Slashdot Mirror
Qualcomm Urges US Regulators To Reverse Course, Ban Some iPhones (reuters.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Qualcomm is urging U.S. trade regulators to reverse a judge's ruling and ban the import of some Apple iPhones in a long-running patent fight between the two companies. Qualcomm is seeking the ban in hopes of dealing Apple a blow before the two begin a major trial in mid-April in San Diego over Qualcomm's patent licensing practices. Qualcomm has sought to apply pressure to Apple with smaller legal challenges ahead of that trial and has won partial iPhone sales bans in China and Germany against Apple, forcing the iPhone maker to ship only phones with Qualcomm chips to some markets. Any possible ban on iPhone imports to the United States could be short-lived because Apple last week for the first time disclosed that it has found a software fix to avoid infringing on one of Qualcomm's patents. Apple asked regulators to give it as much as six months to prove that the fix works.
Qualcomm brought a case against Apple at the U.S. International Trade Commission in 2017 alleging that some iPhones violated Qualcomm patents to help smart phones run well without draining their batteries. Qualcomm asked for an import ban on some older iPhone models containing Intel chips. In September, Thomas Pender, an administrative law judge at the ITC, found that Apple violated one of the patents in the case but declined to issue a ban. Pender reasoned that imposing a ban on Intel-chipped iPhones would hand Qualcomm an effective monopoly on the U.S. market for modem chips, which connect smart phones to wireless data networks. Pender's ruling said that preserving competition in the modem chip market was in the public interest as speedier 5G networks come online in the next few years.
Qualcomm brought a case against Apple at the U.S. International Trade Commission in 2017 alleging that some iPhones violated Qualcomm patents to help smart phones run well without draining their batteries. Qualcomm asked for an import ban on some older iPhone models containing Intel chips. In September, Thomas Pender, an administrative law judge at the ITC, found that Apple violated one of the patents in the case but declined to issue a ban. Pender reasoned that imposing a ban on Intel-chipped iPhones would hand Qualcomm an effective monopoly on the U.S. market for modem chips, which connect smart phones to wireless data networks. Pender's ruling said that preserving competition in the modem chip market was in the public interest as speedier 5G networks come online in the next few years.
Thomas Pender, an administrative law judge at the ITC, found that Apple violated one of the patents in the case but declined to issue a ban. Pender's ruling said that preserving competition in the modem chip market was in the public interest
Where in the constitution, or federal law, does it say that preserving competition takes precedence over enforcing the law?
Isn't that the whole purpose of a patent anyway? You invent something and get the right to be the only one to sell it for X years.
Where in the constitution does it say that Apple Users have the right to take a dick in the ass and have a cake made for it?
Congress may override almost anything in the public interest and a judge can interpret the law so as to find that congress would prefer such an action as a matter of public policy.
You never have the right to massively damage a market regardless of what IP you may claim to possess.
In any case, I am surprised Qualcomm would spend so much money fighting when since they are such geniuses or so we are led to believe and they could just invent more new things much cheaper
Strict scrutiny
If you detach law from objective you are dealing in pedantry.
Meds. Take âem.
FOR FUCKS' SAKE! How brazenly biased and bigoted do you have to be to demand that because it is a "home" corporation that it gets a pass on the laws??? ESPECIALLY when the orange shitgibbon is busy trying to promote the story that "Chyinya" based corporations are inherently evil because "Chyinya" steals patents and steals from corporations.
That's just what you've decided that Apple CAN JUST DO. Going "Oh, yes, they are violating patents" doesn't make it fine, you fuckwit. If you violate patents but get no punishment for breaking them, then all china has to do is say "yeah, we don't recognise your patents, fuck you" and they're suddenly fine and dandy again: they're just not punishing anyone for stealing your patents.
Tell me, when you rioted against your lawful British owners, that was due to the laws being biased and only enforced to help the british corporations. You at the time HATED that the rule of law was not obeyed, so your constitution demanded that the laws rule even the congress.
But now, rather than have congress remove the laws they want to ignore, you want them to just ignore the laws for the benefit of USA corporations.
And when that black man was in charge, you collectively lost your shit over congress now under democratic control and a black president will ignore the laws for public safety.
But now your brand of radical racist bigots are ACTUALLY DOING THAT you're suddenly going "Well, hyuh, they're allowed to ignore the law for our benefit!".
So not in the constitution. A recent interpretation. i.e. When it is convenient, we'll make up laws and findings that do not exist.
They are both american corporations dumbass
TBF Apple is just a thin glossy shell over a huge Chinese firm (Foxconn/Hon Hai) on the hardware side, with a sprinkling of components from places like Qualcomm, Broadcom, Intel and (sometimes) AMD.
OTOH, Apple supposedly lifted the information for how to make energy efficient 4G modems from Qualcomm and gave it directly to Intel. As of this writing, Intel 4G modems slurp power unreasonably. If it is true, and they still couldn't get it right!, Intel is totally incompetent.
To the developer: your bot needs improvement.
The core issue here is Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing. Qualcomm has patents on what is considered to be the best (if not the only) way for that wireless stuff.
You may like or you may hate both Apple and/or Qualcomm, but let's discuss the real problem: is Qualcomm trying to screw Apple on the price because they're bigger than the other manufacturers, or is Apple trying to screw Qualcomm on the price because they're bigger than the other manufacturers?
#DeleteFacebook
Well, I am generally not in favor of our patent system, but I am in favor of the law. Here, Qualcomm is not a patent troll. They actually sell a product that was difficult to invent. A patent grants such an invention monopoly status. The judge is disallowing the intended benefit of the patent from being realized by Qualcomm.
They keep coming and coming and coming (unlike you).
They will not stop. Can both sides lose? Apple and Qualcomm are both loathsome megacorps.
Corporatism != Free Market
From what I've read when the fracas started, so I may be wrong, but Qualcomm was selling Apple the base-band chips, AND wanted a cut of the sale price of the phone as a licensing fee. Which, of course, is insane, and an end-run around FRAND rules. If Qualcomm wants a bigger cut of the phone market then they can sell phones.
Yes I suppose, if you consider 81 years ago to be recent.
That's the basis for Qualcomm's counter-suit, which is what we are talking about now. Qualcomm counter-sued Apple after Apple sued them for violating FRAND principals by asking for a cut of revenue instead of a flat licensing fee.
The corollary to your example would be a SoC maker charging a flat rate for H.265 on a blu-ray player, but wanting a percentage of streaming service revenue for it's use in streaming boxes.
It still isn't in the constitution, it's an assertion based on interpretation, not the wording
If someone making $100,000 trucks were to have to pay 2000 to license the qualcomm chip, they'd use the intel chip that takes more power, something that a truck with 300 HP can manage quite easily. Moron.