Apple hatched years-long plan to reduce royalty payments to Qualcomm, documents reveal

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 55
    Look at everybody frantically defending Apple here, while it’s clear they are just as ‘evil’ as any major company driven by profits and equipped with a whole team of lawyers. It’s a little childish honestly.
    Solirobbyx1STnTENDERBITSsingularitywilliamlondonchemengin
  • Reply 22 of 55
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 911member
    Place all this information in context. What we don't have given this post, is any context. A  simple statement made by an Apple exec reported in the Washington Post should not be treated as evidence. 

    What concerns me regarding this new agreement between Apple and Qualcomm is if the agreement will prevent determination of whether QCOM is violating FRAND. Enforcement of FRAND is critical, not only in this case, but with regard to all other licensing arrangements in the field. 

    If the agreement between Apple and Qualcomm stops litigation and determination on the FRAND issues, then I'd consider both Apple and Qualcomm to be co-conspirators. 
    jbdragon1st
  • Reply 23 of 55
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's certainly another spin on this than the poor, aggrieved, over-paying Apple vs the evil, greedy, law-breaking Qualcomm it's usually been portrayed as here. If accurate it leaves a different taste. 

    You forget Qualcomm has lost 5 major antitrust cases around the world costing them billions in fines. The FTC case is currently awaiting a decision.

    So yes, Qualcomm has been found guilty of being greedy and breaking the law.


    Edit: Just read the source article. So a reporter at the trial is talking about things they heard/saw during the beginning of the trial (during opening arguments for both sides).

    Curious why they decided to focus on items that make Apple potentially look bad and Qualcomm good. Opening arguments typically contain damning things about both sides. Yet we only really heard from one side. 

    You could always forget 'why' they chose to focus on this or that and simply take on board the quoted material.

    In that context (information from the horse's mouth), we now, as Gatorguy points out, have a take that adds some more colour to the picture.

    That we didn't learn more is due to Apple stopping the case.

    Bull. Both lawyers presented their opening statements. A lot of information on both sides was presented. It has nothing to do with “Apple stopping the case”. They both settled, which means they both “stopped the case”.

    Florian Mueller commented on the opening statement for Apple and was “very impressed” with Apples lawyer, Ruffin Cordell. He also talked about Qualcomm’s “gag order” which imposed billion dollar penalties on any company that spoke to regulators/officials regarding Qualcomm’s licensing. No, this is not a standard NDA.

    Judge Curiels statement:

    Under these circumstances, enforcing the BCPA so as punish Apple for responding to regulatory investigations would deter parties from responding to regulatory investigations and have the effect of concealing ongoing illegal conduct to the detriment of the public and perpetuating improper conduct.”


    As I said above, things are not so one-sided as the Washington Post article would suggest.
    thtStrangeDaysdedgecko1stwilliamlondonpscooter63
  • Reply 24 of 55
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,271member
    Unfortunately apple shot itself in the foot here
    they were trying to bully a big company but it backfired on them
    It's time for Apple pay the piper
    What are you talking about? LOL

    Did you sign up just to troll?
    edited April 2019 StrangeDaysdedgeckomwhitejbdragonwilliamlondon
  • Reply 25 of 55
    thttht Posts: 4,351member
    The Washington Post article looks like your typical over dramatization of the dealings between a couple of hardball companies. The headline is basically an outright lie as Apple wanted to pay less for the IP, not that the patents were “no good”. The rest of the article doesn’t really state anything we don’t know, or would suspect. Then, the leaked document looks like it came from Qualcomm’s lawyers. I imagine that can color things.

    Yes. Apple wants lower costs from its suppliers and patent licensors. In negotiations between contracting parties, with-holding money, stopping work, etc, is what you do when you are not satisfied with how things go. If you are going to sue someone in these situations, you plan for it.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 26 of 55
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    Is it possible that Apple agreed to a deal now as a strategy? If it looks like Qualcomm can force even Apple to accept its terms, then the FTC battle may go much worse for Qualcomm. I know that new evidence can't be introduced into the FTC trial at this point, but I'm sure the Judge will notice what happened.
  • Reply 27 of 55
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,016member
    Johan42 said:
    Qualcomm can charge whatever they want for their products. If Apple does not like it they can get modems from someone else. But they won’t do that...being the most hypocritical company and all, that complains of high prices for modems while overcharging their customers.
    Wrong. They aren’t overcharging. They’re more expensive than the junk you prefer, but countless people find immense value in their products, as the extraordinary demand (lines, sold out preorders, etc) prove.

    Work hard, save your money, and one day you can enjoy them too. 
    mwhitewilliamlondon
  • Reply 28 of 55
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,016member

    mike54 said:
    Apple's plan went belly-up. I hope Apple pays up big to Qualcomm. Apple used it's own customers and played off Intel to get cheaper prices from Qualcomm. I expected nothing less from Tim Cook's Apple.
    What is that nonsense even supposed to mean? Apple under Cook has produced amazing products that deliver value. They have excellent consumer satisfaction ratings and financially the company is very healthy. Those things are a CEO’s job to strive for, and he’s obtained them. Anything else is smoking crack. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 29 of 55
    YP101YP101 Posts: 139member
    Johan42 said:
    Qualcomm can charge whatever they want for their products. If Apple does not like it they can get modems from someone else. But they won’t do that...being the most hypocritical company and all, that complains of high prices for modems while overcharging their customers.
    Wrong. They aren’t overcharging. They’re more expensive than the junk you prefer, but countless people find immense value in their products, as the extraordinary demand (lines, sold out preorders, etc) prove.

    Work hard, save your money, and one day you can enjoy them too. 
    Yes they did.. Instead of set price on the chip they sold or license of patent. They want % of your iPhone sales price.
    That will cause price different between companies who using same chip.

    Your iPhone Max's lte chip does not work better then iPhone XR. It is same chip. Same function. Nothing more.
    Qualcomm wants iPhone Max pay more than iPhone XR because iPhone Max's price higher than iPhone XR.

    It is like gaming PC's AMD CPU price higher than other PC that use same AMD Ryzen 7 2700X. That makes no sense at all. That's what Qualcomm did.
    And that is wrong. 

    That's why Qualcomm charged and paid fine on South Korea, EU, China. Soon to US FTC as well.

    So far no one know how much Apple paid. I don't think entire Qualcomm wants. Instead Qualcomm get 3-4 years contract and more if Apple wants.
    That brings Qualcomm's stock price before Apple drop the Qualcomm chip.

    This time Qualcomm may charged same price on regardless where it uses. That is the reason Apple sign the contract. Which that's Apple wanted.

    Who wins? No one. Qualcomm lost revenue multi years due to their greedy.(Qualcomm was $80 stock price down to less than $45 by 2/2016. Almost drop 50%.And all these years between mid $70 to mid $40s range movement. Every times they get fined fluctuate price.)
    Apple just get breathing room to develop own communication chip if they want to Qualcomm in dust.
    3-4 years mean 2024. Apple should move on to A17 by then. They should able to create own 5G or beyond communication chip.
    chemengin
  • Reply 30 of 55
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,016member
    Unfortunately apple shot itself in the foot here
    they were trying to bully a big company but it backfired on them
    It's time for Apple pay the piper
    That’s not what happened here at all. Stick to fiction. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 31 of 55
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,016member

    Look at everybody frantically defending Apple here, while it’s clear they are just as ‘evil’ as any major company driven by profits and equipped with a whole team of lawyers. It’s a little childish honestly.
    Please identify the “frantic” behavior. I don’t see any. I do see people discussing the opening statements of a case, which are themselves not evidence of anything at all in a courtroom, just narratives put out by each team.
    dedgeckowilliamlondonpscooter63
  • Reply 32 of 55
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,016member
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's certainly another spin on this than the poor, aggrieved, over-paying Apple vs the evil, greedy, law-breaking Qualcomm it's usually been portrayed as here. If accurate it leaves a different taste. 

    You forget Qualcomm has lost 5 major antitrust cases around the world costing them billions in fines. The FTC case is currently awaiting a decision.

    So yes, Qualcomm has been found guilty of being greedy and breaking the law.


    Edit: Just read the source article. So a reporter at the trial is talking about things they heard/saw during the beginning of the trial (during opening arguments for both sides).

    Curious why they decided to focus on items that make Apple potentially look bad and Qualcomm good. Opening arguments typically contain damning things about both sides. Yet we only really heard from one side. 

    You could always forget 'why' they chose to focus on this or that and simply take on board the quoted material.

    In that context (information from the horse's mouth), we now, as Gatorguy points out, have a take that adds some more colour to the picture.

    That we didn't learn more is due to Apple stopping the case.
    More made-up nonsense. They settled. You weren’t in the room so you don’t know who did what or why. 

    Your agenda is showing. 
    williamlondon
  • Reply 33 of 55
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,016member
    YP101 said:
    Johan42 said:
    Qualcomm can charge whatever they want for their products. If Apple does not like it they can get modems from someone else. But they won’t do that...being the most hypocritical company and all, that complains of high prices for modems while overcharging their customers.
    Wrong. They aren’t overcharging. They’re more expensive than the junk you prefer, but countless people find immense value in their products, as the extraordinary demand (lines, sold out preorders, etc) prove.

    Work hard, save your money, and one day you can enjoy them too. 
    Yes they did.. Instead of set price on the chip they sold or license of patent. They want % of your iPhone sales price.
    That will cause price different between companies who using same chip.

    Your iPhone Max's lte chip does not work better then iPhone XR. It is same chip. Same function. Nothing more.
    Qualcomm wants iPhone Max pay more than iPhone XR because iPhone Max's price higher than iPhone XR.

    It is like gaming PC's AMD CPU price higher than other PC that use same AMD Ryzen 7 2700X. That makes no sense at all. That's what Qualcomm did.
    And that is wrong. 

    That's why Qualcomm charged and paid fine on South Korea, EU, China. Soon to US FTC as well.

    So far no one know how much Apple paid. I don't think entire Qualcomm wants. Instead Qualcomm get 3-4 years contract and more if Apple wants.
    That brings Qualcomm's stock price before Apple drop the Qualcomm chip.

    This time Qualcomm may charged same price on regardless where it uses. That is the reason Apple sign the contract. Which that's Apple wanted.

    Who wins? No one. Qualcomm lost revenue multi years due to their greedy.(Qualcomm was $80 stock price down to less than $45 by 2/2016. Almost drop 50%.And all these years between mid $70 to mid $40s range movement. Every times they get fined fluctuate price.)
    Apple just get breathing room to develop own communication chip if they want to Qualcomm in dust.
    3-4 years mean 2024. Apple should move on to A17 by then. They should able to create own 5G or beyond communication chip.
    You read it wrong. Johan said Apple overcharges, I said they didn’t. Your reply is about QC but I wasn’t talking about QC. 
    dedgeckowilliamlondon
  • Reply 34 of 55
    rajaramrajaram Posts: 16member
    This Apple misadventure is turning out to be good PR for Qualcomm. A lot more people know Qualcomm than before, and as an admirable and innovative company. Apple will be Apple - there is obviously much to be liked about it, especially when it is time to upgrade that iPhone or Mac.
    This was a corporate battle for favorable terms, but I wish they could have been more circumspect in how they went about it. What's lost in the midst of this is massive distraction at Qualcomm which affected their execution and strategy (especially note their exit from datacenter chips, and employees got affected, the 100/1000s who lost jobs (in most cases though probably temporarily).
    If Apple was truly just upset about the perception of unfair practice by Qualcomm, they could have  stopped with the regulatory/legal pursuit, but withholding payments was a step too far.
  • Reply 35 of 55
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,617member
    If “Apple stopped the suit” they would have simply dropped or withdrawn the charges. Conversely if it were QC, they would have plead guilty and/or agreed to all of Apples terms. There was a settlement which means it was something in between. Both companies came to an agreement on terms they concluded were better than proceeding with the trial. No one knows where those terms landed on the meter between QC and Apple, but without knowing them you can’t say that one side or the other caved. Edit/clarification: it is possible that one side agreed to virtually (but not quite) everything the other side wanted, which most would consider 'caving,' but unless we find out the specific details of the settlement we'll never know.

    As others have pointed out, there is a critical difference between Apple (Or Samsung, Google, etc) setting the price of their devices and QC dictating its terms and that is the availability of alternatives. QC not only owned a large number of patents subject to FRAND but also had a virtual monopoly on cellular modems. Once you have a monopoly or essential patents subject to FRAND, you are not allowed to charge whatever you want. 
    edited April 2019
  • Reply 36 of 55
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,617member

    rajaram said:
    This Apple misadventure is turning out to be good PR for Qualcomm. A lot more people know Qualcomm than before, and as an admirable and innovative company. Apple will be Apple - there is obviously much to be liked about it, especially when it is time to upgrade that iPhone or Mac.
    This was a corporate battle for favorable terms, but I wish they could have been more circumspect in how they went about it. What's lost in the midst of this is massive distraction at Qualcomm which affected their execution and strategy (especially note their exit from datacenter chips, and employees got affected, the 100/1000s who lost jobs (in most cases though probably temporarily).
    If Apple was truly just upset about the perception of unfair practice by Qualcomm, they could have  stopped with the regulatory/legal pursuit, but withholding payments was a step too far.
    Not sure that’s true - I know far more about QC’s abusive and illegal practices. Would Apple have gotten as far as they did without withholding payments? Probably not, and if the payments were the result of illegal business tactics, were they obligated to pay them? 
  • Reply 37 of 55
    dedgeckodedgecko Posts: 169member
    rajaram said:
    This Apple misadventure is turning out to be good PR for Qualcomm. A lot more people know Qualcomm than before, and as an admirable and innovative company. Apple will be Apple - there is obviously much to be liked about it, especially when it is time to upgrade that iPhone or Mac.
    This was a corporate battle for favorable terms, but I wish they could have been more circumspect in how they went about it. What's lost in the midst of this is massive distraction at Qualcomm which affected their execution and strategy (especially note their exit from datacenter chips, and employees got affected, the 100/1000s who lost jobs (in most cases though probably temporarily).
    If Apple was truly just upset about the perception of unfair practice by Qualcomm, they could have  stopped with the regulatory/legal pursuit, but withholding payments was a step too far.
    This is a leak to WAPO from QC, or QC’s infamous marketing contractor, to claim that QC was and is still 100% on the side of good, and Apple is bad.  Why!  

    Because the next showdown with the FTC is coming up in two months. They want to be seen in the best light possible before the US feds do what every other government has done to them elsewhere in the world.
  • Reply 38 of 55
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,170member
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's certainly another spin on this than the poor, aggrieved, over-paying Apple vs the evil, greedy, law-breaking Qualcomm it's usually been portrayed as here. If accurate it leaves a different taste. 

    You forget Qualcomm has lost 5 major antitrust cases around the world costing them billions in fines. The FTC case is currently awaiting a decision.

    So yes, Qualcomm has been found guilty of being greedy and breaking the law.


    Edit: Just read the source article. So a reporter at the trial is talking about things they heard/saw during the beginning of the trial (during opening arguments for both sides).

    Curious why they decided to focus on items that make Apple potentially look bad and Qualcomm good. Opening arguments typically contain damning things about both sides. Yet we only really heard from one side. 

    You could always forget 'why' they chose to focus on this or that and simply take on board the quoted material.

    In that context (information from the horse's mouth), we now, as Gatorguy points out, have a take that adds some more colour to the picture.

    That we didn't learn more is due to Apple stopping the case.
    More made-up nonsense. They settled. You weren’t in the room so you don’t know who did what or why. 

    Your agenda is showing. 
    Who started the process?

    Are you suggesting QC could stop it?

    All QC could do is accept or reject.

    On accepting (settling), both sides dropped legal action but without Apple's blessing, the case would have continued.




    gatorguy
  • Reply 39 of 55
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,949member
    Johan42 said:
    Qualcomm can charge whatever they want for their products. If Apple does not like it they can get modems from someone else. But they won’t do that...being the most hypocritical company and all, that complains of high prices for modems while overcharging their customers.
    It’s mentally-challenged people like you that show how dumb and ignorant people can be.

    Research what each letter of the word “FRAND” means and come back when you reach adulthood.

    williamlondonpscooter63
  • Reply 40 of 55
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,617member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    gatorguy said:
    That's certainly another spin on this than the poor, aggrieved, over-paying Apple vs the evil, greedy, law-breaking Qualcomm it's usually been portrayed as here. If accurate it leaves a different taste. 

    You forget Qualcomm has lost 5 major antitrust cases around the world costing them billions in fines. The FTC case is currently awaiting a decision.

    So yes, Qualcomm has been found guilty of being greedy and breaking the law.


    Edit: Just read the source article. So a reporter at the trial is talking about things they heard/saw during the beginning of the trial (during opening arguments for both sides).

    Curious why they decided to focus on items that make Apple potentially look bad and Qualcomm good. Opening arguments typically contain damning things about both sides. Yet we only really heard from one side. 

    You could always forget 'why' they chose to focus on this or that and simply take on board the quoted material.

    In that context (information from the horse's mouth), we now, as Gatorguy points out, have a take that adds some more colour to the picture.

    That we didn't learn more is due to Apple stopping the case.
    More made-up nonsense. They settled. You weren’t in the room so you don’t know who did what or why. 

    Your agenda is showing. 
    Who started the process?

    Are you suggesting QC could stop it?

    All QC could do is accept or reject.

    On accepting (settling), both sides dropped legal action but without Apple's blessing, the case would have continued.

    You're kind of talking in circles. QC could certainly have stopped it by unconditionally agreeing to all of Apple's demands (i.e. accepting.) A settlement is, by definition, both sides agreeing to stop proceedings, this means both Apple's blessing and QC's blessing. You can make assumptions about what that means, but without further evidence, they are just that, assumptions.
Sign In or Register to comment.