Qualcomm out billions of dollars as Apple wins summary judgment in breach of contract laws...

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 22
    bshankbshank Posts: 240member
    Some lawyers get paid only if they win, and I've heard it's 30% of the judgment. Does Apple have its own lawyers on staff? If so do they get any bonuses when they win? Or are they just paid flat salaries, and if so how much are the salaries?
    Apple is a publicly traded company. You can find that information on this thing called the internet 
  • Reply 22 of 22
    gatorguy said:
    chasm said:
    Hopefully the appeal judges will make Qualcomm pay up while they consider the case.
    There's no "pay up". QC already paid, tho I think there could be maybe a $B they didn't. Not entirely certain but I'll be checking.
     In essence QC wanted money back they had already paid Apple, thus the use of the term "claw-back".
    Like you say, QC had already paid a lot of the rebates at issue, but they did stop paying when they decided Apple breached the agreement. This judge has ruled that Apple’s actions did not breach the agreement. Accordingly, QC is still responsible under the agreement for paying Apple all rebates still owed but unpaid, and they are not entitled to a refund of fees already paid. (This suit is actually a counter-suit filed by QC in response to a suit filed by Apple to force QC to pay the remaining unpaid rebates.)

    The billion dollars you mention that QC still owes Apple under the rebate agreement has actually already been recovered (and then some, quite possibly) by Apple, because Apple directed their contract manufacturers to stop paying license fees to QC after QC began withholding the rebates. Apple’s attorneys had made the determination that QC had no right to withhold the rebates, and the court (pending appeal) has now agreed.

    At some point, Apple will have to pay the license fees they have been withholding from QC, but the proper royalty rate is currently in dispute; Apple has filed suit against QC claiming that QC has not offered to license their standards-essential patents on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis. At issue is the value of certain patents, and whether QC’s patent rights were “exhausted” (extinguished as a result of prior royalty payments received) when the iPhones assembler (e.g. Foxconn) bought the chips from QC—which prices already included royalty payments for QC’s standards-essential patents. 
    edited March 2019
Sign In or Register to comment.