Qualcomm uses Palm patents in attempt to get iPhone X banned in US


  • John Lofwire

    Poor apple been served what they been serving others for years.

    • It’s Me

      When facts don’t matter, we turn to John.

      remember, if you’re going to pretend not to read this, it’s best if you don’t reply and/or mention my name. 😉

    • Graham Fluet

      To be fair, Apple has a long history of making extreme demands of their suppliers and using their marketshare clout to cut significant discounts. It’s more than likely that they simply acted in a way that angered other companies and pissed them off enough that an amicable solution is no longer possible.

    • It’s Me

      Completely true that they drive a hard bargain but that doesn’t appear to be relevant in this case. Qualcomm was/is being investigated for their behaviour and business practices around the world. Apple was asked to testify, I think by the EU or South Korea, regarding their deals with Qualcomm. Qualcomm got pissy that someone dared to speak up when requested by legal authorities, and decided to retaliate by withholding the $1B cheque. That’s it, that’s what started this entire mess…Qualcomm being investigated and charged all around the world and deciding to send a message to their “partners” that it doesn’t matter who you are, they’ll make you pay for betrayal.

    • EBIGN

      Yep, “Qualcomm demanded onerous terms for the use of its patented technology and even sought to punish Apple for cooperating in a South Korean regulatory probe that dove into Qualcomm’s licensing practices”

    • Domino67

      When did Qualcomm withhold a $1 billion cheque? All I can find is Apple suing for a billion because they (Apple) feel that they are being double charged.

    • It’s Me

      Google Qualcomm rebate Apple.

      You’d have to have been on the moon for the last year to pretend not to know that….

      Oh wait, I forgot, Apple is involved. That means you guys will pretend to be dumb anyway.

    • Domino67

      That is same lawsuit I said that I found!

      And a big F U…..I asked an honest question and need not have stupid insulting comment back from you.

    • It’s Me

      Yes, Apple had to sue them for the rebate payment because, wait for it…Qualcomm withheld the payment.

      Once Qualcomm forced the issue by trying to steal $1B, yes, Apple decided to fight back. Big F’n surprise to anyone without a functioning brain stem that if you poke a bull to get the horns.

    • Domino67

      That’s an issue between Qualcomm and Apple NOT Qualcomm’s other customers!

      You don’t go to a restaurant and order and eat a meal and don’t pay for it because the cook didn’t get paid his overtime.

    • It’s Me

      Umm, no. It’s royalty payments at issue. That’s what Apple asked their suppliers to withhold. Your analogy shows you clearly have zero clue on this case. You took a side, based only on Apple being involved.

      Parts are paid for. Now, how many times should the same royalties be paid and by how many parties in the supply chain? That’s the question.

      How many times are you going to pay for that same steak dinner?

    • Domino67

      The price of the steak is on yhe menu and is known before ordering…. I don’t get to consume the steak and then tell them I’m only going to pay them 50% which is enough to cover thier costs because i dispute the amount charged.

    • It’s Me

      (Can believe how bad this analogy is).

      And since you’re boss paid for your dinner ahead of time, of course you’ll pay for it again because you’re just that kind of guy, right? And the third time they charge too, right?

      Simple question: how many times would you volunteer to pay for the same dinner? Because multiple payments for the same thing is being disputed.

      You seem very concerned about missed payments…but only those considered to be illegal by most of the developed world. The one that is completely kosher is the only one you conveniently think is no big deal to skip out on.

    • Domino67

      My analogy makes perfect sense because Qualcomm customers are withholding payments.

      Qualcomm do NOT manufacture the chips and yet Apple still gets full use of said product.

      Kinda slimy.

      Nobody else gets to withold payments for services rendered.

      But as this is Apple you, Brad Fortin and Cider Rules will be fapping about this for a long time.

    • It’s Me

      Your analogy only makes sense if you ignore facts, squint your eyes and it helps if you’ve had a brain injury.

      Your so out of your depth it hurts. Qualcomm charges for parts. Qualcomm charges for IP. Qualcomm charges again for IP. Qualcomm charges for IP you aren’t even using because if you don’t then they’ll withhold rights to different IP you do need.

      Almost the entire developed world, EU, US, China, South Korea, individual EU countries, Japan, Russia, are all going after Q on exactly this because they are n the wrong. But some dimwit that doesn’t even know the facts of the case and made his decision based only on the word Apple knows better.

      I honestly hope you have good people looking after you. I don’t expect you’ll survive very long without caretakers.

    • Brad Fortin

      Weren’t you just criticizing Apple the other day for suing companies with patents for things they didn’t invent? And now you’re cheering on Qualcomm for doing the exact same thing? Talk about hypocrisy.

  • Domino67

    Go Qualcomm Go!.

    Apple never should have interfered with the deals that Qualcomm had with thier customers.

    • It’s Me

      You’d have a point if that was what started this mess. You’re going to get a lot of votes from the circIejerk crowd because it fits the echo-chamber narrative, but only if facts are left out.

      Qualcomm renegged on their contract and decided to not pay Apple the $1B they owed them. If someone didn’t pay you, you’d just swallow that?

      This seems like another case where people judge based on the parties involved instead of the merits of each side. Even if it means they have to ignore actual facts to get there.

    • Domino67

      Regardless of what started the mess, Apple should not instruct Qualcomm’s customers to withhold roayalty payments.

    • It’s Me

      Why not?

      Clearly, because Apple. Any other name and you guys change your opinion. That’s called lack of independent thought.

    • Domino67

      Why not? Uh because it’s illegal? But because it’s apple it’s ok?

      Qualcomm’s customers purchased parts and they should pay for them.

    • It’s Me

      Illegal? Seriously? You guys really need to pull your head out of your bums whenever Apples name is mentioned. No not illegal, indispute.

      To be clear, they are withholding royalty payments not parts payments. You know, they very royalties that are before the court. The very royalty payments that are being investigated world wide as illegal. The royalties they’ve already been paid for.

    • Domino67

      You’re conflating Apple’s issues and the parts makers issues.

      Apple has told the parts makers to withhold payment to Qualcomm and that they (Apple) will indemnify them……Apple are using the parts suppliers as pawns for their own fight with Qualcomm.

    • It’s Me

      Withholding royalty payments. Disputed royalty payments.

      I thought ad hoped you were pretending to be this dumb. I see know you aren’t pretending.

    • Domino67

      Both parties are withholding royalties..

      Apple may or may not have a case but theothers do NOT have a valid reason to withhold payments.

    • It’s Me

      Well, at least you’ve finally clued into the fact that it’s about royalties and not parts….that only took a few days.

      Now, why wouldn’t the others have as legitimate a reason to withhold when their fees are explicitly being contested as being illegal? If they pay, then they have to pass those costs up to their customers. So the customer pay those fees. Then the customer is charged for the same royalties for using those parts. That’s couple charging. That’s illegal. That’s what’s being challenged. So of course those contested fees are being withheld…that’s what happens when fees are contested.

      This is honestly painful. I really wish you’d been pretending this whole time.

    • Domino67

      Only the court can authorize withholding payments……

    • It’s Me

      Says who? Says you? Again, you are well out of your depth. Stop making things up that you have no idea about.

      In an a royalty dispute, it is very common to withhold paying fees until the dispute is resolved, through settlement or court. The courts have the final word, but while in dispute, it is the court that will decide whether payments should resume or not during the dispute, but that’s often after the payments have already been stopped. Duh. Duh. Duh.

      Please stop. You honestly have nothing more to prove. You picked a side without having all of the facts nor apparently caring about the facts. You can’t make yourself right by making up more facts, so please just stop.

    • Domino67

      ““Apple is improperly interfering with Qualcomm’s long-standing agreements with Qualcomm’s licensees,” Qualcomm general counsel Don Rosenberg said in a statement. “These license agreements remain valid and enforceable. While Apple has acknowledged that payment is owed for the use of Qualcomm’s valuable intellectual property, it nevertheless continues to interfere with our contracts. Apple has now unilaterally declared the contract terms unacceptable; the same terms that have applied to iPhones and cellular-enabled iPads for a decade.”

      You should just stop with blind Apple love.

    • It’s Me

      And the point of your little copy/paste? Of course they have to say that. So you agree with Qualcomm. Again, the entire developed world says their agreements are not valid and not enforceable or are investigating whether they are. But you swallow what Qualcomm says only because they are against Apple even if you have to ignore facts and common sense.

      Apple has never denied that it should pay Qualcomm royalties, ever. The question is how much is owed and by how many parties. What does that mean genius? It means they are being disputed. And to recap, what happens when royalties are indispute? Payments stop until the courts decide one way or another. duh. duh. duh.

      You refuse to stop. You insist on digging yourself deeper and deeper, all because you need Apple to be wrong, even if you have to make yourself look foolish to do so. Well done, but honestly stop.

    • Domino67

      Funny how when its Qualcomm charging a premium they are bad but when Apple does it you think its good.

    • It’s Me

      Premium? Honest question, are you brain injured? Double charging and illegal charges are not the same as charging a premium.

      What an incredibly dumb thing to even suggest.