Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Qualcomm Seeks China iPhone Ban, Escalating Apple Legal Fight (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

Qualcomm filed lawsuits in China seeking to ban the sale and manufacture of iPhones in the country, the chipmaker's biggest shot at Apple so far in a sprawling and bitter legal fight. From a report: The San Diego-based company aims to inflict pain on Apple in the world's largest market for smartphones and cut off production in a country where most iPhones are made. The product provides almost two-thirds of Apple's revenue. Qualcomm filed the suits in a Beijing intellectual property court claiming patent infringement and seeking injunctive relief, according to Christine Trimble, a company spokeswoman. "Apple employs technologies invented by Qualcomm without paying for them," Trimble said. An Apple spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday. Qualcomm's suits are based on three non-standard essential patents, it said. They cover power management and a touch-screen technology called Force Touch that Apple uses in current iPhones, Qualcomm said. The inventions "are a few examples of the many Qualcomm technologies that Apple uses to improve its devices and increase its profits," Trimble said. The company made the filings at the Beijing court on Sept. 29. The court has not yet made them public.

36 comments

  1. Sticker based ecosystem by HyperStasis · · Score: 1

    What part of the patents require Qualcomm to the only sticker applied to new cell phones?

  2. The rewards for 'courage' by HBI · · Score: 1, Insightful

    True, they can sit on their cash for aeons, but Apple as a tastemaker has literally already died. The last vestiges of the reality distortion field let up, and now it's back to early 90's Apple, the company that couldn't do anything right.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:The rewards for 'courage' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL Fandroids. Predicting Apple’s demise in the mobile market since 2007.

    2. Re:The rewards for 'courage' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of an ecosystem. Apple uses Qualcomm, Samsung tech, so end up supporting each other in reality(IOS-AOS). Problem is Qualcomm lost over 2 b in suits of late, which they could have avoided, and now it seems they are going for bust, which as stated earlier, can effect Apple in the long run in terms of reliable technologies if there is no Qualcomm.

    3. Re:The rewards for 'courage' by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      Apple is phasing out Qualcomm by buying Intel modems. Once Apple doesn’t need CDMA support they could probably drop Qualcomm completely.

    4. Re:The rewards for 'courage' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Qualcomm price drops enough Apple probably just buys them.

    5. Re:The rewards for 'courage' by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Apple has always had a tentative nature with its 3rd party supplier. As a 3rd party supplier you can make a ton of money off of Apple... However if you don't or can't give them a deal that they feel they deserve, they will drop you in heartbeat, even if you though you had a firm grasp in their market with all the vendor lock in tricks you can come up with.

      Apple very successfully had moved its Mac systems from Motorola to PowerPC to Intel. Their business is designed not to be dependent on 3rd party providers.

      Apple is also a company that is good at compartmentalizing its relations with other companies, Apple can be your best partner and strongest ruthless competition at the same time.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:The rewards for 'courage' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They can, except it's common knowledge that if you want an iPhone where the cellular modem works, you want a CDMA-capable iPhone.

      The Intel modems are complete garbage, and even with Apple throttling the Qualcomm modems to make them match the Intel ones at max speed, the Qualcomm modems still vastly outperform the Intel modems at low SNRs. (Yes, Apple's firmware artificially slows down Qualcomm modems to make them seem on par with Intel modems.) Unless you live next to a cell tower, and never leave your house, the iPhones with Qualcomm modems are far superior to the Intel ones.

      Not that it matters - even if Apple does ditch Qualcomm, they still infringe on Qualcomm patents unrelated to cellular service. They'd still have to license patents from Qualcomm, and as it stands, their devices are absolutely infringing and should be banned.

    7. Re:The rewards for 'courage' by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Apple very successfully had moved its Mac systems from Motorola to PowerPC to Intel. Their business is designed not to be dependent on 3rd party providers.

      Which is why they're moving Macs to their own Axx chips. Total lack of meaningful updates on both the Mac mini and MacBook Air should be proof enough that they will be the first systems to switch, allowing Apple to lower the prices of these Macs at the same time.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    8. Re:The rewards for 'courage' by cjjjer · · Score: 0

      They are the "chip off the old block" generation. Their parents still scream "year of Linux on the desktop" so yeah it makes sense...

    9. Re:The rewards for 'courage' by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 2

      and as it stands, their devices are absolutely infringing and should be banned.

      As what stands? What court has made this determination and where is the ruling? Just because Qualcomm alleges something does not make it true.

    10. Re:The rewards for 'courage' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple will switch from OS X to iOS on Macs so that they can lock users into App Store and stop non Apple parts

    11. Re:The rewards for 'courage' by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I doubt Apple will lower the prices on its Macs. That isn't their business model.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  3. The Slashdot dilemma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    [ ] Monopolies and process patents are evil
    [ ] Apple is teh suck

    Choose wisely.

    1. Re:The Slashdot dilemma by sexconker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [X] Monopolies and process patents are evil
      [X] Apple is teh suck

    2. Re:The Slashdot dilemma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [ ] Monopolies and process patents are evil
      [ ] Apple is teh suck
      [X] Lose the 3.5mm audio jack.

      Hey, that took courage. I cannot be the anonymous coward anymore =(

    3. Re:The Slashdot dilemma by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      You should have used single selection fields like this

      () Monopolies and process patents are evil
      () Apple is teh suck

      Choose wisely.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  4. high stakes for Qualcomm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could backfire nastily for them.

    Either stricter rules around FRAND patents or their double dipping will be cut off.

    1. Re:high stakes for Qualcomm by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Exposing their double dipping might have disastrous consequences in China. After all, invalidating their patents could allow a myriad of copycat chips to be made.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re: high stakes for Qualcomm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How are patents for force touch related to any frand agreements? They're not talking about patents related to any standards.

    3. Re: high stakes for Qualcomm by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      It's the nature of any patent infringement lawsuit: Claim that something violates a patent even if it isn't remotely close. It's costly and time-consuming to fight. That's why companies buy patent portfolios: mutually assured destruction is a deterrent in patent wars.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  5. Don't worry about this suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chinese like money, too.

  6. LOL Beijing intellectual property court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Beijing intellectual property court "
    This "court" has no jurisdiction over anything the state does. China has built their entire country on stealing every piece of intellectual property it can get it's hands on. Any foreign company who wants to do business in China is already required to submit any intellectual property to the Chinese government.

    1. Re:LOL Beijing intellectual property court by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Educate yourself. China - like all other countries - doesn't give a flying fuck care about any other country's IP. Patents are NOT international, they are specific to each country in which they are granted. There is no "worldwide patent" at all. HOWEVER, China cares deeply about patents filed and granted within China - those same patents that Qualcomm has in the US and in China. Meaning that China DOES care about them and can enforce them in China.

      China enforces its own patents. The US enforces its own patents. Germany likewise. Have a patent in France or Germany or Japan? Good luck enforcing it in the US, the UK - or China.

  7. Good. Ban all iCrap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Piece of shit company wanted a percentage of Samsung sales for patents that apple never should have had in the first place.

    1. Re:Good. Ban all iCrap. by jellomizer · · Score: 0

      Well if you look at how Apple dropped the ball, with Microsoft copying many of its elements, that Apple could had protected itself from. Making Microsoft the victor in the PC war, Apple with the iPhone patented the heck out of it (Steve Jobs admitted this publicly during the keynote 10 years ago revealing the iPhone) knowing not all of the patients will stick, but having them in place will allow them to protect as much as they can.

      Now Samsung, getting caught with its pants down, more or less had to change their development plans towards making more iPhone like phones, so offered Apples real test on what would stick and what wouldn't.

      Now if you are that pissed off on how this affected either side, you are probably way to attached to your phone manufactur because Samsung or Apple or LG or whatever all see you as one thing... Someone with a credit card who will give them money.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  8. Qualcomm on the block next year? by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1
    OH the irony! Now what would be really funny is if we see Microsoft buy into the lawsuits and even buy up a large portion of Qualcomm under Nokia. Nokia phones with a Microsoft branded Android OS would be one hell of a funny outcome if Qualcomm takes a dive trying to extort Apple. I just wonder why they don't go after Apple somewhere in the states, seems that they don't have the cojones. Then again Qualcomm most likely does not yet have the secondary support from Redmond quite yet to take on the Apple. Seems that Apple without Jobs and a Microsoft without Ballmer are much less combative. I miss the good ol' days of SCO and Baystar, if Qualcomm screws up and fails to enforce their patents because they are bullshit in the first place then just perhaps all hell will break loose in the chip sector.

    Intel must be laughing all the way to the bank on this one.

    --
    This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
    1. Re:Qualcomm on the block next year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qualcomm is going after Apple in the US for violation of Qualcomm's US patents. It's going after Apple in China too, for violation of Qualcomm's China patents. I swear, you tech fucks don't understand a damn thing about patents. They ONLY cover for the country that issued them! A US patent has zero force outside of the US. Canada, China, Germany - no force at all. Each country has its own patents and laws related. Qualcomm will probably end up suing Apple in ALL the countries where it has those patents - and if it wins, Apple won't be able to sell OR build in any of those countries.

    2. Re:Qualcomm on the block next year? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I understand there's a difference between a claim and a fact. Qualcomm can claim anything they want; they have to prove it in court. However the danger to Qualcomm is that Apple can certainly retaliate. One way is to invalidate Qualcomm's patents in China: that would open up for any Chinese company to build tech based on those invalid patents. By the time Qualcomm tries to sort out who is blatantly copying and who is legitimately using tech, they'll be in litigation for years.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Qualcomm on the block next year? by deviated_prevert · · Score: 1

      Qualcomm is going after Apple in the US for violation of Qualcomm's US patents. It's going after Apple in China too, for violation of Qualcomm's China patents. I swear, you tech fucks don't understand a damn thing about patents. They ONLY cover for the country that issued them! A US patent has zero force outside of the US. Canada, China, Germany - no force at all. Each country has its own patents and laws related. Qualcomm will probably end up suing Apple in ALL the countries where it has those patents - and if it wins, Apple won't be able to sell OR build in any of those countries.

      The US suits are more of a tit for tat shot because Apple sued Qualcomm first. What would be more interesting is if when Qualcomm gets shot down but the courts in both China and the US it then decides to go after Intel. However I suspect that Intel used some "clean" engineers to do the reverse work and will come out smelling like a rose in a shithouse and Qualcomm will not dare stir the pot by going after Intel. It took Intel 15 years to break into the CDMA market to the point where Apple feels comfortable with their chips but they did it, so most likely they did it cleanly. Qualcomm knows the writing is on the wall for their designs.

      Apple sued Qualcomm because Qualcomm tried to extort Apple and charge them a premium and at the same time force them into using their chips. I suspect that the lastest moves from Qualcomm is a desperation move because they see the writing on the wall.

      --
      This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
  9. Force Touch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a touch-screen technology called Force Touch

    Is that a project with a code name of "Weinstein"?

  10. Apple buys Qualcomm, problem solved by jsepeta · · Score: 1

    and they could put the hurt on android

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  11. NO WONDER APPLE DOES NOT SUPPORT APT-X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was frankly horrified that the new iPhones still do not support APT-X HD lossless 24bit audio over bluetooth. Instead Its only decade old 16bit lossy SBC codec.

    Makes total sense now. APT-X is a Qualcomm technology and they are duelling it out with apple. Once again everybody else looses. Consumers come second. Sad.

    -Kaex