Re:What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple
by madeofpalk on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @09:45PM
(#14305330)
These are all FRAND patents that the dispute is over. In short, Apple is claiming that they aren't priced reasonably, which is a reasonable claim to make.
Why should Apple pay Qualcomm more for a radio in a 128GB iPhone than a 32GB iPhone?
Re:What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple
by gcb0 on Thursday May 11, 2017 @03:08AM
(#14314311)
because the royalties are proportional to the profit. since the patent claim is the profits wouldnt exist without the original work. it's just like tax works. a judge cannot declare that illegal without criticizing all of tax law.
Re:What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple
by heisenbit on Wednesday May 10, 2017 @03:35AM
(#14306499)
What is reasonable and non discriminatory is a question of interpretation.
At the heart is the argument that only part of the iPhone value is wireless and putting a tax on the whole is not reasonable. Imagine the iPhone software and chip embedded into a car. Would it be reasonable for the car manufacturer to pay the same percentage to Qualcomm as Apple? Where do you draw the line?
There is a huge amount of innovation in the iPhone: Mechanical engineering, materials, sensors, camera, screen and software. None have anything to do with Qualcomm.
The value Qualcomm adds is equivalent to a very fast portable, wireless hotspot. A great thing to have and worth paying for.
the article convenietly leaves out the pricing rules being disputed.
remember that there is already regulations for std patents to be priced reasonably and non discrimatory.
what apple is hunting here, is a discount. nothing else.