Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Expands Qualcomm Legal Spat To China (cnet.com)

Posted by msmash on from the no-mercy dept.

Apple's legal battle with Qualcomm has gone international. From a report: The iPhone maker on Wednesday filed two lawsuits against Qualcomm in China, according to Reuters, which cited a press release from Beijing's Intellectual Property Court. The first alleges that Qualcomm "abused its clout in the chip industry," a violation of China's anti-monopoly law. Apple seeks 1 billion yuan ($145.32 million) in damages, Reuters said. The second accuses Qualcomm of not making its cellular standard essential patents available broadly and cheaply. It asks the court to determine the terms of a patent license between Qualcomm and Apple.

44 comments

  1. Apple better watch it in China by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    Chinese law requires outside businesses to have partners owning 50% of any local ventures. They made an exception in Apple's case. They can pull that exception damn fast and Apple can find itself losing half of all assets (and profits) from Chinese operations.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    1. Re:Apple better watch it in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Qualcomm is a US owned company and isn't a particularly close friends to smartphone vendors (like chinese ones) who use their chips. They make pretty much the only high-end smartphone SoCs that are on par with Apple and Samsung's flagship devices. (Apple and Samsung design their own)

      And they charge a lot of money because they know they've got a good chunk of the market cornered. If you've got a mid-to-high end Android device that's not Samsung it's powered by A Qualcomm SoC. - And they charged your device maker a percentage of the shipping cost. Not a fixed price per unit, but a percentage.

      Google is so troubled with Qualcomm's dominance that they're looking to do like Apple and Samsung and get their own chips fabbed. (They're also tired of Qualcomm dictating what features get put in to smartphones)

      For what it's worth, Windows Phone devices only use Qualcomm chips.

    2. Re: Apple better watch it in China by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      European Samsung phones also have a Snapdragon inside.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    3. Re:Apple better watch it in China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is wrong. What are you talking about. China allows WFOEs.

  2. Trump tweet by WarJolt · · Score: 1

    Don't worry. Trump will set China straight using twitter.

    1. Re:Trump tweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, now that the USA is copying China's Great Wall, it would be interesting for any company to do some in depth analysis to find out on which side of the existing and future walls life will be more bearable.

      USA? Mexico? Ireland? China?

  3. Apple needs to get a clue by mindwhip · · Score: 1

    its not just about them.

    "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" is not equivalent to "cheap". Just because its part of a standard it doesn't mean they don't deserve to get a reasonable payment for licensing the patents.

    --
    [The Universe] has gone offline.
    1. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Apple doesn't agree that it should be a percentage of the device's price. They seem cheap phones with the same tech in them paying say $0.20 and Apple paying $5.00 for that same thing because the iPhone is more expensive than some cheap feature phone (the tech they are talking about is LTE or the like). I actually agree a bit with Apple (for once). Why would that same tech cost different amounts when the same chip is being used?

    2. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Nowhere in the constitution does the phrase "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" appear wrt patents. To the contrary, it's all about exclusivity, baby. When the constitution was written, the pace of change wasn't as rapid as it was today, so a couple of decades of exclusivity was no big deal - now a couple of decades is all the time before the original invention is rendered totally obsolete anyway.

      If the licensing fees are too high, create an alternative - that's how it works everywhere. Steak costs too much? Substitute chicken. Chicken costs too much? Substitute "processed food-like stuff."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of like how apple wanted all the profits from Samung for their 3 ridiculous patents, instead of just part of the profits the patents represent. Stay hypercritical apple.

    4. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets just pretend for 1 second they get rid of all the fees.

      Ah isnt that nice.

      Oh the iPhone is still 649/769. Whaaaa? What happened? Nothing for you. Apple lowered its BOM by 5 bucks. This is what Apple is bitching about. Apple is once again trying to negotiate a lower price against its vendors. They do this all the time. They have run many good companies out of business by their usage of this method. My bet is Apple is doing a shot across QCOMs bow over NXP.

      There are 2 sets of lawyers out there I would not fuck around with. IBM and Qualcomm. Both are cut from the same cloth and will make your life suck hard. They will drag it along for years.

      Qualcomm is not some random patent troll. They practically invented the medium, they were born into it. They also actually understand and invent most of the stuff they make and use in their own stuff. They have one of the best phone stacks in the industry. Sony is the one who turned them into what they are because Sony decided to just walk off and take all of their hard earned work. They created a monster.

      Apple is the one wanting to change the rules. FRAND which the entire phone industry uses. Is a percentage of final phone cost. Apple should be careful by tossing out FRAND they open themselves up to other things. Qualcomm tried that trick a few times on other companies. Other companies tried it on QCOM. It didnt fly then.

    5. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      Nowhere in the constitution does the phrase "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" appear wrt patents. To the contrary, it's all about exclusivity, baby. When the constitution was written, the pace of change wasn't as rapid as it was today, so a couple of decades of exclusivity was no big deal - now a couple of decades is all the time before the original invention is rendered totally obsolete anyway.

      If the licensing fees are too high, create an alternative - that's how it works everywhere. Steak costs too much? Substitute chicken. Chicken costs too much? Substitute "processed food-like stuff."

      It's OK to be clueless, but don't flaunt it on Slashdot.

      FRAND certainly does appear wrt patents in the IP license pool agreements of many standards bodies.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    6. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by sjames · · Score: 1

      True, but Qualcomm agreed to FRAND when their patented technology was incorporated into the LTE standards. If you want your phone to actually be able to talk to the cellular network, you MUST licence Qualcomms tech.

    7. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      It may appear in agreements, but those are VOLUNTARY patent pools - NOT obligations imposed by law. Go suck Fabien Mueller's cock some more, troll.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    8. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Or you can try to invalidate the patent under the "mis a scene" doctrine. Just that manufacturers are too chickenshit to risk losing if they try. Cheaper to pay. Plus, "fair and reasonable" does NOT necessarily mean "the same price."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    9. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by vux984 · · Score: 2

      Why would that same tech cost different amounts when the same chip is being used?

      Why would I charge a school production a different amount to use a photo than i would a hollywood blockbuster movie?

      Same reason.

      This sort of licensing is REALLY common in patent licensing, especially FRAND patent licensing. It allows for all kinds of niceties -- small players with inexpensive products can afford the patents. Hobbyists who are giving away the product for free can afford the patents. And Apple with a piggy bank heading towards a trillion dollars can afford the patents.

      The more you profit from the IP the more the IP costs you. But its always affordable because its a tiny slice of whatever you are charging. $5 on an 800 phone? For crucial wireless network technology that makes the thing function. QQ apple.

      Apple is free to create its own wireless networking standards, roll out its own wireless networking infrastructure around the globe. And do it all without standing on the shoulders of those who came before them. Or it can pay $5 to put their $800 phone on the the netword, $2.50 to put their $400 phone on the network, and can cry themselves to sleep that someone in China selling a dumbphone for $20 is only paying 12.5 cents to put it on the network.

      On the other hand, if apple wants to release a 20$ cellular device they too will only have to pay 12.5 cents. Of course, the only thing apple sells for 20$ are the USB adapters connect to their stuff. But that's not Qualcom's problem.

    10. Re: Apple needs to get a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're also forgetting to mention it is legal to change a percentage with standard essential patents.

    11. Re: Apple needs to get a clue by sjames · · Score: 2

      Chartging based on a percentage is not the only complaint against Qualcomm. Also, this is Chinese law.

    12. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      They are the condition of entry to the patent licensing pool for 3GPP, LTE, IEEE802 and many others. Anyone making cell phone silicon is a party to those agreements.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    13. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by sjames · · Score: 1

      A multi-million dollar spin on the roulette wheel that costs more than just paying? I wonder why that wouldn't be the first choice?

    14. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      So what? Those are for people who buy a license from the pool. There is NOTHING to stop a member of the patent pool to also license their patents outside the pool under their own terms and conditions - there is no exclusivity.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    15. Re: Apple needs to get a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting it wrong and then doubling down is stupid.
      Shut up before you make yourself look REALLY stupid.

    16. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Kind of like how apple wanted all the profits from Samung for their 3 ridiculous patents, instead of just part of the profits the patents represent. Stay hypercritical apple.

      The things Samsung copied from Apple aren't essential to a smartphone. Unless you admit Apple created the essential smartphone..

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    17. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 0

      Nowhere in the constitution does the phrase "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" appear wrt patents.

      So your claim is that standards are unconstitutional, because they aren't mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    18. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? Those are for people who buy a license from the pool. There is NOTHING to stop a member of the patent pool to also license their patents outside the pool under their own terms and conditions - there is no exclusivity.

      Sure. And monkeys might fly out of my butt. There's no point to get a single license for more than for the whole pool, so why would anybody but a complete moron do that - IOW you.

      I can't say"your butt" here,. because with you anything isn't just possible, but actually likely.

    19. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      Plus, "fair and reasonable" does NOT necessarily mean "the same price."

      Hey, you are right for a change. Of course you have to leave out the "Non Discriminatory" part to be right, which means you have to be dishonest to be right. Yeah, sounds like you.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    20. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      No, what I'm saying is that there's no law requiring FRAND - it's an agreement between private businesses.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    21. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      No, what I'm saying is that there's no law requiring FRAND - it's an agreement between private businesses.

      So your claim is that since there is no law, these private businesses don't have to follow those agreements. Hint: look up contract law.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    22. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your saying essential patents should be worth less than non-essential ones?

    23. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The definition of "fair" does not necessarily mean "the same price for everyone." Qualcom can easily make the argument that it's fair to charge a higher price on higher-margin items, since their chips allow Apple to make that money in the first place. So, fair can also be "a fixed percentage of the sale price per unit, irrespective of manufacturer."

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    24. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      The definition of "fair" does not necessarily mean "the same price for everyone."

      Quit talking about "fair" and look up the definition of "non discriminatory" before you look even dumber than usual.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    25. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      "Non discriminatory" doesn't mean what you think it means either. There are plenty of ways to charge different rates that can be deemed "non discriminatory." For a more familiar example, look at affirmative action - that's the definition of discriminatory, and yet it's not considered discriminatory.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    26. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      "Non discriminatory" doesn't mean what you think it means either. There are plenty of ways to charge different rates that can be deemed "non discriminatory." For a more familiar example, look at affirmative action - that's the definition of discriminatory, and yet it's not considered discriminatory.

      Why don 't you explain to me in no less than a thousand words? Failure to do so means you admit you are wrong.

      Or you could look up the fucking word already.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    27. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      So I give you an example that contradicts your "point", and instead of addressing it, you post more bullshit? You got Trumpitis or something?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    28. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      So I give you an example that contradicts your "point", and instead of addressing it, you post more bullshit? You got Trumpitis or something?

      We are still talking about patents - you are the one trumping the discussion by changing the topic.

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    29. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You made it about the definition of the word "fair". Fair has more than one meaning, even in legal agreements.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    30. Re:Apple needs to get a clue by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      You made it about the definition of the word "fair".

      Stop lying, you stupid fucking bitch. You keep bringing up "fair", while I have been talking about "non discriminatory" - because you keep pretending that in "FRAND" "ND" has no meaning whatsoever (heck I can quote several of your posts where you declare that FRAND stands for "fair and reasonable.", nothing else) - because how else could you argue that FRAND patent deals don't have to be "non discriminatory".

      I repeat: Stop lying, bitch. EOD

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  4. Timmy Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Timmy's plan for Qualcomm is to 1) litigate to death (expect more litigation in Taiwan, Japan and Europe), 2) he will make an offer to buy Qualcomm to control their patents and then extinguish the technologies forever.

  5. FRAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    FRAND. Look it up, and then sit quietly in the "I don't know what I'm talking about" corner.

    1. Re:FRAND by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      FRAND is a term used by trolls like Florian Mueller. You're known by the company you keep. Troll.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:FRAND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FRAND is a term used by trolls like Florian Mueller. You're known by the company you keep. Troll.

      Listen bitch - just stop pretending you have a clue, okay?

  6. Better headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To match Slashdot's current headline trend: Apple Expands Qualcomm Legal Spat To 'China'

    Can some editor somewhere get rid of all the freaking 's in all the 'headlines'?!?

  7. Fight The Timmy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Qualcomm in their earnings call called Apple Executive Timmy Cook et al. LIARS!

    Excellent.

    Get Timmy lying under oath to Fed Officials then we can get him and the other Executive Queers who have destroyed Apple to leave and enter a Federal Prison for the rest of their miserable queer lives. Yeah!

  8. World's most profitable company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world's most profitable company is not making enough profit. Fuck you Apple.