Qualcomm Demands German Court Fine Apple for Continuing to Sell iPhones After Ban

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
7,402
8,478



Qualcomm today filed a motion calling for a German court to levy fines against Apple for not complying with a December import ban barring iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 models from being sold in Germany, reports Bloomberg.

According to Qualcomm, Apple failed to properly recall the banned iPhones from third-party sellers and continued to sell them in some Apple Stores in early January. Qualcomm in early January posted 1.34 billion euros in security bonds to enforce the ban, and Apple pulled its iPhones entirely from the country the next day.


Qualcomm general counsel Don Rosenberg said that Apple "intentionally" defied the court order and continued to sell iPhones in some stores, and that the company "obviously" doesn't consider itself "bound by the injunction."

"Significant fines must be imposed to put a check on that," he wrote in a statement to Bloomberg.

To prove Apple's non-compliance with the order, Qualcomm pointed towards a December press release that Apple has already been forced to retract. In the press release, Apple said that while the iPhone 7 and iPhone 8 models would be unavailable for purchase at its own retail stores, the devices would be available from carriers and third-party retailers.

Qualcomm and Apple have been embroiled in an increasingly tense legal battle since January 2017. Qualcomm has thus far won sales bans on older devices in China and Germany, rulings that Apple is fighting against.

Over the course of the last month, representatives from both companies were in a Northern California court for the Qualcomm v. FTC antitrust lawsuit. The FTC has accused Qualcomm of using anticompetitive tactics to remain the main supplier for baseband processors for smartphones, an argument similar to Apple's.

The Qualcomm/FTC trial wrapped up yesterday, and we are awaiting a verdict from the presiding judge, Lucy Koh, who also handled Apple v. Samsung.

Article Link: Qualcomm Demands German Court Fine Apple for Continuing to Sell iPhones After Ban
 

code-m

macrumors 68000
Apr 13, 2006
1,562
1,222
So if the lawsuit proceeds and it is found in Apples favour, does that mean QualComm pays Apple for lost sales and other revenue.

Ceasing sales of possible infringement on one or more patents should apply after a verdict, when an informed decision is made with both parties presenting evidence. Any mobiles phone is the greater of its sum, rather than individual parts. This is like saying ban iPhone sales because of a possible camera infringement.
[doublepost=1548960436][/doublepost]
Well this could end today if Apple is willing to pay up now. Just wire transfer that extra single digit percentage from their cash and that would shut Qualcomm forever. :rolleyes:
I believe it is wise not to take sides without any details released. Are you personally involved with either party to make such a decision and comment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kironin

ChrisNH

macrumors regular
Jul 21, 2008
111
59
southern New Hampshire
That's a good point about Facebook and Google. If Apple wants to play hardball about abiding by the letter of the law with those guys, it can't cry about having it done to them by Q.

I really can't envision a situation where A & Q come together in some sort of backslapping Kumbaya moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoN1NjA

code-m

macrumors 68000
Apr 13, 2006
1,562
1,222
... and these are the days of our lives.
Nature of business, nothing new. How does this affect your daily personal life, only minor if you are a shareholder and even then most are awaiting a formal trial if need be.
 

code-m

macrumors 68000
Apr 13, 2006
1,562
1,222
That's a good point about Facebook and Google. If Apple wants to play hardball about abiding by the letter of the law with those guys, it can't cry about having it done to them by Q.

I really can't envision a situation where A & Q come together in some sort of backslapping Kumbaya moment.
Are we comparing a ToS on Apples App Store for developers with the law of the land that has yet to be trialed.
[doublepost=1548960675][/doublepost]
Perhaps it is time to buy Qualcomm using the spare change in Tim’s Office couch...
Why when Apple has the talent to do it themselves, look at ARM development on the A series silicone as an example.
[doublepost=1548960874][/doublepost]
This just looks bad on Qualcomm... Jesus, how long can this go on?
QualComm to Apple we want more money compared to what we negotiate with others. Apple we will pay you the same as you charge others due to fair market value. QualComm, no you pay us more because you are Apple. Apple this settles it we will go with Intel. QualComm trying to play hardball and looses. In the end it hurts the consumer, nothing new here.
 
Last edited:

Kirkster

macrumors member
Jan 19, 2004
30
30
Are we comparing a ToS on Apples App Store for developers with the law of the law that has yet to be trialed.
[doublepost=1548960675][/doublepost]

Why when Apple has the talent to do it themselves, look at ARM development on the A series silicone as an example.
[doublepost=1548960874][/doublepost]

QualComm to Apple we want more money compared to what we negotiate with others. Apple we will pay you the same as you charge others due to fair market value. QualComm, no you pay us more because you are Apple. Apple this settles it we will go with Intel. QualComm trying to play hardball and looses. In the end it hurts the consumer, nothing new here.
True.... Its not like their newest ARM chipd are faster than Last year’s Apple A series... More to get rid of the annoyance...
 

AZ63

macrumors 6502
Aug 13, 2009
387
480
As Apple pulls away from business with Qualcomm, Q will look to inflict as much pain as possible on Apple. Q has been spurned and Q is lashing out. The moves accomplish two things, they punish Apple financially and send a message to other companies that it if they try to move away from the Q this is what will happen to them. My guess is we are anywhere from a quarter to a third of the way through this break up. Q will not go away quietly wishing Apple the best on its endeavors.
 

joueboy

macrumors 68000
Jul 3, 2008
1,580
1,514
So if the lawsuit proceeds and it is found in Apples favour, does that mean QualComm pays Apple for lost sales and other revenue.

Ceasing sales of possible infringement on one or more patents should apply after a verdict, when an informed decision is made with both parties presenting evidence. Any mobiles phone is the greater of its sum, rather than individual parts. This is like saying ban iPhone sales because of a possible camera infringement.
[doublepost=1548960436][/doublepost]

I believe it is wise not to take sides without any details released. Are you personally involved with either party to make such a decision and comment.
Nope! I wouldn't be wasting my time here posting if I work for such thing. I could do more productive somewhere else not in here if involved in decision making for a big company like Apple and Qualcomm. Sorry, bud!
 

69Mustang

macrumors 604
Jan 7, 2014
6,920
12,430
In between a rock and a hard place
... and these are the days of our lives.
Ha! My mom used to watch that soap opera religiously. Are soap operas still a thing?

So if the lawsuit proceeds and it is found in Apples favour, does that mean QualComm pays Apple for lost sales and other revenue.
I think you may be conflating the two cases. Apple already lost the German case. They are going to appeal. To enforce the ban, QC had to put up that $1.3B security bond, payable to Apple if Apple wins on appeal. So yes.

Ceasing sales of possible infringement on one or more patents should apply after a verdict, when an informed decision is made with both parties presenting evidence. Any mobiles phone is the greater of its sum, rather than individual parts. This is like saying ban iPhone sales because of a possible camera infringement.
The N. California and German cases have no bearing on each other. The ban did apply after the verdict.

Nature of business, nothing new. How does this affect your daily personal life, only minor if you are a shareholder and even then most are awaiting a formal trial if need be.
Your pragmatism kinda ruins @Skeptical.me's joke about the venerable soap opera Days of Our Lives. Knock it off. :p:D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skeptical.me

The Don Onez

macrumors member
Nov 7, 2017
57
184
Huntsville, AL
Hasn't this already been proven false. Actually was getting a steeper discount than others?
Are we comparing a ToS on Apples App Store for developers with
QualComm to Apple we want more money compared to what we negotiate with others. Apple we will pay you the same as you charge others due to fair market value. QualComm, no you pay us more because you are Apple. Apple this settles it we will go with Intel. QualComm trying to play hardball and looses. In the end it hurts the consumer, nothing new here.
 

69Mustang

macrumors 604
Jan 7, 2014
6,920
12,430
In between a rock and a hard place
If the tire party retailers purchased them before the ban, than I don’t think Qualcomm has a case?
Siri dictation? :eek::p:D
[doublepost=1548963360][/doublepost]
QualComm to Apple we want more money compared to what we negotiate with others. Apple we will pay you the same as you charge others due to fair market value. QualComm, no you pay us more because you are Apple. Apple this settles it we will go with Intel. QualComm trying to play hardball and looses. In the end it hurts the consumer, nothing new here.
Please tell me you're joking with this. Nothing you wrote is true. It doesn't even resemble anything going on in this dispute, which is sad because there's no shortage of accurate information about the issue. It's like you're trying to mimic your tagline. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pbrutto

Saipher

macrumors 6502
Oct 25, 2014
275
910
CA, USA
Apple should just offer an absurd amount of $$$$ to shareholders to buy Qualcomm, this way they would own all its patents, have more control on its supply chain, and finally end this stupid legal battle.
 

SoGood

macrumors 6502
Apr 9, 2003
402
150
Not clear on the specifics of the contention but Q certainly has chose their fight ‘well’ by winning the cases in Germany and China, both major markets in their region. What about in the US?
 

Glideslope

macrumors 603
Dec 7, 2007
6,123
3,144
A quiet place in NY.
Not clear on the specifics of the contention but Q certainly has chose their fight ‘well’ by winning the cases in Germany and China, both major markets in their region. What about in the US?
Yet China in not enforcing the ruling, as Germany is not. This is why corporations the size of Apple have lobbyists. I don’t see this going anywhere, especially in the US. QC is toast here with the FTC.

You will see continued lack of enforcement by both China and Germany. :apple:
 

duervo

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2011
2,306
1,031
Yet China in not enforcing the ruling, as Germany is not. This is why corporations the size of Apple have lobbyists. I don’t see this going anywhere, especially in the US. QC is toast here with the FTC.

You will see continued lack of enforcement by both China and Germany. :apple:
Maybe, but I’m more inclined to believe that China would be closer to enforcing the ban there if it supported their efforts with the ongoing trade war with the US.