Patent wars have always been the most common means of competition for all technology companies. Recently, the patent battle between Qualcomm and Apple has been unmatched. Many people are familiar with Apple, no need to say anything. For Qualcomm, we can simply say that it is not only one of the world's largest mobile chip manufacturers, but also has a large number of mobile phone underlying technology patents, so every production of a smart phone can be considered as the company's profit. Even if the chips in between are from other companies.
However, just in January of this year, Apple sued for Qualcomm's unreasonable calculation of the patent fee base. Subsequently, in April this year, due to Apple’s “re-additionâ€, the company refused to pay the relevant patent fees before the dispute was resolved, and refused to continue to pay the license fee to its foundry manufacturer. And there is news that Apple is suspected of inciting OEMs to stop paying patent license fees.
Due to Apple's behavior, Qualcomm counterclaimed Apple and its four major foundries. To be explained here, since Qualcomm's license agreement for iPhone and iPad is not directly signed with Apple, but signed with the manufacturer who produces these devices, it cannot directly sue Apple for refusing to pay royalties. But in essence, this lawsuit is directed at Apple.
For the general public, netizens who stand on the perspective of Apple believe that Qualcomm charges too much and the standards are open to question. The friend who stands on the Qualcomm point of view believes that the patent is a patent. If you don't agree, don't use it. If you use it, you have to pay. In short, whether it is Qualcomm or Apple, or the supporters of all parties are the same word. But in terms of personal emotional factors, respecting patents is to respect the future of the industry and to defend innovation. As Qualcomm said, without Qualcomm's patents, Apple could not create many successful products and many amazing product features. This time, Qualcomm finally countered, not for others, just for the patenter's dignity is also worthy of respect.
The patent war between Apple and Qualcomm is the battle to determine the survival of innovation.
In the past few months, the battle between technology giant Apple and Qualcomm on patent licensing fees and the future of intellectual property rights has intensified. As everyone knows, this conflict is largely due to Apple's desire to evade licensing fees for Qualcomm's patented technology used for its products. (It is necessary to clarify some background information in order to clarify the details and time nodes of the case).
We are more willing to call this dispute a "pick-up doll" war because the increasingly fierce conflict between the two companies has so far been carried out through third parties. The so-called third parties refer to regulators (such as the Korea Fair Trade Commission and the US Federal Trade Commission), as well as foundry manufacturers that produce iPhones and iPads for Apple. From the current situation, this strategy seems to be useful:
Apple initiated a lawsuit against Qualcomm through a regulatory agency. The above regulators either refused to accuse or take action against Qualcomm.
Apple won the sympathy of the regulator through previous allegations, and based on this, directly sued Qualcomm, further stated its litigation requirements and prepared for it.
Then, Apple refused to continue to pay license fees to its foundry manufacturers. Upon request, the foundry manufacturer must pay Qualcomm after the case is over. Apple allegedly ordered the foundry manufacturer to stop paying the patent license fee.
The actual situation is obviously much more complicated than this, but in brief, the above is basically the main battle of the two giants in the first half of 2017.
It is worth noting that, unlike other mobile phone manufacturers, Apple is not a patent licensee of Qualcomm, and its foundry manufacturer is.
The latest news shows that in response to the domino effect caused by Apple's refusal to pay Qualcomm's patent license fees to its foundry manufacturers, Qualcomm filed a lawsuit on May 17, mainly targeting some controversial foundry manufacturers. Simply put, these foundry manufacturers have signed licensing agreements with Qualcomm, regardless of who they manufacture the devices and components, and whether or not Apple pays them, and these manufacturers are obligated to pay Qualcomm arrears.
The press release issued by Qualcomm also clarified the details of the lawsuit:
On May 17, 2017, Qualcomm filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of California, accusing Apple of manufacturing four of its globally-sold iPhone and iPad makers, FIH Mobile Ltd. and Hon Hai Precision. Industrial Co., Ltd. (HonHai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.) (collectively referred to as Foxconn), Pegatron Corpora TIon, Wistron Corpora TIon and Compal Electronics, Inc. -- Violation of their license agreement and other commitments with Qualcomm and refusal to pay for the technology licensed to them using Qualcomm. Qualcomm requested the court to order the defendant to perform its long-standing contractual obligations with Qualcomm and to request confirmation remedies and damages from the court.
In our opinion, Qualcomm made the right decision.
Going to the false: the red industry alert that emerged from a large number of reports
Apple's strategy is not only smart but insidious. In addition to litigation and accusations, its public relations approach has been very effective so far. We have noticed that a considerable number of science and technology journalists seem to have applied a press release that is beneficial to Apple from the very beginning. Coupled with Apple's effective brand marketing and excellent product marketing over the years, it has also been widely biased, so the reports that everyone sees in the end are very one-sided. These reports are biased towards Apple by screening their favorable conclusions and selectively neglecting contradictions, which is not friendly to Qualcomm's Qualcomm.
Fortunately, we have neither deadlines nor deliberate pursuit of exclusive coverage for click-through rates. We are analysts, we only do objective analysis. We will go to research and dig deeper into the information, rather than rushing to conclusions, or copying and pasting the news posted by the company without verification. Although most of us are senior fruit powders, we will start from the facts and will not let this affect our analysis.
For example, when we saw that the US Federal Trade Commission’s anti-monopoly allegations against Qualcomm were used as evidence to prove that Qualcomm was the faulty party, the first thing that came to our mind was the lack of follow-up evidence to support this allegation. First, the complaint does not seem to be valid, and the Federal Trade Commission cannot prove most of its allegations (if any) in court. Secondly, in a dissent statement by Federal Trade Commission member Maureen Ohlhausen, she succinctly pointed out that there are key flaws in the unspeakable allegations of the Federal Trade Commission. We strongly recommend that everyone read her statement. Third, it is only a presumption that Qualcomm is “guilty†based on the allegations filed by the Federal Trade Commission, which is clearly problematic, especially if the arguments of the Federal Trade Commission are clearly flawed.
The following is a statement from the Ohlhausen Commissioner:
“I did not write this objection statement because the committee objected to my vote and approved the lawsuit. The objection statement policy reflects several principles, that is, it maintains the integrity of the agency’s mission, and recognizes that rational thinking can be different. I also support the Federal Trade Commission staff who file lawsuits for the benefit of consumers. I rarely write this statement in order to avoid letting others feel that I do not recognize the principle of responsibility for this allegation. I will not easily Deviate from those principles.
“However, when the committee passed the two-to-one vote to sue Qualcomm’s decision, what I faced was an extraordinary situation: a lawsuit based on imperfect legal theory (including the independent fifth section) lacked economics Considerations and evidence support, and this legal theory was submitted and just issued on the eve of the new president.
custom cnc milling parts aluminum,cnc milling parts,cnc machining parts aluminum
Dongguan Yingxin Technology Co., Ltd. , https://www.yingxinelectronic.com