Apple's bitter dispute with Qualcomm not expected to be resolved anytime soon
Stock analysts are starting to chime in on the Apple and Qualcomm fight, with the fight will take at least another year with little impact on Apple's bottom line.
In a research note provided to AppleInsider on Friday, Amit Daryanani of RBC Capital Markets has looked into the matters surrounding the Qualcomm and Apple fight. While the matter is complex, involving several courts and governmental agencies, Daryanani believes that the short term financial risk to Apple is negligible, with the company not likely to see any financial impact for at least a year, if ever.
However, Daryanani called a Qualcomm threat to seek an import ban against the iPhone 7 "interesting," based on the "iPhone 8" design and construction timing. Daryanani believes that Apple is currently "finalizing design and component suppliers" for any new fall iPhones, and legal wrangling now may affect choices made by Apple.
On Thursday, Qualcomm says that it plans to file a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission to get iPhone and iPad models using Intel-provided modems blocked from import and sale. Allegedly, the Intel modem in some iPhone 7 family of devices violates six non-standards essential patents held by Qualcomm.
Any embargo that may take place wouldn't be immediate. USITC rulings generally take a year and a half or more, just based on investigation times and agency workloads. Additionally, a ban once awarded can be appealed, or vetoed by the President, so even if awarded by the agency, there is no guarantee that it will be enacted.
The lawsuit that started the battle was filed in January, with Apple accusing Qualcomm of unfair licensing terms. Apple claims that Qualcomm withheld nearly $1 billion in rebates in retaliation for participating in a South Korean antitrust investigation.
Apple alleges Qualcomm abuses its "monopoly power" of the mobile wireless chip market to skirt fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) patent commitments to charge customers exorbitant royalty rates. Qualcomm also restricts sales of chips to buyers who have agreed to license its patents, a practice Apple refers to as "double-dipping" in two different court filings.
Those accusations mirror certain claims addressed in a U.S. Federal Trade Commission antitrust lawsuit also lodged in January.
In an array of counter-complaints to the government and in several court cases, Qualcomm continues to assert that Apple is in breach of contract, and is further interfering by inducing electronics manufacturers to not pay. Qualcomm asserts that Apple has not suffered tangible injury, antitrust or otherwise, from Qualcomm's business practices.
In a research note provided to AppleInsider on Friday, Amit Daryanani of RBC Capital Markets has looked into the matters surrounding the Qualcomm and Apple fight. While the matter is complex, involving several courts and governmental agencies, Daryanani believes that the short term financial risk to Apple is negligible, with the company not likely to see any financial impact for at least a year, if ever.
However, Daryanani called a Qualcomm threat to seek an import ban against the iPhone 7 "interesting," based on the "iPhone 8" design and construction timing. Daryanani believes that Apple is currently "finalizing design and component suppliers" for any new fall iPhones, and legal wrangling now may affect choices made by Apple.
On Thursday, Qualcomm says that it plans to file a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission to get iPhone and iPad models using Intel-provided modems blocked from import and sale. Allegedly, the Intel modem in some iPhone 7 family of devices violates six non-standards essential patents held by Qualcomm.
Any embargo that may take place wouldn't be immediate. USITC rulings generally take a year and a half or more, just based on investigation times and agency workloads. Additionally, a ban once awarded can be appealed, or vetoed by the President, so even if awarded by the agency, there is no guarantee that it will be enacted.
The lawsuit that started the battle was filed in January, with Apple accusing Qualcomm of unfair licensing terms. Apple claims that Qualcomm withheld nearly $1 billion in rebates in retaliation for participating in a South Korean antitrust investigation.
Apple alleges Qualcomm abuses its "monopoly power" of the mobile wireless chip market to skirt fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) patent commitments to charge customers exorbitant royalty rates. Qualcomm also restricts sales of chips to buyers who have agreed to license its patents, a practice Apple refers to as "double-dipping" in two different court filings.
Those accusations mirror certain claims addressed in a U.S. Federal Trade Commission antitrust lawsuit also lodged in January.
In an array of counter-complaints to the government and in several court cases, Qualcomm continues to assert that Apple is in breach of contract, and is further interfering by inducing electronics manufacturers to not pay. Qualcomm asserts that Apple has not suffered tangible injury, antitrust or otherwise, from Qualcomm's business practices.
Comments
A lot of suits are filed against Apple because it is Apple and they have really, really big pockets.
In the case of QC, they are 'double dipping' which following from the USSC ruling on Lexmark printer Cartridges is a big no-no. Apple are IMHO really hoping applies to them and QC can't charge Apple a license fee based upon the retail price of the device that contains their IP.
We shall just have to sit back, enjoy the popcorn and wait for something to happen.
Perhaps you should take your nonsense and poorly researched posts elsewhere...
One look at Samsung smartphones before and after the iPhone tells you how systemic the look and feel theft was.
Apple sells 250 million smartphones a year. At $20 a pop we are talking $5 billion per annum. That would mean that Apple alone is responsible for 1/5 to 1/4 of Qualcomm's $20-$25 billion in annual revenue. Which is hard to fathom when most of the 1.2 billion Android devices that get sold each year have the SOC too and not just the modem, devices from the $850 Galaxy S8+ at the high end to the ZTE ZMax Pro, which is the cheapest device with Qualcomm chips ($99) at the low end. And - as mentioned earlier - Qualcomm sells many more things than smartphone chips.
But considering that Qualcomm would still have 75% to 80% of their business even if you are right about the $20 per device Apple wins a complete victory and then abandons them entirely, then under no scenario are they "screwed." 1.2 billion Android devices annually - and they make more than smartphone chips - remember? And that is the worst case scenario. The far more likely scenario is Apple gaining a partial victory where they are paying Qualcomm about half what they are now, and Apple remaining with Qualcomm because they do, in fact, make the best chips. If you want gigabit LTE, for instance, Qualcomm is the only game in town right now. And gigabit LTE isn't even 5G. Who knows how long it will take before Intel or whoever else competes with Qualcomm can develop support for that.
So Apple will likely decide the same thing with Qualcomm as they did with Samsung concerning components: not liking them much but realizing they are better off with them than without them.
Its a patent for some standard ip that's in every phone, it does not provide a competitive advantage to exist or not.
Im sure you know all that but you like to play the. Oth sides fallacy just like most desingenious throlls
"the technology that allows a smartphone to actually be a smartphone in the first place":
Exactly, that is called an SEP. Apple has paid (notice, "has paid"), for something that every phone has, however cheap or expensive that phone may be.
iPhones don't sell because they can make a phone call. Qualcomm's tech is non-differentiating, it is a "commodity" that has to be used by all phones. And, arguably, Apple has paid twice.
By contrast, Samsung (which had not paid for alleged non-SEP patent infringement) was being sued for making an obvious pivot and selling phones on the basis of their similarity to the iPhone.
So, there is your difference. (And I think it was you to whom I responded similarly in the last article about this subject).
Apple had been paying what Qualcomm asked, for years. This whole thing started, because Qualcomm withheld a promised rebate following Apple's cooperation with an inquest into Qualcomm's practices! Apple initially asked for what Qualcomm was supposed to have reimbursed. Qualcomm has escalated this from there. And, this isn't just Apple -- it's numerous companies and governmental bodies looking at Qualcomm.
Perhaps you were looking for the "five minute argument room"?
I think most of us are waiting for the details of the case, but word around is that Qualcomm is the bad guy here.
Please close the door on your way out and have a nice weekend.
You ignorantly and obviously have zero clue how many ridiculous lawsuits are thrown at Apple year after year. What's actually amazing are the lengths that Samsung kids paid or otherwise to try defend, deflect and whatever else they feel necessary in order to throw shade at Apple. It's actually both comical and sad.
There's the China case:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/qualcomm-settles-china-probe-1423518143
There's the Korean case:
http://reuters.com/article/idUSKBN14H062
There's the binding arbitration with Blackberry also finding against QCOM to the tune of nearly a billion dollars:
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/04/qualcomm-loses-legal-battle-with-blackberry-must-pay-815m/
QCOM is unable to appeal the Blackberry fine either.
The US FTC has also initiated a lawsuit against QCOM for its abusive practices along with Apple. Given the trends, QCOM is the one who is in trouble. Intel and Samsung have both filed Amicus briefs in support of Apple also.
QCOM has abused Samsung pretty heavily also:
https://marketexclusive.com/qualcomm-inc-nasdaqqcom-denies-samsung-electronics-co-ltd-krx005930s-sale-exynos-chipsets-manufacturers/2017/03/
I am going to dispute QCOM as being the best in the industry with respect to cellular baseband technology. The Exynos 7270 chip in the Gear S3 line of smartwatches exceeds the capabilities of the Snapdragon wear 2100 by a considerable margin. It is very clear that Samsung is able to exceed what Qualcomm is producing. Apple and Intel's partnership will eventually achieve superiority also. For right now, however, Samsung's Exynos SOCs with integrated modem are much better than the top of the line Snapdragons. I don't want to hear arguments regarding pure performance in which the two CPUs are nearly equal for short term bursts. The Exynos runs much cooler and returns superior battery life. Were it not for QCOM's abuses, the Exynos would have already achieved a dominant market position.
So much for QCOM competing on a level playing field. And they aren't exactly on friendly terms with Samsung either.
It's going to matter very little as Samsung and Apple are taking control of other critical hardware technologies that they can use to sufficiently differentiate their products from the rest of the industry that they are going to end up in dominant positions anyhow. Apple is just accelerating the process. And it is obvious QCOM's licensing is considered abusive. That has been a consistent trend given the number of times QCOM has already lost in the courts.
What QCOM is doing amounts to issuing threats in an attempt to bully Apple to capitulate. It's not going to work.