Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook to Be Deposed in Qualcomm v. Apple Lawsuit on June 27
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
Apple agreed to it and now finds it onerous because an iPhone can cost $1k with Qualcomm getting a percentage that Apple now feels that Qualcomm is not entitled to.
Everyone else in the industry pays those fees. Samsung, LG, Essential and anyone else using a Qualcomm modem, to name just a few. Everyone pays the same for Qualcomm licenses.
For example, here is their structure for 5G from EE-Times -> https://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1332657 and from Qualcomm -> https://www.qualcomm.com/invention/licensing.
"Ericsson announced plans to license its 5G IP for $5 per handset, but indicated that this could go as low as $2.50 in emerging markets. Now, Qualcomm has also announced rates for 5G that also shed some light on other aspects of the company’s licensing model.
Qualcomm announced that it will license 5G standard essential patents (SEPs) for stand-alone mode branded phones at 2.275 percent of the wholesale price of the phone and 3.25 percent for multimode (2G/3G/4G/5G) phones. Tirias Research estimates the wholesale price at approximately 65 percent of the sale price of the phone.
Additionally, Qualcomm will license its entire portfolio of patents for 4 percent for stand-alone mode and 5 percent for multimode. The SEPs are required to build a basic phone, but the entire portfolio covers the applications, operation and other features of most phones, which is why most OEMs choose to license the entire portfolio.
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."
For Ericsson, the incremental cost of a low cost phone can be pretty high.
On a $25 wholesale phone, Ericsson can be 10% of the cost at $2.50. That can rise to $5 on a high end phone but is capped. So Ericsson gets only 1% on a $500 phone.
For Qualcomm the incremental cost on a phone in emerging markets is pretty low.
On a $25 wholesale price, even a multimode phone is about $.80. So the impact on low cost phones is pretty low.
At about $150 for the phone Ericsson and Qualcomm get about the same $5.
Since Ericsson is capped at $5 they get no more at a $800 price point.
Qualcomm on the other hand would get $26 for the same $800 handset.
This means that it's expensive to use Ericsson tech in low cost handsets and the opposite in high cost handsets.
For Qualcomm it means that they get very little for cheap handsets and expensive handsets bear the cost for emerging markets.
The key here is everyone is paying the same percentage.
Qualcomm is not gouging Apple individually.
It's a commonly used term when referring to giving a deposition. If I was schedule to give a deposition tomorrow and someone asked what I was doing, I'd likely say something like... I'm being deposed.
You can say things like: I'm giving a deposition or... he has to give a deposition or... my lawyer is taking her deposition or I'll take their depositions. But it's also fairly standard when referring to the action of giving or taking a deposition, rather than referring to a deposition itself, to use the terms depose, deposed or deposing. I'm being deposed... or he has to be deposed or... my lawyer is deposing her or... I'll depose them.
So I don't see it as sensationalist at all. The word has, as many words do, multiple meanings consistent with standard use. Typically it's context which lets a listener or reader know which one is relevant. Saying someone is being deposed (and meaning what is meant here) isn't at all unusual, at least where I live. In my experience it's actually the more common way of referring to the action of giving a deposition, though it wouldn't surprise me if other people's experience differs on that point.
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.
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.
in the America's, the term "Deposed" is factual and non biased. it's the term for exactly what he's doing.
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.
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!!!
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.
Cause JJ Abrams is tied up at Marvel, Disney, LucasFilms. Check out his previous work for most comicbook style movies.
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.
Tim Cook to Qualcomm.
“Tell me. Do you bleed? You will.”
[doublepost=1522980219][/doublepost]
It was either that or not have any chips for their iPhones.
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.
The Viterbi algorithm, developed in the mid-1960s by Dr. Viterbi, has been employed in error correction decoders used in a huge number and wide variety of data communication systems (point-to-point communications links, CD data decoding, digital television, satellite links, and on and on, including WiFi) where transmitted data is convolutionally encoded to provide robust error correction in noisy communications channels. Patents have long expired, and there are now better error correction encoding techniques available where information rates closely approach the theoretical maximum Shannon limit for a given communications channel noise level.
The above Viterbi algorithm is not in dispute. What is, are royalties demanded by Qualcomm calculated on the price of an entire phone (rather than their piece of Qualcomm modem technology), based a set of upheld Qualcomm patents describing how cellular communications networks could be deployed (and have been in use for a long time) using spread spectrum techniques with many individual handsets using the same chunk of RF spectrum simultaneously with each device using a different spreading code - in a nutshell (there's a lot more).
There are other elements to the suits as well.
Last edited:
The 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.
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.
This is what happens when you have two massive companies that are used to getting their own way. Neither will back down, Qualcomm risks loosing its monopoly and money from other companies requesting the same deal as Apple is asking for.
The same thing has happened with Apple and Nvidia. Nvidia used solder that deteriorated needing repairs, neither Apple nor Nvidia could decide who was paying. This is why we’re stuck with crap AMD cards.
I hope Apple can change the status quo in this case and go hard. If they waver even a little we’ll end up with worse hardware. I’d prefer Apple to develop a chip themselves however Qualcomm is likely to hate that attack on their monopoly even more.
These cases while boring and frustrating are needed in some respects they level and prevent unfair practices but they also hurt small business and the consumer in many cases. So it’s give and take.
The same thing has happened with Apple and Nvidia. Nvidia used solder that deteriorated needing repairs, neither Apple nor Nvidia could decide who was paying. This is why we’re stuck with crap AMD cards.
I hope Apple can change the status quo in this case and go hard. If they waver even a little we’ll end up with worse hardware. I’d prefer Apple to develop a chip themselves however Qualcomm is likely to hate that attack on their monopoly even more.
These cases while boring and frustrating are needed in some respects they level and prevent unfair practices but they also hurt small business and the consumer in many cases. So it’s give and take.
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 enough
