|
|
|
|
|
|
by j16sdiz
1204 days ago
|
|
|
> Third, Apple's legal argument was always that Qualcomm's per-device (ie, final product) royalty basis licensing offer was not FRAND. Apple believes that the royalty should be based on the cost of Qualcomm's chips instead. But, of course, there is no legal basis or industry practice to support Apple's unfounded claim and, consequently, LOST EVERY lawsuit based on this claim for past 10+ years. Did you check FTC v Qualcomm antitrust case?
Can you stop your lies? |
|
|
Sure, isn't that the case Qualcomm reversed and won? Sure, most legal analysts had expected Apple's sweetheart judge Lucy Koh to hand a victory to FTC as it was no coincidence how the case ended up on her desk in the first place. This was however unanimously reversed due to its flawed constrution of Qualcomm's monopoly in premium LTE market and Judge Koh's expansive interpretation (in favor of Apple/FTC).
But wrt Apple's claim on royalty basis? Not so much.