or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Qualcomm, Intel provide Apple with source code in patent battle with Samsung
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Qualcomm, Intel provide Apple with source code in patent battle with Samsung

post #1 of 15
Thread Starter 
Lawyers in the U.S. and Australia are examining source code provided by Qualcomm and Intel to aid Apple in its defense against patent infringement lawsuits from rival Samsung.

A lawyer representing Apple told an Australian court this week that U.S. attorneys have looked over the code, Bloomberg reports. Qualcomm and Intel have also given permission for the code to be used in Samsung's case against Apple.

“Further non-infringing arguments can be made" from the code, said lawyer Andrew Fox.

Qualcomm had been drawn into the legal scrum because Apple believes it is covered under the company's license by the use of its baseband chips. Samsung and Motorola have both attempted to terminate third-party patent rights that Apple has benefitted from.

In January, Samsung petitioned a California District Court to share source code from Qualcomm that it claimed was "critical" to proving its infringement claim against Apple with foreign courts. Apple has also requested access to the cross-licensing agreement between Qualcomm and Samsung during the course of their legal battle.

The battle between Apple and Samsung now covers at least 30 complaints across four continents. According to one recent report, the two companies have been communicating about "potential settlement options."

[ View article on AppleInsider ]
post #2 of 15
Somewhat misleading heading ... They supplied code for both sides it seems.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #3 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

Somewhat misleading heading ... They supplied code for both sides it seems.

Can't supply one side without supplying the other.
post #4 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic View Post

Can't supply one side without supplying the other.

I didn't say they could ... I said it was a misleading headline since it doesn't mention both sides.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #5 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by studiomusic View Post

Can't supply one side without supplying the other.

True. This is part of the discovery process.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #6 of 15
Waiting for, but not holding my breath for or really caring about, ZZZ to chime in. Just saying.
post #7 of 15
I don't see how Samsung comes out a winner in all this. They spend hundreds of millions, are losing the legal battle, get labeled a company that copies Apple's designs and will undoubtably lose sales when some people (like me) steer clear of anything that has Samsung written on it. Samsung could have settled with Apple in 2010, instead they damage their good brand name by copying Apple's designs and end up winning nothing. They are sure to lose Apple as a client as soon as Apple can do without 'em.

It's pathetic how Samsung is trying to preempt Apple with their new "connected" TV.

An example of Lose the battle AND lose the war.
post #8 of 15
Samsung's reputation doesn't mean much to itself. They are making money, and that's all that really count to them right now. They will milk Apple for as long and as much as they can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightymike View Post

I don't see how Samsung comes out a winner in all this. They spend hundreds of millions, are losing the legal battle, get labeled a company that copies Apple's designs and will undoubtably lose sales when some people (like me) steer clear of anything that has Samsung written on it. Samsung could have settled with Apple in 2010, instead they damage their good brand name by copying Apple's designs and end up winning nothing. They are sure to lose Apple as a client as soon as Apple can do without 'em.

It's pathetic how Samsung is trying to preempt Apple with their new "connected" TV.

An example of Lose the battle AND lose the war.
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #9 of 15
For those who don't know what this is about, Samsung last fall asked the Australian court to order Apple to turn its iPhone 4S source code over to Samsung so it could be examined for evidence of patent infringement. As would be expected Apple strongly opposed giving it's software code to any competitor, but the the court sided with Samsung. That result wasn't considered a huge surprise.
http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/11/2...ringement-case

Qualcomm (who themselves demand 3.25% standards patent royalties based on the price of a finished device) has come out to support Apple as they have recently in other patent cases, giving Apple source code that might show they don't violate Samsung's IP.

I'm guessing that Qualcomm and Apple have made a strategic alliance based on other recent events. Or it could be as simple as Apple telling Qualcomm "Fine, we'll give you your damn 3.25% royalty, around $20 an iPhone, but this is what you're gonna do for us".
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #10 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by uguysrnuts View Post

Samsung's reputation doesn't mean much to itself. They are making money, and that's all that really count to them right now. They will milk Apple for as long and as much as they can.

Couldn't agree more. It seems to be part of the asian culture AFAICT since they openly copy (sometimes hideously) items like the iPhone, iPad, etc.

Saw a Chinese copy (using the word liberally) and it was just awful. The resolution on the screen wasn't even 72 dpi (you could see the gaps between pixels) and they had even put the Apple logo on the back, Cupertino CA etc. The software was horrid and nothing like the real Apple stuff but I guess it looked enough like an iPhone to some (this was a couple years ago) that it was a status symbol -- and all for $100.
post #11 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

For those who don't know what this is about, Samsung last fall asked the Australian court to order Apple to turn its iPhone 4S source code over to Samsung so it could be examined for evidence of patent infringement. As would be expected Apple strongly opposed giving it's software code to any competitor, but the the court sided with Samsung. That result wasn't considered a huge surprise.
http://www.theverge.com/2011/11/11/2...ringement-case

Qualcomm (who themselves demand 3.25% standards patent royalties based on the price of a finished device) has come out to support Apple as they have recently in other patent cases, giving Apple source code that might show they don't violate Samsung's IP.

I'm guessing that Qualcomm and Apple have made a strategic alliance based on other recent events. Or it could be as simple as Apple telling Qualcomm "Fine, we'll give you your damn 3.25% royalty, around $20 an iPhone, but this is what you're gonna do for us".

an iPhone is half music/game playing device... (the stuff that the qualcomm chip isn't involved with) so how can they charge 3.25% on the whole device, and not just their chip... at a maximum it should be 10 dollars (for the phone part)...
post #12 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post

an iPhone is half music/game playing device... (the stuff that the qualcomm chip isn't involved with) so how can they charge 3.25% on the whole device, and not just their chip... at a maximum it should be 10 dollars (for the phone part)...

Unfortunately (or fortunately if it's your IP) it's traditional for telecommunications standards royalties to be based on the selling price of a finished consumer device. It's been that way for years.
http://www.consortiuminfo.org/essent...tellectual.php

Since Apple didn't contribute to those standards and finds itself being bound to that royalty basis along with the traditional "reciprocity" (cross-licensing your own IP) license requirements, the complaints made to the EU in particular have become pretty loud. This is a recent development tho. For years there's been only rare complaints about the language, royalties and basis in standards-essential license agreements.

With Apple there's a lot more money involved so it's no surprise they'd try to change the "old" rules to be more favorable to them. Some hi-profile patent bloggers would like you to believe that suddenly Moto's 2.25% demands, or Samsung's use of "defensive suspension" clauses is something unusual targeting only Apple. Those claims are "patently" untrue and I'm sure they know it.

BTW. this paragraph probably explains the reason for Qualcomm's sudden open backing for Apple and their unfriendly attitude towards Samsung and Motorola:
"The surging sales of smartphones in Q4, the big supply win for Apple's (AAPL) CDMA Verizon (VZ) iPhone and the huge opportunity to supply 4G chips to the iPhone 5. While the rosy scenario helped lift Qualcomm shares to a two-year high last week, concerns about Qualcomm's outlook have since tempered the enthusiasm somewhat. The risks: Qualcomm's Snapdragon processor for mobile devices faces rising competition from Samsung's Hummingbird and Nvidia’s (NVDA) Tegra chips. Long-time partner Motorola Mobility (MMI) opted to use its own 4G chip in its Xoom tablet. Royalty rates from Qualcomm's patent licensing business are also decreasing. Also, Qualcomm's royalty rate in long term evolution or 4G is 3.25%, down from 5% in 3G. Therefore, if Verizon sells more 4G phones, the mix of 3G and 4G royalties will be lower to Qualcomm.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2488...eview-qualcomm

You have to look past the media headline's to see what's truly in play.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #13 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightymike View Post

I don't see how Samsung comes out a winner in all this. They spend hundreds of millions, are losing the legal battle, get labeled a company that copies Apple's designs and will undoubtably lose sales when some people (like me) steer clear of anything that has Samsung written on it. Samsung could have settled with Apple in 2010, instead they damage their good brand name by copying Apple's designs and end up winning nothing. They are sure to lose Apple as a client as soon as Apple can do without 'em.

It's pathetic how Samsung is trying to preempt Apple with their new "connected" TV.

An example of Lose the battle AND lose the war.

No one is labeling them a copycat just people in forums like this. Walk into any shop and that is the last thing someone thinks about when buying a tablet or phone. "Oh screw that one, it looks to much like an Apple product", that doesn't happen in reality.

If and when Apple starts making TVs who do you think is going to be making them for Apple.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #14 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic View Post

No one is labeling them a copycat just people in forums like this. Walk into any shop and that is the last thing someone thinks about when buying a tablet or phone. "Oh screw that one, it looks to much like an Apple product", that doesn't happen in reality.

If and when Apple starts making TVs who do you think is going to be making them for Apple.

Samsung's phones and Apple's phones look too much alike superficially without even seeing the user interface that, yes, people are confusing them. The people that are confusing them are being mislead by resellers doing bait-and-switch. For example, you go to one of the resellers and ask for a "new iPhone", and they go "here I have something better that's just like the iPhone but cheaper", earning the salesperson a larger commission.

There are a lot of things I hate about retail sales, but the one thing that makes sick is how frequently sales people push crap on customers that are ill-informed. Third party sales (eg mall kiosks) make commissions on sales but only get the commission after the customer keeps their service 6 months.

What was funny, and this happened several times, was the third party contract will charge the customer their commission of they cancel service. So not only do you get hit with the ETF from the Wireless provider, they get hit by a commission loss fee by the third party, which altogether is more than the retail price of the phone.

So don't underestimate retail sales to push their highest margin crap and telling the customer it's the greatest thing in the world.
post #15 of 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Misa View Post

Samsung's phones and Apple's phones look too much alike superficially without even seeing the user interface that, yes, people are confusing them. The people that are confusing them are being mislead by resellers doing bait-and-switch. For example, you go to one of the resellers and ask for a "new iPhone", and they go "here I have something better that's just like the iPhone but cheaper", earning the salesperson a larger commission.

There are a lot of things I hate about retail sales, but the one thing that makes sick is how frequently sales people push crap on customers that are ill-informed. Third party sales (eg mall kiosks) make commissions on sales but only get the commission after the customer keeps their service 6 months.

What was funny, and this happened several times, was the third party contract will charge the customer their commission of they cancel service. So not only do you get hit with the ETF from the Wireless provider, they get hit by a commission loss fee by the third party, which altogether is more than the retail price of the phone.

So don't underestimate retail sales to push their highest margin crap and telling the customer it's the greatest thing in the world.

People who walk into that situation have only themselves to blame. There is hundreds of gadget sites that review just phones for customers. No one should buy a phone on contract anyway, you always get screwed in the end. There is no need for it anymore especially when you can buy a new Nokia 900 with LTE for less then $450. It isn't an iPhone but it has gotten awesome reviews and as Nokia 800 owner I know the quality is solid.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Qualcomm, Intel provide Apple with source code in patent battle with Samsung