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.
Nope, chip makers do not pay for the phone maker royalties in most cases. That's a common misconception here, though.
Anyone wondering why Qualcomm isn't going after Intel with the same vigour as they are going after Apple?
Because Intel already has a license for the non-FRAND Qualcomm IP they use in their silicon. But they're not the ones who have to pay for the FRAND IP used to make the chip run. That's what phone makers do.
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 ...
Another common misconception.
Qualcomm is not just about CDMA 2000. Qualcomm is involved in ALL 3G including GSM, and all LTE and 5G.
That's why it does not matter if CDMA 2000 goes away(*). Qualcomm still gets IP royalties no matter whose chip is used, for any cellular standard. All they'll lose from Apple is relatively minor income from their side chip sales.
(*) Okay, not quite true, if Qualcomm is forced to only license the tech being used.
I'm confused... Since Intel is the one that makes the supposedly infringing chipset Apple is using, shouldn't Qualcomm be suing Intel?
Nope. Intel already legally licenses whatever they need to
make the chip itself.
Apple still has to license what they need to
run the chip. And not just from Qualcomm, but from every standards contributor.
It's similar to as if Intel licensed and made an ARM based CPU chip. Then Apple bought it and licensed and used an OS that ARM sells. They're totally separate bits of IP from ARM.
Nice way to dodge the real question by selectively quoting from my post which literally SAID they deserved to be paid, but to be paid fair and just for their contributions just as the others you mention are. That's why they're not a part in this and Samsung is taking Apple's side.
Apple has already attempted the same kind of royalty complaints against other major ETSI contributors and failed.
Again: Samsung and other ETSI contributors are not fighting the royalty method, since they use it themselves. They're fighting other Qualcomm business requirements such as full licensing... which btw also used to be standard for ETSI licenses.
You didn't answer my question about why Qualcomm deserves to be paid a percentage of the entire device the modem is put in and not for the percentage on the modem itself? Even when using a competitors technology only using their IP.
Licensing by chip price makes no sense. Silicon keeps getting cheaper to make, but the IP retains its value. It's like claiming that Apple should only charge its users for the actual cost of the extra storage they buy in an iPhone, instead of the way they actually charge many times as much.
As for licensing by device price, who knows, maybe that will change in today's legal environment. But the point is, it'll be a change and it'll be only because Apple is trying for even more profit, not because the previous way was wrong or illegal.
