You can't claim that without knowing how much Apple will pay to Qualcomm.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple and Qualcomm Reach Settlement, Agree to Drop All Litigation
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple never said they owed nothing to Qualcomm. They argued that what QC was asking was too much and unfair.
Apple didn't want to be the only major player to not have a 5G option by 2020. It will also be a great excuse to offer exciting new models at $999, $1199, and $1299, all 64GB. On the bright side, hopefully Apple will be running low on LCD screen inventory by then.
What a shocker... yet ANOTHER court case against a big company and supplier to Apple, Apple settled out of court with right before they got ripped apart in the court room..
Said it before, will say it again, this is nothing more then Apples business MO and it’s way to bring supplier costs down to the bare bone, but it seems to consistently lose? However I bet a million bucks they now have reduced costs to pay Qualcomm.
Perhaps they’ll use their modems again now?
Said it before, will say it again, this is nothing more then Apples business MO and it’s way to bring supplier costs down to the bare bone, but it seems to consistently lose? However I bet a million bucks they now have reduced costs to pay Qualcomm.
Perhaps they’ll use their modems again now?
Which for all we know could be nothing for the next 6 years with a 2 year extension for apple to drop the case.
Was not expecting Qualcomm to fold after only the first day of the trial.
Yes but because you are just making hypothesis based on what you want to believe.Make the hypothesis that Qualcomm offered Apple a better price, and suddenly it means Apple got what it wanted, the licensing deal makes sense because at a better price obviously they want to buy from them now, and in any case the option to extend is something that’s good for Apple not Qualcomm, it means that in 6 years they want to extend the deal Qualcomm can’t say no or ask to renegotiate.
My guess is both sides realized they need each other and came to some mutually agreeable settlement somewhere in the middle; which may have included price cuts instead of paying a rebate, etc., to make the books look good.
Your logic is completely flawed. Everyone agrees that Qualcomm had more to lose. You are implying that the side that has more to lose can't win. It does not make sense.
We can't really know who is the "winner" of the case. Of course, Apple would pay Qualcomm for their chipsets, this is nothing new. It was all about the amount of money (per device etc.). So, how some people here say "Apple caved" or "Qualcomm caved" if we don't know any details? Maybe I am not too smart...
I wonder if the licensing agreement includes Apple's modem plans. We know they want to build their own and are rumored to build their own. Call it the B1 or whatever when it comes out. B for baseband.
I settle a lot of my cases a day or two before trial, so a settlement is not surprising.
A settlement involving Apple specifically is somewhat surprising, because they seem to try almost anything.
A settlement involving Apple specifically is somewhat surprising, because they seem to try almost anything.
Do you think this was done on time to get Qualcomm modems into the 2019 iPhone?
That’s total BS because if you believe that, Apple would have continued with the court case..
You lot need to realise this is just Apples mo of how it does business. It’s sad and pathetic but I guess they get some sort of deal out of it? Seen this multiple times now.
What he is saying is the side that has more to lose will will offer the biggest gain or loss in market price, compared to the stable company.
What is so difficult to understand?
Probably not at this stage. I'm sure they're into engineering verification at this point. You never know though.
Read the article before commenting. The article says: "Apple says the settlement includes a payment from Apple to Qualcomm."
Oh, and BTW QCOM is already up more than 20%.
I’ve done so NUMEROUS times on these forums. Here we go again: (i have plenty more if you wish)
“For over 160 years, the doctrine of patent exhaustion has imposed a limit on that right to exclude. See Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 14 L.Ed. 532 (1853). The limit functions automatically: When a patentee chooses to sell an item, that product ‘is no longer within the limits of the monopoly’ and instead becomes the ‘private, individual property’ of the purchaser, with the rights and benefits that come along with ownership. Id., at 549-550. A patentee is free to set the price and negotiate contracts with purchasers, but may not, ‘by virtue of his patent, control the use or disposition’ of the product after ownership passes to the purchaser. United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241, 250, 62 S.Ct. 1088, 86 L.Ed. 1408 (1942) (emphasis added). The sale ‘terminates all patent rights to that item.’ Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617, 625, 128 S.Ct. 2109, 170 L.Ed.2d 996 (2008).” Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1523, 1531 (2017)
“The declared purpose of the patent law is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts by granting to the inventor a limited monopoly, the exercise of which will enable him to secure the financial rewards for his invention. Constitution of the United States, Art. I, § 8, Cl. 8; 35 U.S.C. §§ 31, 40. The full extent of the monopoly is the patentee's ‘exclusive right to make, use, and vend the invention or discovery.’ The patentee may surrender his monopoly in whole by the sale of his patent or in part by the sale of an article embodying the invention. His monopoly remains so long as he retains the ownership of the patented article. But sale of it exhausts the monopoly in that article and the patentee may not thereafter, by virtue of his patent, control the use or disposition of the article. Bloomer v. McQuewan, 14 How. 539, 549-50; Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall. 453; Hobbie v. Jennison, 149 U.S. 355. Hence the patentee cannot control the resale price of patented articles which he has sold, either by resort to an infringement suit, or, consistently with the Sherman Act (unless the Miller-Tydings Act applies), by stipulating for price maintenance by his vendees. Bauer & Cie v. O'Donnell, 229 U.S. 1; Boston Store v. American Graphophone Co., 246 U.S. 8; Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., 243 U.S. 490; Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436, 456-57, and cases cited.” United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241, 250 (1942)
“As the Court there explained, exhaustion was triggered by the sale of the lens blanks because their only reasonable and intended use was to practice the patent and because they ‘embodie[d] essential features of [the] patented invention.’ 316 U.S., at 249-251, 62 S.Ct. 1088. Each of those attributes is shared by the microprocessors and chipsets Intel sold to Quanta under the License Agreement.” Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, 128 S.Ct. 2109, 2119 (2008)
“The authorized sale of an article that substantially embodies a patent exhausts the patent holder's rights and prevents the patent holder from invoking patent law to control postsale use of the article. Here, LGE licensed Intel to practice any of its patents and to sell products practicing those patents. Intel's microprocessors and chipsets substantially embodied the LGE Patents because they had no reasonable noninfringing use and included all the inventive aspects of the patented methods. Nothing in the License Agreement limited Intel's ability to sell its products practicing the LGE Patents. Intel's authorized sale to Quanta thus took its products outside the scope of the patent monopoly, and as a result, LGE can no longer assert its patent rights against Quanta.” Quanta Computer v. LG Electronics, 128 S.Ct. 2109, 2122 (2008)
Payments can be deferred according to the terms of the agreement, you know to drop the lawsuit.
Yes because they had more to lose. Their company’s business model hinged on the trial.
Apples business model did not. They already have a supplier, intel, now they have another with Qualcomm.