U.S. judge rules that Apple’s foreign lawsuits against Qualcomm can proceed


  • Elky64

    “the chip manufacturer is currently being accused by the computing giant for not licensing modem chips at a FAIR price”


    • Eluder

      Hilarious that the biggest patent troll in the US is complaining about what another company charges for its patents.

    • It’s Me

      So is the US government, the EU, Japan, South Korea, intel, and a lot of other large tech companies.

      But funny because Apple is involved I guess.

    • Smanny

      The really big difference here, is everyone else is still paying Qualcomm. Except Apple, and Apple’s manufacturing kronies.

    • It’s Me

      The other big difference is that Qualcomm still hasn’t paid Apple the $1B rebate they owe them. Maybe if Qualcomm paid their debt, Apple wouldn’t have ever sued them and would still be BFFs. If you pick a fight, then expect a fight.

      Inconvenient facts, I know.

      What’s a kronie?

    • Smanny

      Qualcomm decides if there should be a rebate. Not Apple. At the end of the day it works out to be around $10 per iPhone. Yet Apple is claiming that is too much, especially on an smartphone like the iPhone 7 that sells for $900 Canadian dollars. Qualcomm patents are essential on every smartphone, including Apple’s iPhone’s.

      Every consumer wants a lower price on an iPhone, but they just have to pay what ever Apple wants. Isn’t that funny how Apple can squeeze it’s customers, but when it comes to a Company providing something that is needed on every iPhone, Apple has to Nickle and dime the OEMs. Apple is like the star trek ferrengi “need profit”.

    • It’s Me

      Actually, their contract decides whether they pay the rebate. Duh. Nice squirm. Not very intelligent but at least you are trying.

      Further, it is not only about how much they charge for using their chips, it’s about their all or nothing policies using their FRAND monopoly as leverage for other revenue, something expressing against FRAND commitments.


      What’s a kronie? Is that a GED thing?

    • Uzair Abbas

      Ya those $30 lighting cables. Are those fair?

    • It’s Me

      FRAND. The F stands for fair.

      Didn’t realize this was news.

    • Elky64

      LOL… Well I guess you missed my consumer prospective.

    • It’s Me

      I guess. Are their prices not fair? Seem to be in the ball park of other top brands.

      Consumer products aren’t covered by FRAND responsibilities.

    • Elky64

      No, personally don’t find them fair. Sure do find prices for other things I don’t buy being unfair, seems to be the nature of the beast these days and something many of us refer to as greed. Suppose a little of Apple rubbed off on these fellows.

    • It’s Me

      Very dramatically stated.

      Flair on.

    • Elky64

      Nothing dramatic about it just reality, unless you’ve got nothing but money to burn and don’t care, if so then there’s “nothing to see here”. If you want to sugar coat everything as being in the ball park then that is your prerogative. And this has nothing to do with entitlement either because at the end of the day it’s a “take it or leave it” affair.

      So what you are saying is that you yourself just hand over the $$$ without ever questioning a commodities worth, ever? If so then you are a better person than I – or rich. 😉

      FYI – I wasn’t born yesterday having been around muuuuch longer than you think. Yes I’ve seen fair value back when and also watched Apple grow from its infancy, so no, we are not new to this ballgame.

    • It’s Me

      No, what I’m saying while I understand thinking something is over priced, I disagree with the juvenile mindset it would take to think high prices on consumer goods are somehow unfair. Honestly, that makes me picture a child throwing a tantrum in an Apple Store scream that the prices aren’t fair.

      Aren’t fair to whom? Why do you deserve cheaper prices?

  • It’s Me

    Here comes everyone that has no understanding about patents and IP with their comments….

    • Elky64

      And who really cares? For MOST consumers out there it’s simply the pot calling the kettle black.

    • It’s Me

      Honestly, mostly for people that don’t understand the issues.

      For MOST people that don’t buy Apple products but have a chip on their shoulder about Apple it appears to them to be a case of the pot and kettle. But they aren’t generally concerned with facts to form an opinion.

    • Elky64

      As a matter of fact I own several Apple products (2-iPhones, 4-iPads, 1-iPod and 1-MacBook Pro), we have many likes and dislikes about each of these devices as do we with Apple in general, and same can be said for anything we own.

      But Apples price points have always been top tier when viewing them from a consumers standpoint, in some ways worth it but in other ways not… Got the newest iPad (9.7″/128GB) for my wife and must say that pill was easier to swallow yet far from the norm, took some concession but we are fine with that.

      So basically I’m looking in as a consumer/user and feel Apple’s pricing practices have always been unfair to the consumer, and no it hasn’t stopped people from buying them if how they fly off the shelves is any indication. I’ve too seen some of their all-inclusive costs involved to manufacture and it does make one cringe at times… But then we go on our merry way, using those products, as if none the wiser LOL.

    • It’s Me

      Unfair how?

    • Elky64

      To me they are not worth the price of admission, no where near.

    • It’s Me

      So they forced you to buy their products? Did they have a gun? That really would be unfair.

      I mean if it’s nowhere near worth the price to you, certainly an intelligent person wouldn’t spend their money voluntarily on their products when they have so many other worthwhile options. Right? So, gunpoint purchases?

    • Elky64

      off – Are you married and does your significant other have any say on what to/is
      purchased? – Should I say more LOL.

      I will… I’m not saying Apple products don’t work well but it is hard to deny
      the fact they have always been overpriced for what you get. To me there has
      always been an imbalance between Apple products and the competition, until now,
      as we’re seeing others starting to follow suit. I too think these other
      manufactures are being unfair and unjust in their pricing so guess it’ll no
      longer be just a big “A” thing.

    • It’s Me

      Still not sure how you can arrive at calling their pricing unfair, given the hyper competitive segments they compete in. Can completely see how one thinks they are over priced. Getting to “unfair” seems to require a flair for the overly dramatic.

    • Elky64

      Suppose when I feel price point is undeserved, unreasonable, excessive, then unfair becomes part of the equation too.

      And yes that’s starting to hold true for many now not just Apple any more.

    • It’s Me

      I suppose if you feel entitled to particular pricing or that you deserve certain low prices, then it could seem unfair.

    • Uzair Abbas

      Is qualcomm forcing apple to purchase its product? It can team up with samsung and intel and come with their own product. It cost qualcomm a lot of money and through these licensing cost they are recouping their investment and R&D. Moreover, qualcomm is advancing the tech as well, not letting it stall simply due to their monopoly.

      Apple should also sue samsung for charging high prices for OLED just because they have near market monopoly.

    • It’s Me

      That’s kind of why they are called standards.

      Are these real questions or is everyone pretending to be this confused.

    • Uzair Abbas

      And the two biggest manufactures of smartphones, tablets, watches combined with intel cannot create their own standard, then license it out to smaller players at “fair” prices? Now they don’t have to pay $10/phone, but also earn a buck from others.

      Time to make use of that $250+b in cash. And that probably is the plan. This lawsuit is just a try, see if it goes anywhere, if not, bunch of manufactures come together and pour money to create something so they don’t pay $10 for it, which can also threaten qualcomm and force them to lower prices.

    • It’s Me
    • Stephen B Morris

      I have my opinions however after reading the comments, everything has digressed into a discussion of what Apple charges for their phones rather than the real issue here.

      So honest question time. I get that a US judge will side with a US company 100% of the time. I don’t agree with that, but I get it. I even expect it. However what I don’t understand is why Apple’s lawsuit even has any merit to begin with?

      Qualcomm just like Apple is a corporate entity and the price for their tech is the price they choose to charge. As long as everyone is paying the same price for the same piece of tech, Apple can’t and shouldn’t dictate what price they feel comfortable in paying for technology they don’t own. Apple chose to use Qualcomm chips. It’s not anti trust if there are other options. Intel makes chips. MediaTek makes chips. Hell even Huawei makes chips now. Up to a couple years ago Nvidia and Texus Instruments made chips. So choice was available for a while. Unless they have proof that Qualcomm is purposely charging more than everyone else, they shouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

      Qualcomm however has a reason to sue and request a sales injunction because Apple isn’t paying them and they are selling and profiting from Qualcomm’s technology.
      You mentioned that Apple wasn’t paid the rebates they were due. The proper thing to do is pay for the IP and sue for the money that you are owed. If that is what they were suing for then that’s fine. This is business, not math. Two wrongs don’t make a right in this case. Apple is wrong and they should pay the money. Seems simple to me but maybe I am missing something.

    • It’s Me

      Thank you for intelligent questions. It’s a nice change around here. Here goes.

      1) This is not just about a US judge. Qualcomm is being investigated or charged by countries around the world over exactly these issues. That’s actually what started all of this. Apple was called to testify about Qualcomm and Q got pissy and withheld their payments to Apple.

      2) This is not a case of two wrongs making a right. When engaged in legal disputes about payments it is common not to pay until the case is settled. In fact, the ruling yesterday allows exactly for continued withholding of payments. If you were in the middle of a divorce you don’t just hand over everything your ex says you should give her, you wait until the judge dictates terms. If your employee got caught forging invoices to increase their commission, you don’t just continue to pay out. You figure out how much was legitimate, even if that means going to court.

      Qualcomm chose to withhold payments before there was any legal disagreement. They withheld just to make a point about what happens when you testify against them. It backfired.

      3) You mention that Qualcomm should charge whatever they want and as a business that is normally true. But it is not true when you submit your IP as Standard Essential Patents (SEP). You bind yourself to agreements that require you to charge fair and reasonable rates and terms, FRAND.

      And that’s the heart of Qualcomm being investigated and charged by the EU, South Korean, Japan, China, and the US. Their terms and clearly not FRAND. If you choose not to buy their chips you must still pay them because the chips you decided to use are covered by their SEP patents. So, when you buy Intel, you pay Intel for the chips and intel pays Qualcomm for their IP. And then you pay Qualcomm again.

      4) in addition to all of that, this fight started once Qualcomm decided to pick a fight just to be petty.

    • Stephen B Morris

      Thank you for the backstory. It makes more sense to me now. It does beg the question how long were they getting away with this and why this wasn’t shut down sooner? But I think the lawyers will make sure to drag this out long enough so that the general public will forget.

    • Canadiana Jones

      Wow, I think this is the first time in the recent history when some US court decided that it has no word in other counties legislation. They usually think they can treat the whole world as another state of USA.

  • TheCuddlyKoala