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

[thisisnotmyname]

In related news, tomorrow the local car dealer will file suit against me for using my enormous market power to coerce unfair and unreasonable pricing on a car purchase.

learn to negotiate.

 

[Crzyrio]

This seems like a silly argument lol.

Apple: You are charging us unfairly for your technology

Qualcom: You would be no where without our technology

QUalcom's argument is completely irrelevant.

 

[kdarling]

I don't get what the value is in bringing this up in a lawsuit. Contributed nothing? Apple made the smartphone mainstream. Without that, Qualcomm wouldn't be selling nearly as many chips.

Smartphone sales were already on an upward trajectory. The iPhone didn't change that, it rode it.

Is Qualcomm inviting Apple to "contribute" to cellular technology? Is that really a path they want to go down?

They're probably referring to the fact that Apple always wants the same low royalty rates that other cellular contributors get... but without contributing or cross licensing anything themselves.

...If those allegations are largely true, then Qualcomm is in quite a bit of trouble. That would mean that its business model is to a great extent built on illegal (and contract violative) practices and, further...

True, various countries are belatedly trying to change the rules to benefit their home smartphone makers. But licensing by price of phone is the way virtually EVERY cellular patent has been done for decades. It allows the sale of super low profit phones to the third world, while those who make tons of money pay more.

Let's face it, Apple is not hurting for profit by any means, profit they would not have without all the decades and billions of dollars of research that other companies did.

As for license costs in general, Apple has no moral footing considering how much they wanted from Samsung and others (up to $40 a device!) to license far, far less critical patents such as the now mostly defunct slide to unlock.

Moreover, as much as Apple whinges about the way things are licensed, they should have little complaint in this case, as Apple made a deal where they don't pay according to the $650+ they actually sell phones for... but instead have Foxconn license the patents at the $240 cost of producing an iPhone in China.

Fairly recent Congressional inquiries have noted how common it is to license this way:

Along with an ITC decision stating that Apple had no reason to complain it was unusual:

Last, but not least, the DOJ ruled long ago that licensing by end product cost was okay:

 

[BuffaloTF]

Ok... so what they allege is true... they pulled back on that performance to make it match that of the Intel chip. Essentially, the goal appears to have been to release a consistent product, differentiated by CDMA availability... I don't know that this is a problem though... and drawing attention to it, it's almost like saying "hey, help me defend the monopoly we've created because Apple is diversifying it's suppliers -- how dare they!"

I mean... what if they were to win?

 

[nt5672]

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.

Apple does not do the best anymore. But they do try to hide behind the old Apple doing the best.

 

[apolloa]

No, but QC is greedy. They want to be the only player in the game and throw a fit when anyone tries to get around them. Samsung can't even use its in house SOC because of them...

I don't see them being particularly greedy, no more then you would expect. And Samsung seem to be able to sell its phones with its own SOCs in just fine? No idea what you're on about there? In some markets you can only buy some phones with their own SOCs in.

 

[Ds6778]

I don't see them being particularly greedy, no more then you would expect. And Samsung seem to be able to sell its phones with its own SOCs in just fine? No idea what you're on about there? In some markets you can only buy some phones with their own SOCs in.

http://www.androidcentral.com/qualcomm-licensing-blocked-samsung-selling-exynos-chips

Since you want to play dumb...

 

[Carnegie]

...

True, various countries are belatedly trying to change the rules to benefit their home smartphone makers. But licensing by price of phone is the way virtually EVERY cellular patent has been done for decades. It allows the sale of super low profit phones to the third world, while those who make tons of money pay more.

Let's face it, Apple is NOT hurting for profit by any means, profit they would not have without all the decades and billions of dollars of research that other companies did.

As for license costs in general, Apple has no moral footing considering how much they wanted from Samsung and others (up to $40 a device!) to license far, far less critical patents such as the now mostly defunct slide to unlock.

Moreover, as much as Apple whinges about the way things are licensed, they should have little complaint in this case, as Apple made a deal where they don't pay according to the $650+ they actually sell phones for... but instead have Foxconn license the patents at the $240 cost of producing an iPhone in China.

Fairly recent Congressional inquiries have noted how common it is to license this way:

View attachment 695766

Along with an ITC decision stating that Apple had no reason to complain it was unusual:

View attachment 695768

Last, but not least, the DOJ ruled long ago that licensing by end product cost was okay:

View attachment 695765

The factual allegations that I referenced go much further than Qualcomm requiring that license seekers agree to pay royalties based on the entire value of consumer products. I believe we've discussed those allegations elsewhere (at least I have, though I don't recall whether that was on these forums or others), so I won't (for now) go through them all here.

But addressing that allegation in particular: Yes, patentees and license seekers can agree to base royalties on the entire value of a consumer product - even when it comes to SEPs. There are some circumstances where that might be to both parties' advantage. However, it would not be FRAND terms for an SEP holder to require that a license seeker agree to pay royalties based on the entire value of consumer products in order to have a license for SEPs. Qualcomm can't, at least in the U.S. and based on the common law principles which currently apply, say to Apple that it has to pay royalties based on the entire value of iPhones or else Qualcomm won't license SEPs to Apple. There are circumstances under which a patentee might be able to do that, or under which a patentee might be awarded royalties based on the entire value of products in a patent infringement case. But those conditions aren't present in this situation, especially considering that common law principles also tell us that the valuation of SEPs is to be based on the intrinsic value of the patents and not on the value created by their inclusion in standards.

I've discussed this particular issue in other places as well, so I'd rather not get lost in it either. But the Federal Circuit has been pretty clear on this point. From LaserDynamics v Quanta Computer (2012):

We reaffirm that in any case involving multi-component products, patentees may not calculate damages based on sales of the entire product, as opposed to the smallest salable patent-practicing unit, without showing that the demand for the entire product is attributable to the patented feature.

You can also see, e.g., CSIRO v Cisco (Federal Circuit, 2015), VirnetX v Cisco (Federal Circuit, 2014), and Garretson v Clark (Supreme Court, 1884).

 

[MentalFloss]

Not buying into all this legal crap, though the intel model is crap,

Just goes to show how smart Qualcomm is and how it is about time that Apple takes them on.

Qualcomm paid for ONE single article on a website that claimed the Intel model is crap, and that article was soaked up by every mainstream publication, even though every expert in the field knew that the article was nonsense, as that blogger used an invalid radio configuration on purpose. But the damage is done, and clueless people on forums like this repeat again and again and again that the Intel model is "crap" because of that article. So of course Apple is unhappy with Qualcomm.

It's kinda like Microsoft's business practices when they were a near-monopoly - only Qualcomm is even worse.

 

[macTW]

Apple: "you breached contract. We deserve right to find new supplier."

Qualcomm: "well... if it wasn't for us, there wouldn't be a you! Accept it"

Smh lol.

 

[MH01]

Just goes to show how smart Qualcomm is and how it is about time that Apple takes them on.

Qualcomm paid for ONE single article on a website that claimed the Intel model is crap, and that article was soaked up by every mainstream publication, even though every expert in the field knew that the article was nonsense, as that blogger used an invalid radio configuration on purpose. But the damage is done, and clueless people on forums like this repeat again and again and again that the Intel model is "crap" because of that article. So of course Apple is unhappy with Qualcomm.

It's kinda like Microsoft's business practices when they were a near-monopoly - only Qualcomm is even worse.

Sorry , that is incorrect. Had you actually followed the release of the iPhone 7, it had major issues with 4G on numerous networks in EU. It was a real mess, and I could care less about some article, I tested a 6S v 7 at the same residence using the same phone provider. Intel modem is crap, from first hand experience, let me guess, you have done no testing? and are infact spreading false information that it's just the same as the competition ? Can I ask why

 

[plokoonpma]

I think that consumers care close to nothing about modem speed. It will always depends on the speed you are paying your service provider so Qualcom's argument it is totally irrelevant. Consumers care about the quality of the product, how well fit their needs and the value of such device vs cost. They just built a part and the iPhone design goes beyond a foreign part.

 

[belvdr]

No, but QC is greedy. They want to be the only player in the game and throw a fit when anyone tries to get around them. Samsung can't even use its in house SOC because of them...

I don't see them being particularly greedy, no more then you would expect. And Samsung seem to be able to sell its phones with its own SOCs in just fine? No idea what you're on about there? In some markets you can only buy some phones with their own SOCs in.

http://www.androidcentral.com/qualcomm-licensing-blocked-samsung-selling-exynos-chips

Since you want to play dumb...

Pay careful attention to the wording. Nobody is playing dumb; you're misreading or misunderstanding.

Samsung cannot sell its SoC to other manufacturers, as your article states. Samsung uses its own chip in its own phones and has for many years. That was part of the agreement between Samsung and Qualcomm.

 

[diegov12]

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]

"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 🙂

Yea, paying apple is so expensive compered to the profits I'm now making.

Help the banking cartel.

 

[Juan007]

What a bunch of scumbags. Steve Jobs spent years and billions inventing the iPhone, now Scumcomm wants to take credit!!

 

[darthbane2k]

Qualcomm has polished the cannonball for too long. Your chip is faster, but uses more energy. Intel's chip is slower, but uses less energy. Apple simply throttles Qualcomm's chip for battery life. End users see no difference and don't care how shiny Qualcomm's cannonball is, the speed is fast enough either way.

Sorry but bull!
I noticed from day one that Intel modem was trash. Any 'serious' user of the iPhone can notice the difference.

 

[MentalFloss]

Sorry , that is incorrect. Had you actually followed the release of the iPhone 7, it had major issues with 4G on numerous networks in EU. It was a real mess, and I could care less about some article, I tested a 6S v 7 at the same residence using the same phone provider. Intel modem is crap, from first hand experience, let me guess, you have done no testing? and are infact spreading false information that it's just the same as the competition ? Can I ask why

Done no testing?

Actually, that's a part of my job.

Unless you tested an Intel 7 vs a Qualcomm 7, what you are saying is pointless. So why are YOU spreading that kind of nonsensical information?

And funny that my contacts at Apple know nothing about those supposed major issues with 4G on numerous networks in the EU. Oh wait... they generally don't give a damn about rumors and urban legends.

 

[shplock]

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]

"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 🙂

Erm ACTUALLY

The Australian banks in question tried to get the courts to force Apple to allow them to essentially use their own/other's NFC offerings instead of Apple pay. This meaning that the Australian banks did not want, it appears, to pay the minuscule transaction fees imposed by Apple and instead take a cut of the action for themselves on top of what they already might make.
Apple make the iPhone, they created it. They do not have to have created or invented every part of it, I mean would you use the same logic on Microsoft?? Bill Gates did not invent Windows. He basically bought DOS from the Seattle Computer Company and then took software (legally) from Xerox called Smalltalk. He then put them together and did a bit of tweaking and hey presto Windows was born. If you look at many companies involved in tech arena, most did not create their products from scratch but they are based on a lot of other firm's/people's work. That does not invalidate the end product.
So Apple therefore have a valid product in the iPhone and they then use NFC(that they did not invent but can use the same as nay company) to create Apple pay. Apple pay being more secure and safe than plain old NFC.
I have lost track of the times I have been able to hack NFC.
Where as (as far as I know) there are only 2 people who can hack Apple pay, one is Lt Commander Data and his brother Lore(Star Trek, though pedantically they are played by the same actor but now is not the time to discuss the metaphysical construct of being and non being realities.)
So the Australian baks want to it seems decide what and how Apple should do with the product that the banks did not create or have any input over??

Sounds much like your argument towards Apple and NFC.

it is Apple's product and up to them how it is sued. Nobody is forcing the banks to use it, however if they wish to use it then they have to abide by the terms.
I mean that is like taking out a mortgage and then going to the court trying to get then to go to the bank and force them to cut the mortgage payments in half simply because I want more money each month to myself.

 

[usarioclave]

Well, you know Qualcomm is going to lose because they went all histrionic on Apple. Companies that win stick to the facts.

Guess Intel will be getting Apple's modem business from now on.

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Perhaps one should take a closer look at the claims before making a statement.

 

[rjohnstone]

Erm ACTUALLY

The Australian banks in question tried to get the courts to force Apple to allow them to essentially use their own/other's NFC offerings instead of Apple pay. This meaning that the Australian banks did not want, it appears, to pay the minuscule transaction fees imposed by Apple and instead take a cut of the action for themselves on top of what they already might make.
Apple make the iPhone, they created it. They do not have to have created or invented every part of it, I mean would you use the same logic on Microsoft?? Bill Gates did not invent Windows. He basically bought DOS from the Seattle Computer Company and then took software (legally) from Xerox called Smalltalk. He then put them together and did a bit of tweaking and hey presto Windows was born. If you look at many companies involved in tech arena, most did not create their products from scratch but they are based on a lot of other firm's/people's work. That does not invalidate the end product.
So Apple therefore have a valid product in the iPhone and they then use NFC(that they did not invent but can use the same as nay company) to create Apple pay. Apple pay being more secure and safe than plain old NFC.
I have lost track of the times I have been able to hack NFC.
Where as (as far as I know) there are only 2 people who can hack Apple pay, one is Lt Commander Data and his brother Lore(Star Trek, though pedantically they are played by the same actor but now is not the time to discuss the metaphysical construct of being and non being realities.)
So the Australian baks want to it seems decide what and how Apple should do with the product that the banks did not create or have any input over??

So what you're saying is you have no clue how Apple Pay actually works?
You appear to not understand the relationship between Apple Pay and the NFC interface.

The NFC interface in the iPhone is not tied directly to Apple Pay, it is independent of it and can be used for other functions without compromising Apple Pay. Apple simply refuses to allow third parties access to the NFC hardware and API.

And yes, the banks have input into the Apple Pay application.
The banks write the applet that Apple Pay invokes when one of the banks cards are used.

 

[Septembersrain]

I don't know but this Intel modem is horrible. Next to my 6s, it always has higher dBm. My signal is nowhere near as stable as the 6s, it's quite annoying.

I do think Apple needs to pay Qualcomm decently because they provide a very reliable and superior product. The end user doesn't want all this fracturing within components. We've seen it with Samsung VS TSMC now Intel VS Qualcomm.

 

[apolloa]

http://www.androidcentral.com/qualcomm-licensing-blocked-samsung-selling-exynos-chips

Since you want to play dumb...

I'm not playing dumb, the story you linked to was in no way what so ever how you portrayed it in your comment. Samsung not being able to sell Exynos processors, and Samsung not being able to sell Exynos processors to other manufacturers are two ENTIRELY different things!

So perhaps you should make it more clear in your post next time eh?

As for your report, well in the first sentance the word 'claimed' is present, as in not fact. And the report itself is very short.
[doublepost=1491938858][/doublepost]

Pay careful attention to the wording. Nobody is playing dumb; you're misreading or misunderstanding.

Samsung cannot sell its SoC to other manufacturers, as your article states. Samsung uses its own chip in its own phones and has for many years. That was part of the agreement between Samsung and Qualcomm.

Thank you, yes the way the comment was worded meant that Samsung could not use the Exynos SOC themselves in their own products! Not that they couldn't sell it to other manufactures.

 

[2298754]

I can't wait for Verizon to dismantle their CDMA network, so Apple and Samsung can finally give Qualcomm the boot.

Samsung can't sell their Exynos models here because they don't support CDMA.

Qualcomm is also the reason why Android performance has completely stagnated and they can't match the power of Apple's SoCs.

I'm sure Qualcomm will be begging for Apple and Samsung's business in a few years...

 

[sudo1996]

Smartphone sales were already on an upward trajectory. The iPhone didn't change that, it rode it.

No, the iPhone is what made the market. Before iPhone, smartphones were different devices entirely. Worldwide smartphone sales shot up as soon as it became popular and Android clones were made... and now there are more people with smartphones than with clean water.