4 ms·

I am not a lawyer, so this may be all incorrect and you certainly shouldn't rely on it as legal advice! The term you are looking for is "Patent exhaustion" whi

I am not a lawyer, so this may be all incorrect and you certainly shouldn't rely on it as legal advice! The term you are looking for is "Patent exhaustion" which is a system whereby the first person who makes the device incorporating the patent is on the hook to pay fees/royalties but then you can resell it and the person buying it doesn't have to pay the patent fees again, because they were "exhausted" in the first transaction. Imagine if you had to repay all the patent holders for stuff in a car when you bought it used. Not practical. Qualcom has created what they believe is a new system where they "forego" royalties from the person who makes the chip and instead charge the person who designs in the chip, in this case Apple. Apple continues to push the patent exhaustion angle saying they don't owe anything.

ksec 8y ago
>Apple continues to push the patent exhaustion angle saying they don't owe anything. Thanks for the pointer, will look it up when I have time. But is that what they are really pushing though? I don't seems to read anything in regards to this. Apple has a dispute with pricing, and whether it should be charged a flat rate instead of % of devices. But I don't see Apple trying to argue for patent exhaustion and Intel should be paying for it.
- Twisell 8y ago
  There is another lawsuit in which Apple and chipmakers are both plaintiffs against Qualcomm. But it’s overly complicated with cross appeal all over the place. It’ll probably end up with a settlement and this specific case should be seen as leverage for Qualcomm and nothing else. I don’t think an US iPhone ban could actually be enforced in forseable future.
  - tooltalk 8y ago
    I think you are referring to Apple and Apple's CMs (contract manufacturers) lawsuit against Qualcomm? These are really one single lawsuit orchestrated by Apple. The issue isn't overly complicated -- they are essentially refusing to pay Qualcomm licensing fees for their wireless patents on the ground that Qualcomm's licensing practice is in violation of antitrust laws. Thus, their claims rest heavily on the outcome of the FTC case.
- tooltalk 8y ago
  > Apple has a dispute with pricing, and whether it should be charged a flat rate instead of % of devices. No. Apple isn't saying it should be charged a "flat rate," but that a percentage rate should be based on the price of component, ie, modem, not system, ie, smartphone. According to documents/testimony revealed during the last trial, before the 4G license hike, Apple was on average paying $7.50 per device, but Apple "wanted" to pay $1.50 for Qualcomm's entire wireless portfolio, a bargain considering how much Apple had asked for a handful of frivolous utility/design patents from Samsung, around $7.0 for each patent per device. Again, it's common wireless industry practice embraced by wireless participants for decades now. Apple is way late to the game and is trying to change the rule of the game to maximize their bottom line. Apple's past legal challenge to change this has fallen flat, so this time around Apple is using the FTC as proxy to fight their battle. While Apple's hometown judge Koh surprisingly had given Apple an upper hand on this as JML (pretrial judgement as matter of law), this would be appealed and, many expect Koh's biased, flawed theory to be reversed. > I don't see Apple trying to argue for patent exhaustion and Intel should be paying for it. Apple has in fact been arguing "patent exhaustion" and that Intel should also be able to license at component-level, against the industry convention where royalties are collected at device/system level. Koh's decision was obviously in Apple's favor, but again this remains to be seen. Qualcomm is not going to take this lying down since this cuts into their most profitable licensing business.

ksec 8y ago

>Apple continues to push the patent exhaustion angle saying they don't owe anything. Thanks for the pointer, will look it up when I have time. But is that what they are really pushing though? I don't seems to read anything in regards to this. Apple has a dispute with pricing, and whether it should be charged a flat rate instead of % of devices. But I don't see Apple trying to argue for patent exhaustion and Intel should be paying for it.

Twisell 8y ago
There is another lawsuit in which Apple and chipmakers are both plaintiffs against Qualcomm. But it’s overly complicated with cross appeal all over the place. It’ll probably end up with a settlement and this specific case should be seen as leverage for Qualcomm and nothing else. I don’t think an US iPhone ban could actually be enforced in forseable future.
- tooltalk 8y ago
  I think you are referring to Apple and Apple's CMs (contract manufacturers) lawsuit against Qualcomm? These are really one single lawsuit orchestrated by Apple. The issue isn't overly complicated -- they are essentially refusing to pay Qualcomm licensing fees for their wireless patents on the ground that Qualcomm's licensing practice is in violation of antitrust laws. Thus, their claims rest heavily on the outcome of the FTC case.
tooltalk 8y ago
> Apple has a dispute with pricing, and whether it should be charged a flat rate instead of % of devices. No. Apple isn't saying it should be charged a "flat rate," but that a percentage rate should be based on the price of component, ie, modem, not system, ie, smartphone. According to documents/testimony revealed during the last trial, before the 4G license hike, Apple was on average paying $7.50 per device, but Apple "wanted" to pay $1.50 for Qualcomm's entire wireless portfolio, a bargain considering how much Apple had asked for a handful of frivolous utility/design patents from Samsung, around $7.0 for each patent per device. Again, it's common wireless industry practice embraced by wireless participants for decades now. Apple is way late to the game and is trying to change the rule of the game to maximize their bottom line. Apple's past legal challenge to change this has fallen flat, so this time around Apple is using the FTC as proxy to fight their battle. While Apple's hometown judge Koh surprisingly had given Apple an upper hand on this as JML (pretrial judgement as matter of law), this would be appealed and, many expect Koh's biased, flawed theory to be reversed. > I don't see Apple trying to argue for patent exhaustion and Intel should be paying for it. Apple has in fact been arguing "patent exhaustion" and that Intel should also be able to license at component-level, against the industry convention where royalties are collected at device/system level. Koh's decision was obviously in Apple's favor, but again this remains to be seen. Qualcomm is not going to take this lying down since this cuts into their most profitable licensing business.