Slashdot Mirror
Apple's Eddy Cue To Be Deposed In Qualcomm Patent Battle (bloomberg.com)
"Apple executive Eddy Cue will be questioned by Qualcomm's lawyers as part of a legal battle between the companies over billions of dollars in patents and licensing fees," reports Bloomberg. "On Friday, San Diego Federal Judge Mitchell D. Dembin ordered Cue to be deposed in the case, granting a Qualcomm request and turning down Apple's arguments against the move." From the report: At the heart of the standoff is a dispute over how much Qualcomm can charge phone makers to use its patents, whether or not they use its chips. The San Diego, California-based company gets the majority of profit from licensing technology that covers the fundamentals of modern mobile phone systems. Apple has cut off license payments to Qualcomm and filed an antitrust lawsuit that accused the chipmaker of trying to monopolize the industry. In November, Qualcomm filed a motion to depose Cue. Apple pushed back stating that Cue's role overseeing services made him unrelated to the case. Qualcomm cited past Apple statements pinpointing Cue as one of the lead negotiators when the iPhone launched in 2007 exclusively on AT&T's network in the U.S.
Gonna Be History. Watch. Wait. One of you two will die first.
http://www.eenewseurope.com/news/micron-samsung-sk-hynix-pursued-over-dram-pricing
Micron, Samsung, and SK-Hynix control over 96% of global DRAM production and they have artificially inflated the DRAM price by limiting DRAM production
Could you ask him about the MacBook keyboard as well?
Not a person!
Judges generally don't like depositions as much as live testimony because you can't cross-examine a deposition. Why are they doing this instead of compelling him to testify? Does he have some health issue which makes it difficult for him to travel? Or....?
Leaving aside the initial confusion the capitalisation in the headline caused me (not helped by watching the snooker world championships while reading it), fundamental technology essential to the core functions of the device must be worth a couple of magnitudes more than something generic like rounded corners.
There are going to be some very rich lawyers before this one plays out.
"accused the chipmaker of trying to monopolize the industry" Maybe Apple should look up 'patent' in a dictionary.
But nothing new here, just Apple not wanting to pay its way, to make up for not having enough 'hard stuff patents' to put into the patent pool.
https://technode.com/2018/04/2...
Alibaba-backed Ant Financial was blocked in their attempt to acquire US money transfer company Moneygram as well, ditto for a Chinese state-backed fundâ(TM)s try for Massachusetts semiconductor-testing firm Xcerra. All of these deals were reportedly nixed on âoenational securityâ grounds
If tech continues to be something that is nationalized and militarized, we risk finding ourselves in a second cold war
Ironically, it has always seemed to me that the people who are actually working in the tech sector tend to be the people who buy into these narratives least
Many have traveled and lived outside of their home countries, and have colleagues, friends, and for some, even family members, spouses, and children for whom national identity is a blurry overlap
Many of these people are optimistic problem-solvers, who genuinely believe in what they are doing, not because they believe it will benefit their country, but because it will benefit the world. It would truly be a tragedy if we were to deny ourselves a shared future due to the narratives of the past
Those are the cue's I look for when I see a large rock in a flowing river. Usually there's a Eddy on the other side of the Eddy Line.
I did not know Eddy Cue was a monarch or the the forces of Qualcom sought to depose him.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I'm seeing this as an attempt to get Apple to settle quickly. Mutual Assured Destruction. If Apple wants to play the "Anti-Competitive Behavior" card, Qualcomm is going to force an Apple exec under penalty of perjury to admit to prior "Anti-Competitive Behavior".
It has been my understanding that one reason for a deposition is discovery, to find out what questions a jury needs to hear the answer to. For example, if during deposition you asked Bill Cosby "have you ever drugged a woman" and he said "yes, I have", that's something the jury should hear and you'd ask the same question in testimony before the jury. You're after asking that in deposition, you can't ask the question in open court, for the jury to hear?
It has also been my understanding that it is common to depose someone as soon after the events as possible, while their memory is still fresh, then point out if they change their answer at trial. In fact here's a script from Indiana law school showing the proper way to point out when a witness gives an answer in court that is different from the answer they gave at deposition:
http://www.law.indiana.edu/ins...
Do you happen to remember which rule number says you can't ask a question in open court which you asked at deposition? Any explanation of why that would be the case?
will he show up late and in a Hawaiian shirt? He is the typical example of the lack of professionalism at apple.