Qualcomm Calls Apple's Claims 'Baseless' in Response to $1 Billion Lawsuit

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jan 21, 2017.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Following news yesterday that Apple has filed suit against LTE modem supplier Qualcomm for engaging in anticompetitive licensing practices, the chipmaker hit back on Sunday by calling Apple's claims "baseless" and accusing it of "encouraging regulatory attacks".

    Apple shared a statement with several news sites on Friday announcing the lawsuit, which argued that Qualcomm used its position as the sole supplier of a key iPhone component to drive up patent licensing fees. This morning Qualcomm responded in a statement on its website in which it claimed that Apple "intentionally mischaracterized our agreements and negotiations".

    [​IMG]

    Qualcomm was the sole supplier of LTE modems used in iPhones up until 2016, when Intel also began providing the component with the launch of the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus. Apple claims Qualcomm forced it to use the LTE chips and pay back a percentage of the selling price of the phone in return for access to its patents.

    Apple wants $1 billion in rebate payments, which were withheld by Qualcomm after Apple became involved in an antitrust investigation against the company in South Korea.

    Article Link: Qualcomm Calls Apple's Claims 'Baseless' in Response to $1 Billion Lawsuit
     
  2. ike1707 macrumors 6502

    ike1707

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
  3. chatin macrumors 6502a

    chatin

    Joined:
    May 27, 2005
    #3
    The roots of this go back to the original iPhone that was a notorious call dropper in its day. The problem then was that Apple didn't put a priority on the phone side of the device.
     
  4. Kabeyun macrumors 68000

    Kabeyun

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Location:
    Eastern USA
    #4
    Of course they did. We don't need a headline for that. Or did anyone expect them to say, "Ooh, sorry, our bad. Where's the checkbook?"

    Sometimes I thing MR actually wants ill-informed threads to spiral out of control. Here comes another one.
     
  5. Apple 26.2 macrumors 6502a

    Apple 26.2

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    What up, 212?!
    #5
    Point. Counter-point. Rinse. Repeat.

    What I want to know is, how will we, the consumers, benefit from either Apple or Qualcomm winning any law suit?
     
  6. djcerla macrumors 68000

    djcerla

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Location:
    Italy
  7. Scottsoapbox, Jan 21, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2017

    Scottsoapbox macrumors 6502a

    Scottsoapbox

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    #7
    Apple likes bullying suppliers in negotiations.
    Apple dislikes it when the supplier can bully them.
     
  8. nikon1 macrumors member

    nikon1

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2014
    Location:
    Somewhere In South Jersey
    #8

    Don't Buy Samsung!
     
  9. TheGream macrumors newbie

    TheGream

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2017
    Location:
    A land far far away
    #9
    Sounds like Trump needs to pull troops from South Korea.
    It would in a good way to end any competition against American companies and sort of force US companies to bring their manufacturing back to our soil.

    Please take this light heartedly.
     
  10. tooltalk macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2015
    Location:
    NY, NY
    #11
    a contract dispute between two US companies. It's all Koreans' fault.
     
  11. Robert.Walter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2012
    #12
    Qualcomms statement is not very original.
     
  12. Tycho24 Suspended

    Tycho24

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Location:
    Florida
    #13
    If I say: "hey, I'm getting some quotes from you AND some other guys... obviously, the one to offer best terms will get the majority of our business & the others will be our backup" is NOT bullying!! It's capitalism.
    Saying: "Hey, we charge most companies a nominal rate to use our patents... it's similar to what you're used to paying other companies; but we've got a SPECIAL, higher price for you. There's nothing you can do. You need that part." really IS bullying.
     
  13. Pike R. Alpha, Jan 21, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2017

    Pike R. Alpha macrumors 6502

    Pike R. Alpha

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2015
    Location:
    Spain
    #14
    This sums it up:

    "withholding nearly $1 billion in payments from Apple as retaliation for responding truthfully to law enforcement agencies investigating them."

    Ehm. How does that work?

    And this:

    "Despite being just one of over a dozen companies who contributed to basic cellular standards, Qualcomm insists on charging Apple at least five times more in payments than all the other cellular patent licensors we have agreements with combined."

    I wonder why Apple agreed to use it, because that is basically what you do when you use Qualcomm's LTE patented technology, and why does Apple complain afterwards? Because nobody else could deliver it (at that time)?

    If Apple pays five times more to a dozen of other patent licensors, who are they, what does Apple pay them, and are they equally important?

    I could say the same for my iPhone; I paid over five times more for content – on my iPhone – than what I paid for my iPhone. Does that mean that I paid too much for my iPhone? Maybe I should sue Apple LOL

    Edit: I did some reading up and found out that Apple apparently entered an agreement with Qualcomm; Apple paid a share per sold/produced iPhone, and Qualcomm in turn lowered their royalties. Then Apple helped investigators, and Apple said that Qualcomm wasn't happy about it and withhold nearly $1 billion in payments from Apple. Let's see what happens in court...

    I might be wrong, but I think that Intel has to pay Qualcomm for the same patent.
     
  14. macfacts macrumors 68030

    macfacts

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2012
    Location:
    Cybertron
    #15
    If you can't win in a court of law, you fight in the court of public opinion. That's why yesterday Apple "shared" their complaint with all the news agencies.
     
  15. Kaibelf Suspended

    Kaibelf

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Location:
    Silicon Valley, CA
    #16
    These lawsuits are public record, and if QC owed the money based on a contract arrangement then it's a very simple case.
     
  16. palmerc, Jan 21, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2017

    palmerc macrumors 6502

    palmerc

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #17
    I'm sure when sued for a billion dollars the accused often says, "Yeah, they're totally right. We did that. Sorry."
    --- Post Merged, Jan 21, 2017 ---
    Bold statement - You'll never see a cellular MacBook with cellular based upon LTE. Cellular exacerbates the sales problem, hurts battery life and drives up cost.

    The reason the 17" was canned in the first place was because sales were the 100s of thousands per year. Sales are heavily skewed to the smallest MacBooks.

    There are a large number of models of phone based upon https://www.apple.com/iphone/LTE/, country, specific bands and technology supported are in that list. Now, it is quite possible the larger MacBook form factor would allow for some consolidation of the number of models compared to the iPhone.

    Conclusion - If you want cellular connectivity, buy a phone and tether using USB, bluetooth or WiFi. You'll never see it in a MacBook.
     
  17. mi7chy, Jan 21, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2017

    mi7chy macrumors 603

    mi7chy

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    #18
    Tim Crook, the CEO of one the most profitable companies, doing his thing to low ball or get a free hand out from his suppliers. A company that sues others a billion dollars for petty rectangle with rounded corners but unwilling to pay Qualcomm for the engineering that goes into building the best radio technologies.
     
  18. rajat8676 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    #19
    It's pay time Qualcomm, you have looted the phone companies enough
     
  19. palmerc macrumors 6502

    palmerc

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #20
    Really? Tim Crook?

    Apple isn't alone, Qualcomm has been accused of anti-competitive practices by the FTC and if they aren't already under investigation by the EU, they soon will be.
     
  20. tooltalk macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2015
    Location:
    NY, NY
    #21
    Well, this practice has been going on for years and FTC had looked away before. I'm fairly sure that FTC's lawsuit is motivated in part by Apple. Notwithstanding Apple's ebook case, never underestimate Apple's political influence.
     
  21. Mactagonist macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Location:
    NYC - Manhattan
    #22
    The only downside I see here is that Qualcomm still has the best chips in this area. Intel isn't at their level yet.
     
  22. Kabeyun macrumors 68000

    Kabeyun

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Location:
    Eastern USA
    #23
    I think you mean: While you try to win in court you also fight in the court of public opinion. Unless you're actually saying that Apple can't win.
     
  23. mi7chy, Jan 21, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2017

    mi7chy macrumors 603

    mi7chy

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    #24
    If Apple can afford to compensate Tim Crook 135 million then they can afford to pay a fair license to compensate all the hard working Qualcomm engineers for the best radio technologies. If Apple wants to low ball or get a free handout they can continue to use Intel radios. I'm pro-consumer but between two evils and knowing that Tim Crook is an expert at low balling to bankrupt US suppliers and squander their intellectual property to make them cheaper overseas it's clear I'm going to side with the lesser evil Qualcomm. Apple need to pay up and Tim Crook should be locked up at Gitmo for being a bigger national security threat.
     
  24. apolloa macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #25
    I'm just kinda hoping for a 5" iPhone with smaller bezels...
     

Share This Page