back to article Jury smacks Qualcomm for UNLAWFUL TECH in iPhone, Galaxy chips

Wireless comms firm ParkerVision has seen its shares soar today after a jury ruled that chipmaker Qualcomm had infringed its patents in a million-dollar trial over mobile phone chips used in iPhones and Galaxy devices. The federal jury decided that Qualcomm had infringed on ParkerVision's intellectual property, finding that …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    Their next move...

    will be to sue Samsung and Apple for knowingly using their patented technology.

    Then we could see the strange sight of Apple and Samsung on the same side. Plus ca change.

    There will still be comments here 'that were holding it wrong' though. Some things never change.

    1. Graham Marsden

      Re: Their next move...

      The enemy of our enemy...

      ... is just someone we haven't sued yet!

      (*Well, recently, anyway...)

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Their next move...

      I don't think they can sue Apple or Samsung until they've exhausted legal means with Qualcomm, or if Qualcomm's contract said that Apple and Samsung were responsible for paying for any unlicensed technology in Qualcomm's chips (and I don't see either of them agreeing to such a contract)

      Why not sue every iPhone and Galaxy S owner while they're at it? After all, if they could do what you suggest all of us who read the Reg article are now knowingly using our phones that contain unlicensed technology.

  2. tony2heads

    RF mixer

    "convert electromagnetic signals from higher to lower frequencies"

    If that is all it is then that is the basis of superheterodyne radios since the 1920's

    I hope there is more than that

    1. Tom 35

      Re: RF mixer

      "I hope there is more than that"

      In a mobile device.

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: RF mixer

        "In a mobile device."

        The transistor radio everyone had stuck to their ear in the 60s/70s or the ghettoblaster everyone dragged around in the 80s?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They must be only in LTE chipsets

    Based on the article saying Qualcomm started using this tech in 2011.

  4. Oh Homer

    Hang on a minute...

    Surely stuff "relating to radio-frequency receivers and the down-conversion of electromagnetic signals" qualifies as pretty "essential", right?

    But didn't the US ITC recently make it clear that "essential" technology was indefensible using patents, and that patents are really only meant to protect trivial and blatantly plagiarised junk like Apple's "rectangles" and "jack detection"?

    So how come Samsung isn't allowed to protect its "essential" patents, but some unknown and highly dubious American "IP" company in Jacksonville is?

  5. Gel

    Zero Frequency IF

    I think its based on zero frequency IF or direct conversion of RF.

    EG (1993)

    If so, it was well known much earlier than the patents. How can a lay jury be expected to judge these things?

  6. John Smith 19 Gold badge

    Funny how that works.

    Big Corp gets a tech presentation from Small Co and later releases product it was working on "All along."


    1. Wallyb132

      Re: Funny how that works.

      "Big Corp gets a tech presentation from Small Co and later releases product it was working on "All along."


      Your statement might be even remotely relevant if the presentation vs usage of technology hadn't been 21 years apart...4

      1. Sheep!

        Re: Funny how that works.

        "ParkerVision said that it showed its technology to Qualcomm in the late 1990s "

        Late '90s being 97,98,99 so 12 - 14 years tops.

  7. Tom 13

    Given the article is light on technical details

    It's hard to comment on the actual case. The one potentially troublesome bit that is obvious is Qualcomm having previously tried to license the tech. If I were a juror that would be a major concern and Qualcomm would need to show me they didn't lift the technology or worse, miscount days on the calendar. That certainly makes intentional infringement plausible even if ParkerVision still needs to prove the case.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020