[MBCook]

Qualcomm agreed to only charge 50¢ per item (FRAND licensing) but is complaining Apple isn’t paying 20%. They’re violating an agreement.

In the App Store Apple offered a deal and sticks to it. You may not need like it but they’re doing exactly what they agreed to.

[newusertoday]

So why is apple suing in 2017? why didn't they sued in 2007 at time of launch of iphone? Issue is way more complex in this fight. 1. Qc has more than 130k patents,licensee gets blanket protection for all.(one can argue about bundling though) 2. Qc,ericcson,nokia and other patent holders have cross licensing agreements with each other.This is to avoid negotiating individual contracts with every patent holder in a standard.

[ballenf]

The article explicitly says Apple waited until they could get chips from another source, Intel. Their general counsel explicitly said they would have sued sooner, but were at Qualcomm's mercy and feared retaliation. Maybe that's revisionist history and seems unlikely to be so clearcut, but that's their story.

[tooltalk]

Intel Infineon has been around quite a while. Apple's lawsuit comes only after Apple as the article correctly notes conspired with Samsung to force the Korean regulators to go after Qualcomm. There are other backdrops, such as the SCOTUS's recent decision not to award damage on entire device willy-nilly (see Samsung vs Apple).

[MBCook]

‘Conspired’ to have regulators go after a patent monopolist for not following the terms they agreed to?

That’s not a conspiracy.

[tooltalk]

Hey, don't get mad at me, bro because Bloomberg thinks Apple a crook. That's Bloomberg's wording, not mine. The same article also mentions that JY Lee of Samsung is convicted of corruption in South Korea, having colluded with the previous administration. While there is no conclusive evidence that Samsung paid off KFTC regulators to go after Qualcomm, I wouldn't be too surprised it turns out they did -- my father used to work for the South Korean Intelligent Agency for almost two decades and these things do happen.

Apple is also known to influence and buy politicians to win favors -- see Obama's reversal of Samsung ITC in 2013. In America, this is called "lobbying" and is perfectly legit. It's also rumored that USFTC's lawsuit against Qualcomm was Obama's parting gift to Apple. It looked like Qualcomm's allies (aka, lobbyists) urged Trump to terminate FTC's complaint against Qualcom, but I guess we will have to see how far this administration will allow this to go on.

[MBCook]

Bloomberg is also the publication that claimed Apple had multiple standing ovations at the iPhone X launch event.

There were none. It was REALLY easy to check that. There was a video anyone can watch.

If they misuse it why jot either quote it (to make it clear it’s kind of dubious) or use a correct term?

[MikusR]

noun: conspiracy; a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

[MBCook]

How is it harmful or unlawful to sue someone for violation of a contract?

That’s why contract law exists.

[threeseed]

Talk about ignorance of history.

Apple in 2001 was posting losses and were an acquisition target. By 2007 they were just stabilising the company on the back of iPod but posting relatively small profits. It was the iPhone that propelled the company into being a huge, successful company we have today.

So why are they suing now ? Because they can afford to. They simply aren't the tiny, vulnerable company they were back in 2007 which Qualcomm could have crushed. And the world has changed such that phones are far more than just phones.

[dheelus]

Can you please point out where in the referenced article there is a mention of QCOM changing the terms of the deal? I seem to have missed it. Thanks.