Judge Recommends Import Ban On iPhones After Latest Apple Vs. Qualcomm Verdict (theverge.com) 67
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The latest chapter in the ongoing and messy Apple versus Qualcomm legal battle might mean a U.S. import ban on some iPhone models. A U.S. trade judge has found Apple guilty of infringing on two Qualcomm patents related to power management and data download speeds. As a result, the judge -- International Trade Commission Judge MaryJoan McNamara -- says some iPhone models containing competing Intel modems might be blocked from shipping from China, where they're manufactured, to the U.S. The judgment is still pending review by the ITC. Qualcomm is expecting another ruling in a second case it brought to the ITC later today that is not expected to include an import ban on iPhones. Regardless, this ruling is another blow to Apple, which, earlier this month, was found to have infringed on three separate Qualcomm patents in one of many other legal skirmishes playing out between the two companies. Next month the two companies will square off in court to discuss Qualcomm's alleged anti-competitive licensing strategies and the patent royalties it claims Apple owes for disputing the terms of their long-standing relationship.
That's a lot of power in one person's hands (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's a lot of power in one person's hands (Score:4, Insightful)
A single judge can decide if someone lives or dies and you're shocked about how much power they have over a corporation? Perhaps you should check your priorities.
Besides, a jury usually decides guilt, the judge decides the penalty.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is too big to fail. No judge has power over them in any real way. iPhone shipments will continue unimpeded, even if Apple has to call in a favor and get some "emergency legislation" or higher court order to help them out.
Re: (Score:1)
Eventually the Apple brand will be something that's slapped on all sorts of third rate products. Packard-Bell was an electronics company with a good reputation in the past. The brand was valuable with older people who remembered it from their youth. Polaroid and RCA are other 'brands' that are in the recycle phase and get slapped on lower-end electronic gadgets at this point in their deterioration. Apple has a valuable brand and they're working hard to come up with ways to expand that brand. Eventuall
Re: Too big to fail? Here's a free lesson in reali (Score:2)
Apple is not going into bankerupcy any time soon lol. Even if apple completely shut its operations but kept everyone on the payroll and kept paying its rent it could survive for decades simply on cash in hand. It's a company with astronomical wealth
Re: (Score:3)
Apple has not been shut down, the judge is not 75 years old, and she knows how to turn on a computer.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to believe one person could completely shut down a company like this. I'm hoping the judge isn't some 75 year old who doesn't even know how to turn on a computer.
"Live by the sword, die by the sword."
I couldn't have happened to a better company.
Maybe some day they will advocate for sensible IP laws.... but I doubt it.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe some day they will advocate for sensible IP laws.... but I doubt it.
No way. Big corps sue each other over IP, but except for legal fees, that is zero sum.
But IP laws are a win for big companies because they can use IP to crush small companies and dominate markets.
Apple owns no factories and has very little capital equipment. Yet they are the most valuable corporation in the history of the world.
Nearly all of that value is in the form of intellectual property.
Re: (Score:1)
Branding is a rarified and less respectable form of intellectual property. And it's what Apple mainly leans on.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to believe one person could completely shut down a company like this.
An ITC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) can't "shut down a company", but, because they are part of the ITC, they can determine that it is illegal to import certain products. If a company can only survive by importing a small number of products that infringe someone's patents, that's the company's problem.
Re: No more Apple (Score:2)
But very mature of the android crowd to use homophobic slurs.
Are gay Android users homophobic??
Yes; you're a fucking moron.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple is the Scientology of the electronic gadget business.
They are in the cash-in phase. Eventually there will be all kinds of shit branded Apple. Like the lowest-end Android tablets which get branded Polaroid and RCA, two other famous brands.
Re: (Score:1)
As much as I admit there is a little shadenfreude in huge companies fighting like this ... pretty sure at the end of the day it's the consumers who will get screwed on this one.
Either they'll have to pay extra to cover licensing fees, court fees, or both.
If the customers are willing to pay more, you're merely describing a corrected pricing mistake.
Which models? (Score:2)
I've been trying to figure out which models are affected, but so far haven't found it in any of the reporting. Recent bans over Qualcomm's patents have only affected older (usually outdated) models, or else have only affected models that hadn't yet received the latest software updates. I'm wondering whether this is more of the same or whether this will actually have an effect on current flagship models running the latest version of iOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I could tell, that list of models was for a different set of patents related to Intel's modems.
Re:Which models? (Score:4, Interesting)
Keep in mind that Qualcomm didn't file this suit until Apple switched to using Intel chips rather than Qualcomm's own chips. This is about revenge for not using them as their primary supplier.
That's okay, Apple switched to Intel as revenge for Qualcomm not bending over and cutting their patent fees for Apple. Also they possibly (probably) gave Intel Qualcomm's trade secrets to improve their crappy performance. The wheel of screw your business partner over keeps spinning.
Re:Which models? (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that Qualcomm didn't file this suit until Apple switched to using Intel chips
You idiot, that's because Qualcomm had a patent agreement with Apple while they were supplying them the chips.
Apple didn't like how Qualcomm based the royalty payment on the retail price of the phone, the same as all the other manufacturers, because Apple have been skyrocketing the retail price - like paying $1099 for a 64GB phone or $1449 for a 256GB model. That's $350 for 192GB. A 256GB micro SD card costs less than $100.
They stopped paying Qualcomm royalties, so Qualcomm sued for infringement.
That's how it's supposed to work.
Ban on iPhones? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about time Apple got a real taste of being on the wrong end of a patent infringement lawsuit.
Clearly Apple must feel that they didn't infringe. But then so did all those Apple was suing over patents not very many years ago. Pinch to zoom? Bouncy scrolling? And wanting to get 100% of the device retail cost as damages? Seriously?
IMO this couldn't happen to a better target than Apple.
FYI . . . long ago I was a card carrying Apple fanboy and longtime developer back in the Classic Mac days. Even after moving from Mac to Linux when OSX came out, I still had fond memories of Apple -- until it started all the patent lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Apple spawned the Windows juggernaut. By suing all of Microsoft's GUI competitors (for MS-DOS machines there was GEM, Geoworks, etc.) out of business, and then losing the touch-and-feel lawsuit against Microsoft.
Yes, Apple literally spawned the Windows ecosystem, with the litigious bullshit that has ALWAYS been a major part of their business model.
Good for the goose (Score:1)
If it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]
Qualcomm antennas are better right? (Score:1, Redundant)
Isn't this a win for consumers, or did I misremember the old Qualcomm antenna woes? Or old news?
https://www.pcmag.com/news/364... [pcmag.com]
https://www.cnet.com/videos/th... [cnet.com]
Part of the cnet conversation:
"Now a recent report from Bloomberg claimed Apple might be throttling Verizon's LTE performance with a Qualcomm modem in order to make it perform similarly to the Intel chip that's in other phones. The Qualcomm hardware is theoretically capable of a maximum 600 megabits per second for download speeds. Compared to the I
Re:Qualcomm antennas are better right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Are you deluded? They violated the qualcomm patents because they implemented part of the modem components in software without licensing the patents qualcomm had on those components. Qualcomm previously provided those bits as part of the modem they supplied to Apple, when Apple switched to Intel there were some bits missing, Apple implemented them in software and got caught violating one of the qualcomm patents and slapped with a sales ban in China as a result, they then went and changed the software to stop
Re: (Score:2)
"They violated the qualcomm patents because they implemented part of the modem components in software without licensing the patents qualcomm had on those components."
Sounds like you're the deluded one. Removing the need for hardware by using software is novel and unique, Qualcomm didn't do it, and thus Qualcomm shouldn't have had any fucking win related to that.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like you're the deluded one. Removing the need for hardware by using software is novel and unique, Qualcomm didn't do it, and thus Qualcomm shouldn't have had any fucking win related to that.
You can't generally work around a patent by implementing the patented functionality in software rather than hardware, or vice versa.
It was completely fine for Apple to implement the functionality in software (or hardware, whatever), as long as they paid the appropriate royalties to the patent holder. Or, alternatively, Apple could have found a different approach to solve the problem that didn't infringe on the patent. Having failed to do both, Qualcomm will be awarded whatever remedies the court deems ap
Re: (Score:2)
You can't generally work around a patent by implementing the patented functionality in software rather than hardware, or vice versa.
Bullshit.
Patents are "gotten around" every single day by someone finding an alternative method to achieve the same goal.
That is perfectly legal
Using the same method but doing it in software rather than hardware (or vice versa), is not "finding an alternative method".
Re: (Score:2)
No, they sued because Apple stole their patented technology and gave it to Intel, because Intel modems sucked and Apple wanted them to be as good as Qualcomm ones.
Apple likes to have two sources for every part they buy in, both as insurance if one has supply issues and to play each supplier off the other on price. Unfortunately for Apple Qualcomm modems are significantly better than Intel ones, and Apple actually had to artificially slow down the Qualcomm ones to make iPhones using them perform the same as
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you use products by a patent holder, that isn't a problem. Apple wants to use Qualcomm patents without using Qualcomm products, then Apple should have paid the license fees. It is as simple as that. The fact that Apple decided not to pay any royalty fees and allow the debt to go up and up just asks for a judge to insist that Apple pay what is owed right now, not over a period of time. Apple has all that money "in the bank", so has no excuses for not paying, except for greed and general iDoucher
It's pointless (Score:3)
The bans will be for specific models that have been found to be infringing.
These cases take so long to complete that new models are out and the ones being banned aren't being shipped anymore.
Always a pleasure (Score:2)
Always a pleasure when Apple gets whacked by patents. Only because of the round corners and all that swaggering.