Right, a "no license, no chips" strategy. That sound familiar.
One of the practises Microsoft was eventually convicted of was its habit of charging PC vendors for a Windows license whether they installed Windows on a machine or not. This was one of the reasons that Linux was unable to get a foothold in the desktop market.
The other reason was that you needed an engineering degree to use it.
Qualcomm is using its monopoly position in one market to increase its standing in another.
If Apple stops paying royalties, can Qualcomm simply stop delivering chips? Is this not potentially endangering the delivery of iOS devices?
That's not what happening. Apple, and what it's urged its OEMs to do is to not pay the overcharges. That amounts that Apple states Qualcomm shouldn't be getting.
FTC leave this American company alone. Are you anti-american ? Qualcomm worked hard to create intellectual property and they can charge reasonably to whomever they want. No one asking to use their tech... Atleast Qualcomm is not like those patent trolls who did not create patients in first place and than don't use patents to create products. You need to go after them.
FTC leave this American company alone. Are you anti-american ? Qualcomm worked hard to create intellectual property and they can charge reasonably to whomever they want. No one asking to use their tech... Atleast Qualcomm is not like those patent trolls who did not create patients in first place and than don't use patents to create products. You need to go after them.
Exactly. What is being litigated here is whether the royalties are "reasonable?
Was this a serious post, or some sort of scar Sam? It's hard to tell.
if you read the entire article, which is prerrtty much correct, then you would understand what is happening. I'm not surprised at the government's that have taken them to,Clark over this, but how it took so long to get there.
Right, a "no license, no chips" strategy. That sound familiar.
One of the practises Microsoft was eventually convicted of was its habit of charging PC vendors for a Windows license whether they installed Windows on a machine or not. This was one of the reasons that Linux was unable to get a foothold in the desktop market.
The other reason was that you needed an engineering degree to use it.
Qualcomm is using its monopoly position in one market to increase its standing in another.
Allegedly.
In my opinion Microsoft was charging PC manufacturers for Windows for PC they built(unless PC is loaded with other OS with non-upgradeable bios to revert to windows) whether it was installed or not because of large scale piracy in rest of world. In those countries where piracy laws are non-existence, companies and individual users would buy PCs without OS and than install pirated free copy of windows. Means Microsoft is doing charity of software. Would you work for someone for free or provide service for free ? Even churches don't do it.
That's total BS. What Microsoft was doing was to prevent OEMs from installing Linux, or some other OS on their machines instead of Windows, or supplying their machines with no OS at all. which a number of OEMs were beginning to do. It was purely a monopolistic practice. They did a similar thing to OEMs who installed Netscape on their machines. Microsoft threatened them that if they continued to do that Microsoft would no longer give them early access to newer versions of Windows, so that t]when newer versions came out, their machines would be able to accesss all the new features, and so they would've be behind competitors.
ms lost their case on both points. If the Bush administration didn't break the word Bush gave on the campaign trail of not interfering in the trial, then Microsoft would have been broken up, and possibly, Gates would have been in jail for contempt.
FTC leave this American company alone. Are you anti-american ? Qualcomm worked hard to create intellectual property and they can charge reasonably to whomever they want. No one asking to use their tech... Atleast Qualcomm is not like those patent trolls who did not create patients in first place and than don't use patents to create products. You need to go after them.
The difference is FRAND. If a patent holder never establishes an industry standard and subsequently chooses to offer licensing terms which support their industry standard position, then FRAND terms never apply.
The interesting thing about SEP patents is that it requires the patent holder to submit their patents for that purpose. If they don't, they're not automatically agreed to be SEP, and so FRAND licensing doesn't apply. Then, the patent holder can attempt to get higher fees, and the user can take them to Clark over those fees. It's really a complex pain in the ass.
but most companies do submit those patents for SEP purposes. Once you do, however, your stuck with the results. You can't withdraw patents from the SEP/FRAND category once they're accepted.
FTC leave this American company alone. Are you anti-american ? Qualcomm worked hard to create intellectual property and they can charge reasonably to whomever they want. No one asking to use their tech... Atleast Qualcomm is not like those patent trolls who did not create patients in first place and than don't use patents to create products. You need to go after them.
Qualcomm voluntarily committed its patents to a standards body so that its patents would be included as part of a universal standard. In doing so it agreed to license the patents in accordance to certain rules. Most importantly it voluntarily agreed to fair reasonable and non discriminatory licensing fees. Doing so allowed Qualcomm to obtain a monopoly.
Companies like Apple, also an American company, alledge Qualcomm has violated its FRAND commitments.
The FCC is alleging Qualcomm has abused its monopoly position to the detriment of competition and ultimately consumers in the form of higher prices. Because Qualcomm has a monopoly it is subject to rules other companies are not.
The FCC is absolutely right in bringing the case. Qualcomm has the right to defend itself in court.
If Apple stops paying royalties, can Qualcomm simply stop delivering chips? Is this not potentially endangering the delivery of iOS devices?
That's not what happening. Apple, and what it's urged its OEMs to do is to not pay the overcharges. That amounts that Apple states Qualcomm shouldn't be getting.
Apple started using Intel modem chips in the GSM iPhone 7. Soon after this was revealed, it was reported that Apple was restricting speed on the Q equipped models so as to even the performance with download speeds on Intel models.
So, Apple is refusing to pay increased royalties on the models they do use Q chips in. If Q withheld products, Verizon and Sprint users in the US might have a shortage of iPhones, or might be forced to switch to ATT\TMo in order to continue to enjoy the latest iPhone (with Intel chips).
I believe the Intel chips are capable of being used on CDMA networks, but Apple held off on going all in with Intel until they knew the real world performance (and perhaps to force this issue to court). If Q withheld products, it would force Apple's hand to switch to Intel across the board and in the long term, Q would suffer. If they want to win back the business, they should have settled, and with this decision, it may now be too late... when politicians smell blood in the water, you are doomed! Q now sees a future with oppressive regulation and diminished returns if Apple prevails.
If Apple stops paying royalties, can Qualcomm simply stop delivering chips? Is this not potentially endangering the delivery of iOS devices?
That's not what happening. Apple, and what it's urged its OEMs to do is to not pay the overcharges. That amounts that Apple states Qualcomm shouldn't be getting.
Apple started using Intel modem chips in the GSM iPhone 7. Soon after this was revealed, it was reported that Apple was restricting speed on the Q equipped models so as to even the performance with download speeds on Intel models.
So, Apple is refusing to pay increased royalties on the models they do use Q chips in. If Q withheld products, Verizon and Sprint users in the US might have a shortage of iPhones, or might be forced to switch to ATT\TMo in order to continue to enjoy the latest iPhone (with Intel chips).
I believe the Intel chips are capable of being used on CDMA networks, but Apple held off on going all in with Intel until they knew the real world performance (and perhaps to force this issue to court). If Q withheld products, it would force Apple's hand to switch to Intel across the board and in the long term, Q would suffer. If they want to win back the business, they should have settled, and with this decision, it may now be too late... when politicians smell blood in the water, you are doomed! Q now sees a future with oppressive regulation and diminished returns if Apple prevails.
I actually suspect it was Samsung that threw the first stone at Qualcomm. Apple's hand was forced when they didn't come to Q's defense in the Korean antitrust actions, in fact choosing to support Samsung instead in court filings. Qualcomm is stuck. They can't now make a special "FRAND" deal with either Apple or Samsung. Whatever they end up doing has to apply to ALL licensees, so really Qualcomm has little choice but to fight this on behalf of their stockholders.
If Apple stops paying royalties, can Qualcomm simply stop delivering chips? Is this not potentially endangering the delivery of iOS devices?
And they are allowed to make a profit on the chips, regardless of what the courts decides.
Not true. If the Courts decide it isn't allowed to make a profit it won't be allowed to make a profit.
Nonsense. The court can't do that. What the court can do, is to stop them from illegal practices, which it appears they're doing. If they can't make a profit legally, that's their problem. But the court can't be blamed for that.
If Apple stops paying royalties, can Qualcomm simply stop delivering chips? Is this not potentially endangering the delivery of iOS devices?
That's not what happening. Apple, and what it's urged its OEMs to do is to not pay the overcharges. That amounts that Apple states Qualcomm shouldn't be getting.
Apple started using Intel modem chips in the GSM iPhone 7. Soon after this was revealed, it was reported that Apple was restricting speed on the Q equipped models so as to even the performance with download speeds on Intel models.
So, Apple is refusing to pay increased royalties on the models they do use Q chips in. If Q withheld products, Verizon and Sprint users in the US might have a shortage of iPhones, or might be forced to switch to ATT\TMo in order to continue to enjoy the latest iPhone (with Intel chips).
I believe the Intel chips are capable of being used on CDMA networks, but Apple held off on going all in with Intel until they knew the real world performance (and perhaps to force this issue to court). If Q withheld products, it would force Apple's hand to switch to Intel across the board and in the long term, Q would suffer. If they want to win back the business, they should have settled, and with this decision, it may now be too late... when politicians smell blood in the water, you are doomed! Q now sees a future with oppressive regulation and diminished returns if Apple prevails.
Well, you have some of that right. But the Intel chips can't be used on cdma, because Intel didn't have the technology, or the patents for that. Since then, they've bought a chip manufacturer that does have patents, and it's expected that the next series, perhaps this year, will have both. We'll see.
certainly not oppressive regulation. When a company does business illegally, it shouldn't be allowed to do so. Unfortunately, there are political elements in this country who believe that business is always competent, and honest. Neither is true. Government can't insure that those running businesses are competent, but it can insure that they're honest. That's called regulation.
Comments
That's not what happening. Apple, and what it's urged its OEMs to do is to not pay the overcharges. That amounts that Apple states Qualcomm shouldn't be getting.
Was this a serious post, or some sort of scar Sam? It's hard to tell.
if you read the entire article, which is prerrtty much correct, then you would understand what is happening. I'm not surprised at the government's that have taken them to,Clark over this, but how it took so long to get there.
That's total BS. What Microsoft was doing was to prevent OEMs from installing Linux, or some other OS on their machines instead of Windows, or supplying their machines with no OS at all. which a number of OEMs were beginning to do. It was purely a monopolistic practice. They did a similar thing to OEMs who installed Netscape on their machines. Microsoft threatened them that if they continued to do that Microsoft would no longer give them early access to newer versions of Windows, so that t]when newer versions came out, their machines would be able to accesss all the new features, and so they would've be behind competitors.
ms lost their case on both points. If the Bush administration didn't break the word Bush gave on the campaign trail of not interfering in the trial, then Microsoft would have been broken up, and possibly, Gates would have been in jail for contempt.
but most companies do submit those patents for SEP purposes. Once you do, however, your stuck with the results. You can't withdraw patents from the SEP/FRAND category once they're accepted.
Not true. If the Courts decide it isn't allowed to make a profit it won't be allowed to make a profit.
Qualcomm voluntarily committed its patents to a standards body so that its patents would be included as part of a universal standard. In doing so it agreed to license the patents in accordance to certain rules. Most importantly it voluntarily agreed to fair reasonable and non discriminatory licensing fees. Doing so allowed Qualcomm to obtain a monopoly.
Companies like Apple, also an American company, alledge Qualcomm has violated its FRAND commitments.
The FCC is alleging Qualcomm has abused its monopoly position to the detriment of competition and ultimately consumers in the form of higher prices. Because Qualcomm has a monopoly it is subject to rules other companies are not.
The FCC is absolutely right in bringing the case. Qualcomm has the right to defend itself in court.
So, Apple is refusing to pay increased royalties on the models they do use Q chips in. If Q withheld products, Verizon and Sprint users in the US might have a shortage of iPhones, or might be forced to switch to ATT\TMo in order to continue to enjoy the latest iPhone (with Intel chips).
I believe the Intel chips are capable of being used on CDMA networks, but Apple held off on going all in with Intel until they knew the real world performance (and perhaps to force this issue to court). If Q withheld products, it would force Apple's hand to switch to Intel across the board and in the long term, Q would suffer. If they want to win back the business, they should have settled, and with this decision, it may now be too late... when politicians smell blood in the water, you are doomed! Q now sees a future with oppressive regulation and diminished returns if Apple prevails.
Well, you have some of that right. But the Intel chips can't be used on cdma, because Intel didn't have the technology, or the patents for that. Since then, they've bought a chip manufacturer that does have patents, and it's expected that the next series, perhaps this year, will have both. We'll see.
certainly not oppressive regulation. When a company does business illegally, it shouldn't be allowed to do so. Unfortunately, there are political elements in this country who believe that business is always competent, and honest. Neither is true. Government can't insure that those running businesses are competent, but it can insure that they're honest. That's called regulation.