Qualcomm Wants Apple to Pay $31 Million in Damages in Patent Battle

Qualcomm today told a San Diego jury that it wants Apple to pay $31 million in damages for patent infringement violations, which is allegedly equivalent to $1.40 per infringing iPhone.

The new information comes from CNET, which has been covering the Qualcomm vs. Apple patent trial that's in court this week.


$1.40 per ‌iPhone‌ and a total of $31 million in damages suggests that Qualcomm believes only 22 million iPhones are infringing on its technology. Qualcomm came up with that total with the help of economist Patrick Kennedy, who took the stand as an expert witness for Qualcomm today. Kennedy calculated the figure based on iPhones sold from July 2017 on that used chips by Intel. Apple started using a mix of chips from both Intel and Qualcomm in the ‌iPhone‌ 7, and later transitioned to all Intel chips due to the legal troubles with Qualcomm.

Qualcomm and Apple are fighting over three patents that Qualcomm says Apple infringed on with its iPhones. As CNET describes, one of the patents covers a method for allowing a smartphone to quickly connect to the internet once turned on, while another covers graphics processing and battery life. The third patent Apple is accused of violating allows apps to download data more easily by directing traffic between the apps processor and modem.

Apple just last quarter earned more than $20 billion in profit, so $31 million in damages wouldn't be a hit to the company's bottom line. If Qualcomm wins the trial, though, its claim that its technology is at the "heart of every ‌iPhone‌" would be more credible.

Apple and Qualcomm have been fighting since January 2017, when Apple sued Qualcomm for $1 billion in unpaid royalty fees. Qualcomm countersued, and since then, the two companies have levied multiple lawsuits against one another. Two of Qualcomm's lawsuits have resulted in import bans in Germany and China, both of which Apple was able to skirt with hardware and software updates.

The current patent trial between Apple and Qualcomm will last through next week.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)
Avatar
17 months ago
Oh Qualcomm, you're really setting yourself up for disaster. Do you know why Apple is opening a tech campus here in San Diego with 1,200+ employees? It's so they can poach your best and brightest away from you.
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Avatar
17 months ago
I like to imagine the collective sigh of MacRumors' writers whenever more news of patent litigation comes in. Then they all gather around and draw straws to see who has to type it up.


Did… did I just write and animate MacRumors fan fiction? :eek:

And, yes, that's Tim Hardwick, [USER=949502]@earthTOmitchel[/USER], and [USER=771561]@jclo[/USER] all on [USER=696996]@Joe Rossignol[/USER]'s body. I got lazy.

Score: 8 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Avatar
17 months ago

I would say PAY and move on. Indeed lawyers are probably more expensive. These court actions will go at the expense of going forward.

I'd be inclined to pay too. But it would create legal precedents. That's all Apple would be worried about.
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Avatar
17 months ago

You guys are missing the big picture here in all of this. A few have tried to point it out, the 31 million is nothing, yes, we all know that. It’s what it means for them if they roll over on this and accept that. Sets a precedent for the rest of their ongoing battles going forward with Qualcomm

Nobody missed it. That got pointed out in several posts already.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Avatar
17 months ago

Doesn't make sense to me. If Apple used Intel chips, and it's the chips that violate the patent, then shouldn't they be suing Intel?

Intel could, existing contractual commitments to Intel aside, sue Intel for infringement. In theory it could also sue users of infringing iPhones. If the iPhones infringe the patents in question, and no license has been granted (to, e.g., Intel or Apple), then users of those iPhones are infringing those patents as well. Qualcomm, of course, isn't going to sue iPhone users.

But Qualcomm doesn't want to sue Intel either because, among other reasons, it wants to be able to collect royalties based on the value of end devices rather than, e.g., on the value of chips. A reasonable royalty rate applied to the value of chips would net Qualcomm far less than it's been forcing device makers to pay. It's desperately trying to cling to a model that no longer makes sense and which, likely, is already effectively lost.

Here's the long and short of the business model Qualcomm has been trying to hold onto. There was a time when it perhaps made sense to base cellular technology licensing on the value of the devices which used it. The cellular technology is what those devices were. There wasn't much else noteworthy to them. They were pieces of plastic with buttons, crude displays, microphones, speakers, etcetera - mostly basic stuff that had been around forever. Cell phones were, fundamentally, the cellular technology inside of them. There wasn't much else interesting or useful about them, and the other aspects of them were there to make use of the cellular technology.

That changed over time, but fairly quickly after - and in part due to - the iPhone. The smartphone consumed the cellular technology which it made use of. The cellular technology became just one aspect of what a modern phone was. There were now many other interesting - and technologically advanced - parts to a phone. Hoping to cash in on the increased value and role of smartphones, and seeking to prevent the loss of the revenue which had rightfully for a time come from the proliferation of basic cell phones, some industry participants - to include Qualcomm - tried hard to hold onto the device-level royalty base model which had made sense before but which now really didn't. Simply put, modems were now just parts of phones rather than, meaningfully, what phones were.

Those industry participants used a number of tactics to try to hold onto the outdated model. Things moved so quickly that existing contracts served the purpose to some extent. But Qualcomm at least did a number of other things (which have been discussed at length elsewhere) to force industry participants to continue to agree to the outdated model. At the same time, some industry participants likely went along happily. Those making inexpensive smartphones benefited from the model, as did the cellular licensors - at least those like Qualcomm with the leverage needed to impose higher (actual as opposed to published) royalty rates. But continuing with the outdated model wasn't the choice of some industry participants. They went along because they had to.

Being able to extend the model a little longer, Qualcomm could then point and say - look, this is industry standard practice (at least when it came to the royalty base aspect). It was industry standard not because it still made sense, but because it once made sense with a very different class of products which - rather than being displaced by - quickly evolved into a new class of products. And it was industry standard in part because Qualcomm was in a position - thanks in part to its improper tactics - to unilaterally impose it.

Anyway... Qualcomm is suing Apple rather than Intel because it still wants to hold onto device-level royalty bases.
[doublepost=1552223927][/doublepost]

Aside from the scale and scope of the rocks that each company is throwing at each other is this: Apple is legendary for really putting the screws to its suppliers, often unfairly. That's what leverage will do. In this case, they don't have that kind of leverage.

In this case, it was a matter of Qualcomm putting the screws to an entire industry - and using illegal and contract-violative tactics to do so. Apple isn't the only industry participant that believes Qualcomm's behavior has been improper. And, of course, a number of regulatory bodies have concluded the same.

It was Qualcomm which had the leverage, and it wielded that leverage, arguably illegally, to great effect. Qualcomm's leverage has, for a number of reasons, been greatly reduced though. Now it's, e.g., Apple which has the leverage. That's what this suit is about. It's Qualcomm desperately seeking any bit of leverage it can find in hopes of eventually being able to negotiate slightly better terms.
[doublepost=1552224067][/doublepost]

What you just stated is the reason the FTC brought a suit against Qualcomm for anti-competitive practices. The reason these fees are being assessed against the Intel phones is because Qualcomm's policy has been that you can't license their patents unless you buy their hardware. Since Apple was still using Qualcomm's licensed technologies with phones that they weren't paying Qualcomm to put chips in, they feel entitled to extra money to offset the "loss" in profits by not being the chipset provider for those devices.

Legally speaking, the practice of tie-in purchases is monopolistic which is forbidden by anti-trust laws in the US. Hence the FTC's suit. I find it interesting, therefore, that they are so boldly asserting a right to EXTRA royalties on these Intel devices. To me, this is a flagrant admission of serious anti-competitive practices and I am starting to side more and more with Apple.

To be clear, the FTC and other parties allege the reverse: That Qualcomm wouldn't sell someone chips - to include chips it effectively had a monopoly on - unless they agreed to Qualcomm's licensing terms (and not just with regard to the chips they bought from Qualcomm).
[doublepost=1552224393][/doublepost]

For Pete's sake Apple, pay Qualcomm and get some decent modems back in your damn phones! It's a pittance for you and I'm paying $1000 per phone for a vastly inferior setup from Intel. My Verizon iPhone 6 with had better reception than my iPhone Xs. This is going to magnified when you move to 5G and Qualcomm is the international leader

That's cheap compared to losing customers due to inferior Intel radios.

It's unfortunate that, e.g., Intel was behind Qualcomm with regard to certain kinds of modems. But that was in part due to the illegal and/or contract-violative tactics Qualcomm had employed. Qualcomm was intentionally stifling competition. At some point, parties with the power to do so needed to step up and try to disrupt Qualcomm's stranglehold on the industry.

Apple, among others, did that. It meant taking some pain in the short-term. It was going to take a while to get certain Intel chips to be competitive with certain Qualcomm chips. But there was no way around that, other than to continue to let Qualcomm do what it had been doing - while the industry in general, and chip competition in particular, suffered. Going forward chip competition, and the industry in general, should benefit.

Also, as others have pointed out... Apple paying Qualcomm $31 million wouldn't resolve the broader dispute between Apple and Qualcomm. This case is just a bit of a sideshow. It was filed at the same time as an ITC action, and as part of Qualcomm's attempts to find some leverage against Apple when it comes to negotiating a resolution of the broader dispute. But of the two cases - this district court case and the ITC case - the ITC case was likely the more important. If Qualcomm could have somehow gotten an exclusion order from the ITC (which it could, in theory, still get), that might have mattered some. This district court case is more about getting a win that Qualcomm could publicly point to - see, Apple is infringing our patents. The money doesn't much matter.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Avatar
17 months ago
Seems tiny by Apple standards. Probably less than court fees for this endless case.
Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)

Top Stories

5.4-Inch iPhone 12 Model Size Compared to Original iPhone SE and iPhone 7

Saturday July 4, 2020 9:44 pm PDT by
iPhone 12 dummy models based on leaked schematics have been starting to circulate online and in online marketplaces. Not happy with the circulating size comparisons between the rumored 5.4" iPhone 12 and the original iPhone SE models, MacRumors forum user iZac took matters into his own hands and purchased his own 5.4" dummy model to provide more detailed size comparisons between the original...

Top Stories: iPhone 12 Rumors, Apple's A12Z-Based Mac mini, Leaked iMac, and More!

Saturday July 4, 2020 6:00 am PDT by
With WWDC now behind us, our attention this week largely turned back to rumors, led by increasing claims that Apple controversially won't be including a power adapter in the box with the iPhone 12. We also saw a few other iPhone 12 rumors, signs of an upcoming iMac update, and some more information on timing of updates for Apple's smaller iPads. The other big topic this week was Apple's...

Apple Survey Asks iPhone Users What They Do With Old Power Adapters

Friday July 3, 2020 10:13 am PDT by
Amid multiple reports that Apple will no longer include a power adapter in its iPhone boxes starting with the iPhone 12 later this year, it appears Apple is surveying recent iPhone buyers to ask about what they've done with the power adapters that came with their previous iPhones. Screenshot via Twitter user @bedabb_ Apple's surveys typically cover numerous aspects of its products, but...

Tom Hanks Discusses 'Heartbreaking' Shift of WWII Film Greyhound From Theatrical Blockbuster to Apple TV+ Exclusive

Monday July 6, 2020 7:53 am PDT by
Tom Hanks' WWII drama "Greyhound" is set to premiere on Apple TV+ this Friday, July 10, and ahead of that debut the actor gave an interview with The Guardian discussing the film. "Greyhound" was originally planned to see a theatrical release this summer, and was repeatedly delayed in the wake of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Apple won the streaming rights to the film, and in the new...

Shipping Estimates for 27-Inch iMac Continue to Slip, Now Into September

Monday July 6, 2020 6:55 am PDT by
Amid rumors and hints of a forthcoming update for the iMac, supplies of Apple's current 27-inch iMac continue to dwindle with mid- and high-end stock configurations now seeing shipping estimates pushed back into September. The 27-inch iMac has seen tight supplies and extended shipping estimates for months now, but the situation has been gradually worsening to the point where new buyers can...

Apple Officially Obsoletes First MacBook Pro With a Retina Display

Wednesday July 1, 2020 3:40 am PDT by
As expected, Apple's first MacBook Pro with a Retina display is now officially classed as "obsolete" worldwide, just over eight years after its release. In a support document, Apple notes that obsolete products are no longer eligible for hardware service, with "no exceptions." This means that any mid-2012 Retina MacBook Pro 15-inch models still out there that require a battery or other...

First Arm-Based Macs to Be 13-Inch MacBook Pro and Redesigned iMac, Launches Coming in Late 2020 or Early 2021

Sunday June 21, 2020 9:18 am PDT by
Apple plans to introduce its Arm-based custom designed chips for Macs at WWDC, Apple analyst Ming-Chi Kuo said in a note to investors today, agreeing with an earlier report from Bloomberg. Kuo says that the first Mac models to adopt Arm-based chips will be the 13.3-inch MacBook Pro and an iMac with a redesigned form factor, with Apple planning to launch the new models in the in fourth...

Hands On With iPhone 12 Models Showing New Sizes and Design

Monday July 6, 2020 2:04 pm PDT by
Ahead of the launch of new iPhones we often see dummy models created based on leaked schematics and specifications, with those models designed to let case makers create cases for the new devices ahead of their release. We got our hands on a set of dummy models that represent the iPhone 12 lineup, giving us our first close look at the iPhone 4-style design and the different size options. Subscri ...

EU Advertisers Criticize New App Tracking Privacy Controls in iOS 14

Friday July 3, 2020 3:44 am PDT by
A Google-backed group of European digital advertising associations has criticized Apple for requiring apps in iOS 14 to seek additional permission from users before tracking them across other apps and websites, reports Reuters. Sixteen marketing associations, some of which are backed by Facebook and Alphabet's Google, faulted Apple for not adhering to an ad-industry system for seeking user...

LinkedIn Says iOS App Reading Clipboard With Every Keystroke is a Bug, Fix Coming

Friday July 3, 2020 1:08 pm PDT by
iOS 14 introduces a feature that alerts users when apps access their clipboards, and tons of apps have been caught clipboard snooping. LinkedIn is one of the iOS apps that has been reading user clipboards, and iPhone owners have complained that the app copies the contents of the clipboard with every keystroke. LinkedIn is copying the contents of my clipboard every keystroke. IOS 14 allows ...