Modemn't - Apple, Broadcom lose $1.1 billion lawsuit for patent infringement

[pas008]

38 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

The burden of proof is vastly higher for a company like Apple than it is for Joe Schmo. 

 

You shouldn't compare a company with a 1/4 billion dollars worth of legal consultants with the average person. Any judge would know the difference in case law and legal proceedings. 

not to mention they are a "tech" company with many patients and lawsuits like this themselves

[Sauron]

On 1/30/2020 at 11:44 PM, rcmaehl said:

I doubt this is going to serious affect either company. 1.1 billion is 0.001% of Apple's value

It's not a lot to Apple but it's a lot to CalTech I have a general dislike for patents but this would be a rare case of them being used as intended.

[RonnieOP]

1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

The burden of proof is vastly higher for a company like Apple than it is for Joe Schmo. 

I agree. And they should be able to provide that proof.

 

Apple doesnt make these chips obv since they buy them from broadcomm. So how would they know? 

 

How many other manufacturers use broadcomm? How exactly would apple know?

 

Now im no lawyer so obv everything i say means nothing for the most part.

[Kisai]

On 1/30/2020 at 2:47 PM, ARikozuM said:

$100 add-on charge to iPhones when?

Did you not notice how Wireless (as in Cellular) tablets cost $300 more?

 

[Fnige]

On 1/31/2020 at 9:44 AM, rcmaehl said:

1.1 billion is 0.001% of Apple's value

i dont think apples value is 1,100,000,000,000 (1.1 quadrillion)

[Kisai]

On 1/31/2020 at 2:12 PM, gabrielcarvfer said:

Another good reason for IEEE to kill 802.11 and restart from scratch. This time with open-source and royalty-free reference hardware/software.

Uh no. Just because you want something else, doesn't mean you get something else and not infringe the patents.

 

Wireless technology is a very VERY narrow field and you can't just "do it some other way" because the wireless bands are regulated, the power levels are regulated. All the wiggle room you have is if you implement DSSS/FHSS (1997 version, overlaps with bluetooth),HD-DSSS (Wireless B, 1999) OFDM (Wireless A), ERP-OFDM (Wireless G, 2003), HT-OFDM (Wireless n, 2009), VHT-OFDM (Wireless AC, 2013), HE-OFDM (Wireless ax (aka Wifi 6), 2019)

So if you want to go back to Wireless B speeds, then be my guest.

 

If you read the article and the patent you'll note what exactly is being patented.

Quote

...patents granted between 2006 and 2012...

...the technologies used in the 802.11n and 802.11ac Wi-Fi standards...

So that's squarely on Wireless N. So if you wanted to avoid this specific patent, you would in fact be forced to go back to Wireless G. You'll see references to BPSK in both the patent and Wireless N specs.

 

 

Quote

Apple claimed that because Caltech didn't file the lawsuit until 2016, six years after the 802.11n wireless standard was published, the time limit to collect damages had expired.

It's also the very definition of a submarine patent.

 

While I do think patents deserve some level of protection, this is just beyond stupid, because had the patent existed at the time, either it would have been licensed if it was necessary, or it would have been worked around if it wasn't necessary and the WiFi standard would have evolved differently.

 

As it is, the one responsible for paying this would still be Broadcom (Or Intel, or Qualcomm or whoever actually wrote the chip verilog data, etc.)

 

Why would Apple be responsible if they're the customer of the chip? It would be like buying a WiFi router and then Caltech shaking you down for a few dollars before Wireless N/AC/AX can be enabled.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, Kisai said:

 

As it is, the one responsible for paying this would still be Broadcom (Or Intel, or Qualcomm or whoever actually wrote the chip verilog data, etc.)

 

Why would Apple be responsible if they're the customer of the chip? It would be like buying a WiFi router and then Caltech shaking you down for a few dollars before Wireless N/AC/AX can be enabled.

Broadcom was also sued in the case and ordered to pay $270M for their part in the infringement.    Which leads me to believe this probably isn't a simple case and apple probably had a lot more involvement in the chip than just buying it off the shelf.

[rcmaehl]

12 hours ago, SlimyPython said:

i dont think apples value is 1,100,000,000,000 (1.1 quadrillion)

I was only off by 100. See:

 

1,100,000,000,000

[Kisai]

5 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Uh, if you can build something new you don't infringe on already existing patents.

 

Care to explain how? All improvements in digital wireless technology have been in the last 20 years, the same timeframe that WiFi, Wireless (Cell phone), and Digital DTH Satellite's have operated.

[iglance tech]

Thats a hellava lot of money. Apple will be broke now

[Kisai]

52 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

New modulation and coding schemes, encoding/decoding techniques, network stacks, etc. New tech is popping out every day, not that hard to compile a bunch of stuff into a new and better network stack. Hard part is making it cheap enough and convince hardware manufacturers to adopt.

So when are you publishing your new WiFi scheme?

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Sometime in the future. Already have 4 papers published, 3 in review and more 2 in the pipeline.

And it will be superior to what we have now and will be completely royalty/license free?

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

And it will be superior to what we have now and will be completely royalty/license free?

I’d settle for “or” on that one.  Something license free that isn’t any better or is just a whisper better is likely to eat current stuff.  It would also help a lot if a router could support both it and the the old standard.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I’d settle for “or” on that one.  Something license free that isn’t any better or is just a whisper better is likely to eat current stuff.  It would also help a lot if a router could support both it and the the old standard.

either or, the person I quoted was adamant that wifi needed to start from scratch and be royalty free open source to be better.  Not sure the fee's amount to much in the grand scheme of things,  Especially when it could be argued that the pot of gold carrot that is the patent for a high demand product is usually what keeps people developing bigger and better.

[mr moose]

23 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Depends on a multitude of factors, but that's the idea. Work in progress.

 

I'd say it is correct, but monopolizes tech on a few companies (e.g. LTE/5G-NR with Qualcomm, which refuses to license their patents unless you buy their products).

 

If other companies could pay a FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) license and build their own components, they could probably offer better equipment at lower prices while still financing R&D.

 

Working on open standards, designs and software also have advantages in reducing standardization costs, improving transceiver and modem design, plus development/testing/maintenance/tooling software and so on.

 

I'm all for open standards and FOSS/OSS etc.  but I also believe we need patents and private development too.  Like all things on this planet you have to take the good with the bad because we are all human.  

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

I'm definitely in favor of patents (industry sabotage and spying are basically non-existent because of them), but not abusive ones.

 

You get your money for developing the technique/product/manufacturing process/design, but you don't get to say how licensees can use your patent nor charge them wildly different royalties.

Who gets charged different royalties?  I mean specifically is there a company that has to pay more for a basic license/royality than another  for no other reason than discrimination?

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

A bunch of companies. If you're a competitor to the patent holder, he is allowed to charge you more (e.g. charging a percentage of your product price). And some abuse from their position and often force you into an agreeing to pay for unused patents (e.g. only licensing in blocks of patents).

 

We only get to know how bad things are when there's a case being judged. The Qualcomm vs Apple case is one of those: standard fees of 18~20 USD per smartphone on royalties or make an agreement and reduce that to 7 USD if you give up on litigating rights, etc.

https://www.eetimes.com/apple-reveals-qualcomm-patent-fees/

You didn't answer my question, I asked specifically which companies.   What I am asking for is evidence that it happens outside of legitimate business dealings.  Apple guaranteeing supply exclusivity for lower fees is not the same thing as qualcomm charging more to one company and less to another for no reason other than who trhat company is.

 

 

Disagreements and complaints of licensing has always been a thing, but  it being a discriminatory practice is yet to be seen.

[mr moose]

36 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Choosing whether or not you engage in legal battle to enforce your patents is a form of discrimination, isn't it?

 

Nope.  There is no evidence any of these companies are discriminating in their defense of IP.  It looks as if anyone who uses IP without a license is getting sued.

36 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Microsoft, for example, sued a ton of Android manufacturers because some of the stuff on Android supposedly used their patented technology [1]. They ended up making more money on Android than on WP [2].

 

Because that tech wasn't lisenced.

36 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Google tried to do the same with Microsoft after buying Motorola, but the judge ended up setting a FRAND license [3]. Google wanted 4 billion and ended up with 2 million. Google sold Motorola in the following year [4].

Same issue different outcome for different reasons.

 

36 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Ericsson sued D-Link for patents, ended up settling for 15 cents per device, while Ericsson charged Intel 50 cents per device for the same patents [5].

 

Do you have the specifics of that case or are you relying on superficial information,  how many patents were in the deal, was their cross licensing involved in the Intel deal, Did the court case effect the amount they could settle for and would it have been the same otherwise?  There are too many variables to draw such a concrete conclusion.

36 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Ericsson also sued TCL for 2/3/4G related licenses, which refused to negotiate unFRANDly licensing. Ericsson ended up punished for breaking their agreement with ETSI (kind of a european ISO for telecom) that required any essential patents to the 3GPP standards to be available under FRAND licenses [6].

Broadcom sued Qualcomm for not disclosing they had patents associated with the contributions they made to mobile standards [7]. Qualcomm literally evaded from FRAND license agreement with ETSI and went after manufacturers that implemented their patented technology.
 

 

So Qualcomm tried to do something dodgy to the JVT and the courts made the patent unenforceable within the realms of the JVT.  that is not the same as charging different amounts for IP on grounds of who they are and not some other legitimate businesses dealing.   What the court effectively ruled was that Qualcomm could not enforce their patent over anyone in the JVT. I don't see how that is a bad thing.

 

36 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Few cases are made public and usually for big companies that have money to fight other giants.

[1] https://www.pcworld.com/article/222825/if_android_violates_patents_shouldnt_microsoft_sue_google.html

[2] https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15-from-every-android-device-sold/

[3] http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/04/court-determined-frand-rate-for.html

[4] https://www.ft.com/content/5200f3be-892d-11e3-9f48-00144feab7de

[5] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/13-1625/13-1625-2014-12-04.html

[6] https://www.natlawreview.com/article/recent-developments-licensing-standards-essential-patents-0

[7] https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/qualcomm-inc-v-broadcom-corp

Those don't address what I asked. In fact I am not sure that what you are arguing can be evidenced as each IP case that is raised comes with it's unique conditions.  Many times the IP required by one company will require exchanging for ip that the other company already owns.  It is not a simple case of licensing being a one way street.

36 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

A bunch of cases and background are covered here:

https://www.pillsburylaw.com/images/content/1/2/v2/1268/Frandv.CompulsoryLicensingTheLessoroftheTwoEvils.pdf

 

Having a quick read of that, it basically says frand is good, governments shouldn't just stand by when IP licensing can effect consumers, but they also shouldn't mandate forced licensing agreements.

[mr moose]

49 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

It's the information I've available and I'm aware off. Most of those deals are confidential and we will probably never know how much they charge the others for unless they decide to sue each other.

 

Which is why I am not comfortable concluding there is a discriminatory or monopolistic practice involved.   I tend to see patent/licenising issues like tax evasion issues and the like, many of these problems are approached with a particular ideal or persuasion, however the systems are not that simple as to be able to simply fix one perceived discrepancy without making things worse in another area. 

 

49 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

That's true. I guess standardizing license fees would make things easier.

But how would that look? not all IP has the same value, some patents have millions of research dollars behind them while others were bought.  The only change I have ever championed is that in order to buy IP you have to be manufacturing a product that uses it.    Unless I have missed something crucial, this wouldn't prevent companies/universities that develop new technology as a business or stop companies buying IP they will use in an end product, but it will stop patent trolls buying IP then suing people over it.