4 ms·

This is much like the multiple Apple tax(es) in place today: 1. 30% cut on apps regardless of their price (an assumption that Apple's channel reach is the one

This is much like the multiple Apple tax(es) in place today: 1. 30% cut on apps regardless of their price (an assumption that Apple's channel reach is the one enabling the sale, not the merit of your app) 2. A $5 or more price on licensing to build a MFI authorized Apple accessory 3. Complete lockdown of apps not distributed via the app store (for iOS) 4. Ominous warning while launching an app on the Mac, if app was downloaded outside the app store

mdasen 9y ago
Apple certainly puts taxes in, but Apple never agreed to FRAND terms. Qualcomm did. That's a huge difference. When an industry group sets a standard, everyone must disclose their patents and agree to FRAND terms. If they don't, they'll work around their patents and they'll get no licensing fees. This is because everyone will be forced to use that standard. Rather than being a competitive market, it's a monopoly. As such, FRAND licensing is so important. Apple, by contrast, doesn't force you to use their technology and is far from a monopoly. That doesn't mean that what Apple does is good or fair or just. However, I can buy an Android phone if I dislike what Apple is doing. I can't decide I'll buy a phone without Qualcomm's tech in it. While Apple has significant market power, it doesn't have the type of market power that a monopoly gives you. If Apple has patents on a lot of iPhone things, competitors can work around it. While Apple still has power, it's much more limited. Without the FRAND threat, once a standard had gotten traction like LTE, a company like Qualcomm could start charging $200/phone. Cell networks have invested at least $25 billion per carrier in the US into LTE networks. They have a huge installed base of LTE phone users. They can't move to a different technology even if they wanted to. By contrast, while Apple has power, they don't have that kind of power. When the iPhone was AT&T-only, sure it helped AT&T, but Verizon countered with Android devices. Sure, some people might have left Verizon for the iPhone, but it didn't have any lasting impact on Verizon. If Qualcomm decided to cut off Verizon from all its LTE patents and license them exclusively to AT&T, that would kill Verizon. Apple's biggest power-move was AT&T exclusivity, and while it helped AT&T, it didn't change the dynamic of the industry. If Qualcomm did the same, it would change the industry. That's not to say you should like Apple's exercise of power. It's to note that there's a difference between standards-essential patent licensing which is a bedrock of how we can have these industries and Apple's somewhat annoying practices which we wish they'd be nicer about.
- gsnedders 9y ago
  > When an industry group sets a standard, everyone must disclose their patents and agree to FRAND terms. Note this is only some industrial groups. The W3C, for example, requires a royalty free license of all patent claims; the IETF merely requires one to disclose patents "reasonably and personally known" held by the contributor or their employer.
- tooltalk 9y ago
  >Apple certainly puts taxes in, but Apple never agreed to FRAND terms. Qualcomm did. That's a huge difference. Nonsense, that's a completely red herring. There is nothing different about Qualcomm's or Apple's extortion-like rates. l Qualcomm can charge a percentage per device (or unit) if this is a widely accepted reasonable industry practice. Further, FRAND has nothing whatsoever to do with the royalty base or rates. Standard Setting Organizations, SSO's, aren't in the business of setting rates or telling their members what their basis ought to be, in part for fear that it might cross paths with regional anti-trust regulators. The IEEE has broken the tradition recently, but it's very rare for SSO to do so. Likewise, courts or regulators rarely want to set rates either -- for they understand their limits in their understanding of technology and market. Where they were exceptions (eg, Moto vs Microsoft), the courts have used the similar set of standards industry uses to charge potential licensees. Contrary to pro-Apple fanbois views, FRAND doesn't necessarily mean cheap or does it imply that Qualcomm's IPs are essentially public properties. It just means that they must be open and willing to license their IP portfolio in fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory manner to promote optimal interoperability and wide-adoption.
  - ksec 9y ago
    >here is nothing different about Qualcomm's or Apple's extortion-like rates True,except you can work with android in smart phone apps, you don't even have a choice inn Qualcomm case.

mdasen 9y ago

Apple certainly puts taxes in, but Apple never agreed to FRAND terms. Qualcomm did. That's a huge difference. When an industry group sets a standard, everyone must disclose their patents and agree to FRAND terms. If they don't, they'll work around their patents and they'll get no licensing fees. This is because everyone will be forced to use that standard. Rather than being a competitive market, it's a monopoly. As such, FRAND licensing is so important. Apple, by contrast, doesn't force you to use their technology and is far from a monopoly. That doesn't mean that what Apple does is good or fair or just. However, I can buy an Android phone if I dislike what Apple is doing. I can't decide I'll buy a phone without Qualcomm's tech in it. While Apple has significant market power, it doesn't have the type of market power that a monopoly gives you. If Apple has patents on a lot of iPhone things, competitors can work around it. While Apple still has power, it's much more limited. Without the FRAND threat, once a standard had gotten traction like LTE, a company like Qualcomm could start charging $200/phone. Cell networks have invested at least $25 billion per carrier in the US into LTE networks. They have a huge installed base of LTE phone users. They can't move to a different technology even if they wanted to. By contrast, while Apple has power, they don't have that kind of power. When the iPhone was AT&T-only, sure it helped AT&T, but Verizon countered with Android devices. Sure, some people might have left Verizon for the iPhone, but it didn't have any lasting impact on Verizon. If Qualcomm decided to cut off Verizon from all its LTE patents and license them exclusively to AT&T, that would kill Verizon. Apple's biggest power-move was AT&T exclusivity, and while it helped AT&T, it didn't change the dynamic of the industry. If Qualcomm did the same, it would change the industry. That's not to say you should like Apple's exercise of power. It's to note that there's a difference between standards-essential patent licensing which is a bedrock of how we can have these industries and Apple's somewhat annoying practices which we wish they'd be nicer about.

gsnedders 9y ago
> When an industry group sets a standard, everyone must disclose their patents and agree to FRAND terms. Note this is only some industrial groups. The W3C, for example, requires a royalty free license of all patent claims; the IETF merely requires one to disclose patents "reasonably and personally known" held by the contributor or their employer.
tooltalk 9y ago
>Apple certainly puts taxes in, but Apple never agreed to FRAND terms. Qualcomm did. That's a huge difference. Nonsense, that's a completely red herring. There is nothing different about Qualcomm's or Apple's extortion-like rates. l Qualcomm can charge a percentage per device (or unit) if this is a widely accepted reasonable industry practice. Further, FRAND has nothing whatsoever to do with the royalty base or rates. Standard Setting Organizations, SSO's, aren't in the business of setting rates or telling their members what their basis ought to be, in part for fear that it might cross paths with regional anti-trust regulators. The IEEE has broken the tradition recently, but it's very rare for SSO to do so. Likewise, courts or regulators rarely want to set rates either -- for they understand their limits in their understanding of technology and market. Where they were exceptions (eg, Moto vs Microsoft), the courts have used the similar set of standards industry uses to charge potential licensees. Contrary to pro-Apple fanbois views, FRAND doesn't necessarily mean cheap or does it imply that Qualcomm's IPs are essentially public properties. It just means that they must be open and willing to license their IP portfolio in fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory manner to promote optimal interoperability and wide-adoption.
- ksec 9y ago
  >here is nothing different about Qualcomm's or Apple's extortion-like rates True,except you can work with android in smart phone apps, you don't even have a choice inn Qualcomm case.