Apple Halts Qualcomm Royalty Payments During Legal Battle

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Nathaniel Mott
Freelance News & Features Writer

Nathaniel Mott is a freelance news and features writer for Tom's Hardware US, covering breaking news, security, and the silliest aspects of the tech industry.

  • Jake Hall
    * apple. I would be so happy to see them crash
    Reply
  • Brice McIntosh
    @Jake Hall.

    So if this is something to hate Apple for, you must hate the FTC which has filed charges against Qualcomm for monopolistic reasons. Whether you like Apple or not, they are not the only company that uses and suffers the effects of Qualcomm. Samsung, Intel and Mediatek would be the big ones and I'm sure that they will be following this very closely. And by closely, I would wager that they are on Apple's side with this lawsuit. Qualcomm has been accused of charging customers for licenses to patents that don't pertain to the products they are making as well as abusing their patents to prevent rival chipmakers from competing to be in these devices. Competition is good for everyone.
    Reply
  • ammaross
    "The dispute in question is Apple's claim that Qualcomm abuses the popularity of its products to force other companies into restrictive and expensive licensing agreements."

    Pot, meet kettle.
    Remember how much Apple wanted per Samsung phone?
    Reply
  • techy1966
    Yea considering Apple is known to be the worst company for doing things like this as well as abusing it's market power to say to another company they are doing or using the same type of practices seems a bit messed up to me.

    I do not care who is at fault here in this dispute I just think Apple has some pretty big brass nutz to accuse another company for doing something that they themselves do also and most of the time far worse than any other company out there.
    Reply
  • none12345
    Man for a compnay with such an absurd profit margin on this products, this seems like such a childish move.

    I hope qualcomm gives them some serious late fees on their bill. And they will likely have a reason to sue them if their stock price tanks as well.
    Reply
  • falchard
    The FTC based it's charge on poor data. How can you have a monopoly when you have competition? It's not like Qualcomm is the only one developing base-band technology. It's not even a large market share. I think it's something like 54%. It's quite a stretch to say Qualcomm is using monopolistic practices.
    Reply
  • DerekA_C
    They both suck birds of a feather flock together. But seriously * Qualcomm is over-ratted I'd rather have the option of Samsung putting chips in phones other then Samsung phones. They literally do monopolize the mobile market for chips. For Apple it is overpriced by a long shot with outdated hardware constantly and since they went Unix/Linux modified OS to charge an extra-premium for freeware software because it requires proprietary hardware is bad business and not the future of mankind open and standard saves money but more importantly RESOURCES AND TIME.
    Reply
  • USAFRet
    Let's watch the language, people.
    Thanks.
    Reply
  • mrmez
    19626304 said:
    The FTC based it's charge on poor data. How can you have a monopoly when you have competition? It's not like Qualcomm is the only one developing base-band technology. It's not even a large market share. I think it's something like 54%. It's quite a stretch to say Qualcomm is using monopolistic practices.

    54% market share is MASSIVE, no matter how small the market.
    A monopoly doesn't mean there is zero competition.

    To put it in perspective, compare smartphone market share. If you combine Apple, Samsung, Huawei and Oppo to form one company. The'll still have less market share than Qualcomm.

    Also, the fact they've had to pay BlackBerry nearly a billion dollars, is quite damning.
    Certainly a factor that accelerated BB's demise.
    Reply
  • therealduckofdeath
    I expect Apple to get a complete sales ban of all affected devices served to them pretty soon. Literally stealing another company's IP for profits the same time they brag about having a 200 billion bank account is unacceptable.
    If they get away with this, what stops us from stealing Apple products and sell them for pure profits on eBay?
    Reply