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