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 Says Qualcomm Has Overcharged Billions of Dollars By 'Double-Dipping' on iPhone's Innovation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nope, just saying that they have no special moral grounds to stand on when talking about a company wanting either high royalties or high profits as if that was a bad thing. In fact, quite the opposite. The level of their hypocrisy is sometimes off the scale.
I've read both it and the Qualcomm response. Have you? Apple's is full of recursive handwaving, cleverly misleading phrases, and seems designed to confuse. Qualcomm's is laid out neatly and clearly and is easy to understand. One is more likely to be mostly truth.
Apple tells others to put on their "big boy pants" when signing their contracts. If they later get caught by draconian provisions, then oh well too bad so sad.
In this case I think Apple found themselves in a position they're not used to : being the recipient of harsh penalties for not meeting the contract they signed, instead of being the one giving out the penalties like they did with GTAT.
So, having no contractual provisions on their side, Apple instead strong armed their manufacturers to stop making license payments that they had been making since long before Apple made a phone. That doesn't seem like legitimate behavior.
Mind you, a lot of companies would love to have lower rates, and thus will support Apple. Moreover, some countries like to prop up their manufacturers, like Korea. Interestingly though, China of all countries recently fined Qualcomm and yet agreed to the same terms that Apple is complaining about (and was offered by Qualcomm).
[doublepost=1498253829][/doublepost]
That's because Samsung so far hasn't made a CDMA compatible modem. This has also hurt them in China on some carriers. However, rumors are that they will soon come out with one.
MediaTek is also starting to sell phones in the US using their own CDMA compatible modem.
What I've read from analysts is this: Qualcomm's modems are so superior to other implementations, that higher end smartphones will almost always use one.
OTOH, if you're making a cheap smartphone for use in China or India, you go with MediaTek, whose silicon will cost half as much.
Last edited:
No, they created some essential parts of the common standards and there's a big difference between that and actually creating the underlying theory and technology, which is often way older than Qualcomm themselves (who were only founded in 1985). The actual theory that made current day mobile technology possible mostly comes out academia (the basic CDMA theory and tech was invented in the Soviet Union) and old telecom companies like Motorola.
As I said, there's a difference between inventing the actual technology, which Qualcomm hasn't done, and taking part in creating a common standard based on that technology, which is what Qualcomm has actually done. Even if they invented some of the underlying technology it's obvious that someone else would have invented it or something else that does the same job.
Qualcomm's patent abuse may not prevent low price components from entering the market, but it makes it a hell of a lot harder when you don't just have to pay Qualcomm for every chip you make, you also have massively increased overhead costs meaning that you have to sell way more chips to break even or sell them for way more.
So you can still technically make and sell wireless modems at a low cost, but with Qualcomm's patent abuse it's just a whole lot less profitable to do. It's sort of like the mafia and their protection rackets don't make business impossible, but it does affect their profitability.
Apple's way to dispute Qualcomm's abuse of owning standards essential patents may not be the most civilized one, but there's not much you can really do about the Monsanto of the wireless industry. They could go on and try to invalidate their patents, but that's going to cause a way stronger response and other companies who were there to create the common standards and aren't as heavily into patent abuse may join in to protect those standards essential patents.
Seeing how the underlying theory and technology was never actually invented at Qualcomm the only difference if Qualcomm had never existed would be that the common standards would be slightly different because someone else took over their roles in defining the common implementation of the technology.
Unlike with Qualcomm's GSM and CDMA licensing, you're completely free to create and sell applications of competing platforms creating value for users without paying Apple a single dime. Hell, android is even a bigger platform than iOS so technically there should be more money in the Apple-free market. If you however want to create a phone or other device connected to a cellphone network that actually works and provides any real value to the user you have to pay Qualcomm for the pleasure even if you're not using any of their actual parts.
If you create your own chip, you don't have to pay Qualcomm anything. Only the phone maker does.
For instance, MediaTek does not have a license to any Qualcomm patents, and yet they sell chips for half the price and are therefore taking away lots of Qualcomm sales in China.
Intel bought a company which had licensed and customized Qualcomm chip tech, so their design job was easier. But that still doesn't license the IP necessary to run on it. Chip layout != comm code.
It's just like Intel licensing a CPU core, but not the OS to run on it. People forget that baseband processors are just that: CPUs that require software. Nobody expects to get a license to Windows or MacOS just because they bought an Intel CPU for cheap.
On the contrary, MediaTek, Huawei, Skyworks, Samsung and others are selling CDMA chips just fine, especially integrated CPU+modems.
The thing is, phone makers no longer want a separate modem like Intel makes. Apple only wants one because of their custom CPU, and you can bet your bottom dollar that they'd love to be integrated as well.
When it comes to trying to charge a lot for IP, Apple and Intel have no moral leg to stand on. Intel's brief complaints are especially ironic considering the billions they had to pay in anti-competitive lawsuits because of the way they treated AMD.
The fact is, Apple is trying to change the way cellular IP is priced. Their desire for ever higher profits means they want to try to switch the conversation from the longstanding per-device rate, to one based on ever lowering silicon chip costs.
Can't blame them for trying of course. But in no way can they claim that they were singled out to pay more, nor that chips currently come with a license.
You do realize this makes no difference whatsoever in the end? Regardless if the per-chip license fee is levied against the company who makes the chip or the company who makes the device it ends up in, the device maker has to pay the Qualcomm tax and then passes it onto the consumer.
In China maybe where patent laws are a bit so-so and where Qualcomm's usual business practices would be struck down by the courts pretty quickly. China may be a big market, but it's still not the world market by any stretch of the imagination.
You do realize this is about Apple not wanting to pay Qualcomm lump sums and per-device sums just for using a standard they helped define? Apple isn't using Qualcomm hardware or software in the devices they're disputing the license fees on. The software and the hardware they're using and which Qualcomm is essentially claiming ownership of are from Intel.
Sure, if you think having to take part in what essentially amounts to a protection racket by Qualcomm counts as "just fine" and not in the least suspicious.
Oh yes, the "It's OK because someone else did something vaguely similar"-excuse used by kids and child-minded individuals.
The fact? Apple is trying to make it so that you don't have to pay companies like Qualcomm both a lump sum for creating a device and then a per-device fee even when you're not using any Qualcomm hardware or software, just an industry standard Qualcomm took part in defining back in the day.
The way cellular IP licensing works is that you either contribute enough to a common license "pot" and pay nothing or you pay either a per-device or per-model fee. This is how Apple's agreement with Nokia works and they, having been in the wireless business since before Qualcomm was even founded, own a way bigger patent briefcase.
You do realize that Apple is disputing Qualcomm's practice of having to pay lump license fees and per-device fees not because they're using actual Qualcomm software or hardware, but because they're using a standard Qualcomm took part in defining.
Exactly, thanks for helping my point. The license must be paid no matter what, so it makes no difference that Qualcomm collects it directly from the phone maker, instead of letting chip makers do it and pass it all on to Qualcomm... which they have failed to do in the past.
Quite the contrary, the Chinese government recently made a deal with Qualcomm where all phones made for use in China are required to pay the same license rate. For 3G+4G phones it's the same percentage rate that Qualcomm charges Foxconn for iPhones.
Apple knows they have to pay for Qualcomm IP. They just want courts to force a different rate structure. Some of the changes they want make sense, but it's a change from what everyone else paid for decades.
First off, Apple isn't singling out Intel modems. They want license rates changed on phones that use ANY modem, including those from Qualcomm.
Secondly, Intel is absolutely using Qualcomm IP in the chips they make.
- In 1997 a fabless company called LSI Logic licensed Qualcomm CDMA chip tech for their designs.
- In 2002 a company called Via Telecom bought LSI Logic's CDMA assets for same reason.
- In 2015 Intel bought the CDMA assets of Via Telecom for same reason.
So Intel has purchased CDMA2000 internal processor design from Qualcomm because it was easier. OTOH, MediaTek designed their own processor and thus MediaTek does not require a hardware license to make CDMA capable modems.
However, no piece of silicon made by anyone (including Qualcomm) includes the complicated software / IP that runs on it. Qualcomm licenses such IP separately to the phone makers who wish to use it in their phones.
Again, it's just like Intel licensing a CPU design to a third party, but selling their realtime OS separately. Or if Apple were to sell replacement iPhone parts, as they wouldn't include an iOS license.
It's also just like other cellular patents such as those owned by Ericsson and Nokia, who do not sell chips at all. What confuses some people is the fact that Qualcomm also happens to make physical chips with their own non-SEP improvements (which is why they often work better and makers/users prefer them).
Last edited:
Sure it makes no difference if you think Qualcomm should be able to collect both a per-model and per-device fee on all CDMA devices, even when they're not using any Qualcomm components or software. The mafia also thinks that business owners in areas they "own" should pay them money for operating in "their" neighborhoods even when the mafia does nothing for them, but that doesn't mean they're any more right to do than when Qualcomm copies their business model.
So in other words the Chinese government made sure that Qualcomm can't run their usual patent protection racket as they do elsewhere.
It's a change to Qualcomm's usual patent extortion, but it's not a change compared to what more reasonable companies like Nokia and Motorola have been doing since before Qualcomm ever existed.
Well if the rates are such an issue, why are that only disputing the deal with Qualcomm? Why have they been able to settle all of their disagreements with Nokia out of court?
How many times do I have to remind you that because Qualcomm owns many of the patents essential to the CDMA standard you have to buy a license from them if you want to create something that uses the CDMA standard. Even when you make all of your hardware and software in-house. This is what I've been trying to get trough your thick "MURRICA!!! MURRICA!!! MURRICA!!!" skull for the last few posts.
MediaTek most definitely has to pay Qualcomm royalties for their own CMDA implementation. They may be able to avoid paying Qualcomm for every chip they make in China where the government put a stop to Qualcomm's usual protection racket, but any device sold outside of China in an official capacity most definitely has the Qualcomm tax hidden in it's pricetag.
This getting tedious and fast... You can babble on about IP this and that, but the bottom line is that not only does Qualcomm collect license fees for devices using their chips, hardware IP and software both as a lump sum for every model that uses them and a per-device-made basis, they also collect the lump sum and per-device-sold fee on any and all CDMA using devices even when they don't use their chips, their hardware IP or any of their software. The reason why they can do this is because they were there to define the common CDMA standard and own several patents on technologies required to make a device that conforms with the common CDMA standard.
You literally cannot make a CDMA device and not have to pay Qualcomm. Even when the only Qualcomm-related item you use is the official CDMA spec.
It's essentially the same scenario if Bosh collected a lump license fee from every car maker for every model they design with a gasoline fuel injection engine along with an additonal per-manufactured-car license fee even on cars and models that don't use any components from Bosh simply because they were the first to bring a gasoline fuel injected engine to market.
https://www.cultofmac.com/488098/apple-asks-court-block-qualcomm-double-dipping/
Apple sued Qualcomm for their double dipping.
It seems there are some double dipping cases from chip makers, which is unfair.
Royalty should be taken only once, not twice.
US Supreme court says "No Double-Dipping on Patent Royalties".
http://usefularts.us/2008/06/13/scotus-no-double-dipping-on-patent-royalties/
Apple sued Qualcomm for their double dipping.
It seems there are some double dipping cases from chip makers, which is unfair.
Royalty should be taken only once, not twice.
US Supreme court says "No Double-Dipping on Patent Royalties".
http://usefularts.us/2008/06/13/scotus-no-double-dipping-on-patent-royalties/
"There were even more alternatives until chipmakers stopped producing standalone modem chips, and began making integrated CPU + modem systems. Such all-in-one chipsets are much more in demand by phone makers" -
I got reference from -
https://www.trackitt.io/blog/posts/future_of_cx_mfg/
Yes I totally agree because apple wants to use their own CPU designs instead of others that the whole reason for using Qualcomm
