Qualcomm Seeks To Ban Imports And Sales of Apple iPhones in New Lawsuit (cnbc.com)

Chipmaker Qualcomm is asking U.S. trade regulators to ban iPhone imports, according to a new lawsuit. From a report: Apple has allegedly infringed on six of Qualcomm's patents, including technology that improves iPhone battery life, according to Qualcomm. Now Qualcomm wants Apple to pay damages. "Apple continues to use Qualcomm's technology while refusing to pay for it," Don Rosenberg, executive vice president and general counsel of Qualcomm, said in a statement. Qualcomm ultimately wants regulators to investigate which phones use cellular processors from Qualcomm's competitors, and halt sales of iPhones that violate the patents. Qualcomm said it has filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and with the United States International Trade Commission. It's not immediately clear how many iPhones that would affect.

Comments

How many? Perhaps none.

[Penguinisto]

Depends on how credible their claim is, really.

I suspect this is just a negotiating chip more than anything else, to push Apple into giving them the rent they seek.

(geddit... chip? I slay me sometimes.)

Re:How many? Perhaps none.

[Penguinisto]

Believe it or not, I agree with you perfectly (I was being charitable.)

This is the industrial equivalent of SCO going after Linux users... and we all know how that turned out.

Re:How many? Perhaps none.

[Anonymous Coward]

In fairness, this is the karma train hitting Apple. They tried to pull this same shit with Samsung over goddamn rounded corners.

Re:How many? Perhaps none.

[Gr8Apes]

I'd say that since Samsung used *copied* images from Apple's patents in their design docs....

Re:How many? Perhaps none.

[Penguinisto]

Not really - there's a difference between Samsung directly ripping off a design patent, and Apple being sued for buying chips for their phones from someone other than Qualcomm.

Re:How many? Perhaps none.

[BronsCon]

This. Especially since the chip manufacturer would already have paid Qualcomm to license their technology, otherwise the chip manufacturer would be the one being sued or Apple would be willing to pay Qualcomm directly as part of their agreement with said chip manufacturer.

Re:How many? Perhaps none.

[TheFakeTimCook]

This. Especially since the chip manufacturer would already have paid Qualcomm to license their technology, otherwise the chip manufacturer would be the one being sued or Apple would be willing to pay Qualcomm directly as part of their agreement with said chip manufacturer.

Exactly!

Re:How many? Perhaps none.

[Rockoon]

Is this the same money.cnn.com that declared math racist?

nah, can't be them

When are you people going to stop citing CNN as a credible source? What is it going to take?

Re:How many? Perhaps none.

[LynnwoodRooster]

Uh, no. I don't know how many chip licenses you've negotiated, I've done more than my fair share. You buy the chips - but the firmware, the stuff that runs inside them - is typically an additional license that must be negotiated and paid for. That's true with Qualcomm, CSR (before Qualcomm bought them), Atmel, Cirrus, Analog Devices, TI, ST and many others... You buy the chip, but you still have to pay for licenses for any embedded firmware you choose to use.

Re:How many? Perhaps none.

[kimvette]

> there's a difference between Samsung directly ripping off a design patent, and Apple being sued for buying chips for their phones from someone other than Qualcomm.

There are Samsung "rounded corner" devices which predate Apple's bullshit "design patent"

Re:How many? Perhaps none.

[TheFakeTimCook]

Is this the same money.cnn.com that declared math racist?

nah, can't be them

When are you people going to stop citing CNN as a credible source? What is it going to take?

There's LOTS more sources. That's just the one that came up first with a good side-by-side picture.

Why not look at THAT. It tells you ALL you need to know.

Oh, I know why: Willful Blindness.

SSDD

[swimboy]

This is the same argument that it's always been. Qualcomm has patents that are necessary to use cellular networks, and in return for making them standards, they've agreed to license them (either in their chips or their competitors) for "reasonable" amounts of money. Unfortunately for Apple, Qualcomm is trying to charge a license for a percentage of the final value of the phone, instead of a unit price per radio. They've been in court several times to determine if Qualcomm is being "reasonable" or not.

It seems a pretty specious argument to me. Just like the article says, you don't charge somebody more for a sofa just because they want to put it in a more expensive house.

Re:SSDD

[Bing Tsher E]

It's my understanding that the patents that Qualcomm is contesting Apple using IP from are not the ones agreed upon to be placed under the 'common license'. Apple is going beyond that point and using Qualcomm IP that isn't licensed that way to other Qualcomm customers either.

However, Apple is involved, so people will climb out of Steve Jobs grave (where they live) to raise a hue and cry.

Re:SSDD

[cayenne8]

This is the same argument that it's always been. Qualcomm has patents that are necessary to use cellular networks, and in return for making them standards, they've agreed to license them (either in their chips or their competitors) ....

Here's the part I don't understand.

If Apple is using competitor chips, that have been licensed by the competitor to Qualcomm....hasn't that competing chip maker already paid the rent/licensing fee to Qualcomm at the chip manufacture level...?

If so, why does the secondary user of the chip (Apple) also have to pay licensing fees?

Re: SSDD

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's a pretty reasonable model. Others (Samsung, LG etc) are in the same boat and this works for them.
Apple is too greedy and wants to charge a undeserved premium for the brand without paying anything extra. I hope Apple suck it up at the end.

Re:SSDD

[Alain Williams]

It seems a pretty specious argument to me. Just like the article says, you don't charge somebody more for a sofa just because they want to put it in a more expensive house.

Interesting comment given that more and more vendors, shops, ... are introducing variable prices. Go on-line, look for a hotel/flight/... and the price that you will see is often different from what someone else sees. If you are known to be wealthy you are often charged more.

Re:SSDD

[jonsmirl]

You are confused. Qualcomm is mad that their monopoly at Apple is being broken up by Apple using Intel's cell modems. So to get back at Apple the are accusing Apple patent infringement in another part of the iPhone developed by Apple, not Intel.

Personally I am very tired of the damage patent monopolies are doing to the US cell phone market. There are 100+ makers of cell phones in China. Only six or seven manufacturers sell in the US. LTE modems for the Chinese LTE bands are $15, same modem of US bands are $60. Average US cellphone pays $35 in patent royalties. Major cell phone companies like Xiaomi won't even enter the US market. in 2012 one sixth of all US patents were on cell phones.

And the future is bleak. All of these patents serve to keep US cell prices very high compared to rest of the world. This is going to end up destroying the developing market for cell connected IOT devices. The patent mess and high prices as so bad that completely independent cell technology (LORA/SIGFOX) is being developed to bypass the existing cell network.

Re:SSDD

[rsmith-mac]

If so, why does the secondary user of the chip (Apple) also have to pay licensing fees?

Because Qualcomm says so.

No, seriously. Qualcomm's position is that every step in the production chain that includes their IP/hardware needs to be individually licensed. Because company X makes a board that includes Qualcomm's IP, and then sells that board to company Y who makes a phone from it and sells said phone, then both X and Y need to be licensed.

It's a scenario that has been called into question many times before over the years. However no case has made it to trial to decide it and set any kind of precedent. In the meantime, because both X and Y technically have products that utilize Qualcomm's IP, both face the risk of an infringement suit if they don't pay royalties.

Probably the closest we came to that was NVIDIA's suit against Samsung and Qualcomm, which along with establishing IP infringement was attempting to sort out who is responsible for said infringement (is it the company who fabs the chips, or the company who designs the IP?). However since that case imploded spectacularly, the question was never answered.

Re:SSDD

[Penguinisto]

SCO tried pulling the same stunt with Linux a decade or so back...

Re:SSDD

[Penguinisto]

Problem is, that argument fails miserably under FRAND rules concerning certain patents.

Re:SSDD

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. The US should have just done what China does: wait for someone else to go to the expense of actually inventing and developing something, then copy it without paying the inventors anything. Then just think of how 'advanced' the US cell phones would be!

Re:SSDD

[crtreece]

This is going to end up destroying the developing market for cell connected IOT devices.

I guess it's not all bad then.

Re:SSDD

[BronsCon]

Because the manufacturers of the chips the use in their phones have already paid those several dollars per unit per patent and passed that cost along to Apple in their unit pricing. In short, Apple has already paid it once, when they bought the chips, and rightly does not feel they should have to pay it again.

Re:SSDD

[sg_oneill]

SCO tried pulling the same stunt with Linux a decade or so back...

SCO was copyright license trolling, not patent trolling. Very different kettle of fish. (The fact that SCO didnt even own the copyrights they where suing over, Novel did and told them to stop, made it even more ludicrous. SCOs entire board should have been thrown in prison for fraud, frankly, it was obviously bullshit to literally everyone, and it was designed to force IBM to buy out SCO. Fortunately IBM had the lawyers to fuck that plan up good and proper, even though it probably would have been cheaper to just pay out the go-away money)

Re:SSDD

[dgatwood]

No, seriously. Qualcomm's position is that every step in the production chain that includes their IP/hardware needs to be individually licensed. Because company X makes a board that includes Qualcomm's IP, and then sells that board to company Y who makes a phone from it and sells said phone, then both X and Y need to be licensed.

How is this not an open-and-shut case of patent exhaustion?

Re:SSDD

[kamapuaa]

All of these patents serve to keep US cell prices very high compared to rest of the world.

Actually, the same phone is substantially cheaper in the US than in other markets.

Surprise! Lower-quality, shitty phones are being manufactured in China, exclusively for the Chinese market, that likely wouldn't be popular or even pass inspection in first-world countries. The same can be said about lower-quality shitty milk products or lower-quality shitty toys. Even the ones that do come over to the US, Blu or whatever, are usable but clearly inferior to an iPhone. And if you use your phone a lot, and own it for years, and you're not poor, why cheap out on a lower-quality phone? A phone might dollar cost average out to a dollar a day, it's a bargain!

Cell phone development and innovation is primarily a US thing. Patent legislation may be hurting this innovation, but you drastically over-state your case, with disingenuous statements.

Re: SSDD

[BronsCon]

But, the question is, did they?

If the suppliers stopped paying, Apple should pay licensing for all parts acquired for which the supplier did not. However, if Apple asked suppliers to stop paying and the suppliers did not stop, well, licensing is still being paid and Apple doesn't owe shit.

Re:SSDD

[jonsmirl]

These inventors have been hugely compensated for their efforts. There is a difference between reasonable or even unreasonable compensation and monopoly rents. We are well into the monopoly rents arena. And that's way Qualcomm is the target of anti-trust actions in China, Korea and the US.

Re:SSDD

[Areyoukiddingme]

No, seriously. Qualcomm's position is that every step in the production chain that includes their IP/hardware needs to be individually licensed. Because company X makes a board that includes Qualcomm's IP, and then sells that board to company Y who makes a phone from it and sells said phone, then both X and Y need to be licensed.

How is this not an open-and-shut case of patent exhaustion?

It is. And the Supreme Court has gotten tired of the Federal Circuit that keeps trying to maintain the fiction that it isn't. So they ruled in May. Qualcomm apparently didn't get the memo. They don't have a leg to stand on. The brief required to scuttle their entire suit, and dismiss with prejudice, is one page long and cites that link.

Re:SSDD

[LynnwoodRooster]

A citation for you.

The six patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,633,936, U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558, U.S. Patent No. 8,487,658, U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949, U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490, and U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675 enable high performance in a smartphone while extending battery life. Each of the patents does so in a different way for different popular smartphone features; https://www.qualcomm.com/iphon... While the technologies covered by the patents are central to the performance of the iPhone, the six asserted patents are not essential to practice any standards in a mobile device or subject to a commitment to offer to license such patents.

These are not in the general patent common license pool, are not of any standards required for mobile devices, but Apple wants them anyway and is using them without paying for them.

Re:SSDD

[LynnwoodRooster]

This is the same argument that it's always been. Qualcomm has patents that are necessary to use cellular networks, and in return for making them standards, they've agreed to license them (either in their chips or their competitors) ....

Here's the part I don't understand.

If Apple is using competitor chips, that have been licensed by the competitor to Qualcomm....hasn't that competing chip maker already paid the rent/licensing fee to Qualcomm at the chip manufacture level...?

Yes and no. With chips that run embedded firmware, it is quite common to pay a "fee" for the chip as well as a separate license "fee" for the embedded firmware. This is common with MANY chip vendors, not just Qualcomm. You buy the physical IC, but you still may need to license any custom firmware required. For example if you want to use the pre-canned USB/PHY stack on many Cirrus DSPs, you need to pay for that separately. If you want to use AptX encoding on a CSR chip, you need to pay for that separately. And so on.

With ICs now bridging between just pure hardware AND firmware, the line is getting blurred. Unless you want to clean-room develop your own internal firmware for the device, you will probably end up using the firmware supplied by the IC vendor. And that will require an additional license.

What's funny is that Apple does the exact same thing! You can buy an MFi IAP2 IC from Apple, but you still need to pay an additional firmware license for pretty much anything you can do with that chip (and there are several firmware options you can choose from). This is literally Apple whinging about Qualcomm doing the exact same thing that Apple does to all IAP2/MFi chip companies (actually, Qualcomm is less intrusive, as Apple requires your manufacturing partner to also license and become approved, and insists on looking at your implementation prior to release of product; Qualcomm does neither).

Re:SSDD

[LynnwoodRooster]

No, they haven't. They may have paid for the chips - but what about the firmware inside? You can buy an IAP2 chip from Apple - but you still have to pay additionally for the firmware inside it. You can buy a Cirrus 8281 DSP, but you still have to pay additionally for any firmware you want to run inside it. You can buy a CSR8670 Bluetooth controller, but you still have to pay for the AptX firmware you want to run inside it. This more than just a chip - it is also the firmware inside that needs to be licensed, and is pretty common throughout the chip industry.

Re:SSDD

[BronsCon]

And where are they getting the firmware, if not from Qualcomm? And if they're not getting firmware from Qualcomm, they're using 3rd-party firmware and that 3rd party would be responsible for licensing unless their contract with Apple says otherwise, in which case it would fall to Apple and Apple wouldn't be so stupid as to take that fight to court where they know they'd lose.

Clearly, if Apple is fighting this, the license fees have been paid somewheresomeone. Qualcomm is too big for Apple to bankrupt with a drawn-out court battle; yes, technically they have the money to do so but, as a publicly traded company, their board of directors would have to answer for the massive dip in profits over however many quarters that took.

At any rate, we're both just talking out our asses right now. Since it looks like Apple intends to take this to court, though, we'll get to see soon enough which of us was right.

Also, real men shoot 45.

Re:SSDD

[LynnwoodRooster]

At any rate, we're both just talking out our asses right now. Since it looks like Apple intends to take this to court, though, we'll get to see soon enough which of us was right.

You may be, but I am not. I've done this kind of licensing of chips before, several times, with the exact same IC but different sets of firmware for different prices. In fact, vendors like it because it's hard to discount chips in volume beyond a certain point, but firmware licensing? That can be cut much more aggressively. So you may see a 20% cut on costs on an IC when you move from 1K to 1MM production, but you'll see a 75% cut in licensing over that same increase in volume.

Re:SSDD

[BronsCon]

You do realize that doesn't apply to all chips, right? And, again, where are they getting the firmware?

My understanding is that Qualcomm is bitching about patents relating to silicon, not software. Of course, none of that is actually public, which is why we're both talking out our asses right now and will have to wait to hear Qualcomm's actual complaints in court.

Re: SSDD

[Brockmire]

I thought part of the issue is that the money the manufacturers pay to Qualcomm is subsidized and Apple pays the subsidized rate instead of the proper cut of a premium phone sold in first world countries instead of third world pricing for third world devices. I'm sure there's lots of details unknown.

Re:SSDD

[LynnwoodRooster]

No the patents in question are listed for the world to see. They all relate to ICs and firmware. Apple - like all other vendors - can of course develop their own firmware to load on the ICs, but given it would take man-decades, most people just license up for the firmware and options they want. Except Apple. And thus the lawsuit. Only one of us is talking out our ass...

Re:SSDD

[BronsCon]

most people just license up for the firmware and options they want. Except Apple

Again: Where is Apple getting Qualcomm's firmware if not from Qualcomm? Seems if they're getting it from Qualcomm they must've paid for it and, if they're getting it from elsewhere, that source should be named in the complaint, as well.

But let's look at those patents, shall we? (and thanks, I hadn't seen this previously)

Patent 8,633,936, entitled "Programmable streaming processor with mixed precision instruction execution", is for a silicon design. That is, it's for a chip, not firmware.
Patent 8,698,558, entitled "Low-voltage power-efficient envelope tracker", is for a silicon design. Again, that's a chip, not firmware.

Patent 8,487,658, entitled "Compact and robust level shifter layout design", is for... need I even say it? It's a silicon design, another chip, still not firmware.

Patent 8,838,949, entitled "Direct scatter loading of executable software image from a primary processor to one or more secondary processor in a multi-processor system", describes a method for loading a binary image from one CPU to another, directly in....... of all things, would you believe it's silicon? Still no firmware.

Patent 9,535,490, entitled "Power saving techniques in computing devices". describes a system for enabling and disabling system buses (again, in silicon) based on presence of data to be passed over said buses, as a means of power conservation. Still no firmware.

Patent 9,608,675 is the last patent in the complaint. This must be where the firmware is, right? Let us look, let us look.

Well, would you look at that, it's entitled "Power tracker for multiple transmit signals sent simultaneously" and describes an arrangement of discreet circuits which may also be implemented directly in what is rapidly becoming one of my favorite materials: silicon.

So, I count 6 total patents in the complaint. Of those, 6 describe silicon and circuitry and 0 describe firmware.

Only one of us is talking out our ass...

I'm not sure what hole you think you're talking out of but, having read the patents referenced in the complaint... well, you're right, only one of us... and that would be you, my friend.

Re:SSDD

[LynnwoodRooster]

Qualcomm will give you the firmware image, work with you to develop it (just like CSR, ADI, TI, and others). Then you're supposed to PAY for it for each installation - and Apple isn't. And yes, each of those patents cover devices that are ICs AND have firmware inside them. Nothing in the patents specifically say "only implemented in hardware" - and many chips from Qualcomm related to power control are software configurable (registers that you load with settings) - meaning, firmware.

Re:SSDD

[BronsCon]

So, then, Apple has a contract with Qualcomm that stipulates they should be paying a licensing fee per-unit?

Again, Apple isn't so stupid as to take that to court where they know they'll lose.

We'll surely learn more when that time comes.

But, until then, let me leave you with this:

The "programmable streaming processor" described in 8,633,936 is a GPU, it runs the program loaded on it at runtime by whatever software is using the display. It isn't fatcory-programmed and, in fact, mentions "a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium"; if you know what "transitory" means, you also know that "non-transitory" in this context, means RAM. Firmware, by its nature, lives in transitory storage, and the described chip runs a program from non-transitory storage. While this sort of processor may contain firmware (in the form of microcode), there is no mention of it in this patent. This part of the complaint relates directly to a physical chip.

The "envelope tracker" described in 8,698,558 "generates a second supply voltage based on an envelope signal and the boosted supply voltage", it relies in its current inputs to determine its current outputs and does not use firmware. Do you know what an envelope amplifier is? Yes, there are envelope amplifiers which are programmed by firmware, but this one is not. This part of the complaint relates directly to a physical chip.

The "level shifter" described in 8,487,658 is a "layout design". You really don't even have to read the patent to know it doesn't involve firmware, as I gleaned all of that from the title, but here goes... Just from the abstract, we get mentions of the specific construction of the silicon ("voltage level shifters (VLS) design in bulk CMOS technology") and a description of function of a number of N substrates of a multi-transistor chip. There's no such thing as CMOS firmware (firmware can reside on a CMOS chip, but that's a different concept from the one described within this patent) and firmware does not have N substrates. I mean, come on, did you even read these patents? Let's look at some of the claims... "A multi-voltage circuit to shift each of two bits from a first voltage level logic to a second voltage level logic, comprising:" (scans for mention of any means of storing or loading firmware -- finds none), "A four-bit multi-voltage circuit to shift each of four bits from a first voltage level logic to a second voltage level logic, comprising:" (a 4-bit register and some N substrates, but no means of including firmware), "A method for reducing die area" (which certainly isn't implemented in firmware -- and repeated for the remainder of the claims in the patent, though they do switch between "method" and "apparatus"). No firmware in this chip, either. This part of the complaint relates directly to a physical chip.

Then, there's 8,838,949, which describes, of all things, "A multi-processor system comprising [a secondary processor], [a scatter loader controller], [a primary processor coupled with a memory], and [an interface communicatively coupling the primary processor and the secondary processor]". I'll admit, it does mention the scatter loader controller being configured "to load the image header; and to scatter load each received data segment based at least in part on the loaded image header, directly from the hardware buffer to the system memory", which sounds like, maybe, some of that firmware you're going on about. Let's look deeper, shall we? Well, no mention of the mechanism for configuration over the 8 subclaims to claim 1, which brings us to claim 10 which, well, let's just say doesn't mention how the device is configured, either. Neither do its sub-claims, so, on to claim 16 and it's single sub-claim, which also make no mention of how the unit should be configured. Ooh! Claims 18 and 20 mention non-volatile memory for storing programs for the primary and secondary processors! It looks like we finally found the firmware you're talking abo

Re:SSDD

[TheFakeTimCook]

A citation for you.

The six patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,633,936, U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558, U.S. Patent No. 8,487,658, U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949, U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490, and U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675 enable high performance in a smartphone while extending battery life. Each of the patents does so in a different way for different popular smartphone features; https://www.qualcomm.com/iphon... While the technologies covered by the patents are central to the performance of the iPhone, the six asserted patents are not essential to practice any standards in a mobile device or subject to a commitment to offer to license such patents.

These are not in the general patent common license pool, are not of any standards required for mobile devices, but Apple wants them anyway and is using them without paying for them.

How is Apple "using them without paying for them" in a device that uses a LICENSED Qualcomm chip?

Re: I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[that this is not und]

most the users who don't have a Mac want a Mac and those who have a Mac want an upgrade

That's the way it goes. They think that somebody, somewhere out there has a good Mac.

Re:Both hate.

[Gr8Apes]

The explicitly stated purpose for patents is to give a [temporary] monopoly in return for publicly documenting inventions.

Re:Both hate.

[mindwhip]

The problem is most of these "inventions" are only small part of an actual invention and specified so vaguely in the patent that the documented "invention" or useful machine could not be recreated just using said documentation and has no function without being connected in just the right way to other "inventions". The whole point is to preserve, propagate and allow the use of inventions and devices while still allowing the "inventor" to make a reasonable income on said invention. Most of these patents are on the equivalent of bolts and screws for the electronics industry.

Re: I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[pecosdave]

I've got a story about that.

We have a $10,000 Mac up in our studio. It's about three years old, but it's fair to compare it to a system I just built because Apple hasn't really updates their line.

A guy in our digital department (not part of the studio) needed to do his own video editing and wanted a $6,000 Mac to do it on. He wanted a quad core system with plenty of RAM. The company isn't spending much money these days.

I explained to him how Adobe and Apple have sort of been at war for about ten years and don't like each other all that much these days. I explained that Windows 10 finally got "the bones right" and that unlike previous versions of Windows is pretty danged stable and reliable, and it performs well. I said this and I've been a MIcrosoft hater for two decades, but I can't deny it - even if I don't like the extra layers of spyware, advertising, and some user interface decisions. I explained he wasn't going to be able to spend $6,000 but I could build him more or less a gaming system.

We got approved to spend $1,500.

I built him a system based on an ASUS 970 Gaming Aura, a GeForce 1070 (the 1080 was just out of budget), 32 GB of RAM, a 500 GB SSD to boot to, a 1TB hybrid drive for \Users, and an 8 core Athlon CPU.

It outperforms that $10,000 Mac in the studio.

Fine - it doesn't have Thunderbolt - but it doesn't need it. What it does have that the Mac doesn't is PCIe slots which I think are better if you're only going to have one anyways.

If I were to have had a $2,500 budget it probably would have had Thunderbolt, along with SLI 1080's. Honestly for the type of video editing he did the graphics card didn't really need to be all that kick-ass, the CPU does a lot of the processing, but I like to overkill that stuff.

The user was very happy with it, and even asked me to remove the iMac he already had at his desk because he no longer used it.

I tell our Mac people all the time that they could do their job cheaper with better hardware if they switch to PC, but Mac is so ingrained in their culture they won't even talk about it most of the time. I knew the user I built the system for - he wasn't a cultist, he was a pragmatist with a job to do, when he wanted a new system it really made my day because I knew he would be open to me making a gaming system for him.

I'm trying to tempt some of them over - especially the laptop people - by showing off the Alienware Graphic Amplifier which is about the most bad-assed thing I've seen for a laptop.

Re:Variable Sofa Prices

[bws111]

It is 'almost never mentioned' because it is not true. Sales tax is on the transaction, not the 'full retail price'. The only time you are paying tax on the 'full retail price' is when you get a rebate on the purchase.

Re:Both hate.

[Penguinisto]

This is exactly why I think patents should only be valid when the invention has a physical component that is the novelty itself, which destroys software patents, and that any patent which is not sufficiently clear should be frickin' rejected (or at least sent back for clarification). Problem with the latter is that the USPTO has become less of a patent authority and more of a rubber-stamp mill. :/

Re:I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[pecosdave]

That's the difference between working with cultist and tech people.

The I.T. department is full of tech people who use Macs the way you're talking about. The creatives are a bunch of cultist who cling to lock-in and love it.

(BTW, I love iTerm2. I started with something else that did a Quake style drop-down but that wasn't supported anymore an OS release or two ago, so it's a reasonable sub)

Re:Both hate.

[Gr8Apes]

I would go a step further, until you have a physical manifestation of your invention, you have nothing to patent. Anyone can have an idea (flying cars!) but until you build one IMNSHO you have nothing patentable.

Correction...

[BronsCon]

Apple continues to use Qualcomm's technology while refusing to pay for it twice

Someone makes the chips Apple uses in their phones. Those chips implement Qualcomm's patented technologies and whoever makes them, therefore, must be licensing those technologies, which means they're paying for them and passing that cost along to Apple who, by paying for the chips which incorporate Qualcomm's technologies, made by the company who already paid for Qualcomm's technologies, has already paid for the use of Qualcomm's technologies.

I realize that's hard for some people (namely Qualcomm's leadership and council) to follow, so let's look at a similar situation with a different type of product.

Coca-Cola uses high fructose corn syrup in their products. They buy this high fructose corn syrup from a supplier. They pay for this high fructose corn syrup when they buy it, then they incorporate it into their products, which they then sell to stores. The stores, then, sell the products to consumers. The stores do not owe the high fructose corn syrup manufacturer anything for the use and sale of their product, because Coca-Cola already paid for that.

Rephrased to fit the Qualcomm situation, with edits bolded to make them clear:

Chip manufacturers use Qualcomm technologies in their products. They license these Qualcomm technologies from a Qualcomm. They pay for these Qualcomm technologies when they license them, then they incorporate them into their products, which they then sell to Apple. Apple, then, sells the products to consumers. Apple does not owe Qualcomm anything for the use and sale of their technologies, because the chip manufacturers already paid for that.

Re: Correction...

[that this is not und]

Apple has asked their suppliers to not pay the Qualcomm royalties any longer.

Re: Correction...

[BronsCon]

Well, if Apple is being expected to pay, that's only fair. In fact, Qualcomm should welcome that, as their licensing is based on the final sale price of the finished product; it would be in Qualcomm's best interest to charge their licensing fee as late in the chain as possible.

Re: Correction...

[Brockmire]

Let's say the bottling plant pays for the syrup and Coke pays the bottling plant. The syrup company says I'll sell you sugar at X price for no-name/RC cola, but I will sell you it for X+Y. Or, Apple starts paying X fee. The lower margin phones can't afford it. Qualcomm decides they'll make more money lowering the fee and getting more than nothing. My understanding is the payment is tied to the sale price of the phone and Apple is trying to pay the same as the lower priced phones.

Re: Correction...

[BronsCon]

So, then, let me ask you this:

If you designed a product and one of the components of that product was an iPhone, literally integrated into the product itself as part of a larger whole, would you pay licensing fees to Qualcomm?

I ask this because that's what Qualcomm would expect you to do, although the manufacturers of the chips in that iPhone have already paid licensing fees and, if Qualcomm gets their way, so will Apple. So they'll have collected licensing fees on, say, a $10 chip and an $800 phone, and will be trying to collect fees from you on what may be a $2000 device; so they're, effectively, trying to collect licensing fees based on a $2810 sale price for an item that eventually sells for $2000. Sorry, but no.

Qualcomm is double-dipping, plain and simple.

Re: I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[BronsCon]

Yes, one built last month on the AM3+ platform. That's an AMD FX CPU, at least as old as the Mac it's being compared to. Let's see... 8 core... the newest one of those is hmm... the FX-9590, released in 2013.

That's four years old.

Funny, that's the same benchmark you set for beating the three year old Mac.

Re:I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[BronsCon]

You do realize that you can now run an full Ubuntu environment within Windows, right? Last I checked, Windows will run Word and Excel natively, too. Cygwin is so 2015.

Re: I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[Anonymous Coward]

That 3 year old mac is still being sold by Apple in stores for the same day1 price, so it is certainly a valid "apples to apples" comparison.

Re:Both hate.

[TheFakeTimCook]

The problem is most of these "inventions" are only small part of an actual invention and specified so vaguely in the patent that the documented "invention" or useful machine could not be recreated just using said documentation and has no function without being connected in just the right way to other "inventions". The whole point is to preserve, propagate and allow the use of inventions and devices while still allowing the "inventor" to make a reasonable income on said invention. Most of these patents are on the equivalent of bolts and screws for the electronics industry.

Oh, please...

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money...

Re:Both hate.

[Rockoon]

You are all missing the forest.

Patents originally only covered manufacturing processes. The intent being that superior processes become public information instead of trade secrets.

You know what can't be a trade secret? The Components or Designs of your product. Stuff on the store shelves arent a "secret."

Re:Both hate.

[BronsCon]

I'd go almost that far, but you must consider the time it might take a single inventor on no budget to build his invention, versus the time it would take a corporate-backed team. I'd say you must actively be building it, and that periodic proof of progress (until completion) should be required in order to have an enforceable patent. This would protect the little guy who might take a year or longer working part-time on building his invention (after all, he has bills to pay) from larger competitors who may otherwise steal his idea by being first to build (after all, they have budgets for R&D, corporate espionage, and manufacturing, as well as staff on hand to work on it full-time in a team capacity).

Battery patents are not FRAND

[emil]

Apple has ignored patents and plundered tech before (Samsung comes to mind - 5,579,239, 6,226,449).

Qualcomm is likely to have sufficient legal standing to prevail where Samsung failed - Qualcomm is a domestic company with stronger patents and a stronger legal department, and not quite so much corporate scandal.

I also hope that Qualcomm wins. An Apple victory limits the market and drives up costs. While Qualcomm has its problems, it helps the market much more than Apple does. Between them, Apple should suffer before Qualcomm.

Apple also has it coming.

Not quite.

[emil]

Intel is not breaking up Qualcomm's exclusive access to Verizon, Sprint, and U.S. Cellular.

These are CDMA carriers, and they belong to Qualcomm.

Apple started out using the Infineon/Intel modems, and was AT&T only. Even then the WCDMA in GSM that was used by the old Infineon modems accessed FRAND IP owned by Qualcomm. GSM was originally TDMA.

Re: I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[pecosdave]

I've had to get some Magma or Lava or whatever it was PCIe boxes for our Mac people so they could still connect to the SAN and use a Black Magic card or two. They work rather well, but I would rather the new Mac Pro's still be "cheese graters" with a Thunderbolt upgrade than a little tube with no slots.

I am not an Adobe fan. In fact I really despise Adobe's attention whoring - Acrobat reader has NEVER needed as much attention as it demands during the more than 20 years I've been doing this for a living. Their cloud apps are pretty much the industry standard, but I personally am not married to them. That being said even though I prefer the Gimp to Photoshop I don't do this for a living.

Creative Cloud is one of the best things to happen to my company (even though I hate it).

Before Creative Cloud the I.T. Department had a stack of disks for each department. The people in this department have this version of these programs, the people in that department have another version, and the interns are on the oldest stuff we have laying around. Management would NEVER approve an across the board upgrade. When one department got approved for a newer version it would allow certain others to bump up to their leftovers, assuming the ones that upgraded weren't already the ones on the oldest crap.

Version differences created a bit of a nightmare when it came to moving projects between departments. Keeping track of licensing was a nightmare, keeping track of all the keys and media was a bit of a nightmare.

If I was doing this sort of work I would use the Gimp, Kdenlive, Audacity, Blender, etc.... I don't do this for a living. Yes I think we could probably train people to use all this free stuff and not have to worry about licensing, but really we would have to train computer people to do creative or teach creative people to be computer people. Using Adobe as much as I hate dealing with Adobe allows creative people to do creative.

I think of Creative Cloud as "Steam for Hipsters". I also like the fact that I don't have to purchase each piece separately for each user, i can simply chose "Full Cloud" or "Acrobat" for the office monkeys. (a lot of the office monkeys are still on really old copies of Acrobat Pro we have on disk)

Industry used to be incredibly hostile towards Linux. I've seen a change in that. I've seen companies that had their MCSE's of 20 years ago who declared we will never allow a Linux anything in this building" get pushed aside and allowed Linux - even if it's only as the hyper-visor for a server running Windows VM's. I spent nearly eight years at NASA, I helped to decommission a lot of the SUN, HPUX, and SGI stuff and replace it with Red Hat (not my call). I was told by more than one person who had been there longer than me there had been a past declaration that Linux would never be allowed in there. Even Microsoft is allowing you to basically install Linux inside of Windows these days. I have to disagree with you on that point.

If you actually do get a graphic amplifier let me know how it goes. I'm pushing the concept to get approval to get one for a trial run I haven't played with it personally. Sometime I have to set the bait out so I can get an okay to get hardware. Sadly this place is full of such cultist I don't care how many circles it can run around a Mac that costs more I'm not going to have any volunteers until I can get at least one or two people running them and can get some jealousy flowing through the ranks. I have a plan to get one - but I'm not sure I can make it happen.

Nexus 6p is likely better than the Pixel...

[emil]

...for the sole reason that it is unlocked and 64-bit capable. It will be supported for a long, long time by the AOSP rerolls.

With the surprising speed that Google has dragged it's phones to the guillotine, LineageOS on the 6p will likely outlast several Pixel models.

At least some Pixels will also die a forced death, since the Verizon model's bootloader is locked. Google would have every reason to similarly lock the entire line at the final update.

Re: I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[pecosdave]

The previous two replies are right on target.

I built this thing shortly before Ryzen came out. It is a AMD 4 GHz FX-8370 per my order history, and per Wikipedia was release 2014-09-02. (I built it in December thank you very much).

That same Mac is still on sale in the same config today and it's still about $10,000 and still pretty close to the best Mac Pro you can buy.

I'm running a consumer AMD CPU which only sort of has 8 cores since it has 4 floating points against a Xeon monster system.

That Mac has dual Radeon GPUs. I only had one graphics card in the one that costs $8,500 less.

It's the culture of the cultist that's the issue. For our "want a Mac because it's stylish" people I want them to try an ASUS Zenbook, for the "I want a Mac because I need creative power" I want to either build one or have them try an Alienware laptop. Any which way the company saves thousands in hardware cost, the equipment performs better, and they get something sleek.

Re:Both hate.

[Gr8Apes]

The famous cotton gin certainly was a product in and of itself, and going further back were printing presses, hemp, corn and grain processing or stone cutting and polishing machines. Seems like those were all things, and they date all the way back to the earliest patents.

Re:Both hate.

[Gr8Apes]

To prevent a whole crap load of headaches, you could file, but it would be pending and "secret" until you've proven it. The filing date would be the active date, should the patent be granted. You are pressured to file early because of first to file, but until it is built, you gain no protection. Since the date is based on the application filing date, you are pressured to build a working model sooner than later. Perhaps a year in pending state before getting tossed would help the situation? Also, modifying the application still goes on the initial date, or you file a new application, with no protection from the earlier filing, setting a new date and allowing someone else to effectively "file first". Seems to address trolls quite well.

Re:Both hate.

[BronsCon]

Yes, it does address trolls quite well. What it doesn't address is the sole inventor who can only work on his inventions in his spare time because he has bills to pay; how does anything you've proposed thus far protect him from some corporate entity learning what he's working on (maybe he shares a few details with a friend in a bar and someone overhears, for example) and they get the thing built in a week, while he's still months, or a year or more, from finishing?

What you propose would be great for corporations who actually produce the things they invent, but not so great for individuals who may also wish to produce the things they invent, but have other obligations and, so, can't do so as quickly.

Re: I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[pecosdave]

Guess you're not on a SAN.

See - I have to worry about users breaking things. The users that are on a SAN have to all stay on the same version of the OS as a the meta-data controllers or it breaks everything. To me that's fine - but due to the nature of what those particular users do they have to have admin on their own systems.

So when you give the monkeys the keys they tend to break stuff constantly. Oh, I upgraded my computer to the latest OS release because I really really need it. Of course now they're no longer on the SAN or worse they hose it up for everyone. We have to upgrade every single system on the SAN at once in an unscheduled manner and just HOPE it wasn't hosed, and if it was hosed just hope we have all assets stored somewhere else. We might be able to downgrade that one user if we have to.

I also have to worry about users who don't like being on a Windows domain creating their own local user accounts - and then have them complain that for some reason they keep having permissions issues. "We never had these problems BEFORE we were on the domain!" Well, that might be true, but you wanted us to support your computers so you have to be on our infrastructure, that and you wanted access to the same servers the office monkeys are on so you could put deliverables where they can get to them."

For some reason (and I blame Microsoft here) Outlook for Mac tends to commit suicide if a new patch comes out and you don't run it right away. You worked last week, why not this week? I mean I know patching you fixed it, but why did you break? The server is still the same version and we didn't upgrade your OS......

I think OS X is great - I really do. I like using it on my work equipment, but it's not as problem free as some think, and I still can and do manage Macs from our K1000 system. When I get a little behind on pushing out updates (usually because I'm putting out other small fires) Mac users are usually the first to bitch about a Flash being out of date. If I couldn't do what you're talking about by remotely managing our Macs I would have to work on each and every one individually every single time Adobe updates Flash, Sun Updated Java, or a new version of Firefox came out. Doing this usually doesn't create an issue with the rare exception of "The reason Firefox isn't working is I've updated twice during the six weeks your computer has been on and the browser has been running. The files on the disk no longer match the program in RAM, for God's sake reboot."

Re:I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[pecosdave]

I think the best part of this thread in general is the moderation on my original comment. I've triggered the cultist but I've also caught the attention of real thinkers. I've been everywhere between a +4 for funny down to a current 0 for overrated - AKA I'm one of those hipsters and I don't like you making fun of me.

CHiPs

[Dogtanian]

I suspect this is just a negotiating chip more than anything else [..] (geddit... chip? I slay me sometimes.)

I think they just want Apple to chip in- either that or they have a chip on their shoulder and they want to get their own back by chipping away at Apple's success.

Re: I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[pecosdave]

Well, we're not stuck with Radeon and we don't have to put our souls in escrow by joining a developer program. I think it compares quite favorably, though I do dislike proprietary connectors.

I've seriously considered seeing what would happen if I put a graphic card in one of those Thunderbolt boxes we have and plug it into my Lenovo laptop. Of course that would only be Thunderbolt 2.

Re:Both hate.

[LynnwoodRooster]

You are all missing the forest. Patents originally only covered manufacturing processes. The intent being that superior processes become public information instead of trade secrets.

Love to see the citation on that one, because the USPTO says "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent". And it's been that way as long as I can remember. In fact, the first 10 patents all cover at least a machine, or a machine and associated process. Seems to me you're 100% backwards.

IANAPL, but I do have 18 issued patents to my name, and another dozen still pending...

Re:Both hate.

[Gr8Apes]

He can file and it's on hold for a year. There has to be a limit, make it 2 years, or 3 years, but not much more. In the meantime nothing's leaked, but he doesn't get to submarine other's work 15 years down the line, like happens today with trolls.

Re: I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[KiloByte]

Or in this case, an "apples to microsofts" comparison.

Re:Both hate.

[BronsCon]

but he doesn't get to submarine other's work 15 years down the line, like happens today with trolls.

This is why I stipulated monthly progress updates (which must show actual progress) until ac working model has been created. If progress stops for a period (we'll say 3 months), the patent is lost; if someone manages to keep up real and provable progress for 15 years without actually producing anything, well, I'd be amazed.

I also believe the patent holder should be able to file an injunction and prevent the manufacture, import, and sale of their invention while they're building their working model. I'm all for requiring the patent holder to product and present a functioning unit in order to collect damages, though. I think that's a fair enough compromise; it would certainly stop patent trolls dead in their tracks as they would no longer be able to profit from holding up innovation. That is the goal, right?

Re:I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[jonsmirl]

Ubuntu on WIndows is not ready for prime time. Every complicated build I try on it fails. For example AOSP won't build, WebRTC won't build, etc. All of those work fine in a VirtualBox. I keep hoping, but it isn't there yet.

Re: I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[BronsCon]

When did you last try and were you fully updated (Windows and Ubuntu)? On the initial release a lot of stuff was broken, but MS was on top of fixing as much of what was reported as they could in the next release, then fixed more in the next release. The few projects I've built in the current release worked fine.

Re: I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[jonsmirl]

I last tried about a month ago after that last big Windows update.

Re: I think a temporary ban would be hilarious

[jonsmirl]

Little stuff builds ok. It is the large projects that make use of 1000's of features that fail. For example AOSP hits undefined syscalls. And WebRTC fails because of shell incompatibility.

Re:Both hate.

[Gr8Apes]

a) I'd allowed for halting progress by limiting the "hold" period for up to 1 (2 or 3) years.

b) As for injunctions, why? If a company builds an infringing item, there are already means to recoup any lost revenue, including licensing (not everything needs to go through the courts, and a patent isn't a guarantee of "all your base belong to us" either, IMHO).

The trade-off for the protections has to be some limit on pre working copy restrictions, and having a working item as a sample should surely allow an inventor to rapidly complete his own (a flaw, now the inventor is copying a real item!). As soon as the inventor produces a working copy, the patent goes to active pending and is published.

Just my thoughts on something that is fair and workable.

Re:Both hate.

[BronsCon]

In all honesty, I think the solution lies somewhere between your concept and mine. Injunction should be an option where licensing fails; without that, what incentive does a large corporation have to accept the little guy's licensing terms?

Re:Both hate.

[Gr8Apes]

That comes into play as soon as the inventor actually produces a working model. But fair enough, somewhere in between works for me. Anything along either proposal is better than the current situation.