Intel opens fire in solo ITC filing in support of Apple and calls Qualcomm 'abusive,' anti...
Supplementing Intel's presence in a trade group in a previous filing, the company has filed its own declaration with the U.S. International Trade Commission in support of Apple in its fight against Qualcomm's wireless technology licensing practices for the iPhone 7, and future devices.
Filed on Thursday, Intel's stand-alone remarks on the Apple versus Qualcomm wireless chip debacle paint Apple's foe as having a monopoly "through a host of anticompetitive practices -- not through the merits of its products or the strength of its innovation." Intel also notes that the "no-license-no-chips" policy gives device manufacturers no recourse, as Qualcomm "answers any opposition with threats to disrupt the OEM's supply of Qualcomm modems."
Intel claims that Qualcomm's complaint to the ITC attempts to exclude Intel modems while giving free passage to other allegedly infringing products containing a Qualcomm modem. Qualcomm's complaint names some GPU technology as potentially infringing -- technology found in the iPhone 7 regardless of which company's modem chipset is in use.
Furthermore, Intel claims that Qualcomm is in breach of its obligations to license standards-essential patents to competitors, violating commitments to organizations who control the patent pools. As part of Qualcomm's licensing deals, Intel claims that it "forecloses rivals like Intel from competing for Apple's vital business" with competitive wireless chipsets.
"Apple's decision to resist Qualcomm's anticompetitive behavior is the leading edge of a growing resistance to Qualcomm and its interlocking web of abusive practices," writes Intel. "Not coincidentally, Qualcomm has targeted Apple here in retribution for daring to contract with Qualcomm's only remaining competitor and for bringing a lawsuit to challenge Qualcomm's anticompetitive conduct."
In January, Apple leveled a $1 billion lawsuit against Qualcomm, charging it with abusing its market dominance to obtain unfair royalties, as well as forcing chip buyers to enter into patent licenses. Qualcomm began a countersuit in April arguing that Apple broke contract and wants to pay less than fair market value for licenses.
Qualcomm leveled a complaint with the ITC earlier in July, and looks to obtain a "limited exclusion order" against newly built iPhone devices. In addition, the firm also seeks to halt sales of devices already within U.S. borders through a cease and desist order.
"This is a pretty straightforward case: we've got six patents that we are confident they are infringing," said Don Rosenberg, general counsel at Qualcomm. "We are obviously very concerned about the fact that Apple has unilaterally decided it doesn't have to pay for property it takes and uses."
Editor's note: An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified the U.S. ITC as the FTC.
Filed on Thursday, Intel's stand-alone remarks on the Apple versus Qualcomm wireless chip debacle paint Apple's foe as having a monopoly "through a host of anticompetitive practices -- not through the merits of its products or the strength of its innovation." Intel also notes that the "no-license-no-chips" policy gives device manufacturers no recourse, as Qualcomm "answers any opposition with threats to disrupt the OEM's supply of Qualcomm modems."
Intel claims that Qualcomm's complaint to the ITC attempts to exclude Intel modems while giving free passage to other allegedly infringing products containing a Qualcomm modem. Qualcomm's complaint names some GPU technology as potentially infringing -- technology found in the iPhone 7 regardless of which company's modem chipset is in use.
Furthermore, Intel claims that Qualcomm is in breach of its obligations to license standards-essential patents to competitors, violating commitments to organizations who control the patent pools. As part of Qualcomm's licensing deals, Intel claims that it "forecloses rivals like Intel from competing for Apple's vital business" with competitive wireless chipsets.
"Apple's decision to resist Qualcomm's anticompetitive behavior is the leading edge of a growing resistance to Qualcomm and its interlocking web of abusive practices," writes Intel. "Not coincidentally, Qualcomm has targeted Apple here in retribution for daring to contract with Qualcomm's only remaining competitor and for bringing a lawsuit to challenge Qualcomm's anticompetitive conduct."
In January, Apple leveled a $1 billion lawsuit against Qualcomm, charging it with abusing its market dominance to obtain unfair royalties, as well as forcing chip buyers to enter into patent licenses. Qualcomm began a countersuit in April arguing that Apple broke contract and wants to pay less than fair market value for licenses.
Qualcomm leveled a complaint with the ITC earlier in July, and looks to obtain a "limited exclusion order" against newly built iPhone devices. In addition, the firm also seeks to halt sales of devices already within U.S. borders through a cease and desist order.
"This is a pretty straightforward case: we've got six patents that we are confident they are infringing," said Don Rosenberg, general counsel at Qualcomm. "We are obviously very concerned about the fact that Apple has unilaterally decided it doesn't have to pay for property it takes and uses."
Editor's note: An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified the U.S. ITC as the FTC.
Comments
before intel emerged as an option, apple had to take their abuse because Qualcomm was essentially a monopoly, but that's no longer the case. With many of their patents running out it will only get worse for them too.
They can not, plus they are listening to their lawyers which are basically tell them, make the other side prove their ass, if you back down now, you admit you were wrong and they lose all future power to do the exact same things. QCOM profits were down 40% since this started, if they settle with Apple it opens the door for others to do the exact same thing. They are stuck between a rock and hard place. They are just hoping they can keep the status quo and continue to get everyone in the value chain to pay some part of the licensing fees. Without this their profits are gone and investor will exit stage right. Investors only like QCOM due to the nice margins and the strangle hold they have over the market when that is done so is the reason people invest in them.
You clearly don't know all the details of what Qualcomm has been up to. They are going to get nailed to a wall. Not just by these companies they have screwed over, but many governments as well. I'm sure they are still walking funny from having to pay 815 million to Blackberry.
I've read that the consumption of toilet paper has increased 68% in the corporate stalls at Qualcomm HQ over the past month...
They have too, because getting the "whole device pricing" kept IP at 10 times the value it should have been worth, but this basically ripping off your clients and making them possibly unprofitable! Clients don't take that lying down usually.
They are simply running out of options; even if they're "right", they won't be in every jurisdiction from what we've seen up to now and it would turn into a Pyrrhic victory everywhere else with years of declining profits, big clients mad as hell and willing to kick their ass.
Once the comm monopoly is cracked, even their SOC business would be in jeopardy.l
They were asking about $15,000 for that unit and it didn't even include a mattress! I asked the sales lady why the unit costed so much relative to other similar systems that were only a tenth the price. She then went on to explain how in New York (I'm in San Francisco) that the price of apartments are so expensive per square-foot that a regular bed would take up x-square-feet which then roughly is comparable to the price of the unit.
They were basing the price of the bed based on the price per square foot that a normal bed would take up in a New York apartment! I proceeded to ask her that it made no sense to me to price a product that way and if that were indeed the case, I asked her if I calculate the price per square foot in the tiny cottage in a quiet neighborhood in San Francisco that I was planning on purchasing the bed for, would she then grant me a discount?
She didn't have an answer. My incident reminded me of what Tim Cook said about Qualcomm's business practices of paying for a sofa based on the price of the house it's going into.
After politely telling the lady that her pricing model was all wrong, I proceeded to walk out the door and promised not to go back in ever again. They shot themselves in the foot as Qualcomm is doing right now too.
Nice job of "Made in America" support contrasting with Qualcomm whose chips are built outside the US. Likely to play well at the FTC, but not likely to be an argument presented to the EU or elsewhere.
This illustrates how a good argument can be presented by a single entity without the need to compromise language to fit multiple parties. Very tight.
We should all write so well.
Look at SE to iPodTouch, iPads with or without cellular there is a fairly standard price gap between the two. Surely Apple can argue this is the market decided value add for this function.
I guess this is why we haven't senn Macbooks get a cellular option. Apple could really only charge the same feature price and license fee would be double or tripple that.