Qualcomm's U.S. ITC Complaint Falling Apart as Apple Implements Workaround in iOS 12.1

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:43 AM.

  1. JPack macrumors 68040

    JPack

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2017
    #26
    They already do and have been for many years. But they still lag behind Qualcomm significantly.
     
  2. rpmurray macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Location:
    Back End of Beyond
    #27
    QualCOMM is going to need to change its name to CrawlCOMM before long.
     
  3. gigapocket1 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2009
    #28
    Just wait til apple gets smart enough to start selling their processor designs and modem chips...
    I think it’s highly more likely for them to sell modem chips. They might not sell their processors. But modems could be a great source of extra income with no real additional work.
     
  4. justperry macrumors G3

    justperry

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Location:
    In the core of a black hole.
    #29

    This
    Another possibility is, and I think this is what happened, that Apple had a contract with Qualcomm including all licences, when Apple stopped paying they might have asked to pay for those licences but I am pretty sure QC doesn't allow that (read somewhere), so next thing what happens is infringing.

    Modem and licences or nothing at all.
     
  5. mariusignorello macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2013
    #30
    Yep, it’s called business and saving money.
     
  6. justperry macrumors G3

    justperry

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2007
    Location:
    In the core of a black hole.
    #31
    Or, being smart not to pay too much for FRAND.
     
  7. technole macrumors 6502

    technole

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2017
    #32
    QCOM sure picked the wrong hill to die on.

    Intel performance gets better every year, and with Apple likely getting involved, it's going to be a bear they shouldn't have awoken.
     
  8. H2SO4 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    #33
    The world will be full of ‘major players’ that are just big bullies if others just decide to stand for their crap.
    I’m glad smaller companies are sticking it to the big boys.
     
  9. hbt15 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    #34
    Seriously? An individual can't be held for infringement in this scenario, only Apple can.
     
  10. CE3 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2014
    #35
    This sh*t is so ugly it makes the Apple v. Samsung lawsuit look like a friendly disagreement.
     
  11. cmaier macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #36
    Why do you say that? Anyone, even an end-user/consumer can be infringing if they “use” an device that by its use infringes.
     
  12. bobtem macrumors member

    bobtem

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2017
    #37
    I won’t claim to be well versed in this whole dispute with QC, and I wouldn’t want to just automatically sing praises for Apple, but QC you just chomped the hand that fed your paltry ass and now you will starve and slowly die. Good move.
     
  13. cmaier macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #38
    Qualcomm is fighting for its life. Without its “charge different licensees different amounts based not on the quantity of sales but the dollar value of the sales” and its “charge twice - once for the chip, then again for the license” business models, it looks a lot like every other chip maker in the communications space, most of whom make a lot less return on investment than QC.
     
  14. Carnegie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 24, 2012
    #39
    In theory they could be. But, of course, Qualcomm would never pursue infringement claims against them.

    If Apple sells a device that infringes, then a person who buys and uses that device is infringing unless they’ve separately obtained a license. There’s no patent exhaustion which would typically mean they weren’t infringing.
     
  15. Heineken macrumors 6502a

    Heineken

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2018
    #40
    Practically impossible to enforce when it comes to phones. No one will track all people and force them to pay some fee to use it.
     
  16. technole macrumors 6502

    technole

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2017
    #41
    The whole QCOM chip and license model along with royalties would have never been sustainable if they were not monopolistic in the 3G and early 4G era.

    Pretty much if you wanted to develop a smart phone, you're going through QCOM for the SoC (whereas Apple makes their own) and modem (which Apple does not) and patents for mobile broadband such as good ole CDMA. So of course QCOM would love to settle with Apple, that's a huge chunk of royalties that are no longer getting paid since Apple's suppliers have cut-off the checks.
     
  17. keysofanxiety macrumors G3

    keysofanxiety

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2011
    #42
    Samsung already are and shipping them in some of their phones. Qualcomm still can’t reach per-core performance of the iPhone 7, let alone the XS.
     
  18. jamesrick80 macrumors 68020

    jamesrick80

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2014
    #43
    My only qualm with Qualcomm is them holding Samsung back from releasing their own processors in American Samsung galaxy devices although last years snapdragon was better than the Exynos but I know Samsung would put so much more into processor research and development if it wasn't for Qualcomms limitations and patents.

    So taking Qualcomm down a level would be justice to me even if it has to be by Apple or any other company......can't deny their amazing radios/modems etc compared to those horrible intel ones though.
     
  19. cocky jeremy macrumors 68040

    cocky jeremy

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2008
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #44
    Easy. They'll release a X.X.1 update for older iOS versions.
     
  20. racerhomie macrumors regular

    racerhomie

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2015
    #45
    Not when 85% of the world’s modems are Qualcomm
     
  21. Gregg Thurman macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    #46
    Qualcomm’s business model is toast. Instead of focusing on innovation the Company grew revenues with predatory pricing strategies.

    Now the chickens have come home to roost. Qualcomm’s customers are finding it financially beneficial to develop their own processors and modems, all of which stems from Apple’s patent invalidation suits against Qualcomm IP.
     
  22. tridley68 macrumors 6502a

    tridley68

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2014
    #47
    Put the screws to them Apple and give the noose a little bit more of a twist.
     
  23. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #48
    That hasn't happened. If you read the article, it clearly says that (a) Apple was most likely never infringing, (b) Qualcomm's witness explained what Apple would need to do so that even Qualcomm would admit Apple is not infringing, and (c) Apple did exactly that.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 11, 2019 at 4:24 PM ---
    That engineer has a well paid job making six digits a year, gets a generous rebate on all Apple products anyway, and doesn't have the habit of sitting on his iPad with his arse.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 11, 2019 at 4:26 PM ---
    Apple certainly helps a lot. There are rumours that Apple is going into the creation of radio chips. And if Qualcomm is weakened enough, we can be sure that Samsung will start selling to current Qualcomm customers, and not just building chips for its own use.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 11, 2019 at 4:26 PM ---
    Which can change very, very quickly.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 11, 2019 at 4:30 PM ---
    Thinking about it for two seconds, I have to completely agree with that. Of course during the whole Apple v. Samsung lawsuit, large parts of Samsung were very happily producing chips that Apple was very happily buying. With Qualcomm, there is _nothing_ that Apple wants from them. As far as Apple is concerned, Qualcomm can just die.
     
  24. technole macrumors 6502

    technole

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2017
    #49
    We all know Apple likes redundancy and that proven to be true when Jeff Williams testified that Apple also wanted to use Qualcomm chips in the current Xr/Xs series. But I guess when you have Foxconn not sending royalty checks, that was bound to happen.

    However on the modem silicon front, I feel Apple has too good of a relationship with Intel to really ever have an issue with. There is just no way at this point that Apple isn't pursing their own modem interests.
     
  25. hbt15 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    #50
    Not true. If a user buys the device in good faith that it is compliant they can’t be held liable for an infringement. The infringement here is the case of Apple abusing the patent in the creation of the device. Not the end users operation of the device. The end user takes no part in the development or creation of the device and as such bears no burden of any infringement that device makes. The intent to infringe can not be satisfied by the end users purchase of the phone.
     

Share This Page