Shown by whom? I hope you are not referring to that Cellularinsights article that Qualcomm probably paid really good money for and that used base station settings in its "tests" that would never occur in real life?
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
At the time of this situation could Apple have went to Intel and got all of their chips from them or was Qualcomm the only supplier that could supply Apple with the amount they wanted/needed?
It isn't. People tried when Microsoft bundled internet explorer with windows in the 90's. that set a precedent of being able to tie software to hardware.
Could I sue Comcast for forcing their flawed Xfinity interface on my cable box? Or what about the BIOS on a motherboard? Etc. etc.
The bootloader on iPhones is unlocked? That would be a prerequisite for any modding and not even all Android phones allow that.
Apart from that, a custom CPU not used on any Android phone and no open sourcing of IOS makes writing any drivers a no-no.
You can't even downgrade the version of IOS on your phone. That is how locked down the hardware and software is.
Throttling the Qualcomm modem in the iphone 7 to make it as slow as the Intel one isn't great.
Samsung S7 using the same qualcomm modem is found to be twice as fast!
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/applei...-intel-chip/amp/?client=ms-android-tmobile-gb
Samsung S7 using the same qualcomm modem is found to be twice as fast!
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/applei...-intel-chip/amp/?client=ms-android-tmobile-gb
I'm fairly certain there is a law for that somewhere and I'm pretty sure you could find a lawyer crazy enough to try.
Apple had an exclusive with AT&T for years in exchange for certain perks.
The article says Apple got a lower rate for agreeing to exclusively use Qualcomm parts. If thar's all it was, then that's just a normal price negotiation point... even for FRAND related stuff.
FRAND does not mean everyone gets the same price, but only the same set of possible contract offers depending on quantity, contract length, credit score, cross licensing, etc.
There must be something else to the story.
Last edited:
I don't see your point. Qualcomm is an American company. It's headquartered in San Diego.
CDMA is dead, anyways. It never was and never will be the global standard. So the only thing that Qualcomm does is milking the cow as long as it's alive.
The FTC is going after companies doing the same thing. Image of Apple told app developers "the fee is 30% if you submit your app on both ios and android, but we will cut the fee to 15% if you only submit it to ios." That would be the similar, and Apple is not doing that.
Also your bulk discount analogy doesn't work because the chips aren't directly related to the patents at hand. If they did, Apple wouldn't need a license at all because an implicit license would come with the chips themselves. (If i own a patent and sell a widget that practices that patent, I can't sue my customers that bought my widget for infriging my patent). Here, the patents cover processes much larger than the chips. Apple needs the license regardless of which chip supplier they go with.
Decades ago, starting with licensing to competitors such as Microsoft.
More recently, when Apple signed cross licenses with other companies such as Nokia. Moreover, HTC reportedly pays Apple about $8-10 a phone to license Apple's utility patents.
Yes, analysts are noting that this could soon blow over, as the vote was 2-1 along party lines. The two Democrats who voted for it are now on the way out, and the remaining Republican is the one who filed a strong protest.
HERE ARE THE ACCUSATIONS, in growing order of severity:
- Qualcomm extracted exclusivity from Apple in exchange for reduced patent royalties.
Supposedly Apple got a reduced price in return for only buying Qualcomm from 2011-2016. There should be nothing wrong with such an offer, and it's past history anyway.
- Qualcomm maintains a “no license, no chips” policy under which it will supply its baseband processors only on the condition that cell phone manufacturers agree to Qualcomm’s preferred license terms.
Not sure. I think this means customers could in theory have to pay more for Qualcomm's patents if they only use a competitor. However, according to the dissenting member, there's no evidence this ever happened.
- Qualcomm refuses to license standard-essential patents to competitors.
The real biggie. Normally they can't refuse to license FRAND patents. Korea's FTC has already fined Qualcomm about $900 million for doing this.
However, this is actually not unusual for these kinds of chips. Normally the end customer negotiates a license with the comunication IP owners, not through the chip maker (like Intel).
It's similar to as if you bought a processor chip from Intel, in order to build and sell a PC. You don't license Windows or Linux from the chip maker, but from the appropriate IP holder. The same usually goes for licensing 3G or LTE. It's not done through the chip maker.
Last edited:
People whose time is running out to serve in high-level positions in government do a lot of things to try to make their mark or further their agenda. It wouldn't surprise me to hear within a few weeks that the FTC is no longer pursuing this case. The "chief" I was referring to was the head of the FTC, not Barack Obama.
I never said President Obama was "omnipotent". While he does have a lot of specific powers as the President (as the pardons and commutations he authorized yesterday demonstrate), he wasn't the one who brought this case against Qualcomm. I know that. However, the head of the FTC (who Obama appointed and who is soon to be out of that job) is most certainly involved with this case.
Last edited:
Totally unrelated, but I think that URL you posted just told everyone who your phone carrier is and what kind of phone you're using? Can someone enlighten me, is that what that last string means? I don't think I've ever seen that before...
I scratched my head until I read KFTC's recent decision against Qualcomm.
https://morningconsult.com/wp-conte...er-28-2016-unofficial-english-translation.pdf
"... However, in violation of the FRAND commitment, Qualcomm refused or restricted the provision of cellular SEP licenses that are essential for the chipset manufacture and sales, despite requests from chipset makers.
Samsung, Intel, and VIA, among others, requested license agreements for cellular SEPs, but Qualcomm refused.* Qualcomm (QTL) Intel, MediaTek, Via, etc. Patent Holders Chipset Manufacturers Handset Manufacturers Samsung, Apple, LG, Huawei, etc. Conduct 1 Refusal to license/ Restricted license Qualcomm (QCT) Conduct 2 Chipset supply only to Qualcomm's licensees Use of parent company's patents Conduct 3 Comprehensive portfolio license + Unilateral transaction terms + Demand handset companies to provide their patents for free
* Determined that if Qualcomm provides licenses to competing chipset companies, it would be difficult to maintain model where Qualcomm receives royalties from handset companies
Although competing chipset companies such as MediaTek requested complete patent license agreements, the agreement entered into was an incomplete agreement* that restricts the rights subject to the license.
* Representative examples are restrictions on to whom competing chipset companies can sell or the right to use the modem chipset. Also, Qualcomm requested reports about sensitive business information such as competing chipset companies’ sales amount by product model, product model, name of customers, etc. ..."
If KFTC's finding are true, USFTC does have a compelling case here IMO. Apple's case by itself however sounds less convincing, so why not build the case around Qualcomm's competitors like MediaTek, Intel, Samsung, Via etc?
Last edited:
They did, it's just Apple blogs always frame everything as an Apple-centric issue. As you quoted, the issue is about Qualcomm's actions in licensing in general, not just to Apple.
Also, there are some "optics" issue the FTC is concerned about. Apple and Intel are beloved American companies, so this investigation is easier politically if it's framed around them. It gets press which puts pressure on Qualcomm to settle this quickly. Finally, there are some legal reasons that require you to state all possible arguments in the complaint, or else you can't raise them later.
True. Though most of their clients they license to are overseas. That was my point. But I agree, goodbye CDMA.
[doublepost=1484760853][/doublepost]
Much appreciation. Good insight, I didn't find the case study for it. Thanks!
So basically you're saying if a parent holds an industry standard piece of information, it should be made more widely available? Is there legal defining of a standard-essential patent or is that just what people end up calling certain patents that are standard and essential?
You're welcome.
It's a term of art. It basically means that an SSO (a standard setting organization) has incorporated what's covered by the patent into an industry standard (e.g. Bluetooth 4.2) and that the patent holder has agreed to license what's covered by the patent on FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) terms. What exactly FRAND terms a isn't specified, but what it means in various contexts becomes more or less accepted based on common practices and related adjudications. Typically, the leverage created by parties being able to challenge practices in courts (if parties can't reach mutual agreements) keeps respective parties honest, so to speak.
Technological standards such as Bluetooth may incorporate hundreds or thousands of patents from numerous patent holders. Industry participants work together to some extent to establish the standards and, in theory, incorporate in them methods that make for better standards. SSOs determine the specifications of those standards and thus which patents are utilized by them. If a patent holder (or an entity seeking a patent) wishes for its patents to be incorporated - e.g., because it feels that will make for a better standard or so that it can collect royalties on its patents (as they would then be essential elements of the standard) or for other reasons - it agrees to license those patents on FRAND terms and perhaps argues in favor of incorporating them. It doesn't have to do either of those things, it can reserve for itself the right to license its patents on otherwise allowable terms but that likely means its patents won't become part of the standard.
If patent holders didn't agree to licensing on FRAND terms, and those patents were incorporated into standards anyway, the system of standards would be ripe for abuse. Anyone that held a patent used in a standard - a patent that might be one of dozens or hundreds or thousands - could in effect hold the industry hostage. They could demand ridiculous licensing fees even though their patent was only a tiny piece of the standard. Under common FRAND practices, industry participants take into account things such as what percentage of a standard's patents a given patent holder owns (e.g. Qualcomm owns 14% of the patents incorporated into X standard, while Intel owns 11%, and Samsung owns 19% and so on) and, perhaps, how important respective patents are to the standard overall in determining an appropriate licensing fee for respective patent holders. An individual patent holder isn't supposed to be allowed to say, e.g., even though I only hold 12 out of the 329 patents incorporated in the standard which this Bluetooth component complies with, I'm going to demand that anyone that wants to build that component pay me $20 per unit - or, that my competitors (in building such bluetooth components) have to pay me $20 per unit while my customers (whom I build such bluetooth components for) only have to pay me 2 cents per unit.
Last edited:
Ha you got me! I have an ipad mini 2 that I'm pretty happy with though
I think it's a Google thing.
I wonder if you can sue Apple for forcing consumers to purchase a MBP when one has a hardware failure like RAM or HDD/SSD since they are not upgradable 
The dissenting Commissioner says that Qualcomm has never charged more, and thus the complaint that they "could" is moot.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/do...ualcomm_mko_dissenting_statement_17-1-17a.pdf
Right, it partly depends on the organization. The ETSI FRAND terms are simply these:
Pricing is not addressed, but it's interesting that cross licensing can be required.
Exactly, and the accepted practice for the past few decades has been that ETSI members either cross license like heck (which is something Apple hates to do), and/or they charge royalties by the price of the phone (something else that Apple hates with a passion).
Which is why this whole thing smacks of Apple. Not that it's not possibly a good idea to change the status quo. Just that Apple always wants special treatment.
I see and agree that if they are doing that it is wrong and shouldn't be allowed. But one question I do have is at the time of these events could Apple have went and got all their chips from Intel or was Qualcomm the only supplier that could supply Apple with the amount they needed?
Apple could have went and got all their chips from Intel; Qualcomm is not the only supplier. But regardless of whose chips Apple used (Intel, MediaTek, VIA, whatever) they must have licensed Qualcomm's standard essential patent portfolio.