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.
I’ve sat on a few trials, and the opening and closing statements are definitely used as platforms for alternative narratives, without evidence. It’s the only time a lawyer can float some other explanation that they suggest may be true, even without backing it up with evidence. It’s a performance. Which is why during voire dire jurors are reminded that these statements are not evidence.
Are you guys not looking at the slides? They are highlighted directly from Apple emails and documents from discovery..
1. IIRC, Apple initiated the legal actions because they sued Qualcomm in 2017 because Qualcomm owed Apple a billion dollars in kickbacks, er I mean "rebates." It's not a surprise to learn that Apple didn't like Qualcomm's monopoly-abuse double-dipping, or sought ways to circumvent it, but Apple just had to wait for Qualcomm to slip up to try and renegotiate through the courts, believing (ultimately correctly, in my view) that at least one court or agency would find the double-dipping to be monopoly abuse.
2. Opening statements not being evidence, Qualcomm has cherry-picked as carefully as possible to paint it in the best possible light, and Apple in the worst possible light.
Given the lack of either a) Apple's opening argument or b) the actual trial where witnesses would confirm or deny Qualcomm's claims, I'm not inclined to take Qualcomm's opening statements at face value (nor would I if only Apple's opening arguments had appeared).
This is just a showcase of what Qualcomm would attempt to prove. Some of it may be true, but you can rest assured that -- as with nearly all opening statements -- much of it is taken out of context and omits a good deal of additional material Qualcomm decided wouldn't help or support their theory of the case. And -- again -- vice-versa, that statement would also be true if we were talking Apple's opening-statement slideshow.
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.
In a PR war like this, nothing is odd or accidental
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.
ALL litigation between the two has been dropped, and that would include the ITC action.
Apple should learn the lesson to attending std committee meeting seriously. QC is rat using std and license to illegally obtain its footing. Can't wait to see such a practice is allowed FTC. Anyone deal with QC should take note and avoid if it can (hopefully, with new 5G, there are alternative in the wing - not greedy enough get brought by QC before it reach to maturity). 6 or 9 dollar per chip is not issue here, the behaviour of QC allow to exist for so many years (back to the BB10 days, which BB got 1B after law suit) is scary (contaminated std good name - IMHO).
1. IIRC, Apple initiated the legal actions because they sued Qualcomm in 2017 because Qualcomm owed Apple a billion dollars in kickbacks, er I mean "rebates." It's not a surprise to learn that Apple didn't like Qualcomm's monopoly-abuse double-dipping, or sought ways to circumvent it, but Apple just had to wait for Qualcomm to slip up to try and renegotiate through the courts, believing (ultimately correctly, in my view) that at least one court or agency would find the double-dipping to be monopoly abuse.
2. Opening statements not being evidence, Qualcomm has cherry-picked as carefully as possible to paint it in the best possible light, and Apple in the worst possible light.
Given the lack of either a) Apple's opening argument or b) the actual trial where witnesses would confirm or deny Qualcomm's claims, I'm not inclined to take Qualcomm's opening statements at face value (nor would I if only Apple's opening arguments had appeared).
This is just a showcase of what Qualcomm would attempt to prove. Some of it may be true, but you can rest assured that -- as with nearly all opening statements -- much of it is taken out of context and omits a good deal of additional material Qualcomm decided wouldn't help or support their theory of the case. And -- again -- vice-versa, that statement would also be true if we were talking Apple's opening-statement slideshow.
Apple had already presented its opening arguments, which I think was reported here a few days back. You should ber asking yourself why QC counter was not also reported at the time. This was the Qualcomm opening, as noted by courtroom observers/reporters who were on-site at the time. This AI story used slides recorded by CNET reporters I think
In any event this isn't something being "leaked" by Qualcomm now. It's coming from reporters who were in the courtroom when it was originally presented.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to the Qualcomm - Apple dispute that part of Apple's strategy was to gain leverage by stressing Qualcomm financially. There were other points of leverage, but that was a pretty major one. The problem Apple (and much of the industry) has had with Qualcomm has been going on for many years, it didn't just start in late 2016. Various court filings make that clear.
Apple did what it had to do along the way to be able to successfully run its business. It had to wait to take more aggressive action until it got to a point where it had the leverage to do so, and until the last deal it had reached with Qualcomm expired. (Although Apple thought Qualcomm had acted illegally and in violation of contractual commitments to force it to agree to certain terms, Apple chose not to breach the agreement it had entered into.)
Qualcomm's behavior has, for quite a while, been egregious. It has violated anti-trust laws and it has violated its contractual commitments. That's not just according to Apple. That's according to numerous industry participants and numerous regulatory bodies. Qualcomm had tremendous leverage over the industry which its egregious behavior continually reinforced. No one had been in position to break the cycle. But when it got in position to do so, Apple (as an industry participant) took the lead in trying to do so. Thanks to Apple and various regulatory bodies, that cycle would seem now to have been broken. Qualcomm can't continue to do many of the things it previously did.
But, yeah, part of fighting back against Qualcomm's bad behavior was hurting Qualcomm financially by withholding royalty payments. That's something Apple (rightfully I think) thought it was entitled to do - both because it was in response to Qualcomm's bad behavior and because FRAND policies effectively allowed it to. Part of fighting back was cooperating with regulatory bodies. Part of fighting back was bringing its own suit against Qualcomm through which, it had hoped, a number of issues might be resolved.
It's always been about who had what leverage. For a long time, Qualcomm had most of the leverage - not just against Apple, but against the industry in general. Apple finally managed to maneuver itself into a position where it had enough leverage to take aggressive action. In taking that aggressive action, it created more leverage for itself. The tables were turned. Qualcomm tried desperately to find leverage against Apple so that it might be able to negotiate a less-bad deal. For the most part it failed. Likely, it gained some leverage when it became clear that Intel was having serious problems developing competitive 5G modems. So Apple was willing to agree to terms which probably weren't as good as what Qualcomm would have agreed to months earlier, but which were no doubt better than what it had (and likely better than what it could have gotten) before it took the aggressive approach that it did in early 2017.
The fact that Apple settled with Qualcomm outside of court seems to indicate they were guilty after all. I wasn’t expecting that, I really believed Qualcomm were just behaving like douchebags. Apparently they weren’t...
The fact that Apple settled with Qualcomm outside of court seems to indicate they were guilty after all. I wasn’t expecting that, I really believed Qualcomm were just behaving like douchebags. Apparently they weren’t...
Settling to you implies guilt? Not in a civil suit. You can just as easily say Qualcomm knew it had a weak case and could risk public exposure to its dirty way of conducting business, so it decided to settle.
If Qualcomm thought it was innocent, then why not see the case all the way thru to the end? Probably because of the closet full of skeletons they don’t want people to know about.
For Apple, this was the best deal they could get for licensing Qualcomm’s patents at a FAIR price, not getting gouged, and not extorting Qualcomm.
Just look at the the past few years and see just what side has made disparaging statements to the press about the other. You will see that Qualcomm has been trying to hurt Apple by making statements about stealing from them and making statements that Apple’s iPhones are terrible since they use Intel modems.
Apple has only talked about how Qualcomm has abused its FRAND licenses and showed that Samsung, and other handset manufacturers agreed with Apple.
The fact that Apple settled with Qualcomm outside of court seems to indicate they were guilty after all. I wasn’t expecting that, I really believed Qualcomm were just behaving like douchebags. Apparently they weren’t...
It takes two to settle. Your logic has no basis in reality. Unless the details of the settlement are made public, it’s anyone’s guess what happened.
I think it was QC that blinked. They were losing key court cases and being fined right and left.
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.
This presentation was on road before the Court before and while the settlement announcement was disclosed. Keep the facts straight.
Comments
1. IIRC, Apple initiated the legal actions because they sued Qualcomm in 2017 because Qualcomm owed Apple a billion dollars in kickbacks, er I mean "rebates." It's not a surprise to learn that Apple didn't like Qualcomm's monopoly-abuse double-dipping, or sought ways to circumvent it, but Apple just had to wait for Qualcomm to slip up to try and renegotiate through the courts, believing (ultimately correctly, in my view) that at least one court or agency would find the double-dipping to be monopoly abuse.
2. Opening statements not being evidence, Qualcomm has cherry-picked as carefully as possible to paint it in the best possible light, and Apple in the worst possible light.
Given the lack of either a) Apple's opening argument or b) the actual trial where witnesses would confirm or deny Qualcomm's claims, I'm not inclined to take Qualcomm's opening statements at face value (nor would I if only Apple's opening arguments had appeared).
This is just a showcase of what Qualcomm would attempt to prove. Some of it may be true, but you can rest assured that -- as with nearly all opening statements -- much of it is taken out of context and omits a good deal of additional material Qualcomm decided wouldn't help or support their theory of the case. And -- again -- vice-versa, that statement would also be true if we were talking Apple's opening-statement slideshow.
At the end of the day though neither of our opinions matter one iota.
In any event this isn't something being "leaked" by Qualcomm now. It's coming from reporters who were in the courtroom when it was originally presented.
Apple did what it had to do along the way to be able to successfully run its business. It had to wait to take more aggressive action until it got to a point where it had the leverage to do so, and until the last deal it had reached with Qualcomm expired. (Although Apple thought Qualcomm had acted illegally and in violation of contractual commitments to force it to agree to certain terms, Apple chose not to breach the agreement it had entered into.)
Qualcomm's behavior has, for quite a while, been egregious. It has violated anti-trust laws and it has violated its contractual commitments. That's not just according to Apple. That's according to numerous industry participants and numerous regulatory bodies. Qualcomm had tremendous leverage over the industry which its egregious behavior continually reinforced. No one had been in position to break the cycle. But when it got in position to do so, Apple (as an industry participant) took the lead in trying to do so. Thanks to Apple and various regulatory bodies, that cycle would seem now to have been broken. Qualcomm can't continue to do many of the things it previously did.
But, yeah, part of fighting back against Qualcomm's bad behavior was hurting Qualcomm financially by withholding royalty payments. That's something Apple (rightfully I think) thought it was entitled to do - both because it was in response to Qualcomm's bad behavior and because FRAND policies effectively allowed it to. Part of fighting back was cooperating with regulatory bodies. Part of fighting back was bringing its own suit against Qualcomm through which, it had hoped, a number of issues might be resolved.
It's always been about who had what leverage. For a long time, Qualcomm had most of the leverage - not just against Apple, but against the industry in general. Apple finally managed to maneuver itself into a position where it had enough leverage to take aggressive action. In taking that aggressive action, it created more leverage for itself. The tables were turned. Qualcomm tried desperately to find leverage against Apple so that it might be able to negotiate a less-bad deal. For the most part it failed. Likely, it gained some leverage when it became clear that Intel was having serious problems developing competitive 5G modems. So Apple was willing to agree to terms which probably weren't as good as what Qualcomm would have agreed to months earlier, but which were no doubt better than what it had (and likely better than what it could have gotten) before it took the aggressive approach that it did in early 2017.
Not in a civil suit. You can just as easily say Qualcomm knew it had a weak case and could risk public exposure to its dirty way of conducting business, so it decided to settle.
If Qualcomm thought it was innocent, then why not see the case all the way thru to the end? Probably because of the closet full of skeletons they don’t want people to know about.
For Apple, this was the best deal they could get for licensing Qualcomm’s patents at a FAIR price, not getting gouged, and not extorting Qualcomm.
Just look at the the past few years and see just what side has made disparaging statements to the press about the other. You will see that Qualcomm has been trying to hurt Apple by making statements about stealing from them and making statements that Apple’s iPhones are terrible since they use Intel modems.
Apple has only talked about how Qualcomm has abused its FRAND licenses and showed that Samsung, and other handset manufacturers agreed with Apple.
So who is guilty here?
I think it was QC that blinked. They were losing key court cases and being fined right and left.