Just remember what happened to Microsoft in the ‘90s. They were pecked at by the competition until the DOJ came after them. That opened the door for Apple to make a deal with them after the disappointing lawsuit outcome of Apple vs. Microsoft (Jobs was gone by then). Large companies get sued. Just as long as Apple stays away from monopolistic practices (they always have), and doesn’t piss off the DOJ, Apple will survive.
Apple has a good partner in Intel. Qualcomm is making an a$$ if itself. Those things have a way of turning against companies later on.
Lawsuits are like misquito bites. Annoying, but mostly harmless. I like the way Apple has, over the last few years, moved critical technologies back in house, (their A Series SoCs for example), while still buying parts from “friendly companies”. Their dependency on Samsung lasted a little too long IMO, but Samsung was making great parts (for years I only ordered Samsung memory modules and SSDs). The best way to deal with companies like Qualcomm is to slowly move away from using any of thieir tech. I’m just guessing but from what I can tell Qualcomm (I realize this issue between Qualcomm and Apple has been going on for years), is trying to grab as much cash from Apple as they can and also set a precedent in the courts. It won’t ultimately work.
Jobs left Cook in charge for a reason. Cook knows how to keep the coffers full. Jobs learned a valuable lesson early on to protect assists and Intellectual Property. When the Senate was holding hearings on the tax issue a couple of years ago and they asked Tim Cook “what’s Apple most valuable asset?” things got interesting. Cook knows Apple greatest asset is their operating systems and related tech (without it their hardware is useless), but he wisely and obviously said, “we sell hardware everywhere in the world” which pretty much ended the questioning.
That time Jobs said, “thermonuclear” when asked about Google/Samsung copying the iPhone, that was “Jobs speak”. But soon after the A Series was born, Samsung was not invited to play. Samsung parts have slowly been disappearing from Apple products. These things are planned out years in advance though. So who knows what role, if any, that played in Apple’s decision to design their own SoCs and purchase a company to manufacture them. It was smart though. Very smart. Apple will make good decisions and move on. So there’s really not much to worry about.
Btw, all of these rumors concerning Apple leaving Intel to use their own silicone, maybe it’s true, (Intel has caused Apple some troubles by being slow to shrink their processes), but Apple won’t do this unless the situation or problems it’s causing are forecasted to become critical.
As much as Apple likes to “think different” they also, for good reason like to keep good company; Intel, IBM, etc. They’re in no hurry to depart.
In the meantime while appealing the decision Apple will no longer sell iPhone 7 and 8 models in Germany. Probably not much market effect since those are older iPhones..
The market effect will be further muted by the fact that non-Apple retailers can still sell the product, and that there's a large grey market for these things in the EU (e.g., you can buy it in the Netherlands or France or Poland).
The grey market for all apple products around the world is huge. For 1 Billion iPhones in current use ,250 Million are grey market devices(hand me down or resold). This just shows how reliable the iPhones are.The existence of such a powerful grey market allows Apple to push up their pricing since, older devices remain in circulation for 5-8 years.
He believes that the German appeals court will likely overturn this lower court order.
He believed Qualcomm wouldn't be successful in the first place, and that was also accompanied by a detailed post. Obviously he was wrong.
You are either being disingenuous, as usual or didn't care to read through his articles thoroughly.
Sure, he said Qualcomm might not be successful, but in those posts and the one I linked to, he also pointed out a key factor that may have led the lower German court that ruled yesterday to find an infringement against Apple. This is the fact that Qualcomm shared the full schematics of the Qorvo chipset (based on which yesterday's infringement ruling was made) in the US discovery process with the ITC trial, but then got a protective order that prevented those same chipset schematics from being shared with the German court/expert witness, even though its case is being handled by the same law firm globally.
So, there's Qualcomm's shenanigans right there for you, which may have led to the lower court finding an infringement because it didn't have access to the chipset schematics, which may have led it/expert witness to a different conclusion. In fact, AI has already published a separate article about this trick by Qualcomm.
It's also worth noting that, based on the full discovery process relating to the Qorvo chipset in the US, the USITC declined to find the 'envelope tracker' power saving claim (Patent #8,698,558) as an infringement by Apple in its initial determination. The patent Apple was believed to have infringed is a different one (9,535,490). Even in the review of this ruling announced recently, the ITC has held it will NOT review the non-infringing judgements about the envelope tracker and the other patent.
He believes that the German appeals court will likely overturn this lower court order.
He believed Qualcomm wouldn't be successful in the first place, and that was also accompanied by a detailed post. Obviously he was wrong.
You are either being disingenuous, as usual or didn't care to read through his articles thoroughly.
Sure, he said Qualcomm might not be successful, but in those posts and the one I linked to, he also pointed out a key factor that may have led the lower German court that ruled yesterday to find an infringement against Apple. This is the fact that Qualcomm shared the full schematics of the Qorvo chipset (based on which yesterday's infringement ruling was made) in the US discovery process with the ITC trial, but then got a protective order that prevented those same chipset schematics from being shared with the German court/expert witness, even though its case is being handled by the same law firm globally.
So, there's Qualcomm's shenanigans right there for you, which may have led to the lower court finding an infringement because it didn't have access to the chipset schematics, which may have led it/expert witness to a different conclusion. In fact, AI has already published a separate article about this trick by Qualcomm.
It's also worth noting that, based on the full discovery process relating to the Qorvo chipset in the US, the USITC declined to find the 'envelope tracker' power saving claim (Patent #8,698,558) as an infringement by Apple in its initial determination. The patent Apple was believed to have infringed is a different one (9,535,490). Even in the review of this ruling announced recently, the ITC has held it will NOT review the non-infringing judgements about the envelope tracker and the other patent.
Ah, start off with the ad-hom, a reliable time-tested lead-in.
I don't at all disagree about Qualcomm "shenanigans". They can certainly be slippery and some of their practices are at least questionably legal if not outright illegal. I'm no friend of their tactics.
With that said consider Mueller had stepped away from reporting on the mobile patent wars to focus on other interests. Even said that was his intent. There were lots of legal actions going on regarding SEP's since, and there still is, and some of the most important cases affecting FRAND licensing in the past 2 years had nothing to do with Qualcomm. In general though he's ignored them all.
...Yet something has driven him to do a fast pivot back, writing article after article about Qualcomm in very recent months on at least a weekly if not daily basis, commenting on the horrid and illegal things they are doing. As with the round of articles on Apple and Samsung that got daily focus from him, and the ones previous to that where he did what he could in support of Microsoft, it implies he has a new client to promote and support. In his last 32 articles all but three are all about Qualcomm, and one of the three that was not was still related to them. So 30 out of 32. Is Qualcomm licensing the only important patent story worth reporting? Perhaps it is it that's what you're paid to do, not claiming that he is of course as there is no proof beyond circumstantial stuff.
IMHO and as Mike pointed out to you a week ago, take what Mueller says with a pinch of salt.
Anyway, in actually important news here's why Apple removed the iPhone 7 and 8 from German Apple stores: Their request for an injunction stay while they appealed was denied by the court BUT....
predicated on Qualcomm agreeing to cover Apple's losses due to the injunction if it's reversed on appeal. How much we talking? The posted bond is $1.5B. That may come back to bite Qualcomm relatively hard, so it's a big gamble on being right.
Both sides will go full offensive to have leverage in settlement talk if ever happens. Currently, Qualcomm appears wining patent dispute but Apple have a way to address and continue selling iPhones in respective country. Moreover, Apple somehow feel comfortable to continue fighting in court because probably feels and expect better outcome.
Apple fought hard against Nokia patent licensing via multiple cross-lawsuits too. Same with Ericsson two years ago, several back and forth claims of unfair this and infringing that. Apple did settle with both of them, pay past royalties and agree to ongoing ones. Lawsuits can be just another way of negotiating a mutually acceptable business case.
Also like how Apple was finally forced to pay up their European Taxes. Was that $15 Billion back then. Apple shouldn't allow to steal QC intellectual property either by withholding royalties that they agreed to in the past or assisting Intel in stealing it. maybe Apple should be developing these basic technolologies themselves for 6G and then offering it on the FRAND basis that they think is right to the international Telecom industry. Should be easy for them to do as the biggest and richest company in the world.
Apple is screwed on patents involving Qualcomm...best to settle and move on down the road. I know Q is playing dirty but Apple has few chips to play at this point.
I know this is all temporary, and in the end Qualcomm will lose - but until then, its good to see that Apple is taking a hit.
Their recent policies have been hurting consumers big time. Apple is only interested in price gouging - pushing the prices of its products relentlessly higher.
Anyway, lets hope Apple learns some lessons and alters its ways.
Just in case there is a flash crash in the market I’ve placed a large order for AAPL at $100. With the new extreme volatility in the market, I can’t rule this out at this point.
(This is not investing advice and I take no legal responsibility for buy-sell actions taken by others.)
Sure, the Fed has a part in this but these drops going into Christmas vacation/end of the year are unprecedented.
Its not the interest rates that have people spooked, it’s the dumping of Treasury Bonds the Fed owns, which they printed to get out of out last mess. People in the know are worried that China won’t buy bonds this year, using their leverage to crash the economy as a ploy to gain the South China Sea. Interesting? Yes. Not unexpected. Question is, did we set off the land mine before China was ready, or is it already too late. People have been warning about how bad what Obama did was for a while now, But I suspect Pelosi pulled the Feds trigger on this one.
In the meantime while appealing the decision Apple will no longer sell iPhone 7 and 8 models in Germany. Probably not much market effect since those are older iPhones..
The market effect will be further muted by the fact that non-Apple retailers can still sell the product, and that there's a large grey market for these things in the EU (e.g., you can buy it in the Netherlands or France or Poland).
The grey market for all apple products around the world is huge. For 1 Billion iPhones in current use ,250 Million are grey market devices(hand me down or resold). This just shows how reliable the iPhones are.The existence of such a powerful grey market allows Apple to push up their pricing since, older devices remain in circulation for 5-8 years.
That's not what grey market is. Grey market are products from one region sold in another region, usually violating distribution terms with the manufacturer. What you're calling grey market is actually a "secondary" market.
For example, a U.S retailer may buy Nikon cameras from a distributor in the UK. But if you buy one of those in the U.S., Nikon will not fix the camera under warranty if anything goes wrong. Or back in the height of the album era, if you bought a German version of an LP in the U.S., that was considered a "parallel import" and the U.S. record labels would be up in arms about it, even though there were distributors that specialized in imports.
I don't like Qualcomm but they do have a case. Looks like the so call Door Step resolution from Qualcomm CEO meant going full on Attack to Apple and force them to settle.
Will be an interesting 2019.
They did not want to settle this, which is an indication they think they have a strong case for not settling/paying for QC bullshit demands
Comments
Dumbest Comment of the Week Award winner, right there.
1) Apple does create new innovations, every single release.
2) Apple will always be sued.
http://www.fosspatents.com/2018/12/qualcomm-wins-envelope-tracker-patent_78.html
He believes that the German appeals court will likely overturn this lower court order.
Sure, he said Qualcomm might not be successful, but in those posts and the one I linked to, he also pointed out a key factor that may have led the lower German court that ruled yesterday to find an infringement against Apple. This is the fact that Qualcomm shared the full schematics of the Qorvo chipset (based on which yesterday's infringement ruling was made) in the US discovery process with the ITC trial, but then got a protective order that prevented those same chipset schematics from being shared with the German court/expert witness, even though its case is being handled by the same law firm globally.
So, there's Qualcomm's shenanigans right there for you, which may have led to the lower court finding an infringement because it didn't have access to the chipset schematics, which may have led it/expert witness to a different conclusion. In fact, AI has already published a separate article about this trick by Qualcomm.
It's also worth noting that, based on the full discovery process relating to the Qorvo chipset in the US, the USITC declined to find the 'envelope tracker' power saving claim (Patent #8,698,558) as an infringement by Apple in its initial determination. The patent Apple was believed to have infringed is a different one (9,535,490). Even in the review of this ruling announced recently, the ITC has held it will NOT review the non-infringing judgements about the envelope tracker and the other patent.
I don't at all disagree about Qualcomm "shenanigans". They can certainly be slippery and some of their practices are at least questionably legal if not outright illegal. I'm no friend of their tactics.
With that said consider Mueller had stepped away from reporting on the mobile patent wars to focus on other interests. Even said that was his intent. There were lots of legal actions going on regarding SEP's since, and there still is, and some of the most important cases affecting FRAND licensing in the past 2 years had nothing to do with Qualcomm. In general though he's ignored them all.
...Yet something has driven him to do a fast pivot back, writing article after article about Qualcomm in very recent months on at least a weekly if not daily basis, commenting on the horrid and illegal things they are doing. As with the round of articles on Apple and Samsung that got daily focus from him, and the ones previous to that where he did what he could in support of Microsoft, it implies he has a new client to promote and support. In his last 32 articles all but three are all about Qualcomm, and one of the three that was not was still related to them. So 30 out of 32. Is Qualcomm licensing the only important patent story worth reporting? Perhaps it is it that's what you're paid to do, not claiming that he is of course as there is no proof beyond circumstantial stuff.
IMHO and as Mike pointed out to you a week ago, take what Mueller says with a pinch of salt.
Anyway, in actually important news here's why Apple removed the iPhone 7 and 8 from German Apple stores: Their request for an injunction stay while they appealed was denied by the court BUT....
predicated on Qualcomm agreeing to cover Apple's losses due to the injunction if it's reversed on appeal. How much we talking? The posted bond is $1.5B. That may come back to bite Qualcomm relatively hard, so it's a big gamble on being right.
I know this is all temporary, and in the end Qualcomm will lose - but until then, its good to see that Apple is taking a hit.
Their recent policies have been hurting consumers big time. Apple is only interested in price gouging - pushing the prices of its products relentlessly higher.
Anyway, lets hope Apple learns some lessons and alters its ways.
(This is not investing advice and I take no legal responsibility for buy-sell actions taken by others.)
Its not the interest rates that have people spooked, it’s the dumping of Treasury Bonds the Fed owns, which they printed to get out of out last mess. People in the know are worried that China won’t buy bonds this year, using their leverage to crash the economy as a ploy to gain the South China Sea. Interesting? Yes. Not unexpected. Question is, did we set off the land mine before China was ready, or is it already too late. People have been warning about how bad what Obama did was for a while now, But I suspect Pelosi pulled the Feds trigger on this one.
For example, a U.S retailer may buy Nikon cameras from a distributor in the UK. But if you buy one of those in the U.S., Nikon will not fix the camera under warranty if anything goes wrong. Or back in the height of the album era, if you bought a German version of an LP in the U.S., that was considered a "parallel import" and the U.S. record labels would be up in arms about it, even though there were distributors that specialized in imports.