12 ms·
Apple Violated Qualcomm Patent, U.S. Trade Judge Rules
- spocklivelong 8y agoIt looks like outline does not support this article. This is probably the first time I've seen that.
- enobrev 8y agoI noticed the same with a different wsj link earlier this morning
- cco 8y agoWSJ must have rolled out some new counter measures recently, haven't seen outline work on WSJ this week.
- dwdz 8y agoBrowser extensions like "Read FT and WSJ" do not work either.
- krastanov 8y agoI have always found it somewhat questionable to use a service like outline for paid content... I am very much against DRM services, but DRM-free advocacy efforts are hampered by people flocking to services like outline instead of paying for the content they want to consume (and content creators are pushed to embrace consumer-hostile DRM measures as well).
- MagicPropmaker 8y agoApparently this upstanding moral armchair-lawyer on Hacker News wants to comment on an IP theft case by stealing intellectual property! (I'm with you. I pay for my WSJ and don't complain about commercial news sources I don't pay for.)
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- spocklivelong 8y agoI'm not complaining about anything. All I stated is outline does not work with WSJ. I find it hard that WSJ charges $38.99/month[1], while I hardly read 5-10 articles a month? I would like to see some sort of pay-per-use or aggregated new service that I can subscribe to. [1]: https://store.wsj.com/v2/US/US/1110600005 https://store.wsj.com/v2/US/US/1110600005
- rudedogg 8y agoAnother source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-26/apple-infringes-qualcomm-patent-judge-recommends-iphone-ban https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-26/apple-inf...
- dang 8y agoWe changed the URL to that from https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-violated-qualcomm-patent-u-s-trade-judge-rules-11553624866 https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-violated-qualcomm-patent-..., since WSJ appears now to be behind a paywall without workarounds. (Per https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989.)
- rudedogg 8y agoWhy is Qualcomm suing Apple instead of Intel? The article makes it sound like Apple switched to using Intel chips due to the license fees. If Intel is infringing, wouldn't they be responsible? Or does the law allow you to go after "customers"?
- icebraining 8y agoFrom a cursory reading, Apple was found guilty based on their importation of infringing devices, under section 337 of the Tariff Act.
- TomMarius 8y agoI thought Intel technology is considered trade secret, how is the customer supposed to know?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gimmeThaBeet 8y agoIf I'm not mistaken, Qualcomm usually licenses with the handset maker, and not necessarily with the component companies in the case of mobile phones? My understanding was that Qualcomm is going after Apple because they think Apple is sort of the principal infringer, i.e. they gave Intel access to the infringing IP. But I don't know, maybe they just pursuit all parties in the name of thoroughness.
- foobarbazetc 8y ago1/3. Eh. Now they know what to work around.
- oflannabhra 8y agoI follow Florian Mueller (@FOSSPatents) for his take on most of the Qualcomm v Apple litigation (including the recent FTC antitrust case). He seems to be somewhat anti-Qualcomm (although that might just be based on his perception of their likelihood of winning). His take: [0] > ITC judge disagrees with ITC staff, sides with Qualcomm against Apple: one patent held infringed, import ban recommended; but patent likely invalid > Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) MaryJoan McNamara just announced an initial determination ("initial" means the parties can seek a Commission review, and a final ruling is still four months off) according to which Apple is deemed to infringe one of three Qualcomm patents-in-suit... In my observation, decisions by ITC judges that run counter to staff recommendations are virtually certain to be reviewed and more likely than others to be reversed. Also, the patent is for "multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors" and is currently being reviewed by the USPTO for validity. [0] - http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/03/itc-judge-disagrees-with-itc-staff.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/03/itc-judge-disagrees-with-...
- neya 8y agoFlorian Mueller is very anti-Google and pro-Apple and has been since the last decade throughout the infamous era of "war against android" by Steve Jobs - Samsung vs Apple, Apple vs HTC, Apple vs Google, Oracle vs Google and many others.
- dkonofalski 8y agoAlthough I'm also pro-Apple in most of these scenarios, I just think he appears pro-Apple and anti-Google because he has a better understanding of the situations than most laypeople. Most people who don't have a deep understanding of the topic at hand, for example, think that the Apple vs. Samsung case came down to "Apple patented rounded corners" whereas the reality is that Samsung literally had a guidebook of things they set out to copy from the iPhone and one of those were the rounded corners on the devices which was covered in Apple's design patent for the iPhone.
- geodel 8y agoI don't think he had better understanding. He was making big claims about how Oracle is going to win billions in Oracle vs Google patent case. And then all Oracle patents went doing the drain. He seems to have knowledge of court procedures than the knowledge of actual cases where he appears either biased or incompetent. I don't know which is worse.
- bgee 8y agoNews from December: China court bans sales of older iPhone models in Apple-Qualcomm global battle https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qualcomm-apple/china-court-bans-sales-of-older-iphone-models-in-apple-qualcomm-global-battle-idUSKBN1O91LD https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qualcomm-apple/china-cour...
- rl3 8y agoThe patent in question is for "Multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors, and it sounds ridiculous on the face of it. Upon cursory glance, that appears to be the case.[0] It's kind of surreal that two large tech companies who design and produce technology of staggering complexity are in a dispute over something so simple. [0] https://patents.google.com/patent/US8063674B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US8063674B2/en
- tyingq 8y agoOh, geez. It really does look like a patent for (paraphrased): A method for reducing power consumption by detecting a power-on of a second supply voltage while a first supply voltage is already on and adjusting current draw from the first supply as a result
- marshray 8y agoIn my 1972 Ford Maverick, I could turn on the headlights and the lighting in the interior console would adjust accordingly.
- herniatedeel 8y agoBoth the patent and the finding of patent infringement are a bit more complicated than that. In order for a finding of patent infringement, one or more claims of the patent must be infringed. Claim 1 recites: A multiple supply voltage device comprising: a core network operative at a first supply voltage; and a control network coupled to said core network wherein said control network is configured to transmit a control signal, said control network comprising: an up/down (up/down) detector configured to detect a power state of said core network; processing circuitry coupled to said up/down detector and configured to generate said control signal based on said power state; one or more feedback circuits coupled to said up/down detector, said one or more feedback circuits configured to provide feedback signals to adjust a current capacity of said up/down detector; at least one first transistor coupled to a second supply voltage, the at least one more first transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered down and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered on; at least one second transistor coupled in series with the at least one first transistor and coupled to said first supply voltage, the at least one second transistor being configured to switch on when said first supply voltage is powered on and to switch off when said first supply voltage is powered down; at least one third transistor coupled in series between the at least one first transistor and the at least one second transistor.
- gesman 8y agoGood times to be a lawyer.