Since Apple wants a billion dollar from Qualcomm, "just pay us to stop" isn't going to happen.
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.
Qualcomm CEO Says Out of Court Settlement With Apple Could Happen
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
In that case, since Samsung is in court with Qualcomm as well for the exact same reasons as Apple, and Apple would inherit that lawsuit, there would be a good chance that Apple would have to pay Samsung :-(
Not going to happen. There are too many companies that hate Qualcomm. Apple would buy the company and the hatred against it. Very bad idea.
Last edited:
The fact that Apple no longer wants the deal with Qualcomm to be based on the price of the iPhone is an indicater that we can expect the price of the new iPhone to be quite a bit higher...
Yes, because any time you criticize another company, you need to list every single one of Apple's past "sins" or you obviously think that Apple is perfect.
He's funny. Look at what Apple has done with the Samsung battle--they won't back down. They have the money to keep the battle going until they see victory.
That's a non-sequitur. Apple wants the price to be based on the price of the bit that makes phone calls (which isn't really worth more than an old Nokia phone, say $30). Even for their cheapest phone, Apple thinks they are being charged too much. And note that Samsung agrees with them. Samsung has cheaper phones than Apple, but not $30 phones.
I think you're correct, however time will tell. This has become personal between CEO's. I don't see Timmy letting go of the neck on this one. There are many things Timmy is not. But when he smells Blood he can make SJ look passive.
Not widely known: “and after his statement, the Qualcomm CEO dropped to his knees, raised his hands toward the sky and cried out ‘please Tim I’m begging you!’”
Cute, except of course the Apple part of the opening line of your joke never happened
Only Foxconn has a license and pays Qualcomm. They were doing this for years before the iPhone came along, and that didn't change. Apple isn't charged by Qualcomm directly. They only repay Foxconn.
On the contrary, Apple and Samsung agreed to drop all non-US lawsuits three years ago.
All that was left was some years old US cases that are winding down, the most well known of which the Supreme Court not long ago sent back to a lower court to refigure the remaining payment.
IMO, Cook has an accountant type mind. He sees that making deals is smarter than rolling courtroom dice, something that has not worked out that well for Apple in the long run. A bird in the hand, etc.
Last edited:
A statement like this weakens Qualcomm's position considerably. Seems like they've admitted they aren't going to win.
Apple ought to do what they did with Imagination... take the work in-house.
Apple ought to do what they did with Imagination... take the work in-house.
Apple will "settle" for getting what they want, nothing less, I'd bet since this is about principal not money.
Qualcomm: $14B in the bank, Apple: $50B in the bank.
Long term funds: Q $14B vs A $106B.
History shows that Apple doesn't tend to file lawsuits frivolously, so between determination and resources I don't see Apple caving here, on any point, any time soon. Apple thinks they're right and they have the war chest to out-wait Qualcomm.
Qualcomm: $14B in the bank, Apple: $50B in the bank.
Long term funds: Q $14B vs A $106B.
History shows that Apple doesn't tend to file lawsuits frivolously, so between determination and resources I don't see Apple caving here, on any point, any time soon. Apple thinks they're right and they have the war chest to out-wait Qualcomm.
Will taking the work in house let them avoid tangling with Qualcomm though or just turn the heat up higher? Samsung makes its own Exynos chip which by most measures is much better than the Qualcomm Snapdragons, yet the US is stuck with Qualcomm inside while most other markets get Exynos. I'm not sure why that is. I know we have a mix of CDMA and GMS networks but is that the only reason or are there threats of lawsuits and other legal matters that keep Samsung from providing Exynos phones to carriers who have GSM networks?
I haven't lol'd in a long time. This is only about money. And Apple lawyers settle all the time.
Short term memory
Late last year Apple's lawyers claimed almost the exact same things against Nokia, e.g. patent abuse and royalties based off phone price, and then refused to pay Nokia any more royalties until a court could decide things, same as they're doing with Qualcomm.
This year Apple settled out of court with Nokia, including a large payment and royalties.
With Qualcomm though, Apple is ramping up its PR to build sentiment against them, a tactic which would not work against Nokia.
Last edited:
Hey QC, why don't you join forces with IMG and create a truly terrifying paper tiger to threaten Apple? Surely two empty lawsuits are better than one?
[doublepost=1500395324][/doublepost]
The "modern way to do business"?
I'm sorry, when was this magical time in the past when patent lawsuits were not important?
Early computer days?
TV tubes? Zworykin vs Farnsworth.
Radio? Lots of patent fights there.
Flight? Wright brothers were in constant lawsuits.
[doublepost=1500395807][/doublepost]
I haven't lol'd in a long time. This is only about money. And Apple lawyers settle all the time.
Short term memory
Late last year Apple's lawyers claimed almost the exact same things against Nokia, e.g. patent abuse and royalties based off phone price, and then refused to pay Nokia any more royalties until a court could decide things, same as they're doing with Qualcomm.
This year Apple settled out of court with Nokia, including a large payment and royalties.
With Qualcomm though, Apple is ramping up its PR to build sentiment against them, a tactic which would not work against Nokia.
You're claiming far more than is actually known. As usual the details of these settlements are confidential.
What IS known is
- Nokia will be providing certain network infrastructure product and services to Apple. Apple will resume carrying Nokia digital health products (formerly under the Withings brand) in Apple retail and online stores
AND
- Nokia will receive an up-front cash payment from Apple, with additional revenues during the term of the agreement.
The value of the agreement will be reflected partially as patent licensing net sales in Nokia Technologies and partially as net sales in other Nokia business groups.
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/05/nokia-and-apple-sign-agreement-settle-all-litigation/
Note all the wiggle room in those carefully written statements. In PARTICULAR there is room for a deal along the lines of:
Apple pays Nokia something "for patent rights"
Nokia gives Apple network equipment "at better than market prices".
Apple wins --- they don't pay any NET money.
Nokia wins --- they get to continue claiming that their patents are worth something.
This is standard for how these deals go down. The whole art is to figure out a way that lets both parties feel they didn't lose.
And your point is what exactly? What you said is a non sequitur.
[doublepost=1500396351][/doublepost]
Sure if you say so mate and in other news Satan asks Mr Plow if he can borrow a snow shovel
Erm No I think they are about right in their summary of it.
What exactly is wrong?
That Apple are accusing Qualcomm of charging them twice?
That the FTC are accusing Qualcomm of bad practises?
That Qualcomm states they should receive a % of total iPhone sale price as their tech is fundamental to how the iPhone works?
That Qualcomm therefore thinks that does not qualify as FRAND when that is what FRAND is therefore(in part)?
That Qualcomm is counter suing Apple in return for being sued ?
That all seems wrong doesn't it (end sarcasm).
[doublepost=1500396901][/doublepost]
Erm nope. I somehow doubt that Apple charges someone £699 for an iPhone 7 128gb then charges them, say, 2% of their weekly pay until £699 has been paid.
So yes. It all seems wrong. While Apple has every right to argue for lower FRAND fees, Apple overstepped their business agreements by demanding the rebate and then having their own suppliers withold their payments. Apple has now forced FoxConn and Pegatron to violate their contractual agreements (That were in place prior to the iPhone) by witholding payment, while at the same time demanding Qualcomm pay Apple directly for any fees Apple paid to Foxconn / Pegatron.
Apple might be right that the prices are too high. But Apple has basically used their size and power to extort pressure on their manufacturers to violate their contracts and break the laws. Now Apple is essentially selling their devices, using CDMA technology invented by QualComm without paying.
[doublepost=1500398424][/doublepost]
or an Olive branch to avoid years of stupidly expensive litigation.
The rebate was a contractual obligation - Qualcomm agreed to pay it. How is apple overstepping its bounds by demanding it?
According to the filing, Qualcomm never agreed to pay rebates. Qualcomm claims that any funding that they have given Apple over the years were "Qualcomm says it paid Apple in return for cooperating with engineering and development of chips and other technologies used in the iPhone." and that their agreements claim they can't sue eachother over royalties and patents.
if Qualcomm is claiming that however, I fully expect them to have legally enforceable documents claiming such.
This is how it works. Say I have a FRAND patent. I charge everyone 10 dollars a unit. But you say you won't pay that, you're a potentially huge customer and I'm afraid you'll challenge the validity of the patents. So I'm willing to accept less from you. But if I do that, then my 10 dollar rate is not sustainable - it's no longer "non discrimatory." So everyone else gets to pay less. I don't want that. So instead I say "hey, you pay 10 dollars too, but if You Agree to assist with engineering (don't worry - no work involved) we will pay you back 4 dollars a unit so you end up paying only 6."
That's what's going on here. It's an end run around ND in FRAND. But Qualcomm refused to pay because allegedly apple employees testified against Qualcomm in the Korean investigation. That's why Qualcomm doesn't want to call it a "rebate" but that's what it is.
And if they can't sue each other over patents, then why did Qualcomm just sue Apple over patents? (Not that such a clause would be legally binding anyway).