Apple to Sell Modified iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 in Germany to Skirt Sales Ban

[gnasher729]

It’s actually not but another chip company that is required in their version. Qualcomm blocked their testimony by refusing the confidentiality agreement. They tried that in the US but lost and that testimony proved no infringement of Qualcomm’s patent. That’s why they tried all over the world until they found a judge that would not force them to sign the confidentiality agreement to move forward. Germany was the only one.

Germany works different with injunctions. You ask for a preliminary injunction, you get one - as long as you deposit enough money to pay for all damages if it turns out that you shouldn't have got the injunction. Qualcomm had to deposit over a billion dollars to get this injunction, in order to be able to pay Apple damages if the court tells them to.
[doublepost=1550180388][/doublepost]

All this just to sell old 7 & 8's. Aren't the new ones selling?

The new phones (iPhone X variants) sell very well indeed. They are also quite expensive. iPhone 7 and 8 also sell very well, for a much lower price. Apple, as any reasonable company, wants to cover a range of different prices because they want to make money from customers only wanting to pay $500, not $1,000.

I mean you know that obviously and just try to same something bad about Apple, but this is just of people who fall for it.

 

[Gasu E.]

MFi is not a port BTW

Nor is it a "standard".
[doublepost=1550180757][/doublepost]

P

No just pay the fee required, if other manufacturer can afford it, shure can Apple.
.

Correct me if I'm wrong-- isn't one of Apple's biggest complaints that Qualcomm is trying to charge a percentage of the phone's price; rather than the same charge for the same technology for every phone? In which case, manufacturers are not being asked to pay the same fee, but for the higher fees Apple would be charged actually subsidizing the low fees of their lower cost competitors?

In other words, if Apple wants to charge $50 extra for a gold-colored phone, Qualcomm would get a percentage of the gold-color-surcharge.

 

[Piggie]

Nor is it a "standard".
[doublepost=1550180757][/doublepost]

Correct me if I'm wrong-- isn't one of Apple's biggest complaints that Qualcomm is trying to charge a percentage of the phone's price; rather than the same charge for the same technology for every phone? In which case, manufacturers are not being asked to pay the same fee, but for the higher fees Apple would be charged actually subsidizing the low fees of their lower cost competitors?

In other words, if Apple wants to charge $50 extra for a gold-colored phone, Qualcomm would get a percentage of the gold-color-surcharge.

So did Apple agree to this deal in the 1st place, but now later on deciding they don't like they deal they agreed to?
If they agreed to it, THEN Apple put the price of phones up, which meant Qualcomm got more money, then that's just tough isn't it?
Why did Apple agree to the deal in the 1st place then?

 

[s15119]

Wow isn't this the same company (apple) that asks 50% of profits from publishers?

Actually, it's a company where publishers have agreed to pay 50% of subscription price. Publications rarely make much or even any profit from subscriptions. Advertising is where they make money and gaining new subscribers increases advertising revenue, thus making the 50% deal profitable for the publishers.

 

[tito2020]

Consumers should be given the option of choosing between Qualcomm or alternative option for lower cost.

Sammy has no issues

 

[mi7chy]

Sammy has no issues

Correct. They offer Qualcomm and Exynos integrated radios.

 

[techwhiz]

I think this is exactly that - extortionist demands.

I can only imagine if the steel/aluminum mining company would demand a percentage of phone sale price for the honor of using their metal alloy, that would work out well.
How about the paper manufacturer demanded a percentage of phone sale price because of use of paper in the packaging of the phone?
I guess I could go on and on, but it's easy catch the gist.

That's a specious argument at best.
If the allow was an allow that was patented like the "liquid metal" then you would have to pay a licensing fee or buy from a single source. Much like Gorilla(TM) Glass is a special formulation and you can't use the glass without paying Corning.

Like it or not a percentage is how the patents are paid for and it caps at a dollar amount.
A $500 phone and a $700 phone pay the same royalty.
A $100 phone does not.
[doublepost=1550190305][/doublepost]

In other words, if Apple wants to charge $50 extra for a gold-colored phone, Qualcomm would get a percentage of the gold-color-surcharge.

No. The licensing is baed on the wholesale price of the phone.
It's also only up to a certain dollar amount for the phone.
So if the cost goes from $500 to $550, there is no increase in charge.
The fees are capped before $500.

 

[macaddiict]

I love it when big companies cry and complain about having to follow the law. Wah, wah, pay up, Apple - just like you ask your customers to do!

 

[Tech198]

Consumers should be given the option of choosing between Qualcomm or alternative option for lower cost.

What alternative ?

It sees Apple 'gave in"...

It didn't want to pull sales from these countries, so Qualcomm has its foot in the door in these affected phones..

Now, if Qualcomm doesn't like where proceeding are going they ust just say "Sorry Apple, you not using our chips anymore" where would that leave Apple ?

There probably are other alternatives, but most are used by

 

[ROGmaster]

Please, there isn't enough room for the jack and the engine. Open it up yourself.

There is Beats3, lightning-corded headphones, for $49. Saves a dongle use. It's not all about AirPods.

Next false conspiracy theory...

There is enough room for the jack on the iphone 7
Proof:

 

[TobiWahn_Kenobi]

You mean like Apple does with subscriptions sold via iOS apps?

Sorry, but this is a retail markup, not a FRAND encumbered international standard. If I put my work up for sale on ANY platform they want to earn a percentage of it. But if my parts suppliers start to charge me a percentage as well for my FINAL product I’m out of here

 

[Khedron]

Sorry, but this is a retail markup, not a FRAND encumbered international standard. If I put my work up for sale on ANY platform they want to earn a percentage of it. But if my parts suppliers start to charge me a percentage as well for my FINAL product I’m out of here

I'm guessing you wouldn't keep taking stock from your suppliers and selling it on but then cancel your cheque to your supplier because you didn't like the terms you agreed to in the first place any more

 

[spacemnspiff]

That's a specious argument at best.
If the allow was an allow that was patented like the "liquid metal" then you would have to pay a licensing fee or buy from a single source. Much like Gorilla(TM) Glass is a special formulation and you can't use the glass without paying Corning.

Like it or not a percentage is how the patents are paid for and it caps at a dollar amount.
A $500 phone and a $700 phone pay the same royalty.
A $100 phone does not.
[doublepost=1550190305][/doublepost]

No. The licensing is baed on the wholesale price of the phone.
It's also only up to a certain dollar amount for the phone.
So if the cost goes from $500 to $550, there is no increase in charge.
The fees are capped before $500.

If think the argument was specious, then the Qualcomm deal is not a stretch when compared to extortion.

You proved my point with with the licensing deal argument, no correlation of the license royalty to the price of the phone, it's just another part in the phone adding a fixed value to the phone and unrelated to the price of the phone.

 

[manurojasv]

Somebody should make a comparison between an iPhone with the Intel chip and one with the Qualcomm chip. I'm quite sure there's no significant difference, but still.

 

[ph001bi]

Apple today confirmed rumors that it will start selling modified iPhone models in its German stores to comply with a patent infringement lawsuit Qualcomm won against the company in December.

The California-based company said it had "no choice" but to replace Intel chips in the iPhone models with chips from Qualcomm in order to allow them to be sold again in the country.

Sources in German retail hinted last week that Apple was working on new versions of the iPhone 7, 7 Plus, 8, and 8 Plus with updated modem hardware that does not violate the injunction levied against it in Germany that resulted in a sales ban on the devices.

Mobile chip supplier Qualcomm sued Apple in Germany alleging that some older iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 models violated Qualcomm patents related to so-called "envelope tracking," which helps mobile phones save battery power while sending and receiving wireless signals. The German court sided with Qualcomm and demanded Apple stop selling the offending iPhones in the country.

In its ongoing legal dispute with Qualcomm, Apple has also had some iPhone models banned in China. However, Apple was able to get around that ban with a software update and has continued selling iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 models in that country.

Article Link: Apple to Sell Modified iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 in Germany to Skirt Sales Ban

Does it mean that the German iPhone 7 and 8 will support CDMA?

 

[TobiWahn_Kenobi]

I'm guessing you wouldn't keep taking stock from your suppliers and selling it on but then cancel your cheque to your supplier because you didn't like the terms you agreed to in the first place any more

And you still don't get it I think. Qualcomm used monopolistic extortion tactics to become the sole supplier of chips. Asking for money for the chips themselves AND to use them after they sold them. Withholding the licensing of FRAND patents without the sale of their chips effectively locking out other suppliers.
And the terms to which Apple agreed ended so Apple wanted to renegotiate the terms since they no longer were bound by a contract. Also Qualcomm withheld agreed upon rebates in excess of millions of dollars because Apple also used Intel modems.
So I think both parties try to leverage their influence to get more money/pay less money. Only problem I have is that while Apple owns it own ecosystem Qualcomm holds an international standard hostage. I could live a life without apple products. Living a life without 3/4/5G seems far more difficult.

DISCLAIMER: Information is based on what I've read so far in articles about this topic and may not be factually completely correct.

 

[metoo5]

Oh Hell no, that is not what is happening. It has always been the end product that pays the IPR. Not the component manufacturer.

This is the QCOM talking point, but it's not true. In court it has been established that QCOM both has given and regularly receives chip-level licenses. How could they not? See "Licensing At All Levels Is The Rule Under The ETSI IPR Policy: A Response to Dr. Bertram Huber" by Karl Heinz Rosenbrock

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3064894

"... companies like Ericsson and Qualcomm, which now oppose upstream licensing of SEPs, for many years supported it."

Qualcomm told the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007: “In the wireless industry, running royalties are typically calculated as a percentage of the wholesale price for the particular component or product (e.g., chip or handset) for which the licensing agreement grants authority” (emphasis added).

Qualcomm said, in the context of a 2007 complaint that Qualcomm refused to license its patents to Broadcom’s chipset business, that “aying we refuse to license competitors is like saying McDonald’s refuses to sell hamburgers [...] It’s nuts. It’s crazy””

Qualcomm told investors in 2009: “CDMA, our central patents we're required to license them [...] we don't shut anybody out. We don't make a decision that we are going to license you and not license you because that would be discriminatory.

In 2011, Qualcomm told the U.S. FTC that the “the foundational goal of SSO RAND policies is availability of licenses necessary to practice standards. Certainly, a patent‐ holder who gives a RAND commitment gives up the right to refuse to license, or to license on exclusive terms. Further, there is little doubt that terms that do not make licenses meaningfully available to efficient implementers of the standard are not “reasonable” within the meaning of RAND”.

 

[ksec]

In court it has been established that QCOM both has given and regularly receives chip-level licenses.

IPR *percentage* is always calculated on the final product and not on component level. That is the same as everyone else ( Until Recently ) In the case where they do chip level Licenses it was more expensive than the percentage calculated, hence no one really does it.

 

[aidler]

No it didn't.

True . Must have been wishful thinking. So the iPhone 6 was the last best iPhone.