Why can Samsung & MediaTek & Huawei get around Qualcomm 5G modem patents -
yet Apple can't?

This is a serious question, for adults only, which is why the Apple ng's
aren't on it (the iKooks blame everyone but Apple, for example).

How can Qualcomm & MediaTek (and in some says, Huawei) get around Qualcomm
5G modem patents - and Apple can't?

Intelligent people use adult cognitive skills to assess disjoint facts.

FACT #1:
Someone posted a Supreme Court decision this week that Apple lost where
Apple argued the Qualcomm patents expiring in 2029 were holding them back.
<https://rcrwireless.com/20220628/business/supreme-court-denies-apples-request-to-hear-qualcomm-patent-case>

FACT #2:
Later this week, Ming-Chi Kuo published investor advice saying, literally,
Apple "failed" at making a 5G modem (hence Qualcomm stock rose
appreciably).
<https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/28/apple-5g-modem-failed-qualcomm-remains-supplier/>

FACT #3:
In response to Ming-Chi Kuo, known Apple defenders publish clarifications
that it's not a "failure to design", but just a "failure to deliver".
<https://www.patentlyapple.com/2022/06/apple-not-releasing-their-own-5g-modem-chip-relates-to-a-long-standing-patent-battle-with-qualcomm-and-not-because-of-a-devel.html>

OK. Fair enough.
a. Apple tells the Supreme Court Qualcomm 5G patents are holding them back
b. This week, Apple loses that bid to nullify those 5G modem patents
c. Soon thereafter, Ming-Chi Kuo reports Apple "failed" on their 5G modem
c. Yet patent insiders say it's only the patents holding Apple design up

What do you make of these disjoint facts, coupled with the facts that:
A. Samsung makes 5G modems
B. MediaTek makes 5G modems
C. Huawei makes 5G modems

How do _they_ get around those Qualcomm 5G modem patents then?

Adults need to put disjoint facts together until it all makes sense.
Hence... the obvious question to ask is...

How can Samsung & MediaTek (& perhaps Huawei also) get around those two
Qualcomm 5G modem patents which expire in 2029 - yet Apple can't?
--
Posted out of the goodness of my heart to learn useful information.

On 2022-06-30 09:59, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Why can Samsung & MediaTek & Huawei get around Qualcomm 5G modem patents -
> yet Apple can't?

Before you ask "Why?"...

....you should ask "If".

>
> This is a serious question, for adults only, which is why the Apple ng's
> aren't on it (the iKooks blame everyone but Apple, for example).
>
> How can Qualcomm & MediaTek (and in some says, Huawei) get around Qualcomm
> 5G modem patents - and Apple can't?
>
> Intelligent people use adult cognitive skills to assess disjoint facts.
>
> FACT #1:
> Someone posted a Supreme Court decision this week that Apple lost where
> Apple argued the Qualcomm patents expiring in 2029 were holding them back.
> <https://rcrwireless.com/20220628/business/supreme-court-denies-apples-request-to-hear-qualcomm-patent-case>
>
>
> FACT #2:
> Later this week, Ming-Chi Kuo published investor advice saying, literally,
> Apple "failed" at making a 5G modem (hence Qualcomm stock rose
> appreciably).
> <https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/28/apple-5g-modem-failed-qualcomm-remains-supplier/>
>
>
> FACT #3:
> In response to Ming-Chi Kuo, known Apple defenders publish clarifications
> that it's not a "failure to design", but just a "failure to deliver".
> <https://www.patentlyapple.com/2022/06/apple-not-releasing-their-own-5g-modem-chip-relates-to-a-long-standing-patent-battle-with-qualcomm-and-not-because-of-a-devel.html>
>
>
> OK. Fair enough. a. Apple tells the Supreme Court Qualcomm 5G patents
> are holding them back b. This week, Apple loses that bid to nullify
> those 5G modem patents
> c. Soon thereafter, Ming-Chi Kuo reports Apple "failed" on their 5G modem
> c. Yet patent insiders say it's only the patents holding Apple design up
>
> What do you make of these disjoint facts, coupled with the facts that:
> A. Samsung makes 5G modems

'Qualcomm announced a licensing agreement with Samsung that the company
said stretches through 2023 and includes 5G technologies.'

<https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/qualcomm-inks-licensing-deal-samsung-but-sees-market-softness-smartphones>

Andy Burnelli wrote:

> What do you make of these disjoint facts, coupled with the facts that:
> A. Samsung makes 5G modems
> B. MediaTek makes 5G modems
> C. Huawei makes 5G modems
>
> How do _they_ get around those Qualcomm 5G modem patents then?

Do any of them belong to a 'patent pool'?

Andy Burns wrote:

> Do any of them belong to a 'patent pool'?

I have to openly admit, time & again, you're more knowledgeable than I.
*Who Owns Core 5G Patents?*
<https://www.greyb.com/5g-patents/>

Given patents are holding Apple back (but not Samsung, MediaTek & Hauwei):
"The issue with Apple's 5G chip being delayed is a legal matter
over patents and a licensing agreement with Qualcomm
and not because Apple's 5G chip development has failed in any way."
<https://www.patentlyapple.com/2022/06/apple-not-releasing-their-own-5g-modem-chip-relates-to-a-long-standing-patent-battle-with-qualcomm-and-not-because-of-a-devel.html>

Let's start with the definition of a Patent Pool:
<https://duckduckgo.com/?q=patent+pool+qualcomm+5g+modem>
"Patent pools collect patents from multiple patentees
and license them out as a package."
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308596121001919>

Digging into what the 5G patent pools are is a tricky area indeed.
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/top-wireless-carriers-eye-5g-patent-pool-but-acknowledge-extremely-tricky-area>

The question is whether or not Samsung, MediaTek, & Hauwei own sufficient
patents in those patent pools, or, if they license patents from Qualcomm.

Huawei is the leader in 5G patents, surprisingly, followed by Samsung:
"Huawei is leading with the most declared 5G patents
i.e. 3007 patent families followed by Samsung and LG with 2317
and 2147 patent families respectively. Nokia is following LG
and secured the 4th position with 2047 patent families,
while Ericsson and Qualcomm have 5th and 6th place."

However, Qualcomm must have some key patents since This says Huawei
licenses the technology from Qualcomm (like Apple):
"Both Apple and Huawei... entered into new multi-year licensing
partnerships with Qualcomm and paid a hefty lump-sum payment
as per the settlement agreement"
<https://leftbrainir.com/featured-reports-2/2021/2/3/qualcomm-riding-the-5g-wave>

This also supports the premise that Huawei is the leader in 5G patents:
<https://www.iam-media.com/article/who-leads-the-5g-patent-race-2021-draws-the-end>

Notice though that Apple is clearly well behind basically just about
everyone, even with the huge surge in patents Apple bought from Intel for
about the price of yet another fully equipped modern aircraft carrier.
<https://www.inquartik.com/blog/case-5g-intel-patents-analysis/>

But, obviously, based on the Supreme Court ruling this week, there are at
least two critical Qualcomm patents that Apple is _desperate_ to override.
<https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/top-us-court-declines-apple-s-hearing-bid-over-2-qualcomm-patents-122062800273_1.html>

There's a more detailed analysis of this week's Supreme Court decision here
<http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/06/lessons-from-rejection-of-apples-cert.html>
which tells us that the two patents in question are the following:
1. (U.S. Patent No. 7,844,037
on a "method and device for enabling message responses to
incoming phone calls"; originally obtained by Palm)
2. (U.S. Patent 8,683,362
on a "card metaphor for activities in a computing device").
Apparently both of which expire in August, 2029.

(As a related aside, that article says Apple is always behind in technology
but that they advertise their way out of it, which is what Apple does now.

The interesting part of _that_ analysis was that even if Apple makes their
own modems, Qualcomm can come after them for patent infringement, which
supports my theory that the problem isn't that Apple failed - but that
Qualcomm has the patents.

This article below also says Apple is always behind in 4G & 5G technology:
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm-explainer/explainer-how-5g-drove-moves-by-apple-qualcomm-and-intel-idUSKCN1RT2OE>

That still leaves Samsung, Huawei & MediaTek to be better understood as to
how _they_ can make modems, but not Apple.

I'll dig into them directly, but I didn't see, on my first skim anyway,
that the "patent pools" affected the companies we're speaking about.
--
On Usenet, our combined efforts make us more intelligent & knowledgeable.

Off-topic troll...

--
Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Serious question: Why can Samsung & MediaTek get around Qualcomm 5G modem patents - yet Apple can't?
> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:59:51 +0100
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Message-ID: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="59319"; posting-host="YJ9T4Jrl0F+pWyDRfaeX/g.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> Content-Language: en-GB
> X-Received-Bytes: 3054
>
> Why can Samsung & MediaTek & Huawei get around Qualcomm 5G modem patents -
> yet Apple can't?
>
> This is a serious question, for adults only, which is why the Apple ng's
> aren't on it (the iKooks blame everyone but Apple, for example).
>
> How can Qualcomm & MediaTek (and in some says, Huawei) get around Qualcomm
> 5G modem patents - and Apple can't?
>
> Intelligent people use adult cognitive skills to assess disjoint facts.
>
> FACT #1:
> Someone posted a Supreme Court decision this week that Apple lost where
> Apple argued the Qualcomm patents expiring in 2029 were holding them back.
> <https://rcrwireless.com/20220628/business/supreme-court-denies-apples-request-to-hear-qualcomm-patent-case>
>
> FACT #2:
> Later this week, Ming-Chi Kuo published investor advice saying, literally,
> Apple "failed" at making a 5G modem (hence Qualcomm stock rose
> appreciably).
> <https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/28/apple-5g-modem-failed-qualcomm-remains-supplier/>
>
> FACT #3:
> In response to Ming-Chi Kuo, known Apple defenders publish clarifications
> that it's not a "failure to design", but just a "failure to deliver".
> <https://www.patentlyapple.com/2022/06/apple-not-releasing-their-own-5g-modem-chip-relates-to-a-long-standing-patent-battle-with-qualcomm-and-not-because-of-a-devel.html>
>
> OK. Fair enough.
> a. Apple tells the Supreme Court Qualcomm 5G patents are holding them back
> b. This week, Apple loses that bid to nullify those 5G modem patents
> c. Soon thereafter, Ming-Chi Kuo reports Apple "failed" on their 5G modem
> c. Yet patent insiders say it's only the patents holding Apple design up
>
> What do you make of these disjoint facts, coupled with the facts that:
> A. Samsung makes 5G modems
> B. MediaTek makes 5G modems
> C. Huawei makes 5G modems
>
> How do _they_ get around those Qualcomm 5G modem patents then?
>
> Adults need to put disjoint facts together until it all makes sense.
> Hence... the obvious question to ask is...
>
> How can Samsung & MediaTek (& perhaps Huawei also) get around those two
> Qualcomm 5G modem patents which expire in 2029 - yet Apple can't?
> --
> Posted out of the goodness of my heart to learn useful information.

Off-topic troll...

--
Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: Serious question: Why can Samsung & MediaTek get around Qualcomm
> 5G modem patents - yet Apple can't?
> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:31:11 -0700
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 49
> Message-ID: <t9kml1$1vkeo$1@dont-email.me>
> References: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:31:13 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c77d41cf640e5279536340b27ee4865c";
> logging-data="2085336"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/oMqsKfryu0i2O3qzylhtTfU77MrSLVWQ="
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
> Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:KuMjHnfsaZYYOPiutzEmBHfFuVM=
> In-Reply-To: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> Content-Language: en-CA
> X-Received-Bytes: 3366
>
> On 2022-06-30 09:59, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> > Why can Samsung & MediaTek & Huawei get around Qualcomm 5G modem patents -
> > yet Apple can't?
>
> Before you ask "Why?"...
>
> ...you should ask "If".
>
> >
> > This is a serious question, for adults only, which is why the Apple ng's
> > aren't on it (the iKooks blame everyone but Apple, for example).
> >
> > How can Qualcomm & MediaTek (and in some says, Huawei) get around Qualcomm
> > 5G modem patents - and Apple can't?
> >
> > Intelligent people use adult cognitive skills to assess disjoint facts.
> >
> > FACT #1:
> > Someone posted a Supreme Court decision this week that Apple lost where
> > Apple argued the Qualcomm patents expiring in 2029 were holding them back.
> > <https://rcrwireless.com/20220628/business/supreme-court-denies-apples-request-to-hear-qualcomm-patent-case>
> >
> >
> > FACT #2:
> > Later this week, Ming-Chi Kuo published investor advice saying, literally,
> > Apple "failed" at making a 5G modem (hence Qualcomm stock rose
> > appreciably).
> > <https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/28/apple-5g-modem-failed-qualcomm-remains-supplier/>
> >
> >
> > FACT #3:
> > In response to Ming-Chi Kuo, known Apple defenders publish clarifications
> > that it's not a "failure to design", but just a "failure to deliver".
> > <https://www.patentlyapple.com/2022/06/apple-not-releasing-their-own-5g-modem-chip-relates-to-a-long-standing-patent-battle-with-qualcomm-and-not-because-of-a-devel.html>
> >
> >
> > OK. Fair enough. a. Apple tells the Supreme Court Qualcomm 5G patents
> > are holding them back b. This week, Apple loses that bid to nullify
> > those 5G modem patents
> > c. Soon thereafter, Ming-Chi Kuo reports Apple "failed" on their 5G modem
> > c. Yet patent insiders say it's only the patents holding Apple design up
> >
> > What do you make of these disjoint facts, coupled with the facts that:
> > A. Samsung makes 5G modems
>
> 'Qualcomm announced a licensing agreement with Samsung that the company
> said stretches through 2023 and includes 5G technologies.'
>
> <https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/qualcomm-inks-licensing-deal-samsung-but-sees-market-softness-smartphones>

Off-topic troll...

--
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: Serious question: Why can Samsung & MediaTek get around Qualcomm
> 5G modem patents - yet Apple can't?
> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 20:24:01 +0100
> Lines: 10
> Message-ID: <ji6bihFh7k2U1@mid.individual.net>
> References: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Trace: individual.net xlCIcllZ54UhubBKXjtZxw9cvn9KT1F0ArrZ7YpKiPLGavVlyh
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:jQcxXV8XSl9F4LVyGE5aousnosw=
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
> Thunderbird/102.0
> Content-Language: en-GB
> In-Reply-To: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> X-Received-Bytes: 1275
>
> Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
> > What do you make of these disjoint facts, coupled with the facts that:
> > A. Samsung makes 5G modems
> > B. MediaTek makes 5G modems
> > C. Huawei makes 5G modems
> >
> > How do _they_ get around those Qualcomm 5G modem patents then?
>
> Do any of them belong to a 'patent pool'?

Off-topic troll...

--
Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:

> Path: not-for-mail
> From: Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com>
> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.comp.os.windows-10
> Subject: Re: Serious question: Why can Samsung & MediaTek get around Qualcomm 5G modem patents - yet Apple can't?
> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:26:17 +0100
> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
> Message-ID: <t9l0sh$10rb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> References: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ji6bihFh7k2U1@mid.individual.net>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="33643"; posting-host="YJ9T4Jrl0F+pWyDRfaeX/g.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
> Content-Language: en-GB
> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
> X-Received-Bytes: 5247
>
> Andy Burns wrote:
>
> > Do any of them belong to a 'patent pool'?
>
> I have to openly admit, time & again, you're more knowledgeable than I.
> *Who Owns Core 5G Patents?*
> <https://www.greyb.com/5g-patents/>
>
> Given patents are holding Apple back (but not Samsung, MediaTek & Hauwei):
> "The issue with Apple's 5G chip being delayed is a legal matter
> over patents and a licensing agreement with Qualcomm
> and not because Apple's 5G chip development has failed in any way."
> <https://www.patentlyapple.com/2022/06/apple-not-releasing-their-own-5g-modem-chip-relates-to-a-long-standing-patent-battle-with-qualcomm-and-not-because-of-a-devel.html>
>
> Let's start with the definition of a Patent Pool:
> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=patent+pool+qualcomm+5g+modem>
> "Patent pools collect patents from multiple patentees
> and license them out as a package."
> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308596121001919>
>
> Digging into what the 5G patent pools are is a tricky area indeed.
> <https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/top-wireless-carriers-eye-5g-patent-pool-but-acknowledge-extremely-tricky-area>
>
> The question is whether or not Samsung, MediaTek, & Hauwei own sufficient
> patents in those patent pools, or, if they license patents from Qualcomm.
>
> Huawei is the leader in 5G patents, surprisingly, followed by Samsung:
> "Huawei is leading with the most declared 5G patents
> i.e. 3007 patent families followed by Samsung and LG with 2317
> and 2147 patent families respectively. Nokia is following LG
> and secured the 4th position with 2047 patent families,
> while Ericsson and Qualcomm have 5th and 6th place."
>
> However, Qualcomm must have some key patents since This says Huawei
> licenses the technology from Qualcomm (like Apple):
> "Both Apple and Huawei... entered into new multi-year licensing
> partnerships with Qualcomm and paid a hefty lump-sum payment
> as per the settlement agreement"
> <https://leftbrainir.com/featured-reports-2/2021/2/3/qualcomm-riding-the-5g-wave>
>
> This also supports the premise that Huawei is the leader in 5G patents:
> <https://www.iam-media.com/article/who-leads-the-5g-patent-race-2021-draws-the-end>
>
> Notice though that Apple is clearly well behind basically just about
> everyone, even with the huge surge in patents Apple bought from Intel for
> about the price of yet another fully equipped modern aircraft carrier.
> <https://www.inquartik.com/blog/case-5g-intel-patents-analysis/>
>
> But, obviously, based on the Supreme Court ruling this week, there are at
> least two critical Qualcomm patents that Apple is _desperate_ to override.
> <https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/top-us-court-declines-apple-s-hearing-bid-over-2-qualcomm-patents-122062800273_1.html>
>
> There's a more detailed analysis of this week's Supreme Court decision here
> <http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/06/lessons-from-rejection-of-apples-cert.html>
> which tells us that the two patents in question are the following:
> 1. (U.S. Patent No. 7,844,037
> on a "method and device for enabling message responses to
> incoming phone calls"; originally obtained by Palm)
> 2. (U.S. Patent 8,683,362
> on a "card metaphor for activities in a computing device").
> Apparently both of which expire in August, 2029.
>
> (As a related aside, that article says Apple is always behind in technology
> but that they advertise their way out of it, which is what Apple does now.
>
> The interesting part of _that_ analysis was that even if Apple makes their
> own modems, Qualcomm can come after them for patent infringement, which
> supports my theory that the problem isn't that Apple failed - but that
> Qualcomm has the patents.
>
> This article below also says Apple is always behind in 4G & 5G technology:
> <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm-explainer/explainer-how-5g-drove-moves-by-apple-qualcomm-and-intel-idUSKCN1RT2OE>
>
> That still leaves Samsung, Huawei & MediaTek to be better understood as to
> how _they_ can make modems, but not Apple.
>
> I'll dig into them directly, but I didn't see, on my first skim anyway,
> that the "patent pools" affected the companies we're speaking about.
> --
> On Usenet, our combined efforts make us more intelligent & knowledgeable.

In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$3@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=165357273000) posted Thu, 26 May 2022
12:50:54 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe stated:

> Always Wrong, the utterly foulmouthed group idiot, adding absolutely
> NOTHING but insults to this thread, as usual...

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 66.8% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
least 2519 articles to USENET. Of which 176 have been pure insults and
1506 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:36:02 GMT in
message-id <6HovK.34095$7kM1.3190@usenetxs.com>.

NtijYW7+OPdJ

In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$3@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=165357273000) posted Thu, 26 May 2022
12:50:54 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe stated:

> Always Wrong, the utterly foulmouthed group idiot, adding absolutely
> NOTHING but insults to this thread, as usual...

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 66.8% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
least 2519 articles to USENET. Of which 176 have been pure insults and
1506 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:36:03 GMT in
message-id <7HovK.34096$7kM1.27547@usenetxs.com>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that Troll Doe does not even follow
the rules it uses to troll other posters.

8X0qpKlOulOJ

How stupid is the John Doe troll?

The John Doe troll posting one of its vacuous insults at 05:39:20 UTC on
20 Mar 2022 with a grammatical error:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=164790428800

Then, at 05:55:56 UTC, 16 minutes and 36 seconds later, the John Doe
troll responds to its own post with a correction, but stupidly forgets
that it sets a Followup-To: header to the "alt.test.group", resulting in
its correction article posting only to "alt.test.group":

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=164790440700

The John Doe troll, mister "always.look@message.header", is so stupid it
does not even remember it sets a Followup-To: header in its own vacuous
insults.

Special thanks to corvid <bl@ckb.ird> for pointing out the stupidity of
the John Doe troll:

http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=165594737000

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly
formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:36:04 GMT in message-id
<8HovK.34097$7kM1.11721@usenetxs.com>).

NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that Troll Doe does not even follow
the rules it uses to troll other posters.

so38pVBSWFQa

In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$3@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=165357273000) posted Thu, 26 May 2022
12:50:54 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe stated:

> Always Wrong, the utterly foulmouthed group idiot, adding absolutely
> NOTHING but insults to this thread, as usual...

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 66.8% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
least 2519 articles to USENET. Of which 176 have been pure insults and
1506 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

The John Dope troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Dope troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Dope troll has continued to post incorrectly
formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:36:05 GMT in message-id
<9HovK.34098$7kM1.11652@usenetxs.com>).

NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that John Doe does not even follow
the rules it uses to troll other posters.

uzvDAWIVKlsb

Eddie, the Astraweb nym-shifting forger is trolling off-topic and other posts
with its copy of my ID, then replies (or not) to its own post.

See also...
Edward H. <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
Peter Weiner <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
John Doe <always.look message.header> (Astraweb, Aioe.org)
Bertrand Sindri <bertrand.sindri yahoo.com> (unlikely but possible)

--
John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: John Doe <always.look@message.header>
> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.comp.os.windows-10,free.spam
> Subject: Serious question: Why can Samsung & MediaTek get around Qualcomm 5G modem patents - yet Apple can't?
> Followup-To: alt.test.group
> References: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:36:01 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="aefae07b417003b570527823e77a9930"; logging-data="29200"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QBXYPJWay5G0R7zD10mjY5gUD5xOvt6I="
> User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.05
> Lines: 69
> Message-ID: <6HovK.34095$7kM1.3190@usenetxs.com>
> X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:36:02 UTC
> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:36:02 GMT
> X-Received-Bytes: 4149
> Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.mobile.android:96148 alt.internet.wireless:18391 alt.comp.os.windows-10:166516 free.spam:20171
>
> Off-topic troll...
>
> --
> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Path: not-for-mail
>> From: Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com>
>> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.comp.os.windows-10
>> Subject: Serious question: Why can Samsung & MediaTek get around Qualcomm 5G modem patents - yet Apple can't?
>> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:59:51 +0100
>> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
>> Message-ID: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="59319"; posting-host="YJ9T4Jrl0F+pWyDRfaeX/g.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
>> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
>> Content-Language: en-GB
>> X-Received-Bytes: 3054
>>
>> Why can Samsung & MediaTek & Huawei get around Qualcomm 5G modem patents -
>> yet Apple can't?
>>
>> This is a serious question, for adults only, which is why the Apple ng's
>> aren't on it (the iKooks blame everyone but Apple, for example).
>>
>> How can Qualcomm & MediaTek (and in some says, Huawei) get around Qualcomm
>> 5G modem patents - and Apple can't?
>>
>> Intelligent people use adult cognitive skills to assess disjoint facts.
>>
>> FACT #1:
>> Someone posted a Supreme Court decision this week that Apple lost where
>> Apple argued the Qualcomm patents expiring in 2029 were holding them back.
>> <https://rcrwireless.com/20220628/business/supreme-court-denies-apples-request-to-hear-qualcomm-patent-case>
>>
>> FACT #2:
>> Later this week, Ming-Chi Kuo published investor advice saying, literally,
>> Apple "failed" at making a 5G modem (hence Qualcomm stock rose
>> appreciably).
>> <https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/28/apple-5g-modem-failed-qualcomm-remains-supplier/>
>>
>> FACT #3:
>> In response to Ming-Chi Kuo, known Apple defenders publish clarifications
>> that it's not a "failure to design", but just a "failure to deliver".
>> <https://www.patentlyapple.com/2022/06/apple-not-releasing-their-own-5g-modem-chip-relates-to-a-long-standing-patent-battle-with-qualcomm-and-not-because-of-a-devel.html>
>>
>> OK. Fair enough.
>> a. Apple tells the Supreme Court Qualcomm 5G patents are holding them back
>> b. This week, Apple loses that bid to nullify those 5G modem patents
>> c. Soon thereafter, Ming-Chi Kuo reports Apple "failed" on their 5G modem
>> c. Yet patent insiders say it's only the patents holding Apple design up
>>
>> What do you make of these disjoint facts, coupled with the facts that:
>> A. Samsung makes 5G modems
>> B. MediaTek makes 5G modems
>> C. Huawei makes 5G modems
>>
>> How do _they_ get around those Qualcomm 5G modem patents then?
>>
>> Adults need to put disjoint facts together until it all makes sense.
>> Hence... the obvious question to ask is...
>>
>> How can Samsung & MediaTek (& perhaps Huawei also) get around those two
>> Qualcomm 5G modem patents which expire in 2029 - yet Apple can't?
>> --
>> Posted out of the goodness of my heart to learn useful information.
>
>
>

Eddie, the Astraweb nym-shifting forger is trolling off-topic and other posts
with its copy of my ID, then replies (or not) to its own post.

See also...
Edward H. <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
Peter Weiner <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
John Doe <always.look message.header> (Astraweb, Aioe.org)
Bertrand Sindri <bertrand.sindri yahoo.com> (unlikely but possible)

--
John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: John Doe <always.look@message.header>
> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.comp.os.windows-10,free.spam
> Subject: Re: Serious question: Why can Samsung & MediaTek get around Qualcomm 5G modem patents - yet Apple can't?
> Followup-To: alt.test.group
> References: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ji6bihFh7k2U1@mid.individual.net> <t9l0sh$10rb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:36:04 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="aefae07b417003b570527823e77a9930"; logging-data="29200"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QBXYPJWay5G0R7zD10mjY5gUD5xOvt6I="
> User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.05
> Lines: 103
> Message-ID: <9HovK.34098$7kM1.11652@usenetxs.com>
> X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:36:05 UTC
> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:36:05 GMT
> X-Received-Bytes: 6482
> Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.mobile.android:96151 alt.internet.wireless:18394 alt.comp.os.windows-10:166519 free.spam:20174
>
> Off-topic troll...
>
> --
> Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Path: not-for-mail
>> From: Andy Burnelli <spam@nospam.com>
>> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.comp.os.windows-10
>> Subject: Re: Serious question: Why can Samsung & MediaTek get around Qualcomm 5G modem patents - yet Apple can't?
>> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:26:17 +0100
>> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
>> Message-ID: <t9l0sh$10rb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>> References: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ji6bihFh7k2U1@mid.individual.net>
>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="33643"; posting-host="YJ9T4Jrl0F+pWyDRfaeX/g.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org";
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.1
>> Content-Language: en-GB
>> X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
>> X-Received-Bytes: 5247
>>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>> > Do any of them belong to a 'patent pool'?
>>
>> I have to openly admit, time & again, you're more knowledgeable than I.
>> *Who Owns Core 5G Patents?*
>> <https://www.greyb.com/5g-patents/>
>>
>> Given patents are holding Apple back (but not Samsung, MediaTek & Hauwei):
>> "The issue with Apple's 5G chip being delayed is a legal matter
>> over patents and a licensing agreement with Qualcomm
>> and not because Apple's 5G chip development has failed in any way."
>> <https://www.patentlyapple.com/2022/06/apple-not-releasing-their-own-5g-modem-chip-relates-to-a-long-standing-patent-battle-with-qualcomm-and-not-because-of-a-devel.html>
>>
>> Let's start with the definition of a Patent Pool:
>> <https://duckduckgo.com/?q=patent+pool+qualcomm+5g+modem>
>> "Patent pools collect patents from multiple patentees
>> and license them out as a package."
>> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308596121001919>
>>
>> Digging into what the 5G patent pools are is a tricky area indeed.
>> <https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/top-wireless-carriers-eye-5g-patent-pool-but-acknowledge-extremely-tricky-area>
>>
>> The question is whether or not Samsung, MediaTek, & Hauwei own sufficient
>> patents in those patent pools, or, if they license patents from Qualcomm.
>>
>> Huawei is the leader in 5G patents, surprisingly, followed by Samsung:
>> "Huawei is leading with the most declared 5G patents
>> i.e. 3007 patent families followed by Samsung and LG with 2317
>> and 2147 patent families respectively. Nokia is following LG
>> and secured the 4th position with 2047 patent families,
>> while Ericsson and Qualcomm have 5th and 6th place."
>>
>> However, Qualcomm must have some key patents since This says Huawei
>> licenses the technology from Qualcomm (like Apple):
>> "Both Apple and Huawei... entered into new multi-year licensing
>> partnerships with Qualcomm and paid a hefty lump-sum payment
>> as per the settlement agreement"
>> <https://leftbrainir.com/featured-reports-2/2021/2/3/qualcomm-riding-the-5g-wave>
>>
>> This also supports the premise that Huawei is the leader in 5G patents:
>> <https://www.iam-media.com/article/who-leads-the-5g-patent-race-2021-draws-the-end>
>>
>> Notice though that Apple is clearly well behind basically just about
>> everyone, even with the huge surge in patents Apple bought from Intel for
>> about the price of yet another fully equipped modern aircraft carrier.
>> <https://www.inquartik.com/blog/case-5g-intel-patents-analysis/>
>>
>> But, obviously, based on the Supreme Court ruling this week, there are at
>> least two critical Qualcomm patents that Apple is _desperate_ to override.
>> <https://www.business-standard.com/article/international/top-us-court-declines-apple-s-hearing-bid-over-2-qualcomm-patents-122062800273_1.html>
>>
>> There's a more detailed analysis of this week's Supreme Court decision here
>> <http://www.fosspatents.com/2022/06/lessons-from-rejection-of-apples-cert.html>
>> which tells us that the two patents in question are the following:
>> 1. (U.S. Patent No. 7,844,037
>> on a "method and device for enabling message responses to
>> incoming phone calls"; originally obtained by Palm)
>> 2. (U.S. Patent 8,683,362
>> on a "card metaphor for activities in a computing device").
>> Apparently both of which expire in August, 2029.
>>
>> (As a related aside, that article says Apple is always behind in technology
>> but that they advertise their way out of it, which is what Apple does now.
>>
>> The interesting part of _that_ analysis was that even if Apple makes their
>> own modems, Qualcomm can come after them for patent infringement, which
>> supports my theory that the problem isn't that Apple failed - but that
>> Qualcomm has the patents.
>>
>> This article below also says Apple is always behind in 4G & 5G technology:
>> <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-qualcomm-explainer/explainer-how-5g-drove-moves-by-apple-qualcomm-and-intel-idUSKCN1RT2OE>
>>
>> That still leaves Samsung, Huawei & MediaTek to be better understood as to
>> how _they_ can make modems, but not Apple.
>>
>> I'll dig into them directly, but I didn't see, on my first skim anyway,
>> that the "patent pools" affected the companies we're speaking about.
>> --
>> On Usenet, our combined efforts make us more intelligent & knowledgeable.
>
>
>

Eddie, the Astraweb nym-shifting forger is trolling off-topic and other posts
with its copy of my ID, then replies (or not) to its own post.

See also...
Edward H. <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
Peter Weiner <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
John Doe <always.look message.header> (Astraweb, Aioe.org)
Bertrand Sindri <bertrand.sindri yahoo.com> (unlikely but possible)

--
John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!news.szaf.org!news.uzoreto.com!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: John Doe <always.look@message.header>
> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.comp.os.windows-10,free.spam
> Subject: Re: Serious question: Why can Samsung & MediaTek get around Qualcomm
> Followup-To: alt.test.group
> References: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t9kml1$1vkeo$1@dont-email.me>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:36:02 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="aefae07b417003b570527823e77a9930"; logging-data="29200"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QBXYPJWay5G0R7zD10mjY5gUD5xOvt6I="
> User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.05
> Lines: 78
> Message-ID: <7HovK.34096$7kM1.27547@usenetxs.com>
> X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:36:03 UTC
> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:36:03 GMT
> X-Received-Bytes: 4399
> Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.mobile.android:96149 alt.internet.wireless:18392 alt.comp.os.windows-10:166517 free.spam:20172
>
> Off-topic troll...
>
> --
> Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> Path: not-for-mail
>> From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.comp.os.windows-10
>> Subject: Re: Serious question: Why can Samsung & MediaTek get around Qualcomm
>> 5G modem patents - yet Apple can't?
>> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 10:31:11 -0700
>> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
>> Lines: 49
>> Message-ID: <t9kml1$1vkeo$1@dont-email.me>
>> References: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>> MIME-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> Injection-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:31:13 -0000 (UTC)
>> Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c77d41cf640e5279536340b27ee4865c";
>> logging-data="2085336"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/oMqsKfryu0i2O3qzylhtTfU77MrSLVWQ="
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
>> Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0
>> Cancel-Lock: sha1:KuMjHnfsaZYYOPiutzEmBHfFuVM=
>> In-Reply-To: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>> Content-Language: en-CA
>> X-Received-Bytes: 3366
>>
>> On 2022-06-30 09:59, Andy Burnelli wrote:
>> > Why can Samsung & MediaTek & Huawei get around Qualcomm 5G modem patents -
>> > yet Apple can't?
>>
>> Before you ask "Why?"...
>>
>> ...you should ask "If".
>>
>> >
>> > This is a serious question, for adults only, which is why the Apple ng's
>> > aren't on it (the iKooks blame everyone but Apple, for example).
>> >
>> > How can Qualcomm & MediaTek (and in some says, Huawei) get around Qualcomm
>> > 5G modem patents - and Apple can't?
>> >
>> > Intelligent people use adult cognitive skills to assess disjoint facts.
>> >
>> > FACT #1:
>> > Someone posted a Supreme Court decision this week that Apple lost where
>> > Apple argued the Qualcomm patents expiring in 2029 were holding them back.
>> > <https://rcrwireless.com/20220628/business/supreme-court-denies-apples-request-to-hear-qualcomm-patent-case>
>> >
>> >
>> > FACT #2:
>> > Later this week, Ming-Chi Kuo published investor advice saying, literally,
>> > Apple "failed" at making a 5G modem (hence Qualcomm stock rose
>> > appreciably).
>> > <https://www.macrumors.com/2022/06/28/apple-5g-modem-failed-qualcomm-remains-supplier/>
>> >
>> >
>> > FACT #3:
>> > In response to Ming-Chi Kuo, known Apple defenders publish clarifications
>> > that it's not a "failure to design", but just a "failure to deliver".
>> > <https://www.patentlyapple.com/2022/06/apple-not-releasing-their-own-5g-modem-chip-relates-to-a-long-standing-patent-battle-with-qualcomm-and-not-because-of-a-devel.html>
>> >
>> >
>> > OK. Fair enough. a. Apple tells the Supreme Court Qualcomm 5G patents
>> > are holding them back b. This week, Apple loses that bid to nullify
>> > those 5G modem patents
>> > c. Soon thereafter, Ming-Chi Kuo reports Apple "failed" on their 5G modem
>> > c. Yet patent insiders say it's only the patents holding Apple design up
>> >
>> > What do you make of these disjoint facts, coupled with the facts that:
>> > A. Samsung makes 5G modems
>>
>> 'Qualcomm announced a licensing agreement with Samsung that the company
>> said stretches through 2023 and includes 5G technologies.'
>>
>> <https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/qualcomm-inks-licensing-deal-samsung-but-sees-market-softness-smartphones>
>
>
>

Eddie, the Astraweb nym-shifting forger is trolling off-topic and other posts
with its copy of my ID, then replies (or not) to its own post.

See also...
Edward H. <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
Peter Weiner <dtgamer99 gmail.com>
John Doe <always.look message.header> (Astraweb, Aioe.org)
Bertrand Sindri <bertrand.sindri yahoo.com> (unlikely but possible)

--
John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!news.szaf.org!news.uzoreto.com!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer02.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx09.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: John Doe <always.look@message.header>
> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.comp.os.windows-10,free.spam
> Subject: Re: Serious question: Why can Samsung & MediaTek get around Qualcomm
> Followup-To: alt.test.group
> References: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ji6bihFh7k2U1@mid.individual.net>
> Injection-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 17:36:03 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="aefae07b417003b570527823e77a9930"; logging-data="29200"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18QBXYPJWay5G0R7zD10mjY5gUD5xOvt6I="
> User-Agent: Xnews/2006.08.05
> Lines: 36
> Message-ID: <8HovK.34097$7kM1.11721@usenetxs.com>
> X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:36:04 UTC
> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 21:36:04 GMT
> X-Received-Bytes: 2241
> Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.mobile.android:96150 alt.internet.wireless:18393 alt.comp.os.windows-10:166518 free.spam:20173
>
> Off-topic troll...
>
> --
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>
>> Path: not-for-mail
>> From: Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
>> Newsgroups: comp.mobile.android,alt.internet.wireless,alt.comp.os.windows-10
>> Subject: Re: Serious question: Why can Samsung & MediaTek get around Qualcomm
>> 5G modem patents - yet Apple can't?
>> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 20:24:01 +0100
>> Lines: 10
>> Message-ID: <ji6bihFh7k2U1@mid.individual.net>
>> References: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>> Mime-Version: 1.0
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>> X-Trace: individual.net xlCIcllZ54UhubBKXjtZxw9cvn9KT1F0ArrZ7YpKiPLGavVlyh
>> Cancel-Lock: sha1:jQcxXV8XSl9F4LVyGE5aousnosw=
>> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
>> Thunderbird/102.0
>> Content-Language: en-GB
>> In-Reply-To: <t9kkpf$1ptn$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>> X-Received-Bytes: 1275
>>
>> Andy Burnelli wrote:
>>
>> > What do you make of these disjoint facts, coupled with the facts that:
>> > A. Samsung makes 5G modems
>> > B. MediaTek makes 5G modems
>> > C. Huawei makes 5G modems
>> >
>> > How do _they_ get around those Qualcomm 5G modem patents then?
>>
>> Do any of them belong to a 'patent pool'?
>
>
>

This informative post today - by Steve - in the Apple newsgroups clarifying
Apple's abject failure this week to ship a competitive modem - explains why
Apple is a decade behind everyone else in modem technology but it doesn't
explain how Samsung and MediaTek and Huawei aren't...

On 7/1/2022 11:51 AM, Bob Campbell wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Plus it appears that it will still have a Qualcomm modem. After what
>> happened with the first generation of Intel modems, buyers will feel
>> more comfortable with a proven modem design.
>
>
> Yeah man. Because people buy phones based on the brand of a particular
> chip inside the phone. ��

In the case of the 7, 8, X, Xr, & Xs that is _exactly_ what happened in
many instances. Buyers were avoiding the Intel-modem version (being
distributed by AT&T and T-Mobile) and buying the Qualcomm modem version
(being sold unlocked from Apple) even if they were going to initially
use the phone on AT&T or T-Mobile. Sprint and Verizon users could buy
iPhones from their carrier or directly from Apple, with the Sprint's
phones being locked for a year (but Verizon was forbidden to lock their
phones because of a settlement they made with the FCC in 2008). There
were even articles in major publications advising consumers on how to
avoid the Intel-modem iPhones, see
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/aarontilley/2016/10/21/how-to-buy-iphone-7-intel-qualcomm-modem/?sh=67553bae6c79>.

For the iPhone 11 and SE2020, Intel improved their modem by including
CDMA capability and increasing speed, and there was no Qualcomm modem
option. Qualcomm modems returned in the iPhone 12 because Intel was
unable to deliver a 5G modem and exited the modem business.

While Apple throttled the Qualcomm modem models so they would be almost
as slow as the Intel modem models (see
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/16/11/19/apple-confirmed-limiting-iphone-7-qualcomm-modem-to-keep-performance-on-par-with-intel-chip>),
the advantage of the Qualcomm modem models was that they worked on all
carriers while the Intel modem models (prior to the iPhone 11) would not
work on Sprint or Verizon (or the other few remaining CDMA carriers in
the world).

There were other issues with the Intel modems as well. In Germany, Apple
had to stop selling the iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 with Qualcomm modems
because of patent infringement issues, see
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/02/14/apple-again-selling-iphone-7-iphone-8-in-germany-with-only-qualcomm-modems>.

In the resale market, iPhones (7, 8, X, Xr, & Xs) with the Intel modem
fetched lower prices than ones with the Qualcomm modem.

In any case, new information suggests that "failed" is _really_ not the
right word. It may be a legal issue, see
<https://9to5mac.com/2022/06/30/apple-5g-chip-2/>.

Apple's loss in the U.S. Supreme court makes the need to rush out their
own modem unnecessary since even with their own modem they will still
have to pay Qualcomm royalties that they were fighting to not have to
pay, "On June 27, Apple’s attempt to invalidate Qualcomm’s patents is
thrown out; the very next day, on June 28, the plan to use the iPhone
maker’s own 5G chip next year is reportedly abandoned. Where do things
go from here? Ultimately, it seems likely that Apple will have to renew
the patent licences <sic>." "Apple will pay, and will then be free to
use its own 5G chip."

The Qualcomm patents will eventually expire and then Apple can use their
own modem without paying those royalties, see
<https://gagadget.com/en/142103-apple-allegedly-have-legal-difficulties-with-in-house-5g-modem/>:
"...Qualcomm will sue Apple if it switches to its in-house modem,
according to Florian Mueller. The two patents are set to expire in 2029
and 2030, respectively, and Apple's efforts to invalidate them were
halted this Monday after the Supreme Court rejected Apple's appeal to
revive the patent case." That article also explains that the patents in
question actually have little, if anything, to do with 5G.

Somewhat related to different phones being sold in different markets,
with different chips, in the Android world "Samsung has shipped its
flagship phones with Exynos chips in all markets except the US and some
other countries where it uses Snapdragon SoCs." The Qualcomm-equipped
phones had better benchmark performance. The Exynos-equipped phones
usually had dual-SIM capability which is important to purchases in
Europe and Asia. Even Apple finally relented and is selling dual SIM
iPhones in China.

On 6/30/2022 12:24 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Andy Burnelli wrote:
>
>> What do you make of these disjoint facts, coupled with the facts that:
>> A. Samsung makes 5G modems
>> B. MediaTek makes 5G modems
>> C. Huawei makes 5G modems
>>
>> How do _they_ get around those Qualcomm 5G modem patents then?
>
> Do any of them belong to a 'patent pool'?

What makes anyone think that these companies are "getting around" modem
patents, by Qualcomm (and others)?

It is likely that some or all of those companies are paying patent
royalties, as well as receiving patent royalties.

They could also have cross-licenses as well, which are very common in
the semiconductor industry, that eliminate some or all of the royalties.

Acquiring Intel's modem team would not transfer any Intel cross-license
agreements to Apple. If they had acquired the whole company then that
would be a different story.

John Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=164904625100) posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022
08:01:09 -0000 (UTC):

> Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
> except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to
USENET (**) has been 67.1% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
least 2542 articles to USENET. Of which 176 have been pure insults and
1529 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 1 Jul 2022 04:53:20 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t9luk0$266h3$9@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that John Dope does not even follow
the rules it uses to troll other posters.

orMkziEPn4SO

In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$3@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=165357273000) posted Thu, 26 May 2022
12:50:54 -0000 (UTC) John Doe stated:

> Always Wrong, the utterly foulmouthed group idiot, adding absolutely
> NOTHING but insults to this thread, as usual...

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to
USENET (**) has been 67.1% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
least 2542 articles to USENET. Of which 176 have been pure insults and
1529 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

The John Dope troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Dope troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Dope troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 1 Jul 2022 04:53:32 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t9lukc$266h3$10@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that John Dope does not even follow
the rules it uses to troll other posters.

WU5wRahRXQp2

John Dope stated the following in message-id
<svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=164904625100) posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022
08:01:09 -0000 (UTC):

> Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
> except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope's post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 67.1% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope has posted at
least 2542 articles to USENET. Of which 176 have been pure insults and
1529 have been John Dope "troll format" postings.

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 1 Jul 2022 04:53:44 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t9lukn$266h3$11@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that John Dope does not even follow
the rules it uses to troll other posters.

UJcbwCLYe24K

In message-id <t6nt3e$7bp$3@dont-email.me>
(http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=165357273000) posted Thu, 26 May 2022
12:50:54 -0000 (UTC) John Dope stated:

> Always Wrong, the utterly foulmouthed group idiot, adding absolutely
> NOTHING but insults to this thread, as usual...

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope's post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 67.1% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Dope has posted at
least 2542 articles to USENET. Of which 176 have been pure insults and
1529 have been John Dope "troll format" postings.

The John Dope troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Dope troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Dope troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 1 Jul 2022 04:54:10 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <t9luli$266h3$12@dont-email.me>.

+3sthv7vLVmu