4 ms·

Get an injunction to prevent Apple from selling their products with stolen Qualcomm tech until they pay. I mean, it's stolen if they didn't pay for it, right? Y

by cronix 8y ago

Get an injunction to prevent Apple from selling their products with stolen Qualcomm tech until they pay. I mean, it's stolen if they didn't pay for it, right? You know, just like Apple does to companies like Samsung who they claim use stolen Apple IP. https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/09/17/apple-v-samsung-samsung-slapped-with-injunction/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/09/17/apple-v-samsung-samsu...

gehsty 8y ago
If they think they are correct stopping Apple selling products would have a huge negative effect on their royalty collection, they need to walk a line that does not impact revenue but does not undermine their belief that Apple are wrong.
- cronix 8y ago
  I'm not in this business so I don't know the answer to this. Does Apple only have to pay Qualcomm a royalty for sold devices, or manufactured devices? To me, it seems it should be for the quantity of manufactured devices since the tech is in the phone regardless of whether it has been sold or not.
  - mygo 8y ago
    That should be up to Qualcomm how they price their royalties / construct their payment agreements
    - syshum 8y ago
      Their FRAND Agreements with the standards bodies says other wise which Qualcomm voluntary committed to when they submitted their patented technology for consideration into international standards
      - mygo 8y ago
        learn something every day thanks
  - Retric 8y ago
    That's not important. Apple argues they are buying chips from companies that already paid to use Qualcomm's patents. So, Qualcomm can't double dip and have Apple pay the same patent for the same psychical device.
  - gehsty 8y ago
    I think it is linked to devices sold - and it is priced as percentage of the retail price. My understanding is that Apple do not agree with the price paid to Qualcomm being linked to the purchase price of the phone, which you can understand - why as a consumer should you pay more for the same IP if you want extra storage in your iPhone? I think this disagreement came around before Apple ramped up the prices with the X / XS / XS Max... We should have seen the canary in the coal mine :)
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ricw 8y ago
or stop Qualcomm from coercing money out of companies that they shouldn't. see Qualcomm's convictions and massive fines in china, europe and korea for precedent.
FireBeyond 8y ago
Right. They just halted all payments unilaterally. Of course, they kept using the technology and product.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  "We've decided your patents are too expensive" (which appears to be their slant, not "your patents are invalid")... "... so we're going to keep using them. And not pay for them."
  - monocasa 8y ago
    No, their slant is 'Intel is already paying for these patents in the LTE modem we're buying from them, and Qualcomm is just trying to double dip.'
martimarkov 8y ago
Or actually look into why Apple are refusing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332647 This comment sums it up pretty good.
drb91 8y ago
If they are owed any royalties, they will continue accruing until judgement. It wouldn’t make any sense to get an injunction.

by cronix 8y ago

gehsty 8y ago

If they think they are correct stopping Apple selling products would have a huge negative effect on their royalty collection, they need to walk a line that does not impact revenue but does not undermine their belief that Apple are wrong.

cronix 8y ago
I'm not in this business so I don't know the answer to this. Does Apple only have to pay Qualcomm a royalty for sold devices, or manufactured devices? To me, it seems it should be for the quantity of manufactured devices since the tech is in the phone regardless of whether it has been sold or not.
- mygo 8y ago
  That should be up to Qualcomm how they price their royalties / construct their payment agreements
  - syshum 8y ago
    Their FRAND Agreements with the standards bodies says other wise which Qualcomm voluntary committed to when they submitted their patented technology for consideration into international standards
    - mygo 8y ago
      learn something every day thanks
- Retric 8y ago
  That's not important. Apple argues they are buying chips from companies that already paid to use Qualcomm's patents. So, Qualcomm can't double dip and have Apple pay the same patent for the same psychical device.
- gehsty 8y ago
  I think it is linked to devices sold - and it is priced as percentage of the retail price. My understanding is that Apple do not agree with the price paid to Qualcomm being linked to the purchase price of the phone, which you can understand - why as a consumer should you pay more for the same IP if you want extra storage in your iPhone? I think this disagreement came around before Apple ramped up the prices with the X / XS / XS Max... We should have seen the canary in the coal mine :)
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ricw 8y ago

or stop Qualcomm from coercing money out of companies that they shouldn't. see Qualcomm's convictions and massive fines in china, europe and korea for precedent.

FireBeyond 8y ago

Right. They just halted all payments unilaterally. Of course, they kept using the technology and product.

FireBeyond 8y ago
"We've decided your patents are too expensive" (which appears to be their slant, not "your patents are invalid")... "... so we're going to keep using them. And not pay for them."
- monocasa 8y ago
  No, their slant is 'Intel is already paying for these patents in the LTE modem we're buying from them, and Qualcomm is just trying to double dip.'

martimarkov 8y ago

Or actually look into why Apple are refusing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18332647 This comment sums it up pretty good.

drb91 8y ago

If they are owed any royalties, they will continue accruing until judgement. It wouldn’t make any sense to get an injunction.