<story><title>Qualcomm says Apple is $7B behind in royalty payments</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-26/qualcomm-says-apple-is-7-billion-behind-in-royalty-payments</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>GeekyBear</author><text>The article doesn&amp;#x27;t really mention the argument that Apple is making in court.&lt;p&gt;They are seeking a judgement based on the legal concept of patent exhaustion.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S._law&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;If Apple buys a cellular modem from Intel, for instance, and Intel has already paid Qualcomm to use their standards essential parents to manufacture those cell phone modems, then patent exhaustion holds that Qualcomm cannot force Intel&amp;#x27;s customers to pay to license those patents all over again.&lt;p&gt;Until a judge rules on this, you really can&amp;#x27;t say that Apple owes Qualcomm anywhere near that figure.&lt;p&gt;There is more information on the FOSS patent blog:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.fosspatents.com&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;patent-exhaustion-keeps-qualcomm-on-run.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.fosspatents.com&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;patent-exhaustion-keeps-q...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Edit:  I think this FOSS patent blog entry from last month does a better job of laying out the basic issues.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.fosspatents.com&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;09&amp;#x2F;apple-foxconn-et-al-want-to-end.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.fosspatents.com&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;09&amp;#x2F;apple-foxconn-et-al-want-...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>gpm</author><text>I wouldn&amp;#x27;t trust FOSS patents and the author Florian Mueller as far as I could throw him. He has a long history of being a paid shill, lying about it, and being flat out wrong.&lt;p&gt;(Paid by oracle) &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.groklaw.net&amp;#x2F;article.php?story=20120419070127103&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.groklaw.net&amp;#x2F;article.php?story=20120419070127103&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;(Paid by microsoft) &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;techrights.org&amp;#x2F;2012&amp;#x2F;08&amp;#x2F;18&amp;#x2F;vile-lobbyist&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;techrights.org&amp;#x2F;2012&amp;#x2F;08&amp;#x2F;18&amp;#x2F;vile-lobbyist&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;(Paid by apple? I can&amp;#x27;t find other&amp;#x2F;primary sources to back up this claim though it does seem likely.) &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;mrpogson.com&amp;#x2F;2012&amp;#x2F;08&amp;#x2F;21&amp;#x2F;apples-paid-shillconsultant-caught-out&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;mrpogson.com&amp;#x2F;2012&amp;#x2F;08&amp;#x2F;21&amp;#x2F;apples-paid-shillconsultant-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;(More examples of him being wrong) &lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.groklaw.net&amp;#x2F;article.php?story=20120820111527257&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.groklaw.net&amp;#x2F;article.php?story=20120820111527257&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Refuting legal arguments takes time and expertise I don&amp;#x27;t have. He&amp;#x27;s good at his job, and I have no knowledge about this case. So while I put no faith whatsoever in his analysis I can&amp;#x27;t tell you how it is wrong, and yes this is an ad hominem.</text></comment>
<story><title>Qualcomm says Apple is $7B behind in royalty payments</title><url>https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-26/qualcomm-says-apple-is-7-billion-behind-in-royalty-payments</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>GeekyBear</author><text>The article doesn&amp;#x27;t really mention the argument that Apple is making in court.&lt;p&gt;They are seeking a judgement based on the legal concept of patent exhaustion.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S._law&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U.S...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;If Apple buys a cellular modem from Intel, for instance, and Intel has already paid Qualcomm to use their standards essential parents to manufacture those cell phone modems, then patent exhaustion holds that Qualcomm cannot force Intel&amp;#x27;s customers to pay to license those patents all over again.&lt;p&gt;Until a judge rules on this, you really can&amp;#x27;t say that Apple owes Qualcomm anywhere near that figure.&lt;p&gt;There is more information on the FOSS patent blog:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.fosspatents.com&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;patent-exhaustion-keeps-qualcomm-on-run.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.fosspatents.com&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;10&amp;#x2F;patent-exhaustion-keeps-q...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Edit:  I think this FOSS patent blog entry from last month does a better job of laying out the basic issues.&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.fosspatents.com&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;09&amp;#x2F;apple-foxconn-et-al-want-to-end.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.fosspatents.com&amp;#x2F;2018&amp;#x2F;09&amp;#x2F;apple-foxconn-et-al-want-...&lt;/a&gt;</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>DannyBee</author><text>So, what you say about exhaustion is a correct explanation of the doctrine.&lt;p&gt;However, unless my searching capabilities are failing (sorry, it&amp;#x27;s 170 pages), they nowhere claim that intel is paying qualcomm.&lt;p&gt;Instead, the only viable claim for exhaustion they really make is around exhaustion of patents in qualcomm chipsets bought by apple.&lt;p&gt;That is probably right.
But not a significant amount of this money (if any, i didn&amp;#x27;t look what qualcomm claimed hard enough. I wouldn&amp;#x27;t put it past them but it would be stupid of them)&lt;p&gt;The majority of money is precisely about modems they buy from intel.&lt;p&gt;If intel was paying qualcomm, it would definitely appear in the response as an exhaustion argument
I can&amp;#x27;t find it.&lt;p&gt;This is probably why bloomberg doesn&amp;#x27;t cite it - the exhaustion issues they do cite are a complete sideshow.</text></comment>