Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends global wins

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by guitarbill on Thursday December 20, 2018 @04:33PM (#18729340)

Interesting to see they went for an injuction (and were granted one), considering Qualcomm doesn't directly make a competing product. Does anybody know why the courts would do this, instead of allowing the sale, but requring Apple to pay a cut of every future phone sold + infrigemenr damages? Surely based on other devices using this Qualcomm tech, it would be possible to determine how much the patent when licensed is worth? (edit: I know there's no love lost between Apple and Qualcomm, but this seems like another way patents can be weaponised way beyond the scope of protecting innovation)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by cmalmberg23 on Thursday December 20, 2018 @05:02PM (#18729558)

Unlike in the United States, an injunction is the standard remedy in a patent infringement action in Germany. The idea is that Apple (the enjoined party) could subsequently negotiate a royalty with Qualcomm if it wished to have the injunction lifted.

The United States has moved away from this approach on public interest grounds (i.e., that it would not make sense to prevent the public from buying certain Apple products if those sales aren't preventing Qualcomm from selling its own competing products).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by lucb1e on Thursday December 20, 2018 @05:40PM (#18729859)

> it would not make sense to prevent the public from buying certain Apple products if those sales aren't preventing Qualcomm from selling its own competing products

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Wouldn't, by the same reasoning, the whole patent system be useless? If Q has a patent and A sells a competing product that infringes on that patent, it doesn't make sense to stop A from selling that product because Q can still sell their product? Isn't that exactly what a patent is about: stopping competition (who might not have had to do all the R&D, since you published your patent with information on how to perform the feat) from selling competing products?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by kelnos on Thursday December 20, 2018 @07:19PM (#18730475)

I think the idea is that if the court decides that Qualcomm isn't enduring any immediate financial harm, then there's no need for an immediate remedy (like an injunction).

Instead, they'd just let the civil court case proceed, and either it'll be settled out of court (with Apple paying Qualcomm some amount of money to cover existing sales, plus agreeing to a licensing deal for future sales) or they duke it out in court, where (if Qualcomm prevails) Apple is forced by the court to pay some sort of judgment.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by singlow on Thursday December 20, 2018 @05:55PM (#18729979)

The key might be whether it is competing. If A sells a product that does not compete with Q or Q's licensees then the damages can be allowed to pile up if A chooses to continue selling and hope that it wins on appeal. An injunction can still be issued if it prevents additional damages which might not be reparable by the final judgement or settlement. As the plaintiff I may even prefer this, if the defendent has big pockets.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by akiselev on Thursday December 20, 2018 @08:30PM (#18730803)

IANAL but in the US there's a concept of punitive triple damages for products sold after the defendant had knowledge of the infringement. If the plaintiff can prove (through subpoenaed communications, whistleblower, etc.) that the defendant knew before their product launched then the judgement is tripled, otherwise the penalties increase for products sold after the first cease and decist letter or when the defendant is notified of the lawsuit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by andy_ppp on Thursday December 20, 2018 @04:42PM (#18729407)

Qualcomm presumably know Apple are intending to completely replace them soon then; I’m pretty sure this sort of action will prove to be very bad for Qualcomm - if you are willing to sue Apple no customer is safe!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by bunnycorn on Thursday December 20, 2018 @05:27PM (#18729758)

Apple already 100% replaced them.

Every 2018 model has Intel modems.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by usrusr on Thursday December 20, 2018 @07:23PM (#18730497)

I wonder how many would-be customers of the affected phones are now self-upselling to a younger, more expensive model. This could be surprisingly painless for Apple. Lure people into stores with relatively cheap offers, then declare them unavailable: if they did the same thing without Qualcommm's involvement, it would be an illegal sales tactic.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by bunnycorn on Friday December 21, 2018 @11:47PM (#18738973)

Apple is still selling them in Germany, the article looks like it's final, but it's not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by andy_ppp on Thursday December 20, 2018 @05:58PM (#18730006)

Seems to be super coincidental doesn’t it...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by bunnycorn on Friday December 21, 2018 @11:48PM (#18738976)

It's not, Qualcomm is suing Apple because Apple dropped them. They have nothing to lose now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by ksec on Thursday December 20, 2018 @10:12PM (#18731178)

You can only replace them in hardware terms. Apple will still need to pay Qualcomm in 2G-5G patents fees, as well as all other patents Qualcomm holds, from Graphics, Power Management, DSP, etc etc. Of Course the reverse is also true that there is a high probability Qualcomm would have also infringe on certain Apple's patents.

Most customer already has a deal in place with Qualcomm or are using Qualcomm SoC. The only one who could try to have a go against Qualcomm would be Samsung and Huawei. Both seems to have a decent relationship with Qualcomm, for now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by stefan_ on Thursday December 20, 2018 @11:40PM (#18731458)

The reason for this entire conflict is Qualcomm asking for a percentage royalty of the entire device.

When you use an Intel radio, sure Intel needs to license the 2G-5G patents, but those are FRAND, and no legal interpretation in the world would ever entitle Qualcomm to a percentage of an iPhone using an Intel radio.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by ksec on Friday December 21, 2018 @02:01AM (#18731866)

A lot of people thinks it is the percentage that is the problem. It Is not. Ericsson, Nokia, ZTE, LG, Samsung, Huawei along with a few others all charges percentage of Phone for their Royalty ( Or at least it used to be ). I can guarantee you Apple would have no problem with Qualcomm if the percentage were only 0.1%.

And it is not like Intel has already paid any license fo 2G-5G patents to Qualcomm ( They haven't ), and Qualcomm recollect another set of license fees from Apple ( Or more accurately from Foxconn ).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by stefan_ on Thursday December 20, 2018 @04:44PM (#18729419)

This press release doesn't mention that Qualcomm had to raise 674 million euro in case it's infringement case here ends up losing, money that is forfeited to Apple.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by guitarbill on Thursday December 20, 2018 @04:48PM (#18729452)

Ah, good spot. They do allude to this:

> The injunction is effective as soon as Qualcomm posts the required bonds

Makes more sense, but still not sure what advantages this approach brings. I guess Apple could then come to some agreement with Qualcomm to lift the injunction, but it's still a brutal penalty unless Qualcomm has to license the patent at a reasonable price

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by ABCLAW on Thursday December 20, 2018 @05:03PM (#18729568)

I think the more interesting part is that Apple applied for a stay pending appeal and were denied. I'm probably going to need to read the reasons directly to figure out how Qualcomm managed to get that done.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by gmueckl on Thursday December 20, 2018 @07:07PM (#18730409)

As far as I understand it, this is a temporary injunction. These are granted by weighing the damage that would be done to the plaintiff without it against the damage that would be done to the defendant if it were wrongly granted for the duration of the actual proceedings.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by ABCLAW on Sunday December 23, 2018 @12:43AM (#18744649)

Normally injunctive relief of this type is awarded in the event that there is irreperable harm, but Qualcomm could be compensated by a per-unit license fee + penalty damage award on sold infringing items. That's why I'm surprised. Still haven't had time to look at the reasons, though. Travelling for the holiday so I'm a bit behind.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple to pull some iPhones in Germany as Qualcomm extends... by gmueckl on Sunday December 23, 2018 @03:03PM (#18747996)

I think that German courts are much quicker to to grant injunctions than e.g. the US.

[ Parent | on HN ]