Is it a common practice in other fields to charge a percentage of final product as a fee? To me it seems that while this can make sense to some extent there should be a cap. If I put a modem which uses Qualcomm IP in a car should I also pay 5% of the price?
Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
11–20 of 143 posts
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#12If AAPL thinks QCOM doesn't add proportional value to their phone, let them sell their phone without QCOM ip.
Because we all know AAPL takes its proportional percentage of flesh from an app developer for having the audacity to add value to iOS, whilst simultaneously holding back the web.
Hypocrisy all around.
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#13I don't understand what the problem is. Qualcomm invents something, patents it, and then they have a monopoly.
Apple's answer should be to open their own EE labs and start inventing things and getting their own patents. Instead, they complain and go to court.
Of course, that assumes the patents are good ones.
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#14That's a very one-sided pro-Qualcomm piece. The big issue with Qualcomm IP practice is that they don't charge IPR on the modem function, but over the whole device. So put the same modem in a cheap phone, or in an expensive laptop, and the IPR will be very different. This is really charging IPR on a lot of value completely unrelated to the modem. Historically, the cellular/3GPP world was very phone centric. The specs…
did you read the story? we discuss the very disagreement you reference.
"Qualcomm’s big innovation" is followed by several exaggerations and falsehoods. So, saying you mention something is meaningless when you include that amount of bias.
Read up on Token ring vs Ethernet to get some understanding of the history in this area.
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#15I don't understand what the problem is. Qualcomm invents something, patents it, and then they have a monopoly. Apple's answer should be to open their own EE labs and start inventing things and getting their own patents. Instead, they complain and go to court. Of course, that assumes the patents are good ones.
> I don't understand what the problem is. Qualcomm invents something, patents it, and then they have a monopoly.
Apple's assertion is that the pricing is not Fair or Reasonable, which Qualcomm agreed to as a concession to make their patents part of the cellular network standards.
> Apple's answer should be to open their own EE labs and start inventing things and getting their own patents. Instead, they complain and go to court.
Apple cannot simply invent their own cell technology and have it work with the cellular networks that actually exist.
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#16It's kind of hilarious to hear Apple bitching that when it marks up its phones a ridiculous $100 for $20 worth of memory, it has to share its $80 profit.
Neither of these companies deserves our sympathy. They are two big amoral profit-seeking entities wrestling for money in a way that won't meaningfully affect your life. Whether Apple wins or Qualcomm wins or they split the difference, it's neither justice nor injustice.
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#17IMO the debate over whether QCOM can/should charge based on the finshed cost of the device hinges on which analogy you pick.
Is it the sofa from your house [1] or the powertrain that powers your luxury automobile?
[1] https://www.imore.com/tim-apples-ceo-companys-2017-q1-earnin...
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#18All the money spent on patent wars will be paid for by consumers. Abolish all patents. Let the free market sort things out.
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#19Qualcomm's chips have a very bad computer security track record, and their patent-enforced monopoly status makes this a serious problem. If they would go the way of Flash and Acrobat, this would make the world much better off.
> Qualcomm's chips have a very bad computer security track record, Better hope you never see the source of a MediaTek Android kernel code dump. Someone with more malicious intent than me could instantly compromise a boatload of devices.
Are you referring to exploits in the modifications made to kernel source or to something underlying in the hardware or bootloader that is exposed by looking at kernel source.
Are they actually making GPL source availible for their kernels?
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#20Is it a common practice in other fields to charge a percentage of final product as a fee? To me it seems that while this can make sense to some extent there should be a cap. If I put a modem which uses Qualcomm IP in a car should I also pay 5% of the price?
there is cap at 300$, max royalty at this cap is 15$.