Qualcomm argues continued Chinese iPhone sales violate court injunction

Posted:
in iPhone
Qualcomm has reportedly presented a Chinese court with video evidence that Apple is still selling iPhones in the country, and insisted that this violates an injunction imposed earlier this week.

China iPhone receipt


The company is now waiting on whether the court will take action, CNBC said on Wednesday. The chipmaker won a ban on Chinese iPhone sales and imports on Monday, and claims that the injunction applies to wide array of devices up to and including the iPhone X, construed as violating patents on photo editing and managing apps with a touchscreen.

Apple contends that the injunction applies only to products running older versions of iOS. Any iPhone bought from Apple currently comes preloaded with iOS 12, which if Apple's reasoning is followed would make the injunction toothless. Qualcomm unsuccessfully petitioned for a block on manufacturing iPhones in China as well.

"Qualcomm's effort to ban our products is another desperate move by a company whose illegal practices are under investigation by regulators around the world," Apple said in a statement on Monday to AppleInsider. "All iPhone models remain available for our customers in China. We will pursue all our legal options through the courts."

Apple first filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Qualcomm in January 2017, arguing that the latter was withholding patent royalty rebates as retaliation for cooperation with antitrust investigations. The battle quickly escalated, resulting in suits and countersuits around the world. In September, Qualcomm accused Apple of delivering trade secrets to Intel to improve the performance of modems.

An August settlement over similar matters saw Qualcomm pay $93 million in fines to Taiwan and promise to invest $700 million in the country over five years.

A U.S. Federal Trade Commission lawsuit actually precedes Apple's, and reached a critical turning point recently when District Judge Lucy Koh issued a preliminary ruling against Qualcomm, calling on it to license technology to rivals like Intel. Qualcomm and the FTC have been pursuing a settlement.

To put pressure on Qualcomm, Apple has been directing its manufacturers to withhold royalty payments, potentially in excess of $7 billion.

Some investors have expressed fears about the new ban, which could affect Apple's already volatile stock coping with worries about 2018 iPhone sales and the U.S.-China trade war.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 27
    With each passing vile move Qualcomm makes, the more I say, let them burn in hell and go bankrupt from legal fines... I hate this company.
    seanismorrisapplesauce007jbdragonredgeminipawatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 27
    With each passing vile move Qualcomm makes, the more I say, let them burn in hell and go bankrupt from legal fines... I hate this company.
    An you love Apple I guess. Maybe you should take step back and look at bigger picture. It is really worth it from time to time. I am not Qualcomm lover as they used some shady patenting tactics in the past, but that is not about love or hate.
  • Reply 3 of 27
    With each passing vile move Qualcomm makes, the more I say, let them burn in hell and go bankrupt from legal fines... I hate this company.
    Management must be feeling the heat.  They’re going with “might as well go down in flames” mentality...

    Qualcomm does have good products, but they need a brain transplant at the top.

    My first thought is break the company up.  Unfortunately that would likely mean a new set of patent trolls... perhaps even worse that exists now.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 27
    AppleInsider said:...

    To put pressure on Qualcomm, Apple has been directing its manufacturers to withhold royalty payments, potentially in excess of $7 billion.

    ...
    To be clear, Apple has denied this.

    It's reasonable to think that Apple expected its contract manufacturers to stop making royalty payments to Qualcomm in response to Apple's actions (e.g., Apple withholding from contract manufacturers funds to compensate for royalty payments, and telling them it was doing that because of its dispute with Qualcomm). But Apple said in a court filing that it did not direct contract manufacturers to withhold payments from Qualcomm.
    radarthekatdamn_its_hotRayz2016watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 27
    My best guess as to what's going on (based on what both Qualcomm has said and what Apple has reportedly said): The court, considering only the iOS 11 version (and, perhaps, earlier versions), found that iPhone software infringes Qualcomm's patents. So it granted Qualcomm a preliminary injunction banning sales of certain iPhone models up to iPhone X. The court either didn't decide whether iOS 12 also violated Qualcomm's patents (more likely), or otherwise didn't distinguish between the older iPhone models running iOS 11 and those same older models running iOS 12 when it issued its order. So its ban, as ordered, applied to those older models.

    Apple's position is that the ban shouldn't apply to those older models if they are running iOS 12 either because the court found that iOS 12 didn't infringe (less likely) or because it didn't specifically find that iOS 12 did infringe. So, now, Apple will - along with other bases for appeal - argue that the ban shouldn't apply to older iPhone models if they are running iOS 12 because the court would first need to find that iOS 12 also infringes.

    So, as issued the injunction may apply to older models even if they are running iOS 12. But Apple thinks that it shouldn't because such an injunction would go beyond what is supported by the findings that the court made.

    I, of course, don't know that that is what has happened. I haven't found a copy of any written order that might have been issued. But that would be my best guess based on everything that I've seen reported.
    edited December 2018 damn_its_hot
  • Reply 6 of 27
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,995moderator
    With each passing vile move Qualcomm makes, the more I say, let them burn in hell and go bankrupt from legal fines... I hate this company.
    It does go against all sense of fair play, and suggests how the company has likely played the game all along.  My hope is that Apple can continue to extricate itself from use of Qualcomm IP such that Qualcomm will be starved of cash flow to apply to R&D.  This is not me wishing to kill Qualcomm so much as it’s my hope that the demise of Qualcomm would deliver a blow to the many copycat Android makers who rely upon its IP.  That, to me, represents a bit of tasty karma, to see Apple pull farther ahead while Android hardware is starved of innovation.  
    edited December 2018 damn_its_hotelijahgmagman1979macseekerjbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 27
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,419member
    carnegie said:
    AppleInsider said:...

    To put pressure on Qualcomm, Apple has been directing its manufacturers to withhold royalty payments, potentially in excess of $7 billion.

    ...
    To be clear, Apple has denied this.

    It's reasonable to think that Apple expected its contract manufacturers to stop making royalty payments to Qualcomm in response to Apple's actions (e.g., Apple withholding from contract manufacturers funds to compensate for royalty payments, and telling them it was doing that because of its dispute with Qualcomm). But Apple said in a court filing that it did not direct contract manufacturers to withhold payments from Qualcomm.
    Wait a minute.  If Apple withheld funds to compensate for royalty payments then that WAS telling its contract manufacturers to withhold payments from Qualcomm.   But that raises another question:  why are the contract manufacturers responsible for royalty payments?   Wouldn't that be Apple's total responsibility?   If I go to a local manufacturer and hire them to assemble a device, they're not responsible for any licensing agreements or royalty payments - that would be my sole responsibility.  
  • Reply 8 of 27
    zoetmb said:
    carnegie said:
    AppleInsider said:...

    To put pressure on Qualcomm, Apple has been directing its manufacturers to withhold royalty payments, potentially in excess of $7 billion.

    ...
    To be clear, Apple has denied this.

    It's reasonable to think that Apple expected its contract manufacturers to stop making royalty payments to Qualcomm in response to Apple's actions (e.g., Apple withholding from contract manufacturers funds to compensate for royalty payments, and telling them it was doing that because of its dispute with Qualcomm). But Apple said in a court filing that it did not direct contract manufacturers to withhold payments from Qualcomm.
    Wait a minute.  If Apple withheld funds to compensate for royalty payments then that WAS telling its contract manufacturers to withhold payments from Qualcomm.   But that raises another question:  why are the contract manufacturers responsible for royalty payments?   Wouldn't that be Apple's total responsibility?   If I go to a local manufacturer and hire them to assemble a device, they're not responsible for any licensing agreements or royalty payments - that would be my sole responsibility.  
    Legally, it could matter whether Apple actually directed contract manufacturers to withhold royalty payments. And it has denied doing so. Though, as I indicated, it's reasonable to think Apple expected that its contract manufacturers would withhold royalty payments.

    As for why contract manufacturers are responsible for royalty payments. It's because Apple and Qualcomm haven't been able to agree on licensing terms. Apple says, basically, that's because Qualcomm won't offer FRAND terms. Qualcomm says, basically, that's because Apple won't accept FRAND terms. So the only way Qualcomm has to collect royalty payments on the products in question is to collect them from Apple's contract manufacturers. Otherwise it would have to wait for a court to sort out the proper licensing terms or agree to terms which Apple might offer.

    Additionally, Apple's contract manufacturers have their own licensing agreements with Qualcomm. At least some of those agreements pre-date Apple's use of those contract manufacturers to, e.g., build iPhones. Those manufacturers are actually infringing Qualcomm patents because they are selling products (incorporating Qualcomm IP) to Apple, even though they are contract manufacturers. There are myriad aspects to this situation (e.g., the possibility that in some cases the contract manufacturers are using components from other suppliers where Qualcomm's patent rights are exhausted, or the possibility that Qualcomm's patent rights are exhausted in some cases because Qualcomm itself sold components to the contract manufacturers). I won't get lost in them. But I would add that Apple claims it hasn't been allowed to know the terms of Qualcomm's licensing agreements with Apple's contract manufacturers. Apple claims that Qualcomm won't let those contract manufacturers share the terms with Apple.

    But the big picture reality is that the contract manufacturers are obliged to pay Qualcomm for using its IP (unless they are using components which are themselves properly licensed). If they are willing to accept a license, they can use that IP - while not making royalty payments - while they let a court sort out proper terms. But in at least some cases they already have licensing agreements which they are now, it would seem, breaching. Courts will have to sort out what happens from here. Or, more likely I think, the parties will eventually reach settlements.
    edited December 2018 damn_its_hot
  • Reply 9 of 27
    carnegie said:
    My best guess as to what's going on (based on what both Qualcomm has said and what Apple has reportedly said): The court, considering only the iOS 11 version (and, perhaps, earlier versions), found that iPhone software infringes Qualcomm's patents. So it granted Qualcomm a preliminary injunction banning sales of certain iPhone models up to iPhone X. The court either didn't decide whether iOS 12 also violated Qualcomm's patents (more likely), or otherwise didn't distinguish between the older iPhone models running iOS 11 and those same older models running iOS 12 when it issued its order. So its ban, as ordered, applied to those older models.

    Apple's position is that the ban shouldn't apply to those older models if they are running iOS 12 either because the court found that iOS 12 didn't infringe (less likely) or because it didn't specifically find that iOS 12 did infringe. So, now, Apple will - along with other bases for appeal - argue that the ban shouldn't apply to older iPhone models if they are running iOS 12 because the court would first need to find that iOS 12 also infringes.

    So, as issued the injunction may apply to older models even if they are running iOS 12. But Apple thinks that it shouldn't because such an injunction would go beyond what is supported by the findings that the court made.

    I, of course, don't know that that is what has happened. I haven't found a copy of any written order that might have been issued. But that would be my best guess based on everything that I've seen reported.
    A key point about the decision: It was made ex parte. Even in China, this won't be upheld. 
  • Reply 10 of 27
    With each passing vile move Qualcomm makes, the more I say, let them burn in hell and go bankrupt from legal fines... I hate this company.

    Any iPhone running iOS 12 can be sold. Qualcomm is toast and they know it. 
    That Qualcomm has to resort to buying iPhones with Intel chips in them is pitiful. 
    Let them burn in hell. 

    magman1979jbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 27
    carnegie said:
    zoetmb said:
    carnegie said:
    AppleInsider said:...

    To put pressure on Qualcomm, Apple has been directing its manufacturers to withhold royalty payments, potentially in excess of $7 billion.

    ...
    To be clear, Apple has denied this.

    It's reasonable to think that Apple expected its contract manufacturers to stop making royalty payments to Qualcomm in response to Apple's actions (e.g., Apple withholding from contract manufacturers funds to compensate for royalty payments, and telling them it was doing that because of its dispute with Qualcomm). But Apple said in a court filing that it did not direct contract manufacturers to withhold payments from Qualcomm.
    Wait a minute.  If Apple withheld funds to compensate for royalty payments then that WAS telling its contract manufacturers to withhold payments from Qualcomm.   But that raises another question:  why are the contract manufacturers responsible for royalty payments?   Wouldn't that be Apple's total responsibility?   If I go to a local manufacturer and hire them to assemble a device, they're not responsible for any licensing agreements or royalty payments - that would be my sole responsibility.  
    Legally, it could matter whether Apple actually directed contract manufacturers to withhold royalty payments. And it has denied doing so. Though, as I indicated, it's reasonable to think Apple expected that its contract manufacturers would withhold royalty payments.

    As for why contract manufacturers are responsible for royalty payments. It's because Apple and Qualcomm haven't been able to agree on licensing terms. Apple says, basically, that's because Qualcomm won't offer FRAND terms. Qualcomm says, basically, that's because Apple won't accept FRAND terms. So the only way Qualcomm has to collect royalty payments on the products in question is to collect them from Apple's contract manufacturers. Otherwise it would have to wait for a court to sort out the proper licensing terms or agree to terms which Apple might offer.

    Additionally, Apple's contract manufacturers have their own licensing agreements with Qualcomm. At least some of those agreements pre-date Apple's use of those contract manufacturers to, e.g., build iPhones. Those manufacturers are actually infringing Qualcomm patents because they are selling products (incorporating Qualcomm IP) to Apple, even though they are contract manufacturers. There are myriad aspects to this situation (e.g., the possibility that in some cases the contract manufacturers are using components from other suppliers where Qualcomm's patent rights are exhausted, or the possibility that Qualcomm's patent rights are exhausted in some cases because Qualcomm itself sold components to the contract manufacturers). I won't get lost in them. But I would add that Apple claims it hasn't been allowed to know the terms of Qualcomm's licensing agreements with Apple's contract manufacturers. Apple claims that Qualcomm won't let those contract manufacturers share the terms with Apple.

    But the big picture reality is that the contract manufacturers are obliged to pay Qualcomm for using its IP (unless they are using components which are themselves properly licensed). If they are willing to accept a license, they can use that IP - while not making royalty payments - while they let a court sort out proper terms. But in at least some cases they already have licensing agreements which they are now, it would seem, breaching. Courts will have to sort out what happens from here. Or, more likely I think, the parties will eventually reach settlements.
    I believe at its simplest point, the issue revolves around both Apple and the contract manufacturers being charged for the same license for what should be FRAND terms but instead  Apple being charged more based on the size of the company. The double dipping which they were just fined over a billion dollars for in Taiwan is the problem.  
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 27
    larryjw said:
    carnegie said:
    My best guess as to what's going on (based on what both Qualcomm has said and what Apple has reportedly said): The court, considering only the iOS 11 version (and, perhaps, earlier versions), found that iPhone software infringes Qualcomm's patents. So it granted Qualcomm a preliminary injunction banning sales of certain iPhone models up to iPhone X. The court either didn't decide whether iOS 12 also violated Qualcomm's patents (more likely), or otherwise didn't distinguish between the older iPhone models running iOS 11 and those same older models running iOS 12 when it issued its order. So its ban, as ordered, applied to those older models.

    Apple's position is that the ban shouldn't apply to those older models if they are running iOS 12 either because the court found that iOS 12 didn't infringe (less likely) or because it didn't specifically find that iOS 12 did infringe. So, now, Apple will - along with other bases for appeal - argue that the ban shouldn't apply to older iPhone models if they are running iOS 12 because the court would first need to find that iOS 12 also infringes.

    So, as issued the injunction may apply to older models even if they are running iOS 12. But Apple thinks that it shouldn't because such an injunction would go beyond what is supported by the findings that the court made.

    I, of course, don't know that that is what has happened. I haven't found a copy of any written order that might have been issued. But that would be my best guess based on everything that I've seen reported.
    A key point about the decision: It was made ex parte. Even in China, this won't be upheld. 
    That may be the case (and it would be an important if it is), but what do you base that on?

    China's legal system does seem to work differently than the U.S.'s in important ways.
  • Reply 13 of 27
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,339administrator
    carnegie said:
    larryjw said:
    carnegie said:
    My best guess as to what's going on (based on what both Qualcomm has said and what Apple has reportedly said): The court, considering only the iOS 11 version (and, perhaps, earlier versions), found that iPhone software infringes Qualcomm's patents. So it granted Qualcomm a preliminary injunction banning sales of certain iPhone models up to iPhone X. The court either didn't decide whether iOS 12 also violated Qualcomm's patents (more likely), or otherwise didn't distinguish between the older iPhone models running iOS 11 and those same older models running iOS 12 when it issued its order. So its ban, as ordered, applied to those older models.

    Apple's position is that the ban shouldn't apply to those older models if they are running iOS 12 either because the court found that iOS 12 didn't infringe (less likely) or because it didn't specifically find that iOS 12 did infringe. So, now, Apple will - along with other bases for appeal - argue that the ban shouldn't apply to older iPhone models if they are running iOS 12 because the court would first need to find that iOS 12 also infringes.

    So, as issued the injunction may apply to older models even if they are running iOS 12. But Apple thinks that it shouldn't because such an injunction would go beyond what is supported by the findings that the court made.

    I, of course, don't know that that is what has happened. I haven't found a copy of any written order that might have been issued. But that would be my best guess based on everything that I've seen reported.
    A key point about the decision: It was made ex parte. Even in China, this won't be upheld. 
    That may be the case (and it would be an important if it is), but what do you base that on?

    China's legal system does seem to work differently than the U.S.'s in important ways.
    re: ex parte, We talked about it yesterday:

    macseeker
  • Reply 14 of 27
    genovelle said:
    carnegie said:
    zoetmb said:
    carnegie said:
    AppleInsider said:...

    To put pressure on Qualcomm, Apple has been directing its manufacturers to withhold royalty payments, potentially in excess of $7 billion.

    ...
    To be clear, Apple has denied this.

    It's reasonable to think that Apple expected its contract manufacturers to stop making royalty payments to Qualcomm in response to Apple's actions (e.g., Apple withholding from contract manufacturers funds to compensate for royalty payments, and telling them it was doing that because of its dispute with Qualcomm). But Apple said in a court filing that it did not direct contract manufacturers to withhold payments from Qualcomm.
    Wait a minute.  If Apple withheld funds to compensate for royalty payments then that WAS telling its contract manufacturers to withhold payments from Qualcomm.   But that raises another question:  why are the contract manufacturers responsible for royalty payments?   Wouldn't that be Apple's total responsibility?   If I go to a local manufacturer and hire them to assemble a device, they're not responsible for any licensing agreements or royalty payments - that would be my sole responsibility.  
    Legally, it could matter whether Apple actually directed contract manufacturers to withhold royalty payments. And it has denied doing so. Though, as I indicated, it's reasonable to think Apple expected that its contract manufacturers would withhold royalty payments.

    As for why contract manufacturers are responsible for royalty payments. It's because Apple and Qualcomm haven't been able to agree on licensing terms. Apple says, basically, that's because Qualcomm won't offer FRAND terms. Qualcomm says, basically, that's because Apple won't accept FRAND terms. So the only way Qualcomm has to collect royalty payments on the products in question is to collect them from Apple's contract manufacturers. Otherwise it would have to wait for a court to sort out the proper licensing terms or agree to terms which Apple might offer.

    Additionally, Apple's contract manufacturers have their own licensing agreements with Qualcomm. At least some of those agreements pre-date Apple's use of those contract manufacturers to, e.g., build iPhones. Those manufacturers are actually infringing Qualcomm patents because they are selling products (incorporating Qualcomm IP) to Apple, even though they are contract manufacturers. There are myriad aspects to this situation (e.g., the possibility that in some cases the contract manufacturers are using components from other suppliers where Qualcomm's patent rights are exhausted, or the possibility that Qualcomm's patent rights are exhausted in some cases because Qualcomm itself sold components to the contract manufacturers). I won't get lost in them. But I would add that Apple claims it hasn't been allowed to know the terms of Qualcomm's licensing agreements with Apple's contract manufacturers. Apple claims that Qualcomm won't let those contract manufacturers share the terms with Apple.

    But the big picture reality is that the contract manufacturers are obliged to pay Qualcomm for using its IP (unless they are using components which are themselves properly licensed). If they are willing to accept a license, they can use that IP - while not making royalty payments - while they let a court sort out proper terms. But in at least some cases they already have licensing agreements which they are now, it would seem, breaching. Courts will have to sort out what happens from here. Or, more likely I think, the parties will eventually reach settlements.
    I believe at its simplest point, the issue revolves around both Apple and the contract manufacturers being charged for the same license for what should be FRAND terms but instead  Apple being charged more based on the size of the company. The double dipping which they were just fined over a billion dollars for in Taiwan is the problem.  
    The double dipping is one aspect of the situation. There are many more, and I wouldn't even say that aspect is the most important one.

    But, to be clear, Apple was never paying licensing fees directly to Qualcomm. It was always Apple's contract manufacturers paying those licensing fees and Apple remitting funds to those manufacturers to cover those costs. The double dipping is about Qualcomm selling components that incorporated some of its IP and then demanding to be paid licensing fees that were ostensibly, in part, for IP substantially embodied in those components. Under U.S. law, Qualcomm's patent rights in such IP is exhausted when it sells the components. But even that aspect is complicated by something else Qualcomm was doing: Refusing to identify the patents which licensees were paying for. That's something regulatory bodies have told Qualcomm it has to stop doing.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 27
    carnegie said:
    larryjw said:
    carnegie said:
    My best guess as to what's going on (based on what both Qualcomm has said and what Apple has reportedly said): The court, considering only the iOS 11 version (and, perhaps, earlier versions), found that iPhone software infringes Qualcomm's patents. So it granted Qualcomm a preliminary injunction banning sales of certain iPhone models up to iPhone X. The court either didn't decide whether iOS 12 also violated Qualcomm's patents (more likely), or otherwise didn't distinguish between the older iPhone models running iOS 11 and those same older models running iOS 12 when it issued its order. So its ban, as ordered, applied to those older models.

    Apple's position is that the ban shouldn't apply to those older models if they are running iOS 12 either because the court found that iOS 12 didn't infringe (less likely) or because it didn't specifically find that iOS 12 did infringe. So, now, Apple will - along with other bases for appeal - argue that the ban shouldn't apply to older iPhone models if they are running iOS 12 because the court would first need to find that iOS 12 also infringes.

    So, as issued the injunction may apply to older models even if they are running iOS 12. But Apple thinks that it shouldn't because such an injunction would go beyond what is supported by the findings that the court made.

    I, of course, don't know that that is what has happened. I haven't found a copy of any written order that might have been issued. But that would be my best guess based on everything that I've seen reported.
    A key point about the decision: It was made ex parte. Even in China, this won't be upheld. 
    That may be the case (and it would be an important if it is), but what do you base that on?

    China's legal system does seem to work differently than the U.S.'s in important ways.
    re: ex parte, We talked about it yesterday:

    Thank you.


    EDIT: That's interesting and is important. I wonder if those Apple sources were referring to the entire process (being ex parte) or just the issuance of the preliminary injunction (and, e.g., some aspect of the consideration of it).
    edited December 2018
  • Reply 16 of 27
    Usual Reuter’s unreal news trying to spread rumors.  Without facts.  malicious rumor mongers.
    Dragging on dribble over and over and over again.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 27
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,278member
    carnegie said:
    My best guess as to what's going on (based on what both Qualcomm has said and what Apple has reportedly said): The court, considering only the iOS 11 version (and, perhaps, earlier versions), found that iPhone software infringes Qualcomm's patents. So it granted Qualcomm a preliminary injunction banning sales of certain iPhone models up to iPhone X. The court either didn't decide whether iOS 12 also violated Qualcomm's patents (more likely), or otherwise didn't distinguish between the older iPhone models running iOS 11 and those same older models running iOS 12 when it issued its order. So its ban, as ordered, applied to those older models.

    Apple's position is that the ban shouldn't apply to those older models if they are running iOS 12 either because the court found that iOS 12 didn't infringe (less likely) or because it didn't specifically find that iOS 12 did infringe. So, now, Apple will - along with other bases for appeal - argue that the ban shouldn't apply to older iPhone models if they are running iOS 12 because the court would first need to find that iOS 12 also infringes.

    So, as issued the injunction may apply to older models even if they are running iOS 12. But Apple thinks that it shouldn't because such an injunction would go beyond what is supported by the findings that the court made.

    I, of course, don't know that that is what has happened. I haven't found a copy of any written order that might have been issued. But that would be my best guess based on everything that I've seen reported.
    The actual court orders are here for anyone wanting to read them:
    https://www.chinapatentblog.com/blog/bilingual-english-chinese-version-of-apple-injunction-order-in-both-qualcomm-cases-from-fuzhou-intermediate-peoples-court

    Rather than iOS12 being the differentiator it seems it's who the manufacturer is. Perhaps these two companies have been paying Qualcomm royalties despite Apple not reimbursing them?
    1. For the '586 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and for the 119 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and Compal Electronics Inc.
    edited December 2018 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 18 of 27
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,278member
    @carnegie ;

    You'll be interested in this speech from a couple days ago even if others may not immediately see the significance, and why SEP holders might be a bit more upbeat about licensing enforcement options. 
    https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-makan-delrahim-delivers-remarks-19th-annual-berkeley-stanford
    edited December 2018
  • Reply 19 of 27
    Unless one is a legal expert on Chinese intellectual property law and has knowledge of any inside political influence that may being brought to this case, speculation is largely that, just pure speculation. And even here in the US the whole iBooks settlement shows that Apple does not always get it right no matter how rabid the forum commentators are in their favor. 
  • Reply 20 of 27
    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    My best guess as to what's going on (based on what both Qualcomm has said and what Apple has reportedly said): The court, considering only the iOS 11 version (and, perhaps, earlier versions), found that iPhone software infringes Qualcomm's patents. So it granted Qualcomm a preliminary injunction banning sales of certain iPhone models up to iPhone X. The court either didn't decide whether iOS 12 also violated Qualcomm's patents (more likely), or otherwise didn't distinguish between the older iPhone models running iOS 11 and those same older models running iOS 12 when it issued its order. So its ban, as ordered, applied to those older models.

    Apple's position is that the ban shouldn't apply to those older models if they are running iOS 12 either because the court found that iOS 12 didn't infringe (less likely) or because it didn't specifically find that iOS 12 did infringe. So, now, Apple will - along with other bases for appeal - argue that the ban shouldn't apply to older iPhone models if they are running iOS 12 because the court would first need to find that iOS 12 also infringes.

    So, as issued the injunction may apply to older models even if they are running iOS 12. But Apple thinks that it shouldn't because such an injunction would go beyond what is supported by the findings that the court made.

    I, of course, don't know that that is what has happened. I haven't found a copy of any written order that might have been issued. But that would be my best guess based on everything that I've seen reported.
    The actual court orders are here for anyone wanting to read them:
    https://www.chinapatentblog.com/blog/bilingual-english-chinese-version-of-apple-injunction-order-in-both-qualcomm-cases-from-fuzhou-intermediate-peoples-court

    Rather than iOS12 being the differentiator it seems it's who the manufacturer is. Perhaps these two companies have been paying Qualcomm royalties despite Apple not reimbursing them?
    1. For the '586 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and for the 119 patent, Qualcomm did not accuse products manufactured by Pegatron Corporation and Compal Electronics Inc.
    Thank you Gatorguy. I'll read those orders later and hopefully then I'll better understand what actually happened.
    edited December 2018
Sign In or Register to comment.