ericthehalfbee

Mike Wuerthele said:

blastdoor said:

The labels are confusing and can’t be taken at face value. What intel calls 10nm is most similar to what TSMC calls 7nm. What intel calls 7 is analogous to TSMC 5.

so intel is behind by a year, not 3 years 

Given that they promised 10nm deliveries in 2016, yes, they are behind by three years.

I’d agree they are behind years given their previous promises.

However, blastdoor is correct. When a company says they’re using a 10nm process it doesn’t mean the entire chip is 10nm. Only the smallest features are at 10nm while others can vary widely and be significantly larger. It’s like processor clock speeds - they can’t be directly compared to say one is better than another.

Previous Intel processes were ahead of TSMC and Samsung (Intel 14nm was closer to Samsung/TSMC 10nm and significantly better than their 14/16nm processes).

Whether this holds true with their upcoming “10nm” process is something we’ll have to wait and see.

StrangeDays said:

Headline should read "claimed by" rather than "illustrated by". If civil is like criminal court, opening & closing statements in court are not evidence, they are claims and conjecture put forth by the attorneys on either side. Nothing a lawyer says first-hand is evidence, only what the witnesses provide on the witness stand is evidence, and even then must be weighed by the jury.

While I agree that opening statements aren’t evidence, they are used to give an outline of how you’ll be presenting your case. So it makes sense to say things that you will try to back up with evidence later on. Likewise with closing statements you want to summarize your side and remind jurors of things that were presented or what witnesses said.

Though it does seem odd that items from Qualcomm’s point of view are leaking.

avon b7 said:

ericthehalfbee said:

gatorguy said:

That's certainly another spin on this than the poor, aggrieved, over-paying Apple vs the evil, greedy, law-breaking Qualcomm it's usually been portrayed as here. If accurate it leaves a different taste. 

You forget Qualcomm has lost 5 major antitrust cases around the world costing them billions in fines. The FTC case is currently awaiting a decision.

So yes, Qualcomm has been found guilty of being greedy and breaking the law.


Edit: Just read the source article. So a reporter at the trial is talking about things they heard/saw during the beginning of the trial (during opening arguments for both sides).

Curious why they decided to focus on items that make Apple potentially look bad and Qualcomm good. Opening arguments typically contain damning things about both sides. Yet we only really heard from one side. 

You could always forget 'why' they chose to focus on this or that and simply take on board the quoted material.

In that context (information from the horse's mouth), we now, as Gatorguy points out, have a take that adds some more colour to the picture.

That we didn't learn more is due to Apple stopping the case.

Bull. Both lawyers presented their opening statements. A lot of information on both sides was presented. It has nothing to do with “Apple stopping the case”. They both settled, which means they both “stopped the case”.

Florian Mueller commented on the opening statement for Apple and was “very impressed” with Apples lawyer, Ruffin Cordell. He also talked about Qualcomm’s “gag order” which imposed billion dollar penalties on any company that spoke to regulators/officials regarding Qualcomm’s licensing. No, this is not a standard NDA.

Judge Curiels statement:

”Under these circumstances, enforcing the BCPA so as punish Apple for responding to regulatory investigations would deter parties from responding to regulatory investigations and have the effect of concealing ongoing illegal conduct to the detriment of the public and perpetuating improper conduct.”


As I said above, things are not so one-sided as the Washington Post article would suggest.

rotateleftbyte said:

flydog said:

rotateleftbyte said:

hammeroftruth said:

The news reports like to point out that Apple has no public 5G modem plan in place, but fails to mention several other phone manufacturers who don’t have a 5G phone and only have a commitment to making one. 

What happens after the trial?

Lets assume that Apple wins big time.

Can QC refuse to license their 5G patents to anyone who supplies Apple with 5G capable chips?

Can QC refuse to license their 5G patents to Apple for their supposed 5G Modem?

Apple needs at the very least some licenses from QC unless a 3rd party would step in an license everything from QC and take the inevitable Patent lawsuit storm... Somehow I doubt it. QC's practices stink big time but they hold all the patents.

Even if Apple lose I think that QC will want blood and lots of it from Apple for the hit on their reputation.

Patent holders cannot refuse to license IP covered by a standard essential patent, and the license must be on fair and non-discriminatory terms. 

and who decides what is a SEP?

Will something becoming a SEP and therefore under FRAND end QC's policy of double dipping when it comes to licensing?

The whole system is screwed.

The patent holder typically declares patents they own as being part of a standard.

Some patent holders may try to “reserve” a few key patents and not declare them, hoping to use them to extract additional royalties or gain product bans for infringement later on once the standard is established. This rarely works as a court would likely deem the patent essential and therefore it must be licensed along with the other pool of patents declared.

I believe Samsung tried this on Apple in Europe and lost.

sflocal said:

ericthehalfbee said:

mac_dog said:

ericthehalfbee said:

Not sure what Apple can do. If companies have the right credentials to obtain an enterprise certificate, then what can Apple do to stop them? Other than revoking them when discovered (as they do now).

If Apple makes it much more expensive (or difficult) to get an enterprise certificate then they’ll be criticized for making it “too hard”.

Too fucking bad. I say revoke their certification altogether. Non of this “slap of the wrist” bullshit. This is where Steve Jobs would have lost it. 

Uh, Apple does revoke their certificate. Then those people create a new fake company and apply for another one. Rinse and repeat. Not much Apple can do besides their current practice of revoking a certificate once they discover it. Not without making things tougher on the legitimate developers.

Yeah... there needs to be more stringent requirements in keeping whatever certificates the develop has.  Perhaps someone like a requirement to renew every quarter, and going through some checks-and-balances to verify the app is not during something nefarious. 

This just goes to show the popularity of iOS that devs are willing to go through all that work to qualify for certificates to abuse.  

You have to be a legal entity (basically a corporation) for starters. You also need a DUNS (Dun & Bradstreet) number, a website attached to your company (this would be the easiest to fake) and the person applying needs to have legal authority to act on behalf of the company.

When you think about it, this is all you need to open a bank account. And once that bank account is open you could launder money through it or so many illegal things. Yet the bank still accepted your credentials to grant you that account in the first place.

It’s not like Apple just hands these out to anyone who asks.


Verifying the App is the tricky one. Who’s going to verify it? Apple? So now Apple has to start checking on Apps that aren’t even being delivered through The App Store? Who will pay for this service? Most likely the developer, as an added fee on top of the yearly $299 enterprise developer fee.

About the only thing I could think of is requiring smaller companies to have someone “sign off” on an agreement that if they abuse their certificate they can be liable for a hefty fine/penalty. Though I imagine people are using fake IDs to set up these shell companies so you’d never be able to enforce/collect any fine. Perhaps a bond of $10K (or more) to be paid up front that you forfeit if you abuse your certificate. Then we’ll see smaller companies complaining about the high cost of entry to start developing enterprise Apps.

I just don’t see an easy way to stop criminals from abusing certificates without unduly affecting honest users.