The catch is that they want a percentage of the price for the complete phone. Whoever agreed to that is a total idiot or it is quite normal for phones.
So it's ok for Apple to charge it's customers 5 times more, yet when a company does the same to Apple they don't like it? Sounds like a case of double standards to me.
If you want to stay profitable it is hard to do that these days with out Apple. I think maybe that is the point of this. Having your product inside Apple devices tends to be good for the health of your stock.
Why? Apple are hardly the ONLY consumer electronics company in existence. Their are more then plenty of other avenues to make a profit from.
Not when you are in the business of LTE chips. That limits it down to a handful of companies of which Apple and Samsung have the lion's share of the market.
This little nugget explains everything "Patents controlled by Qualcomm cover the basics of all high-speed data capable mobile phone systems. It charges a percentage of the total selling price of the phone regardless of whether the device uses a Qualcomm chip or not."
I can't believe Apple went along with this- they will fight this to the end as Steve would say 'go nuclear'
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...nsing-payments-to-qualcomm-as-fight-escalates
Well when Android has a massive global market share compared to Apple, then yes I do firmly believe their are plenty of other ways to make money. And they probably won't deliberately slow down your chips performance to match that of your other supplier either.
I think the reason, in this case, is that the royalty is based on the selling price of the phones, not the price of the chips. This means the royalty cannot be automatically calculated by the chip fab. Apple likely has to report the selling price to the chip fab (information they'd rather not divulge, of course) so that the fab can then calculate the royalty. Under the circumstances it's completely understandable that the royalty would be a separate line item on the invoice.
If the royalty was a flat, per-chip percentage, then it would be this simple.
I don't know what's typical these days, though I suspect most patent holders don't have the leverage to demand royalties based on the selling price of the final goods. Apparently, Qualcomm has been particularly aggressive in exploiting its leverage. So much so, that various government agencies around the world (including the US Federal Trade Commission) have found those practices to be anti-competitive. Now, those agencies generally don't take action unless "consumers" complain to the agency. Considering how long it can take the wheels of government agencies to turn, the dispute over Qualcomm's royalty practices has probably been simmering for many years.
At the moment, yes. However, since Apple claims that Qualcomm owes them $1 billion in rebates, there's a bit of money in the bank.
Or perhaps Apple can get Qualcomm's executives arrested for withholding that $1 billion?
The reason neither side can call the police is that this is a matter of civil law (contract and or patent violations), not criminal law.
Disputes like this are always more complex than the media is able to report. Who knows who really fired the first shot? Here's my speculative "take:"
Apple enters the cell phone business as a new, small player. They don't have the leverage to demand better license terms from Qualcomm, no matter how much they dislike those terms (imagine how Steve might have felt about divulging those sales figures).
iPhone becomes a huge success, Apple gains leverage, and is not shy about applying that leverage. It begs the question, did Apple negotiate those rebates from Qualcomm, or are rebates available to any major customer? If it was a special deal with Apple, it's likely that Qualcomm hasn't been exactly happy with Apple.
One thing seems likely, which is that, if the currently-due rebate is $1 billion, the actual royalty rate per phone has to be pretty steep. Is the rebate on the sale of 100 million iPhones? 200 million? If so, that's a rebate of $5-$10 per phone. That can pay for a fair amount of component upgrades in other parts of the phone while maintaining the current price point (or, yes, more money in Apple's pocket, depending on what you think of Apple's motives).
I don't how that could be considered fair, if a product such as the $17,000 Apple Watch Gold Edition contained Qualcomm's chip, the percentage royalty would be far higher than an $50 Android phone. Mind you, this is for the same product in a different application.Let's be clear. Charging a percentage of the phone price is NORMAL for FRAND cellular patents, has been for decades, and was even approved by the DOJ at the turn of the century.
Anyway Apple is completely with in their rights to with hold payments for royalties of which the amount is not determined. That is what this story is about. If the judge rules in favor of Qualcomm then Apple will have to pay the full amount. Apple will also be assessed penalties in that case.
It probably seems like I am defending Apple but not really. Any big corporation would use the same tactics.
This is for the courts to decide. And I agree in business it's every "person" for themselves.Actually I think you'll it's not legal in the slightest because it's up to the courts and the legal case that is on going to decide, not for Apple to simply 'stop paying whilst still making personal profits of patents involved'
And this will impact all the other suppliers in this story not just Qualcomm, yeah why should Apple care who they impact no matter how innocent they are eh?
I don't how that could be considered fair, if a product such as the $17,000 Apple Watch Gold Edition contained Qualcomm's chip, the percentage royalty would be far higher than an $50 Android phone. Mind you, this is for the same product in a different application.
I don't how that could be considered fair, if a product such as the $17,000 Apple Watch Gold Edition contained Qualcomm's chip, the percentage royalty would be far higher than an $50 Android phone. Mind you, this is for the same product in a different application.
One analog that I can think of is the tires for a car, imagine if the tire manufacturers charge a feed based on the price of the car, same tire going on the wheels of different cars gets a different fee based on the pricing of the car. Would that be considered fair?
If not, what are the differences here?
You're glossing over of major differences there, comparing apples and oranges. Do you understand "FRAND"? Standards bodies, when working out something like cellphone transmission standards, will refuse to use a company's technology unless that company agrees to "Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory" licensing of said technology - they'll go with some other technology for that bit, even if it's not the best choice from a tech standpoint, because they don't want to create a situation where a company can hold everyone else (or just their competitors) hostage on royalty deals for something that is required to meet a national/international standard. Charging one company 5 times more than others for something the company has to license to meet a standard is violating FRAND. Standards are necessary for interoperability and to provide choice - imagine if Toyota cars would only run on Toyota gas, Ford cars could only drive on Ford roads, etc. Imagine if the government decided to only build Ford-branded roads and every other car company had to pay Ford whatever Ford asked in order to license the technology to drive on those roads. Standards prevent the headaches of the former case, and FRAND prevents the unfairness of the latter case.So it's ok for Apple to charge it's customers 5 times more, yet when a company does the same to Apple they don't like it? Sounds like a case of double standards to me.
Actually I think you'll it's not legal in the slightest because it's up to the courts and the legal case that is on going to decide, not for Apple to simply 'stop paying whilst still making personal profits of patents involved'
And this will impact all the other suppliers in this story not just Qualcomm, yeah why should Apple care who they impact no matter how innocent they are eh?
If it wasn't legal Apple wouldn't do it. These are after all legal maneuvers and posturing. If it was illegal Apple would be ordered to pay right now by the judge.
It might be reasonable to charge a percentage up to a certain point, or looked at the other way, a flat rate modified to roll off on the lower end for especially low-priced products. Agreed, if someone builds the components of a phone into a half-million-dollar bar of gold, it's not like that bar-of-gold-phone is going to benefit more from the radio chips that make it a phone than a $200 smartphone does.One can argue whether the percentage is too high overall. One can argue that the use of the cellular patents adds no more value to the price of an expensive phone than to a cheap one (a phone call or internet connection presumably has a similar value, regardless of whether it's made from a phone with a plastic case or solid gold). In fact, that's what's happening. This will be argued in court, and we'll see how it all turns out.
Really? Your going to say that? Apple attempted to sue Samsung based on simple scetches of oblong shapes with round corners coloured black and white, they used the colours in their arguments in court... they told Ericsson they wouldn't pay then royalties, Ericsson the company who along with a few others built invented and developed celllular networks globally, your phone is not a phone without using their tech end off......
Yeah Apple is THE VERY LAST COMPANY I would expect to abide by any laws around patents! Slide to unlock...
As I said what about the other suppliers it's now refusing to pay? Is that legal? I doubt it.. that's what the courts are for.
Nice glossing over of major differences there, comparing apples and oranges. You apparently don't understand "FRAND". Standards bodies, when working out something like cellphone transmission standards, will refuse to use a company's technology unless that company agrees to "Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory" licensing of said technology - they'll go with some other technology for that bit, even if it's not the best choice from a tech standpoint, because they don't want to create a situation where a company can hold everyone else (or just their competitors) hostage on royalty deals for something that is required to meet a national/international standard.
Charging one company 5 times more than others for something the company has to license to meet a standard is violating FRAND.
The dustup is because Qualcomm didn't pay Apple for a pre-agreed rebate, and owes them about a billion dollars. As for the Imagination Technologies situation, Apple simply let them know they are going to go their own way and let them know very well in advance, and Imagination freaked out and started accusing Apple of some kind of infringement even though nothing has happened yet, so that's their poor management.
Jay-Z? You mean Tidal, which isn't specific to Apple at all. They just want money and ownership of the content, but their business model is holding them back because, frankly, no one feels bad that these Tidal owners only have $100M in the bank instead of $102M.
FBI - Apple refused to kowtow to government overreach and provide backdoors in everyone's security just because the FBI were inept in an investigation, and refused to be drafted as an arm of law enforcement.
EU, god only know what's going on there. They are attacking Apple for a deal with one of their member states that no one complained about for 20 years.
In other words, running a huge company is complicated, but with Apple, for some reason, these very routine disputed become public spectacles because these other companies always insist on making a scene about it.
Correct. However, FRAND does not mean free. For example, the ETSI cellular stanards organization allows percentage of price royalties, and even demands for cross licensing.
You might have misunderstood what Apple said.
Qualcomm is not charging Apple five times more than they charge anyone else. In fact, as I've pointed out, Apple pays a lot less than they should because they claim that their "device price" is what they pay Foxconn for a boxed iPhone. (~$240) So Apple likely pays Qualcomm up to 3% of that, or $7 a device.
What Apple is saying is that Qualcomm's royalty rate is five times more than the rates from other companies that Apple has made a deal with. (Of course, with some companies, Apple can cross license a few minor items, but Qualcomm does not make phones and does not care about Apple UI patents.)
This is undoubtedly partly due to the fact that Qualcomm practically invented CDMA, which is used by everyone for 3G:
View attachment 697781
Look at that chart. Let's see, 340/45 = seven times as many 3G patents as the next highest member. Heck, charging ONLY five times what anyone else charges, now seems like a bargain. (Yes, there are also 4G patents, but give me a break, I'm making a point here)