All the money spent on patent wars will be paid for by consumers. Abolish all patents. Let the free market sort things out.
Doubtful. Did you see the graphic in the article which shows Apple's margins on an iPhone?
Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
21–30 of 143 posts
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#22Qualcomm'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.
Qcom is not a chip company. It is an IP company that happens to make some chips on the side. A majority of their profits are based on their IP portfolio. As a percentage of revenue they spend more on R&D than most Tech companies especially apple. Apple spends less than 5% on R&D. However I am not a fan of their chips. Their chips aren't that great, but its hard to compete with them since you have to use their patents on your radio.
It would be good if they just split the IP and Chip parts.
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#23Is 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?
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 everyone else agreed to, and it's too late to remove their patent from the standard.
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
I am referring to kernel modifications and especially custom module source code. But given the state of the kernel code I've seen, I don't put much trust in bootloader and hardware either.
Go search on Github for leaked sources, I am not sure if they're legal to post here...
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#25I love battles when you can't really feel sorry for either side.
As much as I or anyone hate patent trolls, one can't sit here and complain that a percentage of the value isn't a fair price to pay if one thinks it's okay for Apple to charge Music + App devs 30% to improve their OS + provide content for it's users.
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#26If 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.
Apple can't really do that (sell a phone without Qualcomm IP).
Qualcomm agreed to FRAND terms in exchange to adding their patents to the 3G standard.
Once that happened, Qualcomm then violated their FRAND terms to create a monopoly on CDMA chipsets, charge additional royalties, etc.
If they drop Qualcomm, then they'll have to drop CDMA support (Verizon, Sprint, 3g, 4g).
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#27That sounds very expensive. I believe a few years ago the whole SoC with the modem included was something like $20-$25. Qualcomm is basically trying to make Apple and others pay almost as much for the modem as they would pay for the SoC. This is a tactic Intel itself is also very familiar with, as they've done with their CPU and GPU bundles. I believe in some cases it was even more expensive to buy the CPU alone, so…
I don't think it is expensive. Qualcomm is doing everyone a service by allowing anyone to buy the chipset from anyone else, just pay a small fee relative to the cost of device. This lets anyone with enough capital to get into the business and start off with good technology. Apple simply has enough money they apparently have decided they don't have to follow any rules they don't want. How do they handle licensing thei…
This is specifically about the FRAND terms Qualcomm agreed to when their patented methods were included the cellular standards. These methods were included because they may have been the best way to solve the issue but more importantly because an industry giant is ready to build chips to adhere to the standard, helping adoption and time to market. To offset that vested interest, they have to agree to FRAND terms.
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#28I 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.
[deleted]
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#29That'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 build triangle phones since Apple patented a rectangle with rounded corners. Suddenly, clunky workarounds are bad. Quelle suprise.
I really can't feel sorry for Apple. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Must be nice to be an Apple IP lawyer. They win no matter what happens.
Re: Apple and Qualcomm’s Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
#30All the money spent on patent wars will be paid for by consumers. Abolish all patents. Let the free market sort things out.
Doubtful. Did you see the graphic in the article which shows Apple's margins on an iPhone?
Those were Apple's gross margins. Cost of goods is never the total cost, even for retail. In Apple's case, a lot of the magic of the iPhone happens through the effort of R&D. The media saying Apple's profit margin is their gross margin is disingenuous and grossly misleading. Most companies' gross margins are somewhere around 70% for products, but Apple is the one that gets singled out.