Qualcomm Calls Tim Cook's Statement on Settlement Talks 'Misleading'

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jan 9, 2019.

  1. Michael Goff macrumors G5

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #76
    Their strategies are irrelevant compared to the idea that Qualcomm has patents where there is no way for them to not get paid. As in, there is no way to build a smartphone that doesn’t use one of the standards essential patents that Qualcomm has.
     
  2. tdream macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    #77
    Not if you don’t buy them. /points to head
    --- Post Merged, Jan 9, 2019 ---
    Apple doesn’t have to pay either. They can use different technology, yeah it won’t be as good as the latest tech, but if you want that you have to pay for it.
     
  3. YaBe macrumors 6502

    YaBe

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    #78
    No sympathy for Apple or Cook here, suck your lemon!
     
  4. tripmusic macrumors 6502

    tripmusic

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2012
    Location:
    MA
    #79
    "They charge exorbitant prices" - Cook

    Don't you just hate that Tim? - Apple user
     
  5. Abazigal macrumors G3

    Abazigal

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Location:
    Singapore
    #80
    Apples and oranges.

    Apple has no legal obligation to set their price to whatever standards though. The consumer market will figure that out. Qualcomm does have the obligation, because it has agreed to license its patents under FRAND.
     
  6. gwaizai macrumors regular

    gwaizai

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2016
    #81
    and baloney sandwiches.
    oh sorry, bologna sandwiches.
     
  7. wchigo macrumors 6502

    wchigo

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    #82
    And that's the point people have been trying to make in this thread; they DO have to pay Qualcomm no matter what technology they are using.

    It's like if you were selling hamburgers and for each burger you sold, you had to give a cut of your money to, I dunno, McDonalds. Doesn't matter if none of your ingredients came from McD, you still had to give them money. THAT is what is happening right now.
     
  8. Lone Deranger macrumors 68000

    Lone Deranger

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #83
    Less talk Tim, more action!!

    Where are the Mac Pros? Where is the charging mat? Where is the (offline) TimeCapsule replacement?
     
  9. genovelle macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #84
    Which department of Qualcomm do you work for?
     
  10. WatchFromAfar macrumors 65816

    WatchFromAfar

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2017
    #85
    That analogy doesn't work. If you are selling something (in your case hamburgers) that was patented by someone else; even though you sourced the ingredients from elsewhere, when you assemble it you are still selling hamburgers that have been patented previously.

    You don't like it? Invent something else that supersedes "hamburgers" and the market will switch if your idea is good enough.

    Or pay the people who you are basing a product off.
     
  11. Carnegie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #86
    Since you asked to be corrected, a few things:

    (1) The royalty basis (that Qualcomm has imposed and would like to continue imposing) isn't the margin. It's the device price. When it comes to Apple devices, that would mean the price that Apple pays, e.g., Foxconn. We might call it the wholesale device price.

    (2) That isn't really the main point of dispute. It's one of a number of major issues that go along with a number of lesser issues. The no-license, no chips policy, e.g., is probably as important an aspect of the situation as the royalty base is. But the list of things - which are illegal or contract violative - which Qualcomm is accused of by Apple (and numerous other industry participants as well as numerous regulatory bodies) is pretty long.

    (3) Apple hasn't "blow[n] their margins sky high." Apple's margins are similar to what they've long been. And even the higher price points for some iPhones which we've seen in the last couple of years likely wouldn't have increased Apple's royalty costs (when it comes to Qualcomm) a great deal because there's a cap on the royalty basis which Qualcomm uses.

    To the extent Qualcomm and Apple had contractual agreements which are relevant here, those agreements have expired. The expiration of certain agreements is part of why some things (in this dispute between Apple and Qualcomm) happened when they did.

    And I'd note that they never had a licensing agreement. They could never agree on terms.
     
  12. timber macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Location:
    Lisbon
    #87
    Qualcomm does make chips for watches (snapdragon wear, the best being the 3100).
     
  13. apolloa macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #88
    You need to go and brush up on what Apple tried to pull with Ericsson.. it refused to pay them, the same as with Qualcomm, Apple’s business tactics are disgraceful to be honest.
     
  14. Carnegie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #89
    I would think smart consumers would want the outcome more likely to lead to more competition - and more innovation and better performance - when it comes to modems.

    To the extent certain Qualcomm modems have been better than those of competitors, that's in large part because Qualcomm for some time used illegal and contract violative tactics to prevent competition. That stifling of the market, and of innovation, needed to be broken up. And now, it effectively has been. So going forward we're likely to get more competition and better quality modems. But in order for that to happen, a smartphone maker like Apple had to bite the bullet and do what Qualcomm had long been using extraordinary means to prevent it from doing - work worth a potential Qualcomm competitor like Intel so that Intel could devote the resources needed to develop competitive modems.
     
  15. AndyMacAndMic macrumors 6502

    AndyMacAndMic

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    #90
    How can it be Apples and oranges if no comparison is made in tripmusic's post? It is just a funny quote.
     
  16. Abazigal macrumors G3

    Abazigal

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2011
    Location:
    Singapore
    #91
    The implication was clear.
     
  17. AndyMacAndMic macrumors 6502

    AndyMacAndMic

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    #92
    No it wasn't. Don't take everything so serious.
     
  18. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #93
    Until Tim Cook decides to pack it in, and the shareholders can't convince him anymore to stay longer.

    Some people have a very warped view of things. They don't see that Tim Cook makes Apple and its shareholders tons of money.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 10, 2019 ---
    But also, if you make a buffet for 24 people including one burger, McDonald's wants the same percentage from the price of the whole buffet.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 10, 2019 ---
    The ban is on Apple Stores only. And Qualcomm had to deposit $1.5bn dollars to pay Apple for any damages if the preliminary injunction doesn't become final.
    --- Post Merged, Jan 10, 2019 ---
    Because Samsung is building their own hardware, but not allowed to sell it - if Apple succeeds, that's not only no money from Apple, but also lots of money from other phone companies going to Samsung in the future. So for Qualcomm, this is about much more than just Apple.
     
  19. szw-mapple fan macrumors 65816

    szw-mapple fan

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    #94
    Pricing of standards essential patents are regulated, which is not true for regular consumer products. Apple can charge however much they want and there would not be legal problems. The issue here is that Qualcomm could be charging too much for technologies and patents that most tech companies has to pay for, which is not true for Apple products.
     
  20. AnthonyG6, Jan 10, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019

    AnthonyG6 macrumors regular

    AnthonyG6

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    #95
    Apple should honour the existing deal it signed up to with Qualcomm until they can re-negotiate a new deal. A deal they were happy to sign at the time otherwise they wouldn't have.
    Just because Apple now finds the amount of commission payable to Qualcomm unpalatable, no less due to their own price increases on their products, it's tough sh*t!
     
  21. Carnegie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #96
    What existing deal which Apple signed up to are you referring to? Do you know about some still-in-effect agreement between Qualcomm and Apple which their attorneys are, apparently, unaware of?

    Also, how would Apple's own price increases make the royalties paid to Qualcomm (if they were currently being paid) unpalatable? Those royalties would be based on the price Apple pays for devices (to, e.g., Foxconn), not on the price Apple sells them devices for. Further, there's a cap on that royalty base.
     
  22. wondunk macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 2, 2017
  23. AnthonyG6 macrumors regular

    AnthonyG6

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2017
    #98
    From https://www.cnet.com/news/qualcomm-apple-iphone-patents-royalties-manufacturers-chips/

    "While Apple has acknowledged that payment is owed for the use of Qualcomm's valuable intellectual property, it nevertheless continues to interfere with our contracts," Don Rosenberg, executive vice president and general counsel of Qualcomm, said in a press release. "Apple has now unilaterally declared the contract terms unacceptable; the same terms that have applied to iPhones and cellular-enabled iPads for a decade. Apple's continued interference with Qualcomm's agreements to which Apple is not a party is wrongful and the latest step in Apple's global attack on Qualcomm."
     
  24. Carnegie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #99
    That carefully worded press release from Qualcomm doesn’t say that there’s still a relevant agreement in place between Apple and Qualcomm (or even that there was back in early 2017 when it was issued). It’s saying that Apple doesn’t find the terms which had previously applied acceptable.

    Even previously, Apple objected to the terms which Qualcomm unilaterally imposed. But it had little choice other than to submit to them because it otherwise wouldn’t have been able to make certain kinds of smartphones. Qualcomm had an effective monopoly on certain kinds of modems. It used that monopoly and various illegal tactics (illegal, not according to me but according to multiple regulatory bodies) to force smartphone makers to submit to Qualcomm’s improper terms (again, improper not according to me but according to various regulatory bodies and numerous industry participants).

    But, to be clear, Apple never had a licensing agreement with Qualcomm. They both acknowledge that they weren’t able to agree on terms. They did, however, have some related shot-term agreements. Those agreements have since expired. That’s part of why Apple took the actions it took when it took them. It didn’t like the terms it had been forced to agree to, but for the most part it lived with them until the relevant deals expired. Then it stopped honoring the deals which were no longer in place.

    Court filings from both Qualcomm and Apple indicate that the relevant deals between Apple and Qualcomm are no longer in effect. I’m not just speculating on that point. It’s something they agree on.
     
  25. Kabeyun, Jan 10, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2019

    Kabeyun macrumors 68000

    Kabeyun

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Location:
    Eastern USA
    #100
    This thread is simply amazing. All these people equating this issue with the idea that Apple sells relatively expensive consumer electronics, salivating at the idea that this is some sort of free market comeuppance. Once upon a time ignorance was something to be privately recognized and treated with education. Now it’s proudly displayed in the form of false equivalencies and trying to triumphantly squeeze a scenario into an irrelevant counterexample to satisfy preconceived biases. If all these Timmy-Apple-yucky-pricey posters would actually spend a few hours actually learning about the issue by reading primary sources, we’d really elevate the discussion. But no. That’s actually hard, so I don’t really expect it. Just more, “You’re a poopooface because you don’t recognize that Timmy is a poopooface.”

    It’s like a train wreck; horrifying yet somehow I can’t manage to avert my eyes.

    I must say I do appreciate the informed posts here, from those who’ve actually taken the time to learn about the case, it’s history, and its nuances. They’re pretty easy to pick out.

    *sigh*
     

Share This Page