Qualcomm Wants Sales Ban on iPhones Using Intel-Based Modems

DooKey

DooKey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 25, 2001
Messages
13,552
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."
 
Don't know the original story but Is Qualcomm saying Intel infringed on their modem patents?
 
Seems fair didn't apple get an injunction against samsing for patent infringement?
 
I hope Qualcomm wins this.

Gasaraki_ said:
Don't know the original story but Is Qualcomm saying Intel infringed on their modem patents?
Click to expand...

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.
 
BSmith said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
vinciblegod said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
Been posted, but still relevant:

apqualful.jpg
 
defaultluser said:
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!
Click to expand...

Intel would know something about unfairly gouging a competitor to license their technology, wouldn't they?
 
HockeyJon said:
Intel would know something about unfairly gouging a competitor to license their technology, wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

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:
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.
 
defaultluser said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top