|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 10:06 AM EST |
I am not certain, but I thought that I had read somewhere that Qualcomm had
licensed Motorola's patents only for a certain number of, or certain models of,
their chips, and that the chips that Qualcomm was providing to Apple did not
fall within the scope of that license.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 11:08 AM EST |
As I see it, no chip can ever enact all the patent claims and it cannot infringe
on the patent. The only licence necessary would be for the patents in the
country of manufacture and, even then, only for a component specifically made to
meet some of the claims of that country's patent when designed and installed in
a full device.
The manufacturer (Apple) must make sure they have a full licence for the patents
in the country of manufacture in order that their manufacturing agents are
licensed to manufacture the device (although, each country's patent laws and
patent protection may vary from all the others. One needs to be legally expert
in the patent law of the country of manufacture to know what this entails).
Apple cannot claim patent exhaustion with either the IBM chips or the Qualcomm
chips. Only Apple have the complete invention manufactured and only Apple
infringe on all the claims of the patents that are valid in the USA, by
importing the completed device into the USA. Any licences to patents in another
country are no protection against similar patents being infringed in the USA.
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Country of Manufacture - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 02:07 PM EST
- Yes - Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, November 05 2012 @ 03:12 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 04 2012 @ 07:36 PM EST |
An (extreme) oversimplification is that a patent holder can only get paid for a
product once. If Qualcomm make a chip that uses Motorola patents and have a
valid license, Motorola can't assert the same patents against buyers of the
Qualcomm chip *unless there's some other new infringing component*.
It's far more complex than this in practice, particularly when you cross borders
I suspect, but that's the basic idea.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
