Slashdot Mirror
Apple, Qualcomm Settle Royalty Dispute (cnbc.com)
Apple and Qualcomm have settled their royalty dispute, the companies said on Tuesday. From a report: The settlement includes a payment from Apple to Qualcomm as well as a chipset supply agreement, suggesting that future iPhone may use Qualcomm chips. The two companies started proceedings in a trial in federal court in San Diego on Monday, which was expected to last until May. Both sides were asking for billions in damages. In November, Qualcomm CEO Steve Mollenkopf said that he believed that the two companies were on the "doorstep" to settling. Apple CEO Tim Cook contradicted him shortly after, saying that Apple hasn't been in settlement discussions since the third calendar quarter of 2018.
The complicated legal battle centered around modem chips and had been raging in courts around the world since 2016. For years, Apple bought modem chips from Qualcomm, but chafed under Qualcomm's prices and requirement that any company using its chips would also pay licensing fees for its patents. New iPhone models released in 2018 used Intel modem chips, and Apple said in a previous FTC trial that Qualcomm. UPDATE: Intel announced this afternoon that it plans to exit the 5G smartphone modem business, leaving Qualcomm as the only supplier for Apple's iPhones.
The complicated legal battle centered around modem chips and had been raging in courts around the world since 2016. For years, Apple bought modem chips from Qualcomm, but chafed under Qualcomm's prices and requirement that any company using its chips would also pay licensing fees for its patents. New iPhone models released in 2018 used Intel modem chips, and Apple said in a previous FTC trial that Qualcomm. UPDATE: Intel announced this afternoon that it plans to exit the 5G smartphone modem business, leaving Qualcomm as the only supplier for Apple's iPhones.
Apple never bought any Qualcomm chips
Apple said that Qualcomm... what? You can't even finish sentences now? You just left and went to lunch, is that it?
Is that Intel sucks THAT BAD.
They have become yet another greedy US mega corp like Cisco/Google/MS/IBM... Very sad.
I am siding with apple here. Qualcomm is trying to double dip - if you sell a piece of hardware the cost should include all associated licenses
Why? Was one of them claiming to be king or something?
It frustrates me greatly that all the various publications seem to be fighting over who can crow about 5G the loudest, yet when you look at the current pace of rollout, most of us won't see 5G for many years yet if ever.
Verizon for example is struggling to get it working well in even dense urban centres where the value is greatest, so I expect it will probably take at least a decade before suburban areas get it, and rural areas probably not at all.
And even if it does work.... yeah so what? The performance boost will have virtually zero practical impact unless you intend to stream 4K movies while commuting to work, and even then only maybe.
In Canada, the telecoms won't even bring up 5G in passing conversation.
Heaven forbid the tech press got a little perspective on new technologies.
The old adage about sausage-making is very true when corporations put their stake in the ground and demand their terms.
To be honest, if greed were set to the side and companies would settle for a reasonable profit rather than the greatest profit they could possibly attain, then this wouldn't be an issue. But the greatest force in a capitalist economy is greed.
Qualcomm and Apple both could have come to terms on this issue years ago if only one or the other could have had sane and reasonable leadership able to meet in the same room. Instead, we had a lot of brinkmanship and ultimatums that ultimately ended with Intel getting dragged into the middle of this mess. I'm sure Intel would have been happy to just find the door, any door, as long as they could get out intact...
To be honest, if I'm buying hardware from a manufacturer with the express purpose of using it for what it was designed to do, I would assume that license to use said hardware was implicit in the agreement. But if this had to be negotiated by contract, Qualcomm soured the deal by close-calling the terms rather than being generous. It's these kind of actions that makes other companies leery of signing a contract with you. You pull this shit enough times, and your competition will be glad to take care of your customers for you.
As and aside, when talking about companies you don't want to sign contracts with...yes, I'm looking at you Oracle...you've pretty much made your bed because the only customers who still buy your shit are the ones who are so entrenched that the only way they can dig themselves out is to rewrite everything. The rest of us are quickly distancing ourselves from your technology to anything else. May your business shrink and shrivel away to nothing.
Apple didn't make anything easy, either. They pushed back hard against Qualcomm, and when their bluff was called, they switched vendors to Intel. And with that, Intel got dragged right into the middle of this dispute. Hard to not get covered in shit when you are in the middle of a shit-fight.
I'm not sure if Apple plans on using its own radio hardware, but the Intel chips sucked including being about 2-3 dBm worse reception. The front end design in the ten plus also had issues, which can be seen straight from the FCC filing (6-7 dBm underperformance in receive) making the modem lose signal where older Apple phones with Qualcomm chips still worked ok. It was around the same time Apple removed the test mode and all software access to actual received cellular signal strength and only lets you see bars. Hopefully Apple brings Qualcomm chips back, one of the main things people use a phone for is the ability to send voice/data - or not as modern phones would work far better with 90s style antennas and apparently that's not an option.
So was Qualcomm asking for 30% of all sales made on their modems?
Actually it was a great bussiness model but not an ethical one-- possibly not even legal.
Promise FRAND licesncing in return for getting your patents made part of a standard.
Force companies to license your patents too if they want to be first in line for your chips. Add on things like a cut of the revenue of the devices the chips are used in. Definitely not FRAND. Sue them if they re-implement anything that evades the patent restrictions.
To make this stick you cut cozy deals with a few companies so that their competitors can't compete if they have to pay full price to Qualcom. Again, blowing the F in FRAND.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
android vs ios which is great os
https://betanom.com/android-vs-ios-best-os-for-smartphone/
Android is an operating system which is mostly used in the world and that means we use an antivirus to protect from malware or threats but nowadays her operating system is powerful because of it if we install a apps that contain a risk so her system shows a popup window which shows this is risk for phone it contains malware or threats but if you want an antivirus I list up the best Android software..
https://betanom.com/best-antivirus-for-android/
all a bunch of crooks.
QCOM jumped $13 (23%) the moment this news broke.
Had Intel not dropped the ball on 5G as was reported two weeks ago I think Apple would have taken this the whole way. /.) as a possible chip supplier but given the US stance on Huawei 5G tech the preferred outcome had to be Intel or Qualcomm.
Huawei was mentioned (on
The really interesting detail is "The companies also have reached a six-year license agreement, effective as of April 1, 2019" because it suggests that Apple's own silicon workshop isn't anywhere near ready to deliver their own mobile radio silicon.
I doubt much money will go from Apple to Qualcomm as Apple says the settlement includes a payment from Apple to Qualcomm will need to be offset by the $1 Billion payout recently award in court to Apple.
What hasn't come out in any detail yet is if Qualcomm will change the business model that Apple claimed to be unfair.
Will Apple continue to pay a percentage of the device value which they got upset about or will they pay a fixed licensing fee for themselves and their suppliers?
That's the bit that will tell who really won here.
Also don't forget the FTC antitrust lawsuit against Qualcomm was actually the catalyst for Apple's own lawsuit against the company just a few weeks later.
How does today's new affect that? I suspect both companies were in a pickle and needed each other in the end.