Qualcomm seeks $31 million from Apple ($1.41 per iPhone with Intel radio chips) for 3 patent infringements in half the iPhones sold

[arlen holder]

The three patents involve...
1. Connecting quickly to the Internet after the phone is powered on
2. Sharing between the modem & processor while downloading apps
3. Graphic processing effect on battery life

Key facts:
o Half the iPhones sold between mid-2017 & autumn of 2018 are affected.
o That's due to half of iPhones during that period used the Intel chip.
o But Apple won't be liable for iPhones sold before the suit was filed.

References...
o Latest Qualcomm/Apple court battle begins today,
(ahead of next month┬ crucial case)
<https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/04/apple-qualcomm-court/>

o Qualcomm seeking $31 million in damages from Apple in latest patent suit
<https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/08/qualcomm-apple-damages/>

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 02:58:46 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> The three patents involve...
> 1. Connecting quickly to the Internet after the phone is powered on
> 2. Sharing between the modem & processor while downloading apps
> 3. Graphic processing effect on battery life

The jury on Friday ruled in favor of Qualcomm on all 3 infringements.
"A jury said Apple must pay Qualcomm the full $31 million it was
seeking in damages, or $1.41 per infringing iPhone. That's a paltry
sum for Apple... but the cash figure doesn't tell the whole story."
<https://www.cnet.com/news/4-takeaways-from-apple-and-qualcomms-big-patent-fight/>

The big show will be the April 15th main event.

[nospam]

In article <q6jq4d$q2l$1...@news.mixmin.net>, arlen holder

<ar...@arlen.com> wrote:

> The jury on Friday ruled in favor of Qualcomm on all 3 infringements.
> "A jury said Apple must pay Qualcomm the full $31 million it was
> seeking in damages, or $1.41 per infringing iPhone. That's a paltry
> sum for Apple... but the cash figure doesn't tell the whole story."

meanwhile, qualcomm owes apple $1b:
<https://seekingalpha.com/news/3443093-qualcomm-owes-apple-nearly-1b-reb
ate-payment>
U.S. Federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel has issued a preliminary ruling
that Qualcomm (NASDAQ:QCOM) owes Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) nearly $1B
in patent royalty rebate payments, though Qualcomm is unlikely to
write a check to Apple because of other developments.

[arlen holder]

On Sat, 16 Mar 2019 17:43:20 -0500, nospam wrote:

> meanwhile, qualcomm owes apple $1b:
> <https://seekingalpha.com/news/3443093-qualcomm-owes-apple-nearly-1b-reb
> ate-payment>
> U.S. Federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel has issued a preliminary ruling
> that Qualcomm (NASDAQ:QCOM) owes Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) nearly $1B
> in patent royalty rebate payments, though Qualcomm is unlikely to
> write a check to Apple because of other developments.

Hi nospam,

FACT + LOGIC.

I don't disagree that the $31 million is a spit in the bucket.
o But anyone with an _adult_ mind, can easily see Qualcomm owes NOTHING.

That you appear to _think_ Qualcomm is on the hook for that 1 billion
dollars only shows, yet again, that you very likely don't even _read_ (nor
do you even appear to comprehend) your own cites, nospam.

It's shocking, actually, that you don't appear to comprehend facts nospam.
o *Did you even _read_ the cite that you provided, nospam?*

Because if you did read it, you do NOT appear to have _comprehended_ it.
o Anyone with an _adult_ mind, can easily see Qualcomm owes NOTHING.

Let me explain for the adults, what is apparently going on, in simple
terms, where, in the end, Qualcomm ALREADY PAID the $1B!

While I'm _not_ a lawyer, I can understand basic facts, and form basic
adult logic, which concludes, easily, Qualcomm already paid Apple the
entire 1 billion dollars.

To back up that adult logical assertion, I will explain the basics of what
the scenario appears to be, based simply on reading the cite that nospam
provided (and only that cite, including its reference links).

Since my belief systems are not only based on facts, but my belief systems
are bolstered (and adjusted, as needed) by facts, I ask others for FACTS
and LOGI.

Based ONLY on the cite nospam provided, can ANYONE find fault with my logic
summarized below?

FACT:
Apparently the "mechanics" of the "rebate", appear to begin with
o Apple contracts with factories to build iPhones
o Those contract factories use Qualcomm's patented technology
o Those factories have to 1st pay Qualcomm for this technology
o Apple then 2nd reimburses the contract factory for that cost

Separately...
o Qualcomm & Apple struck a sort of "poison pill" deal
o Where Qualcomm pays Apple this 3rd rebate ... if ... if ... if....
o If Apple agreed not to attack Qualcomm in court or with regulators

Notice the "triple" rebate system results in a "zero sum" game of sorts
o 1st, the contract factories pay Qualcomm
o 2nd, Apple reimburses the contract factories
o 3rd, Qualcomm reimburses Apple

LOGIC:
Basically ,the money is held as a "hostage" for ransom of sorts.
o In this case, the "ransom clause" appears to have kicked in

According to Apple
o First, Qualcomm stopped paying that 3rd rebate to Apple
o Then Apple sued Qualcomm for that rebate.

According to Qualcomm
o Apple urged others to complain to regulators
o And Apple made false claims to Korean regulators
o Then Qualcomm stopped paying that 3rd rebate to Apple

In this case, the judge ruled for Apple.
o The court ruled that Apple didn't break the contract first
Hence, the court ruled that Qualcomm owes that 3rd rebate to Apple.

Of course, the "trial" is set for April 15th, so things can change.

For example, apparently
o The contract factories, which are _supposed_ to pay Qualcomm 1st
o Have _already_ withheld about 1B dollars in that 1st royalty anyway.

FACT + LOGIC.

IMHO, in effect, Qualcomm has _already_ paid that 1 billion dollars!
o Do you agree or disagree nospam on my assessment of _your_ cite?

--
I welcome ADULT LOGIC; so if anyone finds fault with the logic above,
please let me know as I'm never afraid of either fact or adult logic.

[arlen holder]

On Sun, 17 Mar 2019 04:52:13 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> IMHO, in effect, Qualcomm has _already_ paid that 1 billion dollars!

NOTE: This post contains Adult logic.

Since nospam loves to play silly semantic games, let me be clear that the 1
billion dollars that nospam is referring to, is ALREADY accounted for in
Qualcomm's financial statements.

That's a fact.

How we "assess" that fact can be argued in silly terms (which nospam loves
to play), where my adult logical assessment of the very cite that nospam
provided shows that, even if the final verdict is for Apple, the 1 billion
dollars is _already_ accounted for.

Hence, no money will change hands, as Apple already sucked that 1 billion
dollars out of Qualcomm, in effect.

In short, while nospam loves to play silly games, all I did was _read_ and
_comprehend_ what nospam's very cite actually said.

It appears that nospam is trying to "imply" that Qualcomm, if they lose,
will need to _pay_ Apple, but Apple has _already_ ensured that Qualcomm
already paid, in effect.

Hence, the interesting turn of events is that this what would happen, if
the court case results in a binary decision of "for Apple" or "for
Qualcomm".

1. If the court rules for Apple, then Qualcomm owes Apple nothing.
2. If the court rules for Qualcomm, then Apple likely owes the 1 billion
dollars!

I think it's funny that nospam doesn't appear to comprehend this fact
(at least based on the "way" nospam wrote his post, I infer that he
doesn't).

In short, it's ONLY APPLE that is at risk for this 1 billion dollars; not
Qualcomm.

NOTE: This post contains Adult logic.

[arlen holder]

UPDATE:

o Apple and Qualcomm drop all of their legal disputes
<https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/16/tech/qualcomm-apple-settle-legal-disputes/index.html>

Facts first; then logic.

What I find interesting is that I easily deduced that no matter how this
turned out, Qualcomm would NOT owe Apple any money (simply because I
comprehended the facts of the case when it came to the billion dollars).

Common morons, like nospam & Alan Baker, repeatedly said otherwise:
o But apologists _never_ seem to comprehend even the _simplest_ of facts.

In this case, it was exactly as I had surmised based on the facts:
"The settlement includes an unspecified payment from Apple
to chipmaker Qualcomm (QCOM)"

Yet again, the apologists prove to be utter morons.
o Qualcomm seeks $31 million from Apple ($1.41 per iPhone with Intel radio
chips) for 3 patent infringements in half the iPhones sold
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-u600QXp0Js/NEEUjpjjBwAJ>

o Apple ... and... Three Qualcomm Patents
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/s5oZlSmGBQAJ>

What I find common with the apologists are two fundamental traits:
o Apologists can't seem to comprehend even the simplest of facts
o Hence, Apologists almost always prove to own imaginary belief systems

They deny facts out of hand
o Why?

I don't know why but I suspect facts threaten their imaginary beliefs.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 02:58:46 -0000 (UTC), arlen holder wrote:

> o Qualcomm seeking $31 million in damages from Apple in latest patent suit
> <https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/08/qualcomm-apple-damages/>

As you know, all I care are about the facts.
o I can handle the complexity inherent in the math of a plus b plus c.

But most apologists appear to be unable to comprehend that simple math.

Notice that the facts aren't simple enough for apologists to comprehend:
o In that Qualcomm _rebates_ some of the costs they're claiming.

To see how much money Apple surrendered to Qualcomm, you just have to
comprehend the numbers.
o I apologize that the facts are too complex for apologists to comprehend

People like Alan Baker & nospam can't comprehend this rebate
o But I would expect all sentient adults to comprehend the math

a. Manufacturers pay Qualcomm
b. Apple re-imburses the manufacturers
c. Qualcomm rebates "some" of that money back to Apple.

The real question is what is the math:
a. Manufacturers paid about $12 to $20 per device
b. Presumably Apple reimbursed that entire amount
c. But how much did Qualcomm _rebate_ back to Apple, Steve?

I am now just getting to reading your supporting facts:
"UBS estimates that the terms of the new agreement show
an average royalty of between $8 and $9"
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/04/18/apple-payment-to-qualcomm-estimated-at-6-billion-with-9-per-iphone-sold-in-royalties>.

As you know, I'm aware of that cost, where I previously had "averaged" it
to $8.50 per device when I claimed that, as far as I knew from what I read
of what was reported in the media, Apple was paying 113% more in royalties,
so I'm very interested in how you arrived at Apple paying less.

Particularly since Apple's bargaining position sucked, by all accounts,
where your own reference above called Apple's pre-bargaining position a
"tough position" to be in.

So we can easily agree that Apple is paying about $8.50 per phone
o Adults don't waste time agreeing on obvious facts

Let's look at:
"Before Apple instructed them to stop paying,
contract manufacturers were paying Qualcomm 5% for every iPhone,
translating into $12 to $20 per device"
<https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/01/14/heres-how-much-apple-was-paying-qualcomm-in-royalt.aspx>

This article says Apple was paying Qualcomm a billion dollars a year.
o CNET reported it was $7.50 per device in royalties
o Apple wanted it to be $1.50 per device
o The contract Apple signed was based on the value of the entire device

Those are facts all adults but the apologists can agree on, right?

Moving on...
o Apple would _love_ a "direct license" to Apple - but that's not gonna happen

The way it works is what nospam & Alan Baker can't seem to comprehend, which is:
o Qualcomm licenses it's IP to the (4?) contract manufacturers
o Those (4?) contract manufacturers pay Qualcomm that royalty
o Apple then reimburses those contract manufacturers
o In addition, there's a _rebate_ that

Presumably those contract manufacturers have good lawyers and business
people, so they _signed_ this contract with Qualcomm (and with Apple).

Likewise, we know Apple has the best lawyers on the planet, and the best
business people, who _also_ signed this contract with Qualcomm.

Are those not all facts?
o I trust that all adults agree that these are basic obvious facts.

Now look at:
"Before Apple instructed them to stop paying, contract manufacturers
were paying Qualcomm 5% for every iPhone, translating into $12 to
$20 per device."

The next sentence gives us the _missing_ rebate amount:
"Qualcomm used to give Apple rebates that effectively reduced its
royalty burden. Those rebates brought the per-device royalty down
to $7.50."

So there is the old math right there, is it not?
a. Manufacturers paid about $12 to $20 per device
b. Presumably Apple reimbursed that entire amount
c. Qualcomm rebates Apple to an end result of about $7.50 per device

As you know, I'm all about facts & logic deduced from those facts.
o Some apologists claim Apple's royalites went _down_
o I had claimed the facts showed they went _up_

This appears to be the math:
o Apple was paying about $7.50 per device
o Apple is now paying about $8.50 per device

That sure sounds like _up_ to me.

[Arlen G. Holder]

> o But anyone with an _adult_ mind, can easily see Qualcomm owes NOTHING.

Notice that Apple Apologists like nospam don't own adult reasoning skills.
o These apologists are _still_ uncomprehensive of the basic math involved!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/O9xURAW0BwAJ>

And, these apologists repeatedly denied that Apple was "worried" about 5G!
o Clearly, the apologists almost completely lack adult reasoning skills

> That you appear to _think_ Qualcomm is on the hook for that 1 billion
> dollars only shows, yet again, that you very likely don't even _read_ (nor
> do you even appear to comprehend) your own cites, nospam.

While the apologists all have strong opinions based on _zero_ facts...
o Yet again, Apologists like Alan Baker don't _read_ the cites provided!
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/ZPEgFq7RBwAJ>

> It's shocking, actually, that you don't appear to comprehend facts nospam.
> o *Did you even _read_ the cite that you provided, nospam?*

And yet, the apologists form strong opinions, based on _zero_ actual facts!

The facts we know of are, and have been well cited by Steve:
<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU/-5gwTw-gDAAJ>

Apple was, by all accounts, in a _terrible_ bargaining position.
o Apple literally _surrendered_ to Qualcomm because they were _desperate_

What's odd is that the apologists own a child's mind
o They still think like a child waiting for Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny

The facts show, clearly, Apple _surrendered_ its money, to Qualcomm:
o Apple was paying about $7.50 per device to Qualcomm before
o Apple is now paying about $8.50 per device to Qualcomm now

On the $7 billion royalties in arrears according to Qualcomm as of October
2018, while apologists like nospam & Alan Baker actually appear to think
that Qualcomm owed Apple, it was clear to all reasonably logical sentient
adults that Apple owed Qualcomm many billions.
o Apple paid Qualcomm between 5 and 6 billion in royalty arrears

The facts show Apple literally was so _desperate_ for 5G technology that
Apple surrendered their money to Qualcomm, particularly after the
realization that Intel would never be able to put the iPhone back in the
performance market came to the fore.