Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Accuses Qualcomm of Patent Infringement in Countersuit (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

From a report: Apple on Wednesday filed a countersuit against Qualcomm, alleging that Qualcomm's Snapdragon mobile phone chips that power a wide variety of Android-based devices infringe on Apple's patents, the latest development in a long-running dispute. Qualcomm in July accused Apple of infringing several patents related to helping mobile phones get better battery life. Apple has denied the claims that it violated Qualcomm's battery life patents and alleged that Qualcomm's patents were invalid, a common move in such cases. But on Wednesday, in a filing in U.S. District Court in San Diego, Apple revised its answer to Qualcomm's complaint with accusations of its own. Apple alleges it owns at least eight battery life patents that Qualcomm has violated.

34 comments

  1. Did Qualcomm use round corners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that would enrage the iFanBois...

    1. Re:Did Qualcomm use round corners? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it yellow? Fluke sued and won a ban of an importers electronic test meters because they infringed on Flukes color.

    2. Re:Did Qualcomm use round corners? by tbuddy · · Score: 1

      They got bought by the same company that owns Pantone. Match made in heaven.

  2. Defensive Patent Portfolios by Artagel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This action by Apple shows why a company wants patents even if it does not run around enforcing them all the time. It is a war chest for when someone else sues you. Sue IBM for patent infringement? IBM has tens of thousands of patents to sort through to counterattack.

    Blowback can be a bitch.

    1. Re:Defensive Patent Portfolios by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      This move seems an usual tactic in a lawsuit: Go after every single thing. Qualcomm accused Apple of violating certain battery patents; Apple counter sues on battery patents they have.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Defensive Patent Portfolios by geekmux · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This action by Apple shows why a company wants patents even if it does not run around enforcing them all the time. It is a war chest for when someone else sues you. Sue IBM for patent infringement? IBM has tens of thousands of patents to sort through to counterattack.

      Blowback can be a bitch.

      Here's how we fix this bullshit, perhaps for good.

      Step #1: Audit every patent holder with more than 5,000 patents in their "war chest". Force all patent holders to prove they are actively using their patents.

      Step #2: Any patents merely being held for the purposes of patent warmongering, preventing competition, or stifling innovation will be forced into expiration, and put up for bid.

      Step #3: Sit back and watch as (former) patent holders are forced to spend their (offshore) cash reserves and executive bonus cash pools in order to buy back their pointless "war chests" of patented dominance.

      Step #4: Lather, rinse, and repeat every 3 years.

      Might not be 100% effective in restoring balance to the patent system, but it sure as hell would be fun to watch patent hoarders squirm, which may ultimately prove that hoarding is no longer a profitable venture.

    3. Re:Defensive Patent Portfolios by sl3xd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Step #1 falls down immediately. The constitution clearly states that "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." There is no requirement that they exercise that right.

      Step #2 falls down because of the 5th amendment; property can only be seized when it remains property of the US government. For Intellectual property, the well-trodden path is that the government simply infringes on the patent, and decides what it considers a "just" compensation to the patent holder -- the patent doesn't change hands.

      A change of this magnitude literally requires a constitutional amendment, which are pretty hard to pass in the best of circumstances.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    4. Re:Defensive Patent Portfolios by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "a usual" not "an usual"

    5. Re: Defensive Patent Portfolios by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tim Cock wants you to suck her cock and pay for it. Nothing new in the world of ifags.

    6. Re:Defensive Patent Portfolios by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple is going to take Qualcomm to the cleaners and you all should be happy.

      Qualcomm is holding back android phone development by forcing vendors to buy their substandard SoCs in order to gain access to their modems and modem IP.

      It's clear they way forward for mobile devices is custom in-house development of SoCs because off the shelf parts don't fit the business model well.

      Samsung does it. Apple does it. The large Chinese makers are doing it (And these are the guys that will replace everyone but Samsung and Apple within the next 2-3 years)

      Hell, even Google is looking in to getting in to the SoC game because they can't get anyone else to competently build a flagship google branded device.

      Look at Intel's complete failure to enter the SoC market. You build the processor around the phone, not the phone around the processor. Qualcomm's fate is Intel's.

    7. Re:Defensive Patent Portfolios by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Step #1 falls down immediately. The constitution clearly states that "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." There is no requirement that they exercise that right.

      The Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to do this. It does not state that Congress is obligated to do this, in every case or in any specific case. If Congress wants to do away with patents entirely, or limit them to X per entity or X per year or whatever, that is well within their jurisdiction. They may not be able to take away patents which have already been granted, but they can certainly refuse to issue new ones.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    8. Re:Defensive Patent Portfolios by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woah! Are you a grammar alt-right or a grammar antifa? Because you sure ain't a grammar nazi.

      Make America Grammar Again!

    9. Re:Defensive Patent Portfolios by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      What this actually shows is that Qualacomm has very good patents and Apple is afraid they are going to lose the original lawsuit.

      The vast majority of Apple's patents are design patents. They do hold a few actual patents but not nearly as many as Qualacomm. Qualacomm may be a dick of a company but they are a major contributor to the existence of cellular technology. They own outright CDMA without any FAR conditions on the patents they can charge whatever they want to use the patents. Though I believe Apple has a good case with patent exhaustion, I still believe Qualacomm will come out ahead by going after payment for all the other patents they weren't charging for. Qualacomm's patent portfolio is huge and if you build a cellphone these days you will be licensing their patents and a bunch of those patents are not licensed under FAR (fair and reasonable terms).

    10. Re:Defensive Patent Portfolios by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      And Qualcomm sued with their patent portfolio because Apple refused to pay license fee's?

    11. Re:Defensive Patent Portfolios by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to do this. It does not state that Congress is obligated to do this, in every case or in any specific case. If Congress wants to do away with patents entirely, or limit them to X per entity or X per year or whatever, that is well within their jurisdiction. They may not be able to take away patents which have already been granted, but they can certainly refuse to issue new ones.

      Or considering this has been going on for pretty much since the patent office was created, then it's likely Congress will do nothing. It happened with sewing machines (the patent office issued actual overlapping patents, and duplicate patents), cars, and pretty much ever other piece of technology out there.

      And yes, at one point, it was 8impossible to build a sewing machine at all without violating some patent or other. It only came to a head when the Singer corporation got a bunch of investors and bought out all the patents, thus not only clearing the path, but also ensuring they got tons of royalties because they hold all the sewing machine patents.

    12. Re:Defensive Patent Portfolios by countach · · Score: 1

      I question whether patents are actual property, despite the term "intellectual property".This hasn't been tested in the supreme court has it?

    13. Re: Defensive Patent Portfolios by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Supreme Court does not have to rule for something to be settled. Lower courts work too, especially if the scotus decides not to hear the case, or if it never gets that far.

      In the 1900â(TM)s there was a huge aircraft patent war.

      In 1917, the US went to war aircraft were badly needed. The country couldnâ(TM)t wait while the manufacturers had a pissing contest over exclusive rights to build aircraft.

      So he fed declared that all aircraft patents would go in a pool, and set licensing payments to that were paid per aircraft.

      Iâ(TM)m not sure if they used eminent domain or some other mechanism; the end result was a âreasonable and non-discriminatoryâ(TM) patent license for aircraft built in the USA. (And the patent holders were still paid).

    14. Re: Defensive Patent Portfolios by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      An unattainable ideal, at least in a large publicly traded company. What starts as a defensive patent portfolio turn into a resource from which the investors are expecting the company to "extract value", therefore forcing the company to use them offensively to try to collect licensing fees.

  3. Round by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just knew those chips had rounded corners.

  4. Pathetic apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but not surprising.

  5. Qualcomm is Evil, more Evil than Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will be fun to watch play out in court.

    1. Re:Qualcomm is Evil, more Evil than Apple by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      It will be settled, no doubt.

  6. Re:Apple and Qualcomm sue each other for patents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a negotiating tactic. You will submit to his demands so that he likes you again.

  7. Thats a lot of battery life patents... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    * battery runs out so no comment *

  8. I think the real question is. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whom did apple steal these battery patents from. They should be the ones suing Qualcomm.

  9. Time for the popcorn? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    This is the big boys flinging mud at each other. Petty at best? The best outcome for anyone else is not to overthink things and just enjoy the popcorn, since it is going to feel more like an improv contest anyhow.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  10. Since when? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Since when did Apple sell lawnmowers?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  11. Best tennis match ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I really gotta wonder what it's like in the higher offices during these tiffs..

  12. Battery life patent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean patents on things like "Don't do this if not needed, to save battery life?" You can literally patent NOT doing something?

  13. Tax 'em by phorm · · Score: 1

    Or

    Consider patents as taxable assets. Tax based on the value of the patents held - which should be declared - with a surtax for unused patents. No tax avoidance loopholes.

    If you bring out a submarine that you didn't declare for taxes, or sue while declaring the patent is worth a lot more than you paid taxes for.... oooooo, tax avoidance...

    1. Re:Tax 'em by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Or

      Consider patents as taxable assets. Tax based on the value of the patents held - which should be declared - with a surtax for unused patents. No tax avoidance loopholes.

      If you bring out a submarine that you didn't declare for taxes, or sue while declaring the patent is worth a lot more than you paid taxes for.... oooooo, tax avoidance...

      Taxing the obscenely wealthy doesn't work worth a shit for all the things they should normally be paying taxes on. Not sure how you're going to reform that enough to close hundreds of loopholes to make it effective for patents.

      That said, I do like the concept of limiting lawsuit damages to the amount paid in taxes. Helps shine a light on several issues.

    2. Re:Tax 'em by phorm · · Score: 1

      That would be the beauty of it, and possibly the anti-loophole. You can do whatever shitty things you want to hide or skip-out on your patent taxes, but if you ever try to *use* those patents it's going to come back at ya.

  14. Is this a script? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I swear we see the Qualcomm sues Apple, Apple sues Qualcomm stories on a set schedule at this point. Who among us really gives a single fuck about it? They'll keep nickle and diming each other in court, and nothing will really change because of it until someone decides to put their foot all the way up someone else's ass and jump ship completely from the other.