Qualcomm wants to ban on sales iPhone X in US

The legal battle between Qualcomm and Apple took another turn last week when the chip maker filed a request with the US International Trade Commission to ban the sale of the new iPhone X and other iPhones that use the company’s modem.

Qualcomm alleges that Apple is infringing on 16 of their patents with the iPhone 7, 8, and X, as well as the Plus models of the phones. Many of those patents cover technology used to improve the battery life of the phone, and others on additional phone tech.

Qualcomm also alleges that in one case, Apple is using its patented technology to create the Portrait Mode effect on the iPhone.

In the lawsuits, Qualcomm didn’t specify the amount in payments the company is after for the alleged patent infringement, but asked
the court to stop Apple from using the technologies.

Qualcomm also asks for imports of the new iPhone Xs that are using modems from rival company Intel, to be banned, which means the phones can’t be sold through AT&T or T-Mobile, unless the modems from those phones were bought from Qualcomm.

In the filing, Qualcomm said Apple can import iPhones that don’t infringe on the patents listed in the action, but the phone maker doesn’t have the right to infringe on Qualcomm’s patents through the sale of the iPhone.

The company added that the filing was done to prevent such infringement and reward innovation, which is what the patent system was designed to do in the first place.

Apple refused to comment on the filing, but the company referred to a previous filing in which the company said the iPhone is the reason people fell in love with smartphones, which continues to push them to create and innovate new technologies and products like the iPhone X’s Face ID.

Apple also added that Qualcomm is making grossly inflated claims about its role in the development of smartphones because facts show that it was Apple that put a computer phone in peoples’ hands, not Qualcomm.

The filing by Qualcomm last week is the latest move in what has become a petty battle between two tech giants.

In January, Apple filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Qualcomm, saying the chipmaker didn’t give fair terms for its technology, in an attempt to pay a lower amount for using Qualcomm’s technology.

Qualcomm responded by suing Apple for patent infringement and asking for a ban on iPhone sales, while maintaining that no modern phone, including the iPhone would have been possible without their technology.

Uber loses bid to appeal driver case to UK Supreme Court

Uber’s appeal in a case concerning workers’ rights has been turned down by the Supreme Court. The taxi company had submitted a request to appeal the case directly to the Supreme Court instead of going to Appeal Court two weeks ago. A British tribunal had ruled against them stating that the company’s divers were entitled to workers’ rights like a minimum wage, vacations among others. The company had argued that the drivers were self-employed and were not entitled to such benefits.

After the ruling, the company decided to head straight to the Supreme Court, but now they have to go through a step they had avoided. The decision by the Supreme Court meant that the Appeal Court would have to hear the case first.

Yaseen Aslam, a member of the drivers’ union, the IWGB welcomed the news and was confident they would beat the company again even in the Appeal Court. He
said that the denial of permission to go straight to the Supreme Court gave the company a second chance to settle things down with its drivers. Yaseen Aslam had castigated Uber for abusing its drivers and acting unlawfully. Yaseen had been taken an active part since 2014 in campaigning against the tax company to see to it that the company recognises and give their workers their rights.

Jason Moyer-Lee, IWGB General Secretary through an e-mailed statement, said the taxi company’s legal strategy had received yet another blow after denying their workers to enjoy their entitled benefits. Jason said the company was wasting time and should instead treat their workers according to the workers’ rights instead of camping at the corridors of Justice.

Uber has been sailing on rough waters lately where they have suffered several legal blows. One such blow was losing their renewal of licence in September to operate in London following the city’s transport regulator saying the company was not fit to serve the capital. Their employment practices have been questioned by the MPs on the Business, Industrial Strategy and Energy Committee. They have written to the company questioning the safety of their workers and their passengers.

The company have not been able to give satisfactory information in regards to the introduction of driver hour limits in the UK. The company was not even able to account on the number of drivers working over 70 and 80 hours weekly saying under 6% of the drivers spend over 60 hrs while signed in to their work in a weekly basis.