Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Wolf who wrote (145961)	5/4/2018 4:49:47 PM
From: Jon Koplik	3 Recommendations Recommended By BoonDoggler LongBottomLine pheilman_ Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196747

would you play a game of pool for money with a guy named Eddy Cue ?

To: Bill Wolf who wrote (145961)	5/4/2018 5:06:33 PM
From: Bill Wolf	9 Recommendations Recommended By DavidRG GR8FORM JeffreyHF Jello Jim Mullens and 4 more members Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 196747

Qualcomm to depose Apple services chief Eddy Cue Reuters Reuters Stephen Nellis (Reuters) - Qualcomm Inc can depose Apple Inc's services chief Eddy Cue in addition to Chief Executive Tim Cook, a magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ruled on Friday, part of the chipmaker's effort to determine whether Apple worked with Samsung to focus regulatory scrutiny on Qualcomm. The access to Cue is important because Qualcomm alleges talks between executives at Apple and its rival Samsung Electronics Co Ltd were central to its decision to cut off Apple from a stream of nearly $1 billion in licensing rebate payments. Apple sued Qualcomm early last year, contesting the San Diego-based chipmaker's licensing practices and asking for those rebate payments back. Qualcomm then sued Apple for patent infringement in several countries. As part of the disputes, Qualcomm is also seeking to ban the import of some iPhones it believes are violating its patents. In the lawsuit in Southern California filed by Apple, Qualcomm has alleged that at a conference in Idaho in 2015, a top Apple executive encouraged Samsung to "get aggressive" in asking South Korean antitrust regulators to pursue action against the chipmaker. Cook and Cue are regular attendees of a media mogul conference held each year in Sun Valley, Idaho. The Apple executive in question, Qualcomm alleged, explained that a regulatory ruling on Samsung's home turf would be Samsung's "best chance" to force Qualcomm to change its licensing practices. Qualcomm did not name the Apple executive cited in its filings. However, the conversation between Apple and Samsung is important because Qualcomm alleges it amounted to Apple "wrongfully inducing" a regulatory action against Qualcomm. Qualcomm said such a move violated a cooperation agreement it had with Apple and that it stopped sending rebate payments to Apple because of that and other violations of the agreement. Apple has argued in court filings that it cooperated with requests from regulators and that Qualcomm improperly retaliated against it for doing so. Though Qualcomm is known as a chipmaker, its profit has been driven by a patent licensing business. Some of Qualcomm's practices caused conflicts with customers such as Apple and Huawei Technologies Co Ltd [HWT.UL], as well as with regulators in China, Korea and the United States. Qualcomm has begun changing some of those practices to become more "regulator friendly," its executives have said. Apple declined to comment, and Samsung and Qualcomm did not immediately respond to requests for comment. (Reporting by Stephen Nellis in San Francisco; Editing by Matthew Lew

To: Bill Wolf who wrote (145961)	5/5/2018 8:20:23 AM
From: JeffreyHF	6 Recommendations Recommended By Jon Koplik lightsout1684 manning18 matherandlowell SKIP PAUL and 1 more member Respond to of 196747

Now that Samsung has made patent peace with QTL, and has pledged to withdraw the KFTC complaint that resulted from the Sun Valley Conspiracy, it's fair to infer that Samsung has come clean about their concert of action with Apple. That should provide important rebuttal testimony to whatever denials Cook & Cue make, or failed recollections they feign.

To: Bill Wolf who wrote (145961)	5/6/2018 6:35:50 PM
From: JeffreyHF	5 Recommendations Recommended By DavidRG Fiero garrettjax GR8FORM manning18 Respond to of 196747

Apple's been fighting Qualcomm's right to depose Eddie Cue since last November. Sounds like the importance of that discovery has become more compelling and convincing to the Court, as of late. Chesler's team has made a convincing showing, and they must have an interesting day planned for Mr. Cue.

To: Bill Wolf who wrote (145961)	5/7/2018 2:16:12 PM
From: Jim Mullens	10 Recommendations Recommended By alanrs DavidRG engineer JeffreyHF Jon Koplik and 5 more members Respond to of 196747

Bill, re: Reuters “rebate” narrative................................................................ In this and other AAPL v QCOM articles, AAPL with the first (and often) move advantage has established the “rebate” narrative in the minds of the columnists covering this saga. In the article, “rebate” is used on three occasions. + The access to Cue is important because Qualcomm alleges talks between executives at Apple and its rival Samsung Electronics Co Ltd were central to its decision to cut off Apple from a stream of nearly $1 billion in licensing rebate payments. + Apple sued Qualcomm early last year, contesting the San Diego-based chipmaker's licensing practices and asking for those rebate payments back. Qualcomm then sued Apple for patent infringement in several countries. As part of the disputes, Qualcomm is also seeking to ban the import of some iPhones it believes are violating its patents. + Qualcomm said such a move violated a cooperation agreement it had with Apple and that it stopped sending rebate* payments to Apple because of that and other violations of the agreement.* One of the core issues the QCOM attorneys must confront is dispelling AAPL’s contention that QCOM’s payments to AAPL were royalty rebates, since as such it would likely appear that they were in essence tied to the FRAND license rates / terms QCOM (and AAPL) had with the CM’s manufacturing the iPhones. Thus, the “rebates” would give the appearance that the FRAND rate structure, which is supposed to be applied on a non-discriminatory basis (equally ) to all parties, was violated. QCOM’s approach appears to treat the FRAND rate structure as separate and distinct from other contractual agreements, i.e. their Business Cooperation and Patent Agreement (BCPA) with AAPL. In other words, strictly applying the rates and terms incorporated into a FRAND license to all licensees and defining the other contracted agreements as separate and distinct from the FRAND license itself. Over the past year or more, it’s been embedded into our heads via the various writings on the subject that QCOM has been in violation of FRAND because it has treated its licensees differently, and in AAPL’s case their royalties have been lower because of the “royalty rebate program” per AAPL’s narrative. However, we’ve also read over the years that companies that have relevant cellular IPR net out (off-set) their royalty cost via cross-license agreements, and that appears to be widely accepted and justified. It is my understanding that those agreements have been and are separate from the FRAND license itself. So, there must be some form of precedent there. I understand another example is a reduction in cost agreement for early adopters, those that take the added risk of moving before the herd. So, there appear to be at least two examples of separate contract agreements for reducing the cost of using QCOM IPR that has been accepted industry wide. Thus, why should it not be argued and favorably accepted that an agreement (BCPA) assuring (paying for) “patent peace” (and other conditions) is a legitimate undertaking especially against a dominant, powerful, recalcitrant entity that has over the years demonstrated its bullying tactics (including litigation / intimidation, etc) in suppressing its suppliers? And, why should that not also be considered as separate and outside the bounds of the FRAND royalty bearing license itself? AAPL and others are arguing that the FRAND license and other contracted agreements should be considered in total (bundled) as defining what is and is not non-discriminatory / discriminatory, but one can see that it is not that clear cut as other vital considerations / issues enter into the equation. Comments from the legal folks on the board appreciated.