Qualcomm says Apple is $7B behind in royalty payments
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
They are seeking a judgement based on the legal concept of patent exhaustion.
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S...
If Apple buys a cellular modem from Intel, for instance, and Intel has already paid Qualcomm to use their standards essential parents to manufacture those cell phone modems, then patent exhaustion holds that Qualcomm cannot force Intel's customers to pay to license those patents all over again.
Until a judge rules on this, you really can't say that Apple owes Qualcomm anywhere near that figure.
There is more information on the FOSS patent blog:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/10/patent-exhaustion-keeps-q...
Edit: I think this FOSS patent blog entry from last month does a better job of laying out the basic issues.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/09/apple-foxconn-et-al-want-...
(Paid by oracle) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120419070127103
(Paid by microsoft) http://techrights.org/2012/08/18/vile-lobbyist/
(Paid by apple? I can't find other/primary sources to back up this claim though it does seem likely.) https://mrpogson.com/2012/08/21/apples-paid-shillconsultant-...
(More examples of him being wrong) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120820111527257
Refuting legal arguments takes time and expertise I don't have. He's good at his job, and I have no knowledge about this case. So while I put no faith whatsoever in his analysis I can't tell you how it is wrong, and yes this is an ad hominem.
He was right, and even if at time everybody was mad because it hurt Android. I think this ruling was ultimately a good thing for FOSS.
He was also one of the first to criticize half-FOSS approach of Android. Whereas today everybody seems to regret that we still lack a popular real FOSS OS for smartphone.
One can only wonder now if Firefox OS or another could have superseeded Android should Google reinterpretation of Java copyright had been deemed unfair sooner.
PS: sorry for this long rant about your ad-hominem. Next time I’d better simply downvote.
You have to remember that Oracle mostly lost that case, and he was consistently predicting they would win. The copyright portion was a sideshow to the patent portion (originally) and only became a focus when they lost the patent side of things.
Either way, I appreciate the reply.
For those interested, there is still a possible supreme court appeal pending for the copyright side of the case. I'm not too familiar with supreme court scheduling but I think we should find out if cert is granted (the supreme court will hear the case) in March or April. Google files by January 25th, Oracle briefs in February (30 days after Google, though it's possible they will get an extension), Google files a reply brief (~10 days), then Cert review occurs. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/do...
The supreme court only grants cert in ~1% of cases, so assuming they deny cert this then goes back to the district judge for yet another trial on damages and probably new motions for attorney's fees. It wouldn't surprise me to find that one (or both) parties find something to appeal about that damages trial too.
This case started way back in 2010, the justice system moves very slowly...
Groklaw was not paid by IBM, court filing by IBM: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-621-E19.pdf
Groklaw was run by Pamela Jones, a paralegal. This can be verified by checking the footer on every page on Groklaw, or alternatively the above IBM court filing.
You will have to be more specific about your techrights complaints. I'm not aware of any issues with the site, but I admit that unlike Groklaw I do not have much knowledge about their integrity.
You can find many alternative sources saying that Mueller was paid by Microsoft (and also that Mueller was paid by Oracle), here is one: https://gigaom.com/2011/10/18/419-is-patent-expertblogger-fl...
However, unless my searching capabilities are failing (sorry, it's 170 pages), they nowhere claim that intel is paying qualcomm.
Instead, the only viable claim for exhaustion they really make is around exhaustion of patents in qualcomm chipsets bought by apple.
That is probably right. But not a significant amount of this money (if any, i didn't look what qualcomm claimed hard enough. I wouldn't put it past them but it would be stupid of them)
The majority of money is precisely about modems they buy from intel.
If intel was paying qualcomm, it would definitely appear in the response as an exhaustion argument I can't find it.
This is probably why bloomberg doesn't cite it - the exhaustion issues they do cite are a complete sideshow.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/bloomberg-reporters-compensa...
The businessinsider article dates from 2013 and I can't find a source discussing their current practices.
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/QCOM/6406790406x0x982...
Beginning in the third quarter of fiscal 2017, GAAP and Non-GAAP results have been negatively impacted by our dispute with Apple and its contract manufacturers (who are Qualcomm licensees). We did not record any QTL revenues in the first nine months of fiscal 2018 or the third or fourth quarter of fiscal 2017 for royalties due on sales of Apple’s products. We expect the actions taken by these companies will continue until these disputes are resolved. QTL revenues in the third quarter of fiscal 2018 included $500 million paid under an interim agreement with the other licensee in dispute (which dispute was previously disclosed). This represents a partial payment for royalties due after the second quarter of fiscal 2017 by that other licensee while negotiations continue. This payment does not reflect the full amount of royalties due under the underlying license agreement. We did not record any revenues from the third quarter of fiscal 2017 through the second quarter of fiscal 2018 for royalties due on the sales of the other licensee’s products. If we do not reach a final agreement with the other licensee, it may not make any other payments or may not make full payments under the underlying license agreement, which may result in increased legal costs and will negatively impact our GAAP and Non-GAAP results.
If Intel is manufacturing an Apple design as a contractor, Intel’s licenses don’t matter and it’s Apple who’s on the hook to pay royalties. If Apple is buying an off-the-shelf Intel product, it’s Intel’s licence terms that matter.
Otherwise would be like paying a sales tax at each transaction through the chain.
If only they would succeed!
In Samsung's case, only Samsung branded devices can have their LTE modem per the settlement with Qualcomm, and US bound phones always ship with a Qualcomm SoC (part of that whole home territory thing for Qualcomm).
Another affected group is Mediatek, they only recently got LTE support, and their ability to get chips with LTE is entirely controlled by Qualcomm. There is no competition in the modem space, which is absolutely appalling.
Anyway, one of their most litigated patents is as follows.
>In a data communication system capable of variable rate transmission, high rate packet data trans- mission improves utilization of the forward link and de- creases the transmission delay. Data transmission on the forward link is time multiplexed and the base station transmits at the highest data rate supported by the for- ward link at each time slot to one mobile station. The data rate is determined by the largest C/I measurement of the forward link signals as measured at the mobile station. Upon determination of a data packet received in error, the mobile station transmits a NACK message back to the base station. The NACK message results in retransmission of the data packet received in error. The data packets can be transmitted out of sequence by the use of sequence number to identify each data unit within the data packets.
That's the entire thing. No math, no "show your work". Just that paragraph.
In spite of this, Samsung has persisted in pushing forward their own LTE chipset, despite the significantly hobbled ROI caused by Qualcomm's actions on such a chipset.
Flagship Samsung handsets everywhere except the US and China ship with Exynos SOC.
Also, project treble is fixing soc fragmentation. Won't fix last gen, but is stopping the bleeding for current gen.
That would be a good day indeed.
Having said that, looking at Samsung, Mediatek, CEVA IPs, Intel Modem, so far it seems Qualcomm's baseband and IPs is actually quite value for money in terms of performance and cost.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/25/qualcomm-earnings-q3-2018.ht...
Everyone else is on the GSM, UMTS and LTE bandwagon.
For $7,000 you can use small claims and probably make it their problem. But the range where it's in your favor might be pretty small; they can afford a lot of lawyers.
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=thats%20the%20banks%20problem&...
I'm just giving a few more data points to show how in this situation it's extra biased toward Apple.
It's often quoted with a million and a billion and I think Apple has the advantage for both of those...
Not really. This isn't due to the fact that they forgot to send Apple a bill. Both parties have likely been negotiating this since day one, and both parties probably decided even then that it was better to continue doing business together despite this disagreement than cutting off ties. This lawsuit is just the next step in the negotiation process.
So it's very easy for Qualcomm to say "hey you owe us money" and for Apple to say "nuh uh" and then stall negotiations or legal proceedings for years.
If Qualcomm proves victorious in a lawsuit there I always appeals and at the same time Apple can argue down damages.
It's highly unlikely that Qualcomm would ever recoup the claimed amount or all of its legal fees.
Because of this most lawsuits alledge ridiculous damages so that when they're reduced they fall closer to what is actually owed.
Even if Intel is only making these chips because of Apple, the real test is whether or not Intel is offering these chips to other companies. I would be surprised if they weren’t, even if nobody else is actually buying them.
After all, if you’re a smaller player, why would you buy anything other then Qualcomm? It takes a big, assertive company like Apple to play these games.
Even if they are, I think that may not matter specifically for the Apple case. In that case, it likely matters whether Intel paid, and whether the contract outlined who was to pay. It's entirely possible for Intel to have been working thinking Apple was to pay that royalty since it was work for hire and to sell chips to other companies while paying the royalty themselves (if the contract allowed selling to others).
If Qualcomm is legally due some money, it will come from someone if it hasn't been paid (and it sounds like it hasn't). It may come down to a contract dispute between Intel and Apple, but I don't see that preventing Qualcomm from getting money in the end.
Existing Qualcomm shareholders would probably sue the heck out of them during the merger, and it would be difficult to close, raising the overall cost.
Apple wants to commoditize their complement to take the most profits for each finished device. This is why the quote from their lawyer is to not let Qualcomm walk away from Apple presenting a challenge to their patent legitimacy.
https://myapplenewton.blogspot.com/2013/01/qualcomm-newton-c...
Apple could then patent the Newton IP for Qualcomm to use and Qualcomm would pay Apple for it.
Parties can have exceptions and limitations to the rights from Berne, so it is not necessarily illegal in all of them, but I'd expect it is in a large fraction of them.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention#/media/File:B...
* you own the rights to,
* is in the public domain,
* constitutes fair use, or
* you have consent of the copyright holder."
They claim their site is for the above, and people can submit a notice to have content removed that doesn't fit that description. However, the reality is they want people to post and share content from other sites, and they'll happily remove their advertising, and add their own.
I searched site:outline.com on Google, because I wanted to see for myself what people are sharing, and if I might be mistaken. The first result was this article...
https://www.outline.com/vF4aGL
The source is The Free Thought Project. Hmm, I thought maybe this is some type of public domain news source, so I visit them. Nope, they're not. When I visited The Free Thought Project, I instantly get a popup saying, "Thanks to a coordinated attack on independent media by the establishment, this website is at risk of shutting down due to our ads being pulled and our social media pages entirely deleted. We need your help to survive, click below to see how you can make sure we stay around." This is the first Google result for an Outline article, and the company being stolen from has a popup that literally says they're struggling to stay afloat.
I haven't previously heard of Outline, but that is definitely a disgusting business model.
Q'comm is asserting that Apple isn't paying for utility patents.
Of course, they kept using the technology and product.
"... so we're going to keep using them. And not pay for them."