Apple and Qualcomm's ongoing patent wars have netted two victories for Apple.
Qualcomm's processors — at the very least, its modems — are key for any LTE-connected device in today's world. Beyond the high quality of the radios, Qualcomm is also the only company that licenses the CDMA technology that Sprint and Verizon use for their 2G and 3G networks. Earlier this year, Apple and Qualcomm began a legal battle over Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) patents that stated Qualcomm was charging unreasonable sums for patents essential to cellular technology. Qualcomm followed that up with a claim to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) stating Apple infringed on six of Qualcomm's patents.
Apple Insider reports that Judge Curiel of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (where the legal arguments for the FRAND case are being heard) has ruled Qualcomm cannot collect intellectual property (IP) royalty payments on Apple's manufacturing partners until the total royalties amount is determined, if that happens at all. Qualcomm will now have to calculate and argue just how much royalty money will need to be recouped from Apple and its partners.
Next, Judge Curiel denied Qualcomm's motion to drop Apple's related lawsuits in other jurisdictions. Qualcomm will now be tasked with proving infringement in each location it is suing Apple, including the UK, China, Japan and Taiwan. There hasn't been any indication on the status of Qualcomm's patent claims against Apple. Additionally, the larger battle of FRAND patents is still ongoing, and it's still important to Apple and the cellular market as a whole. Licensing costs are a large part of the costs of a cell phone, so an increase in licensing fees would quickly have a ripple effect on the prices of smartphones, cellular tablets, cellular smartwatches, and cellular laptops.
Reader comments
Apple wins two patent rulings against Qualcomm
Apple wants it both ways; free tech from everyone else and charge up the wazoo when someone else appears to infringe...
Who cares, really.
I think Qualcom needs to lose their monopoly in the US. We had a year of complete stinkers with the 808 and 810 and only Samsung stood up and said no and shipped their own chip.
808 wasn't that terrible
I would love for this to equal Kirin chips used in the states, or exynos, etc. There are people out there making better hardware that haven't been able to sell here.
So, all Qualcomm needs to do to move forward with the first argument is to produce a royalties number. Easy enough.
And for the other cases they just need to follow through on their claims?
If that's a win for Apple, what are the looses?
Qcomm doesn't want anyone to know the amount. This is a win until they convince a judge to let them do it and makes everyone stay quiet about it.
If Apple truly does win, then every mid and low range phone manufacturer loses. If they have to charge everyone a flat license fee for their patents they will charge the most they can. And as always, savings never pass to the consumers, but price increases always do.
No one can beat apple on a usa court, FIGHT ITS ALWAYS FIXED BY DON KING, LOL
The extra cost us ALWAYS passed to the end user/consumer. Apple wins NOT the person buying the Apple products. Apple would raise its prices each year on schedule regardless of component licensing cost fluctuations. Cue Apple iPhone X Apple math £1k =1k$ =1k€
Let's see if Apple passes the savings on to its customers or just pockets the money.
They will just use the savings to come up with more ways to rip off their customers. Kinda like the fast charger for 80$ that should have just been included with the new iPhones..
Surely that is not true? The device doesn't come with a fast charger?? Perhaps it doesn't safely fast charge. Then again this is consistent with Apple's business model to offer updates that require expensive accessories in order to function. Apple users are used to this. I stopped after 3 ipod generations, 2 iPhones 3 MacBook pros and an iMac. I still use an iPad an iphone and an imac at work but would never buy another Apple computer or ios device again. Find them to be of poor value. great customer service is only a must if your products are prone to extensive catastrophic failure which I have experience done more than a few occasions but they do look nice.
Never an issue with an Apple product. Weren't earlier Samsung phones frying SD Cards. Blowing up on users. lagging so bad that they were barely usable (like the first galaxy S). Among other things... That's apart from the fact that their support both in quality and length of time it's offered is Comparatively awful.
So...does this mean less phones with qualcomm processors in the future?
If it's ruled that Qualcomm is charging unreasonable licensing fees and does that mean we will could end up getting phones in the U.S. with other chips? Huawei and OnePlus phones on Verizon?
Maybe.
The only thing stopping Huawei and Samsung from shipping US phones with their own CPU is cost. It's cheaper to buy the entire chipset from Qualcomm than it is to pay the royalties for network technology if they buy only the baseband components from Qualcomm.
Both companies have to do what's cheapest, so it could happen.
That's what I was thinking. This is why I am hoping for an Apple win. Also maybe Samsung and Huawei team up to on a lawsuit also. I'm afraid that if Qualcomm is victorious it will prevent Google from releasing phones in the U.S. with their in-house built chips.
Another question - Once CDMA tech goes away will Qualcomm have near the power they do now? Is this the reason they are charging higher than normal licensing fees? Without the need for CDMA licensing no one would have to rely on Qualcomm chips in the U.S. or the other countries that have CDMA instead of GSM?
Qualcomm are LTE wizards and make the best modems and rx/tx equipment on the market, hands down. But you don't have to use their stuff so I imagine the licensing fees are more reasonable.
What we need is for someone to develop an SoC that can use one companies CPU with an off-board wireless chip without killing the battery. Exynos/Kirin with Qualcomm LTE and WiFi would give the best of both
Far out I hope so Jerry!!! Not only is the Galaxy S8/Note8 etc being held back from doing 4k60fps (the Exynos is technically capable of 4K120fps) by the Snapdragons limited iSP, but the Exynos variants also run cooler and have better battery life.
I really really hope that's what happens.
Another loss to Q when they shelled out 845 million to Blackberry earlier this year for stealing IP they had as well, soon we'll all be running exynos chips....
Which means Samsung will no longer have to limit all their Exynos phones to lower video capture speeds to appease the Snapdragon crowd! If the 835 can only record 4k at 30fps, then Samsung are forced to do the same for the Exynos models even though the chipset is capable of 4K at 120fps
Didn't know this board had so many mind-reading legal experts on it.
I'm not a legal expert... My post was pure sarcasm!
Where was that court ? Cupertino? I call bs
Apple sued Qualcomm. Generally, a plaintiff files a civil lawsuit in the defendant's jurisdiction, and Qualcomm is based in Southern California.
I guess Apple's 50.6 billion dollars in revenue for the second quarter left them broke and unable to pay the same licensing fees as everyone else...
I think the argument is that they're not the same though.
Not 100% sure.
QC charges license fees based on value of device you incorporate its tech in. I personally find it an unfair pricing method.
This will go on for next 20 years before any decision is made. At that time, hopefully both will be irrelevant..
Not sure why Qualcomm would be irrelevant, unless the world as a whole abandons non 802.11 wireless tech.
WCDMA(UMTS), LTE, CDMA, 5G, GSM - They hold so many patents covering the actual communication tech, the only real way they would be obsolete is if the world deemed patents to be irrelevant.
Back when Qualcomm made Phones there was a competition for Cell phone network standards. Then Qualcomm capitalized on managing the tech rather than the actual phone hardware. Allowing them to make iDen and other competing telecommunication technology seem fruitless.
(No one seems to be competing in creating a new from the ground-up telecommunications protocol without utilizing Qualcomm patents)*
I view Qualcomm as the Private Sector version of Utility Providers like SRP/APS. (Where Electric company choice is not available and thus customers are cornered to a company and their 'supposed' fair-rates)
Holy **** they did make phones a long ass time ago.
Patents in the US expire after 20 years.
So yes, Qualcomm would be irrelevant (unless they continue to be granted relevant patents).
Any chance you're in Phoenix?
Good !!!
Well of course they did...
Judge must be an Apple fan. Jk. Poor Qualcomm.
The Civil Court System is a sham. Behind closed doors when filing lawsuits the trial lawyers request judges who they have previously had prior cases with because they know how they whose side they will agree with. Call it a conflict of interest, but they act stupid about it.
Poor Qualcomm, they deserve it...I'm not an apple fanboy. But this time go Apple
Yeah. I'm not a lawyer by any means, so I can't comment on the legality of Qualcomm's methods here, but they just feel crappy and unfair.