What does this mean for Apple and i phones in the future? I hope they will continue to make i phones.
Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 19, 2019, at 9:56 AM, M. Taylor <mk...@ucla.edu> wrote: > > 4 takeaways from Apple and Qualcomm's big patent fight > "We ... should also be able to date somebody else." > By Richard Nieva, March 16, 2019 5:00 AM PDT > > For the past two weeks, Qualcomm and Apple have battled in a San Diego > courtroom over some of the basic technology at the heart of your smartphone. > On Friday, a jury said Apple infringed on all three of the patents in > question. > The legal battle covers Qualcomm technology the chipmaker says Apple used > without permission in some versions of the iPhone. One patent covers how a > smartphone connects quickly to the internet once the device is booted up. > Another deals with graphics processing and battery life. A third covers apps > swapping downloads between the apps processor and the modem. > A jury said Apple must pay Qualcomm the full $31 million it was seeking in > damages, or $1.41 per infringing iPhone. That's a paltry sum for Apple -- > which briefly became the first $1 trillion company in the US last year -- > but the cash figure doesn't tell the whole story. > The skirmish is part of a broader legal battle that dates back two years. > The clash between the two tech titans will reach a crescendo next month when > they meet back in a San Diego court to fight over patent royalties. That > trial is sure to be a media circus. > Before the next round starts, here are four takeaways from the confrontation > that just ended. > > 1. The Arjuna Siva argument > Much of the trial centered around a guy who doesn't work for either company: > Arjuna Siva. > Now an engineer at Google, Siva was part of an Apple team that worked to get > Qualcomm chips into iPhones in 2010. During that period, Apple argues, Siva > made key contributions to the boot-up technology in question. > Apple said Siva should've been named a co-inventor on the patent covering > that technology. Because of that, Apple has argued the patent should be > deemed invalid for failing to credit all the actual inventors. That's key, > because you can't infringe on an invalid patent. > Siva stopped short of taking credit for the patent during his testimony, > which was unexpectedly canceled then rescheduled in the span of several > days. But he called some elements of the technology "my idea." He also said > he hadn't read the actual language of the patent. > Qualcomm made a big deal about that last point. During arguments, the > chipmaker's attorneys showed a patent application that inventors sign. The > form says all signatories must have read and reviewed the patent application > before signing. Since Siva didn't read it, he wouldn't have been able to > sign. > Apple dismissed that argument, saying Siva didn't know about the application > at the time so why would he have read it? > In the end, the jury struck down the claim that Siva should have been named > an inventor. > > 2. Apple alleged witness tampering. Judge said 'no evidence' > The circumstances around Siva's testimony were the biggest source of drama > in an otherwise low-key patent case. > The theatrics started when Apple counsel Juanita Brooks said Siva, a key > witness for the iPhone maker, no longer intended to testify. The change of > heart came after Siva's new attorney, Matt Warren, advised him against > appearing unless a subpoena was issued. > Brooks alleged "witness tampering." She pointed out Warren had previously > been a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the firm representing Qualcomm. David > Nelson, Qualcomm's lead attorney, said the accusation was "ridiculous" and > vigorously denied the claim. Judge Dana Sabraw, who presided over the case, > also said there was "no evidence" for the allegation. > Siva ended up testifying, but the two sides continued to feud over the claim > until the last day of trial. Earlier this week, Brooks said in a filing, > "Apple had good reason to be concerned that steps were being taken to > influence Mr. Siva's testimony." Still, Sabraw said the insinuations toward > Qualcomm and Quinn Emanuel were "premature." > > 3. Apple says this isn't about patents at all > This is a patent trial but Apple said that isn't why Qualcomm sued. Rather, > Brooks said Qualcomm took the legal action because the chipmaker was angry > that Apple started to use Intel chips in iPhones in 2016. Prior to then, > Apple and Qualcomm had had an exclusive relationship that dated back to > 2011. > To drive the point home, Apple displayed a slide titled "The real motivation > for this lawsuit," which contained a timeline of the relationship between > the two companies. Brooks said Apple purchased all of its mobile chips from > Qualcomm even as the company supplied the entire industry. "We," Brooks > said, "should also be able to date somebody else." > In his rebuttal, Nelson denied the claim, saying the lawsuit "doesn't have > anything to do with that." > Apple brought on Intel as a second supplier two years ago for some models of > the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus. Since then, Intel has replaced Qualcomm in iPhones > altogether. > > 4. The big show is next month > As court cases go, this one isn't the be-all and end-all for either company. > The big showdown is next month, when Apple and Qualcomm meet in San Diego to > fight over Qualcomm's licenses. > In that case, Apple is arguing Qualcomm should charge the company royalties > based on the value of Qualcomm's chips, not the value of the entire iPhone. > Apple said it "shouldn't have to pay them for technology breakthroughs they > have nothing to do with." Qualcomm says Apple wouldn't have the iPhone > without its technology. Billions of dollars are on the line for that > courtroom clash. > The recent patent case may pale in comparison, but that doesn't mean it > isn't important. For Qualcomm, the clean sweep ruling is a boon to its > research-and-development operations, signaling to competitors and partners > that it's an innovator in mobile components. It also gives the company good > footing going into next month's trial. > For Apple, the case was a warm-up before the main event, giving its defense > an opportunity to try out arguments before a jury in a considerably > lower-stakes environment. > > The next trial is scheduled to begin April 15. > > Original Article at: > https://www.cnet.com/news/4-takeaways-from-apple-and-qualcomms-big-patent-fi > ght/#ftag=CAD590a51e > > > -- > The following information is important for all members of the V iPhone list. > > If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if > you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or > moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself. > > Your V iPhone list moderator is Mark Taylor. Mark can be reached at: > mk...@ucla.edu. Your list owner is Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at > caraqu...@caraquinn.com > > The archives for this list can be searched at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/ > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "VIPhone" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/viphone. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- The following information is important for all members of the V iPhone list. If you have any questions or concerns about the running of this list, or if you feel that a member's post is inappropriate, please contact the owners or moderators directly rather than posting on the list itself. Your V iPhone list moderator is Mark Taylor. Mark can be reached at: mk...@ucla.edu. Your list owner is Cara Quinn - you can reach Cara at caraqu...@caraquinn.com The archives for this list can be searched at: http://www.mail-archive.com/viphone@googlegroups.com/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "VIPhone" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to viphone+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to viphone@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/viphone. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
