Let me get this straight... APPLE... is suing, for another company charging excessive royalties?!? Kettle calling the pot black much? That's rich given how much they overcharge for marginally updated devices that honestly aren't innovative or impressive anymore.
The company that sued Samsung for a billion bucks over a bounce effect in the photos gallery is feeling unfairly treated by another company wanting to get paid for actual, useful IP that costs billions to research and develop. The iRony is strong in this one....
To be fair, Apple doesn't get investigated for this by the govt. and they DON'T charge excessive royalties. What they charge for their produce ina market with a huge amount of competitors is not a monopoly. Now preventing others from succeeding by withholding money IS a problem.
We welcome the opportunity to have these meritless claims heard in court where we will be entitled to full discovery of Apple's practices and a robust examination of the merits.
It's sentences like that that make me very happy. I love when someone says "Fine, let's put all the cards on the table". It reminds me of when Nvidia promised to take Intel to court over unfair business practices and not to settle like AMD did. Well, we all know how that turned out, they settled. I bet Apple and Qualcomm settle too before any 'practices' are ever disclosed. It's all rather disappointing when you were expecting a cage match between tech giants and it instead turns out to be preschoolers kicking dirt at each other than shaking hands to make up.
It's weird they are bringing this case forward in San Diego. If anything it will help out Qualcom in any future case if it sides in Qualcom's favor. You are suppose to sue in a Texas court which has a better chance of siding with the plaintiff. San Diego usually sides with the defendant. On top of this it's a San Diego company verse a North California company.
Apple may have had a good chance at winning in another court. Apple may be protecting Qualcom through this case.
Apple sells a phone that costs them like $120 to make for ~$800, if anything qualcom is not charging them enough lol.
Hell a 128gb micro sd is ~$35 on newegg atm, to go from 32 to 128 gig in an iphone costs you $100. For nothing but pluggin in a different chip. That probably costs apple ~20(if not less), and they charge $100 for it.
I have no sympahty for them having to pay a few dollars(if its even that high) per phone to use some elses core enabling technology.
NOBODY here has sufficient knowledge to know if Apple's claims are baseless or not. That would probably be very difficult to figure out, though I doubt Apple would put this out there if there wasn't a strong claim.
Yes, some companies sue to mess with people's business but this doesn't feel like that.
And whatever you think of Apple pricing (as said elsewhere in the comments) that has nothing to do with the issue.
We DO want to prevent monopolies from bullying. If Apple does that, then hey let's get them in court too but that's a separate issue.
(and while I'm here... the new Macbook Pro that requires dongles... not even an HDMI output. WTF? People don't want sleekness to the point of unusability, plus adding those dongles creates a WORSE mess on the desk and MORE compatibility headaches. Heck, the NETWORK got disabled just trying to capture a video input... sigh!)
I Qualcomm in not the only manufacture of chips that do the job and the others are charging less for their chips, wouldn't it make more sense to buy from the others? They must be staying with Qualcomm because their chips are worth the price. You can't sue just because you don't like the price.
If Qualcomm in not the only manufacture of chips that do the job and the others are charging less for their chips, wouldn't it make more sense to buy from the others? They must be staying with Qualcomm because their chips are worth the price. You can't sue just because you don't like the price.
"You can't sue just because you don't like the price." Also, Apple had signed agreements. You don't sue just because your past negotiators weren't up to the task. Or maybe you do. This is the corporate equivalent of refusing to pay the housepainter because you don't like the colour you choose.