Qualcomm sues to block Apple from selling the iPhone in China

2. kiko007 (Posts: 7331; Member since: 17 Feb 2016)

Tell that to the dudes who are about to reply to you. Even the boys over at Android Police agree that Qualcomm are abusing FRAND patents to maintain a monopolistic position in the modem industry. Only the blind could see QC losing these cases as a bad thing for consumers imo.

5. PhoneCritic (Posts: 1319; Member since: 05 Oct 2011)

@Kiko007
I for one am a bit ambivalent in this one. Here is why - you have to powerful companies that to me have really been abusive to other smaller companies ( Apple's whole imagination dealing to name one and QC and it's Modem dealings so much so that other oems cant sell their chips in the us < i favor Exynos over SD anytime but I cant have it in the US unless i special order from over seas>)

I like to see QC reign in a bit but I also like to see Apple also reign in as well.

My concern is that if contracts were made by other companies with QC why does Apple have the right to tell them not to honor their contracts?
this is Apples fight with QC how does it have the power to exert it's desires on other entities is concerning for me. It Again I understand if Apple wants to dispute its contract but telling others not to honor theirs is a bit much, Don't get me wrong I in no way think QC innocent but contracts have to be good for something or its all out anarchy.
Is QC violating it's FRAND contracts in the US? if yes then suffer the consequences if not then move on.

17. Leo_MC (Posts: 4884; Member since: 02 Dec 2011)

1. Apple's decision to ditch Imagination was a normal business deal, it was in no way an.
2. Apple suggested to other companies to do what it does and showed support; it's the other companies that decodes to withhold royalties.
3. Only a fare contact should be uphold.

6. uncle_gadget (banned) (Posts: 1050; Member since: 20 Sep 2017)

Again you seen to never ask yourself the most obvious question.

If Apple felt the cost was to high, then why did they agree to a deal?

When you sign a contract you are auppose to pay it, until the court tells you, you dont have too.

Do you pay bills?

Call the financier on your car and tell them I'm not paying for it because it isnt running right and because you wont come get it and fix it and see what happens to you.

And as the other posted said, you dont have to power to be telling other companies not to pay Qualcomm on their own contracts.

Apple doing even more wrong just because they feel Qualcomm is wrong, is wrong and the court should be ordering everyone to pay until the courts decide if they should not.

And the court if it turns out tbey rule in favor of Apple, then they can have QC return any owed money.

But of course you only side with Apple even when they themselves are breaking laws.

I hope QC even if they loose just tell Apple hete is all your money, contract done, we won't sell you another component.

Qualcomm has enough OEMs using their stuff, they don't need Apple.

If I was QC CEO I would call Apple and tell them, since you aren't paying you won't get another component.

After all, it's a free market amd a court cant force you to sell product to anyone you dont want too.

It is time for all OEMs to side against Apple and make Apple go into business making all th3 parts they need for their own phone.. and them pay for any amd all licenses and if it's not FRAND,, you charge them so much they just say no.

Price Apple off the market and run them out of business. Problem solved!

No court is forcing Apple to stop overcharging for its products.

Qualcomm spends billions to make their stuff and Apple gets a huge discount being only a buyer. Th3 seller has a right to state what they feel its worth.

Either pay it use someone else.. Either QC will lower its costs or go out of business.

Apple using s court. A company who has all this money overcharging complaining about costs?

And you're okay with that?

I can't sign a car payment or mortgage, agreeing to th3 terms to pay, and then complain about how much it's costs, especially if I have the money to pay it.

Is Apple gonna pay the legal fees and costs if Qualcomm sues them all too? I doubt It!

Apple never wants to pay. They stole Samsung stuff and was found guilty and then Obama vetoed it.

When does it end and when you gonna side with what is right, even if it means Apple is wrong?!

7. kiko007 (Posts: 7331; Member since: 17 Feb 2016)

Shut up... Techie.

8. uncle_gadget (banned) (Posts: 1050; Member since: 20 Sep 2017)

Who is this "techie".

Oh wait I saw some article PA reposted that I saw name TechieXP1969. Is that who you talking about?

Oh he is not liked because he's likely a real tech fan?

I am too. I love tech.

You don't have to choose a side in tech. It's all here for you to enjoy.

What is the point of siding with a company for free? For the sake of principle?

If these companies want my vote, pay me for it. Of you want my money, make something I want to buy.

Siding with Apple by default seems premature to me. Let the courts do what they get paid for. Stop cheerleadingfrom the sideline.

10. kiko007 (Posts: 7331; Member since: 17 Feb 2016)

*Gets told to shut up

*Writes another essay anyhow

Damn, classic Techie for you.

Also: shut up... Techie.

9. apple-rulz (Posts: 1432; Member since: 27 Dec 2016)

You are such a long winded bigmouth. Also, clearly you are the fool formerly known as techiexp. Here’s a novel idea; if you’re so confident of your legal acumen in this case, why don’t you burst into the courtroom Perry Mason style, and dazzle the court with your smoking gun proof that Apple has done wrong? I await reading of your exploits in the news, and I’m sure Qualcomm will be grateful for your help.

11. kiko007 (Posts: 7331; Member since: 17 Feb 2016)

"Here’s a novel idea; if you’re so confident of your legal acumen in this case, why don’t you burst into the courtroom Perry Mason style, and dazzle the court with your smoking gun proof that Apple has done wrong?"

I would pay an exorbitant amount of money to watch him do what you've suggested as it would likely be the funniest thing I've ever seen. They say entertainment is seldom worth the price of admission, but in this instance, I call bullshit.

Techie... take this man's advice!

19. Leo_MC (Posts: 4884; Member since: 02 Dec 2011)

I signed a 2y contact for internet services; after a few months the services were of poor quality; I told the company to fix them and they told me they were providing a bit over the minimum speeds mentioned in the contract so I told them that I won't pay anymore, I denounced the contract and told them to sue me, I'd they think I have wrong them.
That happened a few years ago and I never got a subpoena to go to court.
It's stupid to say "a contract should be kept, even though one of the parts doesn't play fare".

25. tedkord (Posts: 16747; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)

Maybe some just can't work up any sympathy for Apple since abusing patents (and the broken patent system) was their modus operandi. It's tough to feel sorry for the school yard bully when he finally gets his.

26. kiko007 (Posts: 7331; Member since: 17 Feb 2016)

Who said you had to feel sorry for Apple?

27. tedkord (Posts: 16747; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)

I'm simply explaining why people don't support Apple in this case. It's kind of karmic.

4. Nopers (unregistered)

Well they tried to stop Apple selling iPhones in the US, I wonder what happened to that lawsuit.

18. Mr.Pussy (banned) (Posts: 348; Member since: 16 Feb 2017)

Wow! 2 cocks at it again. Apple must got a lot of hates. Hope they both make them lawyers rich.

20. you_sukk_it (banned) (Posts: 219; Member since: 11 Apr 2017)

I hope qualcomm goes down. I hate companies that knowingly sell defective products. ie sd810

30. shm224 (Posts: 88; Member since: 19 Mar 2015)

@kartik.07: there was NO lawsuit between Qualcomm and Apple in any countries. Qualcomm was accused of and fined for anti-competitive practices with respect to their licensing practices to fellow OEMs (like Samsung, MediaTek, etc), not Apple.

21. Settings (Posts: 2909; Member since: 02 Jul 2014)

Maybe it's part of the Qualcomm-Samsung deal.

15. PhoneInQuestion (banned) (Posts: 496; Member since: 20 Aug 2017)

Qualcomm versus China, wew lad...

16. uncle_gadget (banned) (Posts: 1050; Member since: 20 Sep 2017)

How is Qualcomm stopping anyone from making modems and chips, that don't require licensing from them?

Hasn't Intel successful made modems whixh Apple is using?

The problem is Intel cant make enough of them and Qualcomm can.

But they have a choice.

Qualcomm doesn't have a monopoly. They sold product companies chose to buy because they had th3 best and still do.

Someone can always make better stuff. Dont faukt the guy who made the beat stuff first.

The only reason most of these guys are siding against Qualcomm is because it's Apple who is suing.

If Samsung was suing Qualcomm, everyone would be rooting for Qualcomm to win.

Come on man its so obvious.

By point was simple. Apple had filed a lawsuit, but until the court hashes it out, tbey signed a contract and they should continue to pay until the court says they shouldn't. That is where Apple.is wrong. And telling other companies who Qualcomm also signed contracts with to stop paying is also wrong.

So explain how 2 wrongs makes anyone be right?

24. L0n3n1nja (Posts: 1330; Member since: 12 Jul 2016)

It isn't about who has the best. It's been explained in articles on here and other websites already.

Because Qualcomm charges for a percentage of the phone sale, it costs Samsung more money to use an Exynos chip than it costs them to use Qualcomm. That right there limits competition.

29. uncle_gadget (banned) (Posts: 1050; Member since: 20 Sep 2017)

Again the point is simple. All these companies know what QC charges and still signs contracts with them.

Until that sinks into everyone heads, there is nothing to debate.

If they don't like how QC does business, then you dont do business.

Just like when consumers don't like a product, they don't buy it.

ItIteaves the market as a failed product.

31. shm224 (Posts: 88; Member since: 19 Mar 2015)

That's exactly what the regulators of China, Taiwan and South Korea fined Qualcomm for. With respect to Apple, their goal and claims are quite different. Apple's main argument has been that Qualcomm's royalty should be based on "SSU" (smallest sales unit -- or cost of baseband), rather than the EMVR (entire market value rule -- of cost of end-user product), so Apple can pay as little as possible. Apple has used these arguments against SEP owners and lost.