New Qualcomm Court Filing Wants iPhone Suppliers to Pay Royalties Amid Battle With Apple

[TechGeek76]

Not sure whether you cannot read, or just intentionally tweak others' words, as a arguing technique, so that you can look like a winner even if you know in your heart you were wrong.

I've said very clearly, the problem is not at whether those patents make up a core technology, it's at whether it is THE core technology, in another words, whether there are other modules of the same level of importance.

So in other words, you are trying to claim the cell technology, in a phone, isn't important. Got it.

 

[jarman92]

No double-dipping involved.

Qualcomm's directly suing the factories for not paying their contracted license fees.

QCOM is NOT suing Apple for those license fees. Instead, they're suing Apple partly to stop using their market leverage to coerce the poor factories into not paying their contracted fees.



Likewise, licensees don't get to say that they should pay only what they want.



Literally hundreds of companies have paid Qualcomm the same rates for decades. Moreover, the Chinese government (who's no pushover) just renegotiated the same rates.



Well, of course. Like every other cellular inventor, Qualcomm is charging for the use of their IP.

However, it doesn't matter who makes the chip that's using their 2G/3G/4G patents. The phone makers who USE those chips in a device all pay the same royalty rate.

In fact, in China, several other chip makers are now outselling Qualcomm because they make cheaper chips. Phone makers buy the cheaper chips, and that actually makes their Qualcomm rate less, since it helps lower the overall price of the phone.



Heck, Apple should be glad it's not calculated by profit amount, which is another legal method of licensing patents.

As for amounts, Apple wanted MORE from Samsung for three tiny pinch patents, than they're willing to pay Qualcomm for billions of dollars worth of cellular technology R&D.

Look, Apple wants a better deal, and that's okay. But they're not paying more than anyone else who's also selling high priced phones. In fact, they're paying less because they don't have a direct license but instead let Foxconn pay on the much smaller factory price.



That was the Obama administration's last minute FTC filing, apparently a parting gift to Apple. The Trump administration's new FTC Chairman says otherwise, and many observers think the filing could soon be dropped.

Is Qualcomm paying you or something? You're going to absurd lengths to defend their clearly untoward, probably illegal, anti-competitive activities. And you're being deliberately obtuse (I hope) with some of your examples.

First off, you're right that companies don't get to dictate what they want to pay; FRAND does. As I already said, Qualcomm enjoys privileged patent status in exchange for agreeing to FAIR and REASONABLE licensing terms; they clearly don't meet that standard.

Saying "Literally hundreds of companies have paid Qualcomm the same rates for decades" means nothing. Because Qualcomm has been extorting companies for decades that means they should be allowed to keep doing it? Ridiculous.

Apple sued Samsung for infringement, they did not demand royalties from them for their "pinch" patents. Apple wanted to bury Samsung, not get money from them. Either way, it's irrelevant to the Qualcomm issue.

Also you say that other chip manufacturers pay Qualcomm for their IP...so then Qualcomm turns around and demands MORE royalty payments from Apple for the chips that were paid for once already. Yeah that sounds reasonable. Maybe Qualcomm should go after you and I for just USING the phones with their patents in it! Then they can collect royalties from all 3ish billion smartphones on the planet! That's the logical conclusion of your argument.

 

[TechGeek76]

Is Qualcomm paying you or something? You're going to absurd lengths to defend their clearly untoward, probably illegal, anti-competitive activities. And you're being deliberately obtuse (I hope) with some of your examples.

First off, you're right that companies don't get to dictate what they want to pay; FRAND does. As I already said, Qualcomm enjoys privileged patent status in exchange for agreeing to FAIR and REASONABLE licensing terms; they clearly don't meet that standard.

Saying "Literally hundreds of companies have paid Qualcomm the same rates for decades" means nothing. Because Qualcomm has been extorting companies for decades that means they should be allowed to keep doing it? Ridiculous.

Apple sued Samsung for infringement, they did not demand royalties from them for their "pinch" patents. Apple wanted to bury Samsung, not get money from them. Either way, it's irrelevant to the Qualcomm issue.

Also you say that other chip manufacturers pay Qualcomm for their IP...so then Qualcomm turns around and demands MORE royalty payments from Apple for the chips that were paid for once already. Yeah that sounds reasonable. Maybe Qualcomm should go after you and I for just USING the phones with their patents in it! Then they can collect royalties from all 3ish billion smartphones on the planet! That's the logical conclusion of your argument.

And your staunchly trashing them, even as you said, "probably" commited illegal activity, why don't you wait until a decision is made? Oh right...we know.

Extorting them for decades? LOL! Now you've for sure gone off the deep end.

 

[macduke]

But this is a risky move for Apple...what's to stop Qualcomm from withholding their chips from Foxconn/Pegatron? Especially during the iPhone 8 ramp-up that would be devastating.

Apple is indeed lucky that most others do not play as nasty as they do.

Is this why Apple recently started using Intel modems as well?

 

[69Mustang]

Not sure whether you cannot read, or just intentionally tweak others' words, as a arguing technique, so that you can look like a winner even if you know in your heart you were wrong.

I've said very clearly, the problem is not at whether those patents make up a core technology, it's at whether it is THE core technology, in another words, whether there are other modules of the same level of importance.

Can't read? Why do you feel the need to make personal attacks? We're just discussing a lawsuit between corporate giants. But hey, you do you.

On the topic we're discussing, no I'm not parsing your statement. I happen to be a strong proponent of component based patent fees and component based damages related to those patent fees. My posting history backs that up. More to the point of difference we have, I disagree that the Qualcomm patents don't encompass the core tech. Without the Qualcomm tech, what exactly can you do with a smartphone?

 

[Razeus]

Every developer should be suing Apple for its ridiculous 30% cut for which Apple does minimal added value work. 10% is more reasonable. It's automated servers.

Apple charges 30% with the app is $.99 or a $1M but because they are on the other side, they think it's not fair QCOM does it.

Apple is a bully.
[doublepost=1495744624][/doublepost]

Is this why Apple recently started using Intel modems as well?

Those Intel modems suck. And Intel as to pay Qualcomm anyway.

I guess we won't be seeing 5G in iPhones until long after launch since QCOM practically owns 5G patents.

 

[apolloa]

Except that's not how the law works. Companies don't get to charge whatever they want and say "if you don't like it, don't sign it." That's why FRAND exists. Qualcomm gets priveleged status for its patents in exchange for fair royalties. Instead, they are literally extorting tech companies: if you don't pay Qualcomm exactly what they want, you get nothing and they'll sue you if you remotely infringe on their patents. Further, if you DO use Qualcomm chips you owe them royalties for those chips AND for competitors chips, as well as the screen, battery, cameras, housing, antennas, etc. that Qualcomm had nothing to do with. The fact that you're defending Qualcomm here is just ludicrous.

Also your McDonalds example is not at all relevant.
[doublepost=1495733892][/doublepost]

Yeah, it makes total sense that the company with a stranglehold on standards-essential wireless communication patents demanding exorbitant royalties from companies like Apple and Samsung leads to "cheap phones." Try to square that circle for all of us here and at the FTC as well, since they seem (correctly) to see Qualcomm's terms as extortion.

Just remember, Ericsson practically built the global network along with others like Nokia, and when Apple played dirty with the royalties it owed them, Ericsson offered for the courts to set the fair price, and Apple flately refused that! Don't go apologising for Apple in all these cases, they are out to make as much money as possible. Their is history of Apple refusing to pay, then playing dirty to get a better deal as their usual mo.

 

[Razeus]

Apple is simply trying to get a better rate for them and only them by using their market power.

 

[kdarling]

Which is exactly where the error is. The patents are the core of the cell phone communication, so it makes sense to charge a percentage of the whole device as a royalty, when the cell phone communication is single core functionality of the device. Now, if you try to use the same term against another category of device, which have multiple core functionalities, among which cell phone communication is not even the most important, then you are obviously making an unfair term.

Perhaps. If so, then the question is, how do you determine how much of a smartphone's value is because of cellular?

Many would say that it's worthless as a smartphone without cellular.

This is a totally wrong statement. The royalty is calculated against Apple's average unit sales price. That's one of reason Apple reports this data every quarter.

No sir, that is incorrect.

The royalty is paid for by Foxconn against the pre-royalty price they charge Apple (~$250), NOT against Apple's ASP (~$700). This is not only well known, it's also spelled out in the lawsuits.

That's because Apple has no license with Qualcomm. That's the whole point. Only the factories do.

First off, you're right that companies don't get to dictate what they want to pay; FRAND does. As I already said, Qualcomm enjoys privileged patent status in exchange for agreeing to FAIR and REASONABLE licensing terms; they clearly don't meet that standard.

How so? Their license terms are in line with other major cellular contributors.

Apple sued Samsung for infringement, they did not demand royalties from them for their "pinch" patents. Apple wanted to bury Samsung, not get money from them. Either way, it's irrelevant to the Qualcomm issue.

When Apple demanded money for infringement, the asking price is what Apple argued would be valid base royalty rates. That's how such awards work. So if Apple thinks a few minor patents are worth billions, then that speaks to what major patents should be worth.

Also you say that other chip manufacturers pay Qualcomm for their IP...so then Qualcomm turns around and demands MORE royalty payments from Apple for the chips that were paid for once already.

Never said anything like that.

First off, Qualcomm doesn't demand any royalties from Apple at all, since as noted several times already, Apple has no license with them.

What I said was that phone factories / makers directly pay Qualcomm the same rate for including 2G/3G/4G, no matter whose chip is used in the device.

E.g. no matter if Huawei uses a MediaTek chip, Meizu a Samsung chip, Foxconn either a Qualcomm or Intel chip in an iPhone... they all pay Qualcomm the same basic rate for the fact that any of those broadband chips (which are just processors with DSPs, after all) are all running code using Qualcomm's IP.

(The chipmakers don't pay those fees. At least not these days. When they used to be able to collect the fees, some cheated and underpaid QCOM. So QCOM decided to only deal directly with phone makers. Less paperwork and liability for the chipmakers, too.)

Think of it like this: in a PC it doesn't matter whose CPU chip you use or how much you pay for it. Microsoft Windows or other OS still costs the same. The chip isn't the important piece. The IP running on that chip, is.

Is this why Apple recently started using Intel modems as well?

I doubt that Qualcomm would cut Apple off, but Apple always wants the upper hand, along with a backup plan. And Qualcomm has the upper hand right now.

One of Apple's complaints is that Qualcomm refuses to submit to a GTAT style contract wherein they get fined like crazy if they cannot make enough chips for Apple, even though Apple wants the contract to also say that they need not buy any chips at all. I hope Intel is smart enough to avoid such a contract as well.

 

[macTW]

This all but proves they know they lost. It's a classic legal strategy - delay court conclusion as long as possible while continuing soon-to-be-banned behavior to profit.

 

[tongxinshe]

It isn't? A smart"phone" without the core cell technology is not a a phone. It's an iPod/iPad.

I never deny this part, but still, it is no longer THE ONE.

So in other words, you are trying to claim the cell technology, in a phone, isn't important. Got it.

How funny, the same "tweak" technique again. It's now SO OBVIOUS that you are not here debating to make the truth clearer, but are just here trying to earn more believer of the pre-chosen standpoint. Well, maybe at heart you yourself already know that standpoint is wrong.

Anyone with the elementary comprehension can easily see the fundamental difference between what I said and what you tweaked it into.
[doublepost=1495750324][/doublepost]

Can't read? Why do you feel the need to make personal attacks? We're just discussing a lawsuit between corporate giants. But hey, you do you.

On the topic we're discussing, no I'm not parsing your statement. I happen to be a strong proponent of component based patent fees and component based damages related to those patent fees. My posting history backs that up. More to the point of difference we have, I disagree that the Qualcomm patents don't encompass the core tech. Without the Qualcomm tech, what exactly can you do with a smartphone?

If you are really as you said, truly just trying to discuss, then please don't keep deliberately tweak your opponents' meaning, which illustrates how you want to wrongly prove an error that their original arguments didn't carry.

Repeat, in the smartphone era, although the cell technology is still a core tech of the smartphones, it's no longer the ONLY ONE, like how it was to the older dumb phones. Without the other several core technologies the smartphones possess, they wither back into dumb phones or feature phones, and worth AT MOST 1/5 value.
[doublepost=1495752411][/doublepost]

Perhaps. If so, then the question is, how do you determine how much of a smartphone's value is because of cellular?
Many would say that it's worthless as a smartphone without cellular.

All models of iPads have an option of with or without cellular support, and their sale price difference is $130. At this price difference, over 70% lean towards non-cell models, which indicates clearly most people don't think the extra $130 worth it. Although that won't be an accurate way of looking at it, it does give some picture.

In the nowadays smartphone era, several of the similarly important pieces all become essential to make the product alive / competitive on the current market, a device without any of them could all be considered worthless (hey, at least a dumb phone can never worth as much as an iPod Touch with similar spec as the latest iPhone), but one thing is clear enough that the same cell patents no longer worth the same percent of smartphone values as it of the older dumb or featured phones.

 

[69Mustang]

If you are really as you said, truly just trying to discuss, then please don't keep deliberately tweak your opponents' meaning, which illustrates how you want to wrongly prove an error that their original arguments didn't carry.

Repeat, in the smartphone era, although the cell technology is still a core tech of the smartphones, it's no longer the ONLY ONE, like how it was to the older dumb phones. Without the other several core technologies the smartphones possess, they wither back into dumb phones or feature phones, and worth AT MOST 1/5 value.

Opponent? Tweak? What the everloving heck are you talking about? Seriously. You're not an opponent. You're a participant in a discussion on an internet forum. No one's trying to win anything. As if there's something to win. Internet points maybe. The kind you can cash in for avatar badges? No one is trying to tweak your arguments either. It's called disagreeing with the points you're trying to make. To be patently clear (pun intended), you and I disagree on your premise. It's okay. I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine. That's okay too. Believe it or not, it sometimes happens in discussions.

1. Nobody is tweaking your meaning and I know what you meant. 2. I disagree with it. 3. We're not at war and you aren't an opponent. I am more than willing to continue the discussion regarding what we disagree on, but you gotta let that, that, heck I don't even know what to call it. Internet aggression? Whatever it is, just let it go. Otherwise let's just agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Kcetech1]

Repeat, in the smartphone era, although the cell technology is still a core tech of the smartphones, it's no longer the ONLY ONE, like how it was to the older dumb phones. Without the other several core technologies the smartphones possess, they wither back into dumb phones or feature phones, and worth AT MOST 1/5 value

It doesn't matter. My Husband was working with Kobo on an LTE version of one of their readers, as per licensing from all the major cellular IP holders ( Nokia, Samsung, Qualcom etc ) it don't matter if the cellular functionality is 1/10,000th of its usage or capabilities, if you incorporate Cellular data or phone capabilities to a " Device " you pay the % rate to them. lets face it an e-ink book reader would depend on cellular patents FAR less than an iPhone.

I also wonder how much of the battle over cost of patents is that the other major IP holders cross license tech and major patents to each other and Apple is still refusing to do that for a discounted price.

 

[tongxinshe]

Opponent? Tweak? What the everloving heck are you talking about? Seriously. You're not an opponent. You're a participant in a discussion on an internet forum. No one's trying to win anything. As if there's something to win. Internet points maybe. The kind you can cash in for avatar badges? No one is trying to tweak your arguments either. It's called disagreeing with the points you're trying to make. To be patently clear (pun intended), you and I disagree on your premise. It's okay. I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine. That's okay too. Believe it or not, it sometimes happens in discussions.

1. Nobody is tweaking your meaning and I know what you meant. 2. I disagree with it. 3. We're not at war and you aren't an opponent. I am more than willing to continue the discussion regarding what we disagree on, but you gotta let that, that, heck I don't even know what to call it. Internet aggression? Whatever it is, just let it go. Otherwise let's just agree to disagree and move on.

1. There is one basic requirement of a sincere discussion -- if you did something during the discussion, don't purely deny it, neither mudding it up. Let me be plain clear, the comments history showed it so clearly that how you tweaked my original meaning into a wrong statement and then criticized the wrong statement. That behavior has nothing to do with whether you agree with my opinion or not.

2. Talking about "avatar", don't assume that the forum readers are dumb enough to not see that the same person uses three "avatar" names here -- "TechGeek76", "69Mustang", "kdarling". A lesson, the next time you do sneaky things like this, A). be not so lazy, log back with the original user name who involved with the thread; B). be not so greedy, don't endorse every post of your other avatars'.

 

[69Mustang]

2. Talking about "avatar", don't assume that the forum readers are dumb enough to not see that the same person uses three "avatar" names here -- "TechGeek76", "69Mustang", "kdarling". A lesson, the next time you do sneaky things like this, A). be not so lazy, log back with the original user name who involved with the thread; B). be not so greedy, don't endorse every post of your other avatars'.

This would be hilarious if I didn't think you were serious. Since you are serious... Sweet Baby Jeebus.
@kdarling @TechGeek76 Apparently we are the same person.

 

[TechGeek76]

I never deny this part, but still, it is no longer THE ONE.


How funny, the same "tweak" technique again. It's now SO OBVIOUS that you are not here debating to make the truth clearer, but are just here trying to earn more believer of the pre-chosen standpoint. Well, maybe at heart you yourself already know that standpoint is wrong.

Anyone with the elementary comprehension can easily see the fundamental difference between what I said and what you tweaked it into.
[doublepost=1495750324][/doublepost]

If you are really as you said, truly just trying to discuss, then please don't keep deliberately tweak your opponents' meaning, which illustrates how you want to wrongly prove an error that their original arguments didn't carry.

Repeat, in the smartphone era, although the cell technology is still a core tech of the smartphones, it's no longer the ONLY ONE, like how it was to the older dumb phones. Without the other several core technologies the smartphones possess, they wither back into dumb phones or feature phones, and worth AT MOST 1/5 value.
[doublepost=1495752411][/doublepost]
All models of iPads have an option of with or without cellular support, and their sale price difference is $130. At this price difference, over 70% lean towards non-cell models, which indicates clearly most people don't think the extra $130 worth it. Although that won't be an accurate way of looking at it, it does give some picture.

In the nowadays smartphone era, several of the similarly important pieces all become essential to make the product alive / competitive on the current market, a device without any of them could all be considered worthless (hey, at least a dumb phone can never worth as much as an iPod Touch with similar spec as the latest iPhone), but one thing is clear enough that the same cell patents no longer worth the same percent of smartphone values as it of the older dumb or featured phones.

You can believe whatever floats your boat. Doesn't change the fact that a phone without cellular technology is not a phone.
[doublepost=1495758440][/doublepost]

This would be hilarious if I didn't think you were serious. Since you are serious... Sweet Baby Jeebus.
@kdarling @TechGeek76 Apparently we are the same person.

That's cute that he thinks that. I've seen many Apple apologists claim that about me numerous times over the years.
[doublepost=1495758534][/doublepost]

Talking about "avatar", don't assume that the forum readers are dumb enough to not see that the same person uses three "avatar" names here -- "TechGeek76", "69Mustang", "kdarling". A lesson, the next time you do sneaky things like this, A). be not so lazy, log back with the original user name who involved with the thread; B). be not so greedy, don't endorse every post of your other avatars'.

Assume much?
[doublepost=1495759011][/doublepost]

Opponent? Tweak? What the everloving heck are you talking about? Seriously. You're not an opponent. You're a participant in a discussion on an internet forum. No one's trying to win anything. As if there's something to win. Internet points maybe. The kind you can cash in for avatar badges? No one is trying to tweak your arguments either. It's called disagreeing with the points you're trying to make. To be patently clear (pun intended), you and I disagree on your premise. It's okay. I'm not changing your mind and you're not changing mine. That's okay too. Believe it or not, it sometimes happens in discussions.

1. Nobody is tweaking your meaning and I know what you meant. 2. I disagree with it. 3. We're not at war and you aren't an opponent. I am more than willing to continue the discussion regarding what we disagree on, but you gotta let that, that, heck I don't even know what to call it. Internet aggression? Whatever it is, just let it go. Otherwise let's just agree to disagree and move on.

They certainly have some rage going on,it's so obvious.

 

[tongxinshe]

You can believe whatever floats your boat. Doesn't change the fact that a phone without cellular technology is not a phone.

Never denied that part. All of my comments have been stating that you cannot over-emphasizing the cell technology's importance in smartphones, comparing with the dumb phones. As a result, you cannot apply the same royalty percentage that was established in the dumb phone era.

 

[TechGeek76]

Never denied that part. All of my comments have been stating that you cannot over-emphasizing the cell technology's importance in smartphones, comparing with the dumb phones. As a result, you cannot apply the same royalty percentage that was established in the dumb phone era.

It seems you still don't understand that these phones still use the technology as a core part of the PHONE. Pretty simple to understand.

 

[tongxinshe]

It seems you still don't understand that these phones still use the technology as a core part of the PHONE. Pretty simple to understand.

None of my comments indicated what you are saying. I never denied that the cell tech is still one core part of the smartphones. The real problem in the debating is, it’s amazing you keep pretending that you haven't understood what I really mean, though you’ve known it in the first moment.

To older dumb phones, the cell technology is the only one core part. To the smartphones, the cell technology is just one of several core parts. Because of this big difference, the royalty rates established for the dumb phones should never be applied to the smartphones without modification.

 

[kdarling]

2. Talking about "avatar", don't assume that the forum readers are dumb enough to not see that the same person uses three "avatar" names here -- "TechGeek76", "69Mustang", "kdarling".

lol. Well, that's a novel way of trying to explain so many opposing opinions

Sorry, but I'm not anyone else. In fact, more than a few forum readers here have personally known me for a very long time. You see, unlike the majority of people who stay anonymous, I've actually been posting online under my own name for close to 40 years.

... but one thing is clear enough that the same cell patents no longer worth the same percent of smartphone values as it of the older dumb or featured phones.

China's government seems to agree. They recently decided that Qualcomm's price based royalty rate should be applied to only 65% of each device's selling price.

However, they also decided Qualcomm's royalty rate should be 5%. Multiply those together and you still get 3.25% of device price... which is the normal Qualcomm rate that Apple complains about.

(It would be ironic if Apple, who has been getting by for cheap all these years by only paying based on a low factory price, were to somehow end up litigating themselves right into a far higher payment, assuming other countries follow China's FRAND pricing guideline for Qualcomm.)