rant about your ad-hominem. Next time I’d better simply downvote.
I'm strongly of the opinion that that is a case of a stopped clock being right twice a day. If you say every argument Oracle makes will go in favor of Oracle, and Oracle wins an argument, of course you will have predicted it.
You have to remember that Oracle mostly lost that case, and he was consistently predicting they would win. The copyright portion was a sideshow to the patent portion (originally) and only became a focus when they lost the patent side of things.
For those interested, there is still a possible supreme court appeal pending for the copyright side of the case. I'm not too familiar with supreme court scheduling but I think we should find out if cert is granted (the supreme court will hear the case) in March or April. Google files by January 25th, Oracle briefs in February (30 days after Google, though it's possible they will get an extension), Google files a reply brief (~10 days), then Cert review occurs. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do...
The supreme court only grants cert in ~1% of cases, so assuming they deny cert this then goes back to the district judge for yet another trial on damages and probably new motions for attorney's fees. It wouldn't surprise me to find that one (or both) parties find something to appeal about that damages trial too.
This case started way back in 2010, the justice system moves very slowly...
So, what you say about exhaustion is a correct explanation of the doctrine.
However, unless my searching capabilities are failing (sorry, it's 170 pages), they nowhere claim that intel is paying qualcomm.
Instead, the only viable claim for exhaustion they really make is around exhaustion of patents in qualcomm chipsets bought by apple.
That is probably right.
But not a significant amount of this money (if any, i didn't look what qualcomm claimed hard enough. I wouldn't put it past them but it would be stupid of them)
The majority of money is precisely about modems they buy from intel.
If intel was paying qualcomm, it would definitely appear in the response as an exhaustion argument
I can't find it.
This is probably why bloomberg doesn't cite it - the exhaustion issues they do cite are a complete sideshow.
I'm no patent lawyer, but from a layman perspective, how is this reasonable at all? This seems equivalent to buyers of second hand books being forced to pay royalties to the original author.
I'm also no lawyer, but it's worth pointing out that there are plenty of publishers (and not a few authors) who will argue that corner - they certainly think it reasonable.
Thank YOU, explains the context: "Apple challenged the patents for validity and non-infringement, but its key contention is that Qualcomm is illegally charging smartphone makers twice for its intellectual property– once when it licenses its cellular patents and a second time when it sells modem chips used in smartphones. The legal concept is called patent exhaustion.http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/technology/sd-f...
Otherwise would be like paying a sales tax at each transaction through the chain.
No, no, no. Intel doesn't have a license with Qualcomm. In recent decisions made by regulators in the EU, South Korea, Taiwan, etc, Qualcomm was accused and fined precisely for their unwillingness to license their IPs to competing baseband makers (ie, Intel). The USFTC is looking to punish Qualcomm for the same offenses and enable Qualcomm's competitors to take license from Qualcomm (see http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/09/federal-trade-commission-...). Wrt Intel modems, the exhaustion doctrine likewise doesn't apply.
apple should definitely reconsider itself, if true it is very unethical for this company to simply give out code it doesn't have a right to share. It would simply be that apple has to pay the fee and a fine.
Qualcomm is such an annoying company to work with. They are rapidly turning into rent-seeking trolls (I've heard co-workers joke that Qualcomm is a law firm with a few engineers)
Well not really a fair comparison, Qualcomm is only part of the 3GPP patents profile, and LTE is only part of the iPhone package function. Not to mention 5% is equal or more to all other 3GPP patents cost combined.
Having said that, looking at Samsung, Mediatek, CEVA IPs, Intel Modem, so far it seems Qualcomm's baseband and IPs is actually quite value for money in terms of performance and cost.
A design patent and a utility patent are utterly different things; about the only thing they have in common is the trace of the Elizabethan term "Letters Patent".
Q'comm is asserting that Apple isn't paying for utility patents.
Apparently the royalty terms predate Apple's entry into the marketplace! I was pretty surprised to learn that Apple's manufacturers are the ones [still] paying this royalty that existed before the first iPhone.
122 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 213 ms ] threadhttp://www.hri.org/docs/LOS/part7-1a.html
Parties can have exceptions and limitations to the rights from Berne, so it is not necessarily illegal in all of them, but I'd expect it is in a large fraction of them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention#/media/File:B...
* you own the rights to,
* is in the public domain,
* constitutes fair use, or
* you have consent of the copyright holder."
They claim their site is for the above, and people can submit a notice to have content removed that doesn't fit that description. However, the reality is they want people to post and share content from other sites, and they'll happily remove their advertising, and add their own.
I searched site:outline.com on Google, because I wanted to see for myself what people are sharing, and if I might be mistaken. The first result was this article...
https://www.outline.com/vF4aGL
The source is The Free Thought Project. Hmm, I thought maybe this is some type of public domain news source, so I visit them. Nope, they're not. When I visited The Free Thought Project, I instantly get a popup saying, "Thanks to a coordinated attack on independent media by the establishment, this website is at risk of shutting down due to our ads being pulled and our social media pages entirely deleted. We need your help to survive, click below to see how you can make sure we stay around." This is the first Google result for an Outline article, and the company being stolen from has a popup that literally says they're struggling to stay afloat.
I haven't previously heard of Outline, but that is definitely a disgusting business model.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=neonate
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/qualcomm-earnings-q3-2018.ht...
Now seven billion dollars is a far cry from Keno money but let me just offer a bit of advice. If your cousin with the SCRAM anklet breaks into your garage at 5 PM and insists you owe him a bench grinder with your newfound wealth, you may wish to politely decline. Im sure being fingered as the first trillion dollar company has nothing to do with being asked to pay child supp--er, Qualcomm royalties.
If only they would succeed!
In Samsung's case, only Samsung branded devices can have their LTE modem per the settlement with Qualcomm, and US bound phones always ship with a Qualcomm SoC (part of that whole home territory thing for Qualcomm).
Another affected group is Mediatek, they only recently got LTE support, and their ability to get chips with LTE is entirely controlled by Qualcomm. There is no competition in the modem space, which is absolutely appalling.
Anyway, one of their most litigated patents is as follows.
>In a data communication system capable of variable rate transmission, high rate packet data trans- mission improves utilization of the forward link and de- creases the transmission delay. Data transmission on the forward link is time multiplexed and the base station transmits at the highest data rate supported by the for- ward link at each time slot to one mobile station. The data rate is determined by the largest C/I measurement of the forward link signals as measured at the mobile station. Upon determination of a data packet received in error, the mobile station transmits a NACK message back to the base station. The NACK message results in retransmission of the data packet received in error. The data packets can be transmitted out of sequence by the use of sequence number to identify each data unit within the data packets.
That's the entire thing. No math, no "show your work". Just that paragraph.
In spite of this, Samsung has persisted in pushing forward their own LTE chipset, despite the significantly hobbled ROI caused by Qualcomm's actions on such a chipset.
Flagship Samsung handsets everywhere except the US and China ship with Exynos SOC.
Also, project treble is fixing soc fragmentation. Won't fix last gen, but is stopping the bleeding for current gen.
That would be a good day indeed.
So it's very easy for Qualcomm to say "hey you owe us money" and for Apple to say "nuh uh" and then stall negotiations or legal proceedings for years.
If Qualcomm proves victorious in a lawsuit there I always appeals and at the same time Apple can argue down damages.
It's highly unlikely that Qualcomm would ever recoup the claimed amount or all of its legal fees.
Because of this most lawsuits alledge ridiculous damages so that when they're reduced they fall closer to what is actually owed.
Even if Intel is only making these chips because of Apple, the real test is whether or not Intel is offering these chips to other companies. I would be surprised if they weren’t, even if nobody else is actually buying them.
After all, if you’re a smaller player, why would you buy anything other then Qualcomm? It takes a big, assertive company like Apple to play these games.
Even if they are, I think that may not matter specifically for the Apple case. In that case, it likely matters whether Intel paid, and whether the contract outlined who was to pay. It's entirely possible for Intel to have been working thinking Apple was to pay that royalty since it was work for hire and to sell chips to other companies while paying the royalty themselves (if the contract allowed selling to others).
If Qualcomm is legally due some money, it will come from someone if it hasn't been paid (and it sounds like it hasn't). It may come down to a contract dispute between Intel and Apple, but I don't see that preventing Qualcomm from getting money in the end.
For $7,000 you can use small claims and probably make it their problem. But the range where it's in your favor might be pretty small; they can afford a lot of lawyers.
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=thats%20the%20banks%20problem&...
I'm just giving a few more data points to show how in this situation it's extra biased toward Apple.
It's often quoted with a million and a billion and I think Apple has the advantage for both of those...
Not really. This isn't due to the fact that they forgot to send Apple a bill. Both parties have likely been negotiating this since day one, and both parties probably decided even then that it was better to continue doing business together despite this disagreement than cutting off ties. This lawsuit is just the next step in the negotiation process.
Of course, they kept using the technology and product.
"... so we're going to keep using them. And not pay for them."
Existing Qualcomm shareholders would probably sue the heck out of them during the merger, and it would be difficult to close, raising the overall cost.
Apple wants to commoditize their complement to take the most profits for each finished device. This is why the quote from their lawyer is to not let Qualcomm walk away from Apple presenting a challenge to their patent legitimacy.
https://www.gwern.net/Complement#2
Everyone else is on the GSM, UMTS and LTE bandwagon.
They are seeking a judgement based on the legal concept of patent exhaustion.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S...
If Apple buys a cellular modem from Intel, for instance, and Intel has already paid Qualcomm to use their standards essential parents to manufacture those cell phone modems, then patent exhaustion holds that Qualcomm cannot force Intel's customers to pay to license those patents all over again.
Until a judge rules on this, you really can't say that Apple owes Qualcomm anywhere near that figure.
There is more information on the FOSS patent blog:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/10/patent-exhaustion-keeps-q...
Edit: I think this FOSS patent blog entry from last month does a better job of laying out the basic issues.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/09/apple-foxconn-et-al-want-...
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensa...
The businessinsider article dates from 2013 and I can't find a source discussing their current practices.
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/QCOM/6406790406x0x982...
Beginning in the third quarter of fiscal 2017, GAAP and Non-GAAP results have been negatively impacted by our dispute with Apple and its contract manufacturers (who are Qualcomm licensees). We did not record any QTL revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2018 or the third or fourth quarter of fiscal 2017 for royalties due on sales of Apple’s products. We expect the actions taken by these companies will continue until these disputes are resolved. QTL revenues in the third quarter of fiscal 2018 included $500 million paid under an interim agreement with the other licensee in dispute (which dispute was previously disclosed). This represents a partial payment for royalties due after the second quarter of fiscal 2017 by that other licensee while negotiations continue. This payment does not reflect the full amount of royalties due under the underlying license agreement. We did not record any revenues from the third quarter of fiscal 2017 through the second quarter of fiscal 2018 for royalties due on the sales of the other licensee’s products. If we do not reach a final agreement with the other licensee, it may not make any other payments or may not make full payments under the underlying license agreement, which may result in increased legal costs and will negatively impact our GAAP and Non-GAAP results.
If Intel is manufacturing an Apple design as a contractor, Intel’s licenses don’t matter and it’s Apple who’s on the hook to pay royalties. If Apple is buying an off-the-shelf Intel product, it’s Intel’s licence terms that matter.
(Paid by oracle) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103
(Paid by microsoft) http://techrights.org/2012/08/18/vile-lobbyist/
(Paid by apple? I can't find other/primary sources to back up this claim though it does seem likely.) https://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21/apples-paid-shillconsultant-...
(More examples of him being wrong) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257
Refuting legal arguments takes time and expertise I don't have. He's good at his job, and I have no knowledge about this case. So while I put no faith whatsoever in his analysis I can't tell you how it is wrong, and yes this is an ad hominem.
Groklaw was not paid by IBM, court filing by IBM: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-621-E19.pdf
Groklaw was run by Pamela Jones, a paralegal. This can be verified by checking the footer on every page on Groklaw, or alternatively the above IBM court filing.
You will have to be more specific about your techrights complaints. I'm not aware of any issues with the site, but I admit that unlike Groklaw I do not have much knowledge about their integrity.
You can find many alternative sources saying that Mueller was paid by Microsoft (and also that Mueller was paid by Oracle), here is one: https://gigaom.com/2011/10/18/419-is-patent-expertblogger-fl...
He was right, and even if at time everybody was mad because it hurt Android. I think this ruling was ultimately a good thing for FOSS.
He was also one of the first to criticize half-FOSS approach of Android. Whereas today everybody seems to regret that we still lack a popular real FOSS OS for smartphone.
One can only wonder now if Firefox OS or another could have superseeded Android should Google reinterpretation of Java copyright had been deemed unfair sooner.
PS: sorry for this long rant about your ad-hominem. Next time I’d better simply downvote.
You have to remember that Oracle mostly lost that case, and he was consistently predicting they would win. The copyright portion was a sideshow to the patent portion (originally) and only became a focus when they lost the patent side of things.
Either way, I appreciate the reply.
For those interested, there is still a possible supreme court appeal pending for the copyright side of the case. I'm not too familiar with supreme court scheduling but I think we should find out if cert is granted (the supreme court will hear the case) in March or April. Google files by January 25th, Oracle briefs in February (30 days after Google, though it's possible they will get an extension), Google files a reply brief (~10 days), then Cert review occurs. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do...
The supreme court only grants cert in ~1% of cases, so assuming they deny cert this then goes back to the district judge for yet another trial on damages and probably new motions for attorney's fees. It wouldn't surprise me to find that one (or both) parties find something to appeal about that damages trial too.
This case started way back in 2010, the justice system moves very slowly...
However, unless my searching capabilities are failing (sorry, it's 170 pages), they nowhere claim that intel is paying qualcomm.
Instead, the only viable claim for exhaustion they really make is around exhaustion of patents in qualcomm chipsets bought by apple.
That is probably right. But not a significant amount of this money (if any, i didn't look what qualcomm claimed hard enough. I wouldn't put it past them but it would be stupid of them)
The majority of money is precisely about modems they buy from intel.
If intel was paying qualcomm, it would definitely appear in the response as an exhaustion argument I can't find it.
This is probably why bloomberg doesn't cite it - the exhaustion issues they do cite are a complete sideshow.
Otherwise would be like paying a sales tax at each transaction through the chain.
Having said that, looking at Samsung, Mediatek, CEVA IPs, Intel Modem, so far it seems Qualcomm's baseband and IPs is actually quite value for money in terms of performance and cost.
Q'comm is asserting that Apple isn't paying for utility patents.
https://myapplenewton.blogspot.com/2013/01/qualcomm-newton-c...
Apple could then patent the Newton IP for Qualcomm to use and Qualcomm would pay Apple for it.