There is the small matter that Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, while BBK is mainland China. Labeling both as Chinese misses a crucial geopolitical detail.
@above.... Foxconn in particular is a VERY messy corporation. Yes, its headquarters are in Taiwan, but I'm honestly unsure if it should be considered overall such these days. All reports are that its Chinese operations are BY far the largest of any country its in (only 6 factories in Taiwan, compared to 12 in China), and the Chinese factories are much larger in footprint and business volume as well. Foxconn is China's largest private employer, and received billions of support direct from the government (and is implicated in various IP disputes on behalf of the Chinese government).
In our complex multinational age, there is always a question of what it means to be a 'X-national' company. If a company like Alphabet were to move its headquarters from the US to Ireland for taxation purposes, but otherwise kept its profile on workers, history, and interaction base basically the same, would you consider Alphabet an Irish company?
----------- Don't get me wrong, whatever position you take, the Anandtech variant is incomplete if not blatantly incorrect. I just want to point out that the label is in fact a complicated thing.
Calling Sharp patent trolls hardly makes them justice. They are not just a patent holding company hoarding patents and suing. They actually produce(d) real products (inducing phones) and have their own research. In addition we know next to nothing about the lawsuit, the patents in question, and the merit.
This should put into perspective the value of your "insight".
LTE is an open standard that is supposed to be supported by FRAND patents. I doubt there is anything in Sharp’s LTE patent portfolio that couldn’t be killed with a prior art claim. (their display/camera stuff is a different story)
A company filing baseless lawsuits is still a patent troll, even if they make/sell products.
Most of these Chinese brands have never operated beyond their Chinese Border and has had the benefits of IP protection, once they go on to the world stage you can no longer play by those rules. Especially if other players are playing in similar terms, whether you think fair or not.
Oppo phones have been sold worldwide for more than a decade, and OnePlus for more than half a decade, so your argument of "China brand operating in China" completely falls flat.
Most of the confusion (especially eek2121's) is probably coming from what a patent troll is. I tried to dispel this by literally mentioning what that is in my comment - a company hoarding patents and suing, not producing anything from those patents - yet people insist on substituting their own definition of "well they sued and have no strong case = troll" and also a penchant for commenting without any hard data to support them. Armchair anything.
@eek2121: "A company filing baseless lawsuits is still a patent troll, even if they make/sell products." No... that's quite literally wrong. Unless you don't like to get bogged down by definitions. A quick google will help you. Also while your assumption that the lawsuit is baseless & all may turn out to be correct, you have no argument to support it at this time.
Let me give you an easy to understand example that is likely to also be true: I think you were paid $3 and a bag of old Cheetos to post the comment above. This makes you a religious zealot.
The implication of your comment is that: the fact that the first part of my statement *can* technically be true makes it true, and the fact that I can match a small percentage of a definition to your actions qualifies you for that definition. Did I do it right?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
15 Comments
Back to Article
eek2121 - Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - link
“Be Original” indeed. Be an original patent troll?ksgtjxBAbK - Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - link
There is the small matter that Foxconn is a Taiwanese company, while BBK is mainland China. Labeling both as Chinese misses a crucial geopolitical detail.curufinwewins - Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - link
@above.... Foxconn in particular is a VERY messy corporation. Yes, its headquarters are in Taiwan, but I'm honestly unsure if it should be considered overall such these days. All reports are that its Chinese operations are BY far the largest of any country its in (only 6 factories in Taiwan, compared to 12 in China), and the Chinese factories are much larger in footprint and business volume as well. Foxconn is China's largest private employer, and received billions of support direct from the government (and is implicated in various IP disputes on behalf of the Chinese government).In our complex multinational age, there is always a question of what it means to be a 'X-national' company. If a company like Alphabet were to move its headquarters from the US to Ireland for taxation purposes, but otherwise kept its profile on workers, history, and interaction base basically the same, would you consider Alphabet an Irish company?
-----------
Don't get me wrong, whatever position you take, the Anandtech variant is incomplete if not blatantly incorrect. I just want to point out that the label is in fact a complicated thing.
eek2121 - Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - link
This lawsuit involves Sharp, not Qualcomm. Sharp’s HQ is in Japan.eek2121 - Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - link
I meant foxconn, AT needs an edit button. phone autocorrected.close - Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - link
Calling Sharp patent trolls hardly makes them justice. They are not just a patent holding company hoarding patents and suing. They actually produce(d) real products (inducing phones) and have their own research. In addition we know next to nothing about the lawsuit, the patents in question, and the merit.This should put into perspective the value of your "insight".
eek2121 - Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - link
I am well aware of what Sharp currently is.LTE is an open standard that is supposed to be supported by FRAND patents. I doubt there is anything in Sharp’s LTE patent portfolio that couldn’t be killed with a prior art claim. (their display/camera stuff is a different story)
A company filing baseless lawsuits is still a patent troll, even if they make/sell products.
ksec - Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - link
How do you know it is baseless lawsuit?Most of these Chinese brands have never operated beyond their Chinese Border and has had the benefits of IP protection, once they go on to the world stage you can no longer play by those rules. Especially if other players are playing in similar terms, whether you think fair or not.
Retycint - Tuesday, March 10, 2020 - link
How do you know it isn't a baseless lawsuit?Oppo phones have been sold worldwide for more than a decade, and OnePlus for more than half a decade, so your argument of "China brand operating in China" completely falls flat.
supdawgwtfd - Wednesday, March 11, 2020 - link
"How do you know it isn't a baseless lawsuit?"Bahahahaahahajajah!!!!
Really...
Is your argument that rubbish that you have to try the age old "prove a negative"?
Sharp has put forward a lawsuit. That's all we have. Until more information is available it is safe to assume that it is not baseless.
That is how a rational person considers information.
Retycint - Wednesday, March 11, 2020 - link
Exactly proving my point. ksec put forward a rubbish argument, which I debunked and mocked with the "how do you know it isn't" line.close - Wednesday, March 11, 2020 - link
Most of the confusion (especially eek2121's) is probably coming from what a patent troll is. I tried to dispel this by literally mentioning what that is in my comment - a company hoarding patents and suing, not producing anything from those patents - yet people insist on substituting their own definition of "well they sued and have no strong case = troll" and also a penchant for commenting without any hard data to support them. Armchair anything.close - Wednesday, March 11, 2020 - link
@eek2121: "A company filing baseless lawsuits is still a patent troll, even if they make/sell products."No... that's quite literally wrong. Unless you don't like to get bogged down by definitions. A quick google will help you. Also while your assumption that the lawsuit is baseless & all may turn out to be correct, you have no argument to support it at this time.
Let me give you an easy to understand example that is likely to also be true: I think you were paid $3 and a bag of old Cheetos to post the comment above. This makes you a religious zealot.
The implication of your comment is that: the fact that the first part of my statement *can* technically be true makes it true, and the fact that I can match a small percentage of a definition to your actions qualifies you for that definition. Did I do it right?
supdawgwtfd - Wednesday, March 11, 2020 - link
Still no editor or proof reader huh?Every. Single. Article.
"based out of Taiwanese". Taiwan you mean...
Dr.Neale - Wednesday, March 11, 2020 - link
So, you noticed that error, too.