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

[macbeta]

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.

Not really, I wouldn't call australian banks 'smaller companies'. They are some of the most rich and profitable banks in the world. They are annoyed because they demand even more money - its about what is best for them not the customer.

 

[Carnegie]

In other Qualcomm royalty dispute news...

https://us.blackberry.com/company/newsroom/press?id=2137417

WATERLOO, ONTARIO--(April 12, 2017) - BlackBerry Limited (NASDAQ:BBRY)(TSX:BB) announced today a binding interim arbitration decision awarding BlackBerry $814,868,350.00 in royalty overpayments made to Qualcomm Incorporated. A final award including interest and reasonable attorneys' fees will be issued after a hearing on May 30, 2017.

 

[charlituna]

Apple is saying they had a contract for XYZ and one of the elements hasn't been fulfilled by Qualcomn per said contract.

Qualcomm is trying to say that they shouldn't have to honor the contract because Apple needs their tech. well yeah, that's why Apple entered into the contract

 

[mdriftmeyer]

When you open your IP to FRAND so it becomes ubiquitous you don't get to then say, ``we retroactively demand more royalties.'' You contractually signed agreements for your ASICs to be in Apple products. What's next? You plan on suing Google for ad revenue on Android?

Qualcomm will lose.

 

[kdarling]

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.

The Apple Pay fees are not miniscule. They're often greater than the actual fraud cost experienced in long term chip card countries.

More importantly, Apple does nothing to earn a fee during a transaction. They continue to act as if buyers simply rent their iPhone, and Apple can sell access to it. Another example of the customer being the product being sold.

It's as if a chip card maker wanted a cut of very purchase made on a card they manufactured. Makes no sense.

(At most, Apple should get a fee for provisioning a new card. But that should be the end of their revenue for contactless payments that they do not participate in.)

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.

"Apple Pay" is a brand name stuck on top of standard tokenized EMV contactless payments. Which are simply emulations of contactless chip cards. Apple did not invent any of the contactless payment method being used. Not the NFC, not the Secure Element, not the payment applets.

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??

Banks have paid service firms billions over decades to help create the realtime payment networks that Apple now takes advantage of. It's very similar to the way that Apple wants to ride on the back of other phone makers who helped fund the creation of the worldwide cellular network, without paying much in royalties. Can't blame Apple for trying, but can't blame the banks for refusing, either.

 

[Tech198]

"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."

I believe this..

 

[AdonisSMU]

profit margin

Tim needs to stop penny pinching. It's getting ridiculous and hurting the UX.
[doublepost=1492058034][/doublepost]

The Apple Pay fees are not miniscule. They're often greater than the actual fraud cost experienced in long term chip card countries.

More importantly, Apple does nothing to earn a fee during a transaction. They continue to act as if buyers simply rent their iPhone, and Apple can sell access to it. Another example of the customer being the product being sold.

It's as if a chip card maker wanted a cut of very purchase made on a card they manufactured. Makes no sense.

(At most, Apple should get a fee for provisioning a new card. But that should be the end of their revenue for contactless payments that they do not participate in.)



"Apple Pay" is a brand name stuck on top of standard tokenized EMV contactless payments. Which are simply emulations of contactless chip cards. Apple did not invent any of the contactless payment method being used. Not the NFC, not the Secure Element, not the payment applets.



Banks have paid service firms billions over decades to help create the realtime payment networks that Apple now takes advantage of. It's very similar to the way that Apple wants to ride on the back of other phone makers who helped fund the creation of the worldwide cellular network, without paying much in royalties. Can't blame Apple for trying, but can't blame the banks for refusing, either.

You don't know what you are talking about. Apple Pay isn't simply a branding of EMV payment system. Its Apples implementation of the EMV payment system. Its kind of like how TouchWiz is Samsungs implementation of Android.

 

[thespacekid]

I'm not sure that's a very good counter-suit strategy. Qualcomm controls the market (unfairly as Apple contends) but Apple couldn't have made an iPhone without them.

 

[rjohnstone]

You don't know what you are talking about. Apple Pay isn't simply a branding of EMV payment system. Its Apples implementation of the EMV payment system. Its kind of like how TouchWiz is Samsungs implementation of Android.

Yes, he does.
You're confusing the app (interface) with the actual implementation of the EMV standard. Apple Pay is 100% EMV compliant with current EMV standards. Apple didn't do anything new with regards to that process.
It has to follow the standard or it would not work with any card processor/issuer.
Apple Pay adds no additional functionality or security to the EMV process/transaction.
Remember, the banks, not Apple, write the secure applet that Apple Pay uses to process a transaction.
This is why you can't just add any card to Apple Pay.
The banks are also the ones who issue the card token when you register it. Apple Pay simply stores it in the secure element.

Here is Apple's support doc for merchants regarding EMV and Apple Pay.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205645

 

[2298754]

In other Qualcomm royalty dispute news...

https://us.blackberry.com/company/newsroom/press?id=2137417

Probably the most money BB has seen in years

 

[AdonisSMU]

Yes, he does.
You're confusing the app (interface) with the actual implementation of the EMV standard. Apple Pay is 100% EMV compliant with current EMV standards. Apple didn't do anything new with regards to that process.
It has to follow the standard or it would not work with any card processor/issuer.
Apple Pay adds no additional functionality or security to the EMV process/transaction.
Remember, the banks, not Apple, write the secure applet that Apple Pay uses to process a transaction.
This is why you can't just add any card to Apple Pay.
The banks are also the ones who issue the card token when you register it. Apple Pay simply stores it in the secure element.

Here is Apple's support doc for merchants regarding EMV and Apple Pay.
https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT205645

I'm not confusing anything. I'm not even talking about the app interface. You can conform to a standard without it being the same implementation. Its the same situation with browsers. They attempt to conform to the standard of what should happen but how it gets done is left up to the vendors themselves as long as it gets done.

 

[sayitaintso]

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.

MentalFloss, do you have a source for the claim that Qualcomm paid for the article that concluded that Intel's model is inferior?