Why not? They don’t compete. Vertical mergers tend to receive a lot less scrutiny.
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's Rumored to Debut First 5G iPhone in 2020 With Intel as Modem Supplier
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Then they would have to change the form-factor again, and they just redid it. But it makes perfect sense iPhone Original to iPhone 3G I'd consider the 1st Generation of iPhones. and iPhone 4 to 5s I would consider the second generation. The third with iPhone 6 to 8. And the third now with iPhone X, Xs and Xr. 5G is a G too soon.
That was my question - from probably an 180-degree angle. No matter, the legal answer has to be the same.
Qualcomm powers their biggest competition. It’s be anti competitive to basically wipe out the Snapdragon.
If it's not about money why are they still charging $1000+ if they include a subpar modem?
Apple has been trying with Intel as a partner. Problem is, Qualcomm is suing, claiming Apple is sharing Qualcomm’s IP with Intel. I believe Qualcomm. I suspect Apple and Intel would have to reinvent cellular radios to not infringe on existing patents.
The size of the content expands to fill the available space. I’ve seen this consistently since the days of 1200 baud modems. Also true for my waistline
I understand why Apple is giving Qualcomm the Heisman, but I hope Intel can get their act together. Will be really bummed if our reliance on Intel means iPhone users will get a crappier 5G experience.
The question now is whether we'll have wide deployment of 5G in the first place. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about the planned 28, 38 and 60 GHz frequencies for 5G deployment, particularly its medical effects on humans.
What facts are you basing this on, or is it simply your interpretation of getting the facts wrong?
Apple doesn’t claim that they don’t infringe on any patents (though they claim not to infringe certain patents). They claim:
1) it is improper to require a license fee on top of what Qualcomm charges for the chips. This is a legal principle called Patent Exhaustion - once you buy something, you are free to use it without being sued
2) when they buy chips from those other than Qualcomm, Qualcomm must license its patents on a FRAND basis, and this is violated by charging a percentage of the overall phone price.
We will see what the courts say.
The anti trust question would be “are there other alternatives in the marketplace?” If so, it might not be anti-competitive. Given Qualcomm hasn’t has, so far as I know, been accused of monopolistic practices it probably wouldn’t be a problem if Apple bought them. Apple could continue to sell modems or spin off parts of Qualcomm they didn’t want.
No one cares about 5G now or in 2020 as the infrastructure to support it won't be ready at that time. Look, even 4G is not everywhere so why the heck would we worry about 5G now? 2025 is probably the time when it might be a good idea to look around
I don’t see a problem with that. It is not unusual to have different licensing terms depending on how a product is used. Qualcomm should extract as much revenue as is possible for their product, and if their licensing terms are too onerous companies will find other suppliers.
[doublepost=1541288717][/doublepost]
No one cares about 5G now or in 2020 as the infrastructure to support it won't be ready at that time. Look, even 4G is not everywhere so why the heck would we worry about 5G now? 2025 is probably the time when it might be a good idea to look around
Since the rollout would probably focus on the highest concentration of users first it is not unreasonable to expect the rollout to start sooner rather than later. In fact, several US carriers are already planning limited rollouts in 2018 and 19 already, either as hotspots or phone services. They very well could have a significant% of their current users in5g coverage areas by 2020.
Here’s the problem. They agreed to license their patents on FRAND basis, and in reliance on that promise their ideas were incorporated into the standard. You can’t “find other suppliers” because you still have to pay Qualcomm. That’s how patents work.
So they are legally required to license their patents on a fair reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. And if you buy Qualcomm chips, the principle of patent exhaustion legally prevents them from also collecting license fees from downstream costumers like apple.
IANAL, but as I understand it PE is a common law concept similar to the doctrine of first sale, and does not prevent a company from attaching licensing terms to a sale. If Apple agrees to the terms of the sale, including licensing, they should have no recourse to change the agreement based on PE Doctrine. Apple can resellthe modems under the PE concept wherever it wants, and pay what it agreed to pay.
Isn’t FRAND applicable to a standard set by an standards setting organization, who often will not set a standard that uses patented technology unless the holder agrees to FRAND licensing? It is, as far as I know, not a law but rather an agreement amongst members of a standards organization.
Of course.
I just saw your post. If Qualcomm did indeed agree to FRAND licensing then it is different. Apple, if they buy the chips from Qualcomm is not a downstream buyer of the product but is directly agreeing to terms when they buy it as the first purchaser who then has the chips go to an assembler, who would be protected by PE.
As for FRAND, it appears to be a contract issue and not a legal requirement that would force a company to license patents on a FRAND basis simply because others adopt it as a standard, absent the patent holders agreement to FRAND licensing.
Last edited:
You are incorrect. Patent exhaustion applies whether or not the parties attempt to license around it. See, eg:
“First up are the Return Program cartridges that Lexmark sold in the United States. We conclude that Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in these cartridges the moment it sold them. The single-use/no-resale restrictions in Lexmark's contracts with customers may have been clear and enforceable under contract law, but they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell.” Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1523, 1531 (2017)
“A patentee's authority to limit licensees does not, as the Federal Circuit thought, mean that patentees can use licenses to impose post-sale restrictions on purchasers that are enforceable through the patent laws. So long as a licensee complies with the license when selling an item, the patentee has, in effect, authorized the sale. That licensee's sale is treated, for purposes of patent exhaustion, as if the patentee made the sale itself. The result: The sale exhausts the patentee's rights in that item. See Hobbie v. Jennison, 149 U.S. 355, 362-363, 13 S.Ct. 879, 37 L.Ed. 766 (1893). A license may require the licensee to impose a restriction on purchasers, like the license limiting the computer manufacturer to selling for non-commercial use by individuals. But if the licensee does so by, perhaps, having each customer sign a contract promising not to use the computers in business the sale nonetheless exhausts all patent rights in the item sold. See Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502, 506-507, 516, 37 S.Ct. 416, 61 L.Ed. 871 (1917). The purchasers might not comply with the restriction, but the only recourse for the licensee is through contract law, just as if the patentee itself sold the item with a restriction.” Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1523, 1534-1535 (2017)
[doublepost=1541291282][/doublepost]
You are also incorrect re frand. If a party had a frand obligation and sues for patent infringement, the measure of damages will be determined by applying FRAND. The court will determine a FRAND rate.
Thermal energy is radiation. Radiation doesn’t automatically mean cell damage, the energy level needs to high enough to knock electrons away from cells. Microwaves are not energetic enough.
And still sticking your head in a microwave for long enough will ensure a painful death. With zero ionizing radiation involved...
Ah, I thought you were getting mixed up. Its obvious now that you conflate ones appreciation of a device and ones appreciation of the company and its practices. Now I know why you respond to my posts in the way you do.It’s an opinion...”it seems” is an opinion.
I think Apple devices are great. I have lost my rose tinted glasses of the company though its practices of price gouging and removal of ... its a long list.
And before you think I can't afford Apple gear and that is why I winge, it is not. I just don't want to pay laptop prices for a phone. I am fortunate enough to be able to afford a new iPhone every year if I wanted, but don't see the value in doing that Annually.
Apple used to stand for the best. They probably still do. Think of it like a car maker who is taking a car model up a class level. It is obviously going to piss off those customers who like that model. The car maker will still sell a bucket load of those cars, but have alienated a generation of customers.
No legal problem. Well, it's not a legal problem when Qualcomm sues Apple and if Apple were to buy Qualcomm. It might be different if company A sued company B, driving B's share price down, and then A used the reduced share price to buy B on the cheap. But that's not the case here.
Not that I think Apple trying to buy Qualcomm would be a good idea at all.
In Lexmark, the court looked at the ability of a patent holder to limit the disposition of cartridges after the initial sale and decided it couldn’t. It did not address whether a patent holder could charge different prices on the initial sale. If Apple agreed to pay x for modems in one phone and y in another and then transferred modems at x pricing to y the question would be was that still an authorized sale and covered by patent exclusion.
A separate question is whether it was a sale or licensing of the patent. I am not saying Qualcomm can limit the resale of iPhones using their chips, but they can include terms in the initial sale requiring Apple to pay more depending on where the product is used based on the terms of the sale. Lexmark, IMHO, would be applicable if Qualcomm tried to extract a fee from a 3rd party buying and reselling iPhones, as was being done with recycled cartridges.
As for FRAND, it is a contractual issue which should be covered by state law with limited Federal jurisdiction. FRAND, as far as I can tell, is not codified into law. The question is did Qualcomm agree to FRAND.
Of course, this all has to be played out in court to decide what is really right.
A separate question is whether it was a sale or licensing of the patent. I am not saying Qualcomm can limit the resale of iPhones using their chips, but they can include terms in the initial sale requiring Apple to pay more depending on where the product is used based on the terms of the sale. Lexmark, IMHO, would be applicable if Qualcomm tried to extract a fee from a 3rd party buying and reselling iPhones, as was being done with recycled cartridges.
As for FRAND, it is a contractual issue which should be covered by state law with limited Federal jurisdiction. FRAND, as far as I can tell, is not codified into law. The question is did Qualcomm agree to FRAND.
Of course, this all has to be played out in court to decide what is really right.