Apple owes Qualcomm $7 billion in royalty payments says chip designer

Apple owes Qualcomm $7 billion in royalty payments says chip designer
Apple and Qualcomm are entangled in a number of lawsuits over patent royalties and other matters. As a result of the animosity between the two companies, Apple stopped using Qualcomm's modem chips on the iPhone, turning to Intel's chips instead. That led to another recently filed lawsuit when Qualcomm accused Apple of turning over the latter's modem chipset "secrets" to Intel

As described by Reuters, during a court hearing on Friday, Qualcomm said that Apple owes it $7 billion in royalty payments. Apple has accused the chip designer of failing to license its standard-essential patents at the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) rate that is a common practice in the industry. These are patents that must be used for a manufacturer to meet a particular industry standard.

Apple denies owing Qualcomm that much money in unpaid patent royalties, and claims that it is being charged twice for the same patent. Apple says that Qualcomm is billing it for using its chips inside iPhone models (dating back a few years), and again through the patent royalties. Qualcomm says that its business practices are legal.

Qualcomm revealed the $7 billion figure in federal court in San Diego. Apple's Cupertino headquarters is over 700 miles from the city, which gives Qualcomm a major "home court advantage." The chip designer is based in San Diego.

FEATURED VIDEO

31 Comments

1. syntaxlord

Posts: 239; Member since: Oct 01, 2018

Ouch. Tim Cook's probably having flashbacks to when Apple and Samsung were engaged in legal battles. (I swear I'm not trying to start a war in the comments section.)

2. 14545

Posts: 1835; Member since: Nov 22, 2011

Home court advantage? Wtf? Ummm, no. If you were talking about different countries being represented, you might have a point. In this case, you don't.

3. syntaxlord

Posts: 239; Member since: Oct 01, 2018

I don't think it was meant to be taken that literally.

19. ShadowSnypa786

Posts: 624; Member since: Jan 06, 2017

Im sure they will favour Apple since they make the economy alot more money.

20. mootu

Posts: 1541; Member since: Mar 16, 2017

Considering Apple keeps a vast amount of money offshore to avoid paying into the US economy, then i seriously doubt that would be a factor. Apple also keeps a large amount of debt (over $120 billion), do you know why? ... Firms with large debts pay lower taxes. At the end of the day the one thing Apple does not care about is the US economy.

23. ShadowSnypa786

Posts: 624; Member since: Jan 06, 2017

"At the end of the day the one thing Apple does not care about is the US economy" But the American government does and thats the whole point is they always in the pasty have always backed Apple up and that wont change. https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/17/16901910/apple-350-billion-us-economy-contribute-five-years

37. mootu

Posts: 1541; Member since: Mar 16, 2017

That was just a declaration to keep Trump happy due to his moaning about not building the iPhone in the US. Take this quote from your own article. "That means that Apple isn’t just dropping $350 billion in cash into the US economy. It’s not entirely clear how Apple is reaching that number, but a lot of that money is just part of the company’s normal accounting for things like buying component parts and growing its digital software marketplace. According to Apple’s press release, just $75 billion of that total number will come from capital expenditures, new investments in manufacturing, and its repatriation tax payment, which could imply that the rest of the number is simply the effects of a company as large as Apple having its regular impact on the US economy through its normal growth and spending."

4. Khyron

Posts: 401; Member since: Sep 28, 2015

Owww apple pay!!!

5. DolmioMan

Posts: 346; Member since: Jan 08, 2018

In what world is San Diego 700 miles from Cupertino? It's probably 700km, not miles. That was a relatively short article, would it really be that difficult to fact check?

9. syntaxlord

Posts: 239; Member since: Oct 01, 2018

You're right. I looked up the distance from San Diego to Cupertino; according to Google Maps it's 466.2 miles. Converting that yields about 750.6 kilometers.

6. AfterShock

Posts: 4147; Member since: Nov 02, 2012

Doing anything they can to avoid paying what they agreed to pay for originally, go figure. They sure as hell don't price their own wares fair and reasonable do they.

7. Phullofphil

Posts: 1832; Member since: Feb 10, 2009

Sounds like they did pay and they are going to pay what they owe them this is so far more complicated then what you are thinking. Trillion dollars worth and billions in cash in the bank this is not a big deal but principal

13. Back_from_beyond

Posts: 1475; Member since: Sep 04, 2015

From previous articles on this matter, Apple agreed to pay Qualcomm royalties on all of their devices, even if they didn't have a Qualcomm modem inside them. Qualcomm has claimed that Apple has also used their patented technology in devices not equipped with Qualcomm modems. So for Apple to pay Qualcomm for use of their modems or patented technology or both, seems reasonable and is an agreement Apple willingly entered at the time when they benefitted from it greatly. Intel offered cheaper modems, albeit inferior and Apple wanted out of the original agreement. They should pay what they owe and move on.

8. darkkjedii

Posts: 31632; Member since: Feb 05, 2011

Here we go again. Apple, if you owe it, pay it bruh. If you don’t, then Qualcomm shouldn’t get any more, than what’s owed. For the record, Qualcomm motems work better than Intels, as far as iPhones go.

10. matistight

Posts: 1029; Member since: May 13, 2009

Ok after $1 Billion I would have stopped helping out Apple until they paid up. Dumb on Qualcomms part for letting it go up 7 times, but it makes sense why they use Intel chips now.

14. cncrim

Posts: 1590; Member since: Aug 15, 2011

Let’s see what happen here, both company is US company no more home court advantage here. We have see the contract yet so we have to wait and see, contract is contract if Apple break it she need to pay.

16. LouisMariano5

Posts: 63; Member since: Sep 22, 2014

pay them their 7 billion you fake azz piece of crap non innovating company

18. ShadowSnypa786

Posts: 624; Member since: Jan 06, 2017

"Apple has accused the chip designer of failing to license its standard-essential patents at the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) rate that is a common practice in the industry" Really Apple??? LOL

26. monkeyb

Posts: 414; Member since: Jan 17, 2018

I cannot believe you quoted the most important thing in this case and tried to support Qualcomm.

32. strategic_developer

Posts: 1627; Member since: Jul 17, 2018

I wonder how you can support Apple not paying one contract they signed.

34. monkeyb

Posts: 414; Member since: Jan 17, 2018

Please for the love of god, understand what FRAND patents mean. I do not support Apple. Ijust fo not support QC. You do know even Samsung and many others have cases against QC for unfair practices. Your hatred will maks it look like I am supporting Apple. Well guess what, this is purely about QC. You will obviously ignore the fact that Samsung also has a case against QC.

39. mootu

Posts: 1541; Member since: Mar 16, 2017

Samsung has no cases against QC, they settled thier differences almost a year ago. https://9to5mac.com/2018/02/01/qualcomm-apple-samsung-dispute/ Most people would not agree with QC's FRAND terms (i certainly don't) but Apple knew exactly what they were getting and what it would cost. If they didn't like the terms then they should have never signed the deal and exclusivly used Intel. They had a choice and chose to take the goods then refuse to pay for them and fight it out in court, that is just wrong and is stealing, theft! Do you think one day that one of Apple's bean counters just decided that "oh!, were paying too much lets not bother"?. Nope, it was this was planned well in advance and is typical of the way Apple tries to do business.

42. monkeyb

Posts: 414; Member since: Jan 17, 2018

So you are saying since Apple agreed to a contract, it makes QC correct? FRAND is given to essential patents. Meaning it is essential and legally they should not have demanded so much money from partners. IF they do not sign a deal how will they get access to CDMA tech? So you are saying Apple should not sign the contract (which you agree is sh*t) and they should let Samsung and others take all the Verizon and Sprint customers for themselves? Instead Apple should fight in court for years? Apple now has another supplier and hence they finally had a chance to fight with QC. I am in no way supporting Apple, all I'm saying is any company would have done this. If there is any other way, please tell it rather than saying Apple should have lost billions fighting QC in court.

44. mootu

Posts: 1541; Member since: Mar 16, 2017

You still are not getting it. The money owed was for last year, they did have access to CDMA tech through Intel, they used the Intel modem last year in about 30% of thier phones. They had the choice use 100% Intel, but still chose to use QC and not pay, that is wrong and typical of the tricks Apple pulls all the time due to it's wealth and army of lawyers they have.

45. monkeyb

Posts: 414; Member since: Jan 17, 2018

Ok now I see what is going on with you. "they did have access to CDMA tech through Intel" My goodness. I wish you said this before. You are absolutely wrong. Last year Intel modems did not have CDMA ready in time so the tech was not there. For this reason. Intel was used in ATT and T-Mobile and QC was used in Verizon and Sprint. Ahhhh. You basically did not know that last year Intel was not CDMA ready. Now it all makes sense.

40. mootu

Posts: 1541; Member since: Mar 16, 2017

Double post, again...

24. OneLove123

Posts: 1265; Member since: Aug 28, 2018

San Diego, my hometown!! The finest city.

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at https://www.parsintl.com/phonearena or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit https://www.parsintl.com/ for samples and additional information.
FCC OKs Cingular's purchase of AT&T Wireless