
Qualcomm wins preliminary China import ruling against some iPhone models - tooltalk
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qualcomm-apple/qualcomm-wins-import-ban-against-several-apple-iphones-in-china-idUSKBN1O91LD
======
ballenf
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.

~~~
eganist
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.

~~~
konschubert
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.

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

~~~
tfha
I thought math was explicitly not patentable

~~~
zeroxfe
Yep, that's what monocasa means.

------
smitty1110
"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.

~~~
izacus
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.

~~~
smitty1110
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.

------
zackmorris
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?

~~~
aey
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.

~~~
zackmorris
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.com/article/18/2/how-make-sense-
apache-2-patent-license)

[https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1881/against-...](https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/1881/against-
what-does-the-apache-2-0-patent-clause-protect)

[http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences...](http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Patent_clauses_in_software_licences#Apache_License_2.0)

[https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-
compatibility.html](https://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html)

[http://www.apache.org/foundation/license-
faq.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).

------
mtgx
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.theinformation.com/articles/qualcomm-lays-
off-269-employees-in-data-center-business)?

[https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/12/10/qualcomm_layoffs/](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...](https://www.eweek.com/servers/china-s-hygon-
unveils-x86-processors-based-on-amd-s-epyc-server-chip)

~~~
velosol
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...](https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/12/01/chip-wars-china-
america-and-silicon-supremacy)

------
ksec
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?

~~~
ComputerGuru
> May be some software patents?

No, because that’s what this is.

------
gaoshan
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.

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

~~~
gaoshan
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.

~~~
freeflight
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.

------
dis-sys
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?

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

~~~
dis-sys
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.

~~~
onetimemanytime
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...

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

------
ihuman
Is there any details on the patents Apple violated?

~~~
whyfy
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...](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140306903A1/en?q=application&q=management&q=touchscreen&assignee=qualcomm&oq=qualcomm+application+management+touchscreen)

------
patfla
Tit for tat.

[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-kovrig-former-
canadian-...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/michael-kovrig-former-canadian-
diplomat-reportedly-arrested-in-china-2018-12-11/)

------
baybal2
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.

------
majia
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.

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

------
exabrial
> Import Ban

Why not just ship locally?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
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.

------
yalogin
China using American companies in their trade war. Ingenious.

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

------
dash2
I wonder if this relates to the arrest of Huawei's CFO. Maybe someone who
knows about the Chinese court system can say more.

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

------
dis-sys
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.

------
dsabanin
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.

~~~
karmasimida
This is a suit brought by another American company.

------
onetimemanytime
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...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-05/huawei-cfo-arrested-
in-canada-as-u-s-seeks-her-extradition) China answered....with hundreds of
billions in market cap for Apple.

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

The USA has elected and appointed partisan judges!

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

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

~~~
DeonPenny
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.

~~~
vkou
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.

