There is a lot of needless investor panic about the Chinese iPhone 'ban'

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35
    tmaytmay Posts: 3,799member
    Everyday it becomes clearer that the folks writing these articles are taking a bath holding Apple stock.  They are doing anything they can to convince themselves and others it’s all fine and dandy. 

    I would not advise touching Apple stock other than to quick flip a short to cash out on people trying to bottom fish the rips.  If this thing goes below $150 look out for some real old fashioned panic selling goodness. 

    Even as along time Apple user, I can say they are going down. The premiums are no longer worth it vs. windows. 
    Remind me, where can I buy a Windows phone?  Hey, but thanks for playing.
    Where else but Amazon

    https://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Single-SIM-Unlocked-Smartphone-Quad-Core/dp/B00TX5MOIO/ref=asc_df_B00TX5MOIO/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312188957659&hvpos=1o5&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2667923298407547030&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9011821&hvtargid=pla-563122683090&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=65853708681&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=312188957659&hvpos=1o5&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2667923298407547030&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9011821&hvtargid=pla-563122683090
    Implied was that the Windows Phone was currently both in production and for sale new. I think that it would be quite easy to agree that a model from 2015 isn't that.

    For the record, the iPhone 6S models were released on September 25, 2015, and that model is also unavailable as new from Apple three years later, excepting perhaps in India.


    edited December 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 35
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 3,904member
    tmay said:
    Everyday it becomes clearer that the folks writing these articles are taking a bath holding Apple stock.  They are doing anything they can to convince themselves and others it’s all fine and dandy. 

    I would not advise touching Apple stock other than to quick flip a short to cash out on people trying to bottom fish the rips.  If this thing goes below $150 look out for some real old fashioned panic selling goodness. 

    Even as along time Apple user, I can say they are going down. The premiums are no longer worth it vs. windows. 
    Remind me, where can I buy a Windows phone?  Hey, but thanks for playing.
    Where else but Amazon

    https://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Single-SIM-Unlocked-Smartphone-Quad-Core/dp/B00TX5MOIO/ref=asc_df_B00TX5MOIO/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312188957659&hvpos=1o5&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2667923298407547030&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9011821&hvtargid=pla-563122683090&psc=1&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=65853708681&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=312188957659&hvpos=1o5&hvnetw=g&hvrand=2667923298407547030&hvqmt=&hvdev=m&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9011821&hvtargid=pla-563122683090
    Implied was that the Windows Phone was currently both in production and for sale new. I think that it would be quite easy to agree that a model from 2015 isn't that.

    For the record, the iPhone 6S models were released on September 25, 2015, and that model is also unavailable as new from Apple three years later, excepting perhaps in India.


    Not available as new from Apple but still available as new from select resellers in Spain (at least for the moment - SE included).
  • Reply 23 of 35
    I feel obliged to say: when someone with single digit posts comes here, making a somewhat (I'm feeling gracious today) preposterous statement, and the whole lot of us push back, we are feeding the trolls.

    Do not feed the trolls!
    dedgeckowatto_cobraneil andersonjony0
  • Reply 24 of 35
    Apple had been paying its contract manufacturers to cover the licensing fees they were paying Qualcomm. But Apple didn't have contractual obligations of its own when it came to such licensing fees. And some of the agreements it did have with Qualcomm (which covered a lot of areas) have expired. I don't think that Qualcomm is even arguing that Apple is currently breaching contractual obligations it has made. If Qualcomm felt that Apple was, e.g., in breach of licensing terms which Apple had agreed to, then Qualcomm would be arguing to that effect.
    To follow up on this...

    I went back through a number of the court filings from the Apple v Qualcomm case (the one in the Southern District of California, being heard by Judge Curiel). It's clear that Apple and Qualcomm never had a licensing agreement for the patents at issue. They had discussed a direct licensing agreement for years, but had never been able to agree to terms.

    Some of Apple's contract manufacturers had preexisting licensing agreements with Qualcomm. Apple had been reimbursing its contract manufacturers for licensing costs, even though Apple claims that Qualcomm wouldn't allow it to know the terms of those licensing agreements. At some point Apple stopped remitting licensing costs to its contract manufacturers, ostensibly in response to Qualcomm failing to make payments to Apple which were required by separate agreements (which are, it seems, no longer in effect). Apple has continued to not pay its contract manufacturers for (Qualcomm) licensing costs, telling those contract manufacturers that's related to ongoing litigation with Qualcomm.

    On a related note: I realize that I've never been able to find one important filing from the Apple v Qualcomm (SD of CA) case. It's Qualcomm's First Amended Counterclaims filed May 24, 2017. I have Qualcomm's Answer and (initial) Counterclaims filed April 10th. But Apple's answer to those counterclaims reference the amended counterclaims filed on May 24th. So I'd like to have that filing in order to correlate Apple's specific answers to Qualcomm's specific assertions. If anyone, by chance, knows where I might find a copy of that May 24th filing, I'd appreciate a pointer.




  • Reply 25 of 35
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,710member
    carnegie said:
    Apple had been paying its contract manufacturers to cover the licensing fees they were paying Qualcomm. But Apple didn't have contractual obligations of its own when it came to such licensing fees. And some of the agreements it did have with Qualcomm (which covered a lot of areas) have expired. I don't think that Qualcomm is even arguing that Apple is currently breaching contractual obligations it has made. If Qualcomm felt that Apple was, e.g., in breach of licensing terms which Apple had agreed to, then Qualcomm would be arguing to that effect.
    To follow up on this...

    I went back through a number of the court filings from the Apple v Qualcomm case (the one in the Southern District of California, being heard by Judge Curiel). It's clear that Apple and Qualcomm never had a licensing agreement for the patents at issue. They had discussed a direct licensing agreement for years, but had never been able to agree to terms.

    Some of Apple's contract manufacturers had preexisting licensing agreements with Qualcomm. Apple had been reimbursing its contract manufacturers for licensing costs, even though Apple claims that Qualcomm wouldn't allow it to know the terms of those licensing agreements. At some point Apple stopped remitting licensing costs to its contract manufacturers, ostensibly in response to Qualcomm failing to make payments to Apple which were required by separate agreements (which are, it seems, no longer in effect). Apple has continued to not pay its contract manufacturers for (Qualcomm) licensing costs, telling those contract manufacturers that's related to ongoing litigation with Qualcomm.

    On a related note: I realize that I've never been able to find one important filing from the Apple v Qualcomm (SD of CA) case. It's Qualcomm's First Amended Counterclaims filed May 24, 2017. I have Qualcomm's Answer and (initial) Counterclaims filed April 10th. But Apple's answer to those counterclaims reference the amended counterclaims filed on May 24th. So I'd like to have that filing in order to correlate Apple's specific answers to Qualcomm's specific assertions. If anyone, by chance, knows where I might find a copy of that May 24th filing, I'd appreciate a pointer.




    Betcha you figured I might have it. :)
    https://www.scribd.com/document/349405795/17-05-24-Qualcomm-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction
  • Reply 26 of 35
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    Apple had been paying its contract manufacturers to cover the licensing fees they were paying Qualcomm. But Apple didn't have contractual obligations of its own when it came to such licensing fees. And some of the agreements it did have with Qualcomm (which covered a lot of areas) have expired. I don't think that Qualcomm is even arguing that Apple is currently breaching contractual obligations it has made. If Qualcomm felt that Apple was, e.g., in breach of licensing terms which Apple had agreed to, then Qualcomm would be arguing to that effect.
    To follow up on this...

    I went back through a number of the court filings from the Apple v Qualcomm case (the one in the Southern District of California, being heard by Judge Curiel). It's clear that Apple and Qualcomm never had a licensing agreement for the patents at issue. They had discussed a direct licensing agreement for years, but had never been able to agree to terms.

    Some of Apple's contract manufacturers had preexisting licensing agreements with Qualcomm. Apple had been reimbursing its contract manufacturers for licensing costs, even though Apple claims that Qualcomm wouldn't allow it to know the terms of those licensing agreements. At some point Apple stopped remitting licensing costs to its contract manufacturers, ostensibly in response to Qualcomm failing to make payments to Apple which were required by separate agreements (which are, it seems, no longer in effect). Apple has continued to not pay its contract manufacturers for (Qualcomm) licensing costs, telling those contract manufacturers that's related to ongoing litigation with Qualcomm.

    On a related note: I realize that I've never been able to find one important filing from the Apple v Qualcomm (SD of CA) case. It's Qualcomm's First Amended Counterclaims filed May 24, 2017. I have Qualcomm's Answer and (initial) Counterclaims filed April 10th. But Apple's answer to those counterclaims reference the amended counterclaims filed on May 24th. So I'd like to have that filing in order to correlate Apple's specific answers to Qualcomm's specific assertions. If anyone, by chance, knows where I might find a copy of that May 24th filing, I'd appreciate a pointer.




    Betcha you figured I might have it. :)
    https://www.scribd.com/document/349405795/17-05-24-Qualcomm-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction
    Thanks. But that's not the filing I'm looking for.

    What I'm looking for was filed the same day, but it would be a much longer document. It would be titled something like "Qualcomm Incorporated's Redacted Amended Counterclaims for Damages, Declaratory Judgment, and Injunctive Relief."


    EDIT: I just realized that document contains more than just Qualcomm's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. It also has supporting documents. Some of that might prove interesting. So thanks again. But it still doesn't contain the filing I'm lookin for. That filing will be fairly long and contained numbered paragraphs (which can be referred to by, in this case Apple, in an answer).
    edited December 2018
  • Reply 27 of 35
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,627member
    NY1822 said:

    Even as along time Apple user, I can say they are going down. The premiums are no longer worth it vs. windows. 
    Wow...that's an interesting take...Apples downfall due to Windows.

    Never thought I would say it. Everything I have is Apple. Same with my family. Computers, iPads, Phones, Apple TV.  I need a new computer. I can’t find anything that makes sense in the lineup. iMac is old. Mini is bad at graphics and storage. Laptops are ok, but very expensive. I’m basically switching to windows this generation. Just seems better. 
    Whatever suits you best. Apple has never claimed to make devices that are for everybody.


  • Reply 28 of 35
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,710member
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    Apple had been paying its contract manufacturers to cover the licensing fees they were paying Qualcomm. But Apple didn't have contractual obligations of its own when it came to such licensing fees. And some of the agreements it did have with Qualcomm (which covered a lot of areas) have expired. I don't think that Qualcomm is even arguing that Apple is currently breaching contractual obligations it has made. If Qualcomm felt that Apple was, e.g., in breach of licensing terms which Apple had agreed to, then Qualcomm would be arguing to that effect.
    To follow up on this...

    I went back through a number of the court filings from the Apple v Qualcomm case (the one in the Southern District of California, being heard by Judge Curiel). It's clear that Apple and Qualcomm never had a licensing agreement for the patents at issue. They had discussed a direct licensing agreement for years, but had never been able to agree to terms.

    Some of Apple's contract manufacturers had preexisting licensing agreements with Qualcomm. Apple had been reimbursing its contract manufacturers for licensing costs, even though Apple claims that Qualcomm wouldn't allow it to know the terms of those licensing agreements. At some point Apple stopped remitting licensing costs to its contract manufacturers, ostensibly in response to Qualcomm failing to make payments to Apple which were required by separate agreements (which are, it seems, no longer in effect). Apple has continued to not pay its contract manufacturers for (Qualcomm) licensing costs, telling those contract manufacturers that's related to ongoing litigation with Qualcomm.

    On a related note: I realize that I've never been able to find one important filing from the Apple v Qualcomm (SD of CA) case. It's Qualcomm's First Amended Counterclaims filed May 24, 2017. I have Qualcomm's Answer and (initial) Counterclaims filed April 10th. But Apple's answer to those counterclaims reference the amended counterclaims filed on May 24th. So I'd like to have that filing in order to correlate Apple's specific answers to Qualcomm's specific assertions. If anyone, by chance, knows where I might find a copy of that May 24th filing, I'd appreciate a pointer.




    Betcha you figured I might have it. :)
    https://www.scribd.com/document/349405795/17-05-24-Qualcomm-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction
    Thanks. But that's not the filing I'm looking for.

    What I'm looking for was filed the same day, but it would be a much longer document. It would be titled something like "Qualcomm Incorporated's Redacted Amended Counterclaims for Damages, Declaratory Judgment, and Injunctive Relief."


    EDIT: I just realized that document contains more than just Qualcomm's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. It also has supporting documents. Some of that might prove interesting. So thanks again. But it still doesn't contain the filing I'm lookin for. That filing will be fairly long and contained numbered paragraphs (which can be referred to by, in this case Apple, in an answer).
    Where did you find mention of another Qualcomm motion filed that same day? 
  • Reply 29 of 35
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    Apple had been paying its contract manufacturers to cover the licensing fees they were paying Qualcomm. But Apple didn't have contractual obligations of its own when it came to such licensing fees. And some of the agreements it did have with Qualcomm (which covered a lot of areas) have expired. I don't think that Qualcomm is even arguing that Apple is currently breaching contractual obligations it has made. If Qualcomm felt that Apple was, e.g., in breach of licensing terms which Apple had agreed to, then Qualcomm would be arguing to that effect.
    To follow up on this...

    I went back through a number of the court filings from the Apple v Qualcomm case (the one in the Southern District of California, being heard by Judge Curiel). It's clear that Apple and Qualcomm never had a licensing agreement for the patents at issue. They had discussed a direct licensing agreement for years, but had never been able to agree to terms.

    Some of Apple's contract manufacturers had preexisting licensing agreements with Qualcomm. Apple had been reimbursing its contract manufacturers for licensing costs, even though Apple claims that Qualcomm wouldn't allow it to know the terms of those licensing agreements. At some point Apple stopped remitting licensing costs to its contract manufacturers, ostensibly in response to Qualcomm failing to make payments to Apple which were required by separate agreements (which are, it seems, no longer in effect). Apple has continued to not pay its contract manufacturers for (Qualcomm) licensing costs, telling those contract manufacturers that's related to ongoing litigation with Qualcomm.

    On a related note: I realize that I've never been able to find one important filing from the Apple v Qualcomm (SD of CA) case. It's Qualcomm's First Amended Counterclaims filed May 24, 2017. I have Qualcomm's Answer and (initial) Counterclaims filed April 10th. But Apple's answer to those counterclaims reference the amended counterclaims filed on May 24th. So I'd like to have that filing in order to correlate Apple's specific answers to Qualcomm's specific assertions. If anyone, by chance, knows where I might find a copy of that May 24th filing, I'd appreciate a pointer.




    Betcha you figured I might have it. :)
    https://www.scribd.com/document/349405795/17-05-24-Qualcomm-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction
    Thanks. But that's not the filing I'm looking for.

    What I'm looking for was filed the same day, but it would be a much longer document. It would be titled something like "Qualcomm Incorporated's Redacted Amended Counterclaims for Damages, Declaratory Judgment, and Injunctive Relief."


    EDIT: I just realized that document contains more than just Qualcomm's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. It also has supporting documents. Some of that might prove interesting. So thanks again. But it still doesn't contain the filing I'm lookin for. That filing will be fairly long and contained numbered paragraphs (which can be referred to by, in this case Apple, in an answer).
    Where did you find mention of another Qualcomm motion filed that same day? 
    There are a number of websites (e.g., Court Listener) which provide docket information for some court cases. Some of them have some filings available for download, or they point to other sources (e.g. Pacer, a paid source) where you can download filings, or they themselves offer paid access to filings. The filing I'm looking for is referenced in Apple's filing from June 20th, and listed in the Court Listener docket as item number 70. Qualcomm filed a counterclaim on April 10th, then it filed an amended counterclaim on May 24th (the filing I'm looking for), and then Apple filed an answer on June 20th.

    Now that I've looked more carefully at the filing you linked to, it's actually from the case which Qualcomm brought against Apple's contract manufacturers. So it's not listed on the Apple v Qualcomm docket.
    edited December 2018
  • Reply 30 of 35
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,710member
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    Apple had been paying its contract manufacturers to cover the licensing fees they were paying Qualcomm. But Apple didn't have contractual obligations of its own when it came to such licensing fees. And some of the agreements it did have with Qualcomm (which covered a lot of areas) have expired. I don't think that Qualcomm is even arguing that Apple is currently breaching contractual obligations it has made. If Qualcomm felt that Apple was, e.g., in breach of licensing terms which Apple had agreed to, then Qualcomm would be arguing to that effect.
    To follow up on this...

    I went back through a number of the court filings from the Apple v Qualcomm case (the one in the Southern District of California, being heard by Judge Curiel). It's clear that Apple and Qualcomm never had a licensing agreement for the patents at issue. They had discussed a direct licensing agreement for years, but had never been able to agree to terms.

    Some of Apple's contract manufacturers had preexisting licensing agreements with Qualcomm. Apple had been reimbursing its contract manufacturers for licensing costs, even though Apple claims that Qualcomm wouldn't allow it to know the terms of those licensing agreements. At some point Apple stopped remitting licensing costs to its contract manufacturers, ostensibly in response to Qualcomm failing to make payments to Apple which were required by separate agreements (which are, it seems, no longer in effect). Apple has continued to not pay its contract manufacturers for (Qualcomm) licensing costs, telling those contract manufacturers that's related to ongoing litigation with Qualcomm.

    On a related note: I realize that I've never been able to find one important filing from the Apple v Qualcomm (SD of CA) case. It's Qualcomm's First Amended Counterclaims filed May 24, 2017. I have Qualcomm's Answer and (initial) Counterclaims filed April 10th. But Apple's answer to those counterclaims reference the amended counterclaims filed on May 24th. So I'd like to have that filing in order to correlate Apple's specific answers to Qualcomm's specific assertions. If anyone, by chance, knows where I might find a copy of that May 24th filing, I'd appreciate a pointer.




    Betcha you figured I might have it. :)
    https://www.scribd.com/document/349405795/17-05-24-Qualcomm-Motion-for-Preliminary-Injunction
    Thanks. But that's not the filing I'm looking for.

    What I'm looking for was filed the same day, but it would be a much longer document. It would be titled something like "Qualcomm Incorporated's Redacted Amended Counterclaims for Damages, Declaratory Judgment, and Injunctive Relief."


    EDIT: I just realized that document contains more than just Qualcomm's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. It also has supporting documents. Some of that might prove interesting. So thanks again. But it still doesn't contain the filing I'm lookin for. That filing will be fairly long and contained numbered paragraphs (which can be referred to by, in this case Apple, in an answer).
    Where did you find mention of another Qualcomm motion filed that same day? 
    There are a number of websites (e.g., Court Listener) which provide docket information for some court cases. Some of them have some filings available for download, or they point to other sources (e.g. Pacer, a paid source) where you can download filings, or they themselves offer paid access to filings. The filing I'm looking for is referenced in Apple's filing from June 20th, and listed in the Court Listener docket as item number 70. Qualcomm filed a counterclaim on April 10th, then it filed an amended counterclaim on May 24th (the filing I'm looking for), and then Apple filed an answer on June 20th.

    Now that I've looked more carefully at the filing you linked to, it's actually from the case which Qualcomm brought against Apple's contract manufacturers. So it's not listed on the Apple v Qualcomm docket.
    Yes I have Pacer (have for years) but see no record of a filing on that date other than the one I referenced earlier. I'll have a second look tho.
  • Reply 31 of 35
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,710member
    According to the court record the hearing was not held ex parte as someone with Apple apparently may have indicated. Apple's various Chinese subsidiaries were represented by counsel and/or executives present at the hearings. Apple Computer Trading was represented by its Director as well as attorneys from Shanghai Fangda Partners. Apple Electronic Products Commerce (Beijing) Co was also represented by its Director and counsel from the same legal firm, as was Apple Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

    https://www.chinapatentblog.com/uploads/6/4/6/0/64605647/bilingual_version_of_pi_decision_re_142154b1__case_no._1208__.pdf
    edited December 2018
  • Reply 32 of 35
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,630administrator
    gatorguy said:
    According to the court record the hearing was not held ex parte as someone with Apple apparently may have indicated. Apple's various Chinese subsidiaries were represented by counsel and/or executives present at the hearings. Apple Computer Trading was represented by its Director as well as attorneys from Shanghai Fangda Partners. Apple Electronic Products Commerce (Beijing) Co was also represented by its Director and counsel from the same legal firm, as was Apple Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

    https://www.chinapatentblog.com/uploads/6/4/6/0/64605647/bilingual_version_of_pi_decision_re_142154b1__case_no._1208__.pdf
    The document doesn't state that -- it just lists the parties involved at some point in the hearings, or who are accountable. We've got non-Apple sources close to Qualcomm saying the same thing about ex parte.
    edited December 2018
  • Reply 33 of 35
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,710member
    gatorguy said:
    According to the court record the hearing was not held ex parte as someone with Apple apparently may have indicated. Apple's various Chinese subsidiaries were represented by counsel and/or executives present at the hearings. Apple Computer Trading was represented by its Director as well as attorneys from Shanghai Fangda Partners. Apple Electronic Products Commerce (Beijing) Co was also represented by its Director and counsel from the same legal firm, as was Apple Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

    https://www.chinapatentblog.com/uploads/6/4/6/0/64605647/bilingual_version_of_pi_decision_re_142154b1__case_no._1208__.pdf
    The document doesn't state that -- it just lists the parties involved at some point in the hearings, or who are accountable. We've got non-Apple sources close to Qualcomm saying the same thing about ex parte.
    Thanks for the comment Mike. I having a third look you are correct that while the Apple subsidiaries and/or counsel would have been aware of the hearing schedule (or should have been) it is possible that some or all of them may not have physically attended this one. 
  • Reply 34 of 35
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,630administrator
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    According to the court record the hearing was not held ex parte as someone with Apple apparently may have indicated. Apple's various Chinese subsidiaries were represented by counsel and/or executives present at the hearings. Apple Computer Trading was represented by its Director as well as attorneys from Shanghai Fangda Partners. Apple Electronic Products Commerce (Beijing) Co was also represented by its Director and counsel from the same legal firm, as was Apple Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

    https://www.chinapatentblog.com/uploads/6/4/6/0/64605647/bilingual_version_of_pi_decision_re_142154b1__case_no._1208__.pdf
    The document doesn't state that -- it just lists the parties involved at some point in the hearings, or who are accountable. We've got non-Apple sources close to Qualcomm saying the same thing about ex parte.
    Thanks for the comment Mike. I having a third look you are correct that while the Apple subsidiaries and/or counsel would have been aware of the hearing schedule (or should have been) it is possible that some or all of them may not have physically attended this one. 
    No problem. This is a fun (or "fun," whichever) saga, no matter how you look at it.
    edited December 2018
  • Reply 35 of 35
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,710member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    According to the court record the hearing was not held ex parte as someone with Apple apparently may have indicated. Apple's various Chinese subsidiaries were represented by counsel and/or executives present at the hearings. Apple Computer Trading was represented by its Director as well as attorneys from Shanghai Fangda Partners. Apple Electronic Products Commerce (Beijing) Co was also represented by its Director and counsel from the same legal firm, as was Apple Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

      https://www.chinapatentblog.com/uploads/6/4/6/0/64605647/bilingual_version_of_pi_decision_re_142154b1__case_no._1208__.pdf
    The document doesn't state that -- it just lists the parties involved at some point in the hearings, or who are accountable. We've got non-Apple sources close to Qualcomm saying the same thing about ex parte.
    Thanks for the comment Mike. I having a third look you are correct that while the Apple subsidiaries and/or counsel would have been aware of the hearing schedule (or should have been) it is possible that some or all of them may not have physically attended this one. 
    No problem. This is a fun (or "fun," whichever) saga, no matter how you look at it.
    My understanding of what I read is this serves as only a temporary order for now pending further input from the affected parties if they so choose. A preliminary ruling intended to benefit only one party, and one that takes place in the US as well I believe. That would not be atypical in an IP case would it?
    "Against the order rendered, a party may apply for reconsideration once within 10 days after receiving the order. The enforcement of the order shall not be suspended during the period of reconsideration"
    edited December 2018
Sign In or Register to comment.