Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Qualcomm Sues Apple For Contract Breach (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

Qualcomm has sued Apple, again, this time alleging that it violated a software license contract to benefit rival chipmaker Intel for making broadband modems, the latest salvo in a longstanding dispute between the two companies. From a report: Qualcomm alleged in a lawsuit filed in the California state court in San Diego on Wednesday that Apple used its commercial leverage to demand unprecedented access to the chipmaker's highly confidential software, including source code. Apple began to use Intel's broadband modem chips in the iPhone 7, which it launched last year.

37 comments

  1. Qualcomm Always Expensive and Proprietary by thebes · · Score: 4, Informative

    Qualcomm has always been perceived as (and actually been) expensive and proprietary in the telecom world, so this should be no surprise when someone else comes to the market for a better price. Apple can probably easily pay to defend this suit purely based on the financial savings of switching to Intel.

    1. Re:Qualcomm Always Expensive and Proprietary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Proprietary how? All the 3G and LTE standards are... standard. They might have done a lot of the fundamental research, but its still a standard. Or do you mean proprietary interfaces to their baseband chips? In which case... this seems ok?

      Note that while maybe more expensive, there is some performance upsides: https://9to5mac.com/2016/10/20/iphone-7-qualcomm-intel-modem-cellular-performance/

    2. Re:Qualcomm Always Expensive and Proprietary by thebes · · Score: 3, Informative

      One acronym: CDMA
      Another acronym: UMB

      Qualcomm got where they got today in part due to their CDMA modem patent revenue. UMB was Qualcomm's proprietary replacement for CDMA that was intended to compete with LTE.

      Luckily, the general industry smartened up and went with a partnership standard like 3GPP2. As CDMA support dwindles around the world, Qualcomm is just taking larger and larger hits to their bottom line, relative to what they were before.

    3. Re:Qualcomm Always Expensive and Proprietary by thebes · · Score: 2

      Luckily, the general industry smartened up and went with a partnership standard like 3GPP2.

      I need to correct myself.

      That should read 3GPP not 3GPP2.

  2. Qualcom is stupid by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    Just how far behind Qualcom does Qualcom think it's competition is?

  3. Qualcomm's panicking. by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    The rumors of Apple developing their own radio chips has them freaking out. Their shareholders will be out for blood if they lose Apple's business.

    1. Re:Qualcomm's panicking. by v1 · · Score: 2

      What I don't understand is how it can possibly benefit you in the long-run to sue the customer you want to keep the business of? Sort of a "biting the hand that feeds you" isn't it?

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    2. Re:Qualcomm's panicking. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      My opinion is that Qualcomm is trying to send a message to all their customers: "Don't try to replace us in any way; we'll sue you."

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    3. Re:Qualcomm's panicking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one has me completely confused honestly. They're already under investigation for abuse of monopolistic positions and anti-competitive practices. A lawsuit like this isn't going to win them any favors in those investigations.

    4. Re: Qualcomm's panicking. by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      It's inevitable they'll make their own chip. It's stealing their IP and taking away their business that is a real poke in the eye. Helping your customer put yourself out of business is a common thing. Suing them delays the inevitable.

    5. Re:Qualcomm's panicking. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My opinion is that Qualcomm is trying to send a message to all their customers: "Don't try to replace us in any way; we'll sue you."

      Right. Let me update my dont-ever-do-business-with list:
      1. Oracle
      2. Comcast
      3. Qualcomm

      Thanks.

    6. Re:Qualcomm's panicking. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is how it can possibly benefit you in the long-run to sue the customer you want to keep the business of?

      I'm sure Qualcomm's case will eventually come down to patents at some point. They will argue it is impossible for Apple to develop their own radios without infringing on one of their patents. So Apple has to get their chips from them (or another maker that is already in a license agreement/otherwise in compliance with Qualcomm).

  4. Suing your customer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...always ends well. Ask the RIAA / MPAA.

  5. Qualcomm needs to go away by WCMI92 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They don't innovate, they have set themselves up as a "tollbooth" on the industry.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:Qualcomm needs to go away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Bullshit, if it weren't for qualcomm we wouldn't have the likes of 3G and 4G services we have today and the coming 5G services. They are the ones actually doing the innovating, unlike apple who patents a fucking rounded corner. And good luck to apple switching to intel's crummy base-band chip sets. Slow power hungry pieces of shit is what they are. Apple will still be putting money in qualcomm's pocket though the patent royalties that intel has to pay qualcomm. And if apple thinks they are going to design their own base-band chip set, they're going to be paying qualcomm royalties directly again.

      As for qualcomm not giving apple low level documentation, code and software for their chipsets. hmm, that sounds an aughful lot like what apple does to all the 3rd party repair shops that try and repair their products. Pot calling kettle black.

      Good watch about this.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRpujjwukMY

    2. Re: Qualcomm needs to go away by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Qualcomm will be easy to demonstrate that they don't provide good docs to any of their customers. Most of the docs I've seen are marked preliminary or draft and no fucking release version even years after the product comes out. Being made to document your shit for the competition would piss me off and call the lawyers.

    3. Re:Qualcomm needs to go away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably wasn't that good of an RF engineer if he had anything to do with the "you're holding it wrong" antenna bands on the iphone4

    4. Re: Qualcomm needs to go away by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      Nor provide updates to Android firmware after a couple of years.

      Freedreno is in development but it's not the default on any Android distro.

    5. Re:Qualcomm needs to go away by davesmall · · Score: 1

      The industry is cheering for Apple in this conflict. Steve Jobs mantra: "Let's focus on delighting customers. If we do that then sales volume and profits will follow automatically." Qualcomm's mantra: "Let's focus on screwing over customers and suing them if they don't comply."

    6. Re:Qualcomm needs to go away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is "the industry" you're talking about? Qualcomm has been in the wireless communication business since the 1980s. They're dominant because they understood where communication was going before anyone else and built the tools and technology first.

      People said the same things about Qualcomm in the 90s as they're saying now. Some of these projects they work on seem stupid, but they end up being fundamental to new communications markets. Then everyone complains that the standards are based on Qualcomm IP. When something seems easy and essential in retrospect, but only one group actually did it, that's pretty good work.

    7. Re:Qualcomm needs to go away by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      World of difference.

      Apple and Qualcomm are actually in a (strained and adversarial at the moment) legitimate business relationship. As a customer of Qualcomm, Apple has every right to expect that the embedded chipsets they but, as part of that relationship, will be adequately documented. There's probably even be a contractural obligation on Qualcomm to that effect.

      Apple and J. Random fly-by-night iPhone repair kiosk in the mall are NOT in a business relationship. Apple (And Samgsing, HTC, etc.) does not, nor should they, have any obligation to them whatsoever. No one does or should, except whatever god-knows-where vendor from which they buy their parts.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
  6. Don't innovate? by haunebu · · Score: 2, Informative

    They literally invented CDMA, the foundational technology for 3G, and developed an outsized portion of both LTE and the forthcoming 5G network standards & protocols. If you don't like them for whatever reason, that's fine. But an entire industry has been created thanks to their research & development efforts. To say they don't innovate would be asinine.

    --

    Blue skies, Barthy Burgers, girls...

    1. Re:Don't innovate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      in the 90's qualcomm invented CDMA and someone else invented the crappola that was TDMA and became known as GSM. In the end CDMA matured and became the foundation of what people call GSM today along with HSPA, HSPA+ and then LTE.

    2. Re:Don't innovate? by thebes · · Score: 3, Informative

      -1 troll

      CDMA did not merge with TDMA, GSM, etc. CDMA died a rightful death due to its patent and licensing encumbrance.

    3. Re:Don't innovate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think mobile phones were invented in the 90's?

    4. Re:Don't innovate? by sl3xd · · Score: 2

      They literally invented CDMA, the foundational technology for 3G,

      History appears to disagree. CDMA was invented by the Soviets, with research going as far back as 1935.

      Qualcomm developed the first Cellular network that used CDMA under contract to AirTouch, (which eventually merged to Verizon).

      That said: LTE uses OFDMA (downlink) and SC-FDMA (uplink). It's an entirely different beast than CDMA.

      3G does have some relevance as a backwards-compatibility option, but its relevance is rapidly diminishing, with LTE covering the vast majority of the lower 48 states.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    5. Re:Don't innovate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real artists ship.

      Where can I buy a Qualcomm cellphone? Best Buy? Nope, it's all Apple and Samsung. What passes for Radio Shack these days? HTC, LG, Motorola, and other off-brand Apple and Samsung knockoffs, unless they've gone bankrupt again that is. The carrier stores? Nope again. Apple and Samsung dominate, with a spattering of the off-brands for cheapskates. The Apple Store? LOL.

    6. Re:Don't innovate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      History appears to disagree. CDMA was invented by the Soviets, with research going as far back as 1935.

      Qualcomm developed the first Cellular network that used CDMA under contract to AirTouch, (which eventually merged to Verizon).

      You are correct, Qualcomm did not invent CDMA. However, they solved several difficult technical problems for making work in a cellular environment and without requiring receivers that were too complex for the technology of the day. Without being able to do things such as perform soft hand off, deal with the near far problem and not need complex multi-user receivers.

      Qualcomm undertook the design of CDMA cellular on their own. However, as with many technologies that will eventually be deployed by someone, they talked to operators that might deploy it. Demonstrations/Trials were done with Nynex and Airtouch. The funding to build more equipment for trials was somewhat complex and I do not remember whether or not I am allowed to go into it.

    7. Re:Don't innovate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Artists require the best brushes, paints and canvases in order to do their best work.

  7. Qualcomm = Suicide Bomber by davesmall · · Score: 1

    Qualcomm is like a suicide bomber. They're going to go down fighting but they're going to kill themselves in the process.

  8. Charging for standards they don't own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People forget that this legal soap opera started with the fact that Qualcomm was (and still is) charging royalties for patents and IP they don't own.

    1. Re: Charging for standards they don't own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wtf are you talking about?