Apple strikes another blow at Qualcomm in court, claiming its business model is invalid

Apple strikes another blow at Qualcomm in court, claiming its business model is invalid

Apple and Qualcomm have been at each other's throats for a while now. It all started in January, when the iPhone manufacturer sued Qualcomm for allegedly withholding $1 billion in royalties that were owed to the Cupertino company.

This started an avalanche of suits and counter-suits between the two companies, with Apple withholding payments to Qualcomm, and vice-versa. Overall, this has already proven to be a costly legal battle for both the two tech giants, and the smaller suppliers caught in the middle of it all.

Today, Apple has struck another blow at the chip maker, by claiming that the license agreements, that make the iPhone manufacturer pay Qualcomm a cut of every produced device, are actually invalid.

Allegedly, Qualcomm has a regular practice of making its customers sign a patent license agreement, before selling them chips. This means that Qualcomm customers pay both the price of the chips, and a cut of every device produced with said chips under the license agreement.

Apple referenced a lawsuit against laser printer manufacturer Lexmark, saying that it showed that Qualcomm was entitled to only “one raward” for its products. This means that, according to Apple, Qualcomm should be allowed to charge either licensing fees, or per chip sold.

Apple also aksed the court to stop lawsuits against four of its suppliers, including Foxconn, that actually buy the chips from Qualcomm and manufacture the iPhone devices. According to Tim Cook and company, this legal fight should be between Apple and Qualcomm alone.

via Reuters

FEATURED VIDEO

17 Comments

1. baldilocks

Posts: 1428; Member since: Dec 14, 2008

What is a "raward"...... ?

3. lyndon420

Posts: 6449; Member since: Jul 11, 2012

His spell check is turned off... that's not the only word he messed up on lol.

16. AxelFoley

Posts: 536; Member since: May 30, 2017

I'm glad you "aksed" "Apple also aksed the court..." PA will soon start talking about companies who release things half-baked, not ready for primetime, not mature, etc. Ironically, that describes 70% of their articles

2. zunaidahmed

Posts: 1182; Member since: Dec 24, 2011

Hmmm, interesting. So basically there have been lawsuits before which the defendant can't charge both loyalty and licensing fee at the same time. In that case, Qualcomm does seem to be at the loosing end here. The Lexmark lawsuit was also between two companies which were already boing by a contract, exactly like this case but the other party later thought it was unfair and sued them. Which they won, lol. I guess Apple might actually win this fair and straight this time. I mean, it has happened before, and the court do take past ruling as reference for there current lawsuits.

4. nikhil23

Posts: 414; Member since: Dec 07, 2016

then why the hell did they made a deal in the first place?

5. PhoneCritic

Posts: 1337; Member since: Oct 05, 2011

"Apple also aksed the court to stop lawsuits against four of its suppliers, including Foxconn, that actually buy the chips from Qualcomm and manufacture the iPhone devices. " If these smaller companies including Foxxcon signed separate deals with QC why would Apple ask them to withhold payment from QC if the dispute is between Apple and QC? Should not these other companies file their own suits then? I don't like QC but their Modem Patent is their modem patent and if you want to use it you should pay their fee. Their SoC are a different issue as no OEM has to use their SoC. They are free to create their own SoC (and Apple does as well as Samsung). Here's my the thing if Apple signed a contract for so many years with QC why does it want to back out now ? ( Samsung signed a contract to supply Apple with displays will Apple turn around and say Samsung owns the Amoled display market and charges too much on its patented tech we want it invalid and any of our oems that use Amoled should not pay either) Don't get me wrong I do not like QC but a contract is a contract and if you agree to pay you cant just say I won't pay now and neither will any of my suppliers, who have their own individual contracts, Apple seems notorious for wanting to get top dollar for its patent but feels that any one else patents are not worth anything but 2 cents and cry that it not FRAND.

7. PhoneCritic

Posts: 1337; Member since: Oct 05, 2011

Now if QC is indeed charging a royalty and then for the individual chips that would be double dipping and it is indeed guilty. However it is what is in the contract did Apple sign a contract with this all spelled out and agreed? Dint its mighty law team see this and signaled a red flag? If I agree to a contract to pay Mr. Joe Blow 10.00 for his widgets but those even though I can get a similar widget for cheaper ( Which is inferior to Mr Joe Blow's ) I cant sue Mr Joe Blow because his competitor is cheaper- I signed the contract and I don't have the right to tell my friends who also use his widgets don't pay him even thought they have their own contracts with Mr Blow.

14. audibot

Posts: 590; Member since: Jan 26, 2017

not so if they sold the chips at a discounted price for quantity to apple plus add on royalties then thats fine, chip is $4 and R is $.50 thats upto apple and QC to change the contract next time. apple does things similar to this all the time its a way to keep a higher profit

13. TechieXP1969

Posts: 14967; Member since: Sep 25, 2013

"If these smaller companies including Foxxcon signed separate deals with QC why would Apple ask them to withhold payment from QC if the dispute is between Apple and QC? Should not these other companies file their own suits then? " Exactly what I was thinking?! It's because Apple is a typical hypocrite. The fans are exactly the same. As they say, the "apple doesn't fall to far from the tree". "Don't get me wrong I do not like QC but a contract is a contract and if you agree to pay you cant just say I won't pay now and neither will any of my suppliers, who have their own individual contracts, Apple seems notorious for wanting to get top dollar for its patent but feels that any one else patents are not worth anything but 2 cents and cry that it not FRAND." Exactly!!!!

6. fyah_king unregistered

Go away silly Apple go away!!

9. Plasticsh1t

Posts: 3090; Member since: Sep 01, 2014

You are making money with Apple why do you want them to go away?

8. lolatfailphones

Posts: 224; Member since: Apr 08, 2013

Making s**tty chips and expecting royalties lmao no wonder why Android can barley make money

10. Plasticsh1t

Posts: 3090; Member since: Sep 01, 2014

"no one makes money with Android" remember the guy?

15. ph00ny

Posts: 1986; Member since: May 26, 2011

Not understanding what the royalty is about and making a blanket statement about "chips" sound great

11. PrYmCHGOan

Posts: 335; Member since: Sep 28, 2016

Yet, Apple charges a licensing fee to get the license required to make accessories for APple products, and Apple also gets a cut of the sales too on top of that. So while Apple is accusing QC of double-dipping, APple is also guilty of it too. QC should counter-sue and claim Apple does the same. In fact, let's see if I can give QC a hint as to Apple's practice!

12. PrYmCHGOan

Posts: 335; Member since: Sep 28, 2016

The Apple says the legal fight should be against only the too companies. OK, then Apple, why did you tell company's you work with to not pay Qualcomm if the fight is only between you and them? Again Apple begin an open hypocrite. Even though I don't like Qualcomm, I dislike Apple even more. I hope Qualcomm wins and you end up losing tons of money.

17. roscuthiii

Posts: 2383; Member since: Jul 18, 2010

Um, author of the article... It would only be considered Apple striking a blow if the court rules in their favor. Sheesh, take the Apple core out of your mouth. And PA, get a damn editor! I swear every few months I come back to this site the quality of your writers and articles has slipped a little more. Probably too make room for all the ads. Ah well, see everyone in September. :-|

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.