Not all English-speaking countries utilize depositions as part of the discovery process.
Not always in proceedings governed under their own laws, but the term is used in every English-speaking country. That was my only point.
Not all English-speaking countries utilize depositions as part of the discovery process.
Why did apple agree to this in first place and then realize they are being robbed?
That's a sensational headline for what is just giving evidence! Is deposed a common term in US English for being presented with a subpoena?
It's a commonly used term when referring to giving a deposition. .
This is not occuring in Aussieland and therfore to assume that the rest of the world is going to conform to your own uses of slang and language is asanine.It's not common in Australian English, but that's about 0.00001% of English speakers; and some would argue, it's hardly English at all.
Just so you do realize, the LTE and WiFi is also part of the Qualcomm portfolio.
Intel can't ,modem without paying Qualcomm.
Andrew Viterbi was the person that created the fundamental algorithms that make cellular communication possible.
He founded Qualcomm.
You cannot make cellular modems or even WiFi without paying them for patents.
Nope working for me. When did 11.3 come out this morning? and hey thanks now I know that the Yankees are getting spanked. I WAS DVRing it!!!Anyone else having problems with Siri being unable to report sports scores or give any information about teams etc since updating to iOS 11.3?
Anyone else having problems with Siri being unable to report sports scores or give any information about teams etc since updating to iOS 11.3?
Just so you do realize, the LTE and WiFi is also part of the Qualcomm portfolio.
Intel can't make a modem without paying Qualcomm.
Andrew Viterbi was the person that created the fundamental algorithms that make cellular communication possible.
He founded Qualcomm.
You cannot make cellular modems or even WiFi without paying them for patents.
Why does WB keep using him for the DC Universe? Except for Wonder Woman, they all are really really bad....
I haven't see the details of this case but with Nokia, they purposely went after Apple and raise the cost of their part of the GSM tech.It is the usual model so that low cost handsets can be made.
A percentage of the cost allows a low cost handset to be made and not have it increase in cost for licensing fees.
This allows emerging markets to have the technology. ... Qualcomm is not gouging Apple individually.
Tim Cook to Qualcomm.I just hope they don’t get Zack Snyder to write the cinematic adaptation, Qualcomm v. Apple: Dawn of Justice.
It was either that or not have any chips for their iPhones.Why did apple agree to this in first place and then realize they are being robbed?
Sorry, had to.OMG this is horrible. How can they depose someone that isn't dead yet?
Many English-speaking countries also have deposed kings and emperors. I suspect that even a U.S. president may be deposed one day, and perhaps even be deposed shortly thereafter.One who submits to a deposition is "deposed" whether or not he has received a subpoena. This term is used in all English-speaking countries.
I never said Qualcomm invented WiFi, but the Viterbi algorithm and other Qualcomm technology is so fundamental to modern wireless, it is almost impossible not to pay Qualcomm in some form for wireless communications. Google "Virterbi WiFi".
They also own Atheros; originally called T-Span that made the first 802.11a CMOS chip/chipset.
Qualcomm has some 50K patents. It is hard not to pay them when doing wireless.
A company usually pays the consortium a price per unit. In the case of Nokia vs. Apple, Nokia decided that Apple (no one else until this was settled and then the other would pay <insert mad scientist laughter>) was going to pay more for their part of the GSM technology. Apple countered with an increase cost for the 3gp codec license. Eventually MS purchased Nokia and just pulled the plug.
*SNIP*
I haven't see the details of this case but with Nokia, they purposely went after Apple and raise the cost of their part of the GSM tech.
I read the pleadings not as contesting the validity of Qualcomm's patent, but rather Qualcomm's method of setting the reasonable royalty required of an essential technology. Apple's position is that using the value of an iPhone as a term in the equation for arriving at the royalty is improper, since much of that value is attributable to inventions, know-how, and marketing of iPhones as part of the Apple line of inter-acting devices. Apple's argument is ultimately that Qualcomm is only entitled to demand a royalty based on the value contributed by its patented inventions. Presumably, the sum of the value of each of Qualcomm's, Apple's, and a host of other patented inventions of others, does not exceed the selling price of the iPhone which is the sum of those parts. I think parading a qualified expert witness on the value of each of the contributing technologies amalgamated into an iPhone X, for example, would convince a reasonable jury that Qualcomm's royalty demands are unreasonable.Just so you do realize, the LTE and WiFi is also part of the Qualcomm portfolio.
Intel can't make a modem without paying Qualcomm.
Andrew Viterbi was the person that created the fundamental algorithms that make cellular communication possible.
He founded Qualcomm.
You cannot make cellular modems or even WiFi without paying them for patents.
Don't you watch Suits? Get with the program.Not all English-speaking countries utilize depositions as part of the discovery process.
I Completely Agree With You..Unfortunately, there is no repairing the strained relationship between these two companies of this magnitude without an enormous amount of money being involved, in which case, the consumers will pay for down the line. This will only get messier as this drags on.
Tim will be the best to explain that companies with truckloads of money as big as continents, hardly knowing what to do with it, never have enoughThe Nokia case is different and Nokia was part of the standards committee.
In the Case of Qualcomm they have essential technology that makes it impossible to implement CDMA and LTE without licensing their technology.
Qualcomm indicated their licensing fees are the same as they have been for singe and multimode (2G/3G/4G/5G) devices.
2.275% and 3.25% respectively.
Fore the entire portfolio that includes all the SEPs required to build a phone the rates are 4% for single mode and 5% for multimode.
From EE-Times:
"These are the same rates Qualcomm used for licensing 4G IP and the rates approved by the Chinese NDRC for all 4G/LTE phones sold in China. As a result, the rates have been in use and unchanged by any government regulatory agencies. This is important because the licensing rates are a key issue in Qualcomm’s dispute with Apple."
See the the quoted text.
Governments have slammed Qualcomm for other practices that have been anti-competitive, but not the rates they charge. Apple isn't being gouged any differently than Samsung, LG, Google, Essential or anyone else. Everyone pays Qualcomm the same percentage.
This allows cheap handsets to be cheap in emerging markets.
Apple was okay with the rates until it started being $20-40/phone.
That is not Qualcomm's fault.
The percentage is fixed for all players. If you don't like it, design your way out of the box.
Step back, really?As an Apple shareholder, they need to settle this, and using intel and (especially) MediaTek is a step backwards for iPhone components.