Qualcomm Countersues Apple, Says iPhone Wouldn't Be Possible Without Its Technologies

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
47,091
9,075



Qualcomm today announced it has countersued Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, nearly three months after the iPhone maker sued the chipmaker for $1 billion in alleged unpaid royalty rebates. Apple also accused Qualcomm of engaging in anticompetitive licensing practices.


Qualcomm, which earlier called Apple's lawsuit "baseless," officially denied the majority of Apple's allegations, and accused the Cupertino-based company of failing to engage in good faith negotiations for a license to its 3G and 4G standard essential patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms.

The chipmaker also accused Apple of breaching its licensing agreements, making false statements, and encouraging regulatory attacks on its business in multiple countries. Qualcomm added that Apple has deliberately "chose not to utilize the full performance" of its LTE modem in its iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus.

Apple uses Intel's XMM7360 and Qualcomm's Snapdragon X12 modems for GSM and CDMA models of the iPhone 7 respectively. Independent testing last year found Qualcomm's LTE chip to significantly outperform Intel's LTE chip in the iPhone 7, but it could theoretically be even faster.

Apple, however, said there is "no discernible difference" in performance between the Qualcomm and Intel modems in any of the models.

Qualcomm said Apple's statement misrepresented the performance disparity between iPhones using its modems and those using Intel-supplied modems. Apple then allegedly threatened Qualcomm about making any public comparisons about the apparently superior performance of the Qualcomm-powered iPhones.

Qualcomm, the exclusive supplier of 3G and LTE modems for iPhones until 2016, said Apple has "launched a global attack" against its company, using its "enormous market power" to coerce unfair and unreasonable licensing terms. The chipmaker insists that it will "vigorously defend" its business model.
"Over the last ten years, Apple has played a significant role in bringing the benefits of mobile technology to consumers with its popular products and services," said Don Rosenberg, executive vice president and general counsel of Qualcomm. "But Apple could not have built the incredible iPhone franchise that has made it the most profitable company in the world, capturing over 90 percent of smartphone profits, without relying upon Qualcomm's fundamental cellular technologies. Now, after a decade of historic growth, Apple refuses to acknowledge the well established and continuing value of those technologies. It has launched a global attack on Qualcomm and is attempting to use its enormous market power to coerce unfair and unreasonable license terms from Qualcomm. We intend to vigorously defend our business model, and pursue our right to protect and receive fair value for our technological contributions to the industry."
Qualcomm said Apple "could not have built the incredible iPhone franchise" without relying upon Qualcomm's "fundamental cellular technologies." In its countersuit, Qualcomm went as far as saying Apple has "contributed virtually nothing to the development of core cellular technology."
Apple is the world's most profitable seller of cellular devices. But as a late-comer to the cellular industry, Apple contributed virtually nothing to the development of core cellular technology. Instead, Apple's products rely heavily on the cellular inventions of Qualcomm and others. Apple's iPhones and other products enjoy enormous commercial success, but without lightning-fast cellular connectivity--enabled in large part by Qualcomm's inventions--Apple's iPhones would lose much of their consumer appeal.
Qualcomm is seeking, among other things, both compensatory and punitive damages from Apple in amounts to be proven in a jury trial for "reneging on its promises in several agreements." It is also seeking to be released from any obligation to make further payments to Apple, per the court filing.

Apple for its part accused Qualcomm of using its position as the supplier of a key iPhone component to drive up patent licensing fees. In January, the Federal Trade Commission alleged that Qualcomm required Apple to exclusively use its modems from 2011 to 2016 in exchange for lower patent royalties.

Article Link: Qualcomm Countersues Apple, Says iPhone Wouldn't Be Possible Without Its Technologies
 

DeepIn2U

macrumors 603
May 30, 2002
6,366
1,811
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
using its "enormous market power" to coerce unfair and unreasonable licensing terms.

^ like this is anything unlike what Qualcomm does in the cellphone/tablet space for years? lol.

Oooooooh snap! I really am sore having to deal with a weaker Intel chip in my phone. I'd have preferred if Apple just paid for the best chip here.
Enjoy the battery life drain ... to be honest .32 seconds of 5 pages loading faster is not a significant deal in 10.3.1 ... if it was 12.1 on this older hardware at the time that OS is released it'll be significant enough you'd not care; you'd upgrade
 

tbobmccoy

macrumors 6502a
Jul 24, 2007
914
158
Austin, TX
using its "enormous market power" to coerce unfair and unreasonable licensing terms.

^ like this is anything unlike what Qualcomm does in the cellphone/tablet space for years? lol.



Enjoy the battery life drain ... to be honest .32 seconds of 5 pages loading faster is not a significant deal in 10.3.1 ... if it was 12.1 on this older hardware at the time that OS is released it'll be significant enough you'd not care; you'd upgrade
I'm still on 10.2.1. I guess I'll stick with it!
 

Quu

macrumors 68030
Apr 2, 2007
2,875
4,463
Qualcomm also said Apple has deliberately "chose not to utilize the full performance" of its LTE modem in its iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus.
However, Qualcomm said Apple misrepresented the performance disparity between iPhones using its modems and those using competitor-supplied modems.
Me no like. If this is true (which it appears to be based on third party comments) then I am very angry with Apple for gimping their phones to make Intel look good.
 

DeepIn2U

macrumors 603
May 30, 2002
6,366
1,811
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Given 2017 iPhones have pretty much been finalized at this time of the year I wonder if move to sue own customer means a design loss to Intel across the board.
something tells me Apple's counter with concerns of Battery Life will render this counter suit meaningless. I know it's not enough but hey courts, Apple, cash hordes ... you know the drill.

Honestly I think Apple looking to design their chips internally is more of a loss of Intel chips than this countersuit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FriendlyMackle

Kittenyarn

macrumors newbie
Nov 18, 2015
4
13
Funny. This is exactly what the Australian banks are so annoyed about. Apple comes in late (with apple pay in that instance) and uses its market power to bully smaller companies into giving a share of profits without taking any of the risks of developing the technologies in the first place.
 

Tycho24

Suspended
Aug 29, 2014
2,071
1,393
Florida
Funny. This is exactly what the Australian banks are so annoyed about. Apple comes in late (with apple pay in that instance) and uses its market power to bully smaller companies into giving a share of profits without taking any of the risks of developing the technologies in the first place.
Lol, really??
THAT is your take of the Australian bank situation??
Seriously? That Apple has a cockamamie half-baked insecure mobile banking solution, that it quickly jerry-rigged & threw out there... undermining the REAL technology and security innovators (a few Australian banks nobody has heard of), who put together something MUCH more secure than the secure enclave + TouchID & Apple shouldn't hold them back from making their solution the world standard.

Ummmm, ok.
 

MH01

Suspended
Feb 11, 2008
12,107
9,298
Qualcomm V Intel is why I returned my £1k + iPhone 7, my iPhone 6S got better reception (all throughout my house, while the 7 dropped out in certain rooms)

Not buying into all this legal crap, though the intel model is crap, and yes apple is lying through thier teeth if they expect us to believe that the intel model is the same as the Qualcomm. It's penny pinching crap for a very expensive phone.
[doublepost=1491891201][/doublepost]
Lol, really??
THAT is your take of the Australian bank situation??
Seriously? That Apple has a cockamamie half-baked insecure mobile banking solution, that it quickly jerry-rigged & threw out there... undermining the REAL technology and security innovators (a few Australian banks nobody has heard of), who put together something MUCH more secure than the secure enclave + TouchID & Apple shouldn't hold them back from making their solution the world standard.

Ummmm, ok.
"A few Australian banks nobody has heard of" you sound like one of those champs that think Australia is between Germany and Hungary .

We are talking about contactless tech here, though feel free to ignore the obvious here and move to goal posts to apple's implementation . The arguement is the NFC capabilities in the Apple phone that apple refuses to open up .....and it only works if you pay $$$$....cough anti competitive cough...

What exactly is your take on the Oz banking situation? Security? Maybe lack of equality / diversity ? It's a good way Tim spins facts these days :)
 

pat500000

Suspended
Jun 3, 2015
8,523
7,510
This is like mike tyson vs little mac from nes game mike tyson punch out...and someone got punched.
 

macs4nw

macrumors 601
I like Apple and I'm an Apple Shareholder.
But let's be real Apple is an 800 pound Gorilla.
Getting into bed with Apple can be hazardous to you business.
Ask Portal Player and Imagination Tech.
Without commenting on this particular case as I'm not familiar with the details, it's a known fact most large companies including Apple, no doubt use their considerable clout in a lot of instances to get what they want, and are usually (but not always i.e. AppleTv and content creators/distributors) successful with their 'persuasive' tactics.

The larger companies very well know (and count on the fact) that most smaller companies are not willing to risk losing major clients that sustain them, their businesses, and employees.

Walmart comes to mind as one of the biggest bullies suppliers have to deal with.
 

Avieshek

Suspended
Dec 7, 2013
701
1,128
India
Well, as long as it's good for the consumrs, go on.

Apple have also switched to cheaper front glass cover as used in Chinese Vivo & Oppo pre-installed tempered glass over Gorilla Glass or that could match it. Apple is using cheaper tactics in every area possible that doesn't come light to the general public. The front glass cover used in iPhone 7 is more and easily prone to scratches and is the same material that can be found with Chinese OEMs.
 

alexgowers

macrumors 65816
Jun 3, 2012
1,330
883
I'm guessing Qualcomm didn't like apple leaving them as a supplier. If they leave us, sue them and don't pay back royalty rebates says Qualcomm. While they both stink of corruption I can't help but think this tactic of legal action upon finishing up business should either be illegal or in the contract. I also dislike when a company does R&D on previous gen chips that then prevents next gen chips from being free of the previous license or patent. Any new standards should not have any patents attached unless specific to that gen of chip IMO, otherwise make patent licenses one off payments not ongoing.
 

thekeyring

macrumors 68040
Jan 5, 2012
3,441
2,075
London
With the train of thought, could Snapdragon sue all the Android phone makers? I wonder if they'd have more luck than Apple.
 

honglong1976

macrumors 65816
Jul 12, 2008
1,190
727
UK
Well, as long as it's good for the consumrs, go on.

Apple have also switched to cheaper front glass cover as used in Chinese Vivo & Oppo pre-installed tempered glass over Gorilla Glass or that could match it. Apple is using cheaper tactics in every area possible that doesn't come light to the general public. The front glass cover used in iPhone 7 is more and easily prone to scratches and is the same material that can be found with Chinese OEMs.
source?
 

apolloa

Suspended
Oct 21, 2008
12,318
7,795
Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
What are Qualcomm on about? This is just Apples regular normal way of doing business, its way to get rock bottom prices is to ridicule you and sue you and take you to court, just look at Ericsson, the company who's inventions and developments built the global mobile cellphone networks, and Apple refused to pay them to use their patents and licenses without which a cellphone is not a cellphone! All so Apple could get as cheap a deal as possible. Ericsson had to threaten them in courts around the globe to get paid!

The days of Apple ever sitting round a table and acting like grown ups to get a deal are looooonnnnggggg gone. They just play dirty dirty dirty now.

As for still claiming no difference in performance between the Intel and Qualcomm models, well I've seen it proven multiple times across the internet. So that's a blatant lie on Apples part.

And it's not as if Apple passes these cost cutting savings into its customers.. no they just pocket the extra cash themselves.

Your holding it wrong!!!!
 
Last edited: