Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple's Eddy Cue To Be Deposed In Qualcomm Patent Battle (bloomberg.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the slice-and-dice dept.

"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.

11 of 34 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by willoughby · · Score: 1

    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....?

    1. Re: Why? by gander666 · · Score: 1

      No kidding. As the 30(b) 6 deponent for a patent toll lawsuit, I can tell you that it is a high risk, awful place to be. I will quit and move to a different country if I am ever in line for that bullshit.

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T
  2. What's an Eddy cue? by Cederic · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:What's an Eddy cue? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      You're correct that these are fundamental technologies and that they're worth a lot, but this has to do with how those components became fundamental. Typically, no companies want to be in a position where they can only buy from a single supplier as they're at the mercy of that supplier and can easily get stuck if the overall ecosystem becomes a monoculture that won't let you use anything except for that technology.

      So what companies due is offer to license or sell their technology on terms where they typically get less money than what they could otherwise, but agree to give everyone the same deal so that everyone does adopt their technology and they have a higher volume of sales. Sometimes several companies package technology together under these terms. Either way they're referred to as RAND (or sometimes FRAND) terms. Sometimes, governments might even require such terms be used to prevent them from going after a company for being a monopoly if they're the only company that can legally supply the technology due to patents.

      One of Apple's key claims in one of these cases (there are a lot of different cases involving Apple and Qualcomm, including several where they're suing each other for various reasons) is that Qualcomm was trying to charge Apple more than they were charging Apple's competitors.

    2. Re: What's an Eddy cue? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Is there any evidence Qualcomm made such a promise? Sounds more like a butt-hurt Apple trying to get out of paying prices the market bears. Apple isn't being forced to buy from Qualcomm. They decided many years ago to go down the path of being dependent on Qualcomm and it has earned them billions of dollars saving time and development. Now they don't want to pay their fair share.

    3. Re: What's an Eddy cue? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Not merely more. Apple's contention is that Qualcomm is charging them twice called double dipping. There are two ways to license patents in chips: directly and indirectly. For example if you want to use ARM patents in a chip you can either negotiate with ARM for a license then approach a chip foundrey to make the chips (which many companies like Apple does) or you can buy chips from companies that have an ARM license (Samsung, TI, NVidia, etc). What Apple is claiming is that they bought chips from a company that made Qualcomm chips but that Qualcomm also wants license fees in addition to what they purchased.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re: What's an Eddy cue? by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Fanboy much?

      If Apple disagrees with the broad applicability of Qualcomm's patents, they can build their own mobile chips and fight the patents on that front. Or they can use Intel chips, which are available and prove that you're talking out your ass when it comes to anyone being required to use Qualcomm. Instead Apple chose to license from Qualcomm, but doesn't want Qualcomm to have the right to set prices. Apple is fighting for market protection under the guise of patent litigation. So much for competing by building a better product...

  3. Whorls, foam, and the tell tale line in the water by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    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.
  4. Re:DRAM makers sued for antitrust violation by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    But supply and demand is the basis of the free market! Are you anti-American?

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  5. Really? That's surprising. Discovery and inconsist by raymorris · · Score: 1

    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?

  6. Re: DRAM makers sued for antitrust violation by saloomy · · Score: 1

    It's a free market, build yourself a DRAM production fab since the prices allow for massive profit.