6 ms·

Interesting 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

Interesting 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 ago
Qualcomm 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 ago
  Apple already 100% replaced them. Every 2018 model has Intel modems.
  - andy_ppp 8y ago
    Seems to be super coincidental doesn’t it...
    - bunnycorn 8y ago
      It's not, Qualcomm is suing Apple because Apple dropped them. They have nothing to lose now.
  - usrusr 8y ago
    I 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.
    - bunnycorn 8y ago
      Apple is still selling them in Germany, the article looks like it's final, but it's not.
- ksec 8y ago
  You can only replace them in hardware terms. Apple will still need to pay Qualcomm in 2G-5G patents fees, as well as all other patents Qualcomm holds, from Graphics, Power Management, DSP, etc etc. Of Course the reverse is also true that there is a high probability Qualcomm would have also infringe on certain Apple's patents. Most customer already has a deal in place with Qualcomm or are using Qualcomm SoC. The only one who could try to have a go against Qualcomm would be Samsung and Huawei. Both seems to have a decent relationship with Qualcomm, for now.
  - stefan_ 8y ago
    The reason for this entire conflict is Qualcomm asking for a percentage royalty of the entire device. When you use an Intel radio, sure Intel needs to license the 2G-5G patents, but those are FRAND, and no legal interpretation in the world would ever entitle Qualcomm to a percentage of an iPhone using an Intel radio.
    - ksec 8y ago
      A lot of people thinks it is the percentage that is the problem. It Is not. Ericsson, Nokia, ZTE, LG, Samsung, Huawei along with a few others all charges percentage of Phone for their Royalty ( Or at least it used to be ). I can guarantee you Apple would have no problem with Qualcomm if the percentage were only 0.1%. And it is not like Intel has already paid any license fo 2G-5G patents to Qualcomm ( They haven't ), and Qualcomm recollect another set of license fees from Apple ( Or more accurately from Foxconn ).
stefan_ 8y ago
This press release doesn't mention that Qualcomm had to raise 674 million euro in case it's infringement case here ends up losing, money that is forfeited to Apple.
- guitarbill 8y ago
  Ah, good spot. They do allude to this: > The injunction is effective as soon as Qualcomm posts the required bonds Makes more sense, but still not sure what advantages this approach brings. I guess Apple could then come to some agreement with Qualcomm to lift the injunction, but it's still a brutal penalty unless Qualcomm has to license the patent at a reasonable price
cmalmberg23 8y ago
Unlike in the United States, an injunction is the standard remedy in a patent infringement action in Germany. The idea is that Apple (the enjoined party) could subsequently negotiate a royalty with Qualcomm if it wished to have the injunction lifted. The United States has moved away from this approach on public interest grounds (i.e., that it would not make sense to prevent the public from buying certain Apple products if those sales aren't preventing Qualcomm from selling its own competing products).
- lucb1e 8y ago
  > it would not make sense to prevent the public from buying certain Apple products if those sales aren't preventing Qualcomm from selling its own competing products I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Wouldn't, by the same reasoning, the whole patent system be useless? If Q has a patent and A sells a competing product that infringes on that patent, it doesn't make sense to stop A from selling that product because Q can still sell their product? Isn't that exactly what a patent is about: stopping competition (who might not have had to do all the R&D, since you published your patent with information on how to perform the feat) from selling competing products?
  - singlow 8y ago
    The key might be whether it is competing. If A sells a product that does not compete with Q or Q's licensees then the damages can be allowed to pile up if A chooses to continue selling and hope that it wins on appeal. An injunction can still be issued if it prevents additional damages which might not be reparable by the final judgement or settlement. As the plaintiff I may even prefer this, if the defendent has big pockets.
  - kelnos 8y ago
    I think the idea is that if the court decides that Qualcomm isn't enduring any immediate financial harm, then there's no need for an immediate remedy (like an injunction). Instead, they'd just let the civil court case proceed, and either it'll be settled out of court (with Apple paying Qualcomm some amount of money to cover existing sales, plus agreeing to a licensing deal for future sales) or they duke it out in court, where (if Qualcomm prevails) Apple is forced by the court to pay some sort of judgment.
ABCLAW 8y ago
I think the more interesting part is that Apple applied for a stay pending appeal and were denied. I'm probably going to need to read the reasons directly to figure out how Qualcomm managed to get that done.
- gmueckl 8y ago
  As far as I understand it, this is a temporary injunction. These are granted by weighing the damage that would be done to the plaintiff without it against the damage that would be done to the defendant if it were wrongly granted for the duration of the actual proceedings.
  - ABCLAW 8y ago
    Normally injunctive relief of this type is awarded in the event that there is irreperable harm, but Qualcomm could be compensated by a per-unit license fee + penalty damage award on sold infringing items. That's why I'm surprised. Still haven't had time to look at the reasons, though. Travelling for the holiday so I'm a bit behind.
    - gmueckl 8y ago
      I think that German courts are much quicker to to grant injunctions than e.g. the US.

andy_ppp 8y ago

Qualcomm 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 ago
Apple already 100% replaced them. Every 2018 model has Intel modems.
- andy_ppp 8y ago
  Seems to be super coincidental doesn’t it...
  - bunnycorn 8y ago
    It's not, Qualcomm is suing Apple because Apple dropped them. They have nothing to lose now.
- usrusr 8y ago
  I 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.
  - bunnycorn 8y ago
    Apple is still selling them in Germany, the article looks like it's final, but it's not.
ksec 8y ago
You can only replace them in hardware terms. Apple will still need to pay Qualcomm in 2G-5G patents fees, as well as all other patents Qualcomm holds, from Graphics, Power Management, DSP, etc etc. Of Course the reverse is also true that there is a high probability Qualcomm would have also infringe on certain Apple's patents. Most customer already has a deal in place with Qualcomm or are using Qualcomm SoC. The only one who could try to have a go against Qualcomm would be Samsung and Huawei. Both seems to have a decent relationship with Qualcomm, for now.
- stefan_ 8y ago
  The reason for this entire conflict is Qualcomm asking for a percentage royalty of the entire device. When you use an Intel radio, sure Intel needs to license the 2G-5G patents, but those are FRAND, and no legal interpretation in the world would ever entitle Qualcomm to a percentage of an iPhone using an Intel radio.
  - ksec 8y ago
    A lot of people thinks it is the percentage that is the problem. It Is not. Ericsson, Nokia, ZTE, LG, Samsung, Huawei along with a few others all charges percentage of Phone for their Royalty ( Or at least it used to be ). I can guarantee you Apple would have no problem with Qualcomm if the percentage were only 0.1%. And it is not like Intel has already paid any license fo 2G-5G patents to Qualcomm ( They haven't ), and Qualcomm recollect another set of license fees from Apple ( Or more accurately from Foxconn ).

stefan_ 8y ago

This press release doesn't mention that Qualcomm had to raise 674 million euro in case it's infringement case here ends up losing, money that is forfeited to Apple.

guitarbill 8y ago
Ah, good spot. They do allude to this: > The injunction is effective as soon as Qualcomm posts the required bonds Makes more sense, but still not sure what advantages this approach brings. I guess Apple could then come to some agreement with Qualcomm to lift the injunction, but it's still a brutal penalty unless Qualcomm has to license the patent at a reasonable price

cmalmberg23 8y ago

Unlike in the United States, an injunction is the standard remedy in a patent infringement action in Germany. The idea is that Apple (the enjoined party) could subsequently negotiate a royalty with Qualcomm if it wished to have the injunction lifted. The United States has moved away from this approach on public interest grounds (i.e., that it would not make sense to prevent the public from buying certain Apple products if those sales aren't preventing Qualcomm from selling its own competing products).

lucb1e 8y ago
> it would not make sense to prevent the public from buying certain Apple products if those sales aren't preventing Qualcomm from selling its own competing products I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Wouldn't, by the same reasoning, the whole patent system be useless? If Q has a patent and A sells a competing product that infringes on that patent, it doesn't make sense to stop A from selling that product because Q can still sell their product? Isn't that exactly what a patent is about: stopping competition (who might not have had to do all the R&D, since you published your patent with information on how to perform the feat) from selling competing products?
- singlow 8y ago
  The key might be whether it is competing. If A sells a product that does not compete with Q or Q's licensees then the damages can be allowed to pile up if A chooses to continue selling and hope that it wins on appeal. An injunction can still be issued if it prevents additional damages which might not be reparable by the final judgement or settlement. As the plaintiff I may even prefer this, if the defendent has big pockets.
- kelnos 8y ago
  I think the idea is that if the court decides that Qualcomm isn't enduring any immediate financial harm, then there's no need for an immediate remedy (like an injunction). Instead, they'd just let the civil court case proceed, and either it'll be settled out of court (with Apple paying Qualcomm some amount of money to cover existing sales, plus agreeing to a licensing deal for future sales) or they duke it out in court, where (if Qualcomm prevails) Apple is forced by the court to pay some sort of judgment.

ABCLAW 8y ago

I think the more interesting part is that Apple applied for a stay pending appeal and were denied. I'm probably going to need to read the reasons directly to figure out how Qualcomm managed to get that done.

gmueckl 8y ago
As far as I understand it, this is a temporary injunction. These are granted by weighing the damage that would be done to the plaintiff without it against the damage that would be done to the defendant if it were wrongly granted for the duration of the actual proceedings.
- ABCLAW 8y ago
  Normally injunctive relief of this type is awarded in the event that there is irreperable harm, but Qualcomm could be compensated by a per-unit license fee + penalty damage award on sold infringing items. That's why I'm surprised. Still haven't had time to look at the reasons, though. Travelling for the holiday so I'm a bit behind.
  - gmueckl 8y ago
    I think that German courts are much quicker to to grant injunctions than e.g. the US.