“Qualcomm Inc. is trying to steer a big chuck of its billion-dollar dispute with Apple Inc. over the use of fundamental technology for mobile phones away from what it sees as a sideshow over patents,” Edvard Pettersson reports for Bloomberg.
“At a hearing Friday, Qualcomm will ask a federal judge in San Diego to throw out as moot all claims by Apple related to nine ‘handpicked’ patents, whose validity Apple challenges, because the company has told Apple and its Asian manufacturers that it won’t assert any infringement claims over them,” Pettersson reports. “Apple alleges Qualcomm is trying to avoid any scrutiny of individual patents the chipmaker says are part of the standard technology for mobile phones to operate. Qualcomm argues that the specific intellectual property Apple has challenged — the company says it has more than 130,000 patents and patent applications worldwide — isn’t relevant to the broader licensing dispute between the two technology giants.”
Pettersson reports, “‘The endgame is a settlement,’ according to Anand Srinivasan, an analyst for Bloomberg Intelligence. ‘But this is a fight for Qualcomm’s business model, and if they have to settle under duress, or if Apple wins this outright, everyone will ask for a similar deal.'”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Everyone should ask for a similar deal. The terms now are ridiculous!
Qualcomm’s unreasonable, illogical, and irrational licensing scam, which charges a percentage of the total cost of all components in the phone, even non-Qualcomm components, must end.
Interns, you know what to do. Cheers, everyone!
SEE ALSO:
Qualcomm and U.S. FTC ask judge to delay ruling to pursue settlement talks – October 16, 2018
20-year-old court filing comes back to haunt Qualcomm in antitrust dispute with U.S FTC – October 5, 2018
U.S. ITC judge denies Qualcomm’s request, won’t stop iPhone imports – September 29, 2018
Qualcomm accuses Apple of stealing ‘vast swaths’ of chip secrets and passing them to Intel – September 25, 2018
Qualcomm dealt another blow in second ITC action against Apple – September 19, 2018
Qualcomm CEO sees chance of Apple settlement this year – September 18, 2018
Qualcomm makes a tactical error in its battle with Apple – September 7, 2018
Magistrate judge rebukes Qualcomm for iPhone patent infringement allegations it originally chose not to bring – September 6, 2018
EU regulators charge Qualcomm with additional violation in pricing case – July 19, 2018
Apple petitions U.S. Patent Office to invalidate four Qualcomm patents – June 22, 2018
Apple brings 5G and national security into Qualcomm patent battle – June 18, 2018
Analyst: Apple, Qualcomm legal fight could settle this year – June 11, 2018
Apple CEO Tim Cook to be deposed in Qualcomm lawsuit – April 6, 2018
Judge Koh sets aside sanctions order against Apple in FTC v. Qualcomm antitrust case – February 8, 2018
Apple gets support from Lawyers for Civil Justice in fight against discovery sanctions – February 1, 2018
EU fines chipmaker Qualcomm $1.2 billion for paying Apple to shut out rivals’ chips – January 24, 2018
Apple sanctioned in Qualcomm FTC case for withholding documents – December 22, 2017
Apple countersues Qualcomm for patent infringement – November 29, 2017
Apple designing next-gen iPhones, iPads that would dump Qualcomm components – October 31, 2017
“Qualcomm argues that the specific intellectual property Apple has challenged — the company says it has more than 130,000 patents and patent applications worldwide — isn’t relevant to the broader licensing dispute between the two technology giants.”
So, specific patents aren’t “relevant” to be challenged for validity, because they have 130,000? TLDR their argument is don’t fight them because they’re bound to have some valid patent amongst that 130,000, though which ones, they’re not so sure. Heck of a business. The only entities who can fight them are gov’ts and the largest companies in the World. Everyone else has to settle, because they’ll be bankrupted trying to litigate 130,000 patent validity cases.
Sounds like Qualcomm took a clue from MS.
It appears similar to what MS did with getting PC makers to pay MS for Windows licenses on every PC they made… including those that didn’t come with Windows pre-installed.
Despite how unethical such situations may sound, they are not… nor are they illegal. They are simply contractual agreements between extremely large corporate entities that both agreed too at the beginning of their business relationship.
Now, one party has decided they want to change the terms of their agreement to their (and only their) benefit. The second party certainly isn’t going to benefit from the change. Other entities, tied up in similar agreements with the second party, may (or may not) benefit, but that isn’t part of this contractual disagreement.
I have no sympathy for either party. I do garner a certain distrust of companies that agree to (possibly) onerous terms in contractual agreements early on their dealings with other companies… then (when they are much larger and financially successful) seek to use the courts to alter terms of their contracts.
So you’re ok w/ QC double-dipping–a practice already deemed illegal by SCOTUS? And FRAND abuse?