Apple latest to settle lawsuit with e-Watch over iPhone camera technology
Apple has reached a settlement with a San Antonio, Tex.-based firm called e-Watch, which claimed that the company was violating two U.S. patents related to cellphone cameras.
A joint motion to dismiss the suit was filed in a Texas court on Friday, Law360 said. The terms of the settlement weren't immediately clear.
The two patents, 7,365,871 and 7,643,168, both cover "capturing, converting and transmitting a visual image signal via a digital transmission system."
e-Watch launched a flurry of related complaints against electronics manufacturers in 2013, some other targets being Sony, Sharp, Nokia, BlackBerry, and Kyocera. Apple is simply the latest to settle in the matter, and was accused of infringing through devices like the iPhone 4S.
The new settlement likely involves a one-time payment, since Apple is normally eager to avoid increasing royalties on its products. In fact the company is now in the middle of a lawsuit against chip supplier Qualcomm, arguing that some $1 billion in rebates were unfairly withheld because it decided to cooperate with South Korean antitrust regulators.
Qualcomm for its part has called Apple's claims "baseless," and even suggested that the iPhone maker provoked "regulatory attacks" by "misrepresenting facts and withholding information."
A joint motion to dismiss the suit was filed in a Texas court on Friday, Law360 said. The terms of the settlement weren't immediately clear.
The two patents, 7,365,871 and 7,643,168, both cover "capturing, converting and transmitting a visual image signal via a digital transmission system."
e-Watch launched a flurry of related complaints against electronics manufacturers in 2013, some other targets being Sony, Sharp, Nokia, BlackBerry, and Kyocera. Apple is simply the latest to settle in the matter, and was accused of infringing through devices like the iPhone 4S.
The new settlement likely involves a one-time payment, since Apple is normally eager to avoid increasing royalties on its products. In fact the company is now in the middle of a lawsuit against chip supplier Qualcomm, arguing that some $1 billion in rebates were unfairly withheld because it decided to cooperate with South Korean antitrust regulators.
Qualcomm for its part has called Apple's claims "baseless," and even suggested that the iPhone maker provoked "regulatory attacks" by "misrepresenting facts and withholding information."
Comments
"It was only with the iPhone 7, released in September, that Apple was able to use a competitor's chipsets (Intel's) as well as Qualcomm chipsets," write Apple lawyers. That choice cost Apple, which didn't get its usual exclusivity "rebate" from Qualcomm." The amount was redacted.
So if facts don't suit you make anything up you wish, as long as it makes you happier.
From what I have gathered from this dispute is Apple was legally bound to source exclusively from Qualcomm from some time in 2011 until some time in 2016.
Since it appears Apple honored that exclusivity, Qualcomm appears to be in the wrong by withholding accrued rebates from January until the day the iPhone 7 units shipped to customers.
According to supposed quotes by Apple, Qualcomm chose to hold rebates due to Apple responding truthfully to the South Korean government's questions about Qualcomm's business practices. Qualcomm was charged $800+ million for its business practices in South Korea.
Keep in mind I wrote appears if you choose to respond.
https://www.scribd.com/document/337128944/Apple-v-Qualcomm-Lawsuit
One other note: Qualcomm didn't call the payments to Apple "rebates". That's Apple's wording as they explain on the next page of the complaint.
Don't misconstrue the mention as my saying its "Apple fault" and Qualcomm is "an innocent victim". Qualcomm has been a patent bully for years. Keep in mind tho thjat what we've been reading are the claims that Apple wishes to build a case with. Not all might be facts but instead opinion. That's why there's judges and juries tasked with determining which is which.
But with regulators on three continents finally recognizing the aggressive anti-competitive patent assertion efforts they use it looks like an ideal time for Apple to attempt to cut licensing costs by reducing the very high royalties that Qualcomm would claim. Apple may not win but I think it's well worth a shot. In any event Qualcomm will not be able to continue with their current licensing policies much longer IMO.
Sorry for the distraction from the e-Watch settlement but to be fair it was writer of the AI article that brought up Qualcomm.
Rather, Qualcomm stopped payments directly after Apple's required involvement with the KFTC. Something which their contract did not forbid. All of this information is easily accessible in the same document that you are referencing.
Other appleinsider readers are right to point out your misuse of information to present a story which is counterfactual. You even have the audacity to cite the document which disproves your own theory. Considering how easy it is to search that document, I consider your statements as a deliberate act to misinform.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/apple-files-1-billion-lawsuit-against-qualcomm-over-patent-licensing/
So now with that out of the way what do you think that passage means? Sounds fairly straightforward.
code really only needs copyright protection, which protects from copy-and-paste theft, but leaves others free to code their own solutions to the same goals.
That and submarine patents have been an issue that doesn't generally happen in the hardware world. The classic example being LZW and GIF.
I don't think much of business practice patents either. Fortunately the bar has been raised on those post Alice v CLS Bank.