Qualcomm Wins Appeal in FTC Antitrust Lawsuit

[alien3dx]

Self-signed apps have some restrictions on functions (network settings and others). And I have no way to distribute it to others (similarly, I have no way to accept distributions from others).

yes , i keep mention this to everyone but they keep thinking it's all about 30% margin. It's about distribution. As me and my client, they not liked apple digg to their business process.

 

[falainber]

The article failed to mention the fact that the original verdict that gave a win to FTC was issued by judge Lucy Koh that has been ruling in Apple favor for many years (including the infamous "round corners" case against Samsung). In this case her decision was rejected unanimously by three judges.

 

[ksec]

The article failed to mention the fact that the original verdict that gave a win to FTC was issued by judge Lucy Koh that has been ruling in Apple favor for many years (including the infamous "round corners" case against Samsung). In this case her decision was rejected unanimously by three judges.

Yes. If anyone actually bothered to read the ruling. This appeal and results was pretty much bound to happen.

I have the say the rounded corners against Samsung were overly amplified by the media. It was merely used to prove a point where defendants design; both hardware and software looked far too similar ( to certain group of people ) to iPhone that causes confusing. Known as copying ( aka like Xiaomi ).

 

[vladi]

That's not what they were doing though. Apple is the prime example here. To license a cellular modem from Qualcomm, they'd need to license everything the SOC covers, because it isn't ONLY a modem - as a percentage of the MSRP of the device itself and not the components. They don't need the CPU, their A series chips are better. They don't need the GPU, theirs are better. It includes image processing, they have their own. It includes GPS, they have their own. This also includes software licenses that they don't need, such as the fingerprint scanner software Android uses. There's many other patents they've put into their SOC, but Apple only needs the modem, but Apple would have had to pay for everything else that goes unused.

Apple charges royalties for the lightning connector... not some random and fictitious Apple Serial Bus that nobody needs to use because of USB. Just the connector.

Apple has ID wire in Lighting connector that nobody needs except Apple.

 

[BuffaloTF]

Apple has ID wire in Lighting connector that nobody needs except Apple.

Ok... and so does Qualcomm. It's used to identify everything from the power source to the device so it can enable and control Quick Charge -- which is patented technology.

 

[rjohnstone]

That's not what they were doing though. Apple is the prime example here. To license a cellular modem from Qualcomm, they'd need to license everything the SOC covers, because it isn't ONLY a modem -

This would be false.
Qualcomm sells a separate modem package.
Apple is not dropping an entire Snapdragon SoC (CPU,GPU,Modem) in their phones JUST for the modem.
Apple used the Snapdragon X16 LTE Modem in the iPhone X.
I'm assuming Apple will be using the Snapdragon X55 Modem in the Phone 12 models as it is 5G capable.
Then again, Apple may go big and go with the X60, but that would all depend on their 5G strategy.
The X55 is cheaper, but very capable.

 

[tooltalk]

... To license a cellular modem from Qualcomm, they'd need to license everything the SOC covers, because it isn't ONLY a modem - as a percentage of the MSRP of the device itself and not the components.

First, it's not a percentage of MSRP (or retail price) -- Apple's fee to QCOM was based on the wholesale price Apple paid to CM, "contract manufacturers" such as Foxconn, or about 1/3 or 1/4 of the retail price. The court hearing indicates that Apple paid less than something like $7.50 per device for QCOM's 3G licenses.

Second, QCOM's patents cover not only how modem behaves, but also how your phone works as a communication. It has less to do with SOC, GPU, emoji, etc, etc..

...
Apple charges royalties for the lightning connector... not some random and fictitious Apple Serial Bus that nobody needs to use because of USB. Just the connector.

seems like you have no clue what the lawsuit was about.

 

[BuffaloTF]

First, it's not a percentage of MSRP (or retail price) -- Apple's fee to QCOM was based on the wholesale price Apple paid to CM, "contract manufacturers" such as Foxconn, or about 1/3 or 1/4 of the retail price. The court hearing indicates that Apple paid less than something like $7.50 per device for QCOM's 3G licenses.

Second, QCOM's patents cover not only how modem behaves, but also how your phone works as a communication. It has less to do with SOC, GPU, emoji, etc, etc..

seems like you have no clue what the lawsuit was about.

Qualcomm charges a percentage of the MSRP for any device with a CDMA radio. For Apple that was 5%, not 7.50. It was referred to in the trial as "a 250 million dollar CDMA tax." Meaning, the increased storage sizes of the devices going up $100 in price, Qualcomm gets 5 dollars. Switching to the aluminum models at a $60 premium to the plastic, Qualcomm gets 3.

Sounds like you don't know the details of the lawsuit.