5 ms·

This article is conflating two separate things: Apple said it should pay less for Qualcomm’s PATENTS. It always liked and never really said bad things about Qua

by asr 7y ago

This article is conflating two separate things: Apple said it should pay less for Qualcomm’s PATENTS. It always liked and never really said bad things about Qualcomm’s MODEMS. Patents != modems. Also, the article quotes “Adam Mossoff, a law professor at George Mason University” without disclosing that Qualcomm funds GMU exactly so it will get favorable press like this.[1] I expect better from WaPo. [1] https://cpip.gmu.edu/about/supporters/ https://cpip.gmu.edu/about/supporters/

wyldfire 7y ago
The FTC would have you believe that Qualcomm leveraged its patent portfolio in order to unload low quality chips. If that were true, then it would seem to be harming the marketplace. But in reality the chips are market leaders because they deliver superior performance/value, not because of patent leverage. Obtw it's very likely that Apple applied leverage to convince FTC to bring their suit.
- comex 7y ago
  > The FTC would have you believe that Qualcomm leveraged its patent portfolio in order to unload low quality chips. Citation needed. If anything, it's the reverse: the FTC complained that Qualcomm leveraged its chips in order to get inflated royalties for a low quality patent portfolio. From the original complaint: > a. Qualcomm withholds its baseband processors unless a customer accepts a license to standard-essential patents on terms preferred by Qualcomm, including elevated royalties that the customer must pay when using competitors’ processors (“no license-no chips”). (Edit: The "elevated royalties" part does imply Qualcomm was also trying to prevent its customers from purchasing its competitors' chips, but the way it allegedly negotiated the agreements with those royalties was by threatening to withhold its own chips. If Qualcomm's chips were low quality, a customer wouldn't have much to fear from such a threat. That is very much not the allegation.)
systemBuilder 7y ago
Yeah I know you don't really understand how things work. The patents only tell about half the story in the modem design. the part that Qualcomm leaves out of the patents and they leave out of the standards that's the part they put into the modems. It's why Intel's modems are garbage.
- freyr 7y ago
  Your comment doesn’t even come close to addressing what he said. The patents are broad enough that a functional, standards-compliant modem can not be made without paying royalties to Qualcomm. And it’s their patent and licensing policy that makes Qualcomm a lousy company to work with. It has nothing to do with the quality of their products.
- sctb 7y ago
  Could you please review the guidelines and start following them? You've been posting a lot of uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by asr 7y ago

wyldfire 7y ago

The FTC would have you believe that Qualcomm leveraged its patent portfolio in order to unload low quality chips. If that were true, then it would seem to be harming the marketplace. But in reality the chips are market leaders because they deliver superior performance/value, not because of patent leverage. Obtw it's very likely that Apple applied leverage to convince FTC to bring their suit.

comex 7y ago
> The FTC would have you believe that Qualcomm leveraged its patent portfolio in order to unload low quality chips. Citation needed. If anything, it's the reverse: the FTC complained that Qualcomm leveraged its chips in order to get inflated royalties for a low quality patent portfolio. From the original complaint: > a. Qualcomm withholds its baseband processors unless a customer accepts a license to standard-essential patents on terms preferred by Qualcomm, including elevated royalties that the customer must pay when using competitors’ processors (“no license-no chips”). (Edit: The "elevated royalties" part does imply Qualcomm was also trying to prevent its customers from purchasing its competitors' chips, but the way it allegedly negotiated the agreements with those royalties was by threatening to withhold its own chips. If Qualcomm's chips were low quality, a customer wouldn't have much to fear from such a threat. That is very much not the allegation.)

systemBuilder 7y ago

Yeah I know you don't really understand how things work. The patents only tell about half the story in the modem design. the part that Qualcomm leaves out of the patents and they leave out of the standards that's the part they put into the modems. It's why Intel's modems are garbage.

freyr 7y ago
Your comment doesn’t even come close to addressing what he said. The patents are broad enough that a functional, standards-compliant modem can not be made without paying royalties to Qualcomm. And it’s their patent and licensing policy that makes Qualcomm a lousy company to work with. It has nothing to do with the quality of their products.
sctb 7y ago
Could you please review the guidelines and start following them? You've been posting a lot of uncivil and/or unsubstantive comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html