This happened a couple days ago as well.
Apple got Qualcomm's German fake patent injunction lifted: appeals court deemed it likely flawed
http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/04/prior-to-settlement-apple-got-qualcomms.html
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 Paid an Estimated $5-$6 Billion to Settle Qualcomm Dispute, Plus $8-$9 Per iPhone in Royalty Fees
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This happened a couple days ago as well.
Apple got Qualcomm's German fake patent injunction lifted: appeals court deemed it likely flawed
http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/04/prior-to-settlement-apple-got-qualcomms.html
Qualcomm won its jury trial against Apple:
https://www.chron.com/techburger/ar...rst-U-S-Jury-Trial-Against-Apple-13692032.php
You read the pure click bait title of this story, and in the first few sentences realise it’s nothing more then some random analysts pure ‘guess work’...
Ergo any fighting on this thread will be based on pure total speculative guess work.
Guess work based on valid information. Continue reading and it says,
"Qualcomm may also be receiving between $8 and $9 per iPhone from Apple in ongoing patent royalties, a figure calculated based on guidance numbers that Qualcomm provided following the settlement."
Which means my point about Apple “folding” is true. They didn’t. They really had no choice
I’m sure that by this point, everyone is expecting Apple to enter the modem department. It would honestly be very surprising if they didn’t, because as of now, they already design their CPUs for iOS devices, as well as the chip for Apple Watch. Furthermore, they now have the W series chips, and the T series as well.
And your mention of one of Apple's wearables, the Apple Watch, a field where they currently dominate, reminds me that Apple also wants to dominate in health care, and 5G is very important for the future of this industry.
China just live-streamed a marathon in 8K 3D as a test of their 5G network. The amount of data involved is incredible and combined with the minimum lag that comes with 5G, means rural sites, like a hospital, will have access to remote assistance and tools only dreamed about. 5G is important to Apple's future and they were smart to put their battle with Qualcomm in the past, whatever the price.
welll....in THIS THREAD APPLE LOST THIS CASE. They settled for and paid more than what they sued Qualcomm for.
So i'll stick to the FACTS in this thread.
Then if Apple was so certain they had Qualcomm where they wanted them......why settle at all? Why not get the patents invalidated HERE?
Then what about this? Your FACTS seem to be not so factual.
https://www.chron.com/techburger/ar...rst-U-S-Jury-Trial-Against-Apple-13692032.php
The royalty fee was the percentage of the iPhone cost. It wasn't in addition to.
In case you didn't know, silicon is dirt chip and the royalty fees from Qualcomm for 5g will be cheap because it is a percentage of the phone cost. Small percentage of a low cost phone is a low fee.
So there is no problem for cheap androids to get 5g.
Lots of good discussions here.
Regarding Apple creating their own modem, I just don't see it happening. First, they will need to pay royalties to all the other modem patent holders, then pay to have the chips made, while also investing millions - billions in designing a modem. What price premium will they be able to charge?
Apple does design their own chips but, in these instances (phone, watch, ear buds) the software is unique and personalize to Apple's ecosystem. Whereas modem development seems to be predicated on already having tons of patents. That is, no patent competition with the phone, watch, ear bud software but, lots of patent competition with modem technology. Plus, if Intel couldn't do it, what makes Apple think they can? And be profitable at it?
Regarding Apple creating their own modem, I just don't see it happening. First, they will need to pay royalties to all the other modem patent holders, then pay to have the chips made, while also investing millions - billions in designing a modem. What price premium will they be able to charge?
Apple does design their own chips but, in these instances (phone, watch, ear buds) the software is unique and personalize to Apple's ecosystem. Whereas modem development seems to be predicated on already having tons of patents. That is, no patent competition with the phone, watch, ear bud software but, lots of patent competition with modem technology. Plus, if Intel couldn't do it, what makes Apple think they can? And be profitable at it?
There isn’t even any ambiguity. Apple posted jobs for 5G baseband work months ago.
The issue is, given Apple’s long term settlement with QCOM, it suggests Apple doesn’t expect to have a competitive part in the near future.
But the premium android phones are pretty good if not better than the premium iPhones.
How many times are people going to bring this up?
That case had NOTHING to do with Qualcomm illegally double dipping for licensing fees on modems. The patents in this case were related to graphics processing/battery life, quickly connecting to the Internet after a device turns on and traffic routing between Apps and a modem. This is just one of the many "nuisance cases" Qualcomm filed to try and pressure Apple (like the case in Germany).
As to the Apple/Qualcomm lawsuit regarding licensing fees, on Mar 14th Judge Curiel (the same judge presiding the case that was just dropped after settlement) said Qualcomm was obligated to repay Apple $1 billion in rebate fees.
[doublepost=1555642773][/doublepost]
How can you say they lost the case when both sides settled and entered into an agreement? I don't think you understand what "losing" a case means. There was no trial and therefore no verdict. Which means it's legally impossible for Apple to have "lost this case" as you claim.
As to your second comment, I already explained this above. Perhaps you need to understand what this case is actually about before you start bringing up completely unrelated court cases that have nothing to do with Qualcomm's licensing practices.
[doublepost=1555643066][/doublepost]
Premium Android phones are quite good.
But the fact remains they are a tiny percentage of all phones sold. Apple alone sells as many premium iPhones as every single Android vendor COMBINED. If you limit premium to the top end of the price spectrum Apple has almost 80% of the market.
how can you say Apple won this case? Apple sued for and lost for what they sued for in this case. They ended up paying MORE than what they sued for.
Then if Apple was in such a good position and had Qualcomm where they wanted them....why settle at all?
The trial was only in the second day!!!!
You state your opinion as fact with NOTHING to back it up.....
Apple lost this case......it's ok buddy...the sun will still rise tomorrow and your world will be ok....
I think Intel backing out of 5G chip production caused Apple to grab their ankles, and forced them to play nice with Qualcomm.
For Qualcomm to win this battle, all they had to do is convince Intel to back out. It makes me wonder if they played some part in this.
For Qualcomm to win this battle, all they had to do is convince Intel to back out. It makes me wonder if they played some part in this.
Totally disagree. I want them to take advantage of every law possible and I’m a shareholder.
According to Qualcomm, as of last October Apple owed them $7 billion after 2 years of Apple holding back the royalty payments they owed Qualcomm (due to a dispute as to whether the rates were fair and reasonable). Now six months later, the total amount owed must have been higher. Did Apple have to pay those back royalties?
Regarding the per device royalty rate, it was $7.50 way back in 2007. For 3G. That’s equivalent to $9.20 in 2019 dollars. Is the $8-9 rate they’re paying now really a win for Qualcomm, considering that it now also includes Qualcomm’s 4G and 5G portfolio?
To respond to your why did Apple settle question, I assume Apple agreed to a settlement because 1) Qualcomm finally offered them an acceptable deal on the past and future royalty rates, though not until the trial started. 2) They also nailed down their modem supply for 2020 and beyond. And of course, 3) they secured a license agreement, at acceptable terms, which will allow them to develop their own baseband chip, at which point they’ll terminate the multi-year supply agreement (at least with respect to new products).
It was Qualcomm who had the most to lose, and consequently, the most to gain by settling. By doing so, they avoided a jury verdict that could have potentially upended their licensing model and set rates for their SEP patents that Qualcomm may not have been at all happy with. If Qualcomm hadn’t gotten reasonable with their demands, what would Apple have had to lose by going forward with this trial to see how played out?
Last edited:
It went up today. Why would it get hit? They resolved a long running conflict, paid a reasonable price for use of their technology and secured top quality 5G chips until they finish designing their own. Great for the products, customers and company.
Apple needs the long-term license agreement in order to make their own baseband chips. The modem supply agreement is only described as multi-year. Could be two years, could be ten years. It’ll likely be in effect for only as long as Apple needs Qualcomm silicon.
Last edited:
A plaintiff or defendant loses a case when either a judge or a jury makes that determination. A settlement is when the two parties in the case come to an agreement amongst themselves. The most you could say is that Apple made a bad settlement but to keep squawking that they lost just demonstrates ignorance of the facts or just plainly not understanding the judicial system. The settlement amounts are hypothetical which makes many of the posts even more ridiculous.
Let's consider the units sold:
- 2007: 4 million iPhones
- 2017:217 million iPhones
It's pretty clear Apple will single-source 5G modems. That's a huge win for Qualcomm and we're not even including iPad or Watch.
That's what I was also thinking.
I don't understand why so many users here imagine that Apple building their own modem = the end of all their problems regarding this subject.
I don't see why it would be worth Apple's trouble and efforts taking in consideration that such a modem would only be used in their own products and it wouldn't be faster than Qualcomms modems.
[doublepost=1555657415][/doublepost]
With 3rd generation of 5G modems we most likely will see mid-range 5G phones. So 2021.
The competition between Android phones at the mid-range is quite intense right now and it will only get more intense as the market has already matured.
[doublepost=1555658387][/doublepost]
I disagree, he did read quite correctly the post he responded to.
You are just overestimating Apple's dominance of the overall high end market(I'm talking about the entire planet).
Apple's latest most expensive iPhones(which are the only ones worth considering taking in consideration because those are the iphones which will come with 5G) lately have been showing a decline is sales in comparison to previous generations like the iphone 6, 6s, 7. So it is quite an exaggeration to assume that Apple will dominate the overall sales of 5G phones.
In my opinion Apple's 5G phones will be even less competitive in terms of pricing than their current high end(Xs, Xs Max). And this won't help them with sales.
Last edited: