Qualcomm Seeks To Halt US Import, Sales Of Apple iPhone

Not open for further replies.


Feb 16, 2007
I would be tempted to go with the defense of Qualcomm like this:
Apple might be our real competitor, with whom we actually have to compete and their loss is our gain, unlike the small fish that swim around us. This competitor we do not wish to aid, so, we are giving it our work and IP at higher price because if we must sell out our soul, it should provide more return, to compensate having to aid our direct competitor that we don't even like. Next time they should build the wheel all over again and hope to compete with our superior version, or go die in a fire.

This is my anti-apple stance speaking, since it brings the gut feeling that the system is being arranged so that you cannot even refuse collaboration with entities of direct competition. Maybe one should not be allowed to refuse service in the market. Maybe one should. But Apple definitively is one big litigation mess of a company, with whom if you don't collaborate in the submissive stance you get mistreated.

Joe Black

Jul 3, 2013
Well... Apple started it. If they want to sell stuff with other's people's patents in them then they should pay the royalties like everybody else.

Let's recap some of Apple's litigation victories...
Awarded $1Bn vs Samsung for patents on “bounce back” scrolling, pinch and zoom navigation and tap to zoom features. (not even actual hardware technology, but rather simply touch browsing methods)
Inport ban vs HTC w.r.t. functionality to embed phone numbers in such a way that users can tap and call (although this is literally the equivalent of a hyperlink that lets you initiate a call - simple formatting of text)
$120mil vs Samsung for Apple's patent on slide to unlock functionality.

So Apple has been winning lawsuits against competitors based on patents for simple input and formatting methods. Things a toddler can dream up (but apparently not use since Apple were awarded patents by some idiot), but they do not want to pay royalties on actual physical and driver level tech patents.

... methinks they need some of their own medicine. I'm only saying this because Apple's frivolous litigation has often irritated me.


May 10, 2012
They can't "allegedly" be doing something if they've agreed to a licensing deal for the product for years before stopping paying for it. That's plain theft.
It is indeed their choice not to pay for something, but then they're also required to not keep selling said product and stuffing their pockets with pure profits.
Samsung, for instance, is also aware of this patent problem in the US. They're dealing with it the legal way. Paying the full licence fee by selling compliant products in the US, while selling a different product everywhere else.
Apple is going to lose this one, big.

Boom. You can drop the mic. The irony is that many Apple MAC buyers are as such being in protest of Microsoft's business practices. But I will say this: most Apple owners I know, be it with iPhones or iPads, are not very tech savvy. They are the type who tend to lean towards easy access and use solutions.


Jun 8, 2007
So the worlds most filthy rich company with billions of cash sitting in the bank don't want to pay for licenece agreements they agreed to and signed? Sounds the a childish temper tantrum from the worlds biggest thieves! Apple you signed the agreement, pay the royalties renegotiate when the contract is up for renewal like a normal business. Apple = Worlds biggest corporate thieves and bustards!



I'm pretty sure I could say this about almost every person I know, regardless of their phone choice. Not everyone needs to be tech savvy. Some people just want to get things done, and technology is an enabler for them, not a hobby.
Not open for further replies.