Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

US To Review Qualcomm's Complaints About Apple iPhone Patents (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the justice dept.

U.S. trade officials have agreed to investigate Qualcomm's allegations that Apple Inc infringed on patents with its iPhone7 and other devices, the U.S. International Trade Commission said on Tuesday. From a report: The ITC will make its decision "at the earliest practicable time" and will set a target date for completing its investigation within the next 45 days, the commission said in a statement. Qualcomm filed the complaint in early July, asking U.S. trade regulators to ban certain models of the iPhone that contain so-called broadband modem chips, which help phones connect to wireless data networks, that were not made by Qualcomm. Apple began using broadband modem chips made by Intel Corp in the iPhone 7. Qualcomm has not alleged that Intel chips violate its patents but says the way Apple uses them in the iPhone does.

35 comments

  1. You know what else will be reviewed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MY BALLS!!! Suck 'em, nerds!

    1. Re:You know what else will be reviewed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NERDS!!!

    2. Re:You know what else will be reviewed? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      No, the troll for this says "my DAMN balls".

  2. Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Qualcomm has not alleged that Intel chips violate its patents but says the way Apple uses them in the iPhone does"

    Do we need any more proof patent law is a joke?

    1. Re:Ridiculous by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 1

      My fork does not violate your patent but when I eat food with it it does... ?

      --
      5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
    2. Re:Ridiculous by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Exactly how does it prove that? Do you think that anyone who buys any component from anyone who was licensed to make that component automatically has a license to make everything that could be made with that component?

    3. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's basically it.

      A utility patent is not just on a thing, but also what that thing does. If you can't describe what the thing does in the patent, you don't get the patent. If someone else finds a new use for your thing, they can file their own patent on that new use (but still may need a license to your original patent). Contracts make this even more complicated.

      What business areas are Intel and Qualcomm allowing each other to use IP in? Who is responsible for how the Intel chip is used in the Apple design? Previously, there were a ton of contracts between Samsung, Intel, Apple, Qualcomm, and various manufacturers to make all this IP stuff not an issue. Apple pulled out of the contracts, so while Intel may be covered for use of Qualcomm IP, Apple may not be. Certainly Qualcomm is a big company, but Apple absolutely has the resources to negotiate a good deal, or just outright buy Qualcomm without blinking an eye. So why didn't Apply negotiate a better deal?

      Intel and Samsung (and probably others) went to the FTC to get Qualcomm to lower their royalty rates while also developing their own competing hardware.

      It's also important to note that Qualcomm is not a patent troll. They do a lot of actual research and chip design. Where Intel mainly employs engineers just out of school, Qualcomm employs more experienced people (many of whom cut their teeth at Intel). You can buy products using their IP from them. Their royalty rates are high, but the companies paying those rates have the leverage and resources to negotiate good deals without breaking contracts.

    4. Re: Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Patent law is an unnecessary drain on society and lowers all of our lives' quality.

    5. Re:Ridiculous by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Exactly how does it prove that? Do you think that anyone who buys any component from anyone who was licensed to make that component automatically has a license to make everything that could be made with that component?

      Well, presumably Intel paid all the patent license fees to make the product so customers could build stuff with it. It's called exhaustion - once you collect your fees for an item, you can't double dip and collect them again (something Apple accuses Qualcomm of doing).

      Otherwise, where does it stop? If Intel pays, and Apple pays, why doesn't everyone who buys any cellphone also pay? Why can't Qualcomm come after you for patent license fees for the technologies in your phone?

      Anyhow, the real reason is Qualcomm is pissed Apple crippled their chips. The reason Qualcomm chips are among the best performing are patents that Qualcomm won't license to other vendors. So what Apple did was make both chips, Intel and Qualcomm perform the same. Qualcomm doesn't like that because they want their chips to be faster so Apple's customers will demand the Qualcomm powered iPhones, but Apple hates when that happens (leads to a lot of returns) and Apple doesn't want to be beholden to Qualcomm as their only chip supplier.

    6. Re:Ridiculous by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Nope. Exhaustion applies to A patent, not ALL patents.

      You could patent a new and useful gear. You could also patent a machine that uses that gear. Just because you license someone to manufacture your gear does not mean you lose your patent rights on the machine. It also does not mean that someone who buys your gear from that manufacturer has rights to build your machine. It only means you can not sue someone simply for using your gear.

    7. Re:Ridiculous by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      You can buy a CSR 8670 and use it without issue; the second you start to use the AptX firmware inside, though, you need a separate license. Chips that run embedded firmware can very easily require two sets of licensing, because not all users of the chip will need all the firmware the chip designer offers.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    8. Re: Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Glad you feel such passion against Qualcomm. The reality is that these are all billion dollar companies with in house legal teams that can fight endless battles. I read recently that building a smartphone involves over 100 thousand patents. There is no way for a small company to enter the business and change everything. If the environment that exists today existed in the 60's and 70's, there would have been no PC revolution. IBM would have patented connecting a video display to a computer.
      The patent system is completely and fundamentally broken and no longer is a net benefit to society, except for lawyers.

    9. Re:Ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Word!

    10. Re:Ridiculous by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Using a product to lower parameters than what the spec says is not crippling a chip. If I have a DRAM that can read or write in 10 ns, and my circuit is designed to clock it every 20 ns - due to other parts of the system - I'm using the DRAM as specified. While some chipmakers may have different bins when spec'ing to handle fallout, those w/ 100% yields are better off w/ 1 bin for inventory control purposes.

      Similarly, Apple, from a supply-chain POV, sources from both Intel & Qualcomm. The Qualcomm chips, aside from performance (or maybe b'cos of it), are also the only ones that can be used w/ CDMA carriers like Verizon & Sprint: Intel's can't be used there. So for the phones there for other GSM compatible carriers, Apple uses Intel modems as well. For that to happen, the 2 have to use the same spec.

      One way Apple can get around this, and thumb its nose at Qualcomm - use Intel chips exclusively for their GSM compatible phones, and Qualcomm only for the CDMAs for Verizon, Sprint as well as the Japanese & Korean CDMA carriers. Qualcomm will get a good lesson once they see those orders fall.

  3. Qualcomm is not innocent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like it when evil corps sue big guns.

  4. Hey Qualcomm... by midifarm · · Score: 1

    Try being relevant instead of litigious.

    1. Re:Hey Qualcomm... by amjohns · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's one of the most cluelessly ignorant things I've heard in a while...

      Like them or not, Qualcomm has been the driver behind much modern wireless tech, and their chips are in pretty much every high-end phone. Only recently have any competitors been remotely close to matching their performance and battery efficiency - something Intel still failed at by the evidence Apple had to downgrade the iPhone 7S to be as slow as the 7S+. Samsung has finally gotten close, and for application processors Apple does beat them, but Qualcomm is the undisputed king of the wireless modem.

      They also invented CDMA, which is the entire underlying tech of 3G networks and indisputably deserve those royalties. And invented good portions of the LTE spec too.

      Now, are they charging unfair royalties for patent-essential things? Maybe so. But Apple sued first, and said effectively "we're gong to keep selling iphones with both your actual chips, and your IP, and we're not going to pay anything anymore, even thoug you're charging what we contractually agreed to.". So heck yeah Qualcomm is right to sue back in that case and ask for an injunction.

      This is the sort of dispute the ITC should definitely examine, from all sides.

    2. Re:Hey Qualcomm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So much stupid in so few words. Well done!

    3. Re:Hey Qualcomm... by zieroh · · Score: 1

      They also invented CDMA, which is the entire underlying tech of 3G networks

      Wasn't that Hedy Lamarr?

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    4. Re:Hey Qualcomm... by Huge_UID · · Score: 1

      Hedley! sigh...

    5. Re:Hey Qualcomm... by amjohns · · Score: 3, Informative

      Nope, she invented frequency hopping spread spectrum (FHSS), not direct-sequence (DSSS) as used in CDMA. Totally different technologies.

      FHSS as invented by her was better for anti-jam and anti-detection than single-carrier systems, and for RF (which she wasn't proposing) it has good multi-path performance. But it doesn't actually improve frequency reuse at all, it actually can be worse because in high-density you will have collisions.

      DSSS by comparison has great reuse, as evidenced by CDMA and GPS stacking multiple users on the same frequency with only spreading-code separation. It has poor multi-path performance though, since you need to coherently de-spread the signal, so phase variance requires complex equalizers for wide-ish bandwidth, including the >1MHz chunks UMTS uses. Potentially better anti-detection, if high spreading ratios are used, and roughly equivalent anti-jam to FHSS overall.

    6. Re: Hey Qualcomm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So many things wrong with this. I don't want to spoil everyone's fun, but I count five factual errors in this post. Can anyone beat that?

    7. Re:Hey Qualcomm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's no chump and they'll probably take Qualcomm to the cleaners over their practices.

      Qualcomm may have the best wireless chips but they are clearly using that leverage to extract revenue that they probably don't deserve.

      Lots of exclusivity agreements. Lost of nasty terms. They force Samsung to ship Qualcomm SoCs instead of Samsung's own (Arguably superior) Exynos processors in some of their flagship phones. (Every wonder why the Galaxy has different CPUs in different regions?) They also force vendors that use their products to pony up a percentage of shipping price instead of a flat rate per chip.

      Frankly Qualcomm's SoCs (Which were once the best) are currently garbage to the point where Apple, Samsung, and the big Chinese makers are spinning their own silicon to avoid Qualcomm's profit-sapping licensing terms. (Though Apple and Samsung have been doing this for a time for other reasons too.)

      A lot of wireless tech is supposedly under FRAND terms by the owning consortium and it's easy to consider the Fair and Reasonable and Nondiscriminatory aspects of the above practices.

      Apple has the audacity to not be under Qualcomm's thumb by helping Intel develop a market for their wireless modems.. And Qualcomm responds by firing off lots of lawsuits.

      Frankly, I expect this to end up much of Qualcomm being put up for sale with their wireless business spun off in to another entity.

    8. Re: Hey Qualcomm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's one of the most cluelessly ignorant things I've heard in a while...

      Like them or not, Qualcomm has been the driver behind much modern wireless tech, and their chips are in pretty much every high-end phone. (Because the agreed to be the standard, not because it was best.)

      Only recently have any competitors been remotely close to matching their performance and battery efficiency - something Intel still failed at by the evidence Apple had to downgrade the iPhone 7S to be as slow as the 7S+. (And Qcom couldn't build enough to meet demand.)

      Samsung has finally gotten close, and for application processors Apple does beat them, but Qualcomm is the undisputed king of the wireless modem. (Elected king, and like other unnamed elected leaders, they think they get credit for all improvement.)
      They also invented CDMA, which is the entire underlying tech of 3G networks and indisputably deserve those royalties. (The do, though most people don't have a CDMA device.)

      And invented good portions of the LTE spec too. (Good portions or parts of the tech. Those are different things.)

      Now, are they charging unfair royalties for patent-essential things? (They want the same percent of sales as they got back when the device only made phone calls. The iPhone is 5% phone. 95% other tech. Let them collect their royalty on the 5% of sales that their UP covers.)

      Maybe so. But Apple sued first, and said effectively "we're gong to keep selling iphones with both your actual chips, and your IP, and we're not going to pay anything anymore, even thoug you're charging what we contractually agreed to.". (They said they would pay, they just want to pay based on their contribution.)

      So heck yeah Qualcomm is right to sue back in that case and ask for an injunction.
      This is the sort of dispute the ITC should definitely examine, from all sides. (Examine and dismiss.)

    9. Re:Hey Qualcomm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're just following Apple's example.

    10. Re:Hey Qualcomm... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      Now, are they charging unfair royalties for patent-essential things? Maybe so. But Apple sued first, and said effectively "we're gong to keep selling iphones with both your actual chips, and your IP, and we're not going to pay anything anymore, even thoug you're charging what we contractually agreed to.".

      Except that's not anything close to what happened. Qualcomm licenses its technologies directly to people making chips. They themselves design and sell chips. However, Qualcomm wanted Apple to pay royalties directly to them AND also pay other companies (not Qualcomm) for chips made by companies that licensed the same technology from Qualcomm. That's double dipping.

      As direct comparison, that would be like ARM demanding royalties from anyone using a Samsung ARM processor after ARM licensed their cores to Samsung to make processors.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    11. Re:Hey Qualcomm... by amjohns · · Score: 1

      Since none of us have seen the private docs and license agreements, all we really know about the above is that's how Apple has spun the PR on it. Qualcomm says that's not the case and spins it differently, to make themselves look like the aggrieved ones. Which specific patents are the each accusing, etc.

      Who's telling the truth?? That's probably why the ITC actually agreed to dive in and try to figure it out. Potential merit according to both stated positions, need a neutral party to look and decide.

    12. Re: Hey Qualcomm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's one of the most cluelessly ignorant things I've heard in a while... Fuck you SHILL./..

    13. Re:Hey Qualcomm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Qualcomm.

      Never forget, they're the fuckers who killed Eudora.

    14. Re:Hey Qualcomm... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Apple had to downgrade the iPhone 7S to be as slow as the 7S+.

      That's almost correct, except that neither of those models actually exist (yet?), and the modems in the 7 and 7 Plus models differed by carrier, not by the size of the phone. But I do agree that Intel's modem is inferior.

      They also invented CDMA, which is the entire underlying tech of 3G networks

      If you were to slap about a dozen asterisks on that statement to spell out all of the caveats, you might be able to get away with saying things that way, but if that's all you're going to say, then no, they didn't, and no, it isn't.

      Assuming you're talking about CDMA2000, it was, at best, the underlying tech for a small minority of 3G networks (though some Americans have a disproportionate sense of its use, given that half of our 3G networks used it). UTMS on GSM networks was far and away the dominant 3G tech. If, on the other hand, you were talking about the concept of CDMA, which UTMS is built on in some of its implementations, that concept has been around in research since at least the '30s and has had implementations since at least the '50s. I was studying it in school before 3G networks were even a thing, so while it does underpin many 3G networks, Qualcomm had no hand in inventing it.

      But Apple sued second

      [Qualcomm's] chips are in pretty much every high-end phone. [...] Qualcomm is the undisputed king of the wireless modem.

      FTFY. The US government's suit against Qualcomm, which came prior to Apple's suit, would suggest that the reason they're in every high-end phone is at least partly due to anticompetitive practices.

      [Apple] said effectively "we're gong to keep selling iphones with both your actual chips, and your IP, and we're not going to pay anything anymore, even thoug you're charging what we contractually agreed to."

      Actually, Apple is holding the payment in bond pending the court's determination of whether the contract is even legal in the first place, which is a fair question to be asking, given that recent Supeme Court rulings and the USG's suit would suggest otherwise. Also, if you'll recall, the withholding of royalty payments started weeks after the suit was filed, and came in response to Qualcomm not paying them the $1 billion in rebates it's contractually obligated to pay. And unlike Apple, they haven't, so far as I know, said that they're holding those payments in bond. They're simply refusing to pay them.

      Let's be honest: they're both playing hardball, but suggesting Apple was first to break the contract is factually incorrect.

      So heck yeah Qualcomm is right to sue back in that case and ask for an injunction.

      This is the sort of dispute the ITC should definitely examine, from all sides.

      Something we can finally agree on. I'm fine with Apple being under scrutiny, especially since I agree that they're breaking the contract too, but let's not overstate Qualcomm's case.

    15. Re:Hey Qualcomm... by Solandri · · Score: 2

      I don't think anyone denies that Qualcomm is a true innovator and contributor to technological progress. The dispute here is isn't really a patent dispute, it's an accounting dispute. Qualcomm is arguing that they should be paid twice for the use of their patents - once by the company making the chips incorporating Qualcomm technology, once by the company which buys those chips to install in their product. In essence, the question is does the first sale doctrine (which covers copyrighted and trademarked works) also extend to patents?

      So I usually dislike Apple, but I'm on their side on this one. (Sort of. It's wroth pointing out that Apple tried something just as asinine, claiming companies licensing Apple's patents should pay a % of the entire value of the final product rather than just the component part that used Apple's technology. So if you put a $5 cellular GPS unit which used Apple's patent into a $100,000 truck, Apple felt they deserved 2% of $100,000 instead of 2% of $5.)

    16. Re:Hey Qualcomm... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Since none of us have seen the private docs and license agreements, all we really know about the above is that's how Apple has spun the PR on it. Qualcomm says that's not the case and spins it differently, to make themselves look like the aggrieved ones. Which specific patents are the each accusing, etc.

      First of all, Qualcomm is being investigated by both the US (FTC) and European agencies for anti-trust. This follows South Korea fining the company $854M for unfair business practices.

      Second, you can't claim ignorance after an assertion. In essence you're saying "We don't know what was in the agreements" right after you positively alleged the Apple wrongs did with the agreements. Either you don't know or you do know. So how do you know what Apple did?

      Who's telling the truth?? That's probably why the ITC actually agreed to dive in and try to figure it out. Potential merit according to both stated positions, need a neutral party to look and decide.

      Well I don't believe either party but it's not the first time or party that has accused Qualcomm of the same behavior, so . . .

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  5. CDMA was actually invented in Russia... by emil · · Score: 1

    ...by Dmitry Ageev:

    The technology of code-division multiple access channels has long been known. In the Soviet Union (USSR), the first work devoted to this subject was published in 1935 by Dmitry Ageev. It was shown that through the use of linear methods, there are three types of signal separation: frequency, time and compensatory. The technology of CDMA was used in 1957, when the young military radio engineer Leonid Kupriyanovich in Moscow made an experimental model of a wearable automatic mobile phone, called LK-1 by him, with a base station. LK-1 has a weight of 3 kg, 20–30 km operating distance, and 20–30 hours of battery life. The base station, as described by the author, could serve several customers. In 1958, Kupriyanovich made the new experimental "pocket" model of mobile phone. This phone weighed 0.5 kg. To serve more customers, Kupriyanovich proposed the device, named by him as correllator. In 1958, the USSR also started the development of the "Altai" national civil mobile phone service for cars, based on the Soviet MRT-1327 standard. The phone system weighed 11 kg (24 lb). It was placed in the trunk of the vehicles of high-ranking officials and used a standard handset in the passenger compartment. The main developers of the Altai system were VNIIS (Voronezh Science Research Institute of Communications) and GSPI (State Specialized Project Institute). In 1963 this service started in Moscow, and in 1970 Altai service was used in 30 USSR cities.