This is the same argument that it's always been. Qualcomm has patents that are necessary to use cellular networks, and in return for making them standards, they've agreed to license them (either in their chips or their competitors)....
Here's the part I don't understand.
If Apple is using competitor chips, that have been licensed by the competitor to Qualcomm....hasn't that competing chip maker already paid the rent/licensing fee to Qualcomm at the chip manufacture level...?
Yes and no. With chips that run embedded firmware, it is quite common to pay a "fee" for the chip as well as a separate license "fee" for the embedded firmware. This is common with MANY chip vendors, not just Qualcomm. You buy the physical IC, but you still may need to license any custom firmware required. For example if you want to use the pre-canned USB/PHY stack on many Cirrus DSPs, you need to pay for that separately. If you want to use AptX encoding on a CSR chip, you need to pay for that separately. And so on.
With ICs now bridging between just pure hardware AND firmware, the line is getting blurred. Unless you want to clean-room develop your own internal firmware for the device, you will probably end up using the firmware supplied by the IC vendor. And that will require an additional license.
What's funny is that Apple does the exact same thing! You can buy an MFi IAP2 IC from Apple, but you still need to pay an additional firmware license for pretty much anything you can do with that chip (and there are several firmware options you can choose from). This is literally Apple whinging about Qualcomm doing the exact same thing that Apple does to all IAP2/MFi chip companies (actually, Qualcomm is less intrusive, as Apple requires your manufacturing partner to also license and become approved, and insists on looking at your implementation prior to release of product; Qualcomm does neither).
The six patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,633,936, U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558, U.S. Patent No. 8,487,658, U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949, U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490, and U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675 enable high performance in a smartphone while extending battery life. Each of the patents does so in a different way for different popular smartphone features; https://www.qualcomm.com/iphon... While the technologies covered by the patents are central to the performance of the iPhone, the six asserted patents are not essential to practice any standards in a mobile device or subject to a commitment to offer to license such patents.
These are not in the general patent common license pool, are not of any standards required for mobile devices, but Apple wants them anyway and is using them without paying for them.
You are all missing the forest.
Patents originally only covered manufacturing processes. The intent being that superior processes become public information instead of trade secrets.
Love to see the citation on that one, because the USPTO says "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent". And it's been that way as long as I can remember. In fact, the first 10 patents all cover at least a machine, or a machine and associated process. Seems to me you're 100% backwards.
IANAPL, but I do have 18 issued patents to my name, and another dozen still pending...
Uh, no. I don't know how many chip licenses you've negotiated, I've done more than my fair share. You buy the chips - but the firmware, the stuff that runs inside them - is typically an additional license that must be negotiated and paid for. That's true with Qualcomm, CSR (before Qualcomm bought them), Atmel, Cirrus, Analog Devices, TI, ST and many others... You buy the chip, but you still have to pay for licenses for any embedded firmware you choose to use.
So Telsa (which lost $4.77 per share last year) should still be worth more than Ford (who made $0.94 per share)? That's what has happened, the stock market has been incredibly slanted away from performance and more towards hype. I kind of like it, it's keeping many companies that pay good dividends (like STB - 7.2% yield right now) low in terms of shares, because they are "slow" and "profitable" rather than hyped up about being "disruptive"...
Slumping? Take a look at the graph again. It was "flat" for the four months before the election (when, apparently, Hillary! still was considered the favorite to win) but for the year it was up 6%... Then when the election results were announced, it spiked up a good 20%. Yes, a 10 year view shows a relatively consistent climb until October 2014, when it went flat - but it took off (at a higher rate of increase) after the election.
Wait, you mean a company that is losing $200 million a month, their only product is an app, and with a massive executive overturn recently isn't worth $60 billion? Unpossible!
False. The labor force participation rate fell for the first 7 years of the Obama Administration, and has held steady since then. If people would re-enter the workforce the labor force participation rate would increase. It has not.
That is also the exact reason that a Federal minimum wage makes zero sense. What is a living wage in McAllan, TX and Manhattan, NY? Radically different levels...
U definitions; U6 is most of the people who want to work but cannot find a job, cannot find a full time job (underemployment) and thus still need assistance, or who have given up.
ShadowStats also factors in those who have permanently left the work force but are still in the 19-64 age range. It's no secret that permanent disability and permanent Medicaid status have both exploded since 2008. ShadowStats factors those people into their own unemployment rate, as it appears the Federal Government moved a permanent segment of society from the unemployment rolls (U3 and U6) to "out of workforce" in an effort to lower the unemployment rate. Perhaps that's why the Labor Force Participation Rate is the lowest it's been in 40 years (note: labor force participation rate only includes those who are of working age, who are physically able to work, but are not actively working - it does not include retirees).
If he was a Democrat party member who was going to reveal information, he'd just get a few bullets in the back and have it claimed to be a "robbery" where nothing was taken...
At least two documented (looking through the the first letters of States) cases where elections were overturned because of fraud. How many more do we need? What is the downside of stronger screening for voting? And why is that different from 2A rights?
There is another case, in Connecticut, where a non-citizen fraudulently voted, then later ran - and won - a seat in State Government. He was charged, tried, convicted, and removed from office. At least two elections overturned from fraudulent voting. How many more do you want?
The actual source is from the Heritage Foundation, and it lists names, crimes, and jurisdictions. Laziness is just an excuse to not face the fact, that voter fraud DOES happen, and in at least one case (Compton, CA - Mayor Bradley's re-election) the election results were overturned because of documented fraud.
So how much fraud do you want to allow? It's been proven to overturn at least one election, which would indicate it most likely influenced many others... How many fraudulent elections are acceptable to you?
Huh? Your answer makes no sense. You wanted proof of fraud - here it is. Apparently it's not enough. How would voters be disenfranchised by solving voter fraud? I assume those bastions of Conservatism, WI and MI, are terrible for requiring proof of ID at the voting booth, right?
How many fraudulent votes would you accept in a general election? And if you look at my link, 20 were from CA, and 20 were from IL - neither of which was a Trump State. And this is just a sampling, it is not a comprehensive list.
I love how the mantra was "vote fraud doesn't exist!" until it's proven otherwise - then it becomes "it's so little it doesn't matter".or "it's only an issue because Trump". So how much fraud is acceptable to you? How many illegal votes, how much disenfranchisement do you want to allow into the system? Do you now admit that vote fraud does occur?
So why do I have to pay for a firearm license (2A), but I have the right to a free voter card? Why do I have to pass a "test" to show basic competency in handling a firearm but I do not have to show even the first shred of evidence about any knowledge whatseover about civics? I assume since you're opposed to any and all costs related to proving citizenship, you would be open to free, unregistered purchase and carry of firearms without any license fees, and with no restriction regarding competency...
Yes, read the link. Duplicate votes. Ineligible (illegals!) voting, fraudulent use of absentee ballots. How much fraud do you want to accept? What is your limit for illegal, fraudulent votes?
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the part I don't understand.
If Apple is using competitor chips, that have been licensed by the competitor to Qualcomm....hasn't that competing chip maker already paid the rent/licensing fee to Qualcomm at the chip manufacture level...?
Yes and no. With chips that run embedded firmware, it is quite common to pay a "fee" for the chip as well as a separate license "fee" for the embedded firmware. This is common with MANY chip vendors, not just Qualcomm. You buy the physical IC, but you still may need to license any custom firmware required. For example if you want to use the pre-canned USB/PHY stack on many Cirrus DSPs, you need to pay for that separately. If you want to use AptX encoding on a CSR chip, you need to pay for that separately. And so on.
With ICs now bridging between just pure hardware AND firmware, the line is getting blurred. Unless you want to clean-room develop your own internal firmware for the device, you will probably end up using the firmware supplied by the IC vendor. And that will require an additional license.
What's funny is that Apple does the exact same thing! You can buy an MFi IAP2 IC from Apple, but you still need to pay an additional firmware license for pretty much anything you can do with that chip (and there are several firmware options you can choose from). This is literally Apple whinging about Qualcomm doing the exact same thing that Apple does to all IAP2/MFi chip companies (actually, Qualcomm is less intrusive, as Apple requires your manufacturing partner to also license and become approved, and insists on looking at your implementation prior to release of product; Qualcomm does neither).
A citation for you.
The six patents, U.S. Patent No. 8,633,936, U.S. Patent No. 8,698,558, U.S. Patent No. 8,487,658, U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949, U.S. Patent No. 9,535,490, and U.S. Patent No. 9,608,675 enable high performance in a smartphone while extending battery life. Each of the patents does so in a different way for different popular smartphone features; https://www.qualcomm.com/iphon... While the technologies covered by the patents are central to the performance of the iPhone, the six asserted patents are not essential to practice any standards in a mobile device or subject to a commitment to offer to license such patents.
These are not in the general patent common license pool, are not of any standards required for mobile devices, but Apple wants them anyway and is using them without paying for them.
You are all missing the forest. Patents originally only covered manufacturing processes. The intent being that superior processes become public information instead of trade secrets.
Love to see the citation on that one, because the USPTO says "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent". And it's been that way as long as I can remember. In fact, the first 10 patents all cover at least a machine, or a machine and associated process. Seems to me you're 100% backwards.
IANAPL, but I do have 18 issued patents to my name, and another dozen still pending...
Uh, no. I don't know how many chip licenses you've negotiated, I've done more than my fair share. You buy the chips - but the firmware, the stuff that runs inside them - is typically an additional license that must be negotiated and paid for. That's true with Qualcomm, CSR (before Qualcomm bought them), Atmel, Cirrus, Analog Devices, TI, ST and many others... You buy the chip, but you still have to pay for licenses for any embedded firmware you choose to use.
No, unicorns are the pre-IPO companies valued at more than $1 billion. Big investors in unicorns are called "suckers"...
Huh? I guess if you call losing $330 million last quarter, and $720 million over the last 4 quarters "in the green" - then you are verifiably color blind...
So Telsa (which lost $4.77 per share last year) should still be worth more than Ford (who made $0.94 per share)? That's what has happened, the stock market has been incredibly slanted away from performance and more towards hype. I kind of like it, it's keeping many companies that pay good dividends (like STB - 7.2% yield right now) low in terms of shares, because they are "slow" and "profitable" rather than hyped up about being "disruptive"...
Pull out from these unicorns? That's what she said?
Slumping? Take a look at the graph again. It was "flat" for the four months before the election (when, apparently, Hillary! still was considered the favorite to win) but for the year it was up 6%... Then when the election results were announced, it spiked up a good 20%. Yes, a 10 year view shows a relatively consistent climb until October 2014, when it went flat - but it took off (at a higher rate of increase) after the election.
Wait, you mean a company that is losing $200 million a month, their only product is an app, and with a massive executive overturn recently isn't worth $60 billion? Unpossible!
/sarc
False. The labor force participation rate fell for the first 7 years of the Obama Administration, and has held steady since then. If people would re-enter the workforce the labor force participation rate would increase. It has not.
The DJIA took a big jump as soon as the election was over... Due mainly the belief the business climate and economy would improve...
Obama moved millions to permanently out of the workforce . The biggest way was via moving 2 million unemployed to permanent disability, which resulted in a nice shaving of unemployment by 3% or so.
That is also the exact reason that a Federal minimum wage makes zero sense. What is a living wage in McAllan, TX and Manhattan, NY? Radically different levels...
U definitions; U6 is most of the people who want to work but cannot find a job, cannot find a full time job (underemployment) and thus still need assistance, or who have given up.
ShadowStats also factors in those who have permanently left the work force but are still in the 19-64 age range. It's no secret that permanent disability and permanent Medicaid status have both exploded since 2008. ShadowStats factors those people into their own unemployment rate, as it appears the Federal Government moved a permanent segment of society from the unemployment rolls (U3 and U6) to "out of workforce" in an effort to lower the unemployment rate. Perhaps that's why the Labor Force Participation Rate is the lowest it's been in 40 years (note: labor force participation rate only includes those who are of working age, who are physically able to work, but are not actively working - it does not include retirees).
In Soviet Russia, no one laughs at irony because irony is normal...
If he was a Democrat party member who was going to reveal information, he'd just get a few bullets in the back and have it claimed to be a "robbery" where nothing was taken...
At least two documented (looking through the the first letters of States) cases where elections were overturned because of fraud. How many more do we need? What is the downside of stronger screening for voting? And why is that different from 2A rights?
There is another case, in Connecticut, where a non-citizen fraudulently voted, then later ran - and won - a seat in State Government. He was charged, tried, convicted, and removed from office. At least two elections overturned from fraudulent voting. How many more do you want?
The actual source is from the Heritage Foundation, and it lists names, crimes, and jurisdictions. Laziness is just an excuse to not face the fact, that voter fraud DOES happen, and in at least one case (Compton, CA - Mayor Bradley's re-election) the election results were overturned because of documented fraud.
So how much fraud do you want to allow? It's been proven to overturn at least one election, which would indicate it most likely influenced many others... How many fraudulent elections are acceptable to you?
Huh? Your answer makes no sense. You wanted proof of fraud - here it is. Apparently it's not enough. How would voters be disenfranchised by solving voter fraud? I assume those bastions of Conservatism, WI and MI, are terrible for requiring proof of ID at the voting booth, right?
How much fraud is acceptable to you?
How many fraudulent votes would you accept in a general election? And if you look at my link, 20 were from CA, and 20 were from IL - neither of which was a Trump State. And this is just a sampling, it is not a comprehensive list.
I love how the mantra was "vote fraud doesn't exist!" until it's proven otherwise - then it becomes "it's so little it doesn't matter".or "it's only an issue because Trump". So how much fraud is acceptable to you? How many illegal votes, how much disenfranchisement do you want to allow into the system? Do you now admit that vote fraud does occur?
So why do I have to pay for a firearm license (2A), but I have the right to a free voter card? Why do I have to pass a "test" to show basic competency in handling a firearm but I do not have to show even the first shred of evidence about any knowledge whatseover about civics? I assume since you're opposed to any and all costs related to proving citizenship, you would be open to free, unregistered purchase and carry of firearms without any license fees, and with no restriction regarding competency...
Yes, read the link. Duplicate votes. Ineligible (illegals!) voting, fraudulent use of absentee ballots. How much fraud do you want to accept? What is your limit for illegal, fraudulent votes?