back to article Qualcomm demands blueprints to Intel chips used in Apple iPhones

Qualcomm, as part of its patent battle against Apple, claims Intel went back on its word by failing to produce technical documents and code covering how its latest radio frequency components are being used in Apple's 2018 iPhones. And so, the San Diego, California-based chip designer has filed a motion in its home state to …

  1. paulf

    Units of Apple profit

    Apple's latest results (Apple laughing all the way to the bank – with profits of $5.3m per hour) suggest that at the rate given in the story ("...imposed a penalty of $25,000 per day on Apple...") Apple could have held out for 212 days on just an hours profit. I wonder how much the lawyer time cost in comparison to get that penalty reversed...

    Also "Even so, Intel may be hoping to delay document production until September, when the new iPhones debut, as a way to curry favor with Apple.". Assuming this is true I wonder how favourably Apple will look on Intel when it comes to whether they make the much predicted shift to ARM processors for macOS. Not much I imagine...

    1. BillG


      Qualcomm countered that testimony could be obtained from afar through the miracle of videoconferencing.

      Percent of time during a videoconference spent paying attention to subject: 10%

      Percent of time during a videoconference spent looking at yourself in the video adjusting your position on your chair, changing your facial expression, re-placing your hands, etc: 90%

  2. 2Nick3

    This makes no sense

    "Qualcomm argued Intel should cooperate because there's nothing about Intel's 2018 RF components – the SMARTi7 RF transceiver and the XMM 7560 baseband processor – that remains undisclosed to the public"

    The way that reads Qualcomm is asking Intel for information which has already been disclosed publicly, and complaining they don't have it.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: This makes no sense

      The way that reads Qualcomm is asking Intel for information which has already been disclosed publicly, and complaining they don't have it.

      You can disclose all the performance data and I/O specifications publicly without releasing the design blueprints, and it is (apparently) those that will show whether or not Intel have infringed Qualcomm's IP.

      1. 2Nick3

        Re: This makes no sense

        "...because there's nothing about Intel's 2018 RF components..."

        I agree that the design blueprints and firmware code are probably not on a public share (at least on purpose...), but the way the line is written it implies that everything is already disclosed.

        Or that they aren't not disclosed. Or not aren't not undisclosed. Or...

        (No Coffee icon, so we'll go with the next best thing...)

  3. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

    could it be Intel that is the root of the problem?

    Telling Apple, "Don't worry Tim, we are clear of QC patents."

    When all along they have been using QC stuff and still not getting the same performance as QC?

    If (hypothetically) Apple didn't know about what Intel was really doing then QC might well have a hard time proving 'willful infringement' and therefore getting triple damges.

    Whatever the outcome, this has an awful long way to run before we get even close to money changing hands.

    On that topic, I wonder if Samsung has paid even $0.01 to Apple yet?

    Come on Sammy, keep those coffers closed a bit longer.

    Anyroad, time for a pint.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Syndicate*" as a How-To Guide

    I could not be more weary of the eternal slapfight among Apple, Qualcomm, and Intel.

    Enough. Step up like the zaibatsu you are. Send in your agents... infiltrate, exterminate.

    Or bore everyone with your lawyers. Your choice.

    *The Bullfrog classic, not the Starbreeze Studios dumpster fire

  5. Camilla Smythe

    Intels stuff is worse though...

    Some background: Apple has been using a mix of Qualcomm and Intel baseband chipsets in its recent iPhones, without any differentiation that would be evident to fans other than Qualcomm-powered handhelds performing better than those with Chipzilla's modems.

    Why are Qualcom so intent on finding out how to do it wrong?

    1. Camilla Smythe

      Re: Intels stuff is worse though...

      OK Downvoters. The lack of logic goes like this.

      Qualcomm wants Intel's Blueprints. Qualcomm's present kit performs better than Intel's. Perhaps Qualcom's prior iteration performed just as badly as Intel's current product and did so in *exactly* the same way.

      If Qualcomm's prior iteration had IP protection and they can demonstrate such similar or preferably exact behaviour then they might have good reason to ask for some blueprints.

  6. Maelstorm Bronze badge

    I find it strange that Intel is holding out until at least September before handing documents over to Qualcomm. That implies that there might be something to Qualcomm's argument that the chips are infringing to some extent.

    Now why is QC suing Apple for patent infringement again? Apple didn't make the allegedly infringing chips, Intel did. So why isn't QC suing Intel instead for patent infringement? In my mind, going after Apple who just uses the chips is libel to backfire right on QC's face because then you have to prove that Apple knew that those chips were infringing. Proxy suit?

    I don't particularly like Apple or their viewpoint, but I'm with them on this one. QC should be going after Intel.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022