
Apple Violated Qualcomm Patent, U.S. Trade Judge Rules - tysone
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-26/apple-infringes-qualcomm-patent-judge-recommends-iphone-ban
======
rl3
The patent in question is for "Multiple supply-voltage power-up/down
detectors, and it sounds ridiculous on the face of it. Upon cursory glance,
that appears to be the case.[0]

It's kind of surreal that two large tech companies who design and produce
technology of staggering complexity are in a dispute over something so simple.

[0]
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US8063674B2/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US8063674B2/en)

~~~
tyingq
Oh, geez. It really does look like a patent for (paraphrased):

 _A method for reducing power consumption by detecting a power-on of a second
supply voltage while a first supply voltage is already on and adjusting
current draw from the first supply as a result_

~~~
jcranmer
Here is a brief guide to reading patents:

* Ignore the title, it will only confuse you.

* Ignore the abstract, it will only confuse you.

* Ignore the figures, it will only confuse you.

* Ignore the description, it doesn't matter.

* Jump straight to the claims (the only thing left in the patent). This is literally the only thing that matters in the entire document.

* Ignore most of the claims--anything that says "the _thing_ of claim _N_ ". You can't violate those without violating other parts of the patent, by definition. The Google patent view helpfully puts these in lighter gray.

* You can also generally go straight only to the first claim, because the other claims end up being subtly-reworded variations of the first claim.

* This claim is, in short, "A _thing_ comprising _A_ , _B_ , and _C._ " You have to have all of _A_ , _B_ , and _C_ to violate the patent. If you have just _A_ and _B_ and no _C_ , you don't violate it. If you have _A_ , _B_ , and something that is similar to _C_ but you used a relay where _C_ says to use a transistor, you don't violate it.

~~~
tyingq
The point is that it isn't novel. Novelty is supposed to be a requirement for
a patent claim to be patentable. This patent is like making a drink by mixing
4 different fruit juices, but stirring it with a teak spoon. No identical
prior art, very specific claims. Not novel.

~~~
sneak
The patent office has been granting technology patents for non-novel things
for ages, sadly. There does not appear to be any fix for it, as it even
ensnares one of the world’s richest companies. Presumably there would need to
be consequences to the government for granting non-novel patents, and there
appear to be none.

------
rudedogg
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"?

~~~
gvb
"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...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-10-04/apple-and-qualcomm-
s-billion-dollar-war-over-an-18-part)

~~~
saidajigumi
How is Qualcomm's approach supposed to work under US patent law? That Qualcomm
_made no money_ seems immaterial – either they licensed (e.g.) Intel to use
their IP, or they didn't. In the former case, patent exhaustion should apply
and Qualcomm is out of luck. In the latter, it again seems that Intel is the
infringer, not Apple or any other Intel-using handset maker.

Put another way: I'm looking for a clear statement of what legal theory is
Qualcomm using in its attempt to leapfrog the chip manufacturer and bring
patent suit against handset makers?

~~~
tooltalk
The common industry practice is to collect royalties at the end of the supply
chain -- from smartphone OEMs. So, SEP holders, Qualcomm, Ericsson, Nokia,
etc, usually don't after each other or chip makers for royalties. Now, Apple's
judge, Lucy Koh, in a pretrial decision last year, declared that Qualcomm is
obligated to license their SEPs to all willing licensees under ATI/TIS FRAND
(Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) terms, including baseband makers
such as Intel, but this remains to be seen (will be appealed by Qualcomm).
Another judge in the ED of Texas, Gilstrap however ruled in December that SEP
holders aren't required to license their patents to baseband makers under ETSI
FRAND. (yes, there are apparently different/conflicting competing FRAND terms)

I'm not sure if patent exhaustion applies since QTL (licensing) and QTC (chip-
making) are technically two separate business entities (subsidiaries). I'm
assuming this is all legit, since Apple had funneled their IP and oversea
profit to Irish subsidiaries to avoid taxes for years -- meaning they were
treated as entirely separate businesses. Qualcomm also argued that QC's patent
portfolio goes beyond chip-making and there are other wireless technologies
that are not embedded in the baseband chip (hence no exhaustion). The USFTC's
lawsuit against Qualcomm ended about a month ago and now we are all patiently
awaiting for Koh's decision.

~~~
saidajigumi
_I 'm not sure if patent exhaustion applies since QTL (licensing) and QTC
(chip-making) are technically two separate business entities (subsidiaries)._

I wasn't aware of that; that's quite interesting. But it's unclear whether it
affects exhaustion, in that QTL would still have (or have not) licensed Intel
(or QTC). So either (Intel or QTC) have a license and exhaustion applies, or
they do not, and are the actual infringers.

Now, the law being the law, "the actual infringers" is not going to be a
strict legal concept, but in some areas of law and/or some jurisdictions,
there are legal structures that produce similar outcomes – where a suit cannot
be brought against someone one or more "jumps" away, e.g. just to find a
defendant with deeper pockets. I'm absolutely out of my depth re: US patent
law on this topic, except that it _seems insane_ for a patent holder to be
able to sue all the _users of an infringing product_. But then patent law so
¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

~~~
tooltalk
Ok. it's actually fairly simple. A minor correction though: Qualcomm actually
never made their legal argument based on QTL and QTC. Qualcomm did argue that
their patent portfolio goes beyond baseband chips and their customers are
paying for non-chip related features that cover security, encryption,
algorithm, etc.. (hence no exhaustion)

And yes, it's perfectly legal to pick anyone one, not all, layer in the
supplier chain and collect royalties there. The wireless industry agreed to
collect the royalties from the last manufacturer in the supply chain decades
ago -- and that's more or less the de facto industry practice today. This
isn't to say SEP holders can go after any random body as they please -- there
are legal analysis and factors that help determine if that's fair. For
instance, I think it's reasonable to use the end-user smartphone device as
royalty basis since Qualcomm's IP adds significant value and drive market
demand for Apple's iPhones. On the other hand, it would be silly to make
similar comparison to a BWM 8 Series Coupe with wireless functionality.

------
rudedogg
Another source: [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-26/apple-
inf...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-26/apple-infringes-
qualcomm-patent-judge-recommends-iphone-ban)

~~~
dang
We changed the URL to that from [https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-violated-
qualcomm-patent-...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-violated-qualcomm-
patent-u-s-trade-judge-rules-11553624866), since WSJ appears now to be behind
a paywall without workarounds. (Per
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)
and
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989.](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989.))

------
oflannabhra
I follow Florian Mueller (@FOSSPatents) for his take on most of the Qualcomm v
Apple litigation (including the recent FTC antitrust case). He seems to be
somewhat anti-Qualcomm (although that might just be based on his perception of
their likelihood of winning). His take: [0]

> ITC judge disagrees with ITC staff, sides with Qualcomm against Apple: one
> patent held infringed, import ban recommended; but patent likely invalid

> Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) MaryJoan McNamara just announced an initial
> determination ("initial" means the parties can seek a Commission review, and
> a final ruling is still four months off) according to which Apple is deemed
> to infringe one of three Qualcomm patents-in-suit... In my observation,
> decisions by ITC judges that run counter to staff recommendations are
> virtually certain to be reviewed and more likely than others to be reversed.

Also, the patent is for "multiple supply-voltage power-up/down detectors" and
is currently being reviewed by the USPTO for validity.

[0] - [http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/03/itc-judge-disagrees-
with-...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/03/itc-judge-disagrees-with-itc-
staff.html)

~~~
neya
Florian Mueller is very anti-Google and pro-Apple and has been since the last
decade throughout the infamous era of "war against android" by Steve Jobs -
Samsung vs Apple, Apple vs HTC, Apple vs Google, Oracle vs Google and many
others.

~~~
dkonofalski
Although I'm also pro-Apple in most of these scenarios, I just think he
appears pro-Apple and anti-Google because he has a better understanding of the
situations than most laypeople. Most people who don't have a deep
understanding of the topic at hand, for example, think that the Apple vs.
Samsung case came down to "Apple patented rounded corners" whereas the reality
is that Samsung literally had a guidebook of things they set out to copy from
the iPhone and one of those were the rounded corners on the devices which was
covered in Apple's design patent for the iPhone.

~~~
gpm
What you say about the guidebook and rounded corners is (afaik, don't actually
recall the guidebook part of the case but I do know they won on some other
patents as well) true, but it doesn't change the fact that one of the things
Apple _did_ win on was "Apple patented rounded corners".

The patent that literally _just_ consisted of rounded corners, not the rest of
the stuff, was upheld as a valid patent and Samsung was found to be infringing
it. Theoretically, if Samsung hadn't violated any other Apple IP, the court
should still have found them to be infringing the rounded corners patent.

This is worth ridiculing, and outlines the state of the patent system, which
clearly needs adjusting.

~~~
Angostura
Its worth pointing out that this protection was a Design Patent
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent))
which despite the name is quite different from a utility patent - it basically
allows decorative doohickeys to be protected.

Coke's curvy bottle is covered by a design patent, for example.

~~~
Marsymars
_Was_ covered. Coke's bottle design patents have been expired for close to 70
years or more.

I had to look this up, because I figured there was somehow a risk that Coke
had managed to get century-long patents in America.

~~~
tooltalk
No. design patents only last 15 years. Coke's bottle design I believe is
protected under trade dress/mark, which allows Coke's unique design to be
protected in perpetuity.

[https://www.upcounsel.com/trade-dress](https://www.upcounsel.com/trade-
dress):

"When deciding whether to obtain a trade dress trademark, a design patent, or
both, you should first consider what each protects:

Design patent - protects the design of a product giving you exclusivity over
the design for a certain period. Even if you don't manufacture or sell the
product, you are still protected by a design patent. Trade dress - protects
your investment in marketing and advertising where you have created a
particular image for your product, and consumers exclusively associate that
image with your product. As design patents and trade dress protect different
things, the requirements are different for both:

Design patent - the design firstly has to be new and cannot be a variation of
a design that already exists. The design must also be ornamental in nature,
rather than purely functional. That said, it can have some functionality.
Trade dress - a trade dress must be something that is distinctive and connects
the consumer to the product, i.e. the consumer instantly recognizes the source
of the trade dress. Unlike a design patent, it cannot be functional in any
way. Design features that have a function should be protected with a design
patent."

Do note that all of Apple's 'trade dress' claims were thrown out because of
their failure to meet "non-functionality"/ornamental requirement.

------
bgee
News from December: China court bans sales of older iPhone models in Apple-
Qualcomm global battle

[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qualcomm-apple/china-
cour...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qualcomm-apple/china-court-bans-
sales-of-older-iphone-models-in-apple-qualcomm-global-battle-idUSKBN1O91LD)

------
foobarbazetc
1/3\. Eh. Now they know what to work around.

------
gesman
Good times to be a lawyer.

------
spocklivelong
It looks like outline does not support this article. This is probably the
first time I've seen that.

~~~
krastanov
I have always found it somewhat questionable to use a service like outline for
paid content... I am very much against DRM services, but DRM-free advocacy
efforts are hampered by people flocking to services like outline instead of
paying for the content they want to consume (and content creators are pushed
to embrace consumer-hostile DRM measures as well).

~~~
MagicPropmaker
Apparently this upstanding moral armchair-lawyer on Hacker News wants to
comment on an IP theft case by stealing intellectual property! (I'm with you.
I pay for my WSJ and don't complain about commercial news sources I don't pay
for.)

~~~
spocklivelong
I'm not complaining about anything. All I stated is outline does not work with
WSJ. I find it hard that WSJ charges $38.99/month[1], while I hardly read 5-10
articles a month? I would like to see some sort of pay-per-use or aggregated
new service that I can subscribe to.

[1]:
[https://store.wsj.com/v2/US/US/1110600005](https://store.wsj.com/v2/US/US/1110600005)

