Qualcomm wins preliminary China import ruling against some iPhone models | Hacker News Reader

Qualcomm wins preliminary China import ruling against some iPhone models

reuters.com

126 pointstooltalk72 comments

So in some recent version of ios 12, Apple changed the way they resize photos and manage applications on screen to get around Qualcomm's patents.

It would be fascinating to see just what features on which devices are missing due to patents as opposed to the manufacturer not wanting to do it. Sure, most of the time the features can be designed in a non-infringing way, but that takes additional resources that might make the feature have a worse cost-benefit to some other less user-friendly feature.

At this point, it's really hard to see the public benefit of these types of software patents.

That same argument could be levied against all patents more generally, and as a result, I don't think it really helps the anti-software-patent cause. Physical patents have been licensed for this reason (to avoid the r&d of alternative methods) since nearly the advent of patents.

The hard thing in software is not idea, but execution.

Patents that patent trivial ideas are nothing but roadblocks.

Edit: There are some ideas in software that were non-obvious. Algorithms and protocols. Those might make sense to be patent-able.

Algorithms should be the least patenable as math is explicitly not granted patent protections.

Neither should be protocols; it is easy to come up with a new one, all that patenting one does is to prevent interoperability.

I thought math was explicitly not patentable

Yep, that's what monocasa means.

> The hard thing in software is not idea, but execution.

It depends entirely on the software. I spent much of my career as an engineer developing software for SDRs. E.g. I spent the better part of a summer doing Matlab simulations to figure out how you can get a network of frequency agile SDRs to quickly converge onto the same radio channel when they start up, where the spectrum environment is unknown a priori and the radios cannot communicate with each other without being on the same channel. Figuring out what code to write (which involves a lot of theory and math) is the hard part. Once you figure that out, the rest is just coding.

Another area is protocols, where the "idea" is more important than any given implementation. Inventing TCP/IP (and verifying it works) is harder than implementing TCP/IP. Of course, just because you give away the idea doesn't mean nobody has to pay for it. In the case of TCP/IP, the U.S. military paid for it. In the case of its conceptual successors (QUIC), advertising is paying for it. Without software patents those are your two main avenues for bankrolling protocols. I think at least the second one is inferior compared to a model based on patent protection, like MPEG or h.264.

> how you can get a network of frequency agile SDRs to quickly converge onto the same radio channel when they start up

Can you share the outcome?

The thing that's legally meant to be patentable is the execution, not the idea. The thing is in a lot of cases, the execution isn't the hard part:

Given an e-commerse website having a database full of user accounts that includes their shipping address and credit card information, implement one-click ordering.

Given a capacitive touchscreen and UI framework for interacting with it, implement slide-to-unlock.

A programmer competent in the use of the relevant technologies can easily implement these requests, and will probably come up with a solution similar to those employed by Amazon and Apple, respectively. That one-click ordering on an e-commerce site was a good idea was actually novel, but there isn't a form of IP protection that's intended to cover mere ideas that are demonstrated publicly.

Are patent holder obliged to license a patent?

In some situations yes, but generally no.

Software is unique though in that it can be covered by both patents and copyright. Maybe copyright alone would suffice.

You're missing the point by actually arguing the merits of the case, the ruling is in China. Politbuto decides the "Court" cases. USA messed with Huawei, China answered. Popcorn

> So in some recent version of ios 12, Apple changed the way they resize photos and manage applications on screen to get around Qualcomm's patents.

How did they change it?

This type of behavior is common in the watch industry. Many newer movements are needlessly inefficient to prevent patent infringement. In practice this rarely matters, the efficiency/performance, size and cost to service are all relatively unimportant. A more complicated movement is often preferable.

"The court found Apple violated two of Qualcomm’s software patents around resizing photographs and managing applications on a touch screen."

Well, that's not exactly the victory they wanted, but I think Qualcomm will take anything they can get at this point.

It's just one front among many in their battle. The idea is to make things difficult for Apple.

It's the same type of patent Apple used against Samsung in US, so it's not like they're an innocent party in this dance.

I'm not saying they are (these type of patents suck), I'm just commenting on the fact that Qualcomm really want's a court ruling on LTE modems. They want to force Apple back to the negotiating table, and IMO this ruling isn't enough.

2 wrongs don't make a right. Although the "swipe to unlock" patent case was ridiculous.

The most important thing is that it made into the headlines that and drove the AAPL stock down, and the QCOM stock up.

- "Chinese Court Says Apple Infringed on Qualcomm Patents" New York times

- "Apple Hit With Sales Ban on Older iPhones in China" Wall Street Journal

- "China bans most iPhone sales after granting Qualcomm an injunction against Apple" CNN

- "Apple Banned From China As A Result Of Battle With Qualcomm" Forbes

- "Qualcomm Says It Won Case Banning Sale of Older iPhones in China" Bloomberg

It's plain ridiculous and shows how much the press cares about the truth and how much Qualcomm and others are paying them to write misleading crap like that.

In theory, Qualcomm banned iPhone sales in China.

In practice, no. All phones that Apple is selling have the latest iOS 12, so it's plain wrong that they banned the sale of a single iPhone, old or new.

Does anyone know if there is a software license that bans software patents? So for example if a large majority of open source projects adopted it on sites like GitHub, especially at the OS level, it would begin to squeeze out patented software. Maybe a clause for the ban could be added to the next version of the most commonly used software licenses.

My personal feeling on software patents is that nearly all algorithms have an optimal solution and that nearly everyone will arrive at those solutions with a little elbow grease. So software patents stifle innovation rather than encourage it. The worst part is that anyone, anywhere, can be put out of business or tied up in court indefinitely by software patents (so they represent an infinite risk to any business). The same is true for all information technologies like genetics and pharmaceuticals. In fact I would go as far as to say that the number one danger facing machine learning and artificial intelligence (and work towards a general solution to the problems facing humanity) is software patents.

I don't expect large corporations to make much progress in banning software patents, even when their failure to do so hurts their bottom lines like in this case with Apple and Qualcomm. The most we could hope for is a giant like Google to get such a large patent arsenal that they could act like a shield for member developers (via the threat of mutually assured destruction), or to reduce patent durations to something reasonable like 2-5 years.

I don't want to start a flame war, but what are the holes in my logic above? Is this something that can be hacked or will it require years of political and legal battles? Do globalization and multinational issues make the situation hopeless?

Apache 2.0 is pretty good. If the licensee sues for any patent infringement they loose all Apache 2.0 licenses in that product. But it is hard to defend against trolls that are not shipping any code themselves.

Thanks I didn't know that. For those interested, here are the top 5 results I found from searching "apache 2 license software patent" on duckduckgo.com:

https://opensource.com/article/18/2/how-make-sense-apache-2-...

https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1881/against-...

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences...

https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html

http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-faq.html

Edit: looks like Apache 2 is compatible with GPLv3 but only in one direction. So if an Apache 2 work is derived from a GPLv3 work then it must be distributed under GPLv3 as well. Personally I've always preferred the MIT license over the GPL because I feel that the emergent effects of the spread of free software are more important than any incentive to create free software, but I might switch to Apache 2 now.

I wonder if there is any precedent from other cases where a company sued a competitor but the case was thrown out because the plaintiff was ruled to not really be a competitor (because it never sold anything).

You're going to get a lot of answers that say "yes" but don't answer your question: because there are a lot of licenses that require (or imply) free licensing of all relevant patents BOTH hardware and software patents. However these licenses have led to countless billions being spent recreating such GPLish software as open software under a more liberal license.

In related news, Qualcomm seems to be shutting down its Centriq division, which China announces its own similar chips. Coincidence?

https://www.theinformation.com/articles/qualcomm-lays-off-26...?

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/10/qualcomm_layoffs/

AMD made the same "devil's deal" with China, essentially giving away their IP for a small price. It's interesting how China is now basically telling foreign companies "We'll just take your IP and make your product ourselves here. Here take some change for it." I can only imagine this type of "deal" will continue to be made with other companies in the coming years.

https://www.eweek.com/servers/china-s-hygon-unveils-x86-proc...

The Economist has a brief piece in its current issue [1] that points at actions like that not being a coincidence but rather part of China's overall push to grow more technology at home.

[1]: https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/12/01/chip-wars-china...

Qualcomm CEO and CFO keep talking that they are at the door step of fixing what ever differences they have with Apple, and should be done by early 2019. And yet nothing on the table suggest Apple and Qualcomm could settle without long Court Battle.

I kept thinking Qualcomm might have a Nuclear option that will force Apple to listen or at least talk into resolution. May be some software patents?

> May be some software patents?

No, because that’s what this is.

China is grateful for Qualcomm and the timing of this. A case that was expected to be dismissed instead, in the wake of the Huawei arrest, becomes a tool.

Not sure how two US companies dueling it out helps China?

Sends a message to the US that their companies can be blocked/disrupted just like the US is doing to Huawei.

Actually a bonus to not have to be directly linked to a Chinese company that the US can complain about.

Qualcomm brought the case in China. This give China an opening to put punitive measures in place against an American company. In the aftermath of the detention of Huawei's CFO this is a great opportunity because it isn't China acting unilaterally, it is them acting in response to a legal challenge brought by an American company. Literally as win/win as it gets from China's perspective.

But this is why america wants. A fair legal and judicial system that looks at cases equally. Not to mention if it was this it could make Apple move factories out of china and into vietnam and other markets.

Yup, that's pretty much also my take on this.

It's weird how barely anybody else seems to see these connections and instead prefer to see this as completely independent from the current US-China disputes.

Qualcomm got this win because of two patents relate to software. For their inventors, they are probably not working on Qualcomm's core business (licensing and modem), wondering what will happen to them? An email from their superiors saying "well done and thank you", a cash bonus maybe some extra RSU, a promotion or maybe nothing?

Anyone has experience on this?

Employees usually get RSUs when they get a patent filed and granted, and that's it.

For Qualcomm, it seems that you get $1500 USD when your patent is filed and another $1500 USD when granted.

I guess one can pocket more rewards once your patent is proven to be more valuable to the company. The question is how much and in what form.

> I guess one can pocket more rewards once your patent is proven to be more valuable to the company. The question is how much and in what form.

I doubt most companies are going to further compensate employees for this. And Qualcomm doesn't strike me as super loyal to their employees but I might be wrong.

No, they won because they wanted to retaliate against the USA arresting a top Huewei executive.

not every single thread on HN has to be politicized. Qualcomm picked these patents months ago, they filed a lawsuit by arguing that these patents are being used by Apple without licensing. This is enough to call these concerned patents "key patents". my post is all about a question I am interested in - what kind of reward a big name high tech company is going to reward you when you are the inventor of such key patents.

Do you really think that courts in China are independent? Yes, no? If no or maybe, then China warned USA, mess with us and APPL is going quite a bit down. And APPL is the first...

Apple goes down, Qualcomm goes up, why should the US government care which of two US companies wins a ruling in China?

>>not every single thread on HN has to be politicized.

All this kvetching about politics on HN needs to stop. This court decision undeniably has a political component, and therefore must be discussed.

Technology rarely exists in a vacuum.

That sounds obvious, but I kind of doubt it in this case. Arresting a citizen vs holding a piece of hardware up for sale (in one country) due to software issues that can (fairly easily) be corrected. It doesn't seem proportional. If it was a response, I think they would have gone further and be more proportional like they seem to with everything else.

Retaliate by awarding an American company a favorable judgement and enforcing American IP laws?

Is there any details on the patents Apple violated?

I haven't found actual specifics, but a quick search on Google Patents reveal that Qualcomm has a similar one for the image control/resizing. https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140306903A1/en?q=appli...

Tit for tat.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-kovrig-former-canadian-...

I remember when a noname oem from Shenzhen "won" a patent case against apple in 2014. They barely managed to enforce the ban in a single retail chain in Beijing, and then Apple simply switched to ifone 5, which was untouched by injunction.

If, in an alternative universe, the Chinese court rules in favor of Apple, China must be retaliating the US by green lighting the IP theft of Qualcomm.

I didn't see in the article where it was stated, does anyone know where these iPhones are being imported from? India?

> Import Ban

Why not just ship locally?

iPhones are made in Chinese special export zones (SEZ) that lack taxes on imported raw components and factory machinery. The flip side is that anything made in an SEZ must be “imported” back into China since the inputs themselves were technically not imported.

China using American companies in their trade war. Ingenious.

Given that Trump is taking credit for starting this trade war, I wouldn't call it 'their trade war.'

I wonder if this relates to the arrest of Huawei's CFO. Maybe someone who knows about the Chinese court system can say more.

Highly likely to be unrelated. This is just one American company against another.

The suit was filed before the latest generation of iPhones was shipping (hence they are not affected), so it definitely predates the arrest.

I realized that a Chinese court just acknowledged the fact that Qualcomm has a portfolio of patents not relate to modems and still widely used by many very popular phones.

it seems to me that this actually gives Qualcomm extra justification to its policy of determining the licensing fee based on the cost of the whole phone rather than just the modem. sounds like a huge win for Qualcomm.

This looks like it could easily be a part of the retaliation for the arrest of the Huawei executive last week. Timing is pretty revealing and I have no doubt that Chinese courts, similar to Soviet courts, are completely subservient to the executive branch.

This is a suit brought by another American company.

IMO: Trade war

Courts in China are not independent, let's be honest. Hurting Apple, the crown jewel, is a warning to USA (even if Qualcomm is US based)

Edit: also see Huawei CFO getting jailed etc etc. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-05/huawei-cf... China answered....with hundreds of billions in market cap for Apple.

Definitely can't rule it out as a factor.

And what if Qualcomm had lost this lawsuit?

I’m sure there would be people saying, “This is a political move against an American company. No way would a Chinese judge rule in favor of an American company right now.”

apple can buy QCOM by lunch time so market cap is important. Next, a phantom firm worth $5 can sue MSFT in China

>Courts in China are not independent, let's be honest.

The USA has elected and appointed partisan judges!

Whom has told the leader of that party donald trump on the national and state level to stuff it plenty of times.

And, in other examples, are doing exactly what their campaign backers expect them to do.

Yes that means that do things that trump agrees with and some things that he doesn't. As you'd expect someone making their best judgments. Unlike the courts in China which never ever ever do anything to contradict Xi and CCP.

Great, so in the US, we have judges beholden to different powerful groups, that don't have my best interests at heart.

It's marginally better then having them beholden to one powerful group, but still insane.

Judges need to be appointed, not elected.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com