Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Qualcomm Seeks iPhone and iPad Import Ban in the United States
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
For Apple shareholders maybe. I mean, it's not as if Apple doesn't have a consistent record of being money hungry, too. As a mere consumer, I don't really care who 'wins'.
Apple vs the company that brought you this: The most insane keynote ever: Qualcomm at CES 2013
So does this affect iPhone sales outside the US, if not then I don't care
Nope. The ITC can only ban patent infringing imports into the US.
(Yet another good reason to open an iPhone factory in the US, to supply US customers. Then the ITC could only ban imported chips, and those could be made here too.)
Seems like the whole patent system needs an overhaul. I worked at a couple of places that encouraged developers to register as many patents as possible and would pay bonuses, etc for the number registered. Whether or not these were used was a different matter, it was all about denying the competition and this has got to be ultimately bad for the consumer.
Yeah true. FRAND was not mentioned even once. But double dipping is a big deal. Why should companies be paying twice for something? Seems super shady.
[doublepost=1499425717][/doublepost]
WOW! Now that was bad.
No, his most certainly is not. However, in those "advisor meetings" Timmy is always on his (R) side. That is telling with someone like Donnie.
Ummm did you read the article? Apple is accusing Qualcomm of double dipping according to the article.
Yup. People don't bother to look at the fact that Apple is just one of several players in similar QC Lawsuits.
Consider what I said earlier : "... there is no recent SCOTUS decision supporting Apple's claim that Qualcomm's royalty base is inappropriate. ..." (see bold in my original text)
I asked for a SCOTUS case supporting Apple's royalty base claim, but you seem to believe that the Lexmark's patent exhaustion decision is answer to everything.
Last edited:
Huh? Apple says that Qualcomm is asking for money that they don't deserve. So why on earth would Apple "just pay up"?
And I charge you £1,000 for this educational post, so are you going to just pay up?
[doublepost=1499427055][/doublepost]
Qualcomm has never shipped these chips. Other companies are manufacturing them and paying license fees to Qualcomm. What is the proper license fee is what is debated.
[doublepost=1499427385][/doublepost]
Nobody is investigating Apple for tax evasion in Ireland. Don't try bending the truth.
The EU is investigating whether Ireland has done something wrong. Not Apple.
It's like the IRS investigating one of its agents because they calculated your tax return wrong (too low), while you paid exactly what the IRS was asking for.
Come on. You've been around long enough to know that reading one fansite article isn't enough. You have to keep up with all of them, plus comments, plus reading the actual legal complaints. The way that Apple's lawyers put it was:
"Qualcomm, by its own admission, will not sell chips to manufacturers who do not also pay separate royalties and enter Qualcomm licenses at usurious rates. This is precisely the kind of double-dipping, extra-reward system that the Court’s decision in Lexmark forbids."
This is Apple lawyer handwaving at its best, since yes, manufacturers are the ones who pay the royalties, not the chipmakers. And they all pay basically the same rate.
E.g. Foxconn got their QCOM license years before Apple even made a phone, and they pay the same percentage whether they're making an iPhone or Meizu phone, and whether it uses a Huawei or Intel or Qualcomm or Samsung baseband chip.
Manufacturers are thus free to buy and use any baseband chip brand they want, as the IP is separate. Which Apple hates, but it's no different than the way they also pay Nokia, Ericsson, Motorola, Samsung et al for other cellular IP separately from chips.
Yup. People don't bother to look at the fact that Apple is just one of several players in similar QC Lawsuits.
The others seem mostly complaints about Qualcomm requiring a license be taken on all of their comm patents, not just the SEP ones. And that they want a cross license (which is specifically allowed by the ETSI FRAND rules). So government agencies have been ruling that the license should only charge for the SEPs and credit should be given for cross patents.
That sounds fair, although note that it's been done that way for about a quarter century. So this is changing the rules lonnnng after they've been in use. It's basically about Apple wanting special rates as a newcomer and non-contributor.
Well, no. See above. Chipmakers such as Intel do not pay for a license for the software IP needed to use their baseband chip. Foxconn pays for that separately, being the phone manufacturer actually using that IP.
It's like with Intel CPUs. Buying one of their chips does not also give a license for an OS that Intel sells to run on it. That IP is priced and sold separately from the silicon, and is paid for by the computer manufacturer using that chip.
Last edited:
don't care if Qualcomm is a US based company.... Apple is the best company around and will teach these whiny idiots a lesson. Apple has the best business model of any company as well
Trump might use this to blame Apple for not producing in the US
I think Apple has been wanting to sue Qualcomm for years. The FTC and the anti competitive practices stuff gave them the cover they needed to move forward.
Foxconn as you stated in your example is presumably paying the license costs which is then passed on to Apple and now Qualcomm is wanting Apple to pay the same license costs when the cost of the license at the device level was already paid by Foxconn who then charges Apple. Apple shouldn't be paying extra. Qualcomm is trying to get paid at each level of the chain. That's kinda ***tty tbqh.
Yep. Plus Qualcomm holding back a billion in separate cooperative contract fees because they felt Apple lied to the Korean FTC and thus breached their contract.
E.g. Apple testified to the KFTC that they could not use third party chips because of Qualcomm. A few weeks later, the new iPhones with Intel modems came out. This will be very difficult to explain away.
Correct.
No sir. Totally incorrect. Not even Apple claims such a thing.
Only Foxconn pays the device fee. Apple is not charged separately. In fact, Apple has no license with Qualcomm, so they're never charged directly at all.
Last edited:
Oh ok. So what is Apple complaining about being double charged for?
Secondly, why has Apple announced that it's withholding payments to Qualcomm?
Last edited:
Exactly. I'm saying you ignored the aspect of corporate nationalities. Since Samsung was Korean and Apple was American, it was much more likely for the US government to play favorites when it came to these kinds of disputes.
Where would Apple get their other 99% of parts that makes up the iPhone?
US iPhone factory is a pipe dream.