Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses China The Courts Apple

Apple Expands Qualcomm Legal Spat To China (cnet.com) 44

Posted by msmash from the no-mercy dept.
Apple's legal battle with Qualcomm has gone international. From a report: The iPhone maker on Wednesday filed two lawsuits against Qualcomm in China, according to Reuters, which cited a press release from Beijing's Intellectual Property Court. The first alleges that Qualcomm "abused its clout in the chip industry," a violation of China's anti-monopoly law. Apple seeks 1 billion yuan ($145.32 million) in damages, Reuters said. The second accuses Qualcomm of not making its cellular standard essential patents available broadly and cheaply. It asks the court to determine the terms of a patent license between Qualcomm and Apple.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Expands Qualcomm Legal Spat To China More

Apple Expands Qualcomm Legal Spat To China

Comments Filter:
  • Chinese law requires outside businesses to have partners owning 50% of any local ventures. They made an exception in Apple's case. They can pull that exception damn fast and Apple can find itself losing half of all assets (and profits) from Chinese operations.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Qualcomm is a US owned company and isn't a particularly close friends to smartphone vendors (like chinese ones) who use their chips. They make pretty much the only high-end smartphone SoCs that are on par with Apple and Samsung's flagship devices. (Apple and Samsung design their own)

      And they charge a lot of money because they know they've got a good chunk of the market cornered. If you've got a mid-to-high end Android device that's not Samsung it's powered by A Qualcomm SoC. - And they charged your device m

  • Don't worry. Trump will set China straight using twitter.

  • its not just about them.

    "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" is not equivalent to "cheap". Just because its part of a standard it doesn't mean they don't deserve to get a reasonable payment for licensing the patents.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Apple doesn't agree that it should be a percentage of the device's price. They seem cheap phones with the same tech in them paying say $0.20 and Apple paying $5.00 for that same thing because the iPhone is more expensive than some cheap feature phone (the tech they are talking about is LTE or the like). I actually agree a bit with Apple (for once). Why would that same tech cost different amounts when the same chip is being used?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by vux984 ( 928602 )

        Why would that same tech cost different amounts when the same chip is being used?

        Why would I charge a school production a different amount to use a photo than i would a hollywood blockbuster movie?

        Same reason.

        This sort of licensing is REALLY common in patent licensing, especially FRAND patent licensing. It allows for all kinds of niceties -- small players with inexpensive products can afford the patents. Hobbyists who are giving away the product for free can afford the patents. And Apple with a piggy bank heading towards a trillion dollars can afford the patents.

        The more you profit from

    • Nowhere in the constitution does the phrase "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" appear wrt patents. To the contrary, it's all about exclusivity, baby. When the constitution was written, the pace of change wasn't as rapid as it was today, so a couple of decades of exclusivity was no big deal - now a couple of decades is all the time before the original invention is rendered totally obsolete anyway.

      If the licensing fees are too high, create an alternative - that's how it works everywhere. Steak costs

      • FRAND (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        FRAND. Look it up, and then sit quietly in the "I don't know what I'm talking about" corner.

      • Nowhere in the constitution does the phrase "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" appear wrt patents. To the contrary, it's all about exclusivity, baby. When the constitution was written, the pace of change wasn't as rapid as it was today, so a couple of decades of exclusivity was no big deal - now a couple of decades is all the time before the original invention is rendered totally obsolete anyway.

        If the licensing fees are too high, create an alternative - that's how it works everywhere. Steak costs too much? Substitute chicken. Chicken costs too much? Substitute "processed food-like stuff."

        It's OK to be clueless, but don't flaunt it on Slashdot.

        FRAND certainly does appear wrt patents in the IP license pool agreements of many standards bodies.

        • It may appear in agreements, but those are VOLUNTARY patent pools - NOT obligations imposed by law. Go suck Fabien Mueller's cock some more, troll.

          • They are the condition of entry to the patent licensing pool for 3GPP, LTE, IEEE802 and many others. Anyone making cell phone silicon is a party to those agreements.

            • So what? Those are for people who buy a license from the pool. There is NOTHING to stop a member of the patent pool to also license their patents outside the pool under their own terms and conditions - there is no exclusivity.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sjames ( 1099 )

        True, but Qualcomm agreed to FRAND when their patented technology was incorporated into the LTE standards. If you want your phone to actually be able to talk to the cellular network, you MUST licence Qualcomms tech.

        • Or you can try to invalidate the patent under the "mis a scene" doctrine. Just that manufacturers are too chickenshit to risk losing if they try. Cheaper to pay. Plus, "fair and reasonable" does NOT necessarily mean "the same price."

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sjames ( 1099 )

            A multi-million dollar spin on the roulette wheel that costs more than just paying? I wonder why that wouldn't be the first choice?

          • Plus, "fair and reasonable" does NOT necessarily mean "the same price."

            Hey, you are right for a change. Of course you have to leave out the "Non Discriminatory" part to be right, which means you have to be dishonest to be right. Yeah, sounds like you.

      • Nowhere in the constitution does the phrase "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" appear wrt patents.

        So your claim is that standards are unconstitutional, because they aren't mentioned anywhere in the constitution.

        • No, what I'm saying is that there's no law requiring FRAND - it's an agreement between private businesses.

          • No, what I'm saying is that there's no law requiring FRAND - it's an agreement between private businesses.

            So your claim is that since there is no law, these private businesses don't have to follow those agreements. Hint: look up contract law.

            • The definition of "fair" does not necessarily mean "the same price for everyone." Qualcom can easily make the argument that it's fair to charge a higher price on higher-margin items, since their chips allow Apple to make that money in the first place. So, fair can also be "a fixed percentage of the sale price per unit, irrespective of manufacturer."

              • The definition of "fair" does not necessarily mean "the same price for everyone."

                Quit talking about "fair" and look up the definition of "non discriminatory" before you look even dumber than usual.

                • "Non discriminatory" doesn't mean what you think it means either. There are plenty of ways to charge different rates that can be deemed "non discriminatory." For a more familiar example, look at affirmative action - that's the definition of discriminatory, and yet it's not considered discriminatory.

                  • "Non discriminatory" doesn't mean what you think it means either. There are plenty of ways to charge different rates that can be deemed "non discriminatory." For a more familiar example, look at affirmative action - that's the definition of discriminatory, and yet it's not considered discriminatory.

                    Why don 't you explain to me in no less than a thousand words? Failure to do so means you admit you are wrong.

                    Or you could look up the fucking word already.

                    • So I give you an example that contradicts your "point", and instead of addressing it, you post more bullshit? You got Trumpitis or something?

                    • So I give you an example that contradicts your "point", and instead of addressing it, you post more bullshit? You got Trumpitis or something?

                      We are still talking about patents - you are the one trumping the discussion by changing the topic.

                    • You made it about the definition of the word "fair". Fair has more than one meaning, even in legal agreements.

                    • You made it about the definition of the word "fair".

                      Stop lying, you stupid fucking bitch. You keep bringing up "fair", while I have been talking about "non discriminatory" - because you keep pretending that in "FRAND" "ND" has no meaning whatsoever (heck I can quote several of your posts where you declare that FRAND stands for "fair and reasonable.", nothing else) - because how else could you argue that FRAND patent deals don't have to be "non discriminatory".

                      I repeat: Stop lying, bitch. EOD

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close