Qualcomm Says It Won Case Banning Sale of Older iPhones in China (bloomberg.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Qualcomm Says It Won Case Banning Sale of Older iPhones in China (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on Monday December 10, 2018 @04:20AM from the tussle-continues dept.

Qualcomm says it has won a ruling in China against Apple that bans the sale of some iPhone models in that country. From a report: The Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court ruled that Apple is infringing two Qualcomm patents and issued injunctions against the sale of the iPhone 6S, iPhone 6S Plus, iPhone 7, iPhone 7 Plus, iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus and iPhone X, the San Diego, California-based chipmaker said in a statement Monday. The most recent models introduced in September, the iPhone XS, XR and XS Max, are not covered by the ban.

67 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 04:23 · Score: 0

Trade wars are easy to win, remember?
1. Re:Don't worry! by bill_mcgonigle · 2018-12-10 04:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Patents make everything better! Imagine trying to be a startup competitor to Qualcomm - ha, the USPTO will maintain their market dominance for them, no matter how bad the security is on their baseband radios. Which is interesting, because high-clearance individuals also use those phones. Even Intel is having trouble inventing around what Qualcomm got to first.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
2. Re:Don't worry! by alvinrod · 2018-12-10 04:43 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Patents do eventually expire, though we can argue against whether or not they do so quickly enough. The problem with eliminating them entirely is that you trade one problem (market dominance by patent holder) for another (market dominance by large established manufacturers) and I'm not sure there's an argument for the latter being ultimately better than the former.
  
  I do find it hard to believe that it's impossible to design around Qualcomm's patents. It may merely be expensive and difficult, but I suspect that has to do with the nature of the industry and the limited number of individuals capable of producing meaningful work within it.
3. Re:Don't worry! by omnichad · 2018-12-10 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  Still, patents should have variable term lengths depending on the industry. At this rate, each generation of wireless is patent-encumbered the whole time it's current-gen and beyond.
4. Re:Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  you trade one problem (market dominance by patent holder) for another (market dominance by large established manufacturers) and I'm not sure there's an argument for the latter being ultimately better than the former.
  Odd...seems like we have both those problems right now
5. Re: Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  Isnâ(TM)t the issue around Qualcommâ(TM)s FRAND licensing terms being anything but?
  (Though they do keep widening the net in the hope of finding something that will stick.)
6. Re: Don't worry! by tysonedwards · 2018-12-10 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  US8698558B2 would appear rather difficult to design around. Itâ(TM)s a system that puts the radio to sleep unless it is either transmitting or receiving data in a packetized format intended for communication with a mobile device. It effectively means âoeI can listen just enough to know if I need to wake up and listen for moreâ. If one couldnâ(TM)t apply power states to a radio, or if they did they were unable to step back up to a higher level to facilitate bidirectional communications, one would need to always run the receiver at full power to ensure receive data isnâ(TM)t missed. In mobile devices, battery life tends to be important after all. This one would seem like it hold qualify for FRAND, if not ultimately be deemed obvious / overly broad.
  
  --
  Thirty four characters live here.
7. Re:Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 05:09 · Score: 0
  
  Begun, the phone wars have!
8. Re: Don't worry! by plague911 · 2018-12-10 05:12 · Score: 2
  
  If you can't design around an idea, then they made a GOOD patent. Qualcomm actually produced something of intellectual value. Good on them. So either A) Pay the man, B) Produce something that's a shoddy knockoff, or C) Invent your own *** **** stuff. If you don't want do to either of those three, you don't belong in business.
  Side note. I acknowledge the abuse of the patent system for obviously/overly broad patents in general. While this case in particular does not seem to fit that issue. It is a fundamental patent needed by modern communications equipment, that however, does not mean it is obvious, it means it is VALUABLE.
9. Re: Don't worry! by Dunbal · 2018-12-10 05:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The problem is patent holders (and some judges) who believe that ideas and concepts can and should be patented. A patent is supposed to cover a specific application of an idea, not the idea itself. Putting a phone to sleep between packets should be available to everyone provided they find their own way of doing it rather than copying the specific electronic layout.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
10. Re: Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  D: Get enough legal power so the patent can be invalidated.
  The funny thing is that I don't feel much sympathy for Apple, especially their scorched earth patent campaigns where they are not letting anyone else license their stuff, forcing other companies to sue back or go under. Microsoft just asked for their $3/device, people paid them, and now, their biggest source of income is Linux based stuff because of this. Had Apple done this, likely this whole Qualcomm mess would never have happened.
11. Re: Don't worry! by plague911 · 2018-12-10 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Process patents are well defined and are a reasonable item to patent.
12. Re: Don't worry! by plague911 · 2018-12-10 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  Your "D" is an option for those who I would say do no belong in business. Yes Apple is trying to do that. They are one of the singularly most morally bankrupt organizations we have now-n-days
13. Re: Don't worry! by reanjr · 2018-12-10 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Apple has already found a workaround on their new models, so, yeah, there are workarounds.
14. Re: Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  You mean the new models that get terrible connection speeds and have a modem that frequently doesn't work in areas where signal strength is anything less than perfect?
  This is a battle Apple is losing and losing badly. The new iPhones are effectively useless once you stop standing under a cell tower, because Apple refuses to swallow their pride and use Qualcomm technology.
15. Re: Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  My problem with this particular patent is that it was new an innovative when it was first introduced to GSM phones in the mid 90s. But it's not the mid 90s anymore. And this was a rehash of the original patent issued then. This patent shouldn't have ever been granted. There is nothing innovative here.
16. Re: Don't worry! by LynnwoodRooster · 2018-12-10 05:54 · Score: 0
  
  Nope. They're asking Apple to use the same terms and pay the same rates as everyone else. Apple doesn't like that.
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
17. Re: Don't worry! by David_Hart · 2018-12-10 05:57 · Score: 2
  
  If you can't design around an idea, then they made a GOOD patent. Qualcomm actually produced something of intellectual value. Good on them. So either A) Pay the man, B) Produce something that's a shoddy knockoff, or C) Invent your own *** **** stuff. If you don't want do to either of those three, you don't belong in business.
  Side note. I acknowledge the abuse of the patent system for obviously/overly broad patents in general. While this case in particular does not seem to fit that issue. It is a fundamental patent needed by modern communications equipment, that however, does not mean it is obvious, it means it is VALUABLE.
  Being able to put something into a semi-sleep state to save energy (same as battery life) is not obvious? I'm pretty sure that VCRs and TVs have been doing this since the invention of the remote control. It's similar to the patents the people complain about where they take an idea and add "but on a computer" and then patent it....
18. Re: Don't worry! by plague911 · 2018-12-10 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  I am not informed enough on the specific aspects of this patent to judge the obviousness of it, nor do I want to be. But I would agree that Qualcomm should have to defend itself against that accusation in court.
  But....... I will disagree with your blanket argument that "but on a computer" patents are inherently faulty. Applying tried and true ideas to a new problem is a valuable innovation. It can both create true value and be non-obvious. Perhaps a higher hurdle is needed but a blanket dismissal of that type would be uncalled for.
19. Re: Don't worry! by Dunbal · 2018-12-10 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, for a specific process. Not just A--> B, pay me.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
20. Re: Don't worry! by UnknowingFool · 2018-12-10 06:18 · Score: 1
  
  No they're asking that China ignore some of the shadier dealings of Qualcomm. For those that have been following the case Qualcomm has a questionable way of licensing patents. Normally you pay for a license directly or you buy a product from a licensee that paid for a license. For example if you want an ARM chip you can pay ARM directly and have a chip made by a foundry or you buy a chip from the likes of Samsung, TI, NVidia, etc.
  That's not Qualcomm's model. You must pay for chip from a 3rd party AND you have to pay Qualcomm. However Qualcomm paid "rebates" on patents licenses. And Apple did that and Qualcomm paid rebates. Until Apple cooperated in the South Korean investigation against Qualcomm. At which point Qualcomm refused to give Apple any rebates. So Apple stopped paying their Qualcomm's secondary license fees citing breach of contract.
  
  --
  Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
21. Re: Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 06:28 · Score: 0
  
  crapple apologist fanboy with their revisionist history.
22. Re: Don't worry! by tysonedwards · 2018-12-10 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  The argument is that sleep is not the invention, it is a partial sleep until the device detects data that it should receive, at which point it wakes. Basically wake-on-lan except for radio. Transmitting, you know you need to power up, but receiving you do not. Hence, one could argue power states and a remote control as youâ(TM)ve described is an example of waking for received communication are prior art. But, that argument needs made in court to invalidate the patent.
  
  --
  Thirty four characters live here.
23. Re: Don't worry! by tysonedwards · 2018-12-10 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Is it a question of pride as opposed to being opposed to Qualcomm double dipping on patent fees, charging both the manufacturer and the integrator of the manufactured component?
  
  --
  Thirty four characters live here.
24. Re:Don't worry! by imgod2u · 2018-12-10 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  With cellular communications in particular:
  1. The CDMA patents granted are fairly broad. It was very novel at the time so one can see why it was granted but it covers a very large swath of "communicating over airwaves".
  2. The actual transmission of data through public frequency bands is regulated (in the US by the FCC but other countries have their equivalents). This cuts down on the degrees of freedom wireless protocols can have.
25. Re: Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  Please name one judge who believes that. And provide source.
  In all the years I have worked as a patent attorney I have never come across such a judge.
26. Re: Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  Greed and arrogance are apples forte.
27. Re: Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 07:29 · Score: 0
  
  Please state which facts are not true. By the way, other companies besides Apple have complained about Qualcomm and Qualcomm is behind investigated for these practices. While I don't expect the SEC to do anything as Qualcomm legally is in the clear, the FTC might have some judgement about them.
28. Re: Don't worry! by viperidaenz · 2018-12-10 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Did mobile radios not do this before 2011? Did we not used to have phones with small batteries and weeks of standby time?
29. Re: Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 08:56 · Score: 0
  
  Qualcomm isn't "double-dipping," what they're doing is asking Apple to pay the fee Apple agreed to pay as part of licensing Qualcomm's technology.
  Instead Apple stole Qualcomm's technology and gave it to Intel, and that's why Qualcomm is winning all these lawsuits against Apple.
30. Re: Don't worry! by gtall · 2018-12-10 09:23 · Score: 1
  
  Gee, I "power up" when I must transmit information to others. Receiving I can generally be in partial sleep at my desk but then "power up" to receive the )&(*^% information from that fellow that won't leave me alone. I've been doing this all my life that I can recall. I'm just glad this behavior wasn't obvious to anybody else...with a pulse.
31. Re: Don't worry! by plague911 · 2018-12-10 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  While somewhere above someone posted that this may be a rehash of an old patent, If so the differentiation between an old patent and this one may need review under that pretext. Your implication that the idea of replicating a specific animistic behavior in a computer is fundamentally not patent worthy is just total garbage. The idea of making two computers talk to each-other was innovative as all hell, the idea of making a computer be able to see is innovative as all hell. The idea of making computers process natural language or reproduce themselves etc etc etc were all great ideas and foundational ideas that inspired whole industries. Your dismissal of this one for "reasons" is childish.
Huawei by Luthair · 2018-12-10 04:25 · Score: 5, Funny

the clear winner in this dispute ;)
1. Re:Huawei by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  Not to mention Apple, since the only model people will be able to buy legitimately will be their most recent ones.
2. Re:Huawei by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, that's exactly why Apple only sells a single model in the US.
  Markets don't work this way.
3. Re:Huawei by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 04:56 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Is this a coincidence that this injunction has occurred just in the last week since the VP at Huawei Technologies was arrested in Canada, British Columbia. Is this a tit for tat?
4. Re:Huawei by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 05:37 · Score: 0
  
  No.
5. Re:Huawei by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 07:53 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, this sudden, headline making ruling has nothing to do with the CFO of Huawei being detained in Canada on a warrant for extradition to the United States on charges of the sale of technology to Iran (despite signing documents stating that no such sales would take place), and also lying to American Banks about the funding of the sale (banks that have already been fined by the American Government). And Chinese government officials going crazy running around and threatening everyone with 'dire consequences' and all that. The last time this happened was when a Chinese national was caught by the US, stealing American C-17 blueprints. He got stopped in Canada (didn't want to leave by an American airport) and then the Chinese went ballistic on Canada, holding two Canadians hostage for a year and a half on made-up criminal charges. Now they want to do it all over again. It's completely clear from Chinese news media that they believe Prime Minister Justin Trudeau can free Meng Wanzhau with a word. They have no idea that the political system *CANNOT INTERFERE* with the justice system. They aren't even allowed to comment about it in public! But from reports in Chinese government mouthpieces like the Epoch Times, they believe *it can be done*. And they print it that way, *because that's the way its done in China!* Any low level hack from the central commitee can walk into a court, look at a senior judge and demand whatever, and the judge just signs and doesn't utter a word, ..because China is a land of "I demand" insead of law. The Communist constitution even states that they are a dictatorship, and even questioning the rule of the Communists is not allowed. So Huawei is claiming they aren't a puppet of the government. I doubt that, but lets pretend they are at least sincere, even if Huawei says they won't spy, the government can just move in a spy all they like regardless of Huawei says yes or no. If the Chinese judges aren't independent, you can bet your last dollar no company is either. Don't walk away from Huawei on your 5G networks, RUN!
6. Re:Huawei by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 07:56 · Score: 0
  
  Yes
7. Re:Huawei by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  Huh. Huawei = wrong way.
8. Re:Huawei by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 09:48 · Score: 0
  
  But yet it seems that the rule of the law and principle of the proof don't matter when US government goes around and tries to ban purchases of Huawei equipment based on claims about their equipment having backdoors for the Chinese government (or at least claiming thy can install them remotely and secretly).
9. Re:Huawei by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 15:36 · Score: 0
  
  https://www.rt.com/business/446121-china-apple-iphone-ban/
Good for Qualcomm by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 04:33 · Score: 0

Hope they get all the rest of apples products banned too.
Qualcomm also stated: by phayes · 2018-12-10 04:45 · Score: 1

All your base are belong to us.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
1. Re:Qualcomm also stated: by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 13:54 · Score: 0
  
  All your baseband are belong to us.
China? The IP thief? Wuh? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 05:36 · Score: 1

China has courts that judge patents? Isn't this the same China that thumbs it's nose at Intellectual Property laws and makes high-volume low-quality copies of any and all products?
1. Re: China? The IP thief? Wuh? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 08:44 · Score: 0
  
  Citation needed.
2. Re:China? The IP thief? Wuh? by gtall · 2018-12-10 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  I know this is hard to believe, but that court in East Texas that hears patent cases and this Chinese court are actually the same court. It's a secret agreement they do not want you to know about...now you know!
Probably can't twist iPhones, so no iPhones by Rick+Schumann · 2018-12-10 06:06 · Score: 2

The communist Chinese government probably either can't twist Apple into making iPhones into just another addition to the mobile surveillance and tracking of Chinese citizens, or they just plain can't break into the thing in any way themselves to twist the iPhone itself into being part of their surveillance program -- therefore they don't want iPhones in the country at all.
1. Re:Probably can't twist iPhones, so no iPhones by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  You're so full of deception that it spills over. Main points:
  - Apple cares about you more than about their business. WRONG
  - A big government (whichever one) has no power over Apple. WRONG
  - Chinese are somehow more stupid than {Europeans, USians, ...}. WRONG
  Go dream on...
2. Re:Probably can't twist iPhones, so no iPhones by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  The simplest and most obvious answer is China is pissed about the woman in Canada being arrested. Get the popcorn out if she gets extradited to the US. This is going to get ugly very fast if Canada/US cannot find a way to let her go and save face. Imagine if Taiwan snagged Ivanka and was prepping to give her to the mainland.
3. Re:Probably can't twist iPhones, so no iPhones by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 09:11 · Score: 0
  
  1. A CEO isn't the daughter of the country's leader.
  2. China nabs US citizens and puts then in prison without trial somewhat frequently. Nobody cares.
4. Re:Probably can't twist iPhones, so no iPhones by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 09:38 · Score: 0
  
  Oh horrors! China is upset! Quick everyone bend over to accommodate China's demands right up the wazoo! Fuck China! It's way past time someone slapped them upside their collective heads to remind them where the power really lies in the world. They have already blinked in the face of tariffs and are desperately waiting for Trump to leave office so his replacement can come in and continue sucking their dicks again. And who gives a shit about Apple's success or failure in China? Does China think Trump is going to just rollover and say sorry for upsetting China?
5. Re:Probably can't twist iPhones, so no iPhones by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  Nope, the iPhone has been allowed to dominate the high end of the Chinese market (those who most need to be surveilled). This is, in itself prima facie evidence that Apple has completely caved to the Chinese government. The only question is whether Apple standing up to the FBI is just showmanship, or more sinister obedience of Chinese demands.
6. Re:Probably can't twist iPhones, so no iPhones by AmiMoJo · 2018-12-10 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Qualcomm is an American company. They are trying to turn the screws on Apple any way they can.
  It's the same tactic that Apple used with Samsung a few years back when there was a patent dispute over rounded corners. Sue in multiple jurisdictions.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Missing details; nothing actually banned by Anubis+IV · 2018-12-10 06:49 · Score: 3, Informative

What's missing from the summary is the fact that, in addition to not covering this year's models, this injunction doesn't bar sales of any iPhone running iOS 12, which is the latest version of iOS. Given that every model Apple currently sells can be updated to iOS 12 (and were likely being sold with iOS 12 installed, straight out of the box, even prior to this ruling), Apple has issued a statement making it clear that all iPhones remain available for purchase in China. I.e. This injunction did absolutely nothing at all.
As for what Qualcomm's patents are/were covering, MacRumors' article indicates they were used to "adjust and reformat the size and appearance of photos", for "managing applications using a touch screen when viewing and navigating apps", and a third patent of which has apparently already been invalidated in court.
1. Re:Missing details; nothing actually banned by viperidaenz · 2018-12-10 07:57 · Score: 0
  
  Apple's lawyers were successful in delaying the proceedings until their new models were ready to ship.
  I want to say something about it being easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, but it seems it's even easier to delay rulings in the legal system until the plaintiff's claim is no longer relevant.
Interesting...in some places this is being... by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 07:14 · Score: 0

dishonestly reported as a Trump trade war issue in which Trump is portrayed as having cost Apple or iPhone users a bunch of money with his tariffs and trade war.
Had to come to Slashdot to see the truth, that it's the result of a Qualcomm patent lawsuit fight.
Trump has not started a trade war. First, the current trade situation is one with MASSIVE trade occurring between the two countries. Second, if you consider the current situation a "trade war" then it started many years ago with China putting huge tariffs on American goods and feckless American leaders of both parties not doing anything about it. There's no surprise that the elites in the west who have become extremely rich replacing western labor with Asian slave labor enforced by a totalitarian communist regime are in a panic that Trump is daring to fight back.
Globalism has been amazing for the bazillionaires all across the western world, not just the USA. It's a bi-partisan thing too in most places, with the "left" and the "right" of the uni-party in each country joining together to fight for their globalist bounty - and everywhere it's happening the globalists have the same enemy: patriotism, nationalism, populism. Interestingly, the people most likely to rant about the wonders of "democracy" are doing the most to oppose the will of their own people (Brexit, Trump, French petrol taxes, etc) and spew hatred for populism.
patriotism - noun, Love of one's country
Patriotism is the enemy of the globalists who reject their own nations in pusuit of more personal wealth, and seek international laws and systems which they control and would use to overrule the votes of the people in their hame nations.
populism - noun, The practice of appealing to the interests of the common people.
It's impossible to oppose populism while supporting democracy, and that explains while the very rich and powerful anti-populists are doing their best to ignore or overturn the votes of the people.
Patents on Standards should be illegal. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 07:15 · Score: 0

I don't mind patents on individual implementations or functional aspects of technology. However when something like a cellular standard, electronic interface bus, etc can be help hostage against interoperability thanks to patents making it prohibitive for others to enter the market until the next patented standard has taken over (or like in the case of cellular networks, has resulted in government regulation removing the ability to use the old standards.) It should not be necessary for one to license the basic technology. Those companies are already getting a commercial advantage by defining the standard and being the first to market using those standards. After those points, given the rapid movement of technological progress, as well as the lack of diversity that has resulted from major companies (Intel, AMD, Nvidia, Broadcom, Qualcomm, Apple, Cisco, etc) paywalling *THE* standards for interconnection, the elimination of patents for all standards and standards bodies would do more to promote progress in the market than anything else, while still allowing technical innovation to remain patented, just not as part of something that is to be effectively mandatory for the compatibility of any device in that market.
Peoples Court? by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 07:42 · Score: 0

Judge Wopner is that you?
Constitution says no, senor. by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 08:25 · Score: 0

Process patents are well defined and are a reasonable item to patent.
Article I, section 8, of the US Constitution reads "Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
In order for an item to be reasonable to patent, it needs to be shown that granting such patents advances the useful arts and sciences. Process patents retard progress, according to evidence, so it doesn't matter how "well defined" they are.
The Chinese are well known for stealing by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-10 11:21 · Score: 0

The Chinese are well known for stealing other peoples technology and ignoring patents and copyrights, whats not so well known is who ever can get away with it is doing it.
Makes sense now by Your_spleen · 2018-12-10 18:36 · Score: 1

I wonder if this was the motivating factor for Apple creating the Xs and Xr?
iRoyalties by Anonymous Coward · 2018-12-13 15:57 · Score: 0

Apple contends that Qualcomm's fee should be based on the price of the component, not the phone, a difference of hundreds of dollars per phone.

Royalties have always been based on the final sale price of an item, not how much it cost the supplier. Good luck with that argument.