Comments Locked

63 Comments

Back to Article

  • shabby - Thursday, July 6, 2017 - link

    Good news for intel i guess, let the new patent wars begin!
  • Samus - Thursday, July 6, 2017 - link

    Ohh noes, Apple limited your LTE modems performance in the iPhone 7? The humanity!

    WTF is up with Qualcomm. These patents are frivolous on their own merits. But then again, so are most of Apples.
  • R0H1T - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    You forgot Apple stopped paying QC any royalties while their lawsuit is being played out, now I assume this is to counter Apple's ****headedness whilst making sure that they get what's rightfully owed to them, & then some!

    Apple's been a master at patent trolling, but lately they've taken this passive aggressive approach to kick their opponents, when their down, or even potential takeover targets like Imagination tech. They've manipulated the legal system of US to inflict maximum damage on competitors, like Samsung, that their frivolous patents aren't tossed out with a hefty fine imposed on them tells a very sad state of affairs, so far as US PTO is concerned.
  • xype - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    How the fuck has Apple been kicking Imationation Tech?

    I find it fascinating how people seems to take any patent ligitation that happens as "proof" that their favourite non-likable company are shitheads, when in fact the whole industry plays the game — and, thanks to the US legal system, _has_ to play the game.

    And please tell me how you would react if someone wouldn’t pay you $1 billion. Because I’m pretty sure pretty much everyone would be happy to go to court over that.
  • melgross - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    That’s a dumb post.
  • name99 - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Hmm. Before you give us all your theories about Imagination vs Apple (and how that informs QC vs Apple) you might want to be SURE that you know what the facts are...

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-07...
  • xype - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Sadly, the whole US patent system is awfully inadequate for today’s world, and the whole legal system encourages such lawsuit-happy behaviour. The fact that even patents that _would_ have merit are automatically seen as "frivolous" by most people should be telling enough.

    Having said that, it will be interesting to see who the courts end up agreeing with. Qualcomm does look like they’re getting overly greedy and if they are actively breaking FRAND licensing agreements this could bite them in the ass big time.
  • Morawka - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    yeah i wouldn't be surprised if Qualcomm got a few of those patents invalidated over this.
  • Alexvrb - Saturday, July 8, 2017 - link

    Some of them look decently strong. If any of them stick it gives them leverage against Apple's litigation.
  • ciparis - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Obviously, the best way to respond when a competitor is kicking your ass in the ARM CPU design race is to try to get their product pulled from the market. #winning
  • lilmoe - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Let it burn. Lololololol

    ps: both these companies, especially, are patent trolls.
  • osxandwindows - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    I have a feeling that you don't even know what a "patent troll" is.
  • Alexvrb - Saturday, July 8, 2017 - link

    Yeah osx nailed it. NEITHER of them remotely fits the definition of a patent troll.
  • TETRONG - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    That's the best they can come up with?
    Some vague shit they snuck by the patent office when these phones had already been on the market for years using these techniques.
    Gotta love how they act like they invented everything.. uh what about Motorola, Nokia, Ericcson, Broadcom, etc..

    License your shit fair and square or GTFO.. they're delirious to think they deserve an ever increasing percentage of the sale price of the device.

    The patent office needs to reexamine these cause they rubber-stamped straight garbage as usual.

    Ridiculous!
  • jjj - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Qualcomm needs to settle this as they can't afford an unfavorable court ruling and that's more than likely since they are in the wrong.
    So this move is simply aimed at gaining leverage and push for a better settlement.
    Apple likely lacks the guts to see this through and set things right once and for all.The only real hope for normality is for regulators to do their duty. Regulators have allowed Qualcomm to earn tens of undeserved billions from licensing and the consumer is the one paying for it.This is much worse than the VW scandal, at least there they could pretend they didn't knew but this one has always been in the open and they just let them do it.
    Qualcomm should be stripped of all standard essential patents and barred from holding any such patents for the next 20 years.And ofc they deserve a 100 billion fine at the global level.
    Or we keep getting Brexits and Trumps as the population can't take it anymore and makes idiotic choices.
  • ddriver - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    How are they in the wrong, they have products and IP which they sell on their terms. Nobody is forcing anyone to use those, but if you do, you have to pay.

    Smells like crapple fanboys here... you know, your beloved company is just as crappy as qualcmom, if not even more so, at least QC's patents are stuff they actually came up with, whereas crapple patents common and long standing stuff like rounded rectangles.
  • osxandwindows - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    If you want to get into the US, market, you have to go with qualcomm.

    So yes they are being forced.
  • ddriver - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    The issue should be taken with the US government regulatory agencies. If what you say is true, then it was them who allowed a monopolist to build up exploitative infrastructure.

    If the government is willing to approve the establishment of a communication network that mandates a single IP provider, then I think we should disband the government as well, together with QC and apple :)
  • melgross - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Your use of the word “crapple” shows that your head is in the toilet. No pint in arguing with you.
  • ddriver - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Actually "crapple" is far more illustrative of the reality of that company than "apple", and the fact that you don't have the capacity to realize that is also indicative you don't have the capacity to argue with me ;)

    Whining about QC "patent trolling" given the fact that you have patent-trolled over rounded rectangles is very, very crappy. And that's just one of the many aspects in which this company is crappy. So crapple it is. That's just calling things what they are. If you have a problem with objectivity, that's your own problem ;)
  • Morawka - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    I wonder how many times ddriver says "actually" in a day. I bet he/she is a ball of sunshine to be around. Try not to come off as a know it all is all i'm saying. Just make your point and explain logic without the contemptuous attitude.
  • Hurr Durr - Saturday, July 8, 2017 - link

    All the time while using a CNC machine, I bet.
  • ddriver - Monday, July 10, 2017 - link

    Did you actually bother to check how much "actually" actually counts as overuse?

    But then again, this is probably the "best" argument you managed to come up with. Kudos!

    I know what I know, and what I don't know I don't speak of. This may create the illusion I am a know-it-all, because I am not like... leaving a "I don't have anything to say on that subject" every time I don't. Now if you were smart enough to be in the position to lecture me you'd be able to figure it out instead of waiting on me to explain it to you.
  • melgross - Sunday, July 9, 2017 - link

    Oh please, your posts are just sad. Your jealousy is obvious. Sorry your favorite company isn’t doing as well as you wish it was. Heh, you wouldn’t know what the word objective means if you were hit over the head with it.

    Dream on sucker.
  • ddriver - Monday, July 10, 2017 - link

    LOL, talk about sad posts. Jealousy? My "favorite company"? That's like me saying "your favorite cancer". Dreaming on? Sucker? Your previous post was pathetic fanboyism, but that hits the bottom. My condolences.
  • troysavary - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    I can gets pints for arguing on the internet?
  • ckbryant - Saturday, July 8, 2017 - link

    They don't license their patients on fair and reasonable terms and thus they function like a patent troll that actually makes and designs products vs just exists to sue, they troll through their lack of fair licensing.
  • Marc GP - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    So, your solution is basically dismantling Qualcomm ? (an unpayable fine, removing all their intellectual property, not allowing them to do research for 20 years, ... ...)

    Apple has never done anything wrong here either, right ?.

    Sure you are not a fanboy, sure not.
  • melgross - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    All big companies get into patent fights. Most of the time they’re legitimate. That is, a company thinks it has the right to use a technology, and a patent holder disagrees. A fair percentage of the time, the patent, or patents in question are invalidated, or partly invalidated. Sometimes the user has to enter an agreement.

    That’s normal corporate life these days. But some companies try to take advantage when they think they’ve got something everyone needs. Qualcomm is one of these companies. They’re licensing their patents to companies making the chips. Then they force the buyer of those chips to pay additional royalties. That’s illegal.

    Qualcomm is being successfully investigated in a number of places around the world. These countries have required some big customers to cooperate with those investigations. Apple is one of the companies that has been required to cooperate. As a result of these suits against Qualcomm, which Qualcomm lost, Apple decided to sue them as well. Whereas they apparently didn’t feel they had a choice in the past about going along with Qualcomm, they do now. They’re in more solid ground since they can, are also going to Intel.

    Apparently, Qualcomm owes them over a $billion in discounts from those royalty fees, and after Apple cooperated with China and S Korea in their investigations, Qualcomm stopped the payments. Apple began by sueing for those payments. With Qualcomm’s initial negative response, Apple upped the ante, and now, Qualcomm is looking around for other things to sue over.

    Qualcomm knows they’re in big trouble here. The US government is investigating them, the EU is investigating them, and their biggest customer, Apple, for their cell radios is slowly, but surely, leaving. If Apple wins their lawsuit, a lawsuit that was strengthened considerably by a recent Supreme Court ruling, then Qualcomm’s entire royalty house of cards comes crashing down. They know that. And as most of their profits come from royalties, that’s a major problem for them.
  • id4andrei - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    What about Apple getting kickbacks for not making a wimax iphone? That billion was nice no?
  • melgross - Sunday, July 9, 2017 - link

    What are you talking about? Making up fantasy scenarios?
  • Alexvrb - Saturday, July 8, 2017 - link

    The EU is investigating them? Oh wow how surprising... a successful US company that operates in the EU is investigated/fined by the Euro "regulators". They're a bunch of mobsters... you operate on their turf, you have to let them get their beak wet.

    The domestic investigations are more interesting, but they won't kill QC. Just reign them in a bit. QC designs some top-notch SoCs, and that's the biggest single reason they're successful.
  • SydneyBlue120d - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Let's hope there will be the Intel® XMM 7560 and not the 7480 in the next iPhone, however I really doubt it we'll be ready for this iPhone generation.
  • lefty2 - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    The "mixed precision" patent looks like a case of prior art to me. There were mobile GPUs using a mix of half precision and full precision long before 2014.
  • Sarah Terra - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Interesting thought. Pretty sure I saw the iPad being used in Star Trek TNG back in the 90's and oh let's see rounded rectangles came out in the roman era?

    Bottom line is that LEGALLY it is not whether there is prior art, it is who has control of the Patent in question at the current time and unfortunately for Apple, these are clear violations.

    But in reality it is just a taste of thier own medicine
  • lefty2 - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Your point is nonsense. You can't justify a invalid patent, by saying that the other company also has invalid patents. The whole lot should be thrown out if they have prior art.
  • melgross - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    That is so ridiculous! Apple never patented a rectangle with rounded corners. They never could have. That came from Samsung’s German lawyers, in their opening statement in court.

    It was interesting that in that lawsuit, when the judge held up an Apple 9.7” 3/2 iPad, and a 7” 16/9 Samsung tablet from just ten feet away, Samsung’s lawyers couldn’t tell which was which. Samsung lost the lawsuit.

    You are obviously very ignorant about patents, unless you post is being sarcastic. It very much does matter what the prior state of the art is. If there is prior art, then the patents in question will be ruled as invalid. Even worse, it’s allowed to sue to force the company to disgorge all profits gained from the invalidated patents.

    Qualcomm has better hope that every company overcharged by them doesn’t sue for this, or they will be out of business.
  • id4andrei - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Apple lost all over the world with their "design" patents. They were humiliated in the UK. Their only victory was in their back yard, with a jury of Apple lovin' citizens. Such is Apple's mindshare in the US.
  • name99 - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    I was unaware that China was Apple's "back yard" and full of "Apple lovin' citizens".
    This is why I read AnandTech comments --- to learn such interesting facts from such informed commenters...

    Meanwhile, in the real world, as just one example:
    http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-just-won-a-bi...

    The above (note) consisted of another company suing Apple...
    I am unaware of this worldwide flood of Apple-related design patent lawsuits that you claim. For example I can find zero reference to this supposed humiliation in the UK. The closest I can find is a lawsuit against QC filed March 2 2017 in response to QC's initial attack.
    There was an earlier Apple vs Nokia case in the UK which
    - had nothing to do with DESIGN patents
    - was initiated by Nokia
    - was settled out of course.
  • id4andrei - Saturday, July 8, 2017 - link

    I was talking strictly about Apple vs Samsung. Remember when they lost in the UK and had to write on their website that Samsung did not rip them off. Are you kiddin' me? All other avenues against Samsung either dismissed or just fell through as draws. Literally the most significant win Apple had was in their back yard. Cut the bull and stop being an absolute apologist.
  • melgross - Sunday, July 9, 2017 - link

    No, Samsung lost very big everywhere, except for their home country of ‘s Korea, where they won two of the three suits against it.
  • melgross - Sunday, July 9, 2017 - link

    Well, Apple sues Samsung 31 times around the world, and won 28 times. That’s pretty good.
  • name99 - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    (a) Patents protect reality not imagination. I don't get to say "imagine a CPU that has the performance of an i9 at 1W power" and then sue everyone who actually does the work of inventing this five years from now. So Star Trek is irrelevant to anything.

    (b) Design Patents are not the same thing as Patents. Hence the name...
    If you don't like the name, complain to the US government.
    If you don't like the concept of protecting DESIGN complain to the US government.
    Either way, the issue you raise with Round Rects is a DESIGN PATENT issue, not a PATENT issue and is as irrelevant here as complaining about the name overlap between Apple the computer company and Apple the Beatles music company.
  • cmikeh2 - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    The article is somewhat misleading on the dates for these patents. While the patent was issued in 2014, the actual filing date was in 2008.
  • coburn_c - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    So exciting. Whos throat will Apple try to cut next? Foxconn?

    Remember that time they tried to take on Google? That was hilarious.

    Sadly our bought and sold courts will probably help them slit Qualcomm's windpipe.
  • osxandwindows - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Samsung is also in support of apple/FTC…
  • SydneyBlue120d - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Yes, and this has gone a lot under the radar...
  • id4andrei - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Samsung is in support for a different matter. Samsung wants to sell modem integrated Exynos chips.
  • SydneyBlue120d - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Thanks for your reply, do You have more info on this?

    I always wondered why AFAIK no one, correct me if I'm wrong, uses Samsung modems that seems to be very good, better than Intel for sure.
  • Aenean144 - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    If an OEM wants to sell a phone in the USA that supports CDMA (Verizon, Sprint, their MVNOs), they have to use Qualcomm modems. Qualcomm has a lock on CDMA IP in the USA and sets up licensing economics such that everyone uses QCOM modems or ends up having a more expensive phone with a non QCOM modem.

    Thusly, there isn't much point in using a Samsung modem, Intel modem, or whatever modem that can support CDMA in the USA.
  • SydneyBlue120d - Saturday, July 8, 2017 - link

    Thank You for your reply. So, is it Intel paying Qualcomm for CDMA IP in the 7560 modem?
  • id4andrei - Saturday, July 8, 2017 - link

    Yes. Also, Apple can use any brand of chip other than Qcom and that manufacturer will still have to pay Qcom.
  • melgross - Sunday, July 9, 2017 - link

    Guys, that’s not entirely true. Intel’s new modems coming out this year use different patents. Also, patents expire. A lot of Qualcomm’s patents have expired, or are about to expire. This isn’t a cut and dry situation.

    One problem with what qualcomm is doing is that they don’t license patents to chip manufacturers, they license them to the companies using those chips. And, they won’t just license those needed patents, they license a huge lump of patents, many of which may not be used in the device.

    A big reason why other chip companies have been behind is because companies like Apple, Samsung and others are already paying high license fees to Qualcomm. Since they would still be paying the entire fee, even if they used a chip from somewhere else that didn’t need Qualcomm’s patents, it makes it too expensive for Apple, Samsung and other to buy chips from somewhere else.

    This is one of the arguments Apple, and now Samsung and Intel are saying. They would be paying twice for the same thing. This damages Samsung’s and Intel’s businesses as well. It also makes Qualcomm an effective monopoly.

    We’re also seeing government around the world access Qualcomm as a monopoly, fine them very heavily for it, and are forcing Qualcomm to change their business practices. This problem Qualcomm has didn’t start with Apple.

    The recent Supreme Court ruling substantially weakens Qualcomm’s case.
  • melgross - Sunday, July 9, 2017 - link

    Samsung doesn’t really have much in modems. They would like to.
  • melgross - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    When did Apple “take on Google”? I’m sure we would all like to know about that. Apple did “take on” Samsung g in 31 lawsuits around the world, and won 28. Two of the losses were in S Korea, but so was one that they won, which caused major articles in S Korean papers all over, as it was such a surprise there.
  • coburn_c - Saturday, July 8, 2017 - link

    Apple maps and apple default search. I'm not talking about court battles I'm talking about Apple trying to cut any and every third party out of the iphone money train. No one eats but Apple at Apple's table.
  • melgross - Sunday, July 9, 2017 - link

    Apple didn’t take Google on in those areas. Google pulled their licenses from Apple and Microsoft for maps and You Tube. Why? Because thatvapple Apple and Microsoft had contained no commercials. Google is an advertising agency, and so came out with the new versions that had Ads. Both Apple and Microsoft had to discontinue their you tube apps, and use Google’s. It wasn’t a big enough issue to argue about.

    As far as maps went. In addition to pulling Apple’s license, they offered a new one. But Apple thought, and has stated, that Google wasn’t adding features to Apple’s version that they were adding to the Android version, and they were concerned it would fall further behind, si they came out with their own.

    Yeah, it had problems, mostly from the Tom Tom data Apple licenses from Tom Tom. But those days are in the past. Both Google’s maps and Apple’s maps are pretty much equal these days.

    As far as search goes, what are you talking about? Apple doesn’t do search. Google is the default engine for Apple. They also offer Bing, Duck Go Go, and others.

    Apple has over 2 million apps in their store. Google had said, every year, that they make more money off their offerings, and Ads, from iOS than from Android.

    You really don’t know what you’re talking about.
  • ZeDestructor - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Qcomm is also a US company, so by your logic, they've bought the courts just as much as Apple.

    Should make for a nice, fair fight overall :P
  • melgross - Sunday, July 9, 2017 - link

    They never “took on Google”.
  • rrinker - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    Apple fanboys? Hardly. Best friend worked for Sony/Ericsson a ways back and has some good stories to tel about Qualcomm's BS.
    Like many of Apple's vague patents, some of these should never have been granted either. The whole US patent system is screwed up and this is just the latest example. 8633936 - really? Prior art ought to invalidate that one, surely processors were already using mixed instructions by the time they filed that. It's not THAT new of a thing. And 8487658 - would like to know what's so unique, level converters have been around from all the major semiconductor manufacturers for a long time now. And is Apple now fabbing their own support chips too? Because otherwise how can they be infringing on such a patent just by buying a part from a vendor other than Qualcomm? Does that mean if I use a TI or Maxim branded part in my project I too am infringing on Qualcomm's patent?
    The whole thing's a joke, this exploitation of the patent system, and all it's doing is making a lot of rich lawyers. Chances of any change are slim to none, it's not like the lawyers turned politician are going to cut their own gravy train.
  • StrangerGuy - Friday, July 7, 2017 - link

    An anti-Apple lawsuit mere 2-3 months before the next iPhone launch is all too suspect...I'll reckon QC must have lost that critical baseband socket from the next iPhone.
  • Hurr Durr - Saturday, July 8, 2017 - link

    Whatgever hurts fruicakes is good.
  • id4andrei - Saturday, July 8, 2017 - link

    Qalcomm is a monopolist. After all this is done they will have to abandon their bundling models which means Samsung will get to sell their chipsets in the US as well. What Qualcomm will get to keep is control on their licensing rates.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now