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

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.

Comments

Let's do the numbers...

[Brett Buck]

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.

Re:Let's do the numbers...

[AmiMoJo]

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.

Re:Let's do the numbers...

[Zocalo]

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.

Re:New boss same as old boss?

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on the last person he talks to.

My personal tech market top indicator

[Applehu Akbar]

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.

Re:Good Defense

[Anubis IV]

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.

Apple is the one demanding special treatment..

[thesupraman]

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.

Re:Apple is the one demanding special treatment..

[Anubis IV]

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.

Meh.

[rholtzjr]

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