"We'll give you a slight discount on doing business with us as long as you don't take us to court over our business practices."
Sketchy as hell, Qualcomm.
Sketchy as hell, Qualcomm.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Qualcomm Owes Apple Almost $1 Billion in Rebate Payments According to New Court Ruling
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They have brought other things partly in house, but modems don't seem like a particularly interesting area in terms of increased control or profitability. Why would you expect them to integrate these?
*real goodWill you be my first client? I promise to do law stuff really well.
They can integrate them with the other logic. For example, combining W1 with the Bluetooth stuff on the I/O chip would result in lower power devices and free up some volume. They may even be able to combine it with the logic on the A-chip. Also, of course, it would be somewhat cheaper than buying chips.
Not even close to the indoor capability of my Verizon/Qualcomm iPhone 6. My Verizon Xs phone with Intel modem does not perform as well
My max is better than the 6s it replaced. Less bars, but faster, better quality calls, equal hold ability.
[doublepost=1552674089][/doublepost]
Wait. Are you defending Qualcomm and what about those who defend Qualcomm? One would expect that those who take sides and defend their companies are called out. Not some one sided nonsense like this.
And can you prove that the latest generation of intel modems are inferior to Qualcomm modems? Or is that just the party line?
I don’t know if it’s the software or the hardware (or both), but I’m finally really loving my XS. It had some teething problems on LTE, but now it’s blazing fast. Best example:
I for one, hope Apple goes forward without ever needing Qualcomm hardware, again.
I for one, hope Apple goes forward without ever needing Qualcomm hardware, again.
Agreed. I had terrible problems at first, but after a couple OS updates it all got sorted out and now I am seeing speeds that are quite good, except weirdly in one location in Palo Alto, California (a corner of Stanford mall) where for some reason it all goes to hell even though my iPhone X and my wife’s iPhone 8 are fine there.
if your gonna compare to cars its more significant than a gear lever, perhaps the mileage it gets or maintenance, these two are something i would sell my s550 for another brand like audi or bmw.
from the times i had my "intel" iphone, the coverage was pretty mediocre, good thing i went and picked up a qualcomm iphone a month later, if there is no qualcomm alternative, well, i guess i'll have to switch to an android. the s10 can be had for 800 off ebay atm. same price as the Xr after tax.
They do. And it is the same with every single domain of computer technology. I replied to it last time. Every single company, as listed and said in the trial last month, including Samsung and Huawei has been paying the IPR and by the same rules. And yet you keep on repeating the same thing over and over again. Whether you like the idea or not is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. But that is how the rule as of now are set and played.
Apple started the fight by having suppliers withhold payments to Qualcomm.
The $1 Billion will be a wash because Apple still owes Qualcomm about a Billion in payments via suppliers of phones.
[doublepost=1552681406][/doublepost]
And apple will still be paying for SEP.
You cannot get around paying Qualcomm and others for SEP related to wireless.
[doublepost=1552681590][/doublepost]
Finally someone that understands.
[doublepost=1552681716][/doublepost]
Actually they were accused of delivering IP to Intel.
The accusation revolves around diagnostic software for modems that Qualcomm had licensed/given to Apple.
Last edited:
They don’t.
Because the law is that when you buy a product that embodies patents, patent rights in the product are exhausted. The Supreme Court said so repeatedly. For example:
“First up are the Return Program cartridges that Lexmark sold in the United States. We conclude that Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in these cartridges the moment it sold them. The single-use/no-resale restrictions in Lexmark's contracts with customers may have been clear and enforceable under contract law, but they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell.” Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1523, 1531 (2017)
“The authorized sale of an article that substantially embodies a patent exhausts the patent holder's rights and prevents the patent holder from invoking patent law to control postsale use of the article. Here, LGE licensed Intel to practice any of its patents and to sell products practicing those patents. Intel's microprocessors and chipsets substantially embodied the LGE Patents because they had no reasonable noninfringing use and included all the inventive aspects of the patented methods. Nothing in the License Agreement limited Intel's ability to sell its products practicing the LGE Patents. Intel's authorized sale to Quanta thus took its products outside the scope of the patent monopoly, and as a result, LGE can no longer assert its patent rights against Quanta.” Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, 128 S.Ct. 2109, 2122 (2008)
“The declared purpose of the patent law is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by granting to the inventor a limited monopoly, the exercise of which will enable him to secure the financial rewards for his invention. Constitution of the United States, Art. I, § 8, Cl. 8; 35 U.S.C. §§ 31, 40. The full extent of the monopoly is the patentee's ‘exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention or discovery.’ The patentee may surrender his monopoly in whole by the sale of his patent or in part by the sale of an article embodying the invention. His monopoly remains so long as he retains the ownership of the patented article. But sale of it exhausts the monopoly in that article and the patentee may not thereafter, by virtue of his patent, control the use or disposition of the article. Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 549-50; Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall. 453; Hobbie v. Jennison, 149 U.S. 355. Hence the patentee cannot control the resale price of patented articles which he has sold, either by resort to an infringement suit, or, consistently with the Sherman Act (unless the Miller-Tydings Act applies), by stipulating for price maintenance by his vendees. Bauer & Cie v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1; Boston Store v. American Graphophone Co., 246 U.S. 8; Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U.S. 490; Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436, 456-57, and cases cited.” United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241, 250 (1942)
Show me any legal precedent that says they can charge a patent license fee for products they sell.
If all it takes for you to go Android is a couple hundred bucks and marginally faster peak download speeds, have fun with that.
[doublepost=1552685341][/doublepost]
Welp, guess I missed that call.
Still, Qualcomm owes Apple $1 billion in fees, Apple owes Qualcomm $31 million in royalties. If you’re on the Apple board, gotta like that math.
Last edited:
Wrong, it takes a couple very important dropped calls that a Qualcomm iPhone would’ve picked up for me to have a very negative opinion about intel’s quality, forcing me to think about getting an android instead of staying with the apple eco system
I feel it’s ultimately about controlling the key technology powering your devices, so Apple will not find itself at the whim and mercy of third party suppliers.
Fine. Your call. My iPhone 8’s Intel XMM 7480 has been excellent, and I’m rural AT&T. We all have our own experience which creates our own bias.
Last edited:
in rural area the difference is marginal. unless you live in a forest or something, here in the city i'm surrounded by concrete buildings so having a good lte signal is pretty key.
Are you actually suggesting that it’s easier or more likely to have strong cell service in rural areas than in big cities? Before I reply to what you posted I want to be sure that’s what you’re actually stating.
Only the ones bashing apple are inventing new legal principles that don’t exist. I see only one side citing actual Supreme Court cases and laws.