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

141–143 of 143 posts

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

#141

Post by tooltalk »

ksec wrote: post #140
tooltalk wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your source and your point being? First, Apple doesn't directly pay Qualcomm. Apple has refused to take Qualcomm license, though I'm pretty sure Qualcomm would love to have Apple as their customer and start collecting license fees based on their retail price. Second, Foxconn, Pegatron and Apple's contractors are the ones paying for Qualcomm licenses. Their licensing agreement with Qualcomm likewise precedes Apple's i…

Directly From Apple. And they have said these number of times in the public. Apple did not bring out any thing to prove it, so i am going to take its word they are not lying. Those agreement also precede LTE. You cant NOT use Qualcomm patents in LTE, but if Qualcomm were allowed to charge whatever they wanted, then they have a monopoly case, and we have to have somebody to define what is a fair price. Since Qualcomm…

Sure,

1) can you cite your source? Apple is known for their sleazy wordsmithing and, having followed their lawsuits last several years, throwing completely unsubstantiated accusation at their opponent (see my comment about a 2012 USITC case against Samsung where Apple's own witness came out testifying against Apple). I'd like to read it myself as I'm pretty sure there are a lot of footnotes and modifiers that are not conveyed in one-liners.

2) whether contract manufacturers' licensing with Qualcomm precede LTE is immaterial in this case. Any LTE handset maker sourcing those contract manufacturers will (indirectly) pay the same rates. Apple and Qualcomm had business "collaboration" agreements in which Qualcomm provided additional technical, support resources and monetary compensation for sticking with Qualcomm (see Qualcomm's lawsuit). Apple is likely paying far less than smaller handset makers without such agreements with Qualcomm.

3) "You cant NOT use Qualcomm patents in LTE" http://www.etsi.org/images/files/IPR/etsi-guide-on-ipr.pdf):

  The purpose of the ETSI IPR Policy is to facilitate the 
  standards making process within ETSI. In complying with the 
  Policy the Technical Bodies should not become involved in 
  legal discussion on IPR matters. The main characteristics 
  of the Policy can be simplified as follows:

  • Members are fully entitled to hold and benefit from any 
  IPRs which they may own, including the right
  to refuse the granting of licenses.
4) MPEGA licensing schemes are fundamentally different than that of the wireless industry. For starter, theirs is based on some fixed cost per unit which caps at 90M per year; whereas Qualcomm's is a percentage of end-user device with no limit in quantity. Apple is allegedly paying something like $2B per year to Qualcomm as a result. Further Apple is an active contributing member of MPEGLA standard and most patents holders pay nowhere close to the publicized figure due to various sales and cross-licensing agreements.

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

#142

Post by dpark »

tooltalk wrote: post #139
rgbrenner wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

@rgbrenner: First, Qualcomm chipset also comes with IPs owned by Samsung and a slew of other wireless patent holders who crossed-licensed theirs with Qualcomm. Samsung and LG, along with Qualcomm, are the largest contributors of LTE SEP's and make up the bulk of LTE patents (KFTC likewise found that Qualcomm used its monopolistic position to force them to cross-license their patents for almost nothing in return). So…

Do you think that just maybe you should stop quoting the ETSI IPR policy as if it defines the legal obligations of patent holders? It doesn’t, and I already pointed out that it doesn’t, and your own references elsewhere point out that it doesn’t.
Post reply on HN