Qualcomm Wants Sales Ban on iPhones Using Intel-Based Modems

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
10,545
Qualcomm has filed a request with the US International Trade Commission to ban sales of iPhones (WARNING auto play video) that use Intel-based modems. According to Qualcomm any iPhone in the X, 8, 8 Plus, or 7/7Plus that use an Intel modem are infringing upon their patents and shouldn't be sold. This is the latest in a long list of patent actions and it's not uncommon for this kind of request to be made to the USITC. However, if the USITC grants this ban then Apple is going to take a big hit. I can't wait to see how all of this turns out.

"Apple can import iPhones (regardless of who supplies the modems) that do not infringe the patents asserted in this action, but Apple has no inherent right to infringe Qualcomm's [non-standards essential patents] through the sale of its iPhones," Qualcomm said in its filing. "Preventing such infringement, and thereby rewarding innovation, is the very purpose for which the patent system was designed."
 

Gasaraki_

Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2016
Messages
617
Don't know the original story but Is Qualcomm saying Intel infringed on their modem patents?
 

Master_shake_

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
17,795
Seems fair didn't apple get an injunction against samsing for patent infringement?
 

BSmith

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
1,323
I hope Qualcomm wins this.

Don't know the original story but Is Qualcomm saying Intel infringed on their modem patents?

If I understand a few of the previous filings, Intel is providing Qualcomm code to Apple without a license agreement. I believe Qualcomm has a pending legal action against Intel over this. Basically, and I hope I am not misrepresenting the data here, Intel has a license from Qualcomm to produce the modem chips, but they do not have a license to provide the software to operate those devices, which Qualcomm provided to Intel.

This is all part of the original issue where Apple has refused to pay licensing fees to Qualcomm for use of their patented technologies. To get around Qualcomm, Apple turned to Intel and here we are.

Someone know better, please jump in and correct me.
 
Joined
Feb 26, 2016
Messages
21
I hope Qualcomm wins this.



If I understand a few of the previous filings, Intel is providing Qualcomm code to Apple without a license agreement. I believe Qualcomm has a pending legal action against Intel over this. Basically, and I hope I am not misrepresenting the data here, Intel has a license from Qualcomm to produce the modem chips, but they do not have a license to provide the software to operate those devices, which Qualcomm provided to Intel.

This is all part of the original issue where Apple has refused to pay licensing fees to Qualcomm for use of their patented technologies. To get around Qualcomm, Apple turned to Intel and here we are.

Someone know better, please jump in and correct me.

Qualcomm is trying to double dip and charge both modem makers, and people who use those modems for the same patents. They also are supposed to charge FRAND (as in fair) rates in order for their patents to be used in the standards but they charge much more, apparently they charge QUALCOMM MODEM PRICE - THIRD PARTY MODEM PRICE, which makes it so third parties can never be cheaper than Qualcomm's own chips.
 

BSmith

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
1,323
I'll have to read more as I understand it, the one suit against Intel had to do with Intel illegally sharing Qualcomm proprietary software with Apple. It had nothing to do with the modem chip, other than the software can be used to operate the modem chip.

As far as fair prices go, that would be outside the pervue of this particular litigation.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,364
Qualcomm is trying to double dip and charge both modem makers, and people who use those modems for the same patents. They also are supposed to charge FRAND (as in fair) rates in order for their patents to be used in the standards but they charge much more, apparently they charge QUALCOMM MODEM PRICE - THIRD PARTY MODEM PRICE, which makes it so third parties can never be cheaper than Qualcomm's own chips.

Right!

The have patents on LTE that they're supposed to license to competitors (like Intel) for fair rates.

Intel says they're not offering reasonable rates, and has refused to pay whatever rate they being gouged with. They've taken it to court.

https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/22/intel-qualcomm-legal-battle/

Obviously Qualcomm's only saving move in this long patent battle is to pretend they're right and file this motion.

Because obviously Judge, we are a poor LTE company that's been bullied by Intel and Apple. Please save us from losing all this money! Please make it so every phone has to ship with one of our chips, instead of one of our licensed chips!
 
Last edited:

Spidey329

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
8,683
Been posted, but still relevant:

apqualful.jpg
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,522
Right!

The have patents on LTE that they're supposed to license to competitors (like Intel) for fair rates.

Intel says they're not offering reasonable rates, and has refused to pay whatever rate they being gouged with. They've taken it to court.

https://9to5mac.com/2017/07/22/intel-qualcomm-legal-battle/

Obviously Qualcomm's only saving move in this long patent battle is to pretend they're right and file this motion.

Because obviously Judge, we are a poor LTE company that's been bullied by Intel and Apple. Please save us from losing all this money! Please make it so every phone has to ship with one of our chips, instead of one of our licensed chips!

Intel would know something about unfairly gouging a competitor to license their technology, wouldn't they?
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,364
Intel would know something about unfairly gouging a competitor to license their technology, wouldn't they?

Slightly different here.

LTE was created by a standards committee. It included patents from various companies, on the stipulation that fair license fees would be levied. If you didn't agree to these terms, the body would go elsewhere for the ideas to make a new mobile standard.

x86 was just pure dumb luck, driven by two companies that never quit. Intel granted other companies second-source rights, or they would never have won the IBM contract. They slowly removed those rights when x86 became a monopoly, and have since gotten themselves in legal trouble on several occasions.

Intel has always owned the rights to x86-16 and x86-32. Because those are the foundations on which x86-64 are built, they can still demand insane licensing agreements on AMD and VIA.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 243478

Guest
And why is this apples issue lol, they are simply a customer for bother manufacturers... nor can Qualcomm keep up with demand choking production and lost revenue.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,522
Slightly different here.

LTE was created by a standards committee. It included patents from various companies, on the stipulation that fair license fees would be levied. If you didn't agree to these terms, the body would go elsewhere for the ideas to make a new mobile standard.

x86 was just pure dumb luck, driven by two companies that never quit. Intel granted other companies second-source rights, or they would never have won the IBM contract. They slowly removed those rights when x86 became a monopoly, and have since gotten themselves in legal trouble on several occasions.

Intel has always owned the rights to x86-16 and x86-32. Because those are the foundations on which x86-64 are built, they can still demand insane licensing agreements on AMD and VIA.

And then they lost that antitrust suit in Europe because it turned out they were forcing AMD processors, who paid for their license, to perform slower in licensed Intel instruction sets. Sets that they PAID FOR. So yes, the last company that should be complaining about anyone unfairly gouging a competitor is Intel.
 
Top