The Qualcomm v. Apple patent jury won’t get these simple, brutally honest instructions

“Yesterday (Monday, March 4, 2019) a Qualcomm v. Apple patent infringement trial kicked off in San Diego (Southern District of California),” Florian Mueller writes for FOSS Patent.

“Obviously, the jury will get nonjudgmental instructions in accordance with the law from Judge Dana M. Sabraw. But on this blog I can take some liberties, and now I’ll tell you the story the way I think it should actually be told to the jury upfront,” Mueller writes. “It’s an alternative-universe approach, but actually, it’s a lot closer to the facts than any official instructions could ever be.”

Dear Jurors,

I’m so sorry for you because you now have to spend about two weeks or more in court, getting less than minimum wage and probably horrible food, and while it’s your civic duty, it’s actually pointless in this case.

This is about one yuuuge company, Qualcomm, suing another yuuuuuuuge company, Apple, theoretically over tens of millions of dollars, on a basis on which it’s pretty much lost another case before. So let me walk you through this dispute chronologically:

Qualcomm’s original entrepreneurial story of successfully swimming against the tide with code division multiple access (CDMA) is absolutely admirable. But that was a long time ago, and just like any other company in its position, Qualcomm engaged in rent-seeking: it wanted, and still wants, to get as much as possible, and for as long as possible, out of its great accomplishment of decades ago.

Where lawmakers and courts draw the lines is when a company’s rent-seeking efforts turn out to be anticompetitive schemes. In America, we generally believe in market forces. Supply and demand–and may the best product or the most competitively-priced product win. But when a company doesn’t compete on a fair basis, antitrust comes into play. Even prior to this decade, competitors and customers alleged that Qualcomm violated the antitrust laws. For a long time, nothing serious happened because everything got settled somehow…

Much more in the full article – very highly recommendedhere.

MacDailyNews Take: LOL!

Time’s finally running out on Qualcomm’s extortion racket, thanks to Apple!

Qualcomm puts value of its patent portfolio on line in Apple jury trial – March 5, 2019
Qualcomm launches patent challenge to Apple ahead of antitrust case – March 4, 2019
Patently absurd: Qualcomm charges a 5% wireless patent royalty on iPhone repairs – February 26, 2019
German court stays Qualcomm patent infringement suit against Apple; patent-in-suit likely invalid – February 26, 2019
Apple’s workaround for German fake injunction exacerbates Qualcomm’s antitrust woes – February 14, 2019
Apple resumes selling iPhones in Germany, but with only Qualcomm modems – February 14, 2019
South Korean Supreme Court upholds $242 million antitrust judgement against Qualcomm – February 12, 2019
Bad news piles up for Qualcomm in Apple dispute – February 10, 2019
Apple wins damages ruling against Qualcomm – February 5, 2019
U.S. FTC: Evidence is ‘overwhelming’ that Qualcomm engaged in exclusionary, anticompetitive conduct – January 30, 2019
Leaked emails reveal new reason why Apple went to war with Qualcomm – January 18, 2019
Apple’s COO Jeff Williams delivers blistering testimony on Qualcomm’s ‘onerous demands’ – January 15, 2019
Apple was paying Qualcomm over $1 billion per year in licensing – January 15, 2019


  1. “Supply and demand–and may the best product or the most competitively-priced product win. But when a company doesn’t compete on a fair basis, antitrust comes into play.”
    Would that that myth would work with pharmaceuticals!

  2. I’ve always liked Florian Mueller’s writing. I think he’s very precise and clear, especially with some of the difficult concepts he sometimes has to describe. And AFAIK English isn’t even his native language. Bravo!

  3. All a load of bullcrap.
    Repeat after me….
    A patent is a deed over a certain piece of intellectual property, it is EXACTLY a time limited monopoly, granted by the Constitution. Patent holders can do with their property as they wish, including being patent trolls, or doing nothing at all. In no case can other’s still cannot trespass the IP without the patent holder’s permission. Period! No controversy, this is law.

    Now… here’s where things get interesting….

    IF QC submitted patents for inclusion into an industry standard, under certain terms (FRAND) and ostensibly for the purpose of getting more royalties by being included in the standard, then that is a deal and QC must abide by it.

    But here’s the “weasel words” … define “Fair” and “Reasonable”, hence the Courts.

    1. This article hit me the same way. It is almost like the patented nature of what is being used isn’t pertinent.

      I believe that there is a very large world in between wonton infringement and “Patent Trolls”, but the cost of fighting yuuuuuge companies that are infringing on a granted patent makes it almost stupid for large companies to do anything but infringe and let the chips fall where they may.

      Most individual patent holders can’t stand up to that. This is a case where there really seems to be a two tiered justice system.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.