Qualcomm is at it again: It is again asking regulators to halt the sale of some iPhones in the United States.
Qualcomm previously asked the International Trade Commission to ban the sale of certain iPhones in the United States because the devices use Intel modems that infringe on its patents. That effort failed, but with successful bans in both China and Germany behind it, Qualcomm is trying again.
Sign up for our new free newsletter to get three time-saving tips each Friday — and get free copies of Paul Thurrott's Windows 11 and Windows 10 Field Guides (normally $9.99) as a special welcome gift!
"*" indicates required fields
Apple recently told an ITC judge that it had found a software-based workaround for Qualcomm’s patent-protection technologies, and it asked for—and received—a six-month reprieve during which it could make the necessary changes. So, Qualcomm is using Apple’s previous arguments against it, noting that Apple had claimed there was no way to workaround the Qualcomm technologies, only to magically find a fix when the ITC had ruled against Apple.
“[The judge] recommended against a remedy on the assumption that the [Qualcomm] patent would preclude Apple from using Intel as a supplier for many years and that no redesign was feasible,” the Qualcomm filing reads. “Apple now admits—more than seven months after the hearing—that the alleged harm is entirely avoidable.”
Basically, Qualcomm is asking that the previous decision giving Apple six months to deploy a fix be rescinded, resulting in an immediate ban on sales of Apple iPhone models based on infringing Intel modem hardware. That includes all modern iPhones, like the iPhone XS, XS Max, and XR.
If Apple has found a software-based workaround, the ban—if enacted—could be short-lived, assuming it can prove that it is no longer infringing on Qualcomm’s patents. But the ITC had also previously indicated that it was wary of essentially handing the firm a “monopoly” on smartphone sales in the U.S., whatever that means. And that preserving competition, in this case in smartphone modems, was in the public interest.
Given that logic, I guess it’s OK to break the law in the name of competition now. That thinking would, of course, also absolve Chinese-based smartphone giants like Huawei and Xiaomi, which routinely copy products made by Apple, Samsung, and other companies.
dontbe evil
<p>I like the way qualcomm fight against apple with apple own style</p>
provision l-3
<blockquote><em><a href="#406054">In reply to trparky:</a></em></blockquote><p>In part it has to do with how Qualcomm does licensing. They don't license to the maker of the modem they have the company using the modem pay the licensing fee. So that makes the Apple the responsible party and not Intel. Intel has been involved in some of the lawsuits as a witness (they testified in the FTC vs. Qualcomm and I believe this one as well) but are not a party to it. </p>
provision l-3
<p>This one is just weird. Qualcomm brought six complaints to the ITC for Apple infringing its patents. They then dropped three of those complaints prior to the ITC hearing the case. The ITC then ruled that two of the remaining three were not infringed so they are now down to single patent being infringed. During their own testimony they said that it would be easy for Apple to come up with a workaround, Apple came up with a workaround, Qualcomm approved the workaround and now Qualcomm want's to walk that back and get an import ban in place because their patent is no longer being infringed or because it will take six months to ensure the fix is completely rolled out? </p><p><br></p><p>From a business standpoint it is hard to fathom why Qualcomm keeps spending money on this. They got a win in China that was largely symbolic. Apple updated iOS and iPhones are still for sale. In Germany almost all the infringement cases were tossed but they did get a temporary injunction that cost them 1.3 billion Euros to enforce and their modems were added back into some of phones sold in Germany. So, what has Qualcomm gotten for their efforts? No sales bans and no damages payment. They did get some headlines and are selling a few more modems in Germany …. The ROI on these lawsuits has to be terrible. </p>