Apple's will to 'hurt Qualcomm financially' illustrated by Qualcomm's opening statement

Posted:
in General Discussion
Slides of Qualcomm's opening arguments against Apple have been published, exposing more detail of Apple's long plan to hurt Qualcomm financially to force reduced modem chip payments.




On April 19, documents surfaced showing Apple wanted to reduce its Qualcomm patent licenses for some time, but decided to only sue Qualcomm in January 2017. The documents also alluded to a goal to "reduce Apple's net royalty to Qualcomm," a strategy to "hurt Qualcomm financially," and to put its licensing model at risk.

A new document published on Wednesday showing the slideshow for Qualcomm's legal team presses the accusations of foul play further, illustrating not only extracts from documents highlighting Apple's intentions, but also how Apple praised the company.

Apple and Qualcomm announced they had settled just as the trial was about to begin, giving no real chance for details of Qualcomm's opening statement to be made public. As well as a new licensing agreement and a one-time payment, it is speculated Apple paid somewhere in the region of $6 billion to Qualcomm, and agreed to pay up to $9 per iPhone produced.

The presentation is headed up by a statement from a contract, titled "Apple Breached BCPA Section 4," advising Apple "shall not knowingly take (or continue taking) any action against or make any demand of any Qualcomm Licensee that prevents, restricts, or discourages such Qualcomm Licensee from which it purchases Apple Devices from complying fully with the terms of such Qualcomm Licensee's QC License Agreement."

An August 2017 document showed how Foxconn admitted its Subscriber Unit License Agreement with Qualcomm was valid. This is followed up by evidence showing Apple apparently requesting its commercial manufacturing partners to stop paying royalty payments to Qualcomm, then other contracts containing language where commercial manufacturing partners are effectively pushed to say and do what Apple wants.

The following documents includes the infamous "Goal: Reduce Apple's Net Royalty to Qualcomm" presentation page from the "Qualcomm Royalty Reduction Plan," another about "Reshaping FRAND" to make "favorable, arms-length 'comp' licenses," and that Apple was "creating evidence" for the lawsuit.

A later example is a presentation slide titled "Create leverage by building pressure," with a bullet point "Hurt Qualcomm Financially."

It is also claimed Apple knew its plan was "tortious interference," and at risk of paying "full royalties (plus any interest, penalties, etc)" if it failed in its plan.

The timing to sue is also reasoned in the Qualcomm document, as it was made after Apple switched to Intel modems to exert "commercial pressure" on Qualcomm, then determined it was beneficial to wait for BCPA and TA agreements expired before suing.

Some slides also take time to show how Apple felt about Qualcomm's patent portfolio. After excerpts where Apple called Nokia's patent portfolio "significantly weaker than Qualcomm's" and that InterDigital "makes minimal contributions to standard," Apple is shown to say Qualcomm "holds a stronger position," has "more significant holdings in key areas," and that the patents "score higher compared to the other, largely non-US based licensors."

An Apple technical accounting memo is also referenced, mentioning "Qualcomm is widely considered the owner of the strongest patent portfolio for essential and relevant patents for wireless standards."

«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    Not that two wrongs make a right, but QC really dug themselves in the whole the moment they decided double-dipping was a good business plan. The reality that they want to defend this malpractice says more than anything, IMHO. 
    entropysleavingthebiggpscooter63stompyolsmagman1979chasmjbdragonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 35
    Move along, nothing to see here. Just two giant companies fighting to increase revenue/margin themselves.
  • Reply 3 of 35
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,188unconfirmed, member
    Move along, nothing to see here. Just two giant companies fighting to increase revenue/margin themselves.
    One company and the other getting fed up with it.
    magman1979silverwarlocn2itivguy
  • Reply 4 of 35
    matrix077matrix077 Posts: 719member
    I wonder why the documents for ‘one’ side was published and not both?

    Even the murderer won’t accept he’s guilty on his opening statement in court. 
    edited April 24 genovelleStrangeDaysmagman1979danhn2itivguy
  • Reply 5 of 35
    matrix077 said:
    I wonder why the documents for ‘one’ side was published and not both?

    Even the murderer won’t accept he’s guilty on his opening statement in court. 
    Puzzling how this works on Apple fan sites. 
    michelb76
  • Reply 6 of 35
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 8,000member
    Headline should read "claimed by" rather than "illustrated by". If civil is like criminal court, opening & closing statements in court are not evidence, they are claims and conjecture put forth by the attorneys on either side. Nothing a lawyer says first-hand is evidence, only what the witnesses provide on the witness stand is evidence, and even then must be weighed by the jury.
    edited April 24 pscooter63mwhitemagman1979ericthehalfbeechasmmuthuk_vanalingamn2itivguy
  • Reply 7 of 35
    I agree with Matrix077, where are the Apple documents? 

    The longer Apple’s documents are kept secret, the more any sane person wonders what damage those documents inflict on Qualcomm’s business. There are two sides to this story and only Qualcomm’s side is being shown. 
    magman1979n2itivguy
  • Reply 8 of 35
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 20,752member
    IMO it's no more than after-the-fact comments that might have some interest but mean squat now. They settled on mutually agreeable terms. No one here is ever going to know how they arrived at agreement, nor details of what the agreement is. I guess someone needs to believe someone lost and someone won so they feel better?

    IMO they both won or they wouldn't have settled before a trial even started. 
    jony0
  • Reply 9 of 35
    matrix077 said:
    I wonder why the documents for ‘one’ side was published and not both?

    Even the murderer won’t accept he’s guilty on his opening statement in court. 
    I am under the impression that Apple already presented it’s arguments in open court. Something about some analogy with Kentucky Fried Chicken? If Apple likes it can make it’s presentation more available. I get the impression that the matter was settled before Qualcomm made their opening arguments.
    gatorguymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 10 of 35
    I agree with Matrix077, where are the Apple documents? 

    The longer Apple’s documents are kept secret, the more any sane person wonders what damage those documents inflict on Qualcomm’s business. There are two sides to this story and only Qualcomm’s side is being shown. 
    With Apple’s attorneys?
  • Reply 11 of 35
    For something that was settled, it seems rather odd that more and more of Qualcomm’s alleged charges against Apple are getting leaked every day. I thought if 2 sides agree to settle, the confidential info that each side has becomes sealed and not discussed after the settlement. 

    It looks like Qualcomm is looking to further paint Apple as an abuser of licenses and an opportunist when it comes to negotiation. 

    Not showing good faith. 
    magman1979danhericthehalfbeebestkeptsecretn2itivguy
  • Reply 12 of 35
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,162member
    For something that was settled, it seems rather odd that more and more of Qualcomm’s alleged charges against Apple are getting leaked every day. I thought if 2 sides agree to settle, the confidential info that each side has becomes sealed and not discussed after the settlement. 

    It looks like Qualcomm is looking to further paint Apple as an abuser of licenses and an opportunist when it comes to negotiation. 

    Not showing good faith. 
    Does it really matter? Apple haters will take Qualcomm’s side. Apple fans will take Apple’s side. I also question the alleged “fact” that Apple is going to pay Qualcomm $6 billion and $7 per device. As far as I have read these figures were pulled out of some pundit’s ass. 
    edited April 24 flydoggatorguymattinozmagman1979
  • Reply 13 of 35
    mike54mike54 Posts: 340member
    I have no sympathy for Apple. They play just as dirty, as any other large corporation.
  • Reply 14 of 35
    flydogflydog Posts: 299member
    lkrupp said:
    For something that was settled, it seems rather odd that more and more of Qualcomm’s alleged charges against Apple are getting leaked every day. I thought if 2 sides agree to settle, the confidential info that each side has becomes sealed and not discussed after the settlement. 

    It looks like Qualcomm is looking to further paint Apple as an abuser of licenses and an opportunist when it comes to negotiation. 

    Not showing good faith. 
    Does it really matter? Apple haters will take Qualcomm’s side. Apple fans will take Apple’s side. I also question the alleged “fact” that Apple is going to pay Qualcomm $6 billion and $7 per device. As far as I have read these figures were pulled out of some pundit’s ass. 
    Exactly. 
    magman1979danh
  • Reply 15 of 35
    matrix077matrix077 Posts: 719member
    For something that was settled, it seems rather odd that more and more of Qualcomm’s alleged charges against Apple are getting leaked every day. I thought if 2 sides agree to settle, the confidential info that each side has becomes sealed and not discussed after the settlement. 

    It looks like Qualcomm is looking to further paint Apple as an abuser of licenses and an opportunist when it comes to negotiation. 

    Not showing good faith. 
    Something to do with their case with ITC?

    its clearly show QC still not at ease so they need to present this to the public while Apple seems not to care.  
    1st
  • Reply 16 of 35
    matrix077matrix077 Posts: 719member
    mike54 said:
    I have no sympathy for Apple. They play just as dirty, as any other large corporation.
    God forbid the business trying to protect its interest. 
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 17 of 35
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,652member
    These are opening statements.  Who the hell cares what they say?  It might as well be Joe Pesci in "My Cousin Vinny" doing the opening statement.  

    This means nothing.  I'm surprised people are putting this out there like it's some kind of truthful, verified fact.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 18 of 35
    Having the largest pool of standard essential patents isn't a free pass to abuse them. Such as by:
    • Requiring multiple parties in a single production chain pay for the same patents over and over again.
    • Forcing licensers to hold license for their entire intellectual property portfolio, including junk patents and not just the ones that pertain to implementing standards.
    • Trying to charge based on a % of the RRP, when this has no bearing on the patent's value, the usefulness of the patent or the value of the balance of the device, while simultaneously being in opposition to the concept of FRAND terms.
    Apple noticing that they're being ripped off for standard essential patents isn't malevolent scheming. Qualcomm's behaviour undermines the point of developing standards and why FRAND terms exist. This sets a precedent of companies involving themselves in standards, then rushing off to the patent office so they can rip off consumers in due course.

    (If you want to see where this level of patent abuse ends up: look at medicine in India.)
    edited April 24 n2itivguy
  • Reply 19 of 35
    Headline should read "claimed by" rather than "illustrated by". If civil is like criminal court, opening & closing statements in court are not evidence, they are claims and conjecture put forth by the attorneys on either side. Nothing a lawyer says first-hand is evidence, only what the witnesses provide on the witness stand is evidence, and even then must be weighed by the jury.

    While I agree that opening statements aren’t evidence, they are used to give an outline of how you’ll be presenting your case. So it makes sense to say things that you will try to back up with evidence later on. Likewise with closing statements you want to summarize your side and remind jurors of things that were presented or what witnesses said.

    Though it does seem odd that items from Qualcomm’s point of view are leaking.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 20 of 35
    sflocal said:
    These are opening statements.  Who the hell cares what they say?  It might as well be Joe Pesci in "My Cousin Vinny" doing the opening statement.  

    This means nothing.  I'm surprised people are putting this out there like it's some kind of truthful, verified fact.
    Did you not view the slides? It's literally taken from Apples OWN documents and emails. Example:

    A presentation slide titled "Create leverage by building pressure," with a bullet point "Hurt Qualcomm Financially" "Put Qualcomm's license at risk". This slide was created years before the contract expired which premeditation. 

    2011-2016 QC Royality payments stayed nearly the same AT THE SAME TIME Apple devices increased exponentially.

    Did you not look at any of the slides?

    pratikindiaprismaticsavon b7Latkochemengin
Sign In or Register to comment.