This must be a typo… they mean $31 billion, right? Suing for $31M is a waste of money for both companies except for the lawyers. They’re nuts!
And guess what, my parents are still using their iPhone 6’s they bought more than 4 years ago. Just because the network isn’t completely rolled out yet doesn’t mean you shouldn’t future-proof. It’ll just connect to LTE in the meantime, just like the iPhone 5 connected to 3G when an LTE signal wasn’t available.What will you do with a 5G iPhone (really wishful thinking) in 2019? The network to support 5G will not be ready for another 3 years, at the least.
For this particular lawsuit, involving only three patents, they’ll probably spend less than 10 million on legal fees.This must be a typo… they mean $31 billion, right? Suing for $31M is a waste of money for both companies except for the lawyers. They’re nuts!
And when it connects to 5g what advantage do you expect to see, in a phone, vs. lte?And guess what, my parents are still using their iPhone 6’s they bought more than 4 years ago. Just because the network isn’t completely rolled out yet doesn’t mean you shouldn’t future-proof. It’ll just connect to LTE in the meantime, just like the iPhone 5 connected to 3G when an LTE signal wasn’t available.
Majority of the replies kept pointing to the fact Apple should just pay it. That’s the point of my replyNobody missed it. That got pointed out in several posts already.
Oh Qualcomm, you're really setting yourself up for disaster. Do you know why Apple is opening a tech campus here in San Diego with 1,200+ employees? It's so they can poach your best and brightest away from you.
You guys are missing the big picture here in all of this. A few have tried to point it out, the 31 million is nothing, yes, we all know that. It’s what it means for them if they roll over on this and accept that. Sets a precedent for the rest of their ongoing battles going forward with Qualcomm
Doesn't make sense to me. If Apple used Intel chips, and it's the chips that violate the patent, then shouldn't they be suing Intel?
Just because the network isn’t completely rolled out yet doesn’t mean you shouldn’t future-proof.
Precedent is not even a real word. You can not set something for the future. The future just does'nt exist, so why You guys think You can predict something not really predictable
Seems like apple is still being stubborn. Pay it off and unite.
The best Cpu designers for sure work at apple. I know them and what they did in the past at other companies. And Tim Cook is far better than some of their prior bosses.Do You really think the best and brightest wanna work for apple? I highly doubt, they would imho never work for a leader like cook. And so apple will always stay 2nd class, as they are now in many areas!
And people are slowly figuring it out
[doublepost=1552114702][/doublepost]
Precedent is not even a real word. You can not set something for the future. The future just doesnt exist, so why You guys think You can predict something not really predictable
Doesn't make sense to me. If Apple used Intel chips, and it's the chips that violate the patent, then shouldn't they be suing Intel?
Gotta look at the RASICDoesn't make sense to me. If Apple used Intel chips, and it's the chips that violate the patent, then shouldn't they be suing Intel?
It’s hard to understand why Qualcomm would do this to one of its best customers. In the beginning it seems to be only about being greedy but now it just really about being dumb.
Any one works in the law field?
I would like to know how much lawyers charge for stuff like this...
It depends. Once a case goes to trial, the dollar amounts go up because that takes a lot of hours of work. A typical three patent case might go from 5 million to 10 million. It depends on how big the legal team is, which depends on what’s at stake. If the potential payout is only 31 million and the defense knows that, they would tend to use a smaller team and to turn over fewer rocks in defending. If apple wants to really go full bore because there are bigger issues at stake, the price could be higher.
Does the lawyer really can keep a straight face telling big corporates I want $10m to defend you in court? I understand if they had like 1000 lawyers working on it on a big case which it will be split between all of them but $10m for the efforts of 2-4 lawyers seems crazy.
Does the lawyer really can keep a straight face telling big corporates I want $10m to defend you in court? I understand if they had like 1000 lawyers working on it on a big case which it will be split between all of them but $10m for the efforts of 2-4 lawyers seems crazy.
What would the precedent be? These are non FRAND patents.It's not the money so much as the precedent settling at this point would set.
What would the precedent be? These are non FRAND patents.
If Apple settled wouldn't it add to the validity of Qualcomm’s patents? Could Qualcomm then sue other manufacturers who might also agree to pay because Apple already paid? Just curious, I’m in no way a lawyer.
Apple should just pay or settle it now at this bargain, instead of locking themselves out of 5G for another year - for which they’ll pay a much higher price.
They may have gotten away with it during the switch to LTE, but in today’s stagnant market they can’t afford the lost market share.
There may be many other “possibilities” for 5G, but Qualcomm will likely have a real one (with low power consumption) available and working well before the year’s out.
Why? So they can do it again next time?Seems like apple is still being stubborn. Pay it off and unite.