Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Qualcomm Is Seeking US Import Ban For iPhones (bloomberg.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the hurt-feelings dept.

Qualcomm is seeking to block the sale of iPhones in the U.S. after Apple decided to stop paying them billions of dollars in licensing fees for smartphone chips. Bloomberg reports: Qualcomm is preparing to ask the International Trade Commission to stop the iPhone, which is built in Asia, from entering the country, threatening to block Apple's iconic product from the American market in advance of its anticipated new model this fall, according to the person, who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private. The ITC is a quasi-judicial agency in Washington that has the power to block the import of goods into the U.S. and processes cases more quickly than federal district courts -- the venue in which the companies are accusing each other of lying, making threats and trying to create an illegal monopoly. The escalating legal dispute revolves around patents Qualcomm holds that let it to charge a percentage of the price of every modern high-speed data-capable smartphone, regardless of whether the devices use its chips. Apple argues the system is unfair and Qualcomm has used licensing leverage to illegally help its semiconductor unit.

104 comments

  1. New boss same as old boss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama vetoed Samsung's import ban on iphones, will Trump be the same in thjs situation?

    1. Re:New boss same as old boss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That depends on the last person he talks to.

    2. Re:New boss same as old boss? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know this may seem conspiratorial, but what if Trump is the one scheduling the order of the meetings.

      1st draft populist opinion.
      2nd draft nonsense and made up facts.
      3rd draft I talked to my advisor from (insert lobby here) and we will have to do the opposite of the first draft.

  2. Trying to ban Apple? Haha Tim Cook will not allow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tim Cook is the one true quarter trillionaire god who can do no wrong!

  3. Good Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So, to defend itself against being called a monopoly, it's acting like a monopoly.

    1. Re:Good Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mama's got to feed her children...

    2. Re:Good Defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A patent is a government sanctioned monopoly. What's the problem?

    3. Re:Good Defense by Anubis+IV · · Score: 3, Interesting

      These particular patents were included in the industry standard on the condition that Qualcomm would provide them under FRAND terms. As such, Qualcomm has given up their right to leverage those patents as fully as their monopoly position would otherwise allow. The OP seems to be suggesting that by engaging in the sorts of practices mentioned in the summary, they're acting the part of an unrestricted monopoly, even though they gave up the right to do so when they agreed to FRAND terms. The fact that the US government is currently suing them over that exact issue adds an extra wrinkle to things.

    4. Re:Good Defense by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Just because a patent is in the FRAND pool does not mean users are exempt from licensing rates - it's just that rates are typically the same for all users. Apple wants special pricing - and Qualcomm is well within their rights - FRAND and US Patent - to say "no".

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re:Good Defense by ThosLives · · Score: 1

      I've always thought that tech FRAND agreements are anything but. This is mostly because they are worded to be some kind of percentage of product price or something otherwise odd like that.

      FRAND should be this and only this: Licenses are $X per unit on volumes up to A, $X-b up to B, etc. That is - a test for FRAND should be if the price is a fixed nominal value (perhaps with volume scaling), not a fixed percentage.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    6. Re:Good Defense by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I never suggested otherwise. Honestly, I don't know enough about the specifics of this case to have formed any sort of opinion over whether or not Qualcomm is violating FRAND terms. Apple says they are, but Apple says a lot of things...

  4. Look at it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    If this stupid pipe dream of Qualcomm's actually succeeded, Apple would have to open an iPhone factory in the US. imokwiththis.jpg

    1. Re:Look at it this way by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I hear Apple has some cash. Can't they just buy Qualcomm out? Maybe they could buy their debts and demand immediate payment, you know, kinda like what the banks did with those home mortgages.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Look at it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice myth you refer to there. Cite us a case where a bank purchased a mortgage with the intent to foreclose on a property. I do recall there was a hedge fund that thought it would be a good idea to buy junk mortgages cheap and foreclose on them. However, I do not know of a single bank engaging in this practice.

      I do know something of this field, as this was my job several years ago to handle foreclosures. FYI, we really do not want the property if it can be avoided.

    3. Re:Look at it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How exactly is it a stupid pipe dream? Apple used to pay royalties on the contended patents, now they've had a hissy fit and decided that they no longer want to. If this court decision does *not* go Qualcomm's way I'd be looking very carefully at some of the ITC's bank balances.

    4. Re:Look at it this way by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You're right! The banks sold the mortgages with full knowledge they were junk. So, if it makes you feel better, replace 'banks' with 'hedge funds' in the first post.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Look at it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually this may fall under the category of "patent misuse". Patent holders are not allowed to use the legally sanctioned patent monopoly to exert monopolistic leverage over other markets.

      Apple is probably correct on this issue.

    6. Re:Look at it this way by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how your mortgage is structured, but mine definitely is a fixed-term note that cannot be "called in" or otherwise demanded immediately.

      In fact, there's literally not anything that either side can do to modify the exact terms of what is due when, except for my right to accelerate the payments to the bank.

    7. Re:Look at it this way by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      my right to accelerate the payments to the bank.

      Be very careful with that. You may have the right, but it's an expensive one.

      If Apple were to buy Qualcomm's debts, they might be able to do what they want with it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:Look at it this way by swb · · Score: 1

      You failed to post the link to where the Orlando man not only had the foreclosure cancelled, he would up with a new mortgage and a lower mortgage payment.

      Neither story fully explains what exactly his original loan terms were and what the "trial adjustment" was for. I've had two loans for 10 years with Wells Fargo and the forms literally let you specify how much additional principal you want to pay every month, so I call BS on the conspiracy against pre-payment. So many people want to do it they made a form to make it easy.

      I think this guy had a shitty mortgage -- Haitian immigrant? Florida property? Bus driver? That's like an example taken from "The Big Short" of crappy lending practices. He probably had an awful, high-risk mortgage the bank wanted to repackage as lower risk -- thus the test adjustment program with (badly designed, perhaps) parameters which define "good payment" as basically paying what is due on time, and everything else is foreclusureville.

      Given the sheer volume of shitty mortgages, it's not surprising that there are some outliers in the sea of bad mortgages who truly are good risks but who get caught in bad AIs as poor credit risks.

      Banks are shitty much of the time, but there's something odd about the Orlando guy they're not telling us.

    9. Re:Look at it this way by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      When you pay off a loan early the bank loses interest. They don't like that.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Look at it this way by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      When you pay off a loan early the bank loses interest.

      No they don't. They have your cash in hand and can gain interest on it directly, rather than waiting for you to pay it. In fact, if you financed your mortgage at a rate below the current rate, they stand to gain by having you pay early, since the interest they'll get on the cash is higher than the interest they'll get from your payments.

    11. Re:Look at it this way by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Then where is the incentive to offer the loan in the first place?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    12. Re:Look at it this way by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      That's absolutely untrue in a system with fractional reserve banking. Loaning money is the action that creates money in such a system (the theory is that you're adding other capital, for example the house, to the monetary system and so it should react by creating an amount equal to that value). Repaying a loan removes value from the system and actually makes the bank less able to loan money.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Look at it this way by swb · · Score: 1

      I prepay principal with my mortgage, but the bank is still making a vast profit on my loan in spite of it. Despite making an extra principal payment per year, it only cuts the loan term to 23 years from 30. Most interest is paid on the front end of the mortgage, years 24-30 would be a fraction of the interest paid on years 1-23.

      I'm also pretty sure that the vast majority of mortgages are held less than 30 years (people move, sell houses, etc) so banks *expect* that the mortgages will be paid off years ahead of their nominal loan term.

    14. Re:Look at it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's why when you get a mortgage you read the terms and see if they include a prepayment penalty. This has to be identified in the loan contract at first signing, and is required by fair lending standards to be pointed out at the point of signing.

      Signed: A guy who is time wise 5 years in to a 30 year mortgage and payment wise 25.5 years into a 30 year mortgage.

    15. Re:Look at it this way by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      At the time the mortgage was set up, it was worth it to them as an investment vehicle that provided (generally) stable returns for the amount of risk involved. Simple as that. Having an investment that will provide an annual return of X%, potentially for the next few decades, is valuable. If the investment comes to an abrupt end (i.e. the homeowner pays off the loan), the bank doesn't lose the value they already got out of it, and the only way they would lose the future value out of it is if they did nothing with the cash you paid them back. But none of them do that. They instead initiate new loans or invest it in some other way in order to reap various benefits.

    16. Re:Look at it this way by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're technically correct, but practically speaking, there's nothing stopping them from taking the money you just paid and loaning it to the next guy in line, restoring things to where they had been already. That was my point.

    17. Re:Look at it this way by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      That's not really how it works. The money repaid will be cancelled out by the removal of the mortgaged property as an asset. The value of the money is almost certainly lower than the value of the mortgaged asset, so the bank's assets will show a decrease. This then reduces the amount that they can loan by some multiple of the difference. The act of loaning to you made them able to make more loans, the act of repayment makes them able to make fewer loans.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:Look at it this way by swb · · Score: 1

      What percentage of all mortgages are paid until maturity?

      I would wager that almost none of them are, especially anymore. People move to a new city or new house in the same city, get divorced, die, go broke, whatever. There's a thousand and one reasons that mortgages are not paid for 30 years until maturity.

      The lack of certainty over any one mortgage as a reliable producer of fixed income is already built into the interest rate as a risk as well as the larger business model. If mortgage lending was dependent on the majority of notes being paid at a stable basis until maturity, it would eliminate any liquidity in the housing market.

      Plus, the interest payments on the debt are vastly higher than the principal for the first 10 years of the loan. The lender is front-loading their profit on the investment, so even if you go belly up after 5 years they have still made a profit *and* they still have the secured asset to sell (likely at a price over the initial selling price, barring a housing crash or other externalities).

    19. Re:Look at it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple doesn't want Qualcomm. Apple makes chips that are better than Qualcomm's SoCs. Apple doesn't want anything to do Qualcomm at all. The problem, as far as Apple is concerned, Qualcomm abuses their patent portfolio and market position to extract revenue from Apple's sales.

      Apple's goal will be to crush Qualcomm and then get what it needs on favorable terms when Qualcomm has less leverage. They don't want to buy a substandard SoC maker that happens to control IP essential to modern data communication. Apple just wants to get good LTE modems from multiple suppliers without having to pay a percentage cut for the privilege.

    20. Re:Look at it this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The act of loaning to you made them able to make more loans

      So the more they loan, the more additional capacity to loan they have?

      the act of repayment makes them able to make fewer loans.

      So the more money they have, the fewer loans they can make?

      Look, I know slashdot users aren't really sophisticated when it comes to financial issues, but sometimes it helps to think things through just a little before posting...

      AC because I'm work in finance and am posting from work...

    21. Re: Look at it this way by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Yes, they do. A little thing called compound interest. Over years, that adds up.

    22. Re: Look at it this way by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      Sure, I'm quite aware of compound interest, but I'm not at all clear on why you're bringing it up. Interest in mortgages is calculated on a monthly basis and doesn't compound on itself. It's simply calculated as:
      principal * interest / 12

      Let's use this amortization schedule as an example. This guy apparently took out a loan for $210,000 at 8.25% and is paying $1577.66 each month. Of that $1577.66, you'll see in the first month that $1443.75 is going to the bank as an interest payment, whereas only $133.91 is being applied towards reducing their principal.

      After the first month, the bank will have received all of the interest due them up to that point (i.e. $210,000 * (8.25% / 12 months) = $1443.75), meaning that if the loan is paid off in full immediately, they'll have already received all of the interest they are due up to that time; i.e. there is $0 in outstanding interest on which compounding can occur. Likewise, if he decides to keep paying the loan month-to-month, the exact same will be true.

      The only way the bank benefits from compounding is if they reinvest the payments they've received, which they should've been doing anyway.

      Maybe I just don't understand what you're getting at, but I don't see how compound interest changes anything I've said.

    23. Re:Look at it this way by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      However, I've never signed a mortgage agreement that said I couldn't pay principal back early. At one point, I sold a house, and paid the mortgage off with the proceeds. I can also pay more principal early to shorten the loan.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    24. Re:Look at it this way by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The bank is more able to loan money. The bank is required to keep a certain proportion of its issued loans as actual assets. Suppose the bank has lent up to its limit, and I pay off my mortgage. The bank can then lend the previous value of my mortgage without acquiring more assets.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    25. Re:Look at it this way by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      When you pay off a loan early the bank loses interest.

      No they don't. They have your cash in hand and can gain interest on it directly, rather than waiting for you to pay it. In fact, if you financed your mortgage at a rate below the current rate, they stand to gain by having you pay early, since the interest they'll get on the cash is higher than the interest they'll get from your payments.

      Sure. but why would you pay back your mortgage when you could invest your money with higher interest than you pay on your mortgage?

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
    26. Re:Look at it this way by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      For a lot of people, the emotional benefit of being debt-free outweighs the financial benefit of investing that money elsewhere.

  5. Crooked cook will buy out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are the chances for such a thing to succeed ? Really !! Apple is a bully and has always succeeded in squeezing their suppliers and no one has ever succeeded to stop them. Crooked cook would have probably bought everyone at the bureaucratic and political level as well. Shame on DC !

    1. Re: Crooked cook will buy out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a bully too. You pick on Tim Cook and Apple because they are gay and progressive.

      You like Samsung because they are a male dominated society with corrupt family dynasties.

      Fuck you

  6. It's as fair as anyone else that does it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Play the patent game or don't, make a decision.

  7. It's a fucking phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They all similar features.
    Why does anyone NEED a shiny new thing to replace a perfectly good, working phone?
    I finally replaced my blackberry of 6 years after I accidentally backed over it with my car.

    I fear for the human race.

    1. Re:It's a fucking phone by rholtzjr · · Score: 1

      Was it really an accident though? *wink, wink*

  8. Deja Vu by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

    Are we stuck in a time loop? I feel we've done this before.

    1. Re:Deja Vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you know why Apple ships through Anchorage. No ITC person will stop a FedEx flight there.

      OK yeah it's the whole Great Circle route thing, but what bureaucrat would willingly go to AK.

    2. Re:Deja Vu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, I'm a Bureaucrat in AK! The Port of Anchorage is... A crappy mess, but Downtown where the actual offices are is nice!

  9. Let's do the numbers... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Qualcomm market capitalization = $80 billion, give or take a few. Apple cash on hand = $250 billion.

            I know how this turns out. Don Quixote had a more rational approach.

    1. Re:Let's do the numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Large companies have successfully been sued by smaller companies or even individuals before. I don't see your point.

    2. Re:Let's do the numbers... by xlsior · · Score: 1

      The point is that Apple could flat out buy Qualcomm with the cash they find in between the breakroom couch cushions, and make the entire issue go away -- if they felt like it.

    3. Re: Let's do the numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qualcomm isn't only an Apple supplier. The anti-trust implications of Apple buying them would be far more costly than Apple wants to afford.

    4. Re: Let's do the numbers... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      The anti-trust implications

      In a sane country or in a sane time period, perhaps. Both Hitlary's and Drumpf's parties have their positions on that "anti-trust" thingy firmly set: pay your share of bribes^Wcampaign donations, and no anti-trust law can apply to you.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    5. Re:Let's do the numbers... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is all dispute resolution in the US a simple case of who has the most money, or is there some kind of legal system of rules in place?

      I mean, most countries have the latter, and the point of the system is to prevent stuff like this.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Let's do the numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just like the general idea of causing havoc and confusion in the market and industry. This will be one enjoyable clusterfuck for the Apple fan boiz.

    7. Re:Let's do the numbers... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Holy crap. I thought my point was pretty obvious, but apparently not. This is a *business dispute*, so solving with business methods - i.e. raiding the One Infinite Loop coffee fund to buy out qualcomm in its entirety - is a pretty reasonable solution, it would seem.

    8. Re:Let's do the numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's supposed to be a bad thing from Qualcomm's point of view? Fuck if I were them, I'd take the money and run.

    9. Re:Let's do the numbers... by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      Actually, it's more complicated than that. It's buried in the summary, but this is *also* a legal dispute, currently working its way through the federal court system. Since the ITC has the ability to ban products from sale in a shorter timescale that the court system Qualcomm is attempting to speed up the process since they're almost certainly trying to get a similar injunction through the courts as well. From Qualcomm's perspective, it's all about applying pressure on Apple so they are more likely to seek a resolution to the dispute sooner rather than later so, tactically, it's a pretty clever move on Qualcomm's part.

      As for Apple buying Qualcomm. Yes, they could undeniably do that, but there are numerous problems with that tack. It would be a major corporate merger, which brings all sorts of shareholder and regulatory approvals first, and then there's the small matter of the money. It's currently mostly tied up in off-shore accounts for tax avoidance/evasion (delete as you see fit) purposes, so Apple could also be forced to repatriate some of that money into one place in order to complete the purchase, and potentially become liable for the tax they've been studiously avoiding paying. They could easily pay that too, of course, but it makes the whole idea less likely, especially since they then need to figure out what to do with Qualcomm and all of its existing contracts - many of whom are with competitors like Samsung.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    10. Re: Let's do the numbers... by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Fortunately it's not just the US that would get to give the deal a rubber stamp - mostly due to the way Apple has structured itself to avoid paying tax. Even if Apple were to consider it (which I think unlikely), then I suspect other major users of Qualcomm's chips in competition with Apple, Samsung especially, would be lobbying hard in both the US and the EU to get the deal blocked.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    11. Re:Let's do the numbers... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Qualcomm market capitalization = $80 billion, give or take a few. Apple cash on hand = $250 billion.

              I know how this turns out. Don Quixote had a more rational approach.

      So do I. It turns out the acquisition will be blocked by the courts.

    12. Re:Let's do the numbers... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      There are other reasons Apple would find it difficult to buy Qualcomm. Sure, they have around four times the amount of cash required, but if they look as if they're willing to spend $80bn to make a lawsuit go away then that's a really strong indication to the market that the lawsuit has merit and that Qualcomm is undervalued. If they're willing to pay $80bn, would they be willing to pay $160bn? There are a lot of speculators who would rush to buy Qualcomm shares and push the price up, then vote against a takeover if it didn't make them money. Even if Apple did get antitrust approval, Qualcomm is a sufficiently important supplier to other companies that Apple may well find themselves bidding against a coalition (as happened with MIPS - ImagTec bought them, but most of the IP went to a consortium of companies that didn't want to be sued by patent trolls).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Let's do the numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is all dispute resolution in the US a simple case of who has the most money

      Only if the dispute is between US companies. If a foreign company is involved, the US company is generally the one who wins in US courts.

    14. Re:Let's do the numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It very telling about apple worshipper how they feel about apple guilt in these matters when their first suggestion is just to buy the problem away. Pretty much an admission of guilt.

    15. Re:Let's do the numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol - most countries are affected by the same "who has the most money" - in fact, a lot of other countries, the court systems are more corrupt than politicians.

    16. Re:Let's do the numbers... by Malggi · · Score: 1

      This could be used against Apple though

      I'd be real skeptical that they're being treated unfairly when they have billions upon billions of dollars in the bank. If it's that unfair how are they able to operate one of the most successful businesses in the history of the Earth?

    17. Re: Let's do the numbers... by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Do you mean for example Ireland? They keep bending over and ignoring their own and EU law to do as Apple wishes, I don't see them to raise the anti-trust issue.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    18. Re:Let's do the numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why you buy it quietly via numbers corp intermediates. By the time anybody knows you have 51%.

    19. Re:Let's do the numbers... by nomadic · · Score: 1

      "Qualcomm market capitalization = $80 billion, give or take a few. Apple cash on hand = $250 billion"

      For companies that size money difference doesn't mean much in litigation. Both can afford to buy top-flight lawyers and pay to keep them working for as long as it takes.

    20. Re: Let's do the numbers... by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Amongst others, but it's actually the EU as a whole via the European Commission in Brussels that gets the say on such deals, not specific countries or their representatives to the EU, so whatever cosy relationship might exist between Apple and the Irish government won't help them much in the unlikely event that the EC was looking into a proposed Apple-Qualcomm merger. Other than the US, they'd definitely be the largest player with a veto, but since much of the semi-conductor manufacturing is done in the Far East, I suspect some of the governments with a major role in the chip industry are probably going to want to have at least some say in the matter as well. There are lots of countries with major players in either the smartphone or semi-conductor industries that would probably be adversely impacted by an Apple-Qualcomm merger if you think about.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    21. Re: Let's do the numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We call people like you psychopaths.

      Those who derive joy from others pain.

    22. Re: Let's do the numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have actually described about 20% of CEOs across the world. What's you point.

    23. Re:Let's do the numbers... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      This thread is petering out but it's not $80 million to buy out a lawsuit. They will stop the suit, but still have all the assets of Qualcomm to either continue to operate or sell off in whole or in parts. I haven't bothered to look, but if Qualcomm is profitable, then continuing to run it will just add to the Apple corporate coffers.

    24. Re: Let's do the numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the late nineties Qualcomm made cell phones of their own design. They sold that division to Kyocera.

  10. Dear Analog Devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When are you going to buy Qualcomm? These guys need help.

  11. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ban the cheaply made Chinese product.

  12. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    "Apple argues the system is unfair and Qualcomm has used licensing leverage to illegally help its semiconductor unit."
    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! (Cr)apple has tried to use patents against any and all competitors that it could, trying to force them to pay huge settlements or force them out of the market. (Cr)apple's competitors all have better made products that are easier to use and work better, and at far lower prices than (Cr)apple charges. If they had a chance of being able to compete on price and quality, they wouldn't have had to go through all of the litigation!

      I am not saying that what Qualcomm is doing is right, but (Cr)apple is just as guilty of unfair and even illegal trade practices, and bad patent litigation as Qualcomm, if not more so!

  13. Re: Talk about the pot calling the kettle black... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hello, the 1980s called and they want their pun back. (Are you keeping up with the Crummydore? Because the Crummydore is keeping up with you!)

  14. Checkout the next article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple is setting up a billion buck slush fund to buy off witnesses to its crimes.

    1. Re:Checkout the next article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats the apple way

  15. Charging licencing fees for other company's chips? by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the days when Microsoft charged Dell a fee for every computer it shipped, even the ones that had Linux installed on them.

  16. My personal tech market top indicator by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    I know that we've reached a tech market top when the number of legal squabble stories starts to exceed the number of innovation stories.

  17. Re:Charging licencing fees for other company's chi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be fair that was probably like 14 of them.

  18. Apple is the one demanding special treatment.. by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ahh, the shill is strong in this one. ....
    Qualcomm is licensing this very same technology across the board to a wide range of end users at the same rates.
    The problem is, Apple demand they should get a BETTER rate than everyone else, and there reasoning seems to be basically that most other smaller providers bend over and take it from Apple on pricing, so its only FAIR Qualcomm do also.

    Care to explain how that fits in to FRAND? what part of FRAND states that Apple get BETTER pricing than the rest of an industry?

    Thought not.

    1. Re: Apple is the one demanding special treatment.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope....

      The issue is not Apple demanding better rates than others. Don't know whose ass you pulled that out of....

      The issue is that Qualcomm is charging everyone unfair and against their legal obligations. So Apple say... fuck you.

      This is more like the days where Microsoft goes around charging patent fees for running Linux in exchange for not suing them. It's fucked up. This put Qualcomm on the Microsoft level evil.

    2. Re: Apple is the one demanding special treatment.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only problem with that comparison is that apple takes evil to a level past both Qualcomm and Microsoft.

    3. Re:Apple is the one demanding special treatment.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Calls Apple shill
      >Defends Qualcomm's abusive pricing practices

      Qualcomm demands a percentage of final unit selling price. Apple makes more profit on their devices than their competitors. Apple pays more to qualcomm, per phone, than anyone else.

      The R in FRAND stands for REASONABLE and there's a lot more than the above to suggest that Qualcomm is abusing it's market position to extract revenue from Apple. Apple's probably going to take Qualcomm to the cleaners in court, and tank Qualcomm's stock while they're at it. Apple will get what they want, or they'll pick it from Qualcomm's bankrupt corpse.

      Qualcomm is NOT a company you should step up to defend because you've got a hate boner for Apple. Their lack of innovation in the smartphone SoC space is hampering the Android platform as a whole. They're so abusive that both Apple and Samsung and most of the big Chinese smartphone makers have turned to fabbing their own SoCs. Google is looking to get in to the SoC game just to further separate the Android platfrom from Qualcomm.

    4. Re: Apple is the one demanding special treatment.. by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's more like the days of Microsoft charging a "Windows tax" on every computer from a manufacturer, even those on which Windows wasn't installed.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:Apple is the one demanding special treatment.. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Ahh, the shill is strong in this one. ....

      Not so. You jumped (for entirely understandable reasons) to a wrong conclusion.

      Let's walk through what I actually said. I was answering the AC's question by providing a conjecture:
      1) I think the OP's point is that it's illegal for Qualcomm to act as they are.

      And three facts that were relevant to that conjecture:
      1) Qualcomm agreed to FRAND terms
      2) Doing so meant giving up some of their rights
      3) The US government is suing them for violating the terms

      While I can understand how you assumed I was shilling for Apple or against Qualcomm, re-read my comment again and you'll find that nowhere did I espouse any particular stance on the subject. That's because I don't have a particular stance on the subject. The closest I've come to taking sides was last week when I suggested that everyone seemed to be in the wrong, which is a generalization I still stand by (though my today-self would quibble with my past-self over some of the details in that post).

      So, when you ask...

      Care to explain how that fits in to FRAND?

      ...no, I wouldn't, because I don't align with either side right now. I was simply trying to help an AC understand what the OP was getting at by presenting a few relevant facts to what I think the OP was driving at. I never said I agreed with what the OP said, nor did I present them as my views.

      As such, if the facts I mentioned are inconvenient to your preferred narrative, that doesn't make me a shill. It means you have facts you need to deal with.

    6. Re:Apple is the one demanding special treatment.. by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "Care to explain how that fits in to FRAND? what part of FRAND states that Apple get BETTER pricing than the rest of an industry?"

      Apple has made no such claim that the should receive special licensing terms just for being Apple. The "non-discriminatory" clause does not prohibit dependencies on volume, just that any licensee should be eligible for the same volume licensing terms.

  19. Re:Charging licencing fees for other company's chi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's 14 too many

  20. Kinda funny by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    It's kinda funny when you think that Apple (and many others) have to import their own product into their own country.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    1. Re:Kinda funny by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      They don't have to. They choose to, in order to cut costs and increase profits, which boosts their stock price.

      They could manufacture in the US, but their profitability would take a hit. They would be forced to raise prices to maintain profit margins, making them uncompetitive with companies that manufacture in Asia.

      Do Americans want to work under the conditions and pay that (for example) Foxconn employees in China receive? All indications are that they don't, and all the tax breaks in the world aren't going to change that.

    2. Re:Kinda funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong wrong wrong Americans would be perfectly willing. It's nanny state government regulations that stop them.
      --
      roman_mir

    3. Re:Kinda funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 funny

  21. "Qual" translated to german means "torment" by gotan · · Score: 1

    ... maybe that explains the attitude.

    --
    "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
  22. Qualcom invented the technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, in this instance, they're all using Qualcomm technology. Apple doesn't want to pay market rate, so they're suing. This is horseshit. A few months of import ban would be good for Apple.

    1. Re:Qualcom invented the technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting that these are FRAND patents and thus market rate is irrelevant. Qualcomm has strict limitations on how much they're allowed to charge for their FRAND patents and if what they are charging is significantly higher than other FRAND patents, then likely they'll lose. A good measure on how abusive they're being without the need for courts is to see how open the 3GPP is to including their patents in the 5G standard. If the 3GPP is generally unwilling to include Qualcomm patents in the 5G specification, it's likely that Qualcomm has generally been being assholes to the industry.

  23. Meh. by rholtzjr · · Score: 2

    And now why should we care about someone with that much cash on hand paying the same as everyone else?

  24. ROFL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Apple says its unfair" - sorta like it's unfair to US taxpayers that Apple sends most of its money to Ireland, right?

    Fuck Apple. I hope their phones are banned.

    1. Re: ROFL... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet, Apple pays the most in taxes than any other company in the USA. Something like 25%. Go figure.

      And they aren't SENDING money to Ireland. You are just mad that your horse isn't in this race.

  25. BAH HA HA HA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is NEVER going to happen. They are getting desperate.

  26. Are all non-Americans morons? by Brannon · · Score: 1

    You formed your opinion of the American legal system based on the douchey comment of one /. poster who claimed that Apple would win because they have more money (despite tons of counterexamples). That's clearly moronic.

    Am I justified in assuming that all non-Americans are morons?

    1. Re:Are all non-Americans morons? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Your sarcasm detector is broken.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re: Are all non-Americans morons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "All americans are morons."
      There, fixed that for you!

  27. Blowhard "ne'er-do-well" talker Brockmire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You've made nothing original" - by Brockmire ( 4931623 ) on Monday May 01, 2017 @07:34PM (#54337699)

    You've made NOTHING - prove otherwise FAKE NAME for your FAKE LIFE!

    ---

    "You did not come up with the idea of a hosts file" - by Brockmire ( 4931623 ) on Monday May 01, 2017 @07:34PM (#54337699)

    Did I say I did? No.

    ---

    "You are not the first to use the hosts file" - by Brockmire ( 4931623 ) on Monday May 01, 2017 @07:34PM (#54337699)

    Did I say I was?? Again, no.

    ---

    "You are not even the first person to aggregate block lists into a single block list" - by Brockmire ( 4931623 ) on Monday May 01, 2017 @07:34PM (#54337699)

    Did I say I was??? Yet again, no.

    APK

    P.S.=> I only said mine's better & it's no mere 'script' you SCRIPT KIDDIE "ne'er-do-well" do nothing zero:

    "thousands who've made scripts to do this already" - by Brockmire ( 4931623 ) on Monday May 01, 2017 @07:34PM (#54337699)

    They used prebuilt scripting tools that do a job (users want GUI, not mere scripts) vs. the fact that I wrote literally the equivalent of 14 UNIX commands into an EASY TO USE GUI multithreaded multitasking 32/64-bit non-runtime driven SINGLE .exe program to do it, & do it better vs. my competitors (have you? Oh HELL no)... apk