A) This issue pre-dates 5G by several years, and has to do with patent rights, not competition among "makers". There were many "makers" of the chips in question, but all of the patents still needed to be licensed from Qualcomm.
B) Qualcomm and Apple had an arrangement in which Qualcomm provided Apple with rebates of equal value for the amount that the manufacturers had already paid in licensing fees. If that alone isn'tpretty strong evidence that they were double-dipping on licensing, I don't know what is.
It never protects any inventors or creators or engineers whatsoever. Those get their salary it they work, and get fired if they ever stop working. It never protects any "hard work".
But if you did leech off a share of the income your employees made, despite not working yourself, to then use that money to pay such inventors etc, you get to call yourself an "investor". And somehow, that magically enables you to forego working altogether, just declare their creations "your" "property", erect a monopoly, cause ar
I had forgotten Lucy she was involved in that great lawsuit, which TBH Samsung did badly in, but I remember this.
The monthlong trial between Apple and Samsung Electronics was nearing an end when Apple's lawyer presented an unwanted gift to the judge: a 75-page list of potential witnesses.. The judge, Lucy H. Koh, minced no words. "Unless you're smoking crack, you know these witnesses aren't going to be called when you have less than four hours," Judge Koh said to Apple's lawyers
Chip production is expensive because it is hard at the leading edge. I’m not sure what you mean by open source fab because any of the chip foundries will make your chip if you are willing to pay. It may not be at the smallest feature sizes as they have plenty of customers already ahead of you.
The 9th is consistently the worst court. No wonder they get overturned so much.
A) This issue pre-dates 5G by several years, and has to do with patent rights, not competition among "makers". There were many "makers" of the chips in question, but all of the patents still needed to be licensed from Qualcomm.
B) Qualcomm and Apple had an arrangement in which Qualcomm provided Apple with rebates of equal value for the amount that the manufacturers had already paid in licensing fees. If that alone isn'tpretty strong evidence that they were double-dipping on licensing, I don't know what is.
C)
It never protects any inventors or creators or engineers whatsoever. Those get their salary it they work, and get fired if they ever stop working.
It never protects any "hard work".
But if you did leech off a share of the income your employees made, despite not working yourself, to then use that money to pay such inventors etc, you get to call yourself an "investor". And somehow, that magically enables you to forego working altogether, just declare their creations "your" "property", erect a monopoly, cause ar
I had forgotten Lucy she was involved in that great lawsuit, which TBH Samsung did badly in, but I remember this.
The monthlong trial between Apple and Samsung Electronics was nearing an end when Apple's lawyer presented an unwanted gift to the judge: a 75-page list of potential witnesses.. The judge, Lucy H. Koh, minced no words. "Unless you're smoking crack, you know these witnesses aren't going to be called when you have less than four hours," Judge Koh said to Apple's lawyers
Chip production is expensive because it is hard at the leading edge. I’m not sure what you mean by open source fab because any of the chip foundries will make your chip if you are willing to pay. It may not be at the smallest feature sizes as they have plenty of customers already ahead of you.