3 ms·
Self-interest mandated this resolution. Both companies were risking more than they stood to gain by winning their various suits. Who nominally 'won' will depen
by mrkstu 8y ago
Self-interest mandated this resolution. Both companies were risking more than they stood to gain by winning their various suits.
Who nominally 'won' will depend on whether Apple is paying what it considers reasonable royalties going forward and whether the patent agreements allow it to utilize Qualcomm's IP in their own chipsets.
If Qualcomm has given up on tying patents to chips then it has effectively lost. If they can maintain that position with everyone but Apple, they'll probably be OK with the outcome.
Apple was forced to the table by its partner (Intel) being unable to supply 5G in a timely manner, so it may very well had to give up more than it otherwise would have.
- Despegar 8y ago>If Qualcomm has given up on tying patents to chips then it has effectively lost. If they can maintain that position with everyone but Apple, they'll probably be OK with the outcome. Apple now has a direct license with Qualcomm. The arrangement before that was only the contract manufacturers had a license with them. It seems very likely that the patents and chips got unbundled (at least for Apple). The FTC case still seems like the main risk to their business model.
- wyldfire 8y agoSince Apple was the major leverage for this case, I'd speculate that Apple could apply that same leverage to get the US FTC to settle.
- RantyDave 8y agoThey both won, that's the point of a deal.
- pentae 8y agoNot just the 5G modem, but the current intel modems are worse on their new higher priced models compared to previous generations, I'm sure everyone at Apple HQ is panicking about that. They are selling a $1500 phone with an inferior modem to a $100 chinese android device.