Apple cites decision to use Intel modems in iPhone as 'real motivation' for Qualcomm paten...

Posted:
in General Discussion edited March 13
Apple and Qualcomm on Thursday presented closing arguments in a patent infringement trial in San Diego, with Apple telling jurors that the complaint is less about patents than retribution for using Intel modems in iPhone.

iPhone 4 Verizon
Apple's iPhone 4 for Verizon was the first to incorporate Qualcomm's baseband chip.


According to in-court testimony from CNET, closing remarks from Apple counsel Juanita Brooks focused not only on the patents in play, but the impetus behind Qualcomm's legal action. Specifically, Apple said the "real motivation" behind the San Diego suit, and presumably a string of patent infringement lawsuits filed in courts around the world, is Qualcomm's perturbation of an Apple decision to include Intel as an iPhone modem supplier.

Brooks noted that Qualcomm supplied modems and patented technology to rival smartphone manufacturers during the same period in which Apple began what would become a complete transition to Intel.

"We...should also be able to date somebody else," Brooks said.

Apple's first iPhone to use a Qualcomm wireless chip debuted in 2011 when the tech giant released a version of the iPhone 4 to run on Verizon's network. The two companies forged an exclusive relationship that lasted until 2016, when Apple incorporated Intel baseband chips in select iPhone 7 models.

Intel's share of iPhone modem orders quickly increased over the ensuing two years, and Apple completely pivoted away from Qualcomm with 2018's iPhone XS and XR series. According to Apple COO Jeff Williams, who testified in a recent Federal Trade Commission action against Qualcomm, the Cupertino tech giant attempted to use Qualcomm hardware in the latest iPhones, but was rebuffed.

In its closing arguments, Qualcomm attempted to discredit the testimony of Apple witness Arjuna Siva, a former engineer who Apple claims came up with the idea for a Qualcomm patent-in-suit.

Siva, who worked with contemporaries at Qualcomm prior to the release of Verizon's iPhone 4, was originally slated to offer testimony claiming he co-invented fast boot technology that landed in Qualcomm's U.S. Patent No. 8,838,949. Before he took the stand, however, Siva retained independent counsel and declined to appear in court.

The abrupt change of heart prompted Brooks to air allegations of witness tampering, claims that were reiterated in a court filing on Wednesday.

Following a subpoena, Siva offered testimony acknowledging that the basis of the '949 patent was indeed his idea. In a blow to Apple's defense, however, Siva did not claim inventor status for the intellectual property.

Qualcomm seeks $31 million in damages for violating three patents related to power conservation and operating efficiency in portable devices like smartphones. The chipmaker is asking for a $1.40 fee per infringing iPhone model -- those using Intel modems instead of Qualcomm hardware -- sold between July 2017 and fall 2018.
Lokratas

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    chasmchasm Posts: 1,174member
    Siva is the most intriguing part of this whole mess. Originally he was slated to testify on Apple's behalf, but wanted co-inventor credit on the patent. Suddenly he hires a lawyer from the same firm that is handling Qualcomm's case, and declines to appear. He's then subpoenaed to appear, and appears to uphold Apple's contention that the patent was effectively stolen by Qualcomm, but mysteriously no longer wants co-inventor credit even though he says the patent was his idea, discussed with Qualcomm engineers.

    I don't know if I buy Apple's claim of witness tampering, but it seems like *somebody* made some threats to Siva regarding his claims. On the whole, I agree with Apple's contention that this is as much about retribution as anything else. Meanwhile, the company continues to lose revenue and income -- and new players are now entering the scene, not to mention Apple taking the whole process in-house.

    I don't know if Qualcomm will ultimately prevail or not, but whichever way that goes, I don't think their extortionate business model and "stunt trials" strategy is working out well for them -- the only companies that would work with them willingly at this point are those who are still under contract to do so (like Samsung) ... they're radioactive in the industry outside of that now.
    radarthekatjas99MplsPLokrataswatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 16
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 1,996member
    Well I have to say this Intel Modem in my iPhone XS is worse than that Qualcomm modem in my iPhone 6.

    Places my 6 worked just fine at, my XS doesn't. Still the same T-Mobile Network. The only thing that changed was going from a 6 to the XS. I've had times where it will work one minute and then completely DEAD. I'll even try doing speed test and there's nothing.

    I'm not a fan on Qualcomm as a company, but their modems seem to be better than Intel's.
    edited March 13 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 3 of 16
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 30,748member
    chasm said:
    Siva is the most intriguing part of this whole mess. Originally he was slated to testify on Apple's behalf, but wanted co-inventor credit on the patent. Suddenly he hires a lawyer from the same firm that is handling Qualcomm's case, and declines to appear. He's then subpoenaed to appear, and appears to uphold Apple's contention that the patent was effectively stolen by Qualcomm, but mysteriously no longer wants co-inventor credit even though he says the patent was his idea, discussed with Qualcomm engineers.

    I don't know if I buy Apple's claim of witness tampering, but it seems like *somebody* made some threats to Siva regarding his claims. On the whole, I agree with Apple's contention that this is as much about retribution as anything else. Meanwhile, the company continues to lose revenue and income -- and new players are now entering the scene, not to mention Apple taking the whole process in-house.

    I don't know if Qualcomm will ultimately prevail or not, but whichever way that goes, I don't think their extortionate business model and "stunt trials" strategy is working out well for them -- the only companies that would work with them willingly at this point are those who are still under contract to do so (like Samsung) ... they're radioactive in the industry outside of that now.
    It’s possible Siva was paid off.
    jas99
  • Reply 4 of 16
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 1,813member
    chasm said:
    Siva is the most intriguing part of this whole mess. Originally he was slated to testify on Apple's behalf, but wanted co-inventor credit on the patent. Suddenly he hires a lawyer from the same firm that is handling Qualcomm's case, and declines to appear. He's then subpoenaed to appear, and appears to uphold Apple's contention that the patent was effectively stolen by Qualcomm, but mysteriously no longer wants co-inventor credit even though he says the patent was his idea, discussed with Qualcomm engineers.

    I don't know if I buy Apple's claim of witness tampering, but it seems like *somebody* made some threats to Siva regarding his claims. On the whole, I agree with Apple's contention that this is as much about retribution as anything else. Meanwhile, the company continues to lose revenue and income -- and new players are now entering the scene, not to mention Apple taking the whole process in-house.

    I don't know if Qualcomm will ultimately prevail or not, but whichever way that goes, I don't think their extortionate business model and "stunt trials" strategy is working out well for them -- the only companies that would work with them willingly at this point are those who are still under contract to do so (like Samsung) ... they're radioactive in the industry outside of that now.
    It’s possible Siva was paid off.
    Understand Indian social network pressure and you will know why he changed his position. Money and other things might be involved. In India, police take you on "dholai" process which means they beat you till you tell the truth. That is how seasoned criminals are made to tell the truth about crime they committed..Unfortunately, can't do in USA.
    MplsP
  • Reply 5 of 16
    wood1208 said:
    It’s possible Siva was paid off.
    Understand Indian social network pressure and you will know why he changed his position. Money and other things might be involved. In India, police take you on "dholai" process which means they beat you till you tell the truth. That is how seasoned criminals are made to tell the truth about crime they committed..Unfortunately, can't do in USA.
    Not unfortunate at all.  "Beat you till you tell the truth", eh?  Sounds like the way the Inquisition would torture a "confession" out of witches.  Just torture/beat them until they say what you want them to say.  They can keep that scat in India, thanks.  We don't need it here.
    n2itivguyMplsPmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 6 of 16
    k2kwk2kw Posts: 1,654member
    jbdragon said:
    Well I have to say this Intel Modem in my iPhone XS is worse than that Qualcomm modem in my iPhone 6.

    Places my 6 worked just fine at, my XS doesn't. Still the same T-Mobile Network. The only thing that changed was going from a 6 to the XS. I've had times where it will work one minute and then completely DEAD. I'll even try doing speed test and there's nothing.

    I'm not a fan on Qualcomm as a company, but their modems seem to be better than Intel's.
    I have a 7+ with Qualcomm modem and a 8+ with intel.   The Qualcomm is definitely better.    When Cook comes out and says the new iphone is "the best iphone ever made" it a load of crap.    I have absolutely no interest in upgrading because of the modem situation.    Heard a lot of talk around here how the QualComm modems make the iphone so expensive, but no that they have Intel modems the prices are even higher.   Unfortunately google can't seem to make a half way decent phone so I feel stuck.
    muthuk_vanalingamjbdragon
  • Reply 7 of 16
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 3,900member
    Apple and Qualcomm on Thursday presented closing arguments in a patent infringement trial in San Diego, with Apple telling jurors that the complaint is less about patents than retribution for using Intel modems in iPhone.
    ...
    Of course it is!
    Qualcomm's primary business plan was to become (effectively) the world's primary (or only) provider of broadband modems.  
    And, it was doing that by forcing high end manufacturers like Apple to pay exorbitant fees and use those excess profits to subsidize the low-end, low cost manufacturers and provide them high quality modems at very low costs.

    Apple. understandably objected to subsidizing its competition.

    But, Apple going with another vendor would upend Qualcomm's primary business plan.  
    So what's an Apple to do?   Intel is obviously not very good at this.   We need competition and innovation here.   Where is Huawei?
    edited March 14
  • Reply 8 of 16
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,405member
    chasm said:
    ... I don't think their extortionate business model and "stunt trials" strategy is working out well for them...
    I agree. However, I struggle to understand what makes Qualcomm's licensing model extortionary while Apple's 30% toll on their App Store is A-OK.
    edited March 14 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 9 of 16
    the old jilted lover excuse.
  • Reply 10 of 16
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,405member
    GeorgeBMac said:

    Qualcomm's primary business plan was to become (effectively) the world's primary (or only) provider of broadband modems.   
    And, it was doing that by forcing high end manufacturers like Apple to pay exorbitant fees...
    What makes Qualcomm's 3.5% fee exorbitant, while Apple's 30% App Store fee ok?
     
    But, Apple going with another vendor would upend Qualcomm's primary business plan.   
    So what's an Apple to do?   Intel is obviously not very good at this.   We need competition and innovation here.   Where is Huawei?

    The most obvious end game would be for Apple to develop their own wireless chip in-house, while relying on Intel's inferior technology in the meantime.

    It's easy to say "we need competition", but I believe the issue is that the technology is mired in a web of complex patents which makes it very difficult to create a competing product without getting sued.

    Huawei? Hell, no. The last thing we need is to have such an important technology produced by a corrupt company with close ties to the Chinese government.

    edited March 14 muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 16
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 1,115member
    GeorgeBMac said:

    Qualcomm's primary business plan was to become (effectively) the world's primary (or only) provider of broadband modems.   
    And, it was doing that by forcing high end manufacturers like Apple to pay exorbitant fees...
    What makes Qualcomm's 3.5% fee exorbitant, while Apple's 30% App Store fee ok?
     
    But, Apple going with another vendor would upend Qualcomm's primary business plan.   
    So what's an Apple to do?   Intel is obviously not very good at this.   We need competition and innovation here.   Where is Huawei?

    The most obvious end game would be for Apple to develop their own wireless chip in-house, while relying on Intel's inferior technology in the meantime.

    It's easy to say "we need competition", but I believe the issue is that the technology is mired in a web of complex patents which makes it very difficult to create a competing product without getting sued.

    Huawei? Hell, no. The last thing we need is to have such an important technology produced by a corrupt company with close ties to the Chinese government.

    Unfortunately, lawsuits seem to have become the primary business of the tech industry. For the trolls they’re the only business. Yet another reason we need tort reform. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 16
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,712member
    jbdragon said:
    Well I have to say this Intel Modem in my iPhone XS is worse than that Qualcomm modem in my iPhone 6.

    Places my 6 worked just fine at, my XS doesn't. Still the same T-Mobile Network. The only thing that changed was going from a 6 to the XS. I've had times where it will work one minute and then completely DEAD. I'll even try doing speed test and there's nothing.

    I'm not a fan on Qualcomm as a company, but their modems seem to be better than Intel's.
    Correlation does not imply causation. Typical false logic.You have no basis on which to make your claim, period.
    edited March 14 watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 16
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 623member
    chasm said:
    ... I don't think their extortionate business model and "stunt trials" strategy is working out well for them...
    I agree. However, I struggle to understand what makes Qualcomm's licensing model extortionary while Apple's 30% toll on their App Store is A-OK.
    Are you familiar with all (or most) of the things Qualcomm has been accused of by Apple, Intel, Samsung, regulatory bodies around the world, and others? Are you familiar with the contractual commitments relating to SEPs which it made and which it, according to industry participants and regulatory bodies, broke? Are you familiar with the disproportionate licensing fees, relative to other cellular SEP holders, which it was able to extract using its illegal and contract violative tactics?

    Apple charging for distribution through its App Store is quite a different matter. For starters, it hasn't made FRAND commitments regarding such distribution services. The need to use Qualcomm's SEPs only exists because of their inclusion in industry standards, in return for which it made FRAND commitments. It has, according to numerous regulatory bodes, violated those commitments - in addition to breaking anti-trust laws.

    If Qualcomm wanted to try to collect licensing fees on certain patents - i.e., those which it has declared or allowed to be SEPs - based on how the market assessed the intrinsic value of those patents, it could have. But it decided not to. It decided to gain leverage, such that industry participants had to use those SEPs, in exchange for not doing things which it then went on to do. Recently it's been told it can't go on doing those things. Its business model has already been substantially disrupted, due to court rulings, regulatory body actions, and changing market realities.

    In short, Qualcomm's licensing model was extortionary because it used myriad improper tactics to force industry participants to pay unreasonably high rates, relative to the cost of cellular modems, for Qualcomm's portion of the IP required to be used by those cellular modems.
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 14 of 16
    kruegdudekruegdude Posts: 247member
    jbdragon said:
    Well I have to say this Intel Modem in my iPhone XS is worse than that Qualcomm modem in my iPhone 6.

    Places my 6 worked just fine at, my XS doesn't. Still the same T-Mobile Network. The only thing that changed was going from a 6 to the XS. I've had times where it will work one minute and then completely DEAD. I'll even try doing speed test and there's nothing.

    I'm not a fan on Qualcomm as a company, but their modems seem to be better than Intel's.
    Oddly I have just the opposite experience. My XS is much better in my area than my prior iPhone. Go figure. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 16
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 3,900member
    chasm said:
    ... I don't think their extortionate business model and "stunt trials" strategy is working out well for them...
    I agree. However, I struggle to understand what makes Qualcomm's licensing model extortionary while Apple's 30% toll on their App Store is A-OK.
    Ahhh!  The old "WhatAboutIsm" -- the argue for those who have none.
  • Reply 16 of 16
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 1,996member
    kruegdude said:
    jbdragon said:
    Well I have to say this Intel Modem in my iPhone XS is worse than that Qualcomm modem in my iPhone 6.

    Places my 6 worked just fine at, my XS doesn't. Still the same T-Mobile Network. The only thing that changed was going from a 6 to the XS. I've had times where it will work one minute and then completely DEAD. I'll even try doing speed test and there's nothing.

    I'm not a fan on Qualcomm as a company, but their modems seem to be better than Intel's.
    Oddly I have just the opposite experience. My XS is much better in my area than my prior iPhone. Go figure. 
    Well good for you.  But I've heard from many who have also said the same as I have.  I wish it was better.   My phone at times will show 3 out of 4 bars and there's NOTHING!!!  How the hell do you have an almost perfect signal, do a speed test and nothing?  Just DEAD!   Once or twice like that, ok maybe, but It's has happened many times.  I think, ok maybe it's the phone and so I power it off and then power it back on and still nothing.  No better!!!  I just don't get it.
Sign In or Register to comment.