“Under a May 30 court order, Apple has a couple of deadlines today (June 20) in its antitrust/patent litigation in the Southern District of California, and when double-checking on the deadline,” Florian Mueller writes for FOSS Patents, “I just noticed that Apple made one filing one day in advance — a motion to dismiss Qualcomm’s unfair competition counterclaim based on the allegation that Apple hobbled, throttled or whatever one may call it its iPhones that come with Qualcomm chip in an effort to make Intel’s chips appear equally performant.”
“As I wrote ten weeks ago, the legal relevance of this to the dispute is very doubtful at best (it certainly has no bearing whatsoever on the question of fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing terms), so to me it looks like more of a PR maneuver,” Mueller writes. “I can’t even imagine that it would influence consumers’ purchase decisions.”
Mueller writes, “The hurdle for a dismissal (especially a dismissal with prejudice, which is requested here) is high, but what I’ve read about the L.A. Taxi v. Uber case suggests that this motion may very well succeed. For the San Diego court, Apple’s motion to dismiss may be an opportunity to dispose of something that is legally unrelated to what will actually decide the case but would make a lot of noise.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: The jig is up, Qualcomm.
Qualcomm’s FRAND abuse must not stand. Qualcomm’s licensing scam — charging a percentage of the total cost of all components in the phone, even non-Qualcomm components — is unreasonable, illogical, and irrational.
SEE ALSO:
Apple just poached one of Qualcomm’s top guys – May 31, 2017
Supreme Court rules against Lexmark strengthening FTC/Apple cases against Qualcomm – May 30, 2017
Desperate Qualcomm seeks injunction against Apple’s suppliers – May 25, 2017
Qualcomm files new lawsuit in ongoing Apple feud targeting four major iPhone suppliers – May 17, 2017
FTC says Qualcomm is a monopoly; Samsung agrees – May 13, 2017
What seems reasonable to Qualcomm isn’t to Apple: Royalty dispute ultimately affects iPhone prices – May 8, 2017
Qualcomm to seek U.S. ITC import ban for Apple iPhones – May 3, 2017
Qualcomm slashes profit forecasts as Apple ceases paying iPhone royalties – April 28, 2017
BlackBerry awarded $815 million in arbitration with Qualcomm over royalty overpayments – April 13, 2017
Qualcomm countersues Apple – April 11, 2017
Qualcomm wants FTC to drop their antitrust suit, but it doesn’t mater because Apple’s isn’t going anywhere – April 5, 2017
Apple’s dispute with Qualcomm could last two years – March 3, 2017
Apple widens global patent war, files lawsuit against Qualcomm in the United Kingdom – March 2, 2017
Apple may have paid Qualcomm $40 per iPhone; accounting for 1/3rd of Qualcomm’s revenue – February 10, 2017
Conservative groups ask President Trump to terminate FCC lawsuit over Qualcomm patent licensing – January 27, 2016
Qualcomm CEO fires back at Apple: Bring it on – January 26, 2017
Apple sues Qualcomm in China seeking 1 billion yuan – January 25, 2017
Qualcomm comments on Apple’s lawsuits in China – January 25, 2017
Apple’s rebellion against the ‘Qualcomm Tax’ – January 24, 2017
Despite lawsuit, Qualcomm wants to keep doing business – January 24, 2017
Why Apple, the FTC, and others are attacking Qualcomm’s royalty model – January 24, 2017
Here are the most damning parts of Apple’s blockbuster lawsuit against Qualcomm – January 23, 2017
Apple’s legal assault on Qualcomm part of iPhone margin grab – January 23, 2017
Qualcomm says Apple’s claims are ‘baseless’ in response to Cupertino’s $1 billion lawsuit – January 21, 2017
Apple sues Qualcomm for $1 billion over onerous licensing practices – January 20, 2017
Qualcomm exec says FTC ‘rushed’ antitrust lawsuit before President-elect Trump’s inauguration – January 19, 2017
FTC alleges Qualcomm forced Apple into iPhone LTE chip deals – January 18, 2017
FTC charges Qualcomm with monopolizing key smartphone chip; alleges extracted exclusivity from Apple in exchange for reduced patent royalties – January 17, 2017
Apple certainly has the wherewithal to develop chips such that there is zero need for Qualcomm stuff anywhere near an iPhone. Then we can watch Qualcomm shrivel up.
Qualcomm owns the patents that replacement chips would have to use, so the license fees would be due in any case. In order to exclude Qualcomm, Apple would have to develop a whole new way of doing voice/data communications, and that’s a VERY tall order.
While Apple does buy many, many millions of chips from Qualcomm, Apple not buying chips from Qualcomm will not make it “shrivel up”. Qualcomm’s sales to Apple is a relatively small fraction of Qualcomm’s overall sales (just think of all those Android phones with Qualcomm chips in them).
The bigger issue is the licensing fees. If Apple wins big on this one, EVERY company paying licensing fees to Qualcomm will want money back and renegotiated fee structures.
THAT will hurt Qualcomm way, way more than Apple stopping buying chips from Qualcomm.
I agree that Apple alone not buying chips from Qualcomm would be a tiny fraction but including even Android devices would still only make a tiny dent in their overall sales. There are communications devices in many other non-smartphone/tablet products that use Qualcomm chips or tech.
I agree the ‘danger’ to Qualcomm from the case is not losing chip sales to Apple and/or Android OEMs but that their entire royalty system will be altered negatively for them.
My question is why would Apple EVER had agreed to these kind of Qualcomm terms to begin with? Why didn’t they put up a fuss a long time ago?
Most likely they wanted to have an ‘aternative’ source (Intel) for chips before embarking on attacking their only source (Qualcomm) previously and risk shutting down practically all their mobile product lines.