I have always found it somewhat questionable to use a service like outline for paid content... I am very much against DRM services, but DRM-free advocacy efforts are hampered by people flocking to services like outline instead of paying for the content they want to consume (and content creators are pushed to embrace consumer-hostile DRM measures as well).
Apparently this upstanding moral armchair-lawyer on Hacker News wants to comment on an IP theft case by stealing intellectual property! (I'm with you. I pay for my WSJ and don't complain about commercial news sources I don't pay for.)
I'm not complaining about anything. All I stated is outline does not work with WSJ. I find it hard that WSJ charges $38.99/month[1], while I hardly read 5-10 articles a month?
I would like to see some sort of pay-per-use or aggregated new service that I can subscribe to.
Why is Qualcomm suing Apple instead of Intel? The article makes it sound like Apple switched to using Intel chips due to the license fees. If Intel is infringing, wouldn't they be responsible? Or does the law allow you to go after "customers"?
If I'm not mistaken, Qualcomm usually licenses with the handset maker, and not necessarily with the component companies in the case of mobile phones?
My understanding was that Qualcomm is going after Apple because they think Apple is sort of the principal infringer, i.e. they gave Intel access to the infringing IP. But I don't know, maybe they just pursuit all parties in the name of thoroughness.
Yep. Most wireless SEP holders (Standard Essential Patent) don't license at component-level (ie, modem). They usually collect royalties at system-level with smartphone OEMs. That's more or less been accepted as de facto industry practice for decades.
>My understanding was that Qualcomm is going after Apple because they think Apple is sort of the principal infringer, i.e. they gave Intel access to the infringing IP. But I don't know, maybe they just pursuit all parties in the name of thoroughness.
Well, they are two separate issues.. If you are familiar with GT Advanced Tech or had any past experience working with Apple as a supplier, it's not difficult to see why Apple and Qualcomm are here. TLDR, Apple doesn't want to pay; claims Qualcomm is overcharging and Qualcomm is a monopoly.
Apple is also known for making onerous demands to supplier for winning their iPhone order. In this case, Apple demanded Qualcomm's source code for their chipset and now Qualcomm alleges that Apple gave QC's trade secret to Intel, who is now Apple's baseband supplier.
It is the bizarre legal doctrine in that country that pretty much blesses patent owners doing that with the exact goal of enhancing patent owner earnings, and disruptive power.
"Qualcomm’s business model, which is either ingenious or diabolical depending on whom you talk to, is to allow any chip company to use its technology royalty-free. Phone manufacturers can choose to buy chips from Qualcomm or one of the other five companies that make modems using Qualcomm’s technology. Either way, they (the phone manufacturers) still have to pay Qualcomm its 5 percent."
And yet someone claimed that Qualcomm cannot receive patent license fees from manufacturers who use Qualcomm chips.
“First up are the Return Program cartridges that Lexmark sold in the United States. We conclude that Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in these cartridges the moment it sold them. The single-use/no-resale restrictions in Lexmark's contracts with customers may have been clear and enforceable under contract law, but they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell.” Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1523, 1531 (2017)
“First, Univis held that ‘the authorized sale of an article which is capable of use only in practicing the patent is a relinquishment of the patent monopoly with respect to the article sold.’ Id., at 249, 62 S.Ct. 1088. The lens blanks in Univis met this standard because they were ‘without utility until [they were] ground and polished as the finished lens of the patent.’ Ibid. Accordingly, ‘the only object of the sale [was] to enable the [finishing retailer] to grind and polish it for use as a lens by the prospective wearer.’ Ibid. Here, LGE has suggested no reasonable use for the Intel Products other than incorporating them into computer systems that practice the LGE Patents.[6] Nor can we discern one: A microprocessor or chipset cannot function until it is connected to buses and memory. And here, as in Univis, the only apparent object of Intel's sales to Quanta was to permit Quanta to incorporate the Intel Products into computers that would practice the patents.” Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, 128 S.Ct. 2109, 2119 (2008)
I am no expert in law except Qualcomm cannot receive patent license fees from manufacturers who use Qualcomm chips just sounds utter non sense to me.
I am not a lawyer, so this may be all incorrect and you certainly shouldn't rely on it as legal advice!
The term you are looking for is "Patent exhaustion" which is a system whereby the first person who makes the device incorporating the patent is on the hook to pay fees/royalties but then you can resell it and the person buying it doesn't have to pay the patent fees again, because they were "exhausted" in the first transaction.
Imagine if you had to repay all the patent holders for stuff in a car when you bought it used. Not practical.
Qualcom has created what they believe is a new system where they "forego" royalties from the person who makes the chip and instead charge the person who designs in the chip, in this case Apple. Apple continues to push the patent exhaustion angle saying they don't owe anything.
>Apple continues to push the patent exhaustion angle saying they don't owe anything.
Thanks for the pointer, will look it up when I have time.
But is that what they are really pushing though? I don't seems to read anything in regards to this. Apple has a dispute with pricing, and whether it should be charged a flat rate instead of % of devices. But I don't see Apple trying to argue for patent exhaustion and Intel should be paying for it.
There is another lawsuit in which Apple and chipmakers are both plaintiffs against Qualcomm. But it’s overly complicated with cross appeal all over the place. It’ll probably end up with a settlement and this specific case should be seen as leverage for Qualcomm and nothing else. I don’t think an US iPhone ban could actually be enforced in forseable future.
I think you are referring to Apple and Apple's CMs (contract manufacturers) lawsuit against Qualcomm?
These are really one single lawsuit orchestrated by Apple. The issue isn't overly complicated -- they are essentially refusing to pay Qualcomm licensing fees for their wireless patents on the ground that Qualcomm's licensing practice is in violation of antitrust laws. Thus, their claims rest heavily on the outcome of the FTC case.
> Apple has a dispute with pricing, and whether it should be charged a flat rate instead of % of devices.
No. Apple isn't saying it should be charged a "flat rate," but that a percentage rate should be based on the price of component, ie, modem, not system, ie, smartphone. According to documents/testimony revealed during the last trial, before the 4G license hike, Apple was on average paying $7.50 per device, but Apple "wanted" to pay $1.50 for Qualcomm's entire wireless portfolio, a bargain considering how much Apple had asked for a handful of frivolous utility/design patents from Samsung, around $7.0 for each patent per device.
Again, it's common wireless industry practice embraced by wireless participants for decades now. Apple is way late to the game and is trying to change the rule of the game to maximize their bottom line.
Apple's past legal challenge to change this has fallen flat, so this time around Apple is using the FTC as proxy to fight their battle. While Apple's hometown judge Koh surprisingly had given Apple an upper hand on this as JML (pretrial judgement as matter of law), this would be appealed and, many expect Koh's biased, flawed theory to be reversed.
> I don't see Apple trying to argue for patent exhaustion and Intel should be paying for it.
Apple has in fact been arguing "patent exhaustion" and that Intel should also be able to license at component-level, against the industry convention where royalties are collected at device/system level. Koh's decision was obviously in Apple's favor, but again this remains to be seen. Qualcomm is not going to take this lying down since this cuts into their most profitable licensing business.
How is Qualcomm's approach supposed to work under US patent law? That Qualcomm made no money seems immaterial – either they licensed (e.g.) Intel to use their IP, or they didn't. In the former case, patent exhaustion should apply and Qualcomm is out of luck. In the latter, it again seems that Intel is the infringer, not Apple or any other Intel-using handset maker.
Put another way: I'm looking for a clear statement of what legal theory is Qualcomm using in its attempt to leapfrog the chip manufacturer and bring patent suit against handset makers?
The common industry practice is to collect royalties at the end of the supply chain -- from smartphone OEMs. So, SEP holders, Qualcomm, Ericsson, Nokia, etc, usually don't after each other or chip makers for royalties. Now, Apple's judge, Lucy Koh, in a pretrial decision last year, declared that Qualcomm is obligated to license their SEPs to all willing licensees under ATI/TIS FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) terms, including baseband makers such as Intel, but this remains to be seen (will be appealed by Qualcomm). Another judge in the ED of Texas, Gilstrap however ruled in December that SEP holders aren't required to license their patents to baseband makers under ETSI FRAND. (yes, there are apparently different/conflicting competing FRAND terms)
I'm not sure if patent exhaustion applies since QTL (licensing) and QTC (chip-making) are technically two separate business entities (subsidiaries). I'm assuming this is all legit, since Apple had funneled their IP and oversea profit to Irish subsidiaries to avoid taxes for years -- meaning they were treated as entirely separate businesses. Qualcomm also argued that QC's patent portfolio goes beyond chip-making and there are other wireless technologies that are not embedded in the baseband chip (hence no exhaustion). The USFTC's lawsuit against Qualcomm ended about a month ago and now we are all patiently awaiting for Koh's decision.
I'm not sure if patent exhaustion applies since QTL (licensing) and QTC (chip-making) are technically two separate business entities (subsidiaries).
I wasn't aware of that; that's quite interesting. But it's unclear whether it affects exhaustion, in that QTL would still have (or have not) licensed Intel (or QTC). So either (Intel or QTC) have a license and exhaustion applies, or they do not, and are the actual infringers.
Now, the law being the law, "the actual infringers" is not going to be a strict legal concept, but in some areas of law and/or some jurisdictions, there are legal structures that produce similar outcomes – where a suit cannot be brought against someone one or more "jumps" away, e.g. just to find a defendant with deeper pockets. I'm absolutely out of my depth re: US patent law on this topic, except that it seems insane for a patent holder to be able to sue all the users of an infringing product. But then patent law so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ok. it's actually fairly simple. A minor correction though: Qualcomm actually never made their legal argument based on QTL and QTC. Qualcomm did argue that their patent portfolio goes beyond baseband chips and their customers are paying for non-chip related features that cover security, encryption, algorithm, etc.. (hence no exhaustion)
And yes, it's perfectly legal to pick anyone one, not all, layer in the supplier chain and collect royalties there. The wireless industry agreed to collect the royalties from the last manufacturer in the supply chain decades ago -- and that's more or less the de facto industry practice today. This isn't to say SEP holders can go after any random body as they please -- there are legal analysis and factors that help determine if that's fair. For instance, I think it's reasonable to use the end-user smartphone device as royalty basis since Qualcomm's IP adds significant value and drive market demand for Apple's iPhones. On the other hand, it would be silly to make similar comparison to a BWM 8 Series Coupe with wireless functionality.
Actually there are multiple suits worldwide against Qualcomm exactly because this business model is in question. Plaintiffs are Apple, chipmakers, regulations agency, and many concurrents if not plaintifs supported case against Qualcomm. Apple was countersued in part as a defense mechanism.
In the long run today decision have probably more chances than not to be reverted.
Even if he should not be considered indépendant, I always take a tour to Florian Mueller blog to have a broader context when a new like that pop out http://www.fosspatents.com
Ps: and be sure to actually read the article his titles are often very misleading/ironic/cryptic.
IANAL but I feel this has sense. The patents focus generally on high level aspects. The chips are more and more versatile and integrates more and more features. As a result, a chip can be used in a way that does not violate patents but has the potential to be used in infringing ways. If you want to tax the chip maker, you have to take into account these potential uses. The development of versatile chips would be discouraged.
The baseband chips only handle wireless communication and these are really special purpose chips. We are not talking about Qualcomm's SOC, ie Snapdragon, GPU, AI chips, etc,.. these are not in the scope of this lawsuit (or licensing).
I follow Florian Mueller (@FOSSPatents) for his take on most of the Qualcomm v Apple litigation (including the recent FTC antitrust case). He seems to be somewhat anti-Qualcomm (although that might just be based on his perception of their likelihood of winning). His take: [0]
> ITC judge disagrees with ITC staff, sides with Qualcomm against Apple: one patent held infringed, import ban recommended; but patent likely invalid
> Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) MaryJoan McNamara just announced an initial determination ("initial" means the parties can seek a Commission review, and a final ruling is still four months off) according to which Apple is deemed to infringe one of three Qualcomm patents-in-suit... In my observation, decisions by ITC judges that run counter to staff recommendations are virtually certain to be reviewed and more likely than others to be reversed.
Also, the patent is for "multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors" and is currently being reviewed by the USPTO for validity.
Florian Mueller is very anti-Google and pro-Apple and has been since the last decade throughout the infamous era of "war against android" by Steve Jobs - Samsung vs Apple, Apple vs HTC, Apple vs Google, Oracle vs Google and many others.
Although I'm also pro-Apple in most of these scenarios, I just think he appears pro-Apple and anti-Google because he has a better understanding of the situations than most laypeople. Most people who don't have a deep understanding of the topic at hand, for example, think that the Apple vs. Samsung case came down to "Apple patented rounded corners" whereas the reality is that Samsung literally had a guidebook of things they set out to copy from the iPhone and one of those were the rounded corners on the devices which was covered in Apple's design patent for the iPhone.
I don't think he had better understanding. He was making big claims about how Oracle is going to win billions in Oracle vs Google patent case. And then all Oracle patents went doing the drain.
He seems to have knowledge of court procedures than the knowledge of actual cases where he appears either biased or incompetent. I don't know which is worse.
Maybe not individually, but, as a collection of choices, absolutely. Considering that most phones from Samsung, at that time, had a physical keyboard and were more like Blackberry devices, I think it's incredibly telling that their next iteration was a full-screen, touch-based device with a single button at the bottom and rounded corners. The guidebook wasn't simply about the physical design either. It included large portions of the iPhone OS UI along with a checklist of whether or not those items had been implemented or copied yet.
In other words, I'd give the benefit of the doubt if an automaker released an electric car with a trunk in the front and the back. If they released an electric car with a single touchscreen console and no dashboard, a front and back trunk, a panoramic glass roof, and bladed wheels, I'd think that they were ripping off the Model 3 from Tesla. A lot of what the iPhone did was simply a natural evolution of what was happening. Even more of it, though, was a leapfrog of combined technologies that surpassed every other phone out on the market. Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer.
>Considering that most phones from Samsung, at that time, had a physical keyboard and were more like Blackberry devices, I think it's incredibly telling that their next iteration was a full-screen, touch-based device with a single button at the bottom and rounded corners.
Please see the link above. There are plenty of evidence to indicate that Samsung had released touch screen phones before Apple and had considered a few dozen other designs in the pipeline. The problem here was that again both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to bring anything that would confused the jury on trade dress and design patent infringement parts of the lawsuit. Apple suddenly changed their mind and turned in the "benchmarking" paper by Samsung. When Samsung turned their defense in, Apple's judge Lucy Koh said no.
> Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer.
>plenty of evidence to indicate that Samsung had released touch screen phones before Apple
Samsung hadn't released a single one of those phones and you're completely ignoring a major difference between those "designs" and the hardware changes that occurred from before to after. The iPhone's main innovation wasn't just that it was a full-front touchscreen but that the full-front touchscreen was a capacitive multi-touch screen. There was no stylus and you could capture multiple inputs at the same time. None of Samsung's devices, and even the LG Prada that you mention without any context, had capacitive multi-touch and yet all their phones had it afterwards.
Again, it's not just about the individual components. It's taking them as a whole and seeing the sudden shift that happened right when the iPhone launched. Samsung was working on all the components individually but was basically caught with their pants down.
It doesn't matter whether Samsung released them or not -- the legal standard required to avoid infringement is evidence that Samsung had knowledge or sought similar designs before Apple's public release. Samsung's internal document on competitive product evaluation likewise is just valid as their R&D department's document on on-going research. I'm willing to bet that at least half a dozen other phone makers considered those designs before Apple released theirs. Again, LG Prada who came out with their own months before Apple was one such example.
Apple of course knew that Samsung was exploring all kinds of different designs, including those resembling LG Prada and iPhone -- that's probably why they agreed to not to bring up such evidence during their lawsuit; only to change their mind at the last minute.
> that the full-front touchscreen was a capacitive multi-touch screen
the underlying tech doesn't matter, because we are talking about "design" and "trade dress" part of the lawsuit.
> Again, it's not just about the individual components.
This is again where your lack of understanding of patent law is clouding your judgement. Patents are for very specific, narrow design or method; not for over all implementation or shapes of products. What you are talking about is often covered under "trade dress" -- 'trade dress' deals with the overall impression of a product. Apple lost that part of the lawsuit because in order to win a trade dress suit, in addition to being novel and uniquely identifiable to Apple, it also has to be "non-functional."
Not necessarily.. I've been following him since Samsung's battle with Apple in early 2010's. His lopsided depiction of the legal proceedings (see his commentary on Judge Grewal's adversal jury instruction on Samsung and how he belittled Samsung's response) or the evidence -- the "guidebook" you cited -- that Apple was able to get away with, but not Samsung.
Just so you understand, the "guidebook" or benchmarking your competitors' product is nothing special in any industry. That piece of evidence was submitted at the last minute for the trade dress part of the lawsuit and Samsung also tried to present theirs in response, but was rejected on procedural ground (on "untimeliness").
I think you're thinking of something different. The "guidebook" that I'm referring to was an internal Samsung document that Apple was able to get its hands on during the trial discovery period that showed pages of hardware and software features of the iPhone along with the progress Samsung had made on copying those features. It included the touchscreen and also the UI of the OS.
Sure, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Evaluating/comparing/benchmarking your competitors is something that everyone, including Apple, does daily.
Now, my understanding is that both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to present any evidence from the "trade dress" part of the lawsuit that might mislead the jury's ruling on other part of the lawsuit (eg, design patent infringement). Apple waited until the last minute to submit the 140+page document. Samsung in response submitted theirs, but was rejected. Samsung's lawyer Quinn went a bit batsh*t crazy at this point (https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-ju...).
This kind of shenanigan went on over and over again throughout the trial -- for example, see again Mueller's comment on adversal jury instruction that was granted to Apple, but not Samsung because Samsung's motion (or "me too" complaint as Mueller described) was filed after the supposed deadline that never existed, or just two days after Apple had filed theirs. (this was reversed after a brief public uproar).
You know it wasn't pure coincidence that the FTC brought the Qualcomm case to Lucy Koh's desk in Apple's backyard.
>Evaluating/comparing/benchmarking your competitors is something that everyone, including Apple, does daily.
Except that that isn't at all what's in that document. It was way more than just a benchmarking/evaluation and, when combined with evidence that Samsung knew of Apple's proposed full-front display as early as 2005, it makes it a little less likely that they just independently came to the exact same conclusions about so many things at the same time. Again, individually, I think there's a case to be made where the components are just natural evolutions of where certain technology can go but, as a whole, I think it's too coincidental to say that this was all innocent benchmarking and that the judge just had it out for Samsung. I think she ruled against Samsung's submission because she recognized that Samsung was being disingenuous.
Sure, go read the document. The title of this doc says "Samsung Relative Evaluation Report on S1, iPhone." I'm guessing that you never worked in technology or product engineering team?
Again, this internal doc was presented in the trade dress part of the lawsuit -- which Apple eventually lost. Both parties initially agreed not to present anything too confusing to jury because there were so many confusing overlaps between the design and trade dress parts of the lawsuit. Apple suddenly changed its mind at the last minute -- and the judges duly embraced Apple's evidence, but rejected Samsung's counter-evidence on procedural ground (untimeliness). A lot of Apple fanbois like yourself are just still confused about the trade dress and design parts of the lawsuit -- I could only imagine the confusion the internal doc had on the jury, but obviously in Apple's favor since Samsung's never saw the light.
What you say about the guidebook and rounded corners is (afaik, don't actually recall the guidebook part of the case but I do know they won on some other patents as well) true, but it doesn't change the fact that one of the things Apple did win on was "Apple patented rounded corners".
The patent that literally just consisted of rounded corners, not the rest of the stuff, was upheld as a valid patent and Samsung was found to be infringing it. Theoretically, if Samsung hadn't violated any other Apple IP, the court should still have found them to be infringing the rounded corners patent.
This is worth ridiculing, and outlines the state of the patent system, which clearly needs adjusting.
Its worth pointing out that this protection was a Design Patent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent) which despite the name is quite different from a utility patent - it basically allows decorative doohickeys to be protected.
Coke's curvy bottle is covered by a design patent, for example.
No. design patents only last 15 years. Coke's bottle design I believe is protected under trade dress/mark, which allows Coke's unique design to be protected in perpetuity.
"When deciding whether to obtain a trade dress trademark, a design patent, or both, you should first consider what each protects:
Design patent - protects the design of a product giving you exclusivity over the design for a certain period. Even if you don't manufacture or sell the product, you are still protected by a design patent.
Trade dress - protects your investment in marketing and advertising where you have created a particular image for your product, and consumers exclusively associate that image with your product.
As design patents and trade dress protect different things, the requirements are different for both:
Design patent - the design firstly has to be new and cannot be a variation of a design that already exists. The design must also be ornamental in nature, rather than purely functional. That said, it can have some functionality.
Trade dress - a trade dress must be something that is distinctive and connects the consumer to the product, i.e. the consumer instantly recognizes the source of the trade dress. Unlike a design patent, it cannot be functional in any way. Design features that have a function should be protected with a design patent."
Do note that all of Apple's 'trade dress' claims were thrown out because of their failure to meet "non-functionality"/ornamental requirement.
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.
There is no source on 'paid by microsoft'. The article you linked just links another (dead) article. Please quote original sources, not 'he said she said'
I elected to not link the first because most people dislike being linked to court documents, and the second because it contains no context. I did check both existed before I posted this.
Sadly, not that I'm aware of. Prior to 2013 I would have said groklaw - so if you're ever looking for historical articles (and court documents) I can recommend it.
The patent in question is for "Multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors, and it sounds ridiculous on the face of it. Upon cursory glance, that appears to be the case.[0]
It's kind of surreal that two large tech companies who design and produce technology of staggering complexity are in a dispute over something so simple.
Oh, geez. It really does look like a patent for (paraphrased):
A method for reducing power consumption by detecting a power-on of a second supply voltage while a first supply voltage is already on and adjusting current draw from the first supply as a result
My 80's boombox did this in a pretty binary way. Plugging in the AC adapter mechanically lifted the contact to the batteries. Still a detection followed by a current draw adjustment.
Both the patent and the finding of patent infringement are a bit more complicated than that.
In order for a finding of patent infringement, one or more claims of the patent must be infringed.
Claim 1 recites:
A multiple supply voltage device comprising:
a core network operative at a first supply voltage;
and
a control network coupled to said core network wherein said control network is configured to transmit a control signal, said control network comprising: an up/down (up/down) detector configured to detect a power state of said core network;
processing circuitry coupled to said up/down detector and configured to generate said control signal based on said power state;
one or more feedback circuits coupled to said up/down detector, said one or more feedback circuits configured to provide feedback signals to adjust a current capacity of said up/down detector;
at least one first transistor coupled to a second supply voltage, the at least one more first transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered down and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered on;
at least one second transistor coupled in series with the at least one first transistor and coupled to said first supply voltage, the at least one second transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered on and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered down;
at least one third transistor coupled in series between the at least one first transistor and the at least one second transistor.
If you don't have 3 transistors wired in a way that accomplishes that, you don't violate the patent. (Actually, at least 2 transistors, the other two independent claims cover cases where you replace the third transistor with something else). You don't violate a patent by violating a loose summary of the patent, you have to specifically violate the claims in full.
If it improves on existing practice even if someone would have thought of trying it it is patentable. Think of a steel with a particular alloying element: only 92 to pick from!
* Jump straight to the claims (the only thing left in the patent). This is literally the only thing that matters in the entire document.
* Ignore most of the claims--anything that says "the thing of claim N". You can't violate those without violating other parts of the patent, by definition. The Google patent view helpfully puts these in lighter gray.
* You can also generally go straight only to the first claim, because the other claims end up being subtly-reworded variations of the first claim.
* This claim is, in short, "A thing comprising A, B, and C." You have to have all of A, B, and C to violate the patent. If you have just A and B and no C, you don't violate it. If you have A, B, and something that is similar to C but you used a relay where C says to use a transistor, you don't violate it.
The point is that it isn't novel. Novelty is supposed to be a requirement for a patent claim to be patentable. This patent is like making a drink by mixing 4 different fruit juices, but stirring it with a teak spoon. No identical prior art, very specific claims. Not novel.
The patent office has been granting technology patents for non-novel things for ages, sadly. There does not appear to be any fix for it, as it even ensnares one of the world’s richest companies. Presumably there would need to be consequences to the government for granting non-novel patents, and there appear to be none.
Well, I kinda agree, but in that case it should be easy for the defendant to find prior art that meets the elements of the claim or to modify their implementation to avoid the teak spoon. That they haven't makes me wonder if they find some novel utility in the teak spoon.
At Apple's level, they're probably only concerned with these amounts like that famous government spending admonition - I understand it's just a billion dollars, but a billion here, a billion there, soon we'll start talking about real money.
Are these billion dollar lawsuits? The one that Apple lost so far was only for about 30 million—basically a pellet gun shot. Apple's the one seeking billions in rebates which is probably why Qualcomm is shooting back.
95 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 159 ms ] thread[1]: https://store.wsj.com/v2/US/US/1110600005
My understanding was that Qualcomm is going after Apple because they think Apple is sort of the principal infringer, i.e. they gave Intel access to the infringing IP. But I don't know, maybe they just pursuit all parties in the name of thoroughness.
>My understanding was that Qualcomm is going after Apple because they think Apple is sort of the principal infringer, i.e. they gave Intel access to the infringing IP. But I don't know, maybe they just pursuit all parties in the name of thoroughness.
Well, they are two separate issues.. If you are familiar with GT Advanced Tech or had any past experience working with Apple as a supplier, it's not difficult to see why Apple and Qualcomm are here. TLDR, Apple doesn't want to pay; claims Qualcomm is overcharging and Qualcomm is a monopoly.
Apple is also known for making onerous demands to supplier for winning their iPhone order. In this case, Apple demanded Qualcomm's source code for their chipset and now Qualcomm alleges that Apple gave QC's trade secret to Intel, who is now Apple's baseband supplier.
Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-04/apple-and...
“First up are the Return Program cartridges that Lexmark sold in the United States. We conclude that Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in these cartridges the moment it sold them. The single-use/no-resale restrictions in Lexmark's contracts with customers may have been clear and enforceable under contract law, but they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell.” Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1523, 1531 (2017)
“First, Univis held that ‘the authorized sale of an article which is capable of use only in practicing the patent is a relinquishment of the patent monopoly with respect to the article sold.’ Id., at 249, 62 S.Ct. 1088. The lens blanks in Univis met this standard because they were ‘without utility until [they were] ground and polished as the finished lens of the patent.’ Ibid. Accordingly, ‘the only object of the sale [was] to enable the [finishing retailer] to grind and polish it for use as a lens by the prospective wearer.’ Ibid. Here, LGE has suggested no reasonable use for the Intel Products other than incorporating them into computer systems that practice the LGE Patents.[6] Nor can we discern one: A microprocessor or chipset cannot function until it is connected to buses and memory. And here, as in Univis, the only apparent object of Intel's sales to Quanta was to permit Quanta to incorporate the Intel Products into computers that would practice the patents.” Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, 128 S.Ct. 2109, 2119 (2008)
I am no expert in law except Qualcomm cannot receive patent license fees from manufacturers who use Qualcomm chips just sounds utter non sense to me.
The term you are looking for is "Patent exhaustion" which is a system whereby the first person who makes the device incorporating the patent is on the hook to pay fees/royalties but then you can resell it and the person buying it doesn't have to pay the patent fees again, because they were "exhausted" in the first transaction.
Imagine if you had to repay all the patent holders for stuff in a car when you bought it used. Not practical.
Qualcom has created what they believe is a new system where they "forego" royalties from the person who makes the chip and instead charge the person who designs in the chip, in this case Apple. Apple continues to push the patent exhaustion angle saying they don't owe anything.
Thanks for the pointer, will look it up when I have time.
But is that what they are really pushing though? I don't seems to read anything in regards to this. Apple has a dispute with pricing, and whether it should be charged a flat rate instead of % of devices. But I don't see Apple trying to argue for patent exhaustion and Intel should be paying for it.
These are really one single lawsuit orchestrated by Apple. The issue isn't overly complicated -- they are essentially refusing to pay Qualcomm licensing fees for their wireless patents on the ground that Qualcomm's licensing practice is in violation of antitrust laws. Thus, their claims rest heavily on the outcome of the FTC case.
No. Apple isn't saying it should be charged a "flat rate," but that a percentage rate should be based on the price of component, ie, modem, not system, ie, smartphone. According to documents/testimony revealed during the last trial, before the 4G license hike, Apple was on average paying $7.50 per device, but Apple "wanted" to pay $1.50 for Qualcomm's entire wireless portfolio, a bargain considering how much Apple had asked for a handful of frivolous utility/design patents from Samsung, around $7.0 for each patent per device.
Again, it's common wireless industry practice embraced by wireless participants for decades now. Apple is way late to the game and is trying to change the rule of the game to maximize their bottom line.
Apple's past legal challenge to change this has fallen flat, so this time around Apple is using the FTC as proxy to fight their battle. While Apple's hometown judge Koh surprisingly had given Apple an upper hand on this as JML (pretrial judgement as matter of law), this would be appealed and, many expect Koh's biased, flawed theory to be reversed.
> I don't see Apple trying to argue for patent exhaustion and Intel should be paying for it.
Apple has in fact been arguing "patent exhaustion" and that Intel should also be able to license at component-level, against the industry convention where royalties are collected at device/system level. Koh's decision was obviously in Apple's favor, but again this remains to be seen. Qualcomm is not going to take this lying down since this cuts into their most profitable licensing business.
Put another way: I'm looking for a clear statement of what legal theory is Qualcomm using in its attempt to leapfrog the chip manufacturer and bring patent suit against handset makers?
I'm not sure if patent exhaustion applies since QTL (licensing) and QTC (chip-making) are technically two separate business entities (subsidiaries). I'm assuming this is all legit, since Apple had funneled their IP and oversea profit to Irish subsidiaries to avoid taxes for years -- meaning they were treated as entirely separate businesses. Qualcomm also argued that QC's patent portfolio goes beyond chip-making and there are other wireless technologies that are not embedded in the baseband chip (hence no exhaustion). The USFTC's lawsuit against Qualcomm ended about a month ago and now we are all patiently awaiting for Koh's decision.
I wasn't aware of that; that's quite interesting. But it's unclear whether it affects exhaustion, in that QTL would still have (or have not) licensed Intel (or QTC). So either (Intel or QTC) have a license and exhaustion applies, or they do not, and are the actual infringers.
Now, the law being the law, "the actual infringers" is not going to be a strict legal concept, but in some areas of law and/or some jurisdictions, there are legal structures that produce similar outcomes – where a suit cannot be brought against someone one or more "jumps" away, e.g. just to find a defendant with deeper pockets. I'm absolutely out of my depth re: US patent law on this topic, except that it seems insane for a patent holder to be able to sue all the users of an infringing product. But then patent law so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
And yes, it's perfectly legal to pick anyone one, not all, layer in the supplier chain and collect royalties there. The wireless industry agreed to collect the royalties from the last manufacturer in the supply chain decades ago -- and that's more or less the de facto industry practice today. This isn't to say SEP holders can go after any random body as they please -- there are legal analysis and factors that help determine if that's fair. For instance, I think it's reasonable to use the end-user smartphone device as royalty basis since Qualcomm's IP adds significant value and drive market demand for Apple's iPhones. On the other hand, it would be silly to make similar comparison to a BWM 8 Series Coupe with wireless functionality.
In the long run today decision have probably more chances than not to be reverted.
Even if he should not be considered indépendant, I always take a tour to Florian Mueller blog to have a broader context when a new like that pop out http://www.fosspatents.com
Ps: and be sure to actually read the article his titles are often very misleading/ironic/cryptic.
The baseband chips only handle wireless communication and these are really special purpose chips. We are not talking about Qualcomm's SOC, ie Snapdragon, GPU, AI chips, etc,.. these are not in the scope of this lawsuit (or licensing).
http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/09/qualcomm-facing-additiona...
> ITC judge disagrees with ITC staff, sides with Qualcomm against Apple: one patent held infringed, import ban recommended; but patent likely invalid
> Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) MaryJoan McNamara just announced an initial determination ("initial" means the parties can seek a Commission review, and a final ruling is still four months off) according to which Apple is deemed to infringe one of three Qualcomm patents-in-suit... In my observation, decisions by ITC judges that run counter to staff recommendations are virtually certain to be reviewed and more likely than others to be reversed.
Also, the patent is for "multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors" and is currently being reviewed by the USPTO for validity.
[0] - http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/03/itc-judge-disagrees-with-...
He seems to have knowledge of court procedures than the knowledge of actual cases where he appears either biased or incompetent. I don't know which is worse.
(Edit: Not exactly what I was looking for but this is part of it: https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evalua...)
In other words, I'd give the benefit of the doubt if an automaker released an electric car with a trunk in the front and the back. If they released an electric car with a single touchscreen console and no dashboard, a front and back trunk, a panoramic glass roof, and bladed wheels, I'd think that they were ripping off the Model 3 from Tesla. A lot of what the iPhone did was simply a natural evolution of what was happening. Even more of it, though, was a leapfrog of combined technologies that surpassed every other phone out on the market. Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer.
https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-ju...
Please see the link above. There are plenty of evidence to indicate that Samsung had released touch screen phones before Apple and had considered a few dozen other designs in the pipeline. The problem here was that again both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to bring anything that would confused the jury on trade dress and design patent infringement parts of the lawsuit. Apple suddenly changed their mind and turned in the "benchmarking" paper by Samsung. When Samsung turned their defense in, Apple's judge Lucy Koh said no.
> Even Android had to do a total hardware refresh after the iPhone came out. It was literally a game-changer.
ever heard of LG Prada?
Samsung hadn't released a single one of those phones and you're completely ignoring a major difference between those "designs" and the hardware changes that occurred from before to after. The iPhone's main innovation wasn't just that it was a full-front touchscreen but that the full-front touchscreen was a capacitive multi-touch screen. There was no stylus and you could capture multiple inputs at the same time. None of Samsung's devices, and even the LG Prada that you mention without any context, had capacitive multi-touch and yet all their phones had it afterwards.
Again, it's not just about the individual components. It's taking them as a whole and seeing the sudden shift that happened right when the iPhone launched. Samsung was working on all the components individually but was basically caught with their pants down.
Apple of course knew that Samsung was exploring all kinds of different designs, including those resembling LG Prada and iPhone -- that's probably why they agreed to not to bring up such evidence during their lawsuit; only to change their mind at the last minute.
> that the full-front touchscreen was a capacitive multi-touch screen
the underlying tech doesn't matter, because we are talking about "design" and "trade dress" part of the lawsuit.
> Again, it's not just about the individual components.
This is again where your lack of understanding of patent law is clouding your judgement. Patents are for very specific, narrow design or method; not for over all implementation or shapes of products. What you are talking about is often covered under "trade dress" -- 'trade dress' deals with the overall impression of a product. Apple lost that part of the lawsuit because in order to win a trade dress suit, in addition to being novel and uniquely identifiable to Apple, it also has to be "non-functional."
Just so you understand, the "guidebook" or benchmarking your competitors' product is nothing special in any industry. That piece of evidence was submitted at the last minute for the trade dress part of the lawsuit and Samsung also tried to present theirs in response, but was rejected on procedural ground (on "untimeliness").
(Edit: Not exactly it but this makes the point I was after: https://www.scribd.com/doc/102317767/Samsung-Relative-Evalua...)
Now, my understanding is that both Apple and Samsung initially agreed not to present any evidence from the "trade dress" part of the lawsuit that might mislead the jury's ruling on other part of the lawsuit (eg, design patent infringement). Apple waited until the last minute to submit the 140+page document. Samsung in response submitted theirs, but was rejected. Samsung's lawyer Quinn went a bit batsh*t crazy at this point (https://www.theverge.com/2012/7/31/3209204/samsung-angers-ju...).
This kind of shenanigan went on over and over again throughout the trial -- for example, see again Mueller's comment on adversal jury instruction that was granted to Apple, but not Samsung because Samsung's motion (or "me too" complaint as Mueller described) was filed after the supposed deadline that never existed, or just two days after Apple had filed theirs. (this was reversed after a brief public uproar).
You know it wasn't pure coincidence that the FTC brought the Qualcomm case to Lucy Koh's desk in Apple's backyard.
Except that that isn't at all what's in that document. It was way more than just a benchmarking/evaluation and, when combined with evidence that Samsung knew of Apple's proposed full-front display as early as 2005, it makes it a little less likely that they just independently came to the exact same conclusions about so many things at the same time. Again, individually, I think there's a case to be made where the components are just natural evolutions of where certain technology can go but, as a whole, I think it's too coincidental to say that this was all innocent benchmarking and that the judge just had it out for Samsung. I think she ruled against Samsung's submission because she recognized that Samsung was being disingenuous.
Again, this internal doc was presented in the trade dress part of the lawsuit -- which Apple eventually lost. Both parties initially agreed not to present anything too confusing to jury because there were so many confusing overlaps between the design and trade dress parts of the lawsuit. Apple suddenly changed its mind at the last minute -- and the judges duly embraced Apple's evidence, but rejected Samsung's counter-evidence on procedural ground (untimeliness). A lot of Apple fanbois like yourself are just still confused about the trade dress and design parts of the lawsuit -- I could only imagine the confusion the internal doc had on the jury, but obviously in Apple's favor since Samsung's never saw the light.
The patent that literally just consisted of rounded corners, not the rest of the stuff, was upheld as a valid patent and Samsung was found to be infringing it. Theoretically, if Samsung hadn't violated any other Apple IP, the court should still have found them to be infringing the rounded corners patent.
This is worth ridiculing, and outlines the state of the patent system, which clearly needs adjusting.
Coke's curvy bottle is covered by a design patent, for example.
I had to look this up, because I figured there was somehow a risk that Coke had managed to get century-long patents in America.
https://www.upcounsel.com/trade-dress:
"When deciding whether to obtain a trade dress trademark, a design patent, or both, you should first consider what each protects:
Design patent - protects the design of a product giving you exclusivity over the design for a certain period. Even if you don't manufacture or sell the product, you are still protected by a design patent. Trade dress - protects your investment in marketing and advertising where you have created a particular image for your product, and consumers exclusively associate that image with your product. As design patents and trade dress protect different things, the requirements are different for both:
Design patent - the design firstly has to be new and cannot be a variation of a design that already exists. The design must also be ornamental in nature, rather than purely functional. That said, it can have some functionality. Trade dress - a trade dress must be something that is distinctive and connects the consumer to the product, i.e. the consumer instantly recognizes the source of the trade dress. Unlike a design patent, it cannot be functional in any way. Design features that have a function should be protected with a design patent."
Do note that all of Apple's 'trade dress' claims were thrown out because of their failure to meet "non-functionality"/ornamental requirement.
http://techrights.org/2010/08/21/florian-blames-ibm-for-deat...
(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.
(This is a copy and paste from my previous comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332647)
The original source for Microsoft is Mueller: http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/10/study-on-worldwide-use-of...
I elected to not link the first because most people dislike being linked to court documents, and the second because it contains no context. I did check both existed before I posted this.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qualcomm-apple/china-cour...
It's kind of surreal that two large tech companies who design and produce technology of staggering complexity are in a dispute over something so simple.
[0] https://patents.google.com/patent/US8063674B2/en
A method for reducing power consumption by detecting a power-on of a second supply voltage while a first supply voltage is already on and adjusting current draw from the first supply as a result
In order for a finding of patent infringement, one or more claims of the patent must be infringed.
Claim 1 recites:
A multiple supply voltage device comprising:
a core network operative at a first supply voltage; and
a control network coupled to said core network wherein said control network is configured to transmit a control signal, said control network comprising: an up/down (up/down) detector configured to detect a power state of said core network;
processing circuitry coupled to said up/down detector and configured to generate said control signal based on said power state;
one or more feedback circuits coupled to said up/down detector, said one or more feedback circuits configured to provide feedback signals to adjust a current capacity of said up/down detector;
at least one first transistor coupled to a second supply voltage, the at least one more first transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered down and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered on;
at least one second transistor coupled in series with the at least one first transistor and coupled to said first supply voltage, the at least one second transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered on and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered down;
at least one third transistor coupled in series between the at least one first transistor and the at least one second transistor.
And these circuits are what they are patenting: (a) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/91/c4/35/775214e... (b) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a1/66/be/985aac1... (c) https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/a8/93/45/09b4add...
* Ignore the title, it will only confuse you.
* Ignore the abstract, it will only confuse you.
* Ignore the figures, it will only confuse you.
* Ignore the description, it doesn't matter.
* Jump straight to the claims (the only thing left in the patent). This is literally the only thing that matters in the entire document.
* Ignore most of the claims--anything that says "the thing of claim N". You can't violate those without violating other parts of the patent, by definition. The Google patent view helpfully puts these in lighter gray.
* You can also generally go straight only to the first claim, because the other claims end up being subtly-reworded variations of the first claim.
* This claim is, in short, "A thing comprising A, B, and C." You have to have all of A, B, and C to violate the patent. If you have just A and B and no C, you don't violate it. If you have A, B, and something that is similar to C but you used a relay where C says to use a transistor, you don't violate it.