Qualcomm Now Seeks iPhone XS and iPhone XR Sales Ban in China as Legal Battle With Apple Intensifies

[Morgenland]

It's great that California companies are now fighting a bloody war.

So China no longer needs to become active in the fight against 45.
Beneficiaries of war are always the dull spirits, this time it seems that it is the lawyers.
Customers do the paying.

 

[ravenstar]

[doublepost=1544738130][/doublepost]

That's your own definition, not what industry participants, licencees and licensors, have agreed for decades. The standard is not determined by one entrant who comes late to the game and now demands to pay as little as possible.
[doublepost=1544738458][/doublepost]

Nonsense. There is nothing in FRAND about specific rates or basis being acceptable. The SSOs (standard setting organizations) are not in the business of setting rates or basis for fear of crossing path with anti-trust regulators. IEEE recently announced a policy statement on royalty basis, but it is the only exception to this.

You are correct that there are no specifics and that's why the dispute is going to court for a decision. You seem to be arguing that whatever Qualcomm dictates for fees is fair and reasonable, and that's the nonsense here. The landscape is changing and even if a particular set of terms were reasonable in the past, they are not necessarily reasonable for all time. Even arguing that everyone pays it so it must be fair is absurd in that it ignores other factors that may force participants to agree to unreasonable terms.

Hopefully the courts will decide. I don't find a license fee that's based on a percentage of the value of a final product to be a reasonable term for any license. A bolt isn't more valuable when it's used in a locomotive instead of a tinker toy. Many phones these days are much more than cellular devices. And future devices may wish to incorporate cellular technology as an enhancement to the primary function. Is it fair that Qualcomm should enforce fees against the entire device just because they're tacked on at the end?

Maybe Apple should get together with other phone manufacturers and design a cellular module that's independent of the phones. Then they could sell phones without Qualcomm technology, but offer the module for $0.01. How long do you think Qualcomm would think it's percentage licenses were fair if that happened?
[doublepost=1544796419][/doublepost]

The terms of the licensing from Qualcomm has not changed.
Apple signed the contract, so they should pay.
Qualcomm charges a percentage up to a point then it maxes out.
So Apple is posing a specious argument saying it is becoming cost prohibitive.
It is not, the percentage caps out at a phone cost of about $300 (give or take), so Qualcomm does not get more for an X vs an 8.

You can claim it's a smaller part of the phone, but without the connectivity, it's a fancy iPod touch.

The terms haven't, but the environment has changed. Terms that might have been reasonable in the past aren't necessarily now.

That you can remove the modem and still have a working device really makes the case that perhaps a percentage fee isn't a fair licensing term. I personally am not a big fan of fees for a tangible item that vary depending on the intended use of the item. I wouldn't pay more for the same ham because I was throwing a party for 50 people than I would because I was having a family dinner. Why is it reasonable for Qualcomm to charge in this way?

 

[Shiro_Simba]

Apple will cave to the Chinese government asap. Has to be the only government apple says how high, when they say jump. Shows how much $$$$$ china is worth.

Have to respect how patriotic the Chinese can be.

 

[stylinexpat]

Apple will cave to the Chinese government asap. Has to be the only government apple says how high, when they say jump. Shows how much $$$$$ china is worth.

Have to respect how patriotic the Chinese can be.

1.5 Billion people and if only half were patriotic that would almost be double the population of the US or roughly the equivalent of 4 times the amount of Trump supporters in the US.

With 4-5 times the population of the US in China, Apple can’t not afford to go around pissing off people in China. Numbers play a big role in cost when it comes to manufacturing and when numbers play a big role it has a huge affect on profit numbers. Lower cost means higher profit margins.

 

[Tech198]

Apple was always the one who stayed out of 'hot water' when it came to media..

Now, it's their turn.


When their Apple's biggest market, no bets who will win... Apple's not got gonna let this impact....

Just when Apple spent all that effort as well, getting workers into China, only now too be told different.

 

[Tec972]

For all you who think Qualcomm is the bad guy, my opinion is Apple is the bad guy. They pay less on their end to put inferior modems into their flagship devices and you the customer suffers, as they have egregiously raised prices. This equals more profit margin for them and less value for you, and you guys feel bad for Apple??? I have absolutely had nothing but bad experience since the intel modems have gone into iphones. They are complete garbage.

Qualcomm, I HOPE YOU WIN. Apple has been trying to screw its customers, because they are more concerned about their profit margin than actually putting the best components in their devices. Hope you get your ban, and Apple has to use your modems again!!

P.S. i cant believe people would feel bad for a corporation that rips people off. Not just Apple. Any of them. Most corporations rip you off, the problem is people are just used to it and accept it.