The article outright says the Rebates are not inherently illegal.
> And while royalty rebates alone are not inherently illegal, the fact that Qualcomm was doing it on order to prevent other competitors from gaining a foothold in the LTE modem market – primarily Intel – is what makes it illegal.
The court hasn't said anything yet. In the EU, the commission can decide on fines and remedies which then have to be paid and observed immediately during the court appeal.
In the US, the question would be consumer harm - it's not enough that an action is "anti-competitive". Competition always creates winners and losers and competition in the US evolved to protect consumers and not competitors per se.
It's not clear at all Qualcomm has hurt consumers. Apple presumably paid a low price for the components. In a very related case, the European court vacated a decision against Intel which offered rebates to OEMs for not using AMD chips:
Putting Intel in this discussion is almost a joke - when other ARM makers should be suing Qualcomm for it deal with Microsoft with Windows on ARM. Qualcomm is bad guy and not Intel.
I am thinking even though these royalty rebates are not deemed illegal but with the fact that the EU deemed Qualcomm's actions illegal by the way they went about doing them that it would be in Apples best interest to drop the whole thing or be dragged into the whole mess as well if they choose to move forward with their own lawsuit on this.
I say this because now that Qualcomm was found to be doing it in a way that was deemed illegal and with Apple agreeing to go along with it and except the money to just use Qualcomm's modems and not even looking at other companies competing products because they were basically being paid to not use other companies products they are just as guilty and should also be looked into for their own part in all of this.
Company A breaks the law & company B turns a blind eye and excepts money means both companies are guilty.
I just wanted to add that Apple will never be brought into this for 1 reason they most likely have an agreement with the EU to give them a free pass if they agree to help with the case. Again I stress it would be in Apples best interest to drop the case against Qualcomm but they probably also have a free pass on that as well and won't get their hands slapped for any of this.
Perfectly said. Apple took the bribe and now sues because they cannot benefit from it anymore. When Dell(and the others) took Intel's money they at least had the courtesy not to sue Intel for unpaid rebates.
Intel also had the good grace not to sue Dell/etc when they started using AMD CPUs again; which might have something to do with them not suing Intel.
Neither company looks good here; but assuming the EC's ruling means that like the Intel rebate program QCs was designed to penalize not buying from them 100% then QC's definitely more in the wrong.
Dunno if Apple's at any legal risk from this mess; but if Dell/etc had been smacked for participating in what they should've known was an illegal rebate program Qualcomm might not have been able to sign as many phone vendors up for their version.
Well, the reality of it is that Qualcomm was overcharging Apple by about that amount for years. If you bothered to understand the article, you would have read that Qualcomm was charging Apple illegally for bundled patents that had nothing to do with Apple business, and refusing to license out required patents to others.
The rebate was giving Apple back their overcharges, but with the proviso that Apple not use another vender. That’s really considered to be blackmail. When Microsoft was doing similar things to Dell, Hp and others, Microsoft was caught for it, but the OEMs were not charged. That’s normal.
Excuse me, who evaluated the "overcharges"? You're also in the wrong since Apple has no contract with Qualcomm, it is Foxconn that has a contract and they pay a percentage of the factory price.
I've heard another side of the story that Jobs dangled a wimax iphone to get Qualcomm to pay Apple. Knowing Jobs it sounds pretty plausible.
Handwringing is normally considered a sign of distress or anxiety. I think the phrase you are looking for is arm-twisting. Quite apt really. Any such agreement as this should be outlawed.. all customers should pay the same price, any backdoor deals are anti-consumer.
I doubt it's Apple's responsibility to watch out for Qualcomm's practices towards their competitors. It certainly doesn't make sense to me that it would be. I don't remember computer manufacturers being held liable in the Intel situation.
Just imagine: a company sells you a part a below cost. This is deemed illegal dumping. Are you responsible as a buyer of that part? No, that's ridiculous, you can't be expected to know their cost structure and it isn't your business anyway. You just are participating in the market, picking the most favorable deal. It's the same with Apple. They were just participating in thr market picking their most favorable deal. Are you suggesting that Apple somehow conspired with Qualcomm to prevent other modem manufacturers from entering the market? Why on Earth would they do that? More modem competition would only be good for Apple. Unless you have evidence for such a thing it sounds ridiculous.
"This looks very much like what Intel did back in the day to keep builders from using AMD CPUs."
One possible big difference is that AMD was using instruction set designed by Intel, did Apple use same logic designed by Qualcomm or did they completely create something.
For example ARM instruction is different then x86 instruction. I believe ARM license it instruction set to other vendors - Intel did not originally - that why AMD was called ( and still is ) a Clone Intel CPU.
AMD is not quite a clone of INTEL ... it was in the “bad” ole 32 bit exclusive days... BUT now days the 64 bit”ness” of an INTEL is a “clone” of AMD processors...
After all this is over Qualcomm would have to renounce their monopolistic bundling practice. They use patent licensing as a way to sell chips. In the end Samsung would get its wish and be able to sell Exynos handsets in the States.
So, in the meantime, it looks as though while we read reviews here for products that almost no one cares about, we’ll never see another review of an Apple phone, or a deep dive on their new SoCs.
This site has really gone downhill when the most popular products are ignored while phones that sell in the tens of thousands have a big deal made of them.
Anandtech is severely understaffed; that's what I can see by judging the few names that author the articles.
Also, let me summarize for you the iphone performance review for the last 3 or 4 generations. It is unsustainable, too power hungry and throttles in stages until it reaches 50% at around the 2 year mark(when the warranty expires in Europe). No, it is not a feature, it's a "fix" designed to hide a design flaw.
What tinfoil hat? This is about permanent(not temporary thermal) throttling of iphones that passed battery diagnostics at the genius bar. This is about under-designing the battery and power delivery system for a SoC too powerful that cannot sustain its own performance. It's something for which Google replaced entire devices or gave people their money back.
It's not a feature it's the cover-up of a flaw. Just like "dieselgate".
I admit I don't know as much as you, especially in how adequate color management systems work. I know however how to spot a cheat when I see one and that is Apple. They lost the moral high ground a long time ago. The ensuing law suits will prove me right.
I am willing to be a Google wonk as long as you don't turn into a Gruber.
I am normally a person that does not care for lawsuits but Qualcomm is a different. From my understanding Qualcomm has been eating up patients on LTE and from what I heard Qualcomm is attempting to create a real monopoly in the communications market. The Microsoft Windows on ARM or more precisely Windows on Qualcomm is probably another law suit in the works. Not from Intel / AMD x86 area but from other ARM vendors.
What was Apple's part I'm anything illegal? Are you suggesting Apple conspired with Qualcomm to keep Intel out of the modem market? Come on, Intel, or anyone else, being in the market is only good for Apple. Apple was simply making the best purchase option made available to them. It's Qualcomm's responsibility to mind Qualcomm's business, not Apple's.
I'm not a regulator or an investigator so I have no idea, but Apple was the other half of a deal that the antitrust regulators have just deemed illegal.
Honestly, Dell also did not suffer the wrath of the EU for getting Intel's bribes. Of course both Dell and Apple are morally guilty for stifling innovation.
Push-lease - you will literally make up anything to attack Apple.
How do you think it happens that Intel has a practical baseband processor usable by a high end smartphone vendor? Can you name another major Intel baseband customer besides Apple?
Qualcomm is surely using their position to shape the market, and collect as much as they can. They are leading LTE market with their engineers and patents. Apple has done the same in their field. Almost everyone does it. https://ios12guide.com/
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
36 Comments
Back to Article
bug77 - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
This looks very much like what Intel did back in the day to keep builders from using AMD CPUs.Still, it's funny to see Apple suing about unpaid royalty rebates, while said rebates are deemed illegal.
WinterCharm - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
The article outright says the Rebates are not inherently illegal.> And while royalty rebates alone are not inherently illegal, the fact that Qualcomm was doing it on order to prevent other competitors from gaining a foothold in the LTE modem market – primarily Intel – is what makes it illegal.
bug77 - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
The article (and court) says rebates in general are not illegal. But these were.bigmushroom - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
The court hasn't said anything yet. In the EU, the commission can decide on fines and remedies which then have to be paid and observed immediately during the court appeal.In the US, the question would be consumer harm - it's not enough that an action is "anti-competitive". Competition always creates winners and losers and competition in the US evolved to protect consumers and not competitors per se.
It's not clear at all Qualcomm has hurt consumers. Apple presumably paid a low price for the components. In a very related case, the European court vacated a decision against Intel which offered rebates to OEMs for not using AMD chips:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/business/intel-...
Reason of the judges: where was the consumer harm?
HStewart - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Putting Intel in this discussion is almost a joke - when other ARM makers should be suing Qualcomm for it deal with Microsoft with Windows on ARM. Qualcomm is bad guy and not Intel.rocky12345 - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
I am thinking even though these royalty rebates are not deemed illegal but with the fact that the EU deemed Qualcomm's actions illegal by the way they went about doing them that it would be in Apples best interest to drop the whole thing or be dragged into the whole mess as well if they choose to move forward with their own lawsuit on this.I say this because now that Qualcomm was found to be doing it in a way that was deemed illegal and with Apple agreeing to go along with it and except the money to just use Qualcomm's modems and not even looking at other companies competing products because they were basically being paid to not use other companies products they are just as guilty and should also be looked into for their own part in all of this.
Company A breaks the law & company B turns a blind eye and excepts money means both companies are guilty.
rocky12345 - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
I just wanted to add that Apple will never be brought into this for 1 reason they most likely have an agreement with the EU to give them a free pass if they agree to help with the case. Again I stress it would be in Apples best interest to drop the case against Qualcomm but they probably also have a free pass on that as well and won't get their hands slapped for any of this.id4andrei - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Perfectly said. Apple took the bribe and now sues because they cannot benefit from it anymore. When Dell(and the others) took Intel's money they at least had the courtesy not to sue Intel for unpaid rebates.DanNeely - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Intel also had the good grace not to sue Dell/etc when they started using AMD CPUs again; which might have something to do with them not suing Intel.Neither company looks good here; but assuming the EC's ruling means that like the Intel rebate program QCs was designed to penalize not buying from them 100% then QC's definitely more in the wrong.
Dunno if Apple's at any legal risk from this mess; but if Dell/etc had been smacked for participating in what they should've known was an illegal rebate program Qualcomm might not have been able to sign as many phone vendors up for their version.
melgross - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Well, the reality of it is that Qualcomm was overcharging Apple by about that amount for years. If you bothered to understand the article, you would have read that Qualcomm was charging Apple illegally for bundled patents that had nothing to do with Apple business, and refusing to license out required patents to others.The rebate was giving Apple back their overcharges, but with the proviso that Apple not use another vender. That’s really considered to be blackmail. When Microsoft was doing similar things to Dell, Hp and others, Microsoft was caught for it, but the OEMs were not charged. That’s normal.
id4andrei - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Excuse me, who evaluated the "overcharges"? You're also in the wrong since Apple has no contract with Qualcomm, it is Foxconn that has a contract and they pay a percentage of the factory price.I've heard another side of the story that Jobs dangled a wimax iphone to get Qualcomm to pay Apple. Knowing Jobs it sounds pretty plausible.
osxandwindows - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Yeah, because QC totally didn't force them to sign a contract because there was no competition in 2011.id4andrei - Thursday, January 25, 2018 - link
No one extorted or forced the ruthless Steven P Jobs into anything. It's Steven P Jobs that did the hand wringing around the industry.dromoxen - Monday, January 29, 2018 - link
Handwringing is normally considered a sign of distress or anxiety. I think the phrase you are looking for is arm-twisting. Quite apt really. Any such agreement as this should be outlawed.. all customers should pay the same price, any backdoor deals are anti-consumer.Yojimbo - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
I doubt it's Apple's responsibility to watch out for Qualcomm's practices towards their competitors. It certainly doesn't make sense to me that it would be. I don't remember computer manufacturers being held liable in the Intel situation.Just imagine: a company sells you a part a below cost. This is deemed illegal dumping. Are you responsible as a buyer of that part? No, that's ridiculous, you can't be expected to know their cost structure and it isn't your business anyway. You just are participating in the market, picking the most favorable deal. It's the same with Apple. They were just participating in thr market picking their most favorable deal. Are you suggesting that Apple somehow conspired with Qualcomm to prevent other modem manufacturers from entering the market? Why on Earth would they do that? More modem competition would only be good for Apple. Unless you have evidence for such a thing it sounds ridiculous.
HStewart - Thursday, January 25, 2018 - link
"This looks very much like what Intel did back in the day to keep builders from using AMD CPUs."One possible big difference is that AMD was using instruction set designed by Intel, did Apple use same logic designed by Qualcomm or did they completely create something.
For example ARM instruction is different then x86 instruction. I believe ARM license it instruction set to other vendors - Intel did not originally - that why AMD was called ( and still is ) a Clone Intel CPU.
Surfacround - Sunday, January 28, 2018 - link
AMD is not quite a clone of INTEL ... it was in the “bad” ole 32 bit exclusive days...BUT now days the 64 bit”ness” of an INTEL is a “clone” of AMD processors...
id4andrei - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
After all this is over Qualcomm would have to renounce their monopolistic bundling practice. They use patent licensing as a way to sell chips. In the end Samsung would get its wish and be able to sell Exynos handsets in the States.asmian - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
> anti-competitive actions untaken by the company> Qualcomm was doing it on order
The lack of proofreading/editorship here presumably in a pointless race for deadline strikes again. :(
Ryan Smith - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Thanks!Samus - Thursday, January 25, 2018 - link
lolzmelgross - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
So, in the meantime, it looks as though while we read reviews here for products that almost no one cares about, we’ll never see another review of an Apple phone, or a deep dive on their new SoCs.This site has really gone downhill when the most popular products are ignored while phones that sell in the tens of thousands have a big deal made of them.
id4andrei - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Anandtech is severely understaffed; that's what I can see by judging the few names that author the articles.Also, let me summarize for you the iphone performance review for the last 3 or 4 generations. It is unsustainable, too power hungry and throttles in stages until it reaches 50% at around the 2 year mark(when the warranty expires in Europe). No, it is not a feature, it's a "fix" designed to hide a design flaw.
osxandwindows - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
Funny you say that, I've had multiple android phones shutdown at 40% over the years do to a crapp battery.But sure, keep the tinfoil hat on.
id4andrei - Thursday, January 25, 2018 - link
What tinfoil hat? This is about permanent(not temporary thermal) throttling of iphones that passed battery diagnostics at the genius bar. This is about under-designing the battery and power delivery system for a SoC too powerful that cannot sustain its own performance. It's something for which Google replaced entire devices or gave people their money back.It's not a feature it's the cover-up of a flaw. Just like "dieselgate".
melgross - Thursday, January 25, 2018 - link
Oh please, don’t be another Google wonk. You don’t know what you’re talking about. I imagine that’s normal for you.id4andrei - Thursday, January 25, 2018 - link
I admit I don't know as much as you, especially in how adequate color management systems work. I know however how to spot a cheat when I see one and that is Apple. They lost the moral high ground a long time ago. The ensuing law suits will prove me right.I am willing to be a Google wonk as long as you don't turn into a Gruber.
Hurr Durr - Thursday, January 25, 2018 - link
>comes to AT>for a phone review
HStewart - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
I am normally a person that does not care for lawsuits but Qualcomm is a different. From my understanding Qualcomm has been eating up patients on LTE and from what I heard Qualcomm is attempting to create a real monopoly in the communications market. The Microsoft Windows on ARM or more precisely Windows on Qualcomm is probably another law suit in the works. Not from Intel / AMD x86 area but from other ARM vendors.boozed - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
So, when does Apple attract penalties for its part in this apparently illegal deal?Yojimbo - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
What was Apple's part I'm anything illegal? Are you suggesting Apple conspired with Qualcomm to keep Intel out of the modem market? Come on, Intel, or anyone else, being in the market is only good for Apple. Apple was simply making the best purchase option made available to them. It's Qualcomm's responsibility to mind Qualcomm's business, not Apple's.boozed - Wednesday, January 24, 2018 - link
I'm not a regulator or an investigator so I have no idea, but Apple was the other half of a deal that the antitrust regulators have just deemed illegal.As they say, it takes two to tango.
id4andrei - Thursday, January 25, 2018 - link
Honestly, Dell also did not suffer the wrath of the EU for getting Intel's bribes. Of course both Dell and Apple are morally guilty for stifling innovation.NetMage - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
Push-lease - you will literally make up anything to attack Apple.How do you think it happens that Intel has a practical baseband processor usable by a high end smartphone vendor? Can you name another major Intel baseband customer besides Apple?
NetMage - Monday, February 12, 2018 - link
Is that what you say to little shops on city streets that pay protection money to criminal gangs - “it takes two to tango”?harryseth - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link
Qualcomm is surely using their position to shape the market, and collect as much as they can. They are leading LTE market with their engineers and patents. Apple has done the same in their field. Almost everyone does it. https://ios12guide.com/