The FTC is just trying to ram anything and everything through before the new chief takes over. Obama has been doing a ton of that today, as well.
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.
FTC Targeting Qualcomm for Forcing Apple to Use its Modems [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why would you want to ruin it? You buy it for iOS!
[doublepost=1484696813][/doublepost]
I keep seeing everyone blaming Tim. It started under Steve! Steve did away with the Xserve and called the Macs trucks. Apple since then has been slowly eroding the Mac! They want everyone to use the iPad and I personally never will. But Steve started it, Tim isn't the one to blame! Tim is just continuing on coarse as they laid out many years ago!
Translation: "We got caught red-handed, but we're going to run the clock out in the endless cycle of appeals courts until it becomes irrelevant or the penalty gets watered down to being negligible."
So Qualcomm has patents. That is anticompetitive but by design, to encourage development and incentivize companies to put millions into R&D, with the temporary monopoly to recoup losses from investments.
Why does the FTC now dislike that? Hmmm. Maybe because it thinks a US company "should" be the supplier for phones.
BS complaint.
Why does the FTC now dislike that? Hmmm. Maybe because it thinks a US company "should" be the supplier for phones.
BS complaint.
But how so? The FTC's PR doesn't seem very specific and I don't see the actual filing either.
It is entirely legal for Apple to make it incredibly difficult or impossible to use non-approved operating systems on the iPhone. It is also entirely legal for someone to find their way around those restrictions and install whatever OS they want- nobody has done so on modern iOS devices.
So basically, don't buy an iPhone if you don't want to use iOS.
Apologies to all for sidetracking. The funny thing about the iPhone? The only reason I never considered one is the limitations of iOS. My wife and oldest daughter love theirs. Me and the really smart child are Android fans. Minus the large bezels, the iPhone has attractive hardware and is very well made. It's just the OS that gets demerits from me. If Apple allowed customization, they could have possibly had 2 more sales. As long as my two ladies like it, I guess Apple will get phone sales... 'til my oldest daughter wises up.
My wife never will. But she's always, always right so it evens out.
But that happens everyday in business. The more you buy from a company the cheaper the price is. Like if you buy 1 million pens from just me I will give them to you for $.05 each. But if you only buy 500,000 from me and 500,000 from a competitor of me then I will charge you $.08 each. So you can buy 500,000 for $.08 each or 1 million for $.05 each. Every company does that. Apple also has the option not to buy from them and could of went with another company. If the FTC goes after Qualcomm then they need to go after every company that does the same thing as them.
The issue is that we're talking about standard-essential patents, not just patents. And it was, in part, Qualcomm's choice that such patents be standard-essential patents.
If you want your patents to be essential to certain industry standards (e.g., how cellular communication works), then you have to agree to license those patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms. If you don't want to do so, then you don't get to have your patents be essential to such standards. You don't get to have your patents be incorporated into standards, such that everyone in an industry has to - for all intents and purposes - use them and thereby have demand for the licensing of those patents created (or thereby gain other benefits which you perceive), and then refuse to comply with the conditions you agreed to in order to get those patents to be essential to those standards.
Qualcomm could refuse to agree to FRAND licensing terms if it wanted, and then have more onerous licensing terms for certain patents. But then others would be less likely to license those patents, at a minimum they wouldn't have to license them in order to, e.g., build and sell phones that work with modern cellular networks.
If the accusations in the complaint are true - e.g., that Qualcomm made phone manufacturers pay higher royalties if they bought baseband processors from Qualcomm's competitors rather than from Qualcomm or that Qualcomm refused to license SEP to its competitors - then it should be prevented from doing those things. Further, if those accusations are true, it will almost certainly lose this case or be forced to settle - and agree not to do such things.
Again, there is a major difference between having a patent and having a standard-essential patent. If you want the benefits of the latter, you have to accept the responsibilities and commitments that come along with it. Otherwise, having industry standards - regarding, e.g., how Bluetooth or USB or WiFi function - won't work.
[doublepost=1484703012][/doublepost]
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/170117qualcomm_redacted_complaint.pdf
Entirely legal for now. The EU may have something to say about it when they finish with Google.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/technology/google-android-lawsuit-europe/
Possibly, but I'd say the courts would distinguish between a device manufacturer and an end-user. I completely understand why Google would want a company that is promoting their operating system to do certain things Google's way- especially given the steaming piles of crap that manufacturers and carriers used to shove into Android.Entirely legal for now. The EU may have something to say about it when they finish with Google.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/20/technology/google-android-lawsuit-europe/
No, quantity discount is a very different thing. First, remember this the price of a license to the patent, not the price physical part.
Qualcomm is saying if you buy only Qualcomm chips, then the cost of our chips is $5/chip and the license costs you $50mil. If you buy Qualcomm and Intel chips, then the cost of our chips is $5/chip and the license costs you $100mil. See the difference?
Here is a simpler analogy: A publisher/store wants to buy the rights to print and sell a cookbook from an author. The author says: "If you only sell my cookbook, I will sell you the rights to my cookbook for $10,000. But if you sell another cookbook, I will sell you the rights to my cookbook for $20,000. In both cases, I will also need $2/book sold out of your profit if you sell 30/month or less, or $1/book if you sell 31/month or more."
See, one is a volume discount (permissible). Another is tieing a must-have cost to an unrelated sale (impermissible sometimes). Here, the license to the patents is not related to the Qualcomm chip. But Qualcomm is tieing them together, because it knows Apple has not choice but to buy the license regardless of who supplies the chip, so Qualcomm ties the license to the chip in an unfair way.
Name one person FORCED to use Apple? Not by a boss of a company or anything. Name one person APPLE forces to use their products.
I think the case is dumb as hell, but it's not the reason I referenced it. Apple could face the same issue because they, like Google, have free first party software and they don't even let carriers load crapware. Somebody's gonna get pissy with Apple when they're done with Google.
Yeah. I'm sure they just did this overnight.
Cases like this take months to
years to build. I'm fairly certain President Obama isn't omnipotent and isn't directing every single thing you feel qualified to comment on.
You really think they'd be taking this action if Apple hadn't been working this behind the scenes?
You can Install any OS on Apple Hardware, Apple is not forcing you to use iOS, hardware is no different from any other Android hardware, All mobile gadgets use ARM based processors, it's not like a power processor Macs of older days. Wonder why no one has developed an Android port for an iPhone,
[doublepost=1484715466][/doublepost]
Apple never bullied any other company to use their products, Apple is not a supplier so Apple can't do this, Apple does design it's eco system so that people are forced to stay in Apple eco system.
Yes I get there is a difference but what I am trying to say is couldn't the same quantity discount be given to license fees as well. Meaning if you buy 25 million chips the license fee is let's say $10mil but if you 50million or more we will lower the license fee to say $5mil. Can't they give a license fee discount if the other company was willing to buy double the amount of chips or whatever. What about if it was Apple that went to them and offered them the deal if they were given a discount on the license fees. Can't Qualcomm decide to think about it and weather to say yes or no. Also couldn't Apple have went with Intel for the chips or someone else instead of Qualcomm. They weren't forced to get them from Qualcomm. Plus Qualcomm isn't the only company doing that. Many other companies do the same thing. Isn't Apple doing the same thing by locking everything down and forcing companies to pay them a royalty/license fee to use their proprietary hardware/software. why isn't the FTC Going after all the other companies doing the same thing.
Last edited:
Charging more for less quantity is fine.
BUT
To charge more because you have gone to a competitor for some is WRONG. IT is actually Bribery which is punichable by Jail Time for the CEO of the company doing it.
Ford can produce a car that has Firestone or Goodyear tyres on it when it leaves the factory. Neither Firestone or Goodyear are allowed to specifically charge Ford more because Ford are silly enough to have a second supplier of Tyres.
Second sourcing is the name of the game in many industries. It is called hedging your bets. Overtly adding a premium to your license because you second-source is illegal.
Can you name a company and provide evidence that you're aware of that Apple has bullied into using their products?