6 ms·

Why 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 infringin

Why 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 ago
From a cursory reading, Apple was found guilty based on their importation of infringing devices, under section 337 of the Tariff Act.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  I thought Intel technology is considered trade secret, how is the customer supposed to know?
  - monocasa 8y ago
    Apple probably had access to nearly all of Intel's IP on the matter, software source, RTL, etc
    - tooltalk 8y ago
      Apple doesn't have to know anything. You can also be liable if you sell, use, or somehow profit from infringed product.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gimmeThaBeet 8y ago
If 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.
- tooltalk 8y ago
  Yep. Most wireless SEP holders (Standard Essential Patent) don't license at component-level (ie, modem). They usually collect royalties at system-level with smartphone OEMs. That's more or less been accepted as de facto industry practice for decades. >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. Well, they are two separate issues.. If you are familiar with GT Advanced Tech or had any past experience working with Apple as a supplier, it's not difficult to see why Apple and Qualcomm are here. TLDR, Apple doesn't want to pay; claims Qualcomm is overcharging and Qualcomm is a monopoly. Apple is also known for making onerous demands to supplier for winning their iPhone order. In this case, Apple demanded Qualcomm's source code for their chipset and now Qualcomm alleges that Apple gave QC's trade secret to Intel, who is now Apple's baseband supplier.
baybal2 8y ago
It is the bizarre legal doctrine in that country that pretty much blesses patent owners doing that with the exact goal of enhancing patent owner earnings, and disruptive power.
gvb 8y ago
"Qualcomm’s business model, which is either ingenious or diabolical depending on whom you talk to, is to allow any chip company to use its technology royalty-free. Phone manufacturers can choose to buy chips from Qualcomm or one of the other five companies that make modems using Qualcomm’s technology. Either way, they (the phone manufacturers) still have to pay Qualcomm its 5 percent." Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-04/apple-and-qualcomm-s-billion-dollar-war-over-an-18-part https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-04/apple-and...
- ksec 8y ago
  And yet someone claimed that Qualcomm cannot receive patent license fees from manufacturers who use Qualcomm chips. “First up are the Return Program cartridges that Lexmark sold in the United States. We conclude that Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in these cartridges the moment it sold them. The single-use/no-resale restrictions in Lexmark's contracts with customers may have been clear and enforceable under contract law, but they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell.” Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1523, 1531 (2017) “First, Univis held that ‘the authorized sale of an article which is capable of use only in practicing the patent is a relinquishment of the patent monopoly with respect to the article sold.’ Id., at 249, 62 S.Ct. 1088. The lens blanks in Univis met this standard because they were ‘without utility until [they were] ground and polished as the finished lens of the patent.’ Ibid. Accordingly, ‘the only object of the sale [was] to enable the [finishing retailer] to grind and polish it for use as a lens by the prospective wearer.’ Ibid. Here, LGE has suggested no reasonable use for the Intel Products other than incorporating them into computer systems that practice the LGE Patents.[6] Nor can we discern one: A microprocessor or chipset cannot function until it is connected to buses and memory. And here, as in Univis, the only apparent object of Intel's sales to Quanta was to permit Quanta to incorporate the Intel Products into computers that would practice the patents.” Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, 128 S.Ct. 2109, 2119 (2008) I am no expert in law except Qualcomm cannot receive patent license fees from manufacturers who use Qualcomm chips just sounds utter non sense to me.
  - ChuckMcM 8y ago
writepub 8y ago
Why not? Remember Apple suing Samsung, other phone manufacturers instead of Google? For "pinch to zoom" type patents?
tooltalk 8y ago
Sure, it's the same reason why Apple sued Samsung for features built in Android by Google. I think it falls under "secondary infringement."
GeekyBear 8y ago
Apparently, the EU has started yet another preliminary antitrust investigation into Qualcomm's behavior over this. http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/09/qualcomm-facing-additional-preliminary.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/09/qualcomm-facing-additiona...

icebraining 8y ago

From a cursory reading, Apple was found guilty based on their importation of infringing devices, under section 337 of the Tariff Act.

TomMarius 8y ago
I thought Intel technology is considered trade secret, how is the customer supposed to know?
- monocasa 8y ago
  Apple probably had access to nearly all of Intel's IP on the matter, software source, RTL, etc
  - tooltalk 8y ago
    Apple doesn't have to know anything. You can also be liable if you sell, use, or somehow profit from infringed product.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gimmeThaBeet 8y ago

If 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.

tooltalk 8y ago
Yep. Most wireless SEP holders (Standard Essential Patent) don't license at component-level (ie, modem). They usually collect royalties at system-level with smartphone OEMs. That's more or less been accepted as de facto industry practice for decades. >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. Well, they are two separate issues.. If you are familiar with GT Advanced Tech or had any past experience working with Apple as a supplier, it's not difficult to see why Apple and Qualcomm are here. TLDR, Apple doesn't want to pay; claims Qualcomm is overcharging and Qualcomm is a monopoly. Apple is also known for making onerous demands to supplier for winning their iPhone order. In this case, Apple demanded Qualcomm's source code for their chipset and now Qualcomm alleges that Apple gave QC's trade secret to Intel, who is now Apple's baseband supplier.

baybal2 8y ago

It is the bizarre legal doctrine in that country that pretty much blesses patent owners doing that with the exact goal of enhancing patent owner earnings, and disruptive power.

gvb 8y ago

"Qualcomm’s business model, which is either ingenious or diabolical depending on whom you talk to, is to allow any chip company to use its technology royalty-free. Phone manufacturers can choose to buy chips from Qualcomm or one of the other five companies that make modems using Qualcomm’s technology. Either way, they (the phone manufacturers) still have to pay Qualcomm its 5 percent." Ref: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-04/apple-and-qualcomm-s-billion-dollar-war-over-an-18-part https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-04/apple-and...

ksec 8y ago
And yet someone claimed that Qualcomm cannot receive patent license fees from manufacturers who use Qualcomm chips. “First up are the Return Program cartridges that Lexmark sold in the United States. We conclude that Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in these cartridges the moment it sold them. The single-use/no-resale restrictions in Lexmark's contracts with customers may have been clear and enforceable under contract law, but they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell.” Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1523, 1531 (2017) “First, Univis held that ‘the authorized sale of an article which is capable of use only in practicing the patent is a relinquishment of the patent monopoly with respect to the article sold.’ Id., at 249, 62 S.Ct. 1088. The lens blanks in Univis met this standard because they were ‘without utility until [they were] ground and polished as the finished lens of the patent.’ Ibid. Accordingly, ‘the only object of the sale [was] to enable the [finishing retailer] to grind and polish it for use as a lens by the prospective wearer.’ Ibid. Here, LGE has suggested no reasonable use for the Intel Products other than incorporating them into computer systems that practice the LGE Patents.[6] Nor can we discern one: A microprocessor or chipset cannot function until it is connected to buses and memory. And here, as in Univis, the only apparent object of Intel's sales to Quanta was to permit Quanta to incorporate the Intel Products into computers that would practice the patents.” Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, 128 S.Ct. 2109, 2119 (2008) I am no expert in law except Qualcomm cannot receive patent license fees from manufacturers who use Qualcomm chips just sounds utter non sense to me.
- ChuckMcM 8y ago

writepub 8y ago

Why not? Remember Apple suing Samsung, other phone manufacturers instead of Google? For "pinch to zoom" type patents?

tooltalk 8y ago

Sure, it's the same reason why Apple sued Samsung for features built in Android by Google. I think it falls under "secondary infringement."

GeekyBear 8y ago

Apparently, the EU has started yet another preliminary antitrust investigation into Qualcomm's behavior over this. http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/09/qualcomm-facing-additional-preliminary.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/09/qualcomm-facing-additiona...