
Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends global wins - wyldfire
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm-court/german-court-rules-apple-infringed-qualcomm-patent-idUSKCN1OJ1RJ
======
lambda
Yikes.

There's a story from Reuters with more detail and more balanced coverage than
this press release from Qualcomm: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-
qualcomm-court/germ...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm-
court/german-court-rules-apple-infringed-qualcomm-patent-idUSKCN1OJ1RJ)

Apparently, there have been rulings in the US that Apple and Qorvo (supplier
of the modem chip in question) hadn't violated this same hardware patent,
based on a detailed technical analysis. So there's a chance that this ruling
could be overturned on similar grounds in Germany, hence the bond that
Qualcomm has to pay against possible damages.

For anyone curious who isn't likely to need to avoid knowing infringement, I
think this is the patent in question:
[https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2724461B1/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/EP2724461B1/en)

~~~
sctb
Thanks, we've updated the link from
[https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2018/12/20/qualcomm-g...](https://www.qualcomm.com/news/releases/2018/12/20/qualcomm-
granted-permanent-injunction-against-apple-germany).

------
detaro
Interesting notes: Qualcomm has to place 668.4 million € (or maybe double
that!) in bond to enforce the injunction (technically there's two separate
cases, _each_ with this bond amount, I haven't quite figured out if they
actually need to pay both to be effective), which is to ensure money is
available to pay damages to Apple if higher courts reverse the decision.

Also, Qualcomm made claims about how the Apple devices work based on their own
reverse engineering efforts. Apple claimed those are wrong, but declined to
provide enough evidence substantiating that (saying that their supplier had a
higher interest in keeping the details secret, so they couldn't reveal them to
the court), which is why they lost.

~~~
GeekyBear
The strange thing is that the gentleman who designed the chip in question was
not called as a witness despite being present at the trial so he could offer
his own testimony.

>Mr. Mike Kay spent almost 12 hours waiting [outside the court] on November 8,
for an opportunity to testify in a Qualcomm v. Apple patent infringement trial

Mike Kay is a Qorvo employee and designed the envelope tracker chip used in
some iPhones models that Qualcomm alleges infringe on its European patent
EP2724461 ("low-voltage power-efficient envelope tracker").

[http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/11/hoping-to-defend-
iphone-a...](http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/11/hoping-to-defend-iphone-
against.html)

~~~
fluffycat
Fosspatents and Florian Mueller.. Where do I remember these? In past he was
paid by big corporations for his "Consultancy" services.

~~~
eisa01
I was reading his posts back in the day, did anyone ever perform any analysis
if his predictions were right?

~~~
GeekyBear
I think the general consternation about Mueller started when he predicted
that, as a matter of law, Oracle would ultimately be the victor in it's case
against Google over Java.

Which did eventually come to pass, in a Federal appeals court ruling in March
of this year that overturned the findings of the jury in the previous trial.

~~~
fluffycat
He was paid by Oracle when he made that "prediction".

------
guitarbill
Interesting to see they went for an injuction (and were granted one),
considering Qualcomm doesn't directly make a competing product. Does anybody
know why the courts would do this, instead of allowing the sale, but requring
Apple to pay a cut of every future phone sold + infrigemenr damages? Surely
based on other devices using this Qualcomm tech, it would be possible to
determine how much the patent when licensed is worth? (edit: I know there's no
love lost between Apple and Qualcomm, but this seems like another way patents
can be weaponised way beyond the scope of protecting innovation)

~~~
andy_ppp
Qualcomm presumably know Apple are intending to completely replace them soon
then; I’m pretty sure this sort of action will prove to be very bad for
Qualcomm - if you are willing to sue Apple no customer is safe!

~~~
bunnycorn
Apple already 100% replaced them.

Every 2018 model has Intel modems.

~~~
usrusr
I wonder how many would-be customers of the affected phones are now self-
upselling to a younger, more expensive model. This could be surprisingly
painless for Apple. Lure people into stores with relatively cheap offers, then
declare them unavailable: if they did the same thing without Qualcommm's
involvement, it would be an illegal sales tactic.

~~~
bunnycorn
Apple is still selling them in Germany, the article looks like it's final, but
it's not.

------
porpoisely
First china.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18648042](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18648042)

Now Germany. Looks like the execs at qualcomm are going to have a nice
christmas.

~~~
berbec
Except for the fact that no current model Apple devices use their chip...

~~~
1nverseMtx
And the China ban is not actually about the chip in use but some software
feature in older OSs

~~~
dep_b
Actually suing Apple about the stuff they have a conflict over is lethal as
they're doomed if they lose a trial over it and their position isn't that
secure since they're already getting sued all over the place for their tactics
around wireless patents.

------
jasonwen
This only relates to iPhone 7 and 8 models, not iPhone XR and XS.

~~~
orev
Only because the X models did not exist when the motion was originally filed,
not because they don’t infringe.

~~~
abakker
I think it is because the newer phones all use intel modems.

------
sschueller
Does that mean no iphones can be sold in all of Germany effective immediately?

~~~
wyldfire
From [1]:

> Apple says it will stop selling the iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 at its stores in
> Germany. But all iPhone models will be available at third-party retailers in
> the country.

[1] [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/20/qualcomm-reportedly-wins-
inj...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/20/qualcomm-reportedly-wins-injunction-
against-apple-in-munich.html)

------
ineedasername
It seems strange to impose an injunction, but make Qualcomm pay bond for
potential damages if this gets overturned. They're recognizing the potential
for this be overturned, and that it's damaging to Apple. Why not reserve the
injunction while the appeal makes its way through the system?

If Qualcomm continues to prevail, revenue Apple generated during the continued
infringement would simply be factored into the final damages awarded to
Qualcomm.

The other way seems unnecessarily complicated, but I'd love to hear the
counter argument.

~~~
btian
Maybe the court feels there's a good chance for the verdict to not be
overturned, since the supposedly infringing products were designed before
Apple switched to Intel modems.

------
tareqak
Same story from CNBC: [https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/20/qualcomm-reportedly-
wins-inj...](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/20/qualcomm-reportedly-wins-
injunction-against-apple-in-munich.html)

------
sdan
So Apple is going to start making their own cellular chips?

~~~
e1ven
They're working with Intel.

Although if they _really_ wanted to clean this up they have the cash on hand
to buy Qualcomm.

~~~
sjwright
I doubt Apple would be able to complete that sale without antitrust laws
kicking back hard. Qualcomm is an exclusive supplier to most of Apple’s phone
competitors.

~~~
e1ven
Great point, I wasn't thinking about that. Thanks!

~~~
sjwright
That said, if they were especially clever they could engineer a buyout where a
neutral party like Broadcom gets the company and Apple gets the patent
portfolio—which would represent the overwhelming majority of Qualcomm's market
value.

------
floatingatoll
Is there a link to the judgement, or at the very least a link to anywhere but
Apple and Qualcomm’s press release websites?

EDIT: Post updated to a better link, thanks mods!

~~~
detaro
Don't think the judgement is released yet. Here's the (obviously German) press
release of the court: [https://www.justiz.bayern.de/gerichte-und-
behoerden/landgeri...](https://www.justiz.bayern.de/gerichte-und-
behoerden/landgericht/muenchen-1/presse/2018/9php%2E)

~~~
xxpor
Well this seems important (google translated, so take with a grain of salt):

>Rather, for procedural reasons, the board had to base its decision on the
fact that the chip works as the claimant asserts (see section "Background" in
this press release). Therefore, in the opinion of the Chamber, no witnesses
were allowed to be heard who had been brought by the defendant on the last
date - without charge of the court - nor was the Chamber allowed to examine
the schematics of the attacked chip.

It sounds like due to the law in Germany, they HAD to assume that Qualcomm was
correct in their assessment of the situation. The court didn't actually find
in fact that there was infringement.

~~~
yorwba
They had to assume Qualcomm to be correct, because Apple refused to explain
exactly how Qualcomm was wrong. If one side makes detailed accusations, the
other side has to refute them in equal detail. (That's explained in II)

~~~
ashildr
And Apple can’t tell how Qaulcomm is wrong because Apple just buys the chips
and does not manufacture them. Beautiful, isn’t it?

------
karmasimida
Qualcomm is blackmailing Apple it seems like.

------
debt
What's a permanent injunction?

~~~
orliesaurus
basically saying that Apple has to refrain from certain activities: in this
case, selling certain iPhones in GER

------
_Codemonkeyism
$760M bond is mind blowing.

------
l4u532
That’s big

~~~
bunnycorn
Not selling outdated phones in Germany, and not selling only at their stores?

Apple will happily sell you a brand new Xr or Xs instead.

~~~
arvinsim
It's most certainly a lose for budget customers

~~~
bunnycorn
Budget costumers don't buy Apple anyways.

------
sneakernets
I don't think Qualcomm will ultimately win in Germany, but in China? Most
definitely. What better way for China to flex on the US than to stick it to
one of the top 5 US companies? Think of it as a tit-for-tat when it comes to
Huawei.

~~~
kccqzy
Both Qualcomm and Apple are US companies, so I don't get your point.

~~~
sneakernets
Sure, but Qualcomm doesn't have the "mindshare" that Apple does. If Qualcomm
were bigger than Apple, they'd just use Apple to swipe at Qualcomm.

That's because Qualcomm and Apple aren't the intended targets. The US is the
target.

~~~
bunnycorn
Even in China, Apple is still selling all the models.

------
cronix
> Stacy Rasgon, an analyst with research firm Bernstein, said in a note that
> Germnany was a small iPhone market for Apple, selling about 10 million units
> a year, with possibly only half of those being the older models affected by
> the court’s order.

Germnany? Nice one, Reuters. Try proofreading instead of totally relying on
spell-check.

