Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 143 posts

Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part

#101

Post by philjohn »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #78

You guys are making this a really irrational, really emotional "Apple vs Qualcomm" issue. The root of the problem is not that. The root of the problem is bad patent law. It really doesn't matter what apple does, it doesn't matter if their CEO eats babies, the merits of a patent are irrelevant to whether the company "feels like a baddy." If you think apple has bad monopolistic practices in its app store, that only rei…

It's a difficult one - Qualcomm have invested a huge amount of money in developing some awesome baseband hardware - so should see some protection of that.

Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part

#102

Post by robhu »

atka wrote: post #77
rgbrenner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A patent holder can charge whatever they want, or even refuse to allow anyone to license it. The difference is that Qualcomm agreed to FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) licensing terms in exchange for their patent being included in the standard. Once they got their patent in the standard, now they're saying they get to charge whatever they want. That's the problem. That wasn't the deal they and everyon…

There is nothing in FRAND that says what they can charge. They can charge whatever they want as long as it is fair reasonable and non discrimatory.

Isn't the point that the R of FRAND is being violated because it is not reasonable to charge a % of the cost of the entire device when they are contributing only the modem.

Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part

#103

Post by MikusR »

MBCook wrote: post #94
tooltalk wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel Infineon has been around quite a while. Apple's lawsuit comes only after Apple as the article correctly notes conspired with Samsung to force the Korean regulators to go after Qualcomm. There are other backdrops, such as the SCOTUS's recent decision not to award damage on entire device willy-nilly (see Samsung vs Apple).

‘Conspired’ to have regulators go after a patent monopolist for not following the terms they agreed to? That’s not a conspiracy.

noun: conspiracy; a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part

#104

Post by tooltalk »

sgift wrote: post #33
dpark wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 g…

The problem seems to be that there's no definition what exactly FRAND actually means. The only thing everyone seems to agree on is that "you cannot exclude companies from licensing your tech", but apart from that it seems to be wild west.

@sgift: no, there is some definition of what FRAND is. It's just that Apple doesn't like it. In once instance, Apple's own FRAND expert came out testifying against Apple (in a 2012 ITC case involving Samsung and Apple).

And no, under FRAND, Qualcomm can refuse license.

Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part

#105

Post by abritinthebay »

rgbrenner wrote: post #50
hajile wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That pricing argument is worthless when you start talking about percentages. 5% of a $500 device is quite a lot while 5% of some $25 IoT device is not very much. Qualcomm spends around 5.5 Billion every year in R&D or 23% of net sales. For comparison, apple spends a paltry 2.2% of its net sales on R&D. Dry up Qualcomm's net sales and the R&D will dry up too. All the most crucial wireless patents (the really fundament…

All the most crucial wireless patents have already expired The 2G patents (that Qualcomm owned 90% of) have expired.. but who uses that anymore? Qualcomm also owns 13% of the patents used for LTE (which they agreed to license under FRAND terms).. it's those patents they are using to create a monopoly on LTE chips. First they refuse to license their patents to other manufacturers who want to produce chips.. then they…

> First they refuse to license their patents to other manufacturers who want to produce chips

Isn't that a FRAND violation?

Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part

#107

Post by svantana »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #78

You guys are making this a really irrational, really emotional "Apple vs Qualcomm" issue. The root of the problem is not that. The root of the problem is bad patent law. It really doesn't matter what apple does, it doesn't matter if their CEO eats babies, the merits of a patent are irrelevant to whether the company "feels like a baddy." If you think apple has bad monopolistic practices in its app store, that only rei…

Who said anything about a "problem"? It's a fight between corporations, I don't see anything about this that is bad for society at large. Apple already turns a huge profit on each phone, it's not likely that they would pass on a potential saving to the consumer. And Qualcomm is hardly a patent troll, they use their licence fees to fund R&D. There are plenty of problems with our IP laws but is this really one of them?

Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part

#108

Post by simonh »

danjoc wrote: post #29
yaantc wrote: post #6

That'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…

>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. Pot, meet kettle. Apple charges 30% at the App store, whether I want to sell an app for $1 or $1000. Also, if Apple wanted, they could package the modem separately. Sell it for $50. Again, this mirrors Apple's advice to Samsung to buil…

>Pot, meet kettle…

Not really equivalent though. Apple advertises and makes the whole app available on the App Store, delivers the whole app from their infrastructure, manages upgrades and back end services for the whole app, provide access to millions of customers and handle the financial transaction for the full cost of the app. It seems reasonable they get a percentage of the whole app’s price.

Meanwhile Qualcomm only own a few patents on a tiny sliver of the circuitry of one component for one function of the device.

Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part

#109

Post by danjoc »

admiralpumpkin wrote: post #75
danjoc wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Apple is against. In this case. Apple has a history of demanding extortionate patent licensing fees for incredibly obvious ideas. You seem to be missing the bigger picture. The attack on Qualcomm is against the company, not the patents. Qualcomm snapdragons are the only competitive ARM chips against Apple's A series. Apple is trying to destroy Qualcomm and monopolize the market. That's not going to help the little g…

You're not addressing the poster's point. Does makes sense for Apple to pay a % of total price of phone for one decreasingly relevant part? Apple A series tech is destroying the Qualcomm's snapdragons just fine without any need for legalities. Are you suggesting that Qualcomm is using its licensing fees to support an unprofitable Snapdragons? Overall a confusing argument.

>You're not addressing the poster's point.

I already addressed it. The poster is repeating the point. That doesn't make it more valid.

>Apple A series tech is destroying the Qualcomm's snapdragons just fine without any need for legalities.

You might want to review world wide market share numbers before you try to defend that statement.

>Are you suggesting that Qualcomm is using its licensing fees to support an unprofitable Snapdragons?

I'm suggesting Apple is using litigation expense as an avenue to destroy the business of their competitor, again. Apple has much deeper pockets than Qualcomm. It's very simple math.

Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part

#110

Post by wernercd »

mcculley wrote: post #99
pwinnski wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the key there is that Dell ships with an LTE modem, a separate device with a separate price. They pay royalties to Qualcomm on the price of the modem. Apple would never (for some value of never) ship a laptop with an external device like that. The LTE is either baked into the laptop (at which point Qualcomm would demand a % of the entire laptop's sale price), or it's not included at all. They choose not at al…

Dell, HP, and Lenovo ship laptops with a built-in LTE modem.

"Built in" as soldered unto the mother boards? Or "Build in" as in an expansion card added to an expansion card slot (even if "internally")?

I assume the difference between those two would be the difference between price?

Post reply on HN