https://www.huawei.com/en/news/2026/10/qualcomm-broad-patent...
Qualcomm licenses patents on Huawei’s LogicFolding chip tech (bloomberg.com)
FlowingRiver 2 hours ago
I did find it neat that it ends up actually reducing overall heat despite the multiple layer wafers as signals have less overall distance to travel as they move in layer space rather than across the chip.
amelius 6 minutes ago
I mean, it is nice that they found out some properties (lower heat than expected), but you cannot patent that, I suppose.
rwmj 14 hours ago
nicce 14 hours ago
Havoc 14 hours ago
ovi256 13 hours ago
maxglute 12 hours ago
gpt5 3 hours ago
This is not just hypothetical, there is actually a draft bill aimed at that - Prohibiting Adversarial Patents Act of 2026 (H.R. 9142)
patmorgan23 2 hours ago
maxglute an hour ago
Huawei (with PRC support) will sue/sales injunction international OEMs/manufactures that uses QC... for consumer electronics, QC doesn't make shit, US barely make shit, hence QC PARTICULARLLY fucked because essentially every producer of QC in every segment goes through PRC supply chains, including US partners like South Korea who manufactures Vietnam but depends on PRC immediate goods. PRC tells them to stop making shit with QC, they stop or PRC makes sure they stop making all shit. If device makers can't use QC, they use something else -> QC is kill.
And unlike domestic US laws, SEP enforcement legitimate/international, i.e this not where US entity lists and tries others to not HW buy, QC just becomes internationally "entity listed" for violating SEP.
There's a reason US/BIS carved exception immediately. Because this not lawfare battle US can win. And vice versa, HW still paying for US IP post sanctions and pays when losing international IP battles, i.e. 2B to QC of all people... over SEP in 2020. Because it's better to not fuck with SEPs if you want to sell globally.
But really take to logical conclusion, US global market/manufacture exposure existentially higher than PRC, US has more markets to lose and loses them harder. PRC can bypass US and make shit, US can't vice versa.
someonebaggy 4 hours ago
yearesadpeople 6 hours ago
whatever1 14 hours ago
And now they are just giving it away ?
vachina 13 hours ago
Qualcomm will benefit greatly from this arrangement.
yftsui 13 hours ago
dudisubekti 13 hours ago
They've been making their own 5g phones since 2023 (mate 60)
bayindirh 13 hours ago
I'm not talking about the company which makes "Nokia Phones". I'm talking about Nokia the infrastructure company.
pjmlp 13 hours ago
froh 13 hours ago
earldennison 13 hours ago
kotaKat 13 hours ago
Canada remembers how fucked over we got in espionage.
Now Qualcomm’s just giving them it on a silver platter.
AlanYx 13 hours ago
Is it potentially anticompetitive? Yes.
dozerly 13 hours ago
AlanYx 12 hours ago
Consumers will likely pay incrementally higher prices though.
soulofmischief 5 hours ago
dozerly 5 hours ago
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
someonebaggy 4 hours ago
whizzter 12 hours ago
No breakdown on the age of the patents though so it'd be interesting to see how things evolve over the years.
AlanYx 12 hours ago
Qualcomm does more than 5 billion a year in patent licensing revenue. It's a licensing behemoth.
helsinkiandrew 12 hours ago
> Nokia reaches 7,000 patent families declared as essential to 5G
https://www.nokia.com/newsroom/nokia-reaches-7000-patent-fam...
jillesvangurp 13 hours ago
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.
ksec 6 hours ago
Surprisingly, the only one standing with Apple during the case of Qualcomm vs Apple was not Nokia, Ericsson or other telecom giant, but Huawei.
rjzzleep 12 hours ago
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.
T-RN-R 12 hours ago
tonyhart7 12 hours ago
maxglute 11 hours ago
tadkar 11 hours ago
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
dmpk2k 11 hours ago
halJordan 10 hours ago
AlanYx 7 hours ago
cosmicgadget 5 hours ago
hylaride 9 hours ago
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.
newsclues 11 hours ago
maxglute an hour ago
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.
newsclues 11 hours ago
whimsicalism 7 hours ago
horsawlarway 6 hours ago
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.
hnfong 6 hours ago
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.
TeMPOraL 6 hours ago
100+ years ago, US built its own empire on IP from the mainland Europe, so it's all turntables turning.
rjzzleep 28 minutes ago
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.
hangonhn 6 hours ago
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.
bulbar 3 hours ago
One may worship the development, but let's not forget what China is at its core.
torginus 4 hours ago
culi 6 hours ago
csomar 6 hours ago
culi 6 hours ago
Huawei 20% of its annual revenue back into R&D
coliveira 12 hours ago
quantum_state 11 hours ago
helsinkiandrew 12 hours ago
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
porridgeraisin 12 hours ago
secondcoming 9 hours ago
dzonga 8 hours ago
torginus 5 hours ago
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.
ahartmetz 4 hours ago
someonebaggy 4 hours ago
torginus 3 hours ago
someonebaggy 3 hours ago
eunos 11 hours ago
dang 39 minutes ago
I'll put the submitted URL (https://www.huawei.com/en/news/2026/10/qualcomm-broad-patent...) in the top text. A rule of thumb is we prefer the best 3rd party report to a corporate press release, when available (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). (This is a rare exception to HN's 'original source' rule in https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.)
marjipan200 4 hours ago
seemaze 4 hours ago
newsclues 14 hours ago
alarak 9 hours ago
quincy_jones 12 hours ago
ExpertAdvisor01 13 hours ago
ElProlactin 13 hours ago
larodi 8 hours ago
mirekrusin 13 hours ago
hereme888 8 hours ago
Matl 8 hours ago
someonebaggy 4 hours ago
cute_boi 3 hours ago
nickdothutton 14 hours ago
vincnetas 14 hours ago
Apple ordered to pay $5.7bn after losing vibration tech patent suit (https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6je85n2vyleo)
You can ask AI to summarise the list of when for example apple ignored patents. I get 16 cases.
whatever1 14 hours ago
jeffreygoesto 13 hours ago
xbar 8 hours ago
Huawei likely wants to manufacture global-market devices with the technology immediately, and have the technology baked into the devices at the time of patent expiration.
phatfish 14 hours ago
Someone has to tear it down, and it's not going to come from within. No balls on this side.
zoobab 14 hours ago
Like FFII.org predicted in 2006:
"In July 2005, after several failed attempts to legalize software patents in Europe, the patent establishment changed its strategy. Instead of explicitly seeking to sanction the patentability of software, they are now seeking to create a central Unitary patent court (UPC), which would establish and enforce patentability rules in their favor, without any possibility of correction by competing courts or democratically elected legislators."
Not to mention the judges in that court are part time working for Nokia or Airbus.
cute_boi 3 hours ago
dudisubekti 13 hours ago
AlanYx 8 hours ago
China is playing the long game here because they expect domestically generated IP revenue to be significant in the future.
MadrasTh0rn 10 hours ago
derin-picment 12 hours ago
The interesting questions for me: 1) what FRAND rate they settled on, since that becomes a comp for future deals with smaller OEMs who don't have a portfolio to trade, and 2) how Entity List / regulatory approvals shape the structure — the announcement says closing follows regulatory approvals, which suggests carve-outs around what's actually transferable vs. pure patent peace. For startups the takeaway is sobering: the "patent wall" effect mentioned here means you're licensing from an oligopoly whether you build infrastructure or devices.
comandillos 6 minutes ago
soltanov 13 hours ago
Neither company can ship modern cellular basebands or RAN silicon without stepping on the other's portfolio. FRAND terms make endless global litigation a negative-ROI exercise, Entity List or not. Cross-licensing is the only operational path to extract rents and lock third parties out.
zoobab 14 hours ago
dang 36 minutes ago
zoobab 12 hours ago
Sayrus 12 hours ago
ACCount39 10 hours ago
Now, a chip that doesn't pay the troll toll to Qualcomm, AND ships with a cellular modem? That's hard.
WhereIsTheTruth 11 hours ago
1. is no longer a threat for the US
2. no longer has (perhaps never had), the lead
3. was forced to bow down because has no leverage
The US still chooses what customers China has access to
maxglute 12 hours ago
Pre sanctions, HW fine buying QC for mobile chipset StandardEssentialPatentswhile QC pay HW for 5g SEPs, with net balance favoring QC. Huawei indigenized mobile SoC + 5g hardware with Kirin 9000 in 2023. Hilariously, now that Huawei weaned off QC SoC... QC simply stuck net paying Huawei.
ex1fm3ta 5 hours ago