Apple Says Qualcomm Has Overcharged Billions of Dollars By 'Double-Dipping' on iPhone's Innovation

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jun 20, 2017.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Apple has expanded its lawsuit against Qualcomm, accusing the wireless chipmaker of "double-dipping" by way of unfair patent licensing agreements, according to an amended complaint filed with a United States federal court in San Diego today.

    [​IMG]

    The complaint broadens the claims Apple made in its original lawsuit against Qualcomm in January, when it sued the chipmaker for $1 billion in alleged unpaid royalty rebates. Apple also accused its longtime supplier of the iPhone's wireless chip of engaging in anticompetitive licensing practices.

    Since the original iPhone, Qualcomm has supplied Apple with modems that enable the smartphone to, for example, connect to a Wi-Fi or LTE network. But as the iPhone has gained more features, Apple argues that Qualcomm has been unfairly "levying its own tax" on those innovations through "exorbitant royalties."

    Apple said Qualcomm wrongly bases its royalties on a percentage of the entire iPhone's value, despite supplying just a single component of the device.
    The licensing agreements are in addition to paying for the wireless chips themselves. Apple said Qualcomm's "double-dipping, extra-reward system" is precisely the kind that the U.S. Supreme Court recently forbade in a lawsuit between Lexmark and a small company reselling its printer cartridges.
    Apple said it has been "overcharged billions of dollars" due to Qualcomm's so-called "illegal scheme," including the $1 billion in unpaid royalty rebates that led Apple to sue Qualcomm in January.

    In its countersuit, Qualcomm accused Apple of failing to engage in good faith negotiations for a license to its 3G and 4G standard essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

    Apple, however, argues that Qualcomm's monopolistic licensing demands violate its FRAND obligations.
    Apple also claims that Qualcomm has never made it a worldwide offer on FRAND terms for a direct license to its patented technologies.

    Apple said Qualcomm subsequently filing lawsuits against iPhone manufacturers Foxconn, Pegatron, Wistron, and Compal reveals "its true bullying nature," calling it "a blatant attempt to exert pressure on Apple to acquiesce to" its "non-FRAND royalty demands" by attacking its smaller contract manufacturers.
    Apple has called for the court to declare Qualcomm's patents in the lawsuit unessential to 3G/4G standards used in the iPhone and its other products, and to prevent Qualcomm from taking any adverse or legal action against Apple's contract manufacturers related to the allegations in today's amended complaint.

    Article Link: Apple Says Qualcomm Has Overcharged Billions of Dollars By 'Double-Dipping' on iPhone's Innovation
     
  2. thadoggfather macrumors 604

    thadoggfather

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    #2
    Now announcing the all new iPhone with all new Intel radio, for both GSM only and GSM/CDMA variants.
     
  3. Will.O.Bie macrumors member

    Will.O.Bie

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
  4. Steve.P.JobsFan macrumors 6502a

    Steve.P.JobsFan

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2010
    Location:
    Findlay, OH
    #4
    They both make good points. I'm a bit tired of the constant lawsuits involving Apple, but hopefully this doesn't take years (à la Samsung) to wade through, and the courts can issue a ruling reasonably quickly.

    EDIT: Having re-read the other MR article about Qualcomm's counter suit, I think I side more with Apple on this, instead of being neutral. Qualcomm's arguments don't really seem to be arguments, more or less just going on about how "iPhone wouldn't have been possible without us!" and claiming Apple didn't try to come to fair agreements, but there is no evidence provided (at least in the MR article).

    Again, I guess we just need to let the courts do their job and listen to both parties before making a ruling.
     
  5. sfoalex macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2001
    Location:
    Earth, no seriously.
    #5
    Sounds like Qualcom has a bit of a scam going on to me. I guess we'll see.
     
  6. miknos macrumors 6502a

    miknos

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #6
    It's unfair to charge a company for doing nothing.

    But bet yo' arse I would charge as much as I could if I had a patent.
     
  7. Zxxv macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    So iPhone customers will be getting a slice of Apples winnings then.
     
  8. Zaft macrumors 68030

    Zaft

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Location:
    NYC
    #8
    Apple talking anti competitive practices is pretty ironic..
     
  9. keysofanxiety macrumors 604

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #9
    Oh? Don't leave us hanging. What are you referring to?
     
  10. Zaft macrumors 68030

    Zaft

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Location:
    NYC
    #10
    Oh I dont know, only allowing there own apps as default.
     
  11. keysofanxiety macrumors 604

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #11
    On their own hardware AND own software?! God forbid!

    I don't think you know what anti-competitive means. In fact, I'm sure of it after what you've just said.
     
  12. Col4bin macrumors 68000

    Col4bin

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Location:
    El Segundo
    #12
    Qualcomm: "whoops, nothing to see here...move along".
     
  13. HarryKeogh macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    #13
    This reminds me of the landmark decision in Plessy V. Ferguson mainly because I have no workable knowledge of the law.
     
  14. Thunderhawks macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    #14
    Oh, I don't know, but I do know:

    They own the company, the App Store, the idea , the infrastructure, the iOS, the right to run their business as they see fit.

    What default app do you want see in iOS that can't be gotten as a download, i.e. somebody would have to provide that for FREE?
     
  15. HMFIC03 macrumors regular

    HMFIC03

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Location:
    AZ
    #15
    If Tim Cook wasn't so busy playing world police officer and politician, maybe he could have focused on this instead of loosing 1Billion. Pretty sure anyone on this forum would loose their job over that neglect of oversight.
     
  16. keysofanxiety macrumors 604

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #17
    Where exactly did Apple "loose" 1 billion? Or even lose, for that matter?

    If you're referring to the $1 billion dollar lawsuit, then I hate to be the first one to tell you, but that's not how lawsuits work. You don't put that money on the table and then ask the defendant to square you up.
     
  17. rictus007 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2011
    #18
    What?!? There's not enough post against Tim Cook .... nor pleople that want Steve back!!!
     
  18. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #19
    Would you argue McDonalds is anti competitive for not sellling whoppers?
     
  19. hlfway2anywhere macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    #20
    I bet Tim Cook knows the difference between lose and loose.
     
  20. tooltalk macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2015
    Location:
    NY, NY
    #21
    Apple is calling Qualcomm a bully. Wow, how audacious!

    I could see how Qualcomm's rivals like Intel, Mediatek, Samsung, and etc, might benefit from the recent SCOTUS Impression v. Lexmark decision, but I'm not quite sure how it could save Apple from their contract dispute with Qualcomm. What's patent exhaustion got to do with Qualcomm rebates?
     
  21. macTW macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2016
    #22
    "Oh it's Apple. They're wrong because I hate everything Apple does. What a hypocrite company."

    Said no one who is educated in the matters.
     
  22. imnotarobot macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2015
    #23
    Don't mess with Apple's giant pile of lawyers.
     
  23. macTW macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2016
    #24
    Lololololol

    You sir, just made my day.

    Edit: Wait, are you serious? This isn't a joke? smh.
     
  24. -Garry- macrumors 6502a

    -Garry-

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2005
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #25
    It might be a crappy business tactic by Qualcomm but is this not a free market economy? Aren’t Qualcomm entitled to set their prices as high as they like? Eventually they’ll price themselves out of the market.

    God knows Apple have a high-margin strategy when it comes to their own products.

    I’m no expert in law but I can’t see what Qualcomm has done that might be illegal.
     

Share This Page