Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Oct 2017 10:56 UTC
Legal

Within a matter of weeks, Qualcomm, which had been valued at more than $100 billion in December 2016, had lost a quarter of its market capitalization, an outcome that Qualcomm executives say was Apple's intent all along. "Apple's game plan is to squeeze people until they finally say, 'OK, the pressure's too hard. I'll just take a deal,'" said Derek Aberle, then Qualcomm's president and the company's chief negotiator, in an interview in July. Apple, on the other hand, presents the dispute as a matter of fairness. "It's not that we can't pay," Sewell says. "It's that we shouldn't have to pay."

The case, which could go to trial in a San Diego federal court as early as next year, could have a profound impact on the mobile phone business. A Qualcomm win would hamper Appleā€™s efforts to cut costs and preserve margins that have allowed it to capture most of the profits generated by smartphone makers worldwide. If Apple wins and succeeds in ending the Qualcomm tax, that could marginalize one of the most powerful American technology companies and upend the balance of power in the semiconductor industry.

I have zero sympathy for either of these two companies. I literally cannot find a single fournication to give.

Permalink for comment 649513
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by kurkosdr
by kurkosdr on Thu 5th Oct 2017 10:41 UTC
kurkosdr
Member since:
2011-04-11

I find it funny that governments have anti-trust regulators, which supposedly are intended to break monopolies, and yet they also have a patent office that 'll grant companies a 20-year monopoly on some invention important for modern life.

Even if patents must exist, the right to exclusive usage or even worse so a 20-year right to exclusive usage is too much. Maybe it's time for governments to step in and define "FRAND" better and force essential patents for modern life to be FRANDed.

Edited 2017-10-05 10:42 UTC

Reply Score: 3