Qualcomm Says Apple is $7 Billion Behind in Royalty Payments

Discussion in 'iOS Blog Discussion' started by MacRumors, Oct 27, 2018.

  1. MacRumors macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    Apple owes $7 billion in royalties to Qualcomm since halting payments because of its ongoing dispute with the mobile chip maker over unfair licensing practices, according to a court hearing on Friday (via Bloomberg).

    Apple began withholding the payments through its manufacturers last year, after the tech giant filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm claiming that the chipmaker was charging unfair royalties for "technologies they have nothing to do with." However, Qualcomm maintains its technology "is at the heart of every iPhone," and that the royalties are entirely valid.
    [​IMG]
    The two companies have been locked in the wide-ranging legal battle since 2017, with Apple accusing Qualcomm of unfair patent licensing practices and Qualcomm accusing Apple of patent infringement.

    Apple argues that the mobile chipmaker is forcing it to pay for the use of its chips in iPhones and then again through patent royalties, a practice Apple refers to as "double-dipping." However Qualcomm claims it is doing nothing illegal and that Apple has agreed to the business model for years.

    Both Apple and Qualcomm have filed multiple lawsuits against one another, with Qualcomm also seeking import and export bans on some iPhones in the United States and China.

    Article Link: Qualcomm Says Apple is $7 Billion Behind in Royalty Payments
     
  2. WAM2 macrumors 6502a

    WAM2

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Location:
    United States
    #2
    Not good to rely on one company to provide most of your companies income.

    If Apple is destroying their business they need a shake up at the executive level.

    I agree with Apple they are double dipping. Greedy.
     
  3. Villarrealadrian macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2016
    #3
    Well well well that is the mother debt
     
  4. Scottsoapbox macrumors 6502a

    Scottsoapbox

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2014
    #4
    $7B would certainly pay for substantial chip R&D... Sure that has nothing to do with it.
     
  5. WAM2 macrumors 6502a

    WAM2

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2011
    Location:
    United States
    #5
    haha no wonder they are stuck 2 generations of performance behind Apple now.
     
  6. keysofanxiety macrumors G3

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #6
    They don’t just rely on Apple, though. Qualcomm have an absolute monopoly on everything non-Apple. Unfortunately if you’re not looking to buy an Apple phone, the competition will only use Qualcomm chips as both CPUs and modems.

    It’s as if somebody boycotted a pop album by buying a metal album. You’re not off the grid — your money’s just going to another massive conglomerate record company instead.

    Even Samsung have identified this is a problem and are finally fully transitioning to their own SoCs.
     
  7. BMcCoy macrumors 68000

    BMcCoy

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #7
    I would hazard a guess that the situation and conflict is slightly more complex than the few paragraphs of this Bloomberg news story..
     
  8. weup togo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 6, 2016
    #8
    Apple's going to end up paying most of this out once they settle. I'm surprised at how brazen Tim has gotten about this stuff. Apple spent decades being a bully. I guess they learned the ropes.

    To be clear, **** Qualcomm. This was a ****** deal, but this isn't how you deal with these things.
     
  9. Nintendolinky macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2008
    #9
    They aren’t beginning to create their own SOCs, they have been making and using the Exynos processor for years.
    The majority of Samsung phones use their own processor it’s only a handful of countries, including the US that have the Snapdragon in Samsung phones.
     
  10. Kabeyun macrumors 68020

    Kabeyun

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2004
    Location:
    Eastern USA
  11. Delgibbons macrumors 6502a

    Delgibbons

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2016
    Location:
    London
    #11
    Qualcomm should remote disable their modems.
     
  12. GrumpyMom macrumors G3

    GrumpyMom

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
  13. RickInHouston, Oct 27, 2018
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 27, 2018

    RickInHouston macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 14, 2014
    #13
    A deal is a deal. You pay for the deal you signed. Holding back payments is chicken ****.
     
  14. AngerDanger macrumors 601

    AngerDanger

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    #14
    I'm still waiting for Apple to adapt theirs and Qualcomm's litigious relationship into some original programming! If Zack Snyder isn't busy…

    apple v qualcomm.jpg
     
  15. alexe macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2014
    #15
    I'm sure this story is more complex than this article can convey in a few paragraphs, but based on this information it doesn't seem right to me that Apple is holding back those royalties. If you enter a bad agreement, that's your own problem, you can't blame others for that. It's still an agreement and you have to honor it.
     
  16. vladi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    #16
    I have no sympathy for either. More they suffer more it will be for consumers as other options would eventually breakthrough and that's progress. This is nothing but stagnation and milking.
     
  17. shpankey macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    #17
    If you signed a contract for this deal, no matter how bad a deal it is, then you need to honor it.
     
  18. drewyboy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    #18
    A deals a deal. Pay up Apple.

    I'm sadly not surprise there are already a few people defending Apple on this.
     
  19. technole macrumors 6502

    technole

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2017
    #19
    Lol, armchair CEOs that know nothing.

    A deal is not a deal when you are getting screwed.
     
  20. MoreRumors? macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2018
    Location:
    Tim's eyeglass lens
    #20
    It's unfortunate there is dispute between the two companies as I don't see Apple will be buying anything from Qualcomm once this case is settled.

    I think you're right and ultimately the consumers will be paying for it down the road.
     
  21. GrumpyMom macrumors G3

    GrumpyMom

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    #21
    It’s a real shame. Qualcomm modems are just better, and the crippling of them that Apple did to get them to match the Intel modems was a travesty, though I understand why it was done, under the circumstances. I can’t deny what I see with my S9+ and Pixel vs my iphones. It’s definitely the consumers paying the price.

    There’s a possibility that the new Intel modems in the latest generation are finally good, but I didn’t see evidence of that in the few days that I owned a Max and had appalling connectivity issues.

    My Xr so far seems about equal to my intel 8 Plus, which is competent but not impressive. I haven’t had time to really put it through its paces yet, though.
     
  22. ios-dan macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    #22
    Contracts aren't valid if they are not legal. There have been many cases where illegal contracts have been tossed out over the years, regardless of the fact that both parties agreed to it. So, that's Apple's bet, that the contract with Qualcomm is actually illegal.

    In my readings about this case over they years, the big problem that Apple has also cited with their agreement was that chip licensing fee was a percentage of the retail price of the device being sold... which is ridiculous.

    So, the same chip - used in a $200 phone and also in a $1000 are priced completely differently. What any vendor does with Qualcomm's chips after purchase should have no bearing on the cost. Now, that's probably not illegal (and not being argued in this article) but it's certainly abusive and wrong. That's not a legal argument, of course.
     
  23. code-m, Oct 27, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2018

    code-m macrumors 65816

    code-m

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    #23
    It seems it’s a matter of principle, where Qualcomm is charging Apple royalties for items that are considered free-use (royalty-free).

    Maybe at the time the contract was signed some of these royalties were not free-use, however during the course of the contract it has to be amended to reflect this change. It is my understanding that this is the portion Apple is withholding and Qualcomm is sticking with “a contract is a contract” mindset, this seems wrong.

    If there are more details that are available, then this is my understanding of the matter.
     
  24. I7guy macrumors Core

    I7guy

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2013
    Location:
    Gotta be in it to win it
    #24
    Is the problem double-dipping or charging for items, such as gold trim, that isn’t fair and reasonable? This case has more twists and turns than a spy novel.
     
  25. Carnegie, Oct 27, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2018

    Carnegie macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #25
    To what deal or agreement are you all referring?

    That's part of the issue here. (To be clear, there are many other important aspects of this situation - many other improper or illegal or contract-violative things which Qualcomm has been accused, by numerous parties, of doing and which it has been found, by numerous regulatory bodies, to have done.) According to Apple and others, Qualcomm has long refused to enter into direct licensing agreements on FRAND terms with certain parties - to include Apple - despite the reality that it is required to do so.

    Instead, Apple had been paying royalties to Qualcomm through its contract manufacturers. Those manufacturers had licensing agreements with Qualcomm, the terms of which they weren't allowed to disclose to Apple. It was to Qualcomm's advantage to have licensing agreements with those third parties rather than with Apple directly; it was one of a number of things which Qualcomm did - many of which were illegal or contract-violative - which worked together as part of a scheme that allowed Qualcomm to collect greater royalties than it otherwise would have been able to.

    The point being, in response to your posts, Apple doesn't have a licensing agreement with Qualcomm which it is now refusing to honor. (That's leaving aside the reality that sometimes agreements are entered into under duress, where one party or the other employs illegal or contract-violative tactics in order to, essentially, force the other party to agree to certain terms.)

    Apple has had some other agreements with Qualcomm. Some of them are no longer in force. Indeed, their expiration has much to do with the timing of Apple's legal actions. But, at any rate, they weren't direct licensing agreements which Apple is now violating by withholding royalty payments.

    Further, there is nothing wrong with withholding royalty payments (for SEPs) in the absence of a licensing agreement if you have acted in good faith to try to reach one. If would-be SEP users weren't able to do that, the process for creating and adhering to industry standards (for, e.g., certain cellular technology) wouldn't work very well. SEP holders would have too much leverage, even when they were the ones acting wrongly - e.g., failing to honor their commitments to license SEP on FRAND terms. They (each of them) would be able to, in effect, shut down other industry participants. They'd be able to greatly constrain competition and demand exorbitant royalties for IP which might not have much inherent value (i.e. where the IP's value came mostly from its inclusion in industry standards, and where they aren't entitled to collect royalties based on such value). That's why SEP agreements generally limit SEP holders' abilities to take actions to stop the use of their IP, even in the absence of licensing agreements, so long as the users of their IP are willing licensees.

    Put simply, Apple will pay Qualcomm the royalties it owes when it is determined what those royalties should be. The proper royalties might be the result of, e.g., a negotiation between Apple and Qualcomm or a court's decision. They won't, e.g., be unilaterally imposed by Qualcomm. That is as it should be.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 27, 2018 ---
    That's one of the issues. But there are many more.

    If someone really wants to understand the situation well, they should probably read for themselves things such as: Court filings (from both Apple and Qualcomm and amici and those form other cases, e.g., the FTC's action against Qualcomm) and the findings of various regulatory bodies.

    Many people, of course, don't have time for that and / or don't care enough to. That's understandable. We could bullet point some of the issues, and some of us have elsewhere. But that doesn't really have a lot of value if time isn't taken to explain the various issues, why they create problems (or, e.g., are illegal or contract-violative), and how they have worked together to lead to (what many consider) improper results.
    --- Post Merged, Oct 27, 2018 ---
    Part of the reason Qualcomm's modems were, in certain cases, better was that the scheme it had put in place (which included, e.g., refusing to license to competitors in the modem market and effectively charging device makers higher royalties if they used competitors' modems) severely limited competitors' abilities to compete - to, e.g., spend money to develop competitive modems. That wasn't unintentional. Qualcomm tried to use existing market dominance to prevent competition (and, effectively, stifle innovation) and maintain dominance going forward.

    That scheme had to be broken up in order to open up competition and for, e.g., Intel to be able to justify spending the kind of money it would need to (and have real world use to guide its R&D) in order for its modems to be competitive. For all intents and purposes, that scheme has now been broken up (though we don't know what some of the fallout will look like). So, going forward, competitors' modems may well compare favorably to Qualcomms'.
     

Share This Page

128 October 27, 2018