4 ms·
That's the narrative Apple told every regulators, but Qualcomm's is very different. According to Qualcomm's countersuit, Qualcomm did not demand that exclusivi
by tooltalk 9y ago
That's the narrative Apple told every regulators, but Qualcomm's is very different.
According to Qualcomm's countersuit, Qualcomm did not demand that exclusivity first. It was Apple who proposed "discount" or "rebates" in exchange for the exclusivity and Qualcomm acquiesced to Apple's demand. Apple then turned around started telling regulators all around the world that Apple was FORCED to sign the exclusivity. Qualcomm was not allowed to directly counter Apple's claims, unlike US lawsuits, and Qualcomm's only recourse was to withhold the $1B rebate in breach of their business agreement -- their agreement forbids Apple from giving false testimony about their contract to regulators. I'm fairly sure that EU's findings are similar to those of China, Taiwan and Korea.
Qualcomm's anti-competitive baseband licensing was well known before and I think Qualcomm got dinged for the right reason. But Apple's claims are directly countered by Qualcomm and, given Apple's past problem with GTA and other suppliers and unless there are other victims of Qualcomm's "exclusivity" agreement -- I'm inclined to believe Qualcomm was tricked by Apple's clever lawyers.
- joncrane 9y agoHow does it help Apple to have Qualcomm go down, though?
- tooltalk 9y agoApple's interest here is the patent licensing policy change. Apple has been losing legal battles against wireless patent holders for as long as the iPhones have been around. In their quest to squeeze their wireless suppliers (Nokia, Ericsson, Qualcomm, etc...), Apple has challenged their licensing practices -- ie, royalty rates and basis -- every time their licensing contract was up for renewal, claiming that their licensing practices are in breach of FRAND. Of course, Apple never had any evidence of such violation and lost or settled every lawsuit. Now that it's evident that they can't win in courts, they are trying to convince policy makers/regulators to do it for them. It helps Apple's cause mightily when their largest patent holder is found in violation of anti-trust/competition laws and, contrast to their past policy of letting the market work things out, now Apple's friends in DC and FTC have to implement draconian licensing policies in favor of Apple to better control abuses in wireless patent licensing.
- lagadu 9y agoQualcomm has had a massive monopoly on high-end LTE modems, which Apple has been forced to use and license at however much Qualcomm demands.
- ksec 9y agoBut that is not the entire story though, Qualcomm did request not going with Wi-Max.
- tooltalk 9y agoSure, while the WiMAX argument sounds a lot more convincing than Apple's pitiful claim that they were FORCED into the exclusivity, the EU and other regulators specifically cited Qualcomm's kick-back -- "the significant amounts paid by Qualcomm in exchange for exclusivity" -- in respect to LTE chipset sales as the basis of their decision. Apple in this case is not a victim of Qualcomm's anti-trust/competition violation, but a colluder and should have been punished accordingly. I'm fairly sure however that, like the previous investigation in Korea and Taiwan, Qualcomm was not allowed to defend and counter Apple's claims, but I speculate it was in part their investigation centered around Qualcomm's baseband OEM licensing (or lack thereof) in violation of FRAND, of which Qualcomm was clearly guilty.