[tooltalk]

>>No, that's exactly what Qualcomm demanded. The fact that they have changed their demands over time after various court losses does not change the past.

Sure, that's a fig of your imagination. You simply don't know how Qualcomm's, or the industry's, licensing model works. I also suspect that you didn't even bother to read the court case you cited, the Motorola case.

Let me just say again for one last time: Apple lost or settled every lawsuit involving wireless patent royalty basis claim. If Apple ever prevailed in one case cracking the industry's per-device royalty-basis model, they wouldn't have bought Intel's failing wireless business out of desperation after losing the last legal battle with Qualcomm in 2019, which Apple settled just one day after the trial started.

[GeekyBear]

Let's just admit it. Now that the cellular industry in the States has transitioned past 3G, Qualcomm no longer has patents that are required for compatibility, but are not bound by commitments to license under FRAND terms.

The Google/Motorola/Microsoft case (and associated FTC order) shows that Qualcomm will not be able to pull the same price gouging shenanigans with patents that are encumbered by requirements to license under FRAND terms.

The standards essential 4G/5G patents are all encumbered by requirements to license to all comers on FRAND terms.

Which means Qualcomm is severely overvalued now that anyone with the means will be able to develop their own modems without anticompetitive interference. How long until Samsung starts selling their own in-house modem to others?

[tooltalk]

>> The Google/Motorola/Microsoft case (and associated FTC order) shows that Qualcomm will not be able to pull the same price gouging shenanigans with patents that are encumbered by requirements to license under FRAND terms.

sigh. Again you are throwing around court cases that don't support Apple or your claim. The Motorola case isn't nearly "associated" in anyway to the FTC case. Further, the FTC case was reversed in an unanimous decision -- due to its flawed construction of Qualcomm's monopoly in premium LTE segment and Apple's sweetheart judge Lucy Koh's overly expansive intrepretation of the antitrust law. The FTC's case is all, but dead and there would be no further legal challenge -- no SCOTUS justice is going to put up with a deceptive kabuki threater concocted by Apple and their Democratic operatives at FTC.

>> The standards essential 4G/5G patents are all encumbered by requirements to license to all comers on FRAND terms.

Qualcomm's licensing terms are FRAND -- just because Tim Apple doesn't like it doesn't mean that it's not FRAND. It's not about Tim Apple's feeling or Apple's margin, but rather about reasonable, acceptable industry licensing practices.

[GeekyBear]

If you can't be bothered to stick to factual arguments, I really can't be bothered to care about your opinions.

[tooltalk]

Sure, just b/c you haven't actually read anything you cited, simply don't understand how licensing/indusry works, doesn't mean that my arguements aren't factual. Thank you for playing.