Apple Sues Qualcomm for $1 Billion in Unpaid Royalty Rebates [Updated]

[kognos]

What exactly are you agreeing with? Agreeing they should be paid their $1 billion rebate? If so, we're in agreement there. Apple complied with their end of the contract so they should be paid. Full stop.

Yes, that.

Are you agreeing that Qualcomm shouldn't be paid on full device percentage? If so, then you're not really in agreement with Apple. Apple had no problem with the deal as long as they were getting their rebate payments. That deal was made with both companies wearing their big boy pants.

Qualcomm is way over the line in asking for anything but price for chips and/or tech that they license. Apple is correct (in my personal view) stating that Qualcomm has no rights to license a percentage of device total cost, because that in turn goes beyond what they "own".

It's like going to a supermarket and having your box of cereal be charged relative to what happens to also be in your basket at checkout.

 

[FactVsOpinion]

This is hilarious. Apple is a huge bully of a company.

Here's what matters: "Qualcomm is supposed to provide Apple with quarterly rebates, but has failed to do so for the past year because of Apple's participation in an antitrust investigation against Qualcomm in South Korea."

If you don't keep your promise to pay, get it forced out if you. I think that's just.

 

[modemthug]

This helps explain the Intel modems in the iPhone 7

 

[macfacts]

Actually, what Qualcomm charges is based on Apple's own technologies. Qualcomm doesn't charge a set fee. If they did, then that would be a fee for their technologies, not Apple's. Instead, as the article states, they charge a percentage of the average selling price of the device. Part of that selling price is due to Apple's own technologies. If we look at the iPhone and say TouchID is worth $50 (just picking a number here) out of the total sale price, then shy should Qualcomm get a percentage of that $50?

If you read the whole thing, you will see that Apple is complaining about the absurd royalty term. And, Apple's words is very clear that, the more technology they bind into each product, the more that royalty term becomes absurd, making their own innovations earning less and less value for their products.

Yes, that.



Qualcomm is way over the line in asking for anything but price for chips and/or tech that they license. Apple is correct (in my personal view) stating that Qualcomm has no rights to license a percentage of device total cost, because that in turn goes beyond what they "own".

It's like going to a supermarket and having your box of cereal be charged relative to what happens to also be in your basket at checkout.

This argument Apple is using is the same one Samsung is using against Apple in the lawsuit for rounded rectangles. Apple is a hypocrite, can't have it both ways.

 

[Juan007]

Good for Apple for standing up to these criminals. Steve Jobs created the iPhone, not Qualcomm!

 

[MH01]

Get a life? Any person or company worth its salt should expect a contract to be honored. If the payments are due, then they should be paid, period. Maybe your word is mud, but to normal people a deal is a deal.

You realise Apple has been sued numerous times for this behaviour.

Qualcomm sadly cannot copy Apple completely by throwing thier toys out of the pram and taking Apple products off thier shelves ....

 

[dilbert99]

Well, they are to an extent. Qualcomm is getting royalties based on the selling price. The more non-Qualcomm tech they put into the iPhone, potentially driving up the price, the more Qualcomm receives, even though the cost of their components in the phone is likely decreasing.

Not really, most products will have a constant price allowing for inflation or go down in price. Technology moves on each year and the phone cannot increase in price all the time otherwise no one would buy it.

 

[Tech198]

Almost like a boss forcing u to work for him, then not paying you.

 

[MentalFloss]

still want qualcomm modems in my iphone

no intel for me yet!

Why? Because Qualcomm pays bloggers to conduct fake tests to "prove" that Qualcomm modems are better? I don't see this as an indication of quality.

 

[Gasu E.]

That's purposefully misleading.
Qualcomm is not charging Apple royalties for Apple's own technologies.

You may be missing the point. The statement means Qualcomm charges a royalty based on the selling price of the phone. What Apple is saying is that, if Apple adds more features that are not based on Qualcomm tech, but allow Apple to charge more, then Qualcomm is still demanding royalties on the incremental price that is charged due to the added, non-Qualcomm features.
[doublepost=1484979802][/doublepost]

Apple better start making all their own components .
Lawsuits against the supplying vendors usually backfire on you.
Better open some more chinese factories Mr. Cook - you will need them.

Yeah right, because Qualcomm really might refuse to sell to Apple, and put themselves out of business, purely out of spite.
[doublepost=1484980047][/doublepost]

This statement by Apple doesn't make much sense to me. They are the on the "consumer" side of the equation, they can vote with their dollars, just like any consumer can. Did they grudgingly continue to pay the "5x rates" just to get their own products out the door? Why didn't they invest into another company, or into developing the needed tech themselves? Has the patent system really prevented this, and Qualcomm abused their position as the patent holder?

Qualcomm holds essential patents for the LTE standard, among other standards. It isn't LTE unless you incorporate standards covered by Qualcomm patents.

 

[Solomani]

Qualcomm's going down. Intel is going to push it over the cliff.

 

[Gasu E.]

Apple gets a taste of its own medicine that it used against Samsung then cries boo hoo hoo. Apple even goes as far as being a two-face siding with Samsung to screw Qualcomm over.

Apple doesn't have a face, let alone two of them.

 

[hot spare]

Why? Because Qualcomm pays bloggers to conduct fake tests to "prove" that Qualcomm modems are better? I don't see this as an indication of quality.

Why don't you prove it otherwise? Since you clearly are not paid by Qualcomm, I would like to read your test results.

 

[xalea]

You get a billion, and *you* get a billion, and YOU get a billion! *yay*

 

[Paul Dawkins]

Both companies are bullies.

That is irrelevant.
[doublepost=1484981784][/doublepost]

This is hilarious. Apple is a huge bully of a company.

This is irrelevant.
[doublepost=1484981881][/doublepost]

Funny how when Apple sues someone, people like you say "Good for Apple", then when people/companies sue Apple it's "frivolous case".

Many of them actually were.

 

[Michael Goff]

This argument Apple is using is the same one Samsung is using against Apple in the lawsuit for rounded rectangles. Apple is a hypocrite, can't have it both ways.

I wasn't aware that Apple's design was a standards essential patent that is licensed under FRAND terms.

 

[Paul Dawkins]

This argument Apple is using is the same one Samsung is using against Apple in the lawsuit for rounded rectangles. Apple is a hypocrite, can't have it both ways.

Apple might be hypocritical, but please explain to me how is it relevant to the fact that Samsung copied the **** out of Apple's design?

 

[StyxMaker]

This argument Apple is using is the same one Samsung is using against Apple in the lawsuit for rounded rectangles. Apple is a hypocrite, can't have it both ways.

Samsung is claiming that Apple owes them a billion dollars in rebates?

 

[Marshall73]

Funny how when Apple sues someone, people like you say "Good for Apple", then when people/companies sue Apple it's "frivolous case".

Read the article, Apple are suing for monies owed to them, which Qualcomm have not paid. This is nothing like others suing Apple for patent infringement etc.

 

[recklesslife85]

Yet Apple continued to use them. This won't go far in court. Rich coming from Apple too, no one is a bigger patent troll than them.

 

[Michael Goff]

Yet Apple continued to use them. This won't go far in court. Rich coming from Apple too, no one is a bigger patent troll than them.

I don't think you understand this case at all.

 

[Trhodezy]

Funny how when Apple sues someone, people like you say "Good for Apple", then when people/companies sue Apple it's "frivolous case".

That's usually because it is frivolous.. find the last lawsuit that, in your opinion, is frivolous and explain to us/me why it is so.

In most people's opinion, if you are owed money legitimately and are not receiving said money, then a lawsuit (in this case), is justified. Especially if it's $850m+
[doublepost=1484988387][/doublepost]

Yet Apple continued to use them. This won't go far in court. Rich coming from Apple too, no one is a bigger patent troll than them.

I don't think you understand this case at all.

Haha, no he definitely doesn't understand it.

 

[StevieD100]

Why can't Apple design and build their own modems?

Half a gazillion patents and patent suits would stop them.
There are at least 50 companies with their snouts in the Mobile Baseband area with patent interests. IT is a total minefield.
It would take half a decade just to sort out the licensing despite most of it being under FRAND.

 

[44267547]

You realise Apple has been sued numerous times for this behaviour.

Qualcomm sadly cannot copy Apple completely by throwing thier toys out of the pram and taking Apple products off thier shelves ....

I personally think it comes down to both of these companies bullying each other around for what they want. And nobody wants to give up what they owe.

 

[jadot]

Get the popcorn going, this could get interesting...

Does every MacRumors story have to suffer this same 'popcorn' forum cliché? What does it mean, really? That you're going to sit back and enjoy reading argumentative squabbles over semantics and irrelevance? Like going to the cinema and eating popcorn? It doesn't even make sense!