Apple did sign the contract that gave QCOM a percentage of the device price - now they want out. It is okay to want out of a contract, but there will be "damages" to pay.
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 is 'Not in Talks' to Settle Legal Dispute With Qualcomm and is 'Gearing Up For Trial'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple did sign the contract that gave QCOM a percentage of the device price - now they want out. It is okay to want out of a contract, but there will be "damages" to pay.
So this is about Qualcomm wanting royalty on every iPhone sold? GTFOH, you are not that special.
At this point. Qualcomm has already lost the battle and the war. They lost Aple forever. Prime example what unbounded greed will get you. Executives are gunna get axed at Qualcomm when this fiasco finally goes down.
The software interface of the hardware does not make the hardware manufacturer a “monopoly”. Microsoft doesn’t license their OS on the XBox to Sony or vice versa either. And Microsoft does not have a monopoly on game consoles as a result of their unique operating system. In the case of Apple, the fact that they choose to invest in putting a unique OS on their hardware, when HP or Dell chooses to use Windows instead of developing their own does not constitute a monopoly by Apple. Nest Thermostat software versus Ecobee’s, BMW iDrive versus Ford Sync. The cases of proprietary software on competing products abound. Apple is not a monopoly.
You might want to study up on what a monopoly is.
You should read the actual court filings. None of what you've stated is accurate. The cases are much more complicated than you indicate. I don't see this ending well for Qualcomm.
That's not how buying things works. If Apple wanted to buy Qualcomm, it is Apple, not Qualcomm, that would make the offer. Qualcomm can either accept or not.
[doublepost=1541608135][/doublepost]
Not long term. Competition is good in the long run.
[doublepost=1541608226][/doublepost]
Contracts don't last forever. And there is no contract that apple signed that grants qualcomm a percentage of the device price when Apple buys chips from Intel instead of Qualcomm. Yet that's what Qualcomm demands.
Actually reading the original contract between Apple and Qualcomm is the best way to know what they both agreed to. The legal filings will be convoluted to make that contract insignificant.
I think the original contract was in the public domain a few years ago.
[doublepost=1541608512][/doublepost]
Actually, you can buy a company that is not up for sale by the board. It is called a "hostile takeover."
Remember, too, that there are two distinct issues here. Apple's contract manufacturers buying qualcomm chips and then apple being charged a patent licensing fee for using those chips (which Apple claims offends the legal principal of patent exhaustion), and qualcomm charging a patent license fee that is a percentage of the device cost, regardless of whose chips Apple uses, which Apple claims offends the principal of FRAND.
Whether the contract would even be meaningful would depend on which issue we are talking about, and whether a particular contract would have any effect. For example, if Qualcomm demands that Apple agree to pay a percentage of device fee when apple uses intel chips as a condition for selling apple its own chips, that might raise antitrust or patent misuse issues (I believe apple pleaded those arguments as well in the legal proceedings).
[doublepost=1541608821][/doublepost]
No. The issue is qualcomm charges those prices even when apple decides to use Intel chips. The chip price is one thing, the license fee is another.
Yep there in is the real problem in my book as these companies go after each other.... we who like the iPhone are going to also pay with the lesser quality modems from intel. I am getting by with my Xs and the 12.1 helped and I can use phone fine (in fact my poor cell signal area does better on Xs for me with 12.1 update). But if we want 5G this issue with Intels 7 nm issues is gonna hurt (when 5G is really out)
Last edited:
Just to be clear, TSMC 7nm is essentially identical in terms of process to Intel 10nm. Same size gates, same gate spacing, etc. They just name their process nodes differently.
If your understanding of monopoly is "get $200 when you pass Go", I can see how you'd come to that conclusion.
Because that's exactly what Microsoft did and it worked well for three decades until their business model was upended by a disruptive technology (i.e., the smartphone).
The downside of this of course is that it causes technological innovation to stagnate.
The more I think about this the more I come to believe that it is in the best interests of consumers for Qualcomm to win this one.
Thank you sir!
This is the most infuriatingly boring, nonsensical, lazy, and absolutely devoid of thought, value, or strategy “opinion” that gets bandied about.
Apple is creating a self-driving car platform.
“Derp... should buy Tesla”
Apple is creating their own custom silicon.
“Derp... should buy ARM or Intel”
Apple is shying away from Qualcomm cellular modems & leaning on Intel instead... MAY eventually design their own.
“Derp... should spend over 30x their most expensive acquisition ever (Beats, $3 billion) to acquire this ENORMOUS company that does a ton of unrelated stuff & in no way would synergistically meld into Apple’s structure; just to avoid litigation”
Yeah... the “just buy company x” crowd sound more & more ridiculous and ill-informed as time goes on.
I (like you!) found the Samsung trial tedious af... however I (also, I imagine... like you) never ever ever once thought, let alone spoke “they should just buy Samsung Mobile”.
Lol, it boggles my mind as well- how anyone can think like this.
#kindredspirit
Except that Apple told it's manufacturers to stop paying Qualcomm.
http://fortune.com/2017/05/17/qualcomm-apple-foxconn/
Fair point. I doubt the Qualcomm shareholders would agree to an acquisition by Apple in this instance.
It's a recurring theme here... the entitlement of some of the members (many actually) is disgustingly insulting to everyone.
How about Apple innovates instead of just throwing money at a solution and swallowing all the competition? That's not progress.
The post I was replying to seemed to imply that because Apple has so much cash, they should just purchase Qualcomm. I was simply stating that having a huge pile of cash does not mean Apple can simply buy another company. I stand by my statement that Apple cannot buy something that's not for sale. If Qualcomm doesn't accept Apple's theoretical offer, it means the company is not for sale (to Apple). Although, as someone else pointed out subsequently, there is also the option of a hostile takeover; but I doubt the shareholders of Qualcomm would agree to that.