As the legal dispute between Apple and Qualcomm continues, Qualcomm this week has requested an injunction to force Apple's iPhone manufacturers to keep paying royalties during the legal battle (via Axios). Last week, Qualcomm sued four of Apple's suppliers -- Foxconn, Pegatron, Wistron, and Compal -- for "breaching their license agreements" by failing to pay royalties on the use of Qualcomm's technology in the assembly of Apple's devices.

Now, Qualcomm is trying to force the suppliers to continue to make royalty payments amid the legal scuffle with Apple. According to Qualcomm's general counsel, Don Rosenberg, the company believes that "it is only fair and equitable" that the suppliers pay for Qualcomm's licensed technology.

qualcomm logo

"We are confident that our contracts will be found valid and enforceable but in the interim it is only fair and equitable that our licensees pay for the property they are using," Qualcomm general counsel Don Rosenberg said in a statement to Axios.

In April, Apple decided to stop making royalty payments to its manufacturers in relation to Qualcomm technology, and said it would continue doing so until the conflict was resolved. Now, in an amended section of its earlier lawsuit, Qualcomm claims Apple has promised to compensate its suppliers for any monetary loss potentially faced during the lawsuit.

According to Qualcomm, this is a tactic enacted by Apple "to make litigation unbearable" and to force a settlement, because Qualcomm claims that Apple knows it would not win if the case eventually made it to court.

By withholding billions of dollars in royalties so long as Qualcomm defends itself against Apple's claims, Apple is hoping to make litigation unbearable for Qualcomm and, thereby, to extract through a forced settlement what it knows it cannot obtain through judicial process—a below-market direct license. Apple's tactics are egregious.

The lawsuit began with an FTC complaint regarding Qualcomm's anticompetitive patent licensing practices, for which Apple sued Qualcomm, accusing the company of charging unfair royalties for "technologies they have nothing to do with." The argument died down for a few months until Apple ceased royalty payments to its suppliers in April, which particularly hurt Qualcomm because the company's licensing deals are directly with iPhone suppliers and not Apple itself.

Top Rated Comments

wedouglas Avatar
51 months ago
No, it's pretty clear that just about everyone in the industry hates Qualcomm. The US FTC is suing them, Apple is suing them, even Samsung filed an amicus brief in support of Apple/FTC. Qualcomm demands royalty payments for the entire price of any device using their chips; they charge more for a $1000 iPhone 7 than for a $600 one, even though they use the same parts...does this seem fair to you? And of course it's the consumer who ends up paying more for the ludicrous royalties.
There is nothing at all unfair about a contract stipulating a percentage of the selling price as a royalty. Have you ever actually dealt with royalties? Every McDonalds franchise out there pays a royalty to McDonalds that is a percentage of gross sales. It doesn't matter how much you sell, you owe x% to McDonalds for the right to use their IP etc.

McDonalds corporate sets the price, not the franchise, and you will pay the same amount for your burger regardless of whether the franchise is paying McDonalds $100K/year in royalties or $500K/year in royalties.

On the flip side, this can also be beneficial to small manufacturers and lower-end consumers who want to have access to valuable IP in a more affordable product. Now someone buying a $200 phone can have the same technology in some respects as someone buying a $900 phone. That's great for consumers because luxury manufacturers are far less likely to pass savings on to consumers than low-end producers are to pass on cost.

Apple absolutely would not pass those savings onto the consumer. However, Samsung or Motorola might pass a new expense on to consumers. It's much easier for Apple not to lower the price than it is for a low cost phone to keep the price from going up.

At the end of the day, don't sign contracts you don't like. If Apple wants to pay less, then just lower the cost of the phone. Apple is not entitled to make a certain profit on their phone any more than Samsung or Motorola is.

Qualcomm says, "sell more phone for less money instead of less phones for more money, benefiting consumers, and we'll charge you less per phone." Sounds like a great deal for consumers. Apple doesn't want to operate on the strategy, so tough luck for them.
Score: 11 Votes (Like | Disagree)
jarman92 Avatar
51 months ago
Correction, you don't like them. As for the the rest, yawn.
No, it's pretty clear that just about everyone in the industry hates Qualcomm. The US FTC is suing them, Apple is suing them, even Samsung filed an amicus brief in support of Apple/FTC. Qualcomm demands royalty payments for the entire price of any device using their chips; they charge more for a $1000 iPhone 7 than for a $600 one, even though they use the same parts...does this seem fair to you? And of course it's the consumer who ends up paying more for the ludicrous royalties.
Score: 11 Votes (Like | Disagree)
kdarling Avatar
51 months ago
Although I was wondering why they were making payments like that. It's all very weird. I wonder if the contracts are contingent on Apple providing the funds though?
Qualcomm has had contracts with some of the iPhone factories starting years before the iPhone even existed. I think some as far back as 2002, and Foxconn since about 2005, IIRC.

Basically part of the cost of a phone is paying the royalties to various patent holders. Then the factory sells the completed phone to the brand name wholesaler/retailer (e.g. Apple). In this case, the royalty is on the price the factory sells the phone to Apple for, which is a LOT less than the huge profit markup they make later on.

Note that these contracts did not change when the factories started making iPhones. Nor does the contract change if any other modem is used. So no, Apple was not singled out for higher payments, nor were they prevented from using any modem they wished.

Then why aren't supplies paying QCOM directly? Why is Apple making the payments?
The factories are supposed to be paying QCOM directly. They always have. But Apple told the factories that they would no longer pay them for the QCOM part of the iPhone cost.

That leaves the factories in the lurch with millions of iPhones. They would rather give into Apple by selling them iPhones for less, and instead tell QCOM that they cannot pay the royalties.

The reality is that the factories should be suing Apple for breach of contract, but they're too scared to do so.

But this is a risky move for Apple...what's to stop Qualcomm from withholding their chips from Foxconn/Pegatron? Especially during the iPhone 8 ramp-up that would be devastating.
Apple is indeed lucky that most others do not play as nasty as they do.

Qualcomm demands royalty payments for the entire price of any device using their chips; they charge more for a $1000 iPhone 7 than for a $600 one, even though they use the same parts...does this seem fair to you? And of course it's the consumer who ends up paying more for the ludicrous royalties.
On the contrary, this pro-rated system is what allows for cheap phones which have led to more users, which leads to more network, which leads to more sales for the profit hungry high priced makers like Apple.

As for "fair", this is exactly how every other cellular patent license has worked for decades. Moreover, Apple itself loves charging by percentage of a sale:

Is it "fair" that every iPhone app developer pay Apple 30%, even though the cost of storing and serving each app is basically the same? Is it "fair" that Apple charge banks a percentage of every Apple Pay purchase, even though the same NFC hardware is used every time?
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
jarman92 Avatar
51 months ago
There is nothing at all unfair about a contract stipulating a percentage of the selling price as a royalty. Have you ever actually dealt with royalties? Every McDonalds franchise out there pays a royalty to McDonalds that is a percentage of gross sales. It doesn't matter how much you sell, you owe x% to McDonalds for the right to use their IP etc.

McDonalds corporate sets the price, not the franchise, and you will pay the same amount for your burger regardless of whether the franchise is paying McDonalds $100K/year in royalties or $500K/year in royalties.

On the flip side, this can also be beneficial to small manufacturers and lower-end consumers who want to have access to valuable IP in a more affordable product. Now someone buying a $200 phone can have the same technology in some respects as someone buying a $900 phone. That's great for consumers because luxury manufacturers are far less likely to pass savings on to consumers than low-end producers are to pass on cost.

Apple absolutely would not pass those savings onto the consumer. However, Samsung or Motorola might pass a new expense on to consumers. It's much easier for Apple not to lower the price than it is for a low cost phone to keep the price from going up.

At the end of the day, don't sign contracts you don't like. If Apple wants to pay less, then just lower the cost of the phone. Apple is not entitled to make a certain profit on their phone any more than Samsung or Motorola is.

Qualcomm says, "sell more phone for less money instead of less phones for more money, benefiting consumers, and we'll charge you less per phone." Sounds like a great deal for consumers. Apple doesn't want to operate on the strategy, so tough luck for them.
Except that's not how the law works. Companies don't get to charge whatever they want and say "if you don't like it, don't sign it." That's why FRAND exists. Qualcomm gets priveleged status for its patents in exchange for fair royalties. Instead, they are literally extorting tech companies: if you don't pay Qualcomm exactly what they want, you get nothing and they'll sue you if you remotely infringe on their patents. Further, if you DO use Qualcomm chips you owe them royalties for those chips AND for competitors chips, as well as the screen, battery, cameras, housing, antennas, etc. that Qualcomm had nothing to do with. The fact that you're defending Qualcomm here is just ludicrous.

Also your McDonalds example is not at all relevant.
[doublepost=1495733892][/doublepost]
Qualcomm has had contracts with some of the iPhone factories starting years before the iPhone even existed. I think some as far back as 2002, and Foxconn since about 2005, IIRC.

Basically part of the cost of a phone is paying the royalties to various patent holders. Then the factory sells the completed phone to the brand name wholesaler/retailer (e.g. Apple). In this case, the royalty is on the price the factory sells the phone to Apple for, which is a LOT less than the huge profit markup they make later on.

Note that these contracts did not change when the factories started making iPhones. Nor does the contract change if any other modem is used. So no, Apple was not singled out for higher payments, nor were they prevented from using any modem they wished.



The factories are supposed to be paying QCOM directly. They always have. But Apple told the factories that they would no longer pay them for the QCOM part of the iPhone cost.

That leaves the factories in the lurch with millions of iPhones. They would rather give into Apple by selling them iPhones for less, and instead tell QCOM that they cannot pay the royalties.

The reality is that the factories should be suing Apple for breach of contract, but they're too scared to do so.



Apple is indeed lucky that most others do not play as nasty as they do.



On the contrary, this pro-rated system is what allows for cheap phones which have led to more users, which leads to more network, which leads to more sales for the profit hungry high priced makers like Apple.

As for "fair", this is exactly how every other cellular patent license has worked for decades. Moreover, Apple itself loves charging by percentage of a sale:

Is it "fair" that every iPhone app developer pay Apple 30%, even though the cost of storing and serving each app is basically the same? Is it "fair" that Apple charge banks a percentage of every Apple Pay purchase, even though the same NFC hardware is used every time?
Yeah, it makes total sense that the company with a stranglehold on standards-essential wireless communication patents demanding exorbitant royalties from companies like Apple and Samsung leads to "cheap phones." Try to square that circle for all of us here and at the FTC as well, since they seem (correctly) to see Qualcomm's terms as extortion.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Mr. Skeleton Avatar
51 months ago
LOL! Qualcomm, who has quite an extensive portfolio of patents that are USED in Apple products and others, are evil. Meanwhile, Apple tries to get out of paying anything to everyone they can but this is OK? Typical thinking.
Qualcomm uses anti-competitive practices to force high prices and compliance. It's not to fuel costs for innovation, it's because they're evil. Nobody likes them. They need to go.
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Mr. Skeleton Avatar
51 months ago
Correction, you don't like them. As for the the rest, yawn.
Correction, you yawn, as for the rest - just look at any tech community android or Apple. Qualcomm sucks.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)

Top Stories

Top Stories 57 Feature

Top Stories: Apple Event Next Tuesday, Mini-LED iPad Pro, iPhone Rumors

Saturday April 17, 2021 6:00 am PDT by
It feels like we've been waiting forever for new Apple products, but the wait is almost over as Apple has announced a media event for next Tuesday, so make sure to tune into MacRumors for full coverage of everything Apple announces. While that was the big news this week, we also got some new details on Apple's iPhone plans for 2022 and 2023 courtesy of analyst Ming-Chi Kuo, and we also saw...
flat imac 3d 3 teal

Reliable Leaker Hints Redesigned Colorful iMac to Debut at 'Spring Loaded' Event

Saturday April 17, 2021 4:43 am PDT by
Reliable leaker known as l0vetodream has hinted that Apple may debut its rumored redesigned and colorful iMac at its "Spring Loaded" event on Tuesday, April 20. In a tweet, the leaker posted an image of Apple's logo used for marketing the upcoming event and an image of the retro rainbow Apple logo alongside the colorful lineup of G3 iMacs. Apple leaker Jon Prosser previously reported that...
duan rui iphone 12 13 notch

New Images Show Smaller iPhone 13 Notch Compared to iPhone 12

Saturday April 17, 2021 11:38 pm PDT by
Leaker known as "DuanRui" has shared more images that could give us our best look yet at Apple's redesigned notch for the iPhone 13. The new pictures follow similar images shared by the leaker last week, but the latest shots include a comparison with the existing iPhone 12 notch. DuanRui posted three images on Twitter that apparently originate from Weibo, although source details remain...
iPad Pro Feature Orange

Wedbush Analysts Say 'Spring Loaded' Event Will Debut New iPads With 'Modest Price Increase,' Along With 'a Few Surprises'

Monday April 19, 2021 6:37 am PDT by
Apple is planning to launch a new entry-level iPad, iPad mini, and iPad Pro at its "Spring Loaded" event tomorrow, along with "a few surprises," according to Wedbush analysts. In a new note to investors, seen by MacRumors, Wedbush analysts Daniel Ives and Strecker Backe explained that the iPad will be the main focus of Apple's "Spring Loaded" event, with new entry-level iPad, iPad mini, and ...
important battery message iphone 11

Some iPhone 11 Users Seeing Increased Battery Health Percentages After iOS 14.5 Recalibration Process

Friday April 16, 2021 6:32 am PDT by
In the sixth beta of iOS 14.5, Apple introduced a recalibration process for the battery health reporting system on the iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, and iPhone 11 Pro Max to address inaccurate battery health estimates for some users. Apple said this process might take a few weeks to be completed, and now that two weeks have passed since the sixth beta of iOS 14.5 was released, some users are...
third gen Apple pencil leaked video

Video of Alleged Third-Generation Apple Pencil Leaks Ahead of Apple Event

Friday April 16, 2021 6:13 am PDT by
A video purporting to be of the third-generation Apple Pencil has today been shared online, showing a glossy finish that mirrors previous leaks. New ✏️ ready to 🚢 #AppleEvent @TommyBo50387266 pic.twitter.com/s4RCDwDi5M— 漢尼斯·拉斯納 🇨🇳 (@ileakeer) April 16, 2021 The brief video from Twitter account @ileakeer, spotted by 9to5Mac, shows an Apple Pencil with a glossy finish much like the...
iPad Pro

New 12.9-Inch iPad Pro Will Be 0.5mm Thicker to Accommodate Mini-LED Display

Monday April 19, 2021 11:30 am PDT by
The upcoming 12.9-inch iPad Pro will be thicker than the previous-generation version, likely due to the inclusion of the mini-LED display. We've heard several rumors about the change in thickness, and now leaked design images have confirmed it. A source that designs accessories for Apple devices sent MacRumors a series of photos that feature exact dimensions for the new iPad Pro models, and...
parler app

Apple Approves Parler to Return to App Store

Monday April 19, 2021 7:51 am PDT by
Following the removal of the app in January, Apple will now allow the social media app Parler to return to the App Store following changes to how the social media network moderates content, CNN reports. On April 14, in a letter to Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Ken Buck obtained by CNN, Apple said that the app has improved the way it moderates content, and says those changes are "sufficient" for it...
iphone 12 120hz thumbnail feature

LTPO Displays Supporting 120Hz Refresh Rates Again Rumored for iPhone 13 Pro Models

Friday April 16, 2021 10:01 am PDT by
The two higher-end "iPhone 13 Pro" models that are coming in 2021 are expected to use LTPO display technology to enable 120Hz refresh rates, according to display analyst Ross Young. Young reaffirmed the detail in a tweet that said he'd heard rumors about only one model featuring LTPO, which he says is inaccurate. Heard some rumors in the industry and media that there would only be one ...
maxresdefault

Hands-On With Anker's MagSafe-Compatible Battery Pack

Thursday April 15, 2021 9:39 am PDT by
Anker, a company known for its range of accessories designed for Apple products, recently came out with one of the first MagSafe-compatible battery packs, so we thought we'd check it out to see how it compares to a standard battery pack. Subscribe to the MacRumors YouTube channel for more videos. Design wise, Anker's power bank looks like a typical battery pack, but it has magnets built in...