Qualcomm could still win an iPhone ban in the US at the hands of the USITC

Posted:
in iPhone edited December 2018
A panel of judges at the US International Trade Commission is reviewing a previous ruling that the agency made, and it could overturn a decision that an iPhone ban is not in the public interest if Apple infringed a Qualcomm patent.

iPhone X, at the heart of Qualcomm's complaints
iPhone X, at the heart of Qualcomm's complaints


Late on Wednesday, the USITC declared that it would review retired Administrative law judge Thomas Pender's ruling that Apple infringed one Qualcomm patent, but shouldn't face a product ban that was being sought. The review is in its entirety for the one patent that Judge Pender viewed as violated, meaning that the validity of the one patent will be re-examined, as well as the refusal of a product ban.

"We are pleased that the Commission is going to review the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation that no ITC remedy should result from a finding of infringement," Qualcomm's executive vice president and general counsel Don Rosenberg said after the USITC announced the re-examination.

In that re-examination, the USITC said that it will consider not just if the patent is infringed, but if there are any national security implications in a ruling, and how long it would take Apple to design around a ban or if it already has. The ban ruling isn't binary, and the agency can also consider a limited ban, such as on one version of an iPhone, and not another -- like a ban on iPhones with Intel modems versus Qualcomm ones.

Qualcomm claimed Apple was infringing on six of its patents relating to carrier aggregation, graphics processing, and signal amplification, in a complaint that was introduced to the USITC in 2017. The company ultimately pulled back three of the complaints, and one on battery charge preservation technology was viewed as infringed by Judge Pender.

The review order isn't routine, nor it is unprecedented. According to the USITC, about 60 percent of initial rulings are reviewed by a full panel of judges. Statistics for an overturn of a previous ruling are not available, but nearly every time a matter involving Apple has been reviewed by a panel of judges at the USITC -- notably three times during the Apple versus Samsung skirmish -- the iPhone maker has come out ahead.

The two patents that Judge Pender ruled as not violated in the first of two ITC complaints filed in the Apple versus Qualcomm skirmish will not be reviewed. A ruling on the matter is due by February 19, and is subject to appeal.

The entire ITC saga is part and parcel of Apple and Qualcomm's larger modem chip battle. Apple first filed a $1 billion lawsuit against Qualcomm in January 2017, arguing that Qualcomm was withholding money as retaliation for cooperation with antitrust investigations.

In September, Qualcomm accused Apple of delivering trade secrets to Intel to improve the performance of modems.

An August settlement over similar matters saw Qualcomm pay $93 million in fines to Taiwan and promise to invest $700 million in the country over five years.

The USITC complaint isn't the only one before the U.S. Government, A U.S. Federal Trade Commission lawsuit was filed before Apple's, and a decisive ruling was issued in November when District Judge Lucy Koh issued a preliminary ruling against Qualcomm, calling on it to license technology to rivals like Intel.

To put pressure on Qualcomm, Apple has been directing its manufacturers to withhold royalty payments, potentially reportedly in excess of $7 billion.

Qualcomm's CEO has been saying for six months that the modem chip saga will conclude soon. It isn't clear how accurate that assessment is, with a source within Apple saying that there have been no meaningful conversations between the two companies in months.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,117member
    While this particular hearing doesn't involve F/RAND pledged patents,  of significant interest still and not yet reported at any of the tech blogs is this statement from US Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim this past week in a speech at the Advanced Patent Law Institute:

    "I would like to announce here today, in the interest of clarity and predictability of the laws, and among the patent law community with whom we share the goal of incentivizing innovation: The Antitrust Division is hereby withdrawing its assent to the 2013 joint “Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments.

    The 2013 statement has not accurately conveyed our position about when and how patent holders should be able to exclude competitors from practicing their technologies.  We will be engaging with the U.S.P.T.O. to draft a new joint statement that better provides clarity and predictability with respect to the balance of interests at stake when an SEP-holder seeks an injunctive order.

    Any discussion regarding injunctive relief should include the recognition that in addition to patent holders being able to engage in patent “hold up,” patent implementers are also able to engage in “hold out” once the innovators have already sunk their investment into developing a valuable technology.  Additionally, a balanced discussion should recognize that some standard-setting organizations may make it too easy for patent implementers to bargain collectively and achieve sub-optimal concessions from patent holders that undermine the incentive to innovate..."

    "I believe our job is to serve American consumers by ensuring that fledgling ideas can become tomorrow’s life-changing or life-saving technologies.  With that principle in mind, we are committed to ensuring that patent holders maintain their full constitutional right to seek an injunction against infringement, and that standard-setting organizations do not facilitate collusion of the sort that undermines innovative new technologies."

    If you have a real interest in the ongoing patent licensing battleground how it affects standards essential IP and rights enforcement then the entire speech is worth reading. The rules and the monitoring of them may be changing from the standards setting organizations themselves all the way thru to the licensees. Maybe. 

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-makan-delrahim-delivers-remarks-19th-annual-berkeley-stanford

    edited December 2018 ddawson100SpamSandwich
  • Reply 2 of 24
    I don't have the solution, but sure wish there was an answer to all of this tech patent wild-west antics that have been going on for a couple of decades now.  I won't claim anyone as being a "patent troll", but the point of a patent is to protect ones invention or ideas in order to develop and profit from it.  It is NOT intended to be a "I thought of it first but don't do anything with it so now you have to constantly prove you aren't getting near it".  When we are to a point where a patent is limiting technology growth or stifling innovation because someone refuses to budge because they feel they can just have your entire product banned, we need reform.  

    I'm not saying strip patents from everyone, or anyone, but something has to be done.  What that something is...I have no idea.  just sick of hearing things like this, and yes I know Apple does it as well to others.  But I don't view Apple as someone with tons of patents and no plans to ever develop or use them.  
    radarthekatboltsfan17watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 24
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,373member
    Is this limited to items shipping with iOS 11 as I have read is to be the case in China? Or is that not even true?
  • Reply 4 of 24
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,012member
    USITC is not like Chinese courts control by Chinese government who put import ban on older IOS iphones.. This is full fledged war between two companies and settlement is not near.
  • Reply 5 of 24
    gatorguy said:
    While this particular hearing doesn't involve F/RAND pledged patents,  of significant interest still and not yet reported at any of the tech blogs is this statement from US Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim this past week in a speech at the Advanced Patent Law Institute:

    "I would like to announce here today, in the interest of clarity and predictability of the laws, and among the patent law community with whom we share the goal of incentivizing innovation: The Antitrust Division is hereby withdrawing its assent to the 2013 joint “Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments.

    The 2013 statement has not accurately conveyed our position about when and how patent holders should be able to exclude competitors from practicing their technologies.  We will be engaging with the U.S.P.T.O. to draft a new joint statement that better provides clarity and predictability with respect to the balance of interests at stake when an SEP-holder seeks an injunctive order.

    Any discussion regarding injunctive relief should include the recognition that in addition to patent holders being able to engage in patent “hold up,” patent implementers are also able to engage in “hold out” once the innovators have already sunk their investment into developing a valuable technology.  Additionally, a balanced discussion should recognize that some standard-setting organizations may make it too easy for patent implementers to bargain collectively and achieve sub-optimal concessions from patent holders that undermine the incentive to innovate..."

    "I believe our job is to serve American consumers by ensuring that fledgling ideas can become tomorrow’s life-changing or life-saving technologies.  With that principle in mind, we are committed to ensuring that patent holders maintain their full constitutional right to seek an injunction against infringement, and that standard-setting organizations do not facilitate collusion of the sort that undermines innovative new technologies."

    If you have a real interest in the ongoing patent licensing battleground how it affects standards essential IP and rights enforcement then the entire speech is worth reading. The rules and the monitoring of them may be changing from the standards setting organizations themselves all the way thru to the licensees. Maybe. 

    https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/assistant-attorney-general-makan-delrahim-delivers-remarks-19th-annual-berkeley-stanford

    Thanks.

    The key there is the maybe. We’ll see what comes of Mr. Delrahim’s intentions. But it seems that he, and the Attorney General’s Office, want to push U.S. SEP enforcement principles in what I would consider a dangerous direction.

    If an IP owner believes that their IP has substantial intrinsic value, they have a way to realize (and safeguard from FRAND commitments) that value: Don’t allow it to be incorporated in standards or otherwise don’t make FRAND commitments in order to have it incorporated in standards.

    When it is so incorporated, those IP owners are getting something quite valuable - in contract lingo, they are getting valuable consideration. In return for that they need to be giving back valuable consideration, to include limitations on their IP enforcement rights under certain circumstances (i.e. when an infringer is a willing licensee). Industries, through SSOs, shouldn’t be giving them additional market leverage (i.e. beyond that which IP laws give them) unless they are enforceably giving back some of the leverage which IP laws would otherwise give them.

    If that was not how it worked, then SEP holders - to include minor contributors - would have too much power to hold entire industries, or individual players in them, hostage. The former would have the power to extract unreasonably high licensing fees, which far exceeded the intrinsic value of their IP, from the latter under threat of paralyzing them. An entity which managed to get one patent incorporated in a standard which incorporated many hundreds of other patents could wield outsized power over an entire industry. Industry standards would not be able to function as they need to. We’d see a trend toward less standardization, and that would be bad for technological advancement and prosperity in general.

    if you believe your IP has great value beyond that which would be created by its inclusion in a standard, then don’t submit it for use in a standard. Keep it free from FRAND obligations and use all of the enforcement tools which the law allows you, in addition to free market negotiation, to seek fair compensation for its use. But you shouldn’t get to use the additional leverage given you by its inclusion in a standard to force others to pay more than its intrinsic value.
    edited December 2018 radarthekattmayadamc
  • Reply 6 of 24
    airnerd said:
    I don't have the solution, but sure wish there was an answer to all of this tech patent wild-west antics that have been going on for a couple of decades now.  I won't claim anyone as being a "patent troll", but the point of a patent is to protect ones invention or ideas in order to develop and profit from it.  It is NOT intended to be a "I thought of it first but don't do anything with it so now you have to constantly prove you aren't getting near it".  When we are to a point where a patent is limiting technology growth or stifling innovation because someone refuses to budge because they feel they can just have your entire product banned, we need reform.  

    I'm not saying strip patents from everyone, or anyone, but something has to be done.  What that something is...I have no idea.  just sick of hearing things like this, and yes I know Apple does it as well to others.  But I don't view Apple as someone with tons of patents and no plans to ever develop or use them.  
    Part of the solution, I think, is for standard setting organizations to require more specific - and better articulated - commitments when it comes to the licensing terms which SEP holders must offer and which SEP users would have to agree to (for the latter, that would be in order to be considered a willing licensee).
    airnerd
  • Reply 7 of 24
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,896administrator
    MacPro said:
    Is this limited to items shipping with iOS 11 as I have read is to be the case in China? Or is that not even true?
    Apple says that iOS 12 isn't impacted. Qualcomm says it is.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 8 of 24
    Sounds like more Reuter’s  not so real news.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 24
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,133moderator
    I’d think the damage to consumers in this spat would exceed the damage done to the patent holder.  On that basis alone I imagine Qualcomm will not be successful in persuading toward its goal.  
    MacProairnerdwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 24
    As per Florian Mueller over at fosspatents.com, the decision by the ITC is actually a setback to Qualcomm, not progress. He outlines the reasons here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/12/itc-decides-to-review-initial.html

    I really wish AI would make use of such resources to provide more nuanced reporting instead of parroting the mainstream media's slant on the issue.

    edited December 2018 radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 24
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,117member
    As per Florian Mueller over at fosspatents.com, the decision by the ITC is actually a setback to Qualcomm, not progress. He outlines the reasons here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/12/itc-decides-to-review-initial.html

    I really wish AI would make use of such resources to provide more nuanced reporting instead of parroting the mainstream media's slant on the issue.

    It couldn't be considered a setback as they're not in a worse position than they were.

    IMO the AI article very properly mentions that the door is not closed on a Qualcomm requested exclusion order, which most readers would have assumed it was after Pender issued his initial findings which was reported here at AI just a few weeks ago.  
  • Reply 12 of 24
    airnerd said:
    I don't have the solution, but sure wish there was an answer to all of this tech patent wild-west antics that have been going on for a couple of decades now.  I won't claim anyone as being a "patent troll", but the point of a patent is to protect ones invention or ideas in order to develop and profit from it.  It is NOT intended to be a "I thought of it first but don't do anything with it so now you have to constantly prove you aren't getting near it".  When we are to a point where a patent is limiting technology growth or stifling innovation because someone refuses to budge because they feel they can just have your entire product banned, we need reform.  

    I'm not saying strip patents from everyone, or anyone, but something has to be done.  What that something is...I have no idea.  just sick of hearing things like this, and yes I know Apple does it as well to others.  But I don't view Apple as someone with tons of patents and no plans to ever develop or use them.  
    I think one possible solution is to do something similar to what the FDA does with drug patents and generics. Say you create a patent and it gets approved. You have so many years to do something with that patent such as in licensing it to others or developing a product that uses that patent. If you do neither, you can't file a claim of copyright infringement after so many years have passed. 
    airnerd
  • Reply 13 of 24
    gatorguy said:
    As per Florian Mueller over at fosspatents.com, the decision by the ITC is actually a setback to Qualcomm, not progress. He outlines the reasons here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/12/itc-decides-to-review-initial.html

    I really wish AI would make use of such resources to provide more nuanced reporting instead of parroting the mainstream media's slant on the issue.

    It couldn't be considered a setback as they're not in a worse position than they were.

    IMO the AI article very properly mentions that the door is not closed on a Qualcomm requested exclusion order, which most readers would have assumed it was after Pender issued his initial findings which was reported here at AI just a few weeks ago.  
    I think the point is

    (1) To the extent the USITC's order issued yesterday represented decisions that could either be in Apple's favor (and not in Qualcomm's) or in Qualcomm's favor (and not in Apple's), all of the decisions which were made were in Apple's favor; and

    (2) It was a given that the USITC would review the recommendation of the ALJ relating to an exclusion order (if the finding of infringement stands) because it has to. A determination regarding such order still has to be made; what the ALJ made was a recommendation. So the reality that the USITC will consider that recommendation isn't news.

    To be clear, the ALJ made findings regarding infringement (and Section 337 violation). The USITC could have decided to review or to not review those findings. But what the ALJ made with regard to possible remedies was a recommendation, so further action by the USITC was required unless the finding of infringement was reversed. 

    Now, it's probably true that many didn't realize that (2) was the case. They might have thought the ALJ had made a decision regarding an exclusion order which might or might not be reviewed by the USITC. And we might think that, even though it was a given and may have been pointed out last month, it makes sense today to let people know that the ALJ's recommendation still has to be reviewed and a decision on that front still has to be made. Fair enough. But that doesn't change the reality that what was announced by the USITC yesterday was not in Qualcomm's favor, it was in Apple's favor. The finding of infringement which Apple wanted reviewed is going to be reviewed. The findings of no infringement which Qualcomm wanted reviewed are not going to be reviewed.

    I'd add that, to the extent some news sources have suggested that it wasn't a given that the USITC would review the exclusion order issue, they have mislead people. A decision regarding an exclusion order hasn't yet been made. That's something the USITC would do. And then the U.S. Trade Representative would have to approve or disapprove an exclusion order. And then the party subject to that order could file an appeal in the Federal Circuit.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 14 of 24
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,117member
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    As per Florian Mueller over at fosspatents.com, the decision by the ITC is actually a setback to Qualcomm, not progress. He outlines the reasons here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/12/itc-decides-to-review-initial.html

    I really wish AI would make use of such resources to provide more nuanced reporting instead of parroting the mainstream media's slant on the issue.

    It couldn't be considered a setback as they're not in a worse position than they were.

    IMO the AI article very properly mentions that the door is not closed on a Qualcomm requested exclusion order, which most readers would have assumed it was after Pender issued his initial findings which was reported here at AI just a few weeks ago.  
    I think the point is

    (1) To the extent the USITC's order issued yesterday represented decisions that could either be in Apple's favor (and not in Qualcomm's) or in Qualcomm's favor (and not in Apple's), all of the decisions which were made were in Apple's favor; and

    (2) It was a given that the USITC would review the recommendation of the ALJ relating to an exclusion order (if the finding of infringement stands) because it has to. A determination regarding such order still has to be made; what the ALJ made was a recommendation. So the reality that the USITC will consider that recommendation isn't news.

    To be clear, the ALJ made findings regarding infringement (and Section 337 violation). The USITC could have decided to review or to not review those findings. But what the ALJ made with regard to possible remedies was a recommendation, so further action by the USITC was required unless the finding of infringement was reversed. 

    Now, it's probably true that many didn't realize that (2) was the case. They might have thought the ALJ had made a decision regarding an exclusion order which might or might not be reviewed by the USITC. And we might think that, even though it was a given and may have been pointed out last month, it makes sense today to let people know that the ALJ's recommendation still has to be reviewed and a decision on that front still has to be made. Fair enough. But that doesn't change the reality that what was announced by the USITC yesterday was not in Qualcomm's favor, it was in Apple's favor. The finding of infringement which Apple wanted reviewed is going to be reviewed. The findings of no infringement which Qualcomm wanted reviewed are not going to be reviewed.

    I'd add that, to the extent some news sources have suggested that it wasn't a given that the USITC would review the exclusion order issue, they have mislead people. A decision regarding an exclusion order hasn't yet been made. That's something the USITC would do. And then the U.S. Trade Representative would have to approve or disapprove an exclusion order. And then the party subject to that order could file an appeal in the Federal Circuit.
    We agree. :)
    radarthekat
  • Reply 15 of 24
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,896administrator
    As per Florian Mueller over at fosspatents.com, the decision by the ITC is actually a setback to Qualcomm, not progress. He outlines the reasons here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/12/itc-decides-to-review-initial.html

    I really wish AI would make use of such resources to provide more nuanced reporting instead of parroting the mainstream media's slant on the issue.

    Mueller has his own agenda. We do refer to him when appropriate. He's welcome to believe that this is a setback for Qualcomm, but he isn't really basing it on anything. And regarding "parroting the mainstream media" - we always issue our own assessments on the situation, as they lack context in nearly all things Apple.

    You may have missed the part in the article where we talk about Apple's track record on reconsiderations.

    FTA: "The review order isn't routine, nor it is unprecedented. According to the USITC, about 60 percent of initial rulings are reviewed by a full panel of judges. Statistics for an overturn of a previous ruling are not available, but nearly every time a matter involving Apple has been reviewed by a panel of judges at the USITC -- notably three times during the Apple versus Samsung skirmish -- the iPhone maker has come out ahead."
    edited December 2018 gatorguy
  • Reply 16 of 24
    airnerd said:
    ....   But I don't view Apple as someone with tons of patents and no plans to ever develop or use them.  

    Exactly. A troll is someone that thinks of an idea, and patents it for the sole purpose of getting licensing agreements with implementors. That behaviour should be banned outright. The patent holder should be responsible for implementing the idea and bringing it to market in a certain timeframe, or the patent expires.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 24
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,133moderator
    airnerd said:
    I don't have the solution, but sure wish there was an answer to all of this tech patent wild-west antics that have been going on for a couple of decades now.  I won't claim anyone as being a "patent troll", but the point of a patent is to protect ones invention or ideas in order to develop and profit from it.  It is NOT intended to be a "I thought of it first but don't do anything with it so now you have to constantly prove you aren't getting near it".  When we are to a point where a patent is limiting technology growth or stifling innovation because someone refuses to budge because they feel they can just have your entire product banned, we need reform.  

    I'm not saying strip patents from everyone, or anyone, but something has to be done.  What that something is...I have no idea.  just sick of hearing things like this, and yes I know Apple does it as well to others.  But I don't view Apple as someone with tons of patents and no plans to ever develop or use them.  
    I think one possible solution is to do something similar to what the FDA does with drug patents and generics. Say you create a patent and it gets approved. You have so many years to do something with that patent such as in licensing it to others or developing a product that uses that patent. If you do neither, you can't file a claim of copyright infringement after so many years have passed. 
    Interesting.  I’ve writren in the past here advocating a similar stance without knowing this is actually already being implemented against a category of patents.  That’s very encouraging.  

    Here is my write-up on the matter, the last paragraph touching upon the situation you brought to light...

    Non-practicing patent pricing reform

    I've grappled with the dichotomy presented by the need to protect intellectual property versus the scourge that the non-practicing entity lawsuits represent.  

    Perhaps the answer is to limit the royalties that can be demanded from patents that are not being applied (non-practicing) versus those that are applied in some product or service.  This would give greater protection and rewards to those who own patents and are using the patented technology in their products, because damage from infringement is higher versus damage to a non-practicing patent holder.  If you've gone through the expense of utilizing a patented process or mechanism, then you should be compensated greater when someone infringes that patent.  But if you haven't, and therefore also haven't brought a new product or service to market that allows society to benefit from the invention, then perhaps you shouldn't receive the same compensation for infringement. 

    There's perhaps a bit of precedent here in the  FRAND royalty calculations for patents that are considered standards essential.  The whole notion of SEP is that there's a greater good to society to allow multiple parties to utilize an invention as part of a standard and therefore it should be affordable for all to utilize the patented invention. Same here.  Patented inventions that are sat upon don't benefit society, so there should be incentive to get those inventions into use.  

    To give time for a new patent holder to develop products and services around a patented invention, perhaps the first few years after the patent is granted, it can be exempt from the rules I'm suggesting here.  The current status quo would remain in effect.  But after, say, three years, if you haven't shown that the patent is being developed into a product or service, then licensing limitations go into effect so that the amount you may charge for your invention will be limited, ala FRAND-type pricing guidelines.  So, if you don't intend to utilize a patented invention, either accept the lower royalty rates so that others can utilize it, or sell the patent to a company that will utilize it and therefore retain full royalty and infringement power over it.

  • Reply 18 of 24
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,117member
    @radarthecat ; , what to do about the thousands of patents tech companies file and never use, or worse file simply to block a competitor? Use it or lose it still apply?

    edited December 2018
  • Reply 19 of 24
    gatorguy said:
    As per Florian Mueller over at fosspatents.com, the decision by the ITC is actually a setback to Qualcomm, not progress. He outlines the reasons here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/12/itc-decides-to-review-initial.html

    I really wish AI would make use of such resources to provide more nuanced reporting instead of parroting the mainstream media's slant on the issue.

    It couldn't be considered a setback as they're not in a worse position than they were.
    Actually, they are in a worse position than Apple, as per Mueller's reasoning towards the end of the article, stated below:

    So by now, there's only one patent in the case, and Apple has four different chances to avoid an import ban, and needs to prevail on just one while Qualcomm must overcome all four hurdles:

    1. infringement (a matter of claim construction, and the Commission is interested in claim construction arguments),

    2. validity (the Commission appears particularly interested in one prior art reference, but also in a second one that might be relevant to an obviousness analysis),

    3. domestic industry (here, claim construction also comes into play), and

    4. the public interest in thwarting a market monopolization campaign.

    radarthekat
  • Reply 20 of 24

    As per Florian Mueller over at fosspatents.com, the decision by the ITC is actually a setback to Qualcomm, not progress. He outlines the reasons here: http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/12/itc-decides-to-review-initial.html

    I really wish AI would make use of such resources to provide more nuanced reporting instead of parroting the mainstream media's slant on the issue.

    Mueller has his own agenda. We do refer to him when appropriate. He's welcome to believe that this is a setback for Qualcomm, but he isn't really basing it on anything. 
    Sure, Mueller may have his own agenda, but it's stretching things a bit to say he isn't really basing it on anything. I just quoted in my reply to Gatorguy the reasons Mueller thinks why it's going to be an uphill battle for Qualcomm, compared to Apple.
Sign In or Register to comment.