Qualcomm Seeks Import Ban on AT&T and T-Mobile iPhone 8 and iPhone X Models

[deanthedev]

Qualcomm has lost 4 major cases for over $3 billion recently all related to licensing and antitrust issues. And not all the investigations are finished yet.

Boy are those guys on a roll. /s

 

[MarkB786]

Qualcomm develops technology and patents it.

Apple uses said technology in their phones, refuses to pay for it, violating the patent.

Qualcomm wants restitution.

How is Qualcomm the bad guy here? Am I missing something?

You've forgotten that Apple can do no wrong. All of their decisions and business transactions are pure, holy, and without sin. No greed involved at all. It's all for the betterment of humanity. So Qualcomm MUST be the evil party here.

 

[Ronald Reagan]

When will it end!?

 

[gavroche]

You've forgotten that Apple can do no wrong. All of their decisions and business transactions are pure, holy, and without sin. No greed involved at all. It's all for the betterment of humanity. So Qualcomm MUST be the evil party here.

laying it on pretty thick. one doth need boots to walk in these parts...

 

[deanthedev]

Yes, exactly the same as Motorola, LG, Nokia, Ericsson, Huawei, and many other contributors to the cellular standards.

So multiple wrongs makes it right? Imagine if the rest of the world operated the same? Tires for my Civic? $100 each. Same tire for a BMW? $300 each. Appliances for your condo? $3,000. Same appliances in your estate home? $10,000. Windows for your bare-bones PC? $70. For your gaming rig with dual GTX1080’s? $400. What a fantastic concept for assigning value to individual components.

There's absolutely nothing unusual or wrong about this common patent licensing method. It allows for most of the world to buy low profit phones, while higher profit phones which benefit from the resultant worldwide network pay more.

Just what I want. My hard earned money subsidizing someone who sits on their a$$ doing nothing but still benefiting from my money. Technology shouldn’t operate on welfare.

 

[UL2RA]

You've gotta be kidding me, lol.

 

[kdarling]

Why can't you develop or assemble wireless communications technology without licensing their patents?

For the same reason you cannot do that without also licensing from Nokia, Ericsson, LG, Samsung, and many others who invented the standard.

This is not that difficult to understand folks. Companies spent billions and years creating what we all use today around the world. They deserve to be paid for it.

I think it's how Qualcomm deems restitution is warranted.
... mistaken ideas deleted...

As had been pointed out here many times over the years, modem chips do not come with or pay for licenses for all the IP you use on them. So no, there is no double payment.

Think of it like this: anyone can make a CPU. But CPUs don't come with an iOS or Windows license.

So multiple wrongs makes it right?

You've already started off badly. There's nothing wrong with the way they all charge. Heck, China even recently reaffirmed the method, ordering sellers of phones in China to pay Qualcomm a percentage of their device price.

Imagine if the rest of the world operated the same?

A lot of the world already does. Taxes are a percentage of income. Franchise fees are a percentage of profits. App store fees are a percentage of product price.

Heck, Apple themselves license their MFi program by percentage of your device price.

Many patents in fact are licensed this way.

Just what I want. My hard earned money subsidizing someone who sits on their a$$ doing nothing but still benefiting from my money. Technology shouldn’t operate on welfare.

Utter nonsense. The companies behind cellular standards are not sitting around doing nothing.

As for our hard earned money making someone a profit, that's ironic. Apple has a quarter trillion in raw profit made off us, stashed away doing nothing.

Even if Apple got a lower royalty, nobody thinks they are going to pass on the savings to us. They'll just stash away more profit for themselves.

 

[tooltalk]

Even if they win, it will be 5 to 6 years from now when it clears the courts, and no one will be using those phones anymore.

You may be unfamiliar with how USITC works and why companies choose ITC over (or in addition to) district courts to resolve their disputes. https://www.law.com/almID/4dcafb97160ba0ad5700220d/?slreturn=20171030231351

 

[kdarling]

You may be unfamiliar with how USITC works and why companies choose ITC over (or in addition to) district courts to resolve their disputes.

Exactly. The ITC is very tech savvy, can be very fast to act, and their only purpose is stopping import of products that infringe US patents.

That can sometimes make an infringer come to the table to make a deal.

Readers should note that Apple often uses the ITC for the same reasons.

 

[TheFluffyDuck]

The iPhone 8 is simply not that different from a 6S, and the iPhone X is not worth twice many phones on the market. I could get a very competant android phone for $500-700 AUD and spend the rest on an xbox/PS4, robot vacume cleaner, ipad/latptop, plane ticket etc.

Apple used to represent premium yet affordable, now it represents average yet extortionate.

 

[UL2RA]

The iPhone 8 is simply not that different from a 6S, and the iPhone X is not worth twice many phones on the market. I could get a very competant android phone for $500-700 AUD and spend the rest on an xbox/PS4, robot vacume cleaner, ipad/latptop, plane ticket etc.

Apple used to represent premium yet affordable, now it represents average yet extortionate.

Nope.

 

[prostetnic]

Smells like despair

 

[kdarling]

Smells like despair

Apple has attempted the exact same thing against others.

Do you think Apple did it out of despair, or for the more obvious reason that it's a great negotiating tactic?

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/09/apple-wins-itc-ban-on-samsung-products

 

[Amplelink]

Apple has attempted the exact same thing against others.

Do you think Apple did it out of despair, or for the more obvious reason that it's a great negotiating tactic?

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/08/09/apple-wins-itc-ban-on-samsung-products

Is it a great negotiating tactic though? What are the chances of actually winning this ban against a fellow American company?

 

[deanthedev]

A lot of the world already does. Taxes are a percentage of income. Franchise fees are a percentage of profits. App store fees are a percentage of product price.

No the world doesn’t operate that way. Your examples have nothing to do with how Qualcomm licenses their IP.

Utter nonsense. The companies behind cellular standards are not sitting around doing nothing.

As for our hard earned money making someone a profit, that's ironic. Apple has a quarter trillion in raw profit made off us, stashed away doing nothing.

Even if Apple got a lower royalty, nobody thinks they are going to pass on the savings to us. They'll just stash away more profit for themselves.

Only nonsense is your previous post(s) trying to justify overcharging one customer (Apple) so another customer (insert bargain Phone company) can use the same tech for less.

I never said cellular companies were doing nothing. Perhaps you need to re-read what I said in the proper context.

Apples profit/successfulness has nothing to do with Qualcomms licensing practices. Not sure what point you’re trying to make by bringing them (and how much money they have) into this discussion.

 

[DeepIn2U]

As had been pointed out here many times over the years, modem chips do not come with or pay for licenses for all the IP you use on them. So no, there is no double payment.

Think of it like this: anyone can make a CPU. But CPUs don't come with an iOS or Windows license.

I don't believe that is entirely true of all modem chips, or chips containing modems and patents therein.

Think of it like this, you cannot ship a computer wtih iOS or Windows installed and not expect to get burned without a license lawsuit.

Ericsson, Nokia-Siemens, Samsung, Huwaii, Motorola all have chips using modems within for years - I'm sure some of those chips license patents, else Qualcomm could sue them as well, no? I believe manufacturers of chipsets have earlier contended sides with Apple stating they've paid for licensing already to Qualcomm, unless memory miserves me at 3AM EST.

 

[Tech198]

What a good xmas present to Apple......

 

[MrNomNoms]

Qualcomm is also filing a new complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) concerning five of the patents, and it is asking the ITC to ban imports of iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X models that use chips from Intel, aka AT&T and T-Mobile devices in the United States.

That isn't the job of Apple - Intel designs, manufacturers and sells those components to Apple therefore it is on Intel's own shoulders to ensure the correct royalty are paid. Anyone wondering why Qualcomm isn't going after Intel with the same vigour as they are going after Apple? anyone feel as though this is a shake down as Qualcomm is being screwed from all directions because in the long run the only thing hold Samsung to using Qualcomm is CDMA2000 but once that dies off with Verizon/Sprint going pure LTE then Samsung can ship globally a single SoC that they design and make themselves - millions of units disappearing over night and a huge revenue stream disappears. Yes, I can see what Qualcomm is behaving like they are - they're fighting for their very survival.

 

[bmot]

There should be laws that make patents only valid if you have executed them into a physical product.
Stupid vaporware company crap.

 

[Luili]

Qualcomm spent billions developing much of today's 3G and 4G cellular technology, and others eagerly adopted what they created. But they're certainly not the only contributors.



They didn't raise their rates. Heck, Apple doesn't even have a Qualcomm license.

Instead, Foxconn, Pegatron and the other assemblers use their own licenses, and their rates haven't changed no matter whose modem they used or whose phone they built.

Let’s say Qualcomm would charge Apple less for their IP, does anyone here think Apple would pass on their savings to the consumer?

 

[DCIFRTHS]

Yes, exactly the same as Motorola, LG, Nokia, Ericsson, Huawei, and many other contributors to the cellular standards.

There's absolutely nothing unusual or wrong about this common patent licensing method. It allows for most of the world to buy low profit phones, while higher profit phones which benefit from the resultant worldwide network pay more.



Nope. The royalty method is only questioned right now by Apple. Governments have supported it.

The beef that various government groups around the world had with Qualcomm was over other business methods such as requiring full licensing of all their patents in bulk, and not giving much in return for cross licenses.

I didn't realize that Huawei contributed. Learning something new every day

 

[Col4bin]

Qualcomm again? Looking for more “settlement” revenue it would seem.

 

[ggibson913]

Sleazy because it's not Apple.

How DARE someone else make money from developing the technology for the Anointed Almighty God Steve Jobs' phone!

The deal wasn't that Apple buys a chip and that is it. So when you or I buy a processor, we pay our $300 - $500 for the physical processor and that is it. Qualcomm is saying that they want a percentage of the total phone sale, which is likely much more than the chip is worth, you know price gouging. Apple on AT&T and T-Mobile phones isn't even using a Qualcomm chip, they are using an Intel Chip. You don't see Qualcomm suing Intel or at least I haven't heard of that. Apple is simply taking a stand because they are big enough to do so and rumors here suggest that they are doing everything they can to get rid of Qualcomm chips in their products moving forward.

 

[kdarling]

Is it a great negotiating tactic though? What are the chances of actually winning this ban against a fellow American company?

In 2007, Broadcom got an ITC ban on Qualcomm chip imports, and for a while, the ban included phones with the chips. Qualcomm asked for a presidential overrule but didn't get one.

Verizon ended up paying Broadcom about $6 per phone on their own, in order not to run out of phones to sell. Note that this cost was over just three patents.

In 2013, Samsung America got an ITC ban on Apple iPad and iPhone imports over a single patent. Apple only escaped because the Obama administration did give a rare overrule, partly because it would've been a burden on the public.

https://www.macrumors.com/2013/06/0...ase-and-desist-order-for-older-apple-devices/

Note btw that in the Samsung case Apple as usual attempted to claim that it was "not FRAND" to charge by device price. Their argument was rejected, with the ITC pointing out that this was the standard method for cellular patents:

(The ITC also pointed out that it was not up to Apple to say what a fair price was.)

So yes sir, import bans do happen against other US based campanies when their products are made overseas. I think that was one reason Motorola built their X models in Texas for units destined to customers in the US. They were safe from an ITC whole product import ban.

 

[Mirice99]

When they were trying to cheat Apple it’s sleazy

And when Apple is stealing patents, ideas, refusing to pay royalties, hiding billions in tax shelters it's not sleazy....