Reply to post: @LeeE

Qualcommotion: Sueball return alleges Apple 'pay-to-play' deal

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

@LeeE

What Apple is complaining about is that Qualcomm was charging for the patent licensing portion of the chip as a percentage of the phone's price. That is specifically not allowed for patents covered under FRAND, and has been held to be so in multiple courts in multiple countries all around the world.

What I'm not sure about is the CDMA patents, which may not be covered under FRAND but are rather more of a "standard" in name only.

No one who needs CDMA functionality is in a position to complain about Qualcomm because they could refuse to sell to you and then your phones can't be used on Verizon or Sprint in the US. Qualcomm is worried though because as they upgrade to LTE the need for 3G CDMA to support those carriers is less every year, before long no one will need Qualcomm's chips in the US and their gravy train will be over.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon