3 ms·
I find it odd that the article is implying that the only reason for Apple to negotiate for cheap patent licenses elsewhere is to artificially portray Qualcomm a
by eridius 8y ago
I find it odd that the article is implying that the only reason for Apple to negotiate for cheap patent licenses elsewhere is to artificially portray Qualcomm as overcharging, when surely it's in Apple's interest in general to negotiate favorable patent licensing deals.
Even if Apple's sole goal was to prove that they could license a much larger portfolio of patents for much less as a way of demonstrating that Qualcomm is overcharging, the fact that this was their goal doesn't make them wrong. "I'm going to prove you're overcharging by demonstrating that I can license other patents cheaply. Look, I licensed other patents cheaply!" is actually a pretty good argument that Qualcomm is overcharging.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- grigjd3 8y agoThe difference is the supporting documents found by Qualcomm during discovery. Internal Apple documents stated that Apple was actively trying to portray Qualcomm's patents as inferior by going to other providers.
- eridius 8y agoWhere does it say that? I've read the article twice now, and nowhere does it say that Apple internal memos tried to say Qualcomm's patents were somehow inferior. What it said was they intentionally licensed less-expensive patents to try and make Qualcomm's look more expensive, but that's the argument I already addressed.
- tooltalk 8y agoThat's exactly what the FTC did during their trial. The FTC lined up QCOM's competitors and had them testify that QCOM's patents were insignificant/inferior compared to their own patent portfolio. I'm fairly sure that this repertoire was in Apple lawyer's play too.
- eridius 8y agoI can't seem to find an article talking about what you just described. Though I'm not sure what the FTC did even matters since we're talking about Apple, not the FTC.
- tooltalk 8y agoNo. the problem here wasn't that Apple was a tough negotiator, but that it also lied to regulators around the world that QCOM violated their FRAND obligation by overcharging. The FTC obviously had no such proof that QCOM was "overcharging" or breached their FRAND obligation, so instead they used the euphemism like "elevated fee" to describe QCOM's licensing practice. In other regulatory investigation, QCOM wasn't even allowed full access to Apple's false testimony (eg, rebates for exclusivity or Apple's switch to Intel), much less representation to respond to its accusation.