Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Businesses Patents The Almighty Buck The Courts United States Apple

Apple's Eddy Cue To Be Deposed In Qualcomm Patent Battle ( 34

"Apple executive Eddy Cue will be questioned by Qualcomm's lawyers as part of a legal battle between the companies over billions of dollars in patents and licensing fees," reports Bloomberg. "On Friday, San Diego Federal Judge Mitchell D. Dembin ordered Cue to be deposed in the case, granting a Qualcomm request and turning down Apple's arguments against the move." From the report: At the heart of the standoff is a dispute over how much Qualcomm can charge phone makers to use its patents, whether or not they use its chips. The San Diego, California-based company gets the majority of profit from licensing technology that covers the fundamentals of modern mobile phone systems. Apple has cut off license payments to Qualcomm and filed an antitrust lawsuit that accused the chipmaker of trying to monopolize the industry. In November, Qualcomm filed a motion to depose Cue. Apple pushed back stating that Cue's role overseeing services made him unrelated to the case. Qualcomm cited past Apple statements pinpointing Cue as one of the lead negotiators when the iPhone launched in 2007 exclusively on AT&T's network in the U.S.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple's Eddy Cue To Be Deposed In Qualcomm Patent Battle

Comments Filter:
  • Judges generally don't like depositions as much as live testimony because you can't cross-examine a deposition. Why are they doing this instead of compelling him to testify? Does he have some health issue which makes it difficult for him to travel? Or....?

  • Leaving aside the initial confusion the capitalisation in the headline caused me (not helped by watching the snooker world championships while reading it), fundamental technology essential to the core functions of the device must be worth a couple of magnitudes more than something generic like rounded corners.

    There are going to be some very rich lawyers before this one plays out.

    • You're correct that these are fundamental technologies and that they're worth a lot, but this has to do with how those components became fundamental. Typically, no companies want to be in a position where they can only buy from a single supplier as they're at the mercy of that supplier and can easily get stuck if the overall ecosystem becomes a monoculture that won't let you use anything except for that technology.

      So what companies due is offer to license or sell their technology on terms where they typic
      • Is there any evidence Qualcomm made such a promise? Sounds more like a butt-hurt Apple trying to get out of paying prices the market bears. Apple isn't being forced to buy from Qualcomm. They decided many years ago to go down the path of being dependent on Qualcomm and it has earned them billions of dollars saving time and development. Now they don't want to pay their fair share.

      • Not merely more. Apple's contention is that Qualcomm is charging them twice called double dipping. There are two ways to license patents in chips: directly and indirectly. For example if you want to use ARM patents in a chip you can either negotiate with ARM for a license then approach a chip foundrey to make the chips (which many companies like Apple does) or you can buy chips from companies that have an ARM license (Samsung, TI, NVidia, etc). What Apple is claiming is that they bought chips from a company
    • Those are the cue's I look for when I see a large rock in a flowing river. Usually there's a Eddy on the other side of the Eddy Line.

      I did not know Eddy Cue was a monarch or the the forces of Qualcom sought to depose him.

I've finally learned what "upward compatible" means. It means we get to keep all our old mistakes. -- Dennie van Tassel