Apple Sues Qualcomm for $1 Billion

Apple Sues Qualcomm for $1 Billion

Piggybacking on U.S. Federal Trade Commission complaint, Apple sued Qualcomm late Friday for $1 billion.

The issue? Apple says it is owed $1 billion in rebates it obtained by choosing Qualcomm as its exclusive provider of certain mobile chips; these contracts were at the heart of the FTC lawsuit. But Apple says that Qualcomm withheld the rebates from it because Apple aided a South Korean inquiry against the firm; South Korea subsequently fined Qualcomm $850 million for its unfair patent licensing practices. And Apple has begun shopping around for alternative chip providers.

“For many years Qualcomm has unfairly insisted on charging royalties for technologies they have nothing to do with,” an Apple statement reads. “The more Apple innovates with unique features such as TouchID, advanced displays, and cameras, to name just a few, the more money Qualcomm collects for no reason and the more expensive it becomes for Apple to fund these innovations.”

Sponsored Content

What is “Inside Microsoft Teams”?

“Inside Microsoft Teams” is a webcast series, now in Season 4 for IT pros hosted by Microsoft Product Manager, Stephen Rose. Stephen & his guests comprised of customers, partners, and real-world experts share best practices of planning, deploying, adopting, managing, and securing Teams. You can watch any episode at your convenience, find resources, blogs, reviews of accessories certified for Teams, bonus clips, and information regarding upcoming live broadcasts.

For its part, Qualcomm says the Apple claims are baseless.

“Apple has intentionally mischaracterized our agreements and negotiations, as well as the enormity and value of the technology we have invented, contributed and shared with all mobile device makers through our licensing program,” the Qualcomm retort notes. “Apple has been actively encouraging regulatory attacks on Qualcomm’s business in various jurisdictions around the world, as reflected in the recent [South Korean Fair Trade Commission] decision and FTC complaint, by misrepresenting facts and withholding information. We welcome the opportunity to have these meritless claims heard in court where we will be entitled to full discovery of Apple’s practices and a robust examination of the merits.”

Whatever the truth of the matter, Qualcomm does indeed factor very heavily into the history of the wireless and mobile industries. And it owns key patents that protect technologies used in all mobile devices, including Apple’s. The licensing of these patents is one of Qualcomm’s biggest revenue generators. But the FTC and South Korean charges both allege that the firm does not license its standard-essential patents under “Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory” (FRAND) terms.

Apple isn’t necessarily without blame here, either. Qualcomm’s licensing fee structure is based on the cost of the devices being sold, but Apple undercuts those fees by having its manufacturing partners pay for them. So while an iPhone will sell for $750 or more to consumers, Apple is only being charged around $300 by the company that actually builds them. So the fees that Qualcomm are paid are based on that smaller amount, not the real cost of the devices. I suspect that is what Qualcomm alludes to when it mentions “Apple’s practices.”

“Apple believes deeply in innovation and we have always been willing to pay fair and reasonable rates for patents we use,” the Apple statement adds. “We are extremely disappointed in the way Qualcomm is conducting its business with us and unfortunately after years of disagreement over what constitutes a fair and reasonable royalty we have no choice left but to turn to the courts.”


Related Topics:


Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Sign up for a Petri Account

Comments (0)

Leave a Reply

Paul Thurrott is an award-winning technology journalist and blogger with over 20 years of industry experience and the author of over 25 books. He is the News Director for the Petri IT Knowledgebase, the major domo at, and the co-host of three tech podcasts: Windows Weekly with Leo Laporte and Mary Jo Foley, What the Tech with Andrew Zarian, and First Ring Daily with Brad Sams. He was formerly the senior technology analyst at Windows IT Pro and the creator of the SuperSite for Windows.
External Sharing and Guest User Access in Microsoft 365 and Teams

This eBook will dive into policy considerations you need to make when creating and managing guest user access to your Teams network, as well as the different layers of guest access and the common challenges that accompany a more complicated Microsoft 365 infrastructure.

You will learn:

  • Who should be allowed to be invited as a guest?
  • What type of guests should be able to access files in SharePoint and OneDrive?
  • How should guests be offboarded?
  • How should you determine who has access to sensitive information in your environment?

Sponsored by:

Office 365 Coexistence for Mergers & Acquisitions: Don’t Panic! Make it SimpleLive Webinar on Tuesday, November 16, 2021 @ 1 pm ET

In this session, Microsoft MVPs Steve Goodman and Mike Weaver, and tenant migration expert Rich Dean, will cover the four most common steps toward Office 365 coexistence and explain the simplest route to project success.

  • Directory Sync/GAL Sync – How to prepare for access and awareness
  • Calendar Sharing – How to retrieve a user’s shared calendar, or a room’s free time
  • Email Routing – How to guarantee email is routed to the active mailbox before and after migration
  • Domain Sharing – How to accommodate both original and new SMTP domains at every stage

Aimed at IT Admins, Infrastructure Engineers and Project Managers, this session outlines both technical and project management considerations – giving you a great head start when faced with a tenant migration.the different layers of guest access and the common challenges that accompany a more complicated Microsoft 365 infrastructure.

Sponsored by: