I like that someone is standing up to Apple.
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 to Pursue iPhone Import Ban in United States in Ongoing Apple Feud
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Isn't Trump still using a Samsung Galaxy? I don't think he gives a crap about iPhone import ban. He's just going to tell Apple to make iPhones in America. Trump is no Obama, or Clinton for that matter.
Cool.
I know I'm insane, but as long as I remember what I say, I'm cool with it.
IANAL, but if Apple uses Qualcomm IP in a chip manufactured by someone else, shouldn't that third party manufacturer have paid the license to use the Qualcomm IP? If Apple is designing a chip that uses Qualcomm IP, and is just farming out its manufacture, then yes, Apple should be paying the license. However, why isn't the IP the thing that gets charged for, and not the entire price of the iPhone? If Apple charge $1 for an iPhone, Qualcomm gets, maybe $0.01? If they charge $1,000 why should Qualcomm get $10? The Qualcomm IP is in the chip using that IP, not the App Store, or the way icons wiggle when you hold them down, or what the multitasking screen looks like, or Touch ID, or Lightning etc. It seems to me that Qualcomm is being greedy.
Are smartphones the only industry where you can claim a percentage of the sale price (or profit) of a device because one of your chips is in it?
Are smartphones the only industry where you can claim a percentage of the sale price (or profit) of a device because one of your chips is in it?
Yeah that's missing the point.
1. Qualcomm's licenses are standards essential. That means anybody in the world making a LTE phone must pay Qualcomm (along with a number of other people like NTT DoCoMo, Nokia, etc.), whether they buy anything or not. Qualcomm has patents on parts of the LTE standard.
2. Qualcomm, as is common in the cellular industry, charges fees based on a percent of the cost of the final product. Apple pays more because their phones cost more. Apple's point is why should Qualcomm take a cut of the cost of an extra camera. Qualcomm's argument is that nobody would buy the phone with an extra camera if the phone didn't have LTE.
No. Because of the licensing royalty system, people like Intel and Qualcomm will sell their chips without licenses. The company making the phone will pay the fees.
No. Parts of 802.11 Wifi is licensed on a percentage of end product basis. In broader examples, our work licenses some purchasing software based on a percentage of the value of orders that go through it. You pay rent at a store in the mall based on a percentage of sales. Movie actors and book authors are paid based on a percentage of profits.
The argument for a royalty percentage system is that it's more likely to be "reasonable". $5 on a $1000 phone sounds reasonable whereas $5 on a $50 phone is not.
Last edited:
You wish. As if this could ever happen. The FTC is already suing Qualcomm for overcharging for patents.
FTC is not suing Qualcomm for overcharging. Please read that complaint here.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pre...mm-monopolizing-key-semiconductor-device-used
* Qualcomm doesn't license their patent portfolio to their OEM competitors -- which is quite clearly illegal and in violation of FRAND, according to KFTC's findings last year.
* As it stands, Apple is not directly paying Qualcomm. Foxconn pays for licenses based on their manufacturing cost, not Apple's full retail price. While Qualcomm's wireless SEP rate is among the highest -- not too surprising considering their large share of the standards -- Apple is paying (indirectly) nowhere close to what most folks believe Apple is paying.
* Qualcomm's royalty basis on EMVR is an established, accepted industry practice. Apple tried to challenge this in another ITC case involving SEPs, but didn't have much leg to stand on. This is not uncommon to use "entire market value" as a royalty basis. There are many different factors help determine proper valuation and / or royalty basis, but it really depends on how much value their patents contribute to the end product or if their contributions drive market demand.
Last edited:
If Qualcomm did not license then how is Intel, Mediatek, Samsung manufacturing cellular modem chips.
Well, these are global network standards, not secret Coca-cola recipes. Most wireless patent holders want to go after the end-device makers to maximize their profit, which is not illegal or unethical.
Last edited:
Apple has been part of many of the standards groups. LTE, Bluetooth, wireless charging, and more.
Then Apple shouldn't have agreed to Qualcomm's terms. But Apple did.
Nope. Apple only holds LTE patents as part of the Nortel bankruptcy group purchase.
http://www.i-runway.com/images/pdf/iRunway - Patent & Landscape Analysis of 4G-LTE.pdf
My comment was in response to your comment about KTFC ruling, which said Qualcomm didn't license to OEM competitors. Also, in this case, the secret recipe is Qualcomm IP which is public and SEP.
I suspect that Trump's base are less likely to be iPhone owners than Trump bashers. Banning iPhone imports may not have the effect you anticipate.
Has Apple been part of ETSI? I don't know if Apple is really actively contributing in wireless standards.. Apple seriously needs to step up -- spend more time and money contributing and less whining and squeezing their suppliers.
Last edited:
Trump was forced to switch to an iPhone, for security reasons.
https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15103504/donald-trump-iphone-using-switched-android
It seems that's how Qualcomm set up their patent licensing terms.
http://fortune.com/2017/01/23/qualcomm-royalty-apple-under-siege/
Well, "trade secrets" (eg, Coca Cola's secret recipes -- often hidden from their competitors, not well known) and patents are really two different animals. A patent is an exclusive right granted to a new, non-obvious invention in exchange for the public disclosure. Further, Qualcomm's IP's are also SEP, or standard essential patents, which means they are very public and all baseband makers must comply. There is nothing "secret" about Qualcomm's IP.
Last edited:
That is why I said originally the secret is public (and not hidden). I clearly mentioned that.