Fuzhou Court Issued a Banning Ban in the Lawsuit; Guo Tong lost one game in the big war with Apple

After a year-long trial, the Fuzhou court issued a temporary injunction against Apple, requiring Apple's four Chinese subsidiaries to stop selling seven infringing products, iPhone 6S to iPhone X. In this "war of the century" on patent infringement, will Apple be defeated, how will this war end, and what enlightenment does the ban give us?

Apple only temporarily lost a game, and the final outcome is uncertain.

1) The origin of the Guotong war has been, Qualcomm only after many failures to pull back a game. Apple and Qualcomm have fought more than 50 patent lawsuits in 16 jurisdictions in six different countries, marking Qualcomm's first head-on victory.

2) Only old Apple products are affected by the ban this time, and products released after the filing time (November 15, 2017) are not banned.

3) The injunction in the lawsuit is not the result of the judgment. Although it cannot be appealed, it can apply for an objection. Apple has filed an objection immediately after the court injunction was issued. The injunction in the lawsuit is temporary in nature, the injunction in the lawsuit is not the final solution to the dispute, but only temporarily provides protection to the applicant, and the injunction in the lawsuit is dependent on the outcome of the judgment, and if Apple wins in the final trial, the injunction will lose its effect.

4) It will be "time" that will ultimately decide whether to win or lose ". Apple is betting on the iPhone's reputation and the launch date of the 5G model, while Qualcomm is betting on falling revenue and cliff-edge share prices. It is not necessarily the ban that can successfully snipe Apple, but the negotiations before Apple decides on the next generation of models next spring to make Apple comply with Qualcomm's patent fee model.

Therefore, the issuance of the injunction in this lawsuit cannot yet be evidence of Apple's defeat in the Guotong patent war. The outcome of this business war is far from the point of victory or defeat.

Apple and Qualcomm are dependent on each other, and if Apple is really banned, it would be tantamount to the end of the same, so the fight is bound to end in a conciliatory way.

1) Apple and Qualcomm, as the two major technology giants in the United States, will cause huge losses to the U.S. economy if the interests of either party are damaged. Therefore, the U.S. court will not make a judgment that defeates either party, which means that the court will not become the victory of both parties. The key to the outcome of the game between the two companies depends on the outcome of the game between the two companies.

2) Qualcomm's goal is not to defeat Apple, but to need a solution that does not affect its existing business model. A certain degree of compromise is acceptable, but the premise is that it must be a convincing explanation to other mobile phone manufacturers that use Qualcomm mobile phone chips. In fact, Qualcomm is more eager than Apple. Apple can choose and support new allies. Qualcomm loses Apple, its biggest customer, and the loss of profits is huge, because Qualcomm charges a certain percentage of fees for each mobile phone that leaves the factory. Therefore, Apple's huge shipments can bring Qualcomm considerable profits.

3) Qualcomm as an industry leader, its chip superior performance rarely out of the right. For the pursuit of excellence, Apple is obviously willing to use Qualcomm's chips to improve its quality. Apple's recent innovation has stagnated, and there are no successors to new products. It is already facing a peak in revenue. It cannot "open source" but can only "cut expenditure". As the price of the iPhone gets higher and higher, Qualcomm's way of charging royalties for each factory phone makes this money a cost that cannot be ignored. After completing the research and development of the mobile phone CPU, Qualcomm's chip cost has become the largest cost source. To save money, it can only start from Qualcomm, so Apple just needs an acceptable price.

4) Apple's self-research on 5G baseband communication chips has not been smooth, although it has formed an alliance with Intel, but has not broken through this complex and highly inherited technology. In order to achieve technological breakthroughs, Apple even went to Qualcomm's doorstep for talent recruitment.

As a business giant, Apple Qualcomm will eventually choose to settle for its own interests.

The Fuzhou court that issued the injunction this time has also attracted widespread attention. This is undoubtedly a signal that Chinese courts have begun to strengthen the protection of intellectual property rights.

In September last year, Qualcomm filed a lawsuit against Apple in the Beijing Intellectual Property Court on the grounds that Apple infringed three patents related to Qualcomm's power management and Force Touch touch technology, and demanded a ban on the sale of related Apple products, but the case was ultimately No clear results were obtained. This year, Fuzhou is not the first time to issue an injunction against intellectual property rights. In the case of Micron's infringement of Jinhua, the Fuzhou court has issued an injunction against Micron. Fuzhou is one of the first cities to set up specialized institutions under cross regional jurisdiction over intellectual property rights. In 2017 alone, Fujian courts accepted and concluded 9256 and 8640 intellectual property cases, becoming the vanguard of intellectual property protection.

The patent war between Apple and Qualcomm not only makes us see the importance of intellectual property rights for the development of enterprises, but also shows us the importance of a complete intellectual property legal system for fair competition among enterprises. Only with a sound legal system of intellectual property rights can we fully protect the rights and interests of enterprises and ensure healthy competition among enterprises. The issuance of the two injunctions in the Fuzhou Court has demonstrated to me China's determination to protect intellectual property rights.