upvote
I'm surprised that people don't know the patent landscape. The US may be leading 5G patents in total numbers, probably by multinational corps. But 8 out of 10 top university contributions come from China and Huawei is the largest single company contributor in 5G research. Qualcomm wouldn't make an agreement with Huawei if they didn't need to.

To the people that say "why can't Huawei make a 5G phone". Huawei was manufacturing their chips with 5G modems at TSMC until the US went after them trying to turn them into HTC or Alstom Energy, but it failed. It's one of the reasons why Taiwan now has zero leverage as the US has been hollowing them out since the last administration. But Huawei have been building their own domestically produced modems for a few years now.

I used to attend the communication network meetups with all the professors in Germany and mI think all of them agree that all that energy sanctioning China should have been spent on actual competition domestically in the West.

https://insights.greyb.com/5g-patent-landscape/

reply
Huawei gets a lot of research output from its many Canadian Research and Development centres
reply
HN is enamored with the reddit-style of thought that China can only ever steal from Western research.
reply
I think it's a more complicated discussion.

My read is that the US has over-indexed heavily on "intellectual property" and that position is profitable, but an overall net drag on innovation and research.

China is much less indexed on IP, and often outright ignores it. This allows them to be much more competitive in innovation over the long term, but at short term reputational damage.

---

From the US side - if you're a company operating in a restrictive, patent encumbered space... it absolutely feels like an unfair field. Those other companies are able to ignore the restrictions you're hemmed in by (steal).

From the China side - if you're a company operating outside of compliance with licensing and IP, you get a reputation for "just stealing" even when your research is novel and impactful.

Of the two - I believe the US is "more incorrect". The current IP laws feel a lot less like encouraging innovation and a lot more like government enabled and funded rent-seeking.

reply
Everyone is selectively ignoring IP.

For example, let's not pretend the frontier AI labs aren't violating copyrights on a massive scale.

There have been other subtle examples of US companies being cavalier as to IP over the years, but courts (and the US government) have pretty much allowed companies to do so without so much as a wrist slap.

reply
You ignore IP to get ahead, and then demand respecting it to defend your moat.

100+ years ago, US built its own empire on IP from the mainland Europe, so it's all turntables turning.

reply
It's still doing exactly that. Bullying Taiwanese and European companies to move their production facilities, throwing their CEO's in prison and then offering freedom in exchange for a sale. I'm not going to sugarcoat how the EU is starving its graduates from access to capital to build things, but much of what comes from the US is research from other countries.

It's funny how the US is amazing because it takes the worlds research, but China is horrible because it steals IP from companies it invests in.

Whatever, even if you ignore the company IP side of things, 8 out of 10 top 5G research Universities are Chinese now.

Not long ago I remember reading that Britain was complaining about how Germany was creating counterfeit items with british labels and that Made in Germany back then was something imposed on them to deal with this situation. It was some sort of Trade conference in Europe in the 19th century I believe, but I cannot find that book anymore.

reply
I think LLMs are going to be (are) excellent at skirting IP law - 'make me something that does the exact same thing, but is sufficiently different that it can be considered novel'
reply
I think IP is the type of thing where countries that benefit from enforcing it will do so while those who get more benefit from ignoring it will ignore it. China has reached a point where they greatly benefit from IP now and may really start enforcing it. That said, I wouldn't bet on it. China has a tendency to act in ways that defy Western understanding of the world. (BTW, I love it when they do because it's one of those moments that make you go "huh?" and prompts you to investigate more. I usually end up learning something in the process. It's fun if you're into that kind of thing.)

I want to give grace to people who have outdated perspectives on China. China's journey in development is extraordinarily compressed. It's gone through more stages within a single generation than countries do in a century. People's perception will take time to catch up. Unless you're an avid China watcher, the changes in China can really surprise people.

reply
Don't they put people into camps anymore, isn't it a dictatorship anymore?

One may worship the development, but let's not forget what China is at its core.

reply
It doesn't even make sense. Huawei has R&D centers all over the world. Their largest outside of China is actually in India. But they also have research centers in Japan, Russia, Brazil, Sweden, Germany, Turkey, the UK, and many more. They help drive research all across the globe. They and the countries they invest in mutually benefit from this partnership
reply
how does them partnering with some Canadian R&D facilities contradict anything in GP's post? They also have a ton of R&D in Sweden, Russia, Brazil, Japan, etc. Their largest R&D center outside of China is actually India

Huawei 20% of its annual revenue back into R&D

reply
Like nortel?
reply
what are you implying here ??? they steal it from Canada RnD ??
reply
Google "Huawei Nortel Networks". The fact is that Nortel has an enormous volume of R&D stolen from them and the allegation is that Chinese telecom providers were the main beneficiaries.

Edited: To reply to a child post, this is about the allegations referred to in the parent, not a statement of what I think is true now

reply
My mom worked at Nortel in the 1990s at their Ottawa R&D campus. As a teenager visiting, I asked about corporate espionage, hoping for a story about Cisco or something. Every one of her co-workers just belted out "China" at the same time. It was apparently an open secret that the Chinese were hoovering up IP and management didn't care. It's a bit of a shame as Nortel's telecom kit was considered top-notch (especially the cellular stuff), but it gave the Chinese an enormous amount of help catching up.

That being said, the Chinese then went off and innovated off of it and Nortel imploded, mostly due to other poor management reasons. My mom was at least smart enough to cash out most of her equity as she got them, though. Lotta people lost everything.

reply
That was two decades ago. Things have changed a lot since then.
reply
The patents they built today are founded on the patents they derived stealing from nortel. Qualcomm needs these whitewashed patents as part of this frand deal.
reply
Nortel's patents were among the first that were critical to modern MIMO OFDM (they really were on to the future in that sense, it's not hyperbole), but most never went to Qualcomm or Huawei. When Nortel went belly-up a consortium called Rockstar co-owned by Microsoft, RIM and a few others ended up buying them for a hefty price (more than $4 billion). It's possible some of them have made their way over to Qualcomm or Huawei as part of sales over the years I guess.
reply
It's become more widespread.
reply
Charitable interpretation is Huawei actually had R&D + academic linkages in Canada (was expanding aggressively globally), but Canada still drop in bucket, Canada R&D headcount peaked ~1k vs ~100k in PRC. Post sanction, Canada basically siloed from doing crown jewel work anyway.
reply
Nortelstans: You took everything from me.

Huawei: I don't even know who you are.

Terminally stupid cannucks still butt and misattributing Nortel primary fell to HW stole muh secrets, not that Nortel grossly mismanaged (and outright fraud). Hint PRC stole lots of shit back then... but Nortel fucking exploded spectacularly. Why didn't CISCO explode because HW copied some homework... because unlike CISCO, Nortel was mismanaged to shit. NVM HW wasn't even state champion at the time, that was ZTE, they didn't juicy state level industrial espionage perks. Meanwhile allegations against HW vs Nortel was over optical routing, i.e. niche shit to HW overall portfolio. It's just Canadian cope.

This not mentioning Nortel basically brought this on themselves by bamboo ceiling the shit out of Chinese employees in PRC (both international/PRC nationals). Nortel HQ/Ottawa -> North PRC/Guangzhou, i.e. from Canadians to Chinese Canadians basically all defected Nortel (and poached entire R&D teams), because North PRC wasn't giving them their dues... and not just to PRC SOEs, but western competitors like lucent/acatel etc. Defectors were bitching / organizing in my local Counter Strike server, their AFKs very disruptive, so in a sense I was just as much victim as Nortel.

reply
Are you saying Huawei will collapse if their Canadian R&D centers shutdown?
reply
The alternative would be trying to file court cases outside the US for Qualcomm, which is where Huawei does most of its business and infringing.

There's a long history of various companies doing patent license deals like this in the telecom industry. Nokia still earns a lot of money this way, for example. Apple settled with them on a few occasions.

Speaking of which; Apple has its own 5G chips now so they are a bit less dependent on Qualcomm now. Huawei and Apple both have a lot of their own in house technology at this point. But of course Qualcomm always was a strong IP company with lots of patents and its impossible for either to make phones without infringing on at least some of those patterns. And vice versa, a lot of Qualcomm's stuff would necessarily infringe on some patents by others.

That's why these cross licensing deals like this are usually the outcome of disputes around IP.

reply
>Huawei and Apple both ......

Surprisingly, the only one standing with Apple during the case of Qualcomm vs Apple was not Nokia, Ericsson or other telecom giant, but Huawei.

reply
They're not giving it away, rather they're essentially forming a patent oligopoly. Huawei and Qualcomm together hold the bulk of patents for 5G. It's of no value to them to try to litigate against each other. Here they're getting a cross-licensing deal that will solidify their patent licensing wall/revenues.

Is it potentially anticompetitive? Yes.

reply
No corporations would enter an agreement that is pro-competition, doesn’t make sense. That’s where government needs to step up and provide some value
reply
It's a hard area for the government to navigate because IP is designed to confer monopoly power. As long as Qualcomm walks a careful line on licensing costs/behaviour, they probably think the risk of being the target of antitrust sanctions is limited or manageable.

Consumers will likely pay incrementally higher prices though.

reply
[dead]
reply
You are the government. How are you planning to step up?
reply
I will continue to vote, go to every protest I can that I think is for the right cause, and yell desperately on the internet.

If there’s more I can be doing as a good little citizen let me know. The power of the people feels like it’s at an all time low, government is overrun with money, corruption and authoritarians

reply
I was hoping you had an answer. I don't have one, either...
reply
Protests never accomplish law changes - the most they can do is bring together the people who care enough about something to protest it.
reply
[dead]
reply
Asking Gemini it seems their patents covers about 25% of the number of applicable patents, behind them is Samsung, Ericsson and Nokia.

No breakdown on the age of the patents though so it'd be interesting to see how things evolve over the years.

reply
AFAIK, a lot of the Ericsson and Nokia patents are legacy. Companies still need to license them, but they're not targeted at the latest generation of 5G polar codes, MIMO OFDM implementations, etc. Not sure about Samsung.

Qualcomm does more than 5 billion a year in patent licensing revenue. It's a licensing behemoth.

reply
I think Nokia would probably disagree. I'd guess a large part of their $6B research budget goes on 5g and 6g related tech.

> Nokia reaches 7,000 patent families declared as essential to 5G

https://www.nokia.com/newsroom/nokia-reaches-7000-patent-fam...

reply
> And now they are just giving it away ?

That's now how standards work - to become 5g the tech needs to be implementable by everyone at a FRAND cost (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory). Sharing patents just means Qualcomm and Huawei won't bill each other.

Huawei is a massive R&D company - I'm sure they're contributing as much as Qualcomm

reply
I don't understand how standards are allowed to be patent encumbered - I get it they aren't really, but more often than not (like with the Oracle vs Google Java lawsuit) there's just one possible and obvious way to implement patents thats both efficient and correct.

For example in telco, error correcting codes are often designed in a way, that there's an algorithm that can turn the logic into a netlist.

reply
I dont't like patent-encumbered standards neither, but I guess the idea is that developing a technology (which will be turned into a standard) is expensive, so the people (companies really) that do it should get paid for it. The more recent mobile standards really seem to be quite sophisticated technologies.
reply
It's not like the standards have official legal status. You're allowed to develop your own mobile network technology that isn't 5G and doesn't infringe any patents - the government isn't saying that only 5G can be 5G, so it's a theoretically fair playing ground.
reply
In this case they literally are - if you broadcast in the 5G spectrum, you better have your devices certified, otherwise the local broadcasting authority (which would be the FCC in the US) will ruin your day.
reply
Only Starlink can use the Starlink spectrum too. You're free to seek your own spectrum.
reply
Huawei has been leading in 5G deployments until US decides him and his allies cannot be friends with Huawei.

Qualcomm will benefit greatly from this arrangement.

reply
Leading in 5G deployments yet cannot make a 5G phone?
reply
Nokia and Ericsson is leading telecommunications without making 5G phones.

I'm not talking about the company which makes "Nokia Phones". I'm talking about Nokia the infrastructure company.

reply
Which nowadays owns the birthplace of UNIX.
reply
HUAWEI Mate 20 X 5G was launched in 2019, so what exactly are you referencing here?
reply
deleted
reply
?

They've been making their own 5g phones since 2023 (mate 60)

reply
deleted
reply
I think this is the other way around.
reply
The point is that this allows QC to sell chips in China without royalty.
reply
The US will never lead 5G because many key patents there are owned by Huawei. Same for 6G. They're just now acknowledging reality.
reply
The US sanctions itself out of the game. I m afraid if the trend continues, it may sanction itself out of the rest of the world.
reply
maybe 6g is on the way and they don't care about 5g anymore.
reply
Everyone else wrote the 5G specs but Huawei built the hardware.
reply
Nortel 2.0.

Canada remembers how fucked over we got in espionage.

Now Qualcomm’s just giving them it on a silver platter.

reply