Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Dealt Legal Blow as Jury Awards Qualcomm $31 Million (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

Apple violated three Qualcomm patents and should pay the chipmaker $31 million for infringing on its technology, a jury decided Thursday, giving Qualcomm momentum as it heads into another legal skirmish with the iPhone maker next month. From a report: Qualcomm, which filed the suit in July 2017, alleged Apple had used its technology without permission in some versions of its popular iPhone. The jury awarded Qualcomm the full amount it requested at the start of the two-week trial, which was held in San Diego. One disputed Qualcomm patent covers technology that lets a smartphone quickly connect to the internet once the device is turned on. Another deals with graphics processing and battery life. The third addresses technology that shifts traffic between a phone's apps processor and modem. The $31 million in damages -- or $1.41 per infringing iPhone -- is a drop in the bucket for Apple, a company that briefly became a $1 trillion company last year. But it marks an important victory for Qualcomm, burnishing its reputation as a mobile components innovator. The win also lends credibility to the notion that much of the company's innovation is reflected in iPhones.

47 comments

  1. $31 million in pocket change by jandrese · · Score: 2

    $31 million is like a couple of hours of profit for Apple. This is a slap on the wrist.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
    1. Re:$31 million in pocket change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I read TFS too, but thanks for summarizing it.

    2. Re:$31 million in pocket change by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is, the next fine needs to be considerably larger?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    3. Re:$31 million in pocket change by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0

      Shows you how petty Apple really is... They easily spent more than that trying to avoid their legal obligation to pay in the first place...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    4. Re:$31 million in pocket change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shows you how petty Apple really is... They easily spent more than that trying to avoid their legal obligation to pay in the first place...

      Probably not. The lawyers are probably on staff anyway.

    5. Re:$31 million in pocket change by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      There's a chance they were looking to establish legal precedent, and if they would have won, it would have been a bargain at 5x the cost.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:$31 million in pocket change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      $31 million is like a couple of hours of profit for Apple. This is a slap on the wrist.

      The symbolic victory is more important than the money. While for Apple this is about money, for Qualcomm this about it's very existence. It's business model is a licensing model that is considered unfair and abusive by it's partners. Every victory in these disputes justifies the existence of it's model.

      And btw, it's not about $31M. That's pay owed to them in the past, from July 6 2017 to today, in license fees. It also means the license is justifiable, so Apple owes in the future too.

    7. Re:$31 million in pocket change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More lawyers than engineers at apple.

    8. Re:$31 million in pocket change by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      It's my understanding that large companies may have in-house lawyers providing support, but bring in outside firms to represent them in court.

      So this likely did cost Apple something.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
  2. Biting the hand that feeds it... by Dan+East · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Apple has the ability to design and manufacture their own chips - they've been ramping up on that over the last few years. This is a good way for Qualcom to not see another cent from Apple in the future. Or maybe they've already seen that writing on the wall and are just trying to get what they can while they can.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Biting the hand that feeds it... by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      They can still sue them for patent infringement if they don't license their patents.

      The alternative would be not getting anything at all. I'm not a fan of patents but I can understand their rationale.

    2. Re:Biting the hand that feeds it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. QCOM started the battle after APPL had decided to stop buying QCOM chips and paying patents.

    3. Re:Biting the hand that feeds it... by Tough+Love · · Score: 0

      AAPL stopped paying patent royalties you say? Sounds like starting a battle to me.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re: Biting the hand that feeds it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't manufacture their own chips. They get other companies to do it.

      And they may design some chips, but not many. Their processors for instance are just arm ones. People act like they designed them from scratch.

    5. Re: Biting the hand that feeds it... by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Their processors for instance are just arm ones. People act like they designed them from scratch.

      From the A6 onwards, Apple's ARM cores are designed by Apple, not off-the shelf cores like Cortex.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:Biting the hand that feeds it... by gravewax · · Score: 0

      If apple decided to stop paying patent royalties how the fuck do you come to the conclusion that QCOM started it. If you are using someones patents you have a legal obligation to pay for them.

    7. Re:Biting the hand that feeds it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apple has no ability what so ever to manufacture chips. They have always gotten others to do this for them.

    8. Re:Biting the hand that feeds it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only if you don't understand anything about the case in question, which is clearly where you are coming from.

      Not really that surprising with your history of anti-Apple shilling.

    9. Re:Biting the hand that feeds it... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Here's how:
      1. Stop buying Qualcomm products, replacing them with one of Qualcomm's competitors.
      2. Stop paying Qualcomm for patent royalties, as they are no longer shipping Qualcomm's products.

      This isn't really that hard to suss out.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    10. Re:Biting the hand that feeds it... by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Typical faith-based troll from a typical AAPL shill.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    11. Re:Biting the hand that feeds it... by gravewax · · Score: 0

      Neither of those give apple any right to utilise a Qualcomm patent without paying. whether you use their product or not is irrelevant if what you replace it with is also using the same patented tech.

    12. Re: Biting the hand that feeds it... by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      In other words, a proprietary fork, which is how Apple has always rolled.

    13. Re:Biting the hand that feeds it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how is anything you said relevant? he stated a simple fact that neither of your points disputed, in fact if anything they confirm it was apples fault.

    14. Re:Biting the hand that feeds it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean that Apple blatantly rips-off others' property?

  3. Wait. Million, with an M? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tim Apple's(tm) Sofacusion probably hold more in change. Pay the ticket and move on!

    1. Re:Wait. Million, with an M? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      By "move on" do you mean, move on to the next jury award, so that evidence of a flippant attitude from AAPL may be used to guide jurors in assessing a more effective level of punitive damages?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re: Wait. Million, with an M? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Move on" is what you should do. Your obsession with Apple is creepy.

    3. Re: Wait. Million, with an M? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      and yours isn't?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  4. Round corners. by Tough+Love · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why does everybody like it so much when Apple takes one on the legal chin? Two words: "round corners".

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    1. Re:Round corners. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have your own reality distortion field and in your fluffy bunny world it was Google who invented the modern smart phone and touch UI?
      Oh dear...
      The Day Google had to start over on Android
      I love reminding you sad, deluded Fandroids that it was Google, and it always will be, who were the original copycats of Apples genius and design.
      From the article:

      "Chris DeSalvo’s reaction to the iPhone was immediate and visceral. “As a consumer I was blown away. I wanted one immediately. But as a Google engineer, I thought ‘We’re going to have to start over.’”"

    2. Re: Round corners. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember phones long before iPhones that had the software for running large touch screens. I owned the Sony Ericsson p series phones long before

    3. Re:Round corners. by blind+biker · · Score: 0

      I have further three words: swipe to unlock.

      Fuck Apple.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    4. Re:Round corners. by Cederic · · Score: 0

      It's still a fucking travesty.

      Round corners: $1bn.
      Technology required to make the device function: $fuck all.

      This just further damages the credibility of the patent system.

    5. Re:Round corners. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol enjoy that walled-garden designed for idiots, idiot.

    6. Re:Round corners. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Normally I wouldn't post this many days later, but I want to take a few minutes to correct some misconceptions you seem to be under, and while you should take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, the only thing I want to convince you of with this post is that you should brush up on some of this stuff so that you can contribute more effectively to the conversation next time.

      This just further damages the credibility of the patent system.

      To start with, it sounds like you don't understand the distinction between utility and design patents, otherwise you'd have realized that the statement makes no sense.

      The "round corners patent" was a design patent, i.e. a "patent" in name only. In every other way design patents behave like trademarks: they don't expire, they must be maintained, and they can't cover anything with utility. They're there to help companies protect product design—most famously the shape of the Coca-Cola bottle—rather than to protect an invention or functionality. That stands in sharp contrast to utility patents (i.e. what we think of when we say "patents"), which expire after a set number of years, are explicitly and exclusively for things that have actual utility, and need not be maintained to be asserted.

      In the same way that Coca-Cola's design patent doesn't preclude others from making bottles with curves, Apple's design patent didn't preclude others from making devices with round corners such as ones with smaller radii, bigger radii, elliptical radii, etc.. In fact, it couldn't give them the rights to all round corners, since round corners provide utility (e.g. round corners are more comfortable in the hand than sharp ones) and design patents can't cover utility. Even so, it did give them the right to protect their particular round corners.

      Round corners: $1bn.

      So, two factual corrections here.

      First, while I think the case is actually still working its way through the courts (the Supreme Court pushed it down to a lower court around the start of the year for some additional deliberation), the latest number isn't anywhere close to $1B. From what I recall, it's more like $300M. Second, while the round corners design patent is a part of the case (or was? it might have dropped out along the way...can't remember), most of that award was based on a number of other violations Samsung was found to have engaged in.

      Technology required to make the device function: $fuck all.

      So, while you're correct that Qualcomm holds a number of standards-essential patents that are absolutely necessary for the functioning of cellular devices, not one of them are relevant to this case. This particular case was for three inessential patents (minor optimizations for power and data) that were so unnecessary Apple literally issued a software update to work around all of them . Qualcomm's own experts agreed that Apple's software approach would be sufficient to circumvent the patents.

      Given that none of them were the essential patents you thought they were, a lower valuation hopefully makes quite a bit more sense now.

    7. Re:Round corners. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      While your points are all accurate, they're also all irrelevant.

      Differentiating between design and utility patents does not change that the patent system is broken, and the outcomes in Apple's patent cases highlight it in a painful way.

      Sure, the $1bn is down to a mere $300m. Only 8 times the amount award for actual innovative patents. Sorry, not accepting that defence.

  5. Momentum? I think you've got that backwards... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The summary's comment that this ruling is "giving Qualcomm momentum" strikes me as being rather clueless. This $31 million judgment is coming the day after a preliminary ruling against Qualcomm that says they owe Apple all $1 billion in rebates that they promised—but failed— to pay Apple. That's the case that matters. Suggesting this $31M ruling is giving them momentum in the $1B case that's already been ruled against them on a preliminary basis is like saying that a fly can change the course of a car by smashing into its windshield.

    Moreover, Apple issued software updates months ago that worked around all of the claims. Qualcomm's experts even acknowledged in court that Apple wasn't still violating them, so they have no impact on Apple's future business, and they certainly don't have any impact on a case regarding whether Apple is owed the $1B that Qualcomm was contractually obligated to pay.

    1. Re:Momentum? I think you've got that backwards... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      The summary's comment that this ruling is "giving Qualcomm momentum" strikes me as being rather clueless. This $31 million judgment is coming the day after a preliminary ruling against Qualcomm that says they owe Apple all $1 billion in rebates that they promisedâ"but failedâ" to pay Apple. That's the case that matters. Suggesting this $31M ruling is giving them momentum in the $1B case that's already been ruled against them on a preliminary basis is like saying that a fly can change the course of a car by smashing into its windshield.

      Moreover, Apple issued software updates months ago that worked around all of the claims. Qualcomm's experts even acknowledged in court that Apple wasn't still violating them, so they have no impact on Apple's future business, and they certainly don't have any impact on a case regarding whether Apple is owed the $1B that Qualcomm was contractually obligated to pay.

      And even though $1B is big, supposedly Apple has already withheld $1B in royalties to Qualcomm over the years as well, so even Qualcomm won't have to fork over all the cash.

      The more important point is the ruling may affect the other court cases on the same matter - Qualcomm had to backstop sales of the affected iPhones before they could proceed. From what was presented, Qualcomm did have a case, but Apple fixed the issue and bypassed the patents, so Qualcomm will get some of the money back, but likely they would've had to pay for the iPhones Apple didn't sell after the software patch was released.

    2. Re:Momentum? I think you've got that backwards... by Solandri · · Score: 1

      This $31 million judgment is coming the day after a preliminary ruling against Qualcomm that says they owe Apple all $1 billion in rebates that they promisedâ"but failedâ" to pay Apple. That's the case that matters.

      No, that's not the case that matters. The $1 billion awarded to Apple was money that Qualcomm was supposed to reimburse to Apple in exchange for Apple not suing them. I haven't been following that one closely so I don't know the judge's reasoning. But it ultimately has nothing to do with patents. It was a case about how the payments were structured.

      The patent cases (including these) are the ones that matter. Apple has withheld about $1 billion in royalty payments to Qualcomm pending the outcome of the patent cases. So if the rest of the cases go Qualcomm's way, Apple will have to pay approx $1 billion for past sales, and more for all future sales.

      And no, I'm not being anti-Apple. Qualcomm's argument is that the royalties for their patents should be a percentage of the device's price, not a percentage of the component's price. That's insane. If Qualcomm wins, if a truck manufacturer decided to integrate cellular connectivity to their trucks using a $10 Qualcomm cellular modem so the trucking company could track the location of all their trucks, Qualcomm would be entitled to thousands of dollars per truck in royalty payments, instead of a few tens of cents per modem. Insane. I'm completely on Apple's side on this one.

  6. $31 Million? by Zorro · · Score: 1

    Apple can find that in its junk drawer next to the old Ketchup Packets and Chopsticks.

    1. Re:$31 Million? by PPH · · Score: 1

      iTunes gift certificate. Paid in full.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re: $31 Million? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      They certainly don't have TTL gates or random tantalum capacitors in their junk drawer. Just the kind of boring crap pinks usually keep.

  7. Learn by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    to make your own chips.
    It's the only way to be sure.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  8. As the proverb says ... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    What goes around corners comes around corners.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  9. not even closer to a blow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple just won a$1 billion lawsuit against them this week so, a blow? People who don't know read Slashdot and post shit