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.
Johan42 may be uninformed about FRAND, but that doesn't justify name calling.
I need closure on this. I know Qualcomm caved-in but how much.
Well, I don't know that that's accurate. In the end, it seems to me that Apple agreed to pay back the royalties it and its suppliers were withholding, and won a substantial reduction in royalties from Qualcomm ($9/iPhone instead of the former $15/iPhone) going forward. I'd have to say ultimately it's a win-win for both, but Qualcomm is not out of the legal woods yet.
At the end of the day, Apple was stuck between a rock and a hard place. Everyone agrees QC has the best chips. Intel, on the other hand, couldn't design a suitable 5G modem, even though they tried. Apple isn't hurting for cash, but they are a business, and want to maximize profits and revenue, and they saw QC as overcharging for their products, even though they were superior. (Pot calling the kettle black on that one for sure, Apple is notorious for overcharging for their better products.)
Anyway, Intel could't provide a suitable chip, Apple didn't have as strong a case against QC as they thought, and finally, Apple only need a short window until they develop their own 5G modem chips as everyone knows they are. So they ran the numbers, and it was better to settle, get the 5G modems from Qualcomm, ditch Intel (who immediately threw in the modem development towel) and now they have 6 years of breathing room to develop their own modem in-house.
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.
Do FRAND laws specify a specific amount or percentage? Nearly always the buyer of a product or service wants to pay less. I’ve heard 5% is charged by Qualcomm. Apple makes 30% iTunes and the App Store which is a basic web server really nothing special.
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.
Not at all. Apple started the process. Even if Qualcomm accepted all of Apple's demands, it would still be Apple which stopped the process.
Apple held the reins. QC could countersue, which it did but it was Apple that called the legal shots on its complaint.
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.
Do FRAND laws specify a specific amount or percentage? Nearly always the buyer of a product or service wants to pay less. I’ve heard 5% is charged by Qualcomm. Apple makes 30% iTunes and the App Store which is a basic web server really nothing special.
FRAND agreements are not laws. They are agreements (contracts) between standards bodies and patent holders to make the given IP a standard in the industry which can then be used by everyone to build compliant systems. Standards Bodies exist because interoperability requires everyone conform to a set of Essential Patents. What are contracts? They are agreements that governments (the Courts) will enforce -- but they are not laws.
Assuming QCOM agreed to license their IP under FRAND, allegations are that QCOM bundled other IP with the license for the FRAND patents, and licensed their IP in a discriminatorily. The F(air) part of FRAND explicitly does not allow for bundling, or cross-licensing, or forbidding licensees from dealing with licensors' competitors -- the first and third prohibition is what Apple alleged QCOM was doing.
As for Apple charging 30% in iTunes(?) and App Store. Irrelevant. For one, there is no standards body for the licensing of music or apps. Further there is no essential IP -- nobody needs to interoperate. Apple can charge 30% if the market allows.
It is hardly surprising that Apple wanted to reduce its royalties.
My understanding is the issue was the royalty was based on the cost of the final product and because Apple makes expensive phones they pay more.
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.
Educate yourself on FRAND then try again with the trolling comments.
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.
Then try to figure out what the Standards bodies think it means, what the licensees think it means, what the licensors think it means.... Then shove it into a few courtrooms and see what different venues think it means. None of them are in complete agreement.
...and to top it off some forum posters have an altogether different understanding of what it is and assume it's all settled law and defined meanings.
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.
Johan42 may be uninformed about FRAND, but that doesn't justify name calling.
That's right. sfocal is doing a great disservice to all mentally-challenged people by comparing Johan42 to them.
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.
Sort of - My take on it was that QC had abusive licensing practices and Apple was trapped so they developed a long term plan to get out of the trap.
There's a lot in this story that fits with everything else - QC has good engineers and makes good chips and they have one of the largest (if not the largest) portfolio of patents, many of which are required for mobile phones. They used their position to strong-arm companies into paying high royalties. If you're QC, you say that's the cost of using our tech. If you're Apple, Samsung, or some other company, they're excessive.
From what I've read, many of the patents were or should have been covered under FRAND, but 'should have been covered' is far different from the company actually abiding by it in good faith, and the 'Reasonable' portion of FRAND leaves a lot of wiggle room. I'm sure QC would say $100 per device is very reasonable.
There is a lots o "Stuff" between the beginning and the end and we are getting to see some of the "stuff" in the middle to get to the end state. Whether it is all truly relevant does not matter. Let not forget this all started because QCOM forced everyone who touched their technology had to pay for that privilege include the guy who just put the phone together. That meant the consumers ended up paying more to just to use the technology. Next when the Korean government went after this business practice, and Apple was required by law to provide information of QCAM business practices and loss their case, QCOM decided to take it out on Apple for exposing their abusive licensing, by holding back a negotiated rebate, which I suspect was to offset what Foxconn was paying QCOM to assemble Apple phones.
Yes, was looking for legal strategy to get out from under all of this which may have been to devalue QCOM's IP.
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.
Sort of - My take on it was that QC had abusive licensing practices and Apple was trapped so they developed a long term plan to get out of the trap.
There's a lot in this story that fits with everything else - QC has good engineers and makes good chips and they have one of the largest (if not the largest) portfolio of patents, many of which are required for mobile phones. They used their position to strong-arm companies into paying high royalties. If you're QC, you say that's the cost of using our tech. If you're Apple, Samsung, or some other company, they're excessive.
From what I've read, many of the patents were or should have been covered under FRAND, but 'should have been covered' is far different from the company actually abiding by it in good faith, and the 'Reasonable' portion of FRAND leaves a lot of wiggle room. I'm sure QC would say $100 per device is very reasonable.
There is a lots o "Stuff" between the beginning and the end and we are getting to see some of the "stuff" in the middle to get to the end state. Whether it is all truly relevant does not matter. Let not forget this all started because QCOM forced everyone who touched their technology had to pay for that privilege include the guy who just put the phone together. That meant the consumers ended up paying more to just to use the technology.
Do you think now that it's settled consumers will pay less? I doubt you can hold your breath that long.
This was never about how much consumers paid. It's about how much revenue the OEM's such as Apple and Samsung etc get to keep as profit. Apple is going to price their products for every penny the market will allow, a relatively insignificant more or less expensive QC royalty won't matter one whit. They just get to book more profit if the costs went down and whether they did is a maybe. We don't really know.
Comments
Johan42 may be uninformed about FRAND, but that doesn't justify name calling.
Anyway, Intel could't provide a suitable chip, Apple didn't have as strong a case against QC as they thought, and finally, Apple only need a short window until they develop their own 5G modem chips as everyone knows they are. So they ran the numbers, and it was better to settle, get the 5G modems from Qualcomm, ditch Intel (who immediately threw in the modem development towel) and now they have 6 years of breathing room to develop their own modem in-house.
Apple held the reins. QC could countersue, which it did but it was Apple that called the legal shots on its complaint.
Royalties
Apple’s
Not
Delivering
Then shove it into a few courtrooms and see what different venues think it means. None of them are in complete agreement.
...and to top it off some forum posters have an altogether different understanding of what it is and assume it's all settled law and defined meanings.
That's right. sfocal is doing a great disservice to all mentally-challenged people by comparing Johan42 to them.
Yes, was looking for legal strategy to get out from under all of this which may have been to devalue QCOM's IP.
This was never about how much consumers paid. It's about how much revenue the OEM's such as Apple and Samsung etc get to keep as profit. Apple is going to price their products for every penny the market will allow, a relatively insignificant more or less expensive QC royalty won't matter one whit. They just get to book more profit if the costs went down and whether they did is a maybe. We don't really know.