Apple, Qualcomm reach modem licensing deal to end 'no license, no chips' trial

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 127
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,105member
    sflocal said:
    avon b7 said:
    No doubt those who spouted so much vitriol against Qualcomm have mixed feelings now. QC was evil but now a different viewpoint will probably unfold.

    If the X55 ends up in the 2019 refresh, no doubt all the talk about 5G being unnecessary on the iPhone this year will be forgotten.

    I wonder how much of a factor the 5G modem really was in ending this issue (and how much Apple paid in the end).


    Ha... right.  Don't pat yourself on the back.  Qualcomm blinked...  Apple held all the cards.

    Qualcomm didn't have the option of blinking did they? It was Apple's lawsuit to dismiss or not.  QC couldn't do so, and none of Qualcomm's other cases where Apple was the defendant were dropped until Apple had agreed to this one.
    edited April 2019 chemenginmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 22 of 127
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    Apple desperately needed the 5G chips unless they wanted to take a serious hit in their primary money making product.

    But, I wish they had gone with Huawei rather than Qualcomm -- Huawei has better ethics and is more trustworthy.
    chemengin
  • Reply 23 of 127
    My guess is, Qualcomm finally put an offer on the table that dropped the "percentage of phone price" as the determinant of the cost of the chip.  But perhaps the price was higher than Apple would have insisted on had they won at trial, but it was lower than what they had been paying by enough to just end it.

    The details will be interesting though as I believe an in-house chip by Apple was coming within the next year or two.  Does this put that initiative on hold for six years, or does Apple retain the right to put its own chip in a certain percentage of iPhones just like they put Intel modems in a certain amount of them before?
    sacto joeGeorgeBMaccolorcornchip
  • Reply 24 of 127
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,902member
    Apple desperately needed the 5G chips unless they wanted to take a serious hit in their primary money making product.

    But, I wish they had gone with Huawei rather than Qualcomm -- Huawei has better ethics and is more trustworthy.
    Are you paid by Chinese government ? I would switch to Samsung if Apple ever use Huawei chips.
    mwhiteMplsPJFC_PAradarthekatpscooter63
  • Reply 25 of 127
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,254member
    gatorguy said:
    sacto joe said:
    Wow! Basically, Qualcomm blinked. This is going to be a positive for AAPL's price....although maybe the word had leaked out some time ago, and that would explain the big push upward for AAPL lately. Was this the worst kept secret in the world?

    Inquiring minds want to know…

    Early stock response has been very muted for Apple , but QC is up significantly. 
    Qualcomm had much more to lose than Apple, and Apple's stock already has the iPhone 2019 priced in without 5G.
  • Reply 26 of 127
    sacto joesacto joe Posts: 895member
    My guess is, Qualcomm finally put an offer on the table that dropped the "percentage of phone price" as the determinant of the cost of the chip.  But perhaps the price was higher than Apple would have insisted on had they won at trial, but it was lower than what they had been paying by enough to just end it.

    The details will be interesting though as I believe an in-house chip by Apple was coming within the next year or two.  Does this put that initiative on hold for six years, or does Apple retain the right to put its own chip in a certain percentage of iPhones just like they put Intel modems in a certain amount of them before?
    I think this is closer to the mark than "Qualcomm won, Apple lost". And if it's right, then Apple came out ahead in the medium and long term, while Qualcomm gets to live a while longer. 

    But I'll hold off on any more opinions for now. My go-to source is http://www.fosspatents.com and he hasn't weighed in on this yet.
    MplsP
  • Reply 27 of 127
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,538member
    So all those companies withholding payments to QC will now make them? On which terms? The disputed ones or the possible terms thrashed out in this Apple/QC agreement?
  • Reply 28 of 127
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,105member
    avon b7 said:
    So all those companies withholding payments to QC will now make them? On which terms? The disputed ones or the possible terms thrashed out in this Apple/QC agreement?
    Hey give it a few days. More details will emerge....
    Personally I would expect all those withholding payments will now pay up what was (or is?) owned. 
    edited April 2019
  • Reply 29 of 127
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,105member
    sacto joe said:
    My guess is, Qualcomm finally put an offer on the table that dropped the "percentage of phone price" as the determinant of the cost of the chip.  But perhaps the price was higher than Apple would have insisted on had they won at trial, but it was lower than what they had been paying by enough to just end it.

    The details will be interesting though as I believe an in-house chip by Apple was coming within the next year or two.  Does this put that initiative on hold for six years, or does Apple retain the right to put its own chip in a certain percentage of iPhones just like they put Intel modems in a certain amount of them before?
    I think this is closer to the mark than "Qualcomm won, Apple lost". And if it's right, then Apple came out ahead in the medium and long term, while Qualcomm gets to live a while longer. 

    But I'll hold off on any more opinions for now. My go-to source is http://www.fosspatents.com and he hasn't weighed in on this yet.
    He'll be shocked as he's been convinced from the get-go that Apple intended to carry this thru to the end.  
    jdb8167muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 30 of 127
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,753member
    sflocal said:
    avon b7 said:
    No doubt those who spouted so much vitriol against Qualcomm have mixed feelings now. QC was evil but now a different viewpoint will probably unfold.

    If the X55 ends up in the 2019 refresh, no doubt all the talk about 5G being unnecessary on the iPhone this year will be forgotten.

    I wonder how much of a factor the 5G modem really was in ending this issue (and how much Apple paid in the end).


    Ha... right.  Don't pat yourself on the back.  Qualcomm blinked...  Apple held all the cards.  I'm actually disappointed that Apple didn't take QC to the cleaners.  They certainly could have.  QC's attitude hasn't changed on bit and is still the evil little shit it's always been.

    Once QC realized it was in a courtroom, and actually having to fight is when QC raised the white flag. 
    Where did you get all this unsubstantiated nonsense? QC are bastards, and I'm also disappointed they settled. But nowhere is it suggested that they "raised the white flag."
    chemengin
  • Reply 31 of 127
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,077member
    avon b7 said:
    So all those companies withholding payments to QC will now make them? On which terms? The disputed ones or the possible terms thrashed out in this Apple/QC agreement?
    Qualcomm will be paid (in arrears) based on whatever was agreed to with Apple and the contract manufacturers. It will almost certainly be less than what would have been owed for licensing, by the contract manufacturers, under the existing agreements which they have with Qualcomm.
    JWSC
  • Reply 32 of 127
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,105member
    carnegie said:
    avon b7 said:
    So all those companies withholding payments to QC will now make them? On which terms? The disputed ones or the possible terms thrashed out in this Apple/QC agreement?
    Qualcomm will be paid (in arrears) based on whatever was agreed to with Apple and the contract manufacturers. It will almost certainly be less than what would have been owed for licensing, by the contract manufacturers, under the existing agreements which they have with Qualcomm.
    Fair assumption. 
  • Reply 33 of 127
    gatorguy said:
    sacto joe said:
    Wow! Basically, Qualcomm blinked. This is going to be a positive for AAPL's price....
    How so? QC wanted to settle all along, and this was Apple suing QC and supposedly considered to be in the driver's seat. Whatever agreement has been made will probably be surfaced at some point, at least in another courtroom,  since there is other litigation going on besides those cases involving Apple and Qualcomm.  Making a "special deal" favoring Apple over others might be difficult and I don't see that happening. 

    I don't personally think either one actually blinked but instead reached a pragmatic decision that benefits both companies. Maybe the personalities agreed to step aside and let negotiations develop without "feelings" getting in the way which was being reported as a problem. 

    Please. Qualcomm has lost every antitrust case brought against them around the world and has been fined close to $4 billion so far. And the FTC case hasn't even been settled yet.

    You'd have to be blind to what's been going on over the past few years to think that Qualcomm has the upper hand.

    Oh I forgot, Blackberry also won an arbitration case for another $900+ million.
  • Reply 34 of 127
    dt17dt17 Posts: 18member
    avon b7 said:
    No doubt those who spouted so much vitriol against Qualcomm have mixed feelings now. QC was evil but now a different viewpoint will probably unfold.

    If the X55 ends up in the 2019 refresh, no doubt all the talk about 5G being unnecessary on the iPhone this year will be forgotten.

    I wonder how much of a factor the 5G modem really was in ending this issue (and how much Apple paid in the end).


    And if the X55 doesn’t end up in 2019 refresh? Will you buy each of us here an iPhone?
    MplsP
  • Reply 35 of 127
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,105member
    gatorguy said:
    sacto joe said:
    Wow! Basically, Qualcomm blinked. This is going to be a positive for AAPL's price....
    How so? QC wanted to settle all along, and this was Apple suing QC and supposedly considered to be in the driver's seat. Whatever agreement has been made will probably be surfaced at some point, at least in another courtroom,  since there is other litigation going on besides those cases involving Apple and Qualcomm.  Making a "special deal" favoring Apple over others might be difficult and I don't see that happening. 

    I don't personally think either one actually blinked but instead reached a pragmatic decision that benefits both companies. Maybe the personalities agreed to step aside and let negotiations develop without "feelings" getting in the way which was being reported as a problem. 

    Please. Qualcomm has lost every antitrust case brought against them around the world and has been fined close to $4 billion so far. And the FTC case hasn't even been settled yet.

    You'd have to be blind to what's been going on over the past few years to think that Qualcomm has the upper hand.

    Oh I forgot, Blackberry also won an arbitration case for another $900+ million.
    Yes, and I've no doubt you're disappointed that Apple didn't follow thru. Perhaps it's all as simple as Apple needs 5G chips for market reasons and QC needs a willing licensee to put on display to other companies who might be tempted. Settling benefits them both. 
    edited April 2019 radarthekatmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 36 of 127
    avon b7 said:
    No doubt those who spouted so much vitriol against Qualcomm have mixed feelings now. QC was evil but now a different viewpoint will probably unfold.

    If the X55 ends up in the 2019 refresh, no doubt all the talk about 5G being unnecessary on the iPhone this year will be forgotten.

    I wonder how much of a factor the 5G modem really was in ending this issue (and how much Apple paid in the end).


    If the 2019 iPhone ships with 5G, the very same people who clamored how 5G was so unnecessary will start to rant how any 2019 phone without 5G is total crap. So sayeth the shepherd, so sayeth the flock.
    mazda 3sGeorgeBMacchemengincolormuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 37 of 127
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,239member
    elijahg said:
    So Apple was lying about having no meaningful discussion with Qualcomm?
    You're not really this dumb, right?

    Apple's public statements are governed by shareholder/investor laws regarding ANYTHING that could have a material impact on the company or its stock price. So no -- when Apple made that statement, that statement was true. Nothing in that statement implied that either Qualcomm could call Apple or vice versa and make a new offer. As is pretty clear from the fact that the trial had actually started, what talks happened probably happened very recently -- and I strongly suspect they were initiated by Qualcomm (or as Macky speculates, "Qualcomm blinked").

    While the devil is in the details, that does seem the most likely explanation: Qualcomm has had zero luck defending its business model, and I doubt Judge Koh is going to give it a thumbs-up either -- and I think Qualcomm knew that. So far, the few small victories Qualcomm has eked out have been on patents, not licensing. I think Qualcomm capitulated, by and large, with some modest face-saving gesture by Apple (mostly releasing a portion of the back royalties in exchange for Qualcomm paying Apple their back royalties).

    Apple has made it clear they will create or develop competitors to Qualcomm if need be, and I think that was the bargaining chip that broke the camel's back. It will be interesting to see if Apple changed Qualcomm's business model, or if it only cut a better deal for itself.
    edited April 2019 flyingdpradarthekat
  • Reply 38 of 127
    carnegiecarnegie Posts: 1,077member
    gatorguy said:
    sacto joe said:
    My guess is, Qualcomm finally put an offer on the table that dropped the "percentage of phone price" as the determinant of the cost of the chip.  But perhaps the price was higher than Apple would have insisted on had they won at trial, but it was lower than what they had been paying by enough to just end it.

    The details will be interesting though as I believe an in-house chip by Apple was coming within the next year or two.  Does this put that initiative on hold for six years, or does Apple retain the right to put its own chip in a certain percentage of iPhones just like they put Intel modems in a certain amount of them before?
    I think this is closer to the mark than "Qualcomm won, Apple lost". And if it's right, then Apple came out ahead in the medium and long term, while Qualcomm gets to live a while longer. 

    But I'll hold off on any more opinions for now. My go-to source is http://www.fosspatents.com and he hasn't weighed in on this yet.
    He'll be shocked as he's been convinced from the get-go that Apple intended to carry this thru to the end.  
    If that's what he expected, I'm surprised. I check in on what he's saying sometimes, usually when I can't find a filing or when I'm interested in something that I won't be able to find information on myself (e.g., with regard to the judicial proceedings in Germany).

    I thought it was likely that Qualcomm and Apple would eventually settle their disputes, and that it would be more likely that they did once this case and the FTC case were decided. I'm surprised that (if) he thought otherwise. Or did he just think that Apple would see the case which just went to trial (i.e. the one heard by Judge Curiel) through to the end before agreeing to settle?
  • Reply 39 of 127
    sacto joesacto joe Posts: 895member
    gatorguy said:
    sacto joe said:
    My guess is, Qualcomm finally put an offer on the table that dropped the "percentage of phone price" as the determinant of the cost of the chip.  But perhaps the price was higher than Apple would have insisted on had they won at trial, but it was lower than what they had been paying by enough to just end it.

    The details will be interesting though as I believe an in-house chip by Apple was coming within the next year or two.  Does this put that initiative on hold for six years, or does Apple retain the right to put its own chip in a certain percentage of iPhones just like they put Intel modems in a certain amount of them before?
    I think this is closer to the mark than "Qualcomm won, Apple lost". And if it's right, then Apple came out ahead in the medium and long term, while Qualcomm gets to live a while longer. 

    But I'll hold off on any more opinions for now. My go-to source is http://www.fosspatents.com and he hasn't weighed in on this yet.
    He'll be shocked as he's been convinced from the get-go that Apple intended to carry this thru to the end.  
    Why don't we just wait for his take rather than making assumptions? Unless you've got some kind of dog in this hunt....
  • Reply 40 of 127
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,105member
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:
    sacto joe said:
    My guess is, Qualcomm finally put an offer on the table that dropped the "percentage of phone price" as the determinant of the cost of the chip.  But perhaps the price was higher than Apple would have insisted on had they won at trial, but it was lower than what they had been paying by enough to just end it.

    The details will be interesting though as I believe an in-house chip by Apple was coming within the next year or two.  Does this put that initiative on hold for six years, or does Apple retain the right to put its own chip in a certain percentage of iPhones just like they put Intel modems in a certain amount of them before?
    I think this is closer to the mark than "Qualcomm won, Apple lost". And if it's right, then Apple came out ahead in the medium and long term, while Qualcomm gets to live a while longer. 

    But I'll hold off on any more opinions for now. My go-to source is http://www.fosspatents.com and he hasn't weighed in on this yet.
    He'll be shocked as he's been convinced from the get-go that Apple intended to carry this thru to the end.  
    If that's what he expected, I'm surprised. I check in on what he's saying sometimes, usually when I can't find a filing or when I'm interested in something that I won't be able to find information on myself (e.g., with regard to the judicial proceedings in Germany).

    I thought it was likely that Qualcomm and Apple would eventually settle their disputes, and that it would be more likely that they did once this case and the FTC case were decided. I'm surprised that (if) he thought otherwise. Or did he just think that Apple would see the case which just went to trial (i.e. the one heard by Judge Curiel) through to the end before agreeing to settle?
    The latter.

    Apple fought with Nokia. They ended up signing a license that included payments based on a device cost ( and cross-licensing of IP) according to reports at the time.

    Apple fought with Ericsson. They settled with them too, purportedly agreeing to pay royalties based on a device cost. In both cases those royalties could certainly have been less than otherwise, I think we agree. 

    In this case Apple was not expected (by most reports) to settle until this case was determined, or at least close to being finished. That they agreed to a license before the trial even got underway properly will be a shock to some of the bloggers. 

    This might rear it's head tho in upcoming negotiations with Nokia for a soon-expiring license to their IP.  No idea if that will create another noisy disagreement, but Apple not following thru leaves some messy unsettled questions that may be taken advantage of during negotiations. IMO.  :)
    edited April 2019
Sign In or Register to comment.