Qualcomm Says Tech Group Supporting Apple is 'Misdirecting' ITC With 'Coordinated Effort'

[tongxinshe]

E.g. the rate is too high for us, we're only making hundreds of billions in profit, woe is us. We need even more profit margin next year or Wall Street will diss Tim Cook. Can't have that. We only want to pay what we want to. Therefore we don't think the asking rate is fair. Therefore it must not be FRAND. Therefore wanting us to pay the same rate everyone else has paid for decades

I've been following the debate very closely, but this is the first time I ever see this (anti-) logic above. Are you sure it's not your own fantasy jumped out of your own (illusional) brain (, out of anger with, say, stock market loss)?

 

[kdarling]

I've been following the debate very closely, but this is the first time I ever see this (anti-) logic above.

Don't just follow forum debates. Do lots and lots of your own reading and research. At the very least, read several of Apple's legal complaints.

Their lawyers have been using the same argument style for years, where they propose their desired solution as the only appropriate one, and then work backwards with the assumption that everything else must be illegal. Along the way they throw in all sorts of cleverly worded partial truths to add to the confusion.

Judges have called them out on this at times, telling them that they can't take just a desired supposition and use it as proof of wrongdoing.

--
A great example of their current handwaving is the neat-o phrase "no license, no chips". Since it's delivered in an accusatory way, our brain automatically assumes it must be a bad thing.

But sit back and think about what it means. It simply means that Qualcomm won't sell you their own chips unless you agree to get a license for their IP. Well, duh. Why would they sell anyone a chip to use, if that someone has no intention of also paying for the IP to run on it ?!

The supposed "evilness" of this stems from Apple's desire that chips should come with all possible IP included in their price. In reality, this is actually often not true. If I buy a CPU from Intel, it does not come with a license for Intel's realtime OS. Static IP value is separate from silicon cost.

--
Another example is all the times that Apple's lawyers have declared that companies are "refusing to offer FRAND terms", when all that really means is that they're not offering terms low enough for Apple, and therefore Apple thinks it's unfair.. even if it's the same terms everyone else pays. But it sounds so much more evil when you throw some extra words in.

Apple has accused many companies of that FRAND one, including at the least, Nokia, Samsung and Motorola. I betcha Ericsson as well.

Again, they've been called out this before in rulings, with judges noting that Apple does not get to unilaterally decide what is a fair rate or not.

--
The upshot is, Apple's lawyers love creating clever sound bites that they know reporters and fans will repeat, and juries remember. Gotta admit, they're pros at it!

 

[tongxinshe]

Don't just follow forum debates. Do lots and lots of your own reading and research. At the very least, read several of Apple's legal complaints.

Don't assume others as being all dumb! When I say "follow", I do meant it, not as prejudiced as you've been illustrated as.

A great example of their current handwaving is the neat-o phrase "no license, no chips". Since it's delivered in an accusatory way, our brain automatically assumes it must be a bad thing.

But sit back and think about what it means. It simply means that Qualcomm won't sell you their own chips unless you agree to get a license for their IP. Well, duh. Why would they sell anyone a chip to use, if that someone has no intention of also paying for the IP to run on it ?!

What you are describing here is exactly the logic being called "double-dipping", and also anti-competitive! If Qualcomm truly de-coupled IP licensing from chip selling, then there should not be this type of "no license, no chips" force-binding practice. Remember what Microsoft did to the PC manufacturers -- "want Windows licenses, no other browsers but Internet Explorer".

The supposed "evilness" of this stems from Apple's desire that chips should come with all possible IP included in their price. In reality, this is actually often not true. If I buy a CPU from Intel, it does not come with a license for Intel's realtime OS. Static IP value is separate from silicon cost.

You can use Intel's CPU without using its real-time OS, sure you want to license the OS only when you plan to use it.

Another example is all the times that Apple's lawyers have declared that companies are "refusing to offer FRAND terms", when all that really means is that they're not offering terms low enough for Apple, and therefore Apple thinks it's unfair.. even if it's the same terms everyone else pays. But it sounds so much more evil when you throw some extra words in.
Apple has accused many companies of that FRAND one, including at the least, Nokia, Samsung and Motorola. I betcha Ericsson as well.

In reality, all of the cellular standard patent holders are doing the same thing -- claim a non-sustainable royalty rates for their FRAND patents, then negotiate different secret contract with each licensee. This bad tradition is established and kept by all of the then-monopoly companies, Motorola, Nokia, Qualcomm. It's a wrong tradition, since it is basically against the real meaning of non-discriminatory, the royalty rates need to be public and non-negotiable, to make sure all players get exactly the same deal.

 

[kdarling]

Don't assume others as being all dumb! When I say "follow", I do meant it, not as prejudiced as you've been illustrated as.

No offense intended. Just too many people only know what they've read in articles. And you did try to incorrectly claim that published percentage-of-device-price rates did not apply to smartphones.

If Qualcomm truly de-coupled IP licensing from chip selling, then there should not be this type of "no license, no chips" force-binding practice.

I see the raw logic in that, but not the real life application. That would be like wanting to buy Apple MFI (made for iPhone) chips from a supplier, without also paying for a license. Sometimes chips and IP go hand in hand.

There can be no other reason to buy broadband chips unless you intend to use them. Moreover, there is a recent history of (Chinese) phone makers who did buy other chips and never paid for a license afterwards.

In reality, all of the cellular standard patent holders are doing the same thing -- claim a non-sustainable royalty rates for their FRAND patents, then negotiate different secret contract with each licensee. This bad tradition is established and kept by all of the then-monopoly companies, Motorola, Nokia, Qualcomm. It's a wrong tradition, since it is basically against the real meaning of non-discriminatory, the royalty rates need to be public and non-negotiable, to make sure all players get exactly the same deal.

Again, I agree that sounds reasonable. But it's not the way things work in real life.

FRAND does not mean everyone gets the same deal. Just as with any other license, quantity, term, credit rating, cross licensing and other factors affect the final price.

Nor does it mean contracts must be public knowledge. In fact, most are redacted in public trials so no one else outside of the litigants can see the rates. Remember when a Samsung negotiator accidentally found out what Apple was paying Nokia, and wanted a similar deal with Nokia?

Although that latter was actually a valid argument. Courts and legal scholars have said that ND only means that competitors in similar situations should not get an upper hand over each other. One could argue that Apple and Samsung are at similar competitor levels, and thus one should not get an advantage over the other.

In fact, there are those who point out that giving a lower rate to a newcomer, discriminates against those who paid higher rates before.

 

[tongxinshe]

No offense intended. Just too many people only know what they've read in articles. And you did try to incorrectly claim that published percentage-of-device-price rates did not apply to smartphones.

They sure didn't apply, in real payment, except for Qualcomm. Otherwise, none of the smartphones would ever possibly be produced, because the producers will lose money on every unit they produce. And, the reason that Qualcomm were able to single-handedly keep the same rate against smartphones for such a long time, is that it has the monopoly power. However, recently Qualcomm abused that power.