8 ms·
Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends global wins
- porpoisely 8y agoFirst china. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18648042 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18648042 Now Germany. Looks like the execs at qualcomm are going to have a nice christmas.
- wyldfire 8y agoIt's just leverage to get Apple to settle without waiting for next year's trial(s). Just like the Avago LBO was leverage to force Qualcomm to settle on Apple's terms.
- berbec 8y agoExcept for the fact that no current model Apple devices use their chip...
- 1nverseMtx 8y agoAnd the China ban is not actually about the chip in use but some software feature in older OSs
- dep_b 8y agoActually suing Apple about the stuff they have a conflict over is lethal as they're doomed if they lose a trial over it and their position isn't that secure since they're already getting sued all over the place for their tactics around wireless patents.
- l4u532 8y agoThat’s big
- floatingatoll 8y agoIs there a link to the judgement, or at the very least a link to anywhere but Apple and Qualcomm’s press release websites? EDIT: Post updated to a better link, thanks mods!
- yorwba 8y agoIt's not yet public apparently, but might eventually appear at either https://dejure.org/2018,42849 https://dejure.org/2018,42849 or https://dejure.org/2018,42797 https://dejure.org/2018,42797 or maybe both.
- detaro 8y agoDon't think the judgement is released yet. Here's the (obviously German) press release of the court: https://www.justiz.bayern.de/gerichte-und-behoerden/landgericht/muenchen-1/presse/2018/9php%2E https://www.justiz.bayern.de/gerichte-und-behoerden/landgeri...
- xxpor 8y agoWell this seems important (google translated, so take with a grain of salt): >Rather, for procedural reasons, the board had to base its decision on the fact that the chip works as the claimant asserts (see section "Background" in this press release). Therefore, in the opinion of the Chamber, no witnesses were allowed to be heard who had been brought by the defendant on the last date - without charge of the court - nor was the Chamber allowed to examine the schematics of the attacked chip. It sounds like due to the law in Germany, they HAD to assume that Qualcomm was correct in their assessment of the situation. The court didn't actually find in fact that there was infringement.
- yorwba 8y agoThey had to assume Qualcomm to be correct, because Apple refused to explain exactly how Qualcomm was wrong. If one side makes detailed accusations, the other side has to refute them in equal detail. (That's explained in II)
- _pmf_ 8y ago"You're not in California anymore, Timmy!"
- sschueller 8y agoDoes that mean no iphones can be sold in all of Germany effective immediately?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- TrainedMonkey 8y agoDoes not look like this is immediate: "The injunction is effective as soon as Qualcomm posts the required bonds which will be completed within a few days."
- ABCLAW 8y agoNo, Qualcomm needs to post money for bonds so that if the ruling is overturned on appeal, they have funds locked away to compensate Apple. NB: the case does not deal with all IPhones, so a segment of the product line will still be vendible.
- wyldfire 8y agoFrom [1]: > Apple says it will stop selling the iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 at its stores in Germany. But all iPhone models will be available at third-party retailers in the country. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/20/qualcomm-reportedly-wins-injunction-against-apple-in-munich.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/20/qualcomm-reportedly-wins-inj...
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- jasonwen 8y agoThis only relates to iPhone 7 and 8 models, not iPhone XR and XS.
- orev 8y agoOnly because the X models did not exist when the motion was originally filed, not because they don’t infringe.
- abakker 8y agoI think it is because the newer phones all use intel modems.
- yorwba 8y ago7plus, 7, 8, 8plus and X; according to the court's press release linked by detaro https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18729430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18729430
- guitarbill 8y agoInteresting to see they went for an injuction (and were granted one), considering Qualcomm doesn't directly make a competing product. Does anybody know why the courts would do this, instead of allowing the sale, but requring Apple to pay a cut of every future phone sold + infrigemenr damages? Surely based on other devices using this Qualcomm tech, it would be possible to determine how much the patent when licensed is worth? (edit: I know there's no love lost between Apple and Qualcomm, but this seems like another way patents can be weaponised way beyond the scope of protecting innovation)
- andy_ppp 8y agoQualcomm presumably know Apple are intending to completely replace them soon then; I’m pretty sure this sort of action will prove to be very bad for Qualcomm - if you are willing to sue Apple no customer is safe!
- bunnycorn 8y agoApple already 100% replaced them. Every 2018 model has Intel modems.
- andy_ppp 8y agoSeems to be super coincidental doesn’t it...
- bunnycorn 8y agoIt's not, Qualcomm is suing Apple because Apple dropped them. They have nothing to lose now.
- usrusr 8y agoI wonder how many would-be customers of the affected phones are now self-upselling to a younger, more expensive model. This could be surprisingly painless for Apple. Lure people into stores with relatively cheap offers, then declare them unavailable: if they did the same thing without Qualcommm's involvement, it would be an illegal sales tactic.
- lambda 8y agoYikes. There's a story from Reuters with more detail and more balanced coverage than this press release from Qualcomm: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm-court/german-court-rules-apple-infringed-qualcomm-patent-idUSKCN1OJ1RJ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm-court/germ... Apparently, there have been rulings in the US that Apple and Qorvo (supplier of the modem chip in question) hadn't violated this same hardware patent, based on a detailed technical analysis. So there's a chance that this ruling could be overturned on similar grounds in Germany, hence the bond that Qualcomm has to pay against possible damages. For anyone curious who isn't likely to need to avoid knowing infringement, I think this is the patent in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2724461B1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2724461B1/en
- sctb 8y agoThanks, we've updated the link from https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2018/12/20/qualcomm-granted-permanent-injunction-against-apple-germany https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2018/12/20/qualcomm-g....
- notacoward 8y agoOh yeah, that Apple, the most ethical tech company in the universe according to Tim Cook. Maybe time to get off that high horse, Tim.
- debt 8y agoWhat's a permanent injunction?
- orliesaurus 8y agobasically saying that Apple has to refrain from certain activities: in this case, selling certain iPhones in GER
- tareqak 8y agoSame story from CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/20/qualcomm-reportedly-wins-injunction-against-apple-in-munich.html https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/20/qualcomm-reportedly-wins-inj...
- openloop 8y agoThis is horseshit.
- openloop 8y agoThis is oracle v google all over again.
- detaro 8y agoInteresting notes: Qualcomm has to place 668.4 million € (or maybe double that!) in bond to enforce the injunction (technically there's two separate cases, each with this bond amount, I haven't quite figured out if they actually need to pay both to be effective), which is to ensure money is available to pay damages to Apple if higher courts reverse the decision. Also, Qualcomm made claims about how the Apple devices work based on their own reverse engineering efforts. Apple claimed those are wrong, but declined to provide enough evidence substantiating that (saying that their supplier had a higher interest in keeping the details secret, so they couldn't reveal them to the court), which is why they lost.
- fipple 8y agoInteresting. So one could identify areas of a product that a company needs to keep secret, and sue for patent infringement saying your reverse engineering shows they are infringing.
- tomelders 8y agoIt would appear so... but in this case it will cost you about six hundred billion dollars if you're just trying your luck. I suspect Qualcomm genuinely believe they have a case. But I wouldn't bet against Apple being genuinely innocent.
- sneakernets 8y agoI don't think Qualcomm will ultimately win in Germany, but in China? Most definitely. What better way for China to flex on the US than to stick it to one of the top 5 US companies? Think of it as a tit-for-tat when it comes to Huawei.
- kccqzy 8y agoBoth Qualcomm and Apple are US companies, so I don't get your point.
- sneakernets 8y agoSure, but Qualcomm doesn't have the "mindshare" that Apple does. If Qualcomm were bigger than Apple, they'd just use Apple to swipe at Qualcomm. That's because Qualcomm and Apple aren't the intended targets. The US is the target.
- bunnycorn 8y agoEven in China, Apple is still selling all the models.
- Rexxar 8y agoBan US company's product from China help local producers even if it is an other US company who demand it.
- karmasimida 8y agoQualcomm is blackmailing Apple it seems like.
- sdan 8y agoSo Apple is going to start making their own cellular chips?
- e1ven 8y agoThey're working with Intel. Although if they really wanted to clean this up they have the cash on hand to buy Qualcomm.
- sjwright 8y agoI doubt Apple would be able to complete that sale without antitrust laws kicking back hard. Qualcomm is an exclusive supplier to most of Apple’s phone competitors.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- e1ven 8y agoGreat point, I wasn't thinking about that. Thanks!
- sjwright 8y agoThat said, if they were especially clever they could engineer a buyout where a neutral party like Broadcom gets the company and Apple gets the patent portfolio—which would represent the overwhelming majority of Qualcomm's market value.
- cronix 8y agoPossibly, eventually. For now (2018 models), they're using Intel modems, which is why the injunction only affects previous models and not 2018. https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/25/17614930/apple-iphone-2018-intel-cellular-modems-qualcomm-legal-dispute https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/25/17614930/apple-iphone-201...
- tooltalk 8y ago
- cronix 8y ago> Stacy Rasgon, an analyst with research firm Bernstein, said in a note that Germnany was a small iPhone market for Apple, selling about 10 million units a year, with possibly only half of those being the older models affected by the court’s order. Germnany? Nice one, Reuters. Try proofreading instead of totally relying on spell-check.
- ineedasername 8y agoIt seems strange to impose an injunction, but make Qualcomm pay bond for potential damages if this gets overturned. They're recognizing the potential for this be overturned, and that it's damaging to Apple. Why not reserve the injunction while the appeal makes its way through the system? If Qualcomm continues to prevail, revenue Apple generated during the continued infringement would simply be factored into the final damages awarded to Qualcomm. The other way seems unnecessarily complicated, but I'd love to hear the counter argument.
- btian 8y agoMaybe the court feels there's a good chance for the verdict to not be overturned, since the supposedly infringing products were designed before Apple switched to Intel modems.
- _Codemonkeyism 8y ago$760M bond is mind blowing.