...the minutai details of this case are fundamentally different than that of Apple v Samsung, but there are similarities in behaviour. Like the Apple v Samsung battle, Apple there claimed that due to using their technologies, Samsung should owe Apple a percentage of the total value of the phone. Similar to what QC is asking of Apple. And if QC's FRAN charges are the same percentages accross all their clients, than Apple is asking for special treatment outside of FRAND for discounts, and is witholding nearly a billion to get it (which sounds like extortion)
The minutia make all the difference, because they, and the different context make the behavior completely incomparable. Apple was asking for
Redress/Damages for Samsung continuing to sell a product that sold because it benefitted from similarities to the iPhone and alleged patent infringement that Samsung didn't acknowledge. It continued to sell and profit from the alleged infringing products while an injunction against its sale was filed and being considered.
Apple asking for damages relative to profits and total value of products does not indicate the amounts for which Apple would have
licensed use of its patents.
If Intel totally disregarded the need to license any technology from Qualcomm, and Intel went ahead and supplied chips at half the cost of Qualcomm chips, and Apple went ahead and assembled, AND Apple refused to pay any additional royalties asked of it, and nevertheless sold millions of iPhones containing said chips, then you can bet that Qualcomm would sue Apple for damages that were relative to Apple's profits and the value of all those iPhones.
Now, Apple has already
put aside, and accounts for, the amounts that Qualcomm expects under current contractural arrangements. But Apple is withholding it pending outcome of all these investigations (and there are numerous from all quarters) into Qualcomm's licensing practices.
The question here is that Apple believes that it has
already paid too much, for FRAND patents, and that Qualcomm continues to be unreasonable -- to
everyone. ...Samsung had not paid Apple
anything, for non-FRAND patents.
So many comments all the time: "Well Apple does X,Y,Z
too, such hypocrites!". If comparing X,Y,Z means you can find one little phrase or element in common (i.e.., "percentage of profit") between two otherwise wildly different scenarios that are worlds apart in terms of context and 99% of the details!
Again, the fundamentally different minutiae and details of the case you profess to recognise make all the difference about what behavior is called for or appropriate at any given time. You can't pay lip service to differing minutiae, and then say, "the resulting behavior sounds like extortion, like Apple habitually does the 'exact same thing' that it calls others out for." That's no better than making an ill-informed, inflammatory pronouncement following an extremely surface reading where you latch onto "similarities" in order to make a specious case.
And re: "Same Percentages across all their clients" : IF Qualcomm can and should continue to license FRAND technology based on percentage of costs of a unit, then perhaps there should be a standard way to figure a cost -- such as BOM, not retail price. Apple shouldn't be penalized for adding value, iterating, and innovating in all sorts of ways that mean it can maintain an industry-leading constant ASP in the face of everyone else losing money and having to offer BOGOF deals in order to shift some units languishing on shelves and in warehouses. Everyone else's failing business models and commoditized products should not penalise Apple.
[doublepost=1498121414][/doublepost]
While I do understand the difference between a FRAND issue and the voluntary use of the App Store, this is somewhat analogous to the 30% "Apple Tax" on payments for digital goods made through an app. If I buy a subscription to Microsoft Office or another vendor offering a digital good Apple is going to take its 30% vig based on the value of what I'm buying from the other company, not what Apple is contributing. Apple is essentially saying the same thing Qualcomm is, "The simple fact we facilitate the service is what makes the end product valuable. If it wasn't for us you couldn't do all the great things you do and we deserve to be compensated based on your revenue stream."
Apple is being hypocritical.
Apple is not hypocritical. This is standard procedure for any retailing. Or, do you think that Walmart, Target and every mom & pop must test, review, house and sell your product for nothing, and be forced to take it and sell it at cost regardless? Ridiculous. You could buy the same product off a market stall or the back of a lorry, but if you buy it in a shop, you can bet it will be
at least 30% more expensive. ALL sellers apply a markup, otherwise they wouldn't be in business.
Anyway, it's not the same thing at all. MS sets a retail price that it wants for its product, with the understanding that the seller retains 30% of the sale (same as for boxed versions in a physical store). That product is delivered to the end user as is, in the way that MS intends.
But, licensed technology is not a "product", not something that is
delivered (hence the markup) to the end user for use as-is. It's
incorporated into something else.
Should brick companies charge more for bricks because they are being used in mansions or palaces, instead of in hovels?
Right, let's "tax" architects right out of existence and let everyone use the same off-the-shelf plans, because "designed" homes will be completely unaffordable. No, you simply buy the amount of bricks you need at the same price per brick as everyone else; and innovate around the overall combination of materials and how they are put together, as much as you can through good design.
Similarly, you license the technology you need to incorporate into your
designed computing device, regardless of whether yours is a "mansion" and your competitor's is a "hovel".
