Slashdot Mirror
Qualcomm Accuses Apple of Stealing Trade Secrets and Giving Them To Intel (betanews.com)
Mark Wilson writes: Chip-maker Qualcomm has today accused Apple of stealing trade secrets and sharing them with Intel. The company alleges that Apple wanted Intel to be able to improve its own chips so it could move away from using Qualcomm's. Qualcomm and Apple are already engaged in a legal battle, and with its latest accusations, the chip-maker wants the court to amend its existing lawsuit against the company. Apple stands accused of engaging in a 'multi-year campaign of sloppy, inappropriate and deceitful conduct'. In the new filings, Qualcomm says that upon Apple's request it allowed the iPhone maker deep access to its software and tools, but with strict limits on how those products could be used. It said, "Indeed, it is now apparent Apple engaged in a years-long campaign of false promises, stealth and subterfuge designed to steal Qualcomm's confidential information and trade secrets for the purpose of improving the performance of lower-quality modem chipsets, with the ultimate goal of eliminating Qualcomm's Apple-based business."
"Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it." - George Costanza
#DeleteFacebook
Duh. What multi-billion dollar company isn't [rightfully] accused of this?
The Qualcomm advertising campaign just so they can sway public opinion has been ridiculous. âoeWe invent all the stuff thatâ(TM)s in your smartphones... blah blah worship usâ
They also have a wall in their headquarters with plaques for each of their parents. The more important patents get larger plaques. One of their biggest ones is a plaque for an App Store. A freaking App Store. Iâ(TM)m not surprised that Apple is sick of this shit.
Current evidence is that the modem in the Xs and Xs MAX is indeed a ripoff of a Qualcomm design, but what Apple fucked up is the antenna. The only way to fix the phones is going to be a redesign and a massive recall: they're physically defective.
Prove it.
Remember, Apple has a dedicated RF lab, and after AntennaGate, is pretty unlikely to repeat that particular design-snafu.
...is that Apple has no hesitation in dumping Intel as a supplier.
Apple announced that Intel modems would not be used after the current generation of iPhones.
Apple will also move away from x86 towards their own desktop/laptop ARM processors.
Is Apple dumping Intel because they broke Qualcomm's NDA? Or is it the 10nm debacle? Or both?
Or because they have perfected their own MODEM.
Remember, they now have produced in-house Bluetooth chips (at least 2 generations thereof); so they obviously have enough in-house RF Engineering talent to take on a WiFi MODEM.
Intel and Qualcomm are both just stopgaps.
So Americans steal too? news for me, uh
https://www.wiwavelength.com/
Sites are starting to link to this guy
Extremetech's article seems to be mostly mistaken. Intel's Sunny Peak project that Apple isn't using isn't a 5G modem, it's a WiFi/Bluetooth chipset.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/...
Maybe if Qualcomm hadn't wanted ridiculous royalties from Apple, it wouldn't have this problem.
No kidding. My works fine too. What a surprise!
(Why would Samsung do this when they have their own chip fab? Think about it)
Chip fabs are factories. Developing an SoC requires a large and fairly expensive design team, a larger validation team, and then someone has to write a lot of software. Not that I don't believe Samsung could put this together, in fact I believe they have one here in Austin. But when you deal in commodities, you tend to take the cheapest route from a->b and don't look too far down the road.
I‘m not an antenna guru but the bad antenna’ seems to affect the datarate quite nicely:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/g...
https://www.wiwavelength.com/
Sites are starting to link to this guy
That is an interesting link, thanks!
I agree that Apple probably needs to add/adjust an RF amp for higher-gain; but that may be wishful thinking at this point.
It doesn't make sense that Apple would have settled for a lower EIRP than the previous model unless they HAD to for some reason.
Samsung also has it's own SoC's (which I think what the parent was trying to say) - the Exynos. They only recently developed a decent modem for it in order to cut out QualComm at some point.
Having done business with QualComm (small electronics developer) I can concur that they're absolutely a horrible company to work with and will happily violate the GPL - they won't give you any Linux source code for "their" SoC reference compilation and then happily point you to the NDA. Oh you want a newer kernel - pay up for a newer chipset because we won't do it on our 2-year old chips.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Probably not documents marked "top secret, property of Qualcomm", but having had a close relationship for years and probably designed certain aspects of the iPhone around Qualcomm parts when it came to getting Intel to provide a suitable modem some of that built up knowledge leaked out.
"We did it this way with Qualcomm, it worked better..." and the NDA was just violated. Which is why NDAs are generally a bad idea but you can't avoid them when designing stuff like this.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
That's what gives the allegation a veneer of credibility. Apple has done exactly this (albeit legally) with Samsung - going with slower Toshiba NAND and SK Hynix RAM in their devices instead of Samsung. Trying to have LG manufacture the OLED panels for their iPhones as an alternative to Samsung. Apple's MO among suppliers is like Walmart - use its market dominance to bully suppliers into accepting extremely thin margins ("Well if you won't sign this hundred million dollar contract with us at a lower unit price, then we'll just ink a deal with your competitor instead."). That's partly how they maintain such a huge profit margin (over 20%, vs about 5% for the rest of the computer industry), not just by overcharging customers. But it's a tactic which doesn't work when only one supplier dominates the market.
x86 is CISC. ARM is RISC. CISC vs RISC has played out numerous times since the 1980s. CISC has won every time. I like the idea behind RISC, but its advantages don't seem to beat out the advantages of CISC when it comes to optimized processor performance. RISC seems to have an advantage when rapidly transitioning to new processing regimes (previously high-end data processing with MIPS, currently with low-power processing with ARM). But it's like once the transition has been made or slows down, CISC allows you to optimize it further, resulting in CISC beating out RISC long-term.
Unlikely. With NDA access to Qualcomm designs, the cleanroom requirements will be dire.
Not that I believe Qualcomm but it Is possible that Apple stole some tech and gave it to Intel and that Intel's implementation is less than adequate. After all, it's not a guarantee that any tech was complete or that Intel can use the tech adequately. The capacitor plague problem of the early 2000s was caused by partially stolen IP.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Next iPhone will have an APPLE-Designed MODEM
Is it going to work as well as the Apple chargers that overheat and the Apple phones that explode?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
they have perfected their own MODEM.
Is it as perfect as the exploding PHONES and the overheating CHARGERS?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Apple announced that Intel modems would not be used after the current generation of iPhones.
Impressive, Apple will follow up removing the headphone jack by removing the radio. That takes courage.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Probably not documents marked "top secret, property of Qualcomm", but having had a close relationship for years and probably designed certain aspects of the iPhone around Qualcomm parts when it came to getting Intel to provide a suitable modem some of that built up knowledge leaked out.
"We did it this way with Qualcomm, it worked better..." and the NDA was just violated. Which is why NDAs are generally a bad idea but you can't avoid them when designing stuff like this.
I would think that the "knowledge" would have to be SOLELY QUALCOMM's to begin with for it to be considered a "Trade Secret". No NDA can keep Apple from revealing knowledge that IT has generated, or that was developed in concert by Apple and Qualcoimm.
For example, If Apple engineers take Qualcomm's part and then find out ON THEIR OWN that it works better when they adjust the antenna-impedance by a certain amount that isn't suggested in Qualcomm's documentation, THAT knowledge does not magically transmogrify into Qualcomm's, and is CERTAINLY not Qualcomm's "Trade Secret". So no, that sort of thing would NOT apply to Qualcomm's claims. At least not if the Judge is listening...
And you're right: NDAs aren't favored, precisely because of all these sticky corner-cases.
Here you go: proof that the iPhone Xs and Xs MAX are physically defective and have a broken antenna.
So you're saying that Apple knew their antenna was defective when they released these products. Typical of Apple to blame their design failure on someone else.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Not that I believe Qualcomm but it Is possible that Apple stole some tech and gave it to Intel and that Intel's implementation is less than adequate. After all, it's not a guarantee that any tech was complete or that Intel can use the tech adequately. The capacitor plague problem of the early 2000s was caused by partially stolen IP.
I fully believe that the capacitor debacle was caused by INTENTIONALLY-INCORRECT formulas placed where they could be easily found.
For example, when Eli Lilly publishes a Patent for some drugmaking process, they INTENTIONALLY include unnecessary steps, JUST to make the process more EXPENSIVE for the competition to COPY.
But in this case, I think that Qualcomm is simply lying through their teeth, and want to try and force Apple to "prove a negative".
"Apple stands accused of engaging in a 'multi-year campaign of sloppy, inappropriate and deceitful conduct'." None of which is illegal. This accusation is sloppy, inappropriate, and unless an actual legal violation emerges somewhere, deceitful conduct.
Next iPhone will have an APPLE-Designed MODEM
Is it going to work as well as the Apple chargers that overheat and the Apple phones that explode?
Show me an Apple RELEASED Wireless Charger that overheats, AND an EXPLODING iPhone (that means not just smoking or bulging; but a VERIFIED EXPLOSION.
If you live in an area where the signals are strong and the towers are near, you will see no difference between Qualcomm and Intel modems.
If you live further away from the towers, where signals are weaker and interference more of a problem, you would soon find out that the Qualcomm chips are much more capable than the Intel ones.
#DeleteFacebook
Intel's not THAT stupid. If someone handed them those secrets, they have enough smart people to implement them. So, I submit that Qualcomm's allegations are as trumped-up as most of their Patents.
No Intel is not that stupid. If Apple delivered proprietary information to it - it would simply hand it over to Qualcomm with a pointer to where it came from. That way they are perfectly innocent. If they took and used proprietary information that they didn't have rights to, Qualcomm would simply sue the pants off of Intel as well.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
Apple began to staff up on mixed signal and RF ASIC designers with a list of job titles that looked like they were going after making a modem about 4-5 years ago, so yeah, they likely are ready to do their own by now. They already make their own CPU/GPU chips that leap frogged what Qualcomm offered in their SOC lineup.
Several years back I worked at a cellular amplifier supplier to a fruit themed cell phone maker (one with onerous secrecy BS in the contracts). On three ways calls with Qualcomm it was quite clear that even 5+ years ago there was a "frenemy" relationship with lots of frustration all around. Qualcomm's specifications for their envelope tracking technology was a real shit-show, and eventually when Qualcomm's 800 lb Gorilla tactics made it impossible for any of the suppliers to succeed the fruit themed company dropped it for 2 years in a semi-vindictive fashion. It was quite clear that Apple only tolerated Qualcomm so long as they had no viable alternative. When Intel got business it was clear they were willing to take a hit on performance just to have a second source.
In the end, it is hard to root for one 800 lb Gorilla over another when they are wrestling in the mud.
No, those corners are deliberately rounded, as per their look and feel.
Intel's not THAT stupid. If someone handed them those secrets, they have enough smart people to implement them. So, I submit that Qualcomm's allegations are as trumped-up as most of their Patents.
No Intel is not that stupid. If Apple delivered proprietary information to it - it would simply hand it over to Qualcomm with a pointer to where it came from. That way they are perfectly innocent. If they took and used proprietary information that they didn't have rights to, Qualcomm would simply sue the pants off of Intel as well.
Well, curiously enough, Qualcomm was stupid enough to NOT name Intel as a Co-Defendant!
I am pretty sure that they are not one of the "Does 1-25" listed in the caption of the case, as seen on MacRumors:
https://www.macrumors.com/2018...
Personally, I would consider that a SERIOUS mistake on the part of Qualcomm. Generally, you sue everyone and their dog, and let THEM argue to be Discharged as a Party.
This tells me that Qualcomm is just trying to stir up bad press on Apple, and that they KNOW they don't have a leg to stand on, legally...
Qualcomm is one smarmy company. Glad to see they are too cheap to rent REAL attorneys!
Apple began to staff up on mixed signal and RF ASIC designers with a list of job titles that looked like they were going after making a modem about 4-5 years ago, so yeah, they likely are ready to do their own by now. They already make their own CPU/GPU chips that leap frogged what Qualcomm offered in their SOC lineup.
Several years back I worked at a cellular amplifier supplier to a fruit themed cell phone maker (one with onerous secrecy BS in the contracts). On three ways calls with Qualcomm it was quite clear that even 5+ years ago there was a "frenemy" relationship with lots of frustration all around. Qualcomm's specifications for their envelope tracking technology was a real shit-show, and eventually when Qualcomm's 800 lb Gorilla tactics made it impossible for any of the suppliers to succeed the fruit themed company dropped it for 2 years in a semi-vindictive fashion. It was quite clear that Apple only tolerated Qualcomm so long as they had no viable alternative. When Intel got business it was clear they were willing to take a hit on performance just to have a second source.
In the end, it is hard to root for one 800 lb Gorilla over another when they are wrestling in the mud.
QUITE Insightful!!!
You don't think those hires were for the Bluetooth (W1,W2) chips?
My feeling is that they thought they were ready to cut both Intel and Qualcomm loose with the Xs/XR series; but perhaps didn't get Agency Approvals worldwide in time for Production, and so had to use the Intel chips.
But wasn't the use of Intel also tied to some RF-bands that Qualcomm didn't support? Or was that just a smokescreen?
And are there REALLY only just TWO Cell MODEM chip Designers (well, three, if you count that Apple sounds like they are doing it, too) on the PLANET?!?
If you live in an area where the signals are strong and the towers are near, you will see no difference between Qualcomm and Intel modems.
If you live further away from the towers, where signals are weaker and interference more of a problem, you would soon find out that the Qualcomm chips are much more capable than the Intel ones.
So you are saying that this suit by Qualcomm is basebandless.
Horrible or not, unfortunately, Qualcomm acquired many good companies, such as Atheros, who have most consistent Linux-supported wifi card and SoC.
Any downfall of Qualcomm automatically means downfall of these great products.
And, is there any SoC vendor who does give reference SDK, with factory calibration tools, without NDA (and crazy fees)?
And if it turns out to be true, then I guess you could say Qualcomm's technology got Xeroxed (pun intended).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The fact that Intel still hasn't dominated the low end / low power market already is a clear sign that trying to squish CISC into that place is silly -- the chips are wildly power inefficient as their is a vast amount of circuitry to support all those various extended instructions.
It's worth nothing that x86 is a really horrible instruction set with an unusually hard stance on backwards compatibility. That's why it's so expensive to make. Other CISC designs are far, far more efficient and easier to design, and there are plenty of CISC designs used in the embedded market (ie, where unmarketable designs go to retire). The 68060 was a really nice design -- far ahead of x86 processors of the time in all regards except floating point math -- but nobody used it since Motorolla (and everyone else) had already announced they were dumping CISC.
Personally, I'd like to see an all-new CISC ISA that was designed from the ground up to work with a RISC core. That should be able to blow the doors off both existing RISC chips and x86. If it weren't open, RISC-V would already be dead, because from a technical perspective, nobody cares.
The real reason x86 will continue to dominate is because all the major RISC processors are pretty much the same, so compiler designers basically support two ISAs: x86 and everyone else. It's just too damn hard from a marketing perspective to establish a new ISA.
Not talking about SDK. The Linux kernel source cannot be limited by an NDA, that's explicitly ruled out by the GPL. Qualcomm uses a heavily modified kernel (statically compiled, not a modular approach) and refuses to release the source code altogether which is a violation of the GPL. Tired going through EFF but unless I want to shoulder my own defense or am myself or find an active Linux kernel developer that would be agrieved by this (Linus and most core developers doesn't seem to care about legally defending the kernel), they wouldn't consider my case.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com