Explore the new system architectire of Apple Silicon Macs

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 16:16:30 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

The billions of dollars is partly for past sins.

Hi Eric Stevens,

You have a grasp of detail that most people on this ng lack!

It's a pleasure to find at least one other adult on this newsgroup.
o Where, IMHO, adults can comprehend basic technical facts, like you did.

Yes. I know what the billions and billions and billions were for, where, at
the time of this thread, we didn't know even _half_ of the penalty!
o *Apple may have paid something like two and a half to three and a half billion USD to Qualcomm (which is going to be paid by the poor Apple consumer)*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU

Not all the billions though, since they bought out Intel, and they
reputedly were working on a design center right in Qualcomm's back yard,
and, of course, their royalties went _up_ appreciably, per iPhone, etc.

So only _some_ of it was the three-way rebate system between Apple, it's
suppliers, and Qualcomm that you seem to be aware of.

Kudos to you though, as the apologists are always clueless that these
details even exist (to them, everything is as simple as whatever MARKETING
feeds them).

Rest assured, MARKETING doesn't talk about the fact that Apple was so
desperate for 5G technology, that they not only gave up EVERYTHING they
were asking for, but they paid vastly more for it.

Apple knew what most people don't realize, which is that you can't sell a
phone highly MARKETED as a high-end phone, when it's dog slow compared to
the Android phones.

In short, Apple would have died, as a smartphone supplier, in just two
years, just like Blockbuster died and a host of others.
o *Apple would have died as a copmany if it didn't surrender to Qualcomm - now Apple is in advanced talks to purchase Intel's 5G unit for over a billion dollars more*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jUEvxhLv2Gk

The situation was that dire, which is why Qualcomm paid so much for it,
where, the customer is now paying that price as Kuo tells us that Apple is
removing the charger (yes, I know, the Android folks will follow suit as
they love to follow Apple's lead on MARKETING shenanigans) simply to recoup
some of those huge losses.

Apple got to the end
of their license period and demanded that Qualcomm accept a much lower
license fee.

Yes. They pay, on average, 113% more now, in royalties per phone, as we
wrote up in detailed threads long ago (which the moron apologists couldn't
comprehend, particularly even the non-malicious Type II apologists like
Steve Scharf, who _still_ thinks the royalties went down, sans a shred of
fact backing up his imaginary belief system).
o *Qualcomm seeks $31 million from Apple ($1.41 per iPhone with Intel radio chips) for 3 patent infringements in half the iPhones sold*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/
misc.phone.mobile.iphone/royalties$20qualcomm$20113$25|sort:date/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-u600QXp0Js/3rqkqxilBwAJ

In the meantime Apple kept using Qualcomm technology.

Yes. I know. We all know, well, all the adults know what happened.
o *Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) is Guilty of Infringing on Three Qualcomm Patents*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/royalties$20qualcomm$20113$25|sort:date/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/AqyEkxqlBwAJ

Apple put the rebate triad on hold, telling it's manufacturers not to pay
it (it's a complex thing which we described in detail when the news first
came out) - and it all caught up to them when Apple surrendered to
Qualcomm.

With interest, they had to pay about 4 billion, as I recall, just to catch
up on the royalty rebates, but that's not what I'm talking about for the
abject surrender, as that's only a small part of Apple's cost to obtain 5G
technology.

Remember, Apple would have died as a smartphone supplier, without 5G.
o You can't charge horrendous prices for something that's dog-ass slow.

Then they started litigating Qualcomm in front of the Federal Trade
Commission for overcharging and at the same time announced they hated
Qualcomm so much that they were not going to use Qualcomm technology
under any circumstances. But then, Intel gave up on their current
modems and Apple was left with nowhere to go. :-(

Yes. Yes. Yes. We know. It's good you know this, as you seem to be an
intelligent guy.

It's refreshsing to converse with someone, on these newsgroups, who isn't
an utter moron by the way (which all the Appleseeds are, except for nospam,
who isn't a moron - he's just always playing games. For nospam, he knows
this stuff, but he plays the MARKETING game.

For example, he knows Apple lost their shirt on Qualcomm, but he will
either stay out of the factual discussion (he loses big time whenever he
comes across me since I only speak facts), or, he simply plays stupid and
denies all facts exist that MARKETING doesn't want you to know.

Of course, the Type II apologists are different (e.g., Steve Scharf _still_
thinks royalties went down, because he simply filters out the facts).

But the Type III are the worst to deal with, since they're like fifth grade
bullies, who literally _hate_ what Apple is.

Apologists are like kids whose mom is a high-priced prostitute where
whenever someone points out that fact, they go into instant hateful vitriol
denying all facts as "lies by liars" (and worse, if you've ever seen the
hateful vitriol from Lewis, Joerg Lorenz, BK at onramp, and, of course, the
moronic twins, Jolly Roger & Alan Baker) - you'll see the analogy to them
defending their mom as a high-priced prostitute fits what they always do.

Hell, I once easily proved Snit was a moron (along with nospam, and almost
all the aforementioned apologists, and even Frank Slootweg), where, in
response, Snit made an entire video against me, which, hilariously, was
dead wrong on all counts (these morons didn't even LOOK at the Y axis for
Christs' sake!).
https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo

Notice _none_ of the apologists know a decibel from a megabit per second!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/qSXecrnZAQAJ

Apologists are all literally _that_ incredibly stupid!
o *It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0

Notice the apologists _hate_ that iOS lacks even the most basic
functionality such that they brazenly _fabricate_ imaginary functionality,
that simply doesn't exist. They _all_ do this - it's what makes them what
they are.
o *What freeware graphical Wi-Fi debugging tools do you use on Android & iOS to graph signal strength for available APs over time?*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicn/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QlDr3oeZExA

Notice this lack of grasp of basic facts in _everything_ Alan Baker posts!
o He doesn't get it that this entire thread proves he's an utter moron.

Luckily, there are a handful of actual adults on the Apple newsgroups...
o David Empson is one, you're another, as am I.

But, sadly, there are likely fewer than 10 actual adults who commonly post.
o The rest are these apologists who are basically flat earth cultist types.

There is no chance of an adult conversation with the child-like apologists.

Unlike the Apple apologists, you seem to have a grasp of the basic facts.
o So it's a pleasure to find at least one other adult on this newsgroup.
--
The apologists _hate_ anyone who is armed with facts; they don't know how
to deal with actual facts - which the Apple newsgroups sorely lack and
which is why Alan Baker posts everything he posts (none of the Apple
apologists are used to dealing with intelligent people armed with facts).
o Why are apologists like Alan Baker so fantastically immune to basics skills an adult should have on the Internet?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/EiNl6hyMBDo

Eric Stevens wrote:

Apple did not think the terms were
excessive when they first signed up.

Exactly.

I've studied these apologists for quite a few years...
o Where I perhaps understand them more than they do themselves.

I can predict almost everything they will ever claim now, or in the future
o Since they have very few responses to facts... none of which are adult.

o Type I apologists (e.g., nospam), simply parrot Apple MARKETING (always!)
o Type II apologists (e.g., Steve Scharf), simply filter out required facts
o Type III apologists (e.g., Alan Baker), are ungodly petrifyingly stupid

The ones that scare me the most, are the Type III apologists like Lewis,
Jolly Roger, Joerg Lorenz, BKatOnRamp, Chris, 'joe', Alan Baker, et al., as
it's just shouldn't be possible for people to be _that_ incredibly stupid.

Like you, I worked for decades in Silicon Valley startups, retiring on
stock options a couple decades ago well before RSO's were the norm, and one
thing that struck me when I started on Usenet was how incredibly stupid the
Apple Apologists always were.
o *Why do apologists like Alan Browne always call well-known easily verified facts about Apple products, "bull****"?*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/dRDltaOJyJE

People _that_ stupid aren't supposed to exist.
o They couldn't last a week in a tech startup being always that stupid.

o *Why do apologists like Alan Baker not read cites provided, and worse, why do apologists like nospam post links that they didn't even READ themselves?*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6MdNRtwAbaE

But nospam is actually different from the other two types of apologists...
o He's not as stupid as what he says would otherwise make him out to be.

For example, nospam will claim iOS is safer even as he knows it's not.
o *When apologists claim iOS is "safer" than Android simply because of the "frequency" of release...*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/WzRDeuHmQoc

You have to remember that every claim of imaginary functionality or denial
of fact from nospam can be predicted, if you simply assume (figuratively)
he's paid by Apple MARKETING to act on their behalf.
o *Why do apologists on this ng consistently hate facts about Apple products*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6OecwGrr4FM

Rest assured, nospam doesn't even believe _half_ of what he writes.
o All of what nospam claims _must_ fit into Apple MARKETING mantra.

That's why he's the _only_ inhabitant in the Type I apologist group.
o Of all three types, he is the only type that _knows_ the facts.

The Type III apologists don't own adult cognitive skills that nospam has.

o *Yet again, apologists Jolly Roger (& Lloyd Parsons & nospam & Your Name & Lewis) prove to not own adult cognitive skills*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/10dBShPJK9s

He calls facts he has no response to lies, but not as much as the others:
o *Why do apologists like nospam & Alan Baker incessantly call facts they don't like "lies" and all bearers of facts they don't like "Liars"?*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/nVzWBU2otC4

The only way you know that nospam actually knows the facts though, is to
pin him down, and then you watch him worm where he gets his head handed to
him on any newsgroup that holds him to facts.
o *Why do the apologists like nospam turn into instant children in the face of mere facts (e.g., ftfy)?*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/TZbkkqS3jv4

Luckily for him, the Apple newsgroups are filled with cultist mentalities
(it's why they love Apple products after all), and yet, the facts show they
_hate_ Apple products (where they blame everyone but Apple for all of
Apple's flaws).
o *Why do apologists like Alan Baker & nospam desperately try to shift the blame of Apple bugs to Google & Microsoft?*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/LOQx1Ok-79c

What they love is what Apple MARKETING told them the products were.

o It's why they hate all facts about Apple products that don't fit into
their imaginary belief systems fed to them by Apple MARKETING.

When they're confronted with facts, they have only 7 responses...
o None of which are adult

o *What are the common well-verified psychological traits of the Apple Apologists on this newsgroup?*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/18ARDsEOPzM
--
My role on this Apple newsgroup is simply to bring truth, finally, to it.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 05:43:09 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder
wrote:

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 16:16:30 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

The billions of dollars is partly for past sins.

Hi Eric Stevens,

You have a grasp of detail that most people on this ng lack!

Qualcomm uses Rambus technology. I have shares in Rambus.n

It's a pleasure to find at least one other adult on this newsgroup.
o Where, IMHO, adults can comprehend basic technical facts, like you did.

Yes. I know what the billions and billions and billions were for, where, at
the time of this thread, we didn't know even _half_ of the penalty!
o *Apple may have paid something like two and a half to three and a half billion USD to Qualcomm (which is going to be paid by the poor Apple consumer)*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/wuNSobnMdCU

Not all the billions though, since they bought out Intel, and they
reputedly were working on a design center right in Qualcomm's back yard,
and, of course, their royalties went _up_ appreciably, per iPhone, etc.

So only _some_ of it was the three-way rebate system between Apple, it's
suppliers, and Qualcomm that you seem to be aware of.

Kudos to you though, as the apologists are always clueless that these
details even exist (to them, everything is as simple as whatever MARKETING
feeds them).

Rest assured, MARKETING doesn't talk about the fact that Apple was so
desperate for 5G technology, that they not only gave up EVERYTHING they
were asking for, but they paid vastly more for it.

Apple knew what most people don't realize, which is that you can't sell a
phone highly MARKETED as a high-end phone, when it's dog slow compared to
the Android phones.

In short, Apple would have died, as a smartphone supplier, in just two
years, just like Blockbuster died and a host of others.
o *Apple would have died as a copmany if it didn't surrender to Qualcomm - now Apple is in advanced talks to purchase Intel's 5G unit for over a billion dollars more*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/jUEvxhLv2Gk

The situation was that dire, which is why Qualcomm paid so much for it,
where, the customer is now paying that price as Kuo tells us that Apple is
removing the charger (yes, I know, the Android folks will follow suit as
they love to follow Apple's lead on MARKETING shenanigans) simply to recoup
some of those huge losses.

Apple got to the end
of their license period and demanded that Qualcomm accept a much lower
license fee.

Yes. They pay, on average, 113% more now, in royalties per phone, as we
wrote up in detailed threads long ago (which the moron apologists couldn't
comprehend, particularly even the non-malicious Type II apologists like
Steve Scharf, who _still_ thinks the royalties went down, sans a shred of
fact backing up his imaginary belief system).
o *Qualcomm seeks $31 million from Apple ($1.41 per iPhone with Intel radio chips) for 3 patent infringements in half the iPhones sold*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/
misc.phone.mobile.iphone/royalties$20qualcomm$20113$25|sort:date/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/-u600QXp0Js/3rqkqxilBwAJ

In the meantime Apple kept using Qualcomm technology.

Yes. I know. We all know, well, all the adults know what happened.
o *Apple (Who really never invented anything they could steal) is Guilty of Infringing on Three Qualcomm Patents*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/royalties$20qualcomm$20113$25|sort:date/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/6yjbZWpBad4/AqyEkxqlBwAJ

Apple put the rebate triad on hold, telling it's manufacturers not to pay
it (it's a complex thing which we described in detail when the news first
came out) - and it all caught up to them when Apple surrendered to
Qualcomm.

With interest, they had to pay about 4 billion, as I recall, just to catch
up on the royalty rebates, but that's not what I'm talking about for the
abject surrender, as that's only a small part of Apple's cost to obtain 5G
technology.

Remember, Apple would have died as a smartphone supplier, without 5G.
o You can't charge horrendous prices for something that's dog-ass slow.

Then they started litigating Qualcomm in front of the Federal Trade
Commission for overcharging and at the same time announced they hated
Qualcomm so much that they were not going to use Qualcomm technology
under any circumstances. But then, Intel gave up on their current
modems and Apple was left with nowhere to go. :-(

Yes. Yes. Yes. We know. It's good you know this, as you seem to be an
intelligent guy.

It's refreshsing to converse with someone, on these newsgroups, who isn't
an utter moron by the way (which all the Appleseeds are, except for nospam,
who isn't a moron - he's just always playing games. For nospam, he knows
this stuff, but he plays the MARKETING game.

For example, he knows Apple lost their shirt on Qualcomm, but he will
either stay out of the factual discussion (he loses big time whenever he
comes across me since I only speak facts), or, he simply plays stupid and
denies all facts exist that MARKETING doesn't want you to know.

Of course, the Type II apologists are different (e.g., Steve Scharf _still_
thinks royalties went down, because he simply filters out the facts).

But the Type III are the worst to deal with, since they're like fifth grade
bullies, who literally _hate_ what Apple is.

Apologists are like kids whose mom is a high-priced prostitute where
whenever someone points out that fact, they go into instant hateful vitriol
denying all facts as "lies by liars" (and worse, if you've ever seen the
hateful vitriol from Lewis, Joerg Lorenz, BK at onramp, and, of course, the
moronic twins, Jolly Roger & Alan Baker) - you'll see the analogy to them
defending their mom as a high-priced prostitute fits what they always do.

Hell, I once easily proved Snit was a moron (along with nospam, and almost
all the aforementioned apologists, and even Frank Slootweg), where, in
response, Snit made an entire video against me, which, hilariously, was
dead wrong on all counts (these morons didn't even LOOK at the Y axis for
Christs' sake!).
https://youtu.be/7QaABa6DFIo

Notice _none_ of the apologists know a decibel from a megabit per second!
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0/qSXecrnZAQAJ

Apologists are all literally _that_ incredibly stupid!
o *It's a fact iOS devices can't even graph Wi-Fi signal strength over time*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/PZuec56EWB0

Notice the apologists _hate_ that iOS lacks even the most basic
functionality such that they brazenly _fabricate_ imaginary functionality,
that simply doesn't exist. They _all_ do this - it's what makes them what
they are.
o *What freeware graphical Wi-Fi debugging tools do you use on Android & iOS to graph signal strength for available APs over time?*
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topicn/misc.phone.mobile.iphone/QlDr3oeZExA

Notice this lack of grasp of basic facts in _everything_ Alan Baker posts!
o He doesn't get it that this entire thread proves he's an utter moron.

Luckily, there are a handful of actual adults on the Apple newsgroups...
o David Empson is one, you're another, as am I.

But, sadly, there are likely fewer than 10 actual adults who commonly post.
o The rest are these apologists who are basically flat earth cultist types.

There is no chance of an adult conversation with the child-like apologists.

Unlike the Apple apologists, you seem to have a grasp of the basic facts.
o So it's a pleasure to find at least one other adult on this newsgroup.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


what apple (and other companies) are reluctant to pay are qualcomm's
illegal and confiscatory fees, which are *not* based on what's licensed
from qualcomm, but rather the total price of the product its going in.

There is nothing illegal in this. Its not uncommon for enabling
technology being charged out according to the value of the product
being enabled.

it's extremely uncommon. only qualcomm does it.

In any case Apple did not think the terms were
excessive when they first signed up.

they had no choice in the matter. qualcomm has a monopoly and is
abusing it. that's illegal.

in other words, the *very* same qualcomm modem chip in a top of the
line phone (any make, not just apple) will incur a higher licensing fee
than if it's in an entry level model, for the *exact* *same* *part*
solely because it has a larger display, more memory or some other
unrelated feature.

And A higher price and a higher profit margin and couldn't be m ade
without Qualcomm technology.

the higher price has nothing to do with qualcomm.

qualcomm is *only* entitled to licensing fees for *their* parts and ip,
not the entire product.

qualcomm is also trying to extort licensing fees for frand patents,
which stands for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

The teerms were certainly not discriminatory.

you don't understand frand.

other companies don't do that, and for good reason. it's illegal.

You don't know the law on this. I cut my teeth as a shareholder in
Rambus.

rambus has nothing to do with it.

Eric Stevens wrote:

Qualcomm uses Rambus technology. I have shares in Rambus.

Is the Rambus "security" technology what you are saying Qualcomm uses that
Apple is apparently frantically desperate to obtain (via licensing terms)?

"I continue to believe that Qualcomm's license with Rambus highly favors
Qualcomm but given Qualcomm's current conflict with Apple, I can't help
but wonder why Qualcomm would not want to block Apple (and maybe Intel)
from gaining access (via licensing) to Rambus's security technology?

And if I was Apple or Intel, why would I not want to acquire some
intellectual property (i.e. CryptoManger) that has been embedded within
the Snapdragon mobile platform?"
https://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&mn=767157&pt=msg&mid=17179067

Given how poorly Apple security has been shown to be (where there are so
many holes, hackers have, in some cases, stopped accepting iOS holes and
yet, Apple paints entire walls of buildings with their MARKETING bull****
on touting their imaginary security that only fools believe), the Rambus
technology seems useful.

See also:
o *Rambus to Demonstrate IoT Security Technology in Qualcomm Booth at CES*
https://www.rambus.com/rambus-to-demonstrate-iot-security-technology-in-qualcomm-booth-at-ces/

"This demonstration, highlighting a smart city application, features
the Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 processor and QCA4010 Wi-Fi chip,
that are connected to an IoT cloud service using a protected link.

The Rambus technology enables seamless security-focused features which
includes mutual authentication and encrypted communication.

These unique security features protect IoT devices from being used by
hackers in malicious botnets, and prevent the IoT cloud service from
being attacked by cloned devices."
--
Bringing needed truth & logic to Apple newsgroups, one fact at a time.

On 2020-07-13 2:37 p.m., delvon daily wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

Qualcomm uses Rambus technology. I have shares in Rambus.

Is the Rambus "security" technology what you are saying Qualcomm uses that
Apple is apparently frantically desperate to obtain (via licensing terms)?

"I continue to believe that Qualcomm's license with Rambus highly favors
Qualcomm but given Qualcomm's current conflict with Apple, I can't help
but wonder why Qualcomm would not want to block Apple (and maybe Intel)
from gaining access (via licensing) to Rambus's security technology?

And if I was Apple or Intel, why would I not want to acquire some
intellectual property (i.e. CryptoManger) that has been embedded within
the Snapdragon mobile platform?"
https://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&mn=767157&pt=msg&mid=17179067

You have no clue what you're talking about, Arlen.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 14:37:50 -0700, delvon daily
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

Qualcomm uses Rambus technology. I have shares in Rambus.

Is the Rambus "security" technology what you are saying Qualcomm uses that
Apple is apparently frantically desperate to obtain (via licensing terms)?

I'm not privy to (or even following) the Apple/Qualcomm negotiations
so I have no real idea. But the Rambus CRyptoManager technology is a
lot more than simple security. Wade through
https://www.rambus.com/security/ if you want to know more. I can't
think of any reason why Apple would not want it (if they could get it
for free).

"I continue to believe that Qualcomm's license with Rambus highly favors
Qualcomm but given Qualcomm's current conflict with Apple, I can't help
but wonder why Qualcomm would not want to block Apple (and maybe Intel)
from gaining access (via licensing) to Rambus's security technology?

And if I was Apple or Intel, why would I not want to acquire some
intellectual property (i.e. CryptoManger) that has been embedded within
the Snapdragon mobile platform?"
https://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=3666&mn=767157&pt=msg&mid=17179067

Given how poorly Apple security has been shown to be (where there are so
many holes, hackers have, in some cases, stopped accepting iOS holes and
yet, Apple paints entire walls of buildings with their MARKETING bull****
on touting their imaginary security that only fools believe), the Rambus
technology seems useful.

See also:
o *Rambus to Demonstrate IoT Security Technology in Qualcomm Booth at CES*
https://www.rambus.com/rambus-to-demonstrate-iot-security-technology-in-qualcomm-booth-at-ces/

"This demonstration, highlighting a smart city application, features
the Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 processor and QCA4010 Wi-Fi chip,
that are connected to an IoT cloud service using a protected link.

The Rambus technology enables seamless security-focused features which
includes mutual authentication and encrypted communication.

These unique security features protect IoT devices from being used by
hackers in malicious botnets, and prevent the IoT cloud service from
being attacked by cloned devices."
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:28:16 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


what apple (and other companies) are reluctant to pay are qualcomm's
illegal and confiscatory fees, which are *not* based on what's licensed
from qualcomm, but rather the total price of the product its going in.

There is nothing illegal in this. Its not uncommon for enabling
technology being charged out according to the value of the product
being enabled.

it's extremely uncommon. only qualcomm does it.

See
https://www.royaltyrange.com/home/bl...-royalty-rates

"Most licensing professionals rely on three main methods to work out
royalty rates for a patent:

The income approach: This estimates the income the patent will
generate and bases the royalty rate on that.
The market approach: This bases the royalty rate on the royalties
charged for comparable patents in the market.
The cost approach: This involves working out the cost of
producing a similar patented asset, and basing the royalty on
that."

Qualcomm uses the first method, which it is why it charges in relation
to the sales price of the item.


In any case Apple did not think the terms were
excessive when they first signed up.

they had no choice in the matter. qualcomm has a monopoly and is
abusing it. that's illegal.

Don't be silly. Patents *are* a legal monopoly.

in other words, the *very* same qualcomm modem chip in a top of the
line phone (any make, not just apple) will incur a higher licensing fee
than if it's in an entry level model, for the *exact* *same* *part*
solely because it has a larger display, more memory or some other
unrelated feature.

And A higher price and a higher profit margin and couldn't be m ade
without Qualcomm technology.

the higher price has nothing to do with qualcomm.

See the income approach above.

qualcomm is *only* entitled to licensing fees for *their* parts and ip,
not the entire product.

That's OK if there were alternative suppliers of technology but in
this case Qualcomm is the only supplier. Without Qualcomm there is no
product for Apple to sell.

qualcomm is also trying to extort licensing fees for frand patents,
which stands for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

Under the circumstances, Qualcomm's royalties were "fair, reasonable
and non-discriminatory." Of course, Apple didn't think so.

The teerms were certainly not discriminatory.

you don't understand frand.

other companies don't do that, and for good reason. it's illegal.

You don't know the law on this. I cut my teeth as a shareholder in
Rambus.

rambus has nothing to do with it.

Thereby displaying your ignorance.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm not privy to (or even following) the Apple/Qualcomm negotiations
so I have no real idea.

then stop commenting on it.

But the Rambus CRyptoManager technology is a
lot more than simple security. Wade through
https://www.rambus.com/security/ if you want to know more. I can't
think of any reason why Apple would not want it (if they could get it
for free).

they have no need for it at all, free or not.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

In any case Apple did not think the terms were
excessive when they first signed up.

they had no choice in the matter. qualcomm has a monopoly and is
abusing it. that's illegal.

Don't be silly. Patents *are* a legal monopoly.


monopolies are legal.

abusing a monopoly is not.

the patents are also frand, which makes it even worse for qualcomm.



qualcomm is *only* entitled to licensing fees for *their* parts and ip,
not the entire product.

That's OK if there were alternative suppliers of technology but in
this case Qualcomm is the only supplier. Without Qualcomm there is no
product for Apple to sell.

false.

the first several iphones used infineon baseband modems and recent ones
used intel modems (who bought infineon) for some models.

only cellphones that support cdma (from any manufacturer, not just from
apple) have no alternative than qualcomm, which is why they were raked
over the coals.

qualcomm is also trying to extort licensing fees for frand patents,
which stands for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

Under the circumstances, Qualcomm's royalties were "fair, reasonable
and non-discriminatory." Of course, Apple didn't think so.

the federal trade commission didn't think so:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...c-charges-qual
comm-monopolizing-key-semiconductor-device-used
The Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint in federal district
court charging Qualcomm Inc. with using anticompetitive tactics to
maintain its monopoly in the supply of a key semiconductor device
used in cell phones and other consumer products.
....
€ Maintains a ³no license, no chips² policy under which it will supply
its baseband processors only on the condition that cell phone
manufacturers agree to Qualcomm¹s preferred license terms. The
FTC alleges that this tactic forces cell phone manufacturers to pay
elevated royalties to Qualcomm on products that use a competitor¹s
baseband processors. According to the Commission¹s complaint, this is
an anticompetitive tax on the use of rivals¹ processors. ³No license,
no chips² is a condition that other suppliers of semiconductor
devices do not impose. The risk of losing access to Qualcomm baseband
processors is too great for a cell phone manufacturer to bear because
it would preclude the manufacturer from selling phones for use on
important cellular networks.

€ Refuses to license standard-essential patents to competitors.
Despite its commitment to license standard-essential patents on FRAND
terms, Qualcomm has consistently refused to license those patents to
competing suppliers of baseband processors.

€ Extracted exclusivity from Apple in exchange for reduced patent
royalties. Qualcomm precluded Apple from sourcing baseband processors
from Qualcomm¹s competitors from 2011 to 2016. Qualcomm recognized
that any competitor that won Apple¹s business would become stronger,
and used exclusivity to prevent Apple from working with and improving
the effectiveness of Qualcomm¹s competitors.


i will also add what you said in another post:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
I'm not privy to (or even following) the Apple/Qualcomm negotiations
so I have no real idea.

that's one thing you did get correct. you definitely have no real idea.

The teerms were certainly not discriminatory.

you don't understand frand.

other companies don't do that, and for good reason. it's illegal.

You don't know the law on this. I cut my teeth as a shareholder in
Rambus.

rambus has nothing to do with it.

Thereby displaying your ignorance.

then explain what relevance being a shareholder in rambus has to do
with qualcomm and it's anti-competitive and illegal behaviour.

this should be *really* good.

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:28:16 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

what apple (and other companies) are reluctant to pay are qualcomm's
illegal and confiscatory fees, which are *not* based on what's licensed
from qualcomm, but rather the total price of the product its going in.

There is nothing illegal in this. Its not uncommon for enabling
technology being charged out according to the value of the product
being enabled.
it's extremely uncommon. only qualcomm does it.

See
https://www.royaltyrange.com/home/bl...-royalty-rates

"Most licensing professionals rely on three main methods to work out
royalty rates for a patent:

The income approach: This estimates the income the patent will
generate and bases the royalty rate on that.
The market approach: This bases the royalty rate on the royalties
charged for comparable patents in the market.
The cost approach: This involves working out the cost of
producing a similar patented asset, and basing the royalty on
that."

Qualcomm uses the first method, which it is why it charges in relation
to the sales price of the item.

There is another method, and a joking reference to it here.

https://www.theregister.com/2019/04/...bn_ip_lawsuit/

That is FRAND.

When a patent is, on purpose, plowed into a standard, the
standards body are effectively "passing bags of cash to the patent holder".

This is not the way to set up a standard.

So the deal is, the patent holder agrees to FRAND terms.
That means, they won't gouge users of the standard, for
that particular patent. This prevents the patent holder
from "strangling" the standard, or "milking" it.

In return, the patent holder may have early access to
the technology, start making chips before anyone else,
and so on. They can still become dominant in terms
of their manufacturing interests, while at the same time
charging a penny per unit for the patent.

If there are other patents that have nothing to do with
the standards, then they can use any method they want
for setting or negotiating a price.

"fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason...tory_licensing

There have been instances of unfairness in the past, so
some companies just don't get it.

If you have a patent outside a standard, then because it's
not a standard, nobody will buy into it. Say I made a
2048 QAM method, for a radio method that normally
goes to 1024 QAM. All the phones and their makers,
would pay some FRAND royalty for the 1024 QAM method.
The 2048 QAM method would be meaningless to them, because
since it's not incorporated into that particular
standard, nobody cares (at the moment). If a future standards
version agrees to this new mode, then the patent holder
would again have to agree to FRAND terms for the standards
body to use it. Otherwise, if other QAM flavors are available
and work, their patent holder may become the FRAND guy.

When you break your agreement to go FRAND, and try to gouge
people, then it's off to court. And I don't know what legal
standing anyone has in a FRAND situation. I guess it would be
a breach of contract or something, and then it would be up to
the design of the contract to have penalty clauses.

Paul

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 01:22:41 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm not privy to (or even following) the Apple/Qualcomm negotiations
so I have no real idea.

then stop commenting on it.

Indeed, I am refusing to comment on the negotiations. Can't you read.

But the Rambus CRyptoManager technology is a
lot more than simple security. Wade through
https://www.rambus.com/security/ if you want to know more. I can't
think of any reason why Apple would not want it (if they could get it
for free).

they have no need for it at all, free or not.

That may be your opinion but even if nothing else, the commercial
implications are considerable.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 01:22:44 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

In any case Apple did not think the terms were
excessive when they first signed up.

they had no choice in the matter. qualcomm has a monopoly and is
abusing it. that's illegal.

Don't be silly. Patents *are* a legal monopoly.


monopolies are legal.

abusing a monopoly is not.

the patents are also frand, which makes it even worse for qualcomm.

You are a fool.



qualcomm is *only* entitled to licensing fees for *their* parts and ip,
not the entire product.

That's OK if there were alternative suppliers of technology but in
this case Qualcomm is the only supplier. Without Qualcomm there is no
product for Apple to sell.

false.

You had better explain that to Apple. It might save them $4.5B.

the first several iphones used infineon baseband modems and recent ones
used intel modems (who bought infineon) for some models.

only cellphones that support cdma (from any manufacturer, not just from
apple) have no alternative than qualcomm, which is why they were raked
over the coals.

qualcomm is also trying to extort licensing fees for frand patents,
which stands for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

Under the circumstances, Qualcomm's royalties were "fair, reasonable
and non-discriminatory." Of course, Apple didn't think so.

the federal trade commission didn't think so:

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/01/ftc-charges-qualcomm-monopolizing-key-semiconductor-device-used
The Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint in federal district
court charging Qualcomm Inc. with using anticompetitive tactics to
maintain its monopoly in the supply of a key semiconductor device
used in cell phones and other consumer products.
...
€ Maintains a ³no license, no chips² policy under which it will supply
its baseband processors only on the condition that cell phone
manufacturers agree to Qualcomm¹s preferred license terms. The
FTC alleges that this tactic forces cell phone manufacturers to pay
elevated royalties to Qualcomm on products that use a competitor¹s
baseband processors. According to the Commission¹s complaint, this is
an anticompetitive tax on the use of rivals¹ processors. ³No license,
no chips² is a condition that other suppliers of semiconductor
devices do not impose. The risk of losing access to Qualcomm baseband
processors is too great for a cell phone manufacturer to bear because
it would preclude the manufacturer from selling phones for use on
important cellular networks.

€ Refuses to license standard-essential patents to competitors.
Despite its commitment to license standard-essential patents on FRAND
terms, Qualcomm has consistently refused to license those patents to
competing suppliers of baseband processors.

€ Extracted exclusivity from Apple in exchange for reduced patent
royalties. Qualcomm precluded Apple from sourcing baseband processors
from Qualcomm¹s competitors from 2011 to 2016. Qualcomm recognized
that any competitor that won Apple¹s business would become stronger,
and used exclusivity to prevent Apple from working with and improving
the effectiveness of Qualcomm¹s competitors.

This kind of thing is common where big-money patent litigation is
involved. You should read the part which says:

"NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to
believe� that the law has been or is being violated and it appears
to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The
case will be decided by the court."

An accusation is not not a conviction.

i will also add what you said in another post:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:
I'm not privy to (or even following) the Apple/Qualcomm negotiations
so I have no real idea.

that's one thing you did get correct. you definitely have no real idea.

Thhat was in answer to a specific question about current events.

The teerms were certainly not discriminatory.

you don't understand frand.

other companies don't do that, and for good reason. it's illegal.

You don't know the law on this. I cut my teeth as a shareholder in
Rambus.

rambus has nothing to do with it.

Thereby displaying your ignorance.

then explain what relevance being a shareholder in rambus has to do
with qualcomm and it's anti-competitive and illegal behaviour.

You ought to know that in its early days Rambus was engaged in a major
war with virtually all the chip makers and this was fought through
numerous courts and the FTC. It went on for several years and was a
good course in the tactics of heavy-weight patent litigation. I'm
surprised you didn't know that.

Apart from that, Qualcomm's use of current Rambus technology caused me
to have a passing interest in the Qualcomm-Apple fight. But I've
already explained that.

this should be *really* good.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 01:58:54 -0400, Paul
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:28:16 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

what apple (and other companies) are reluctant to pay are qualcomm's
illegal and confiscatory fees, which are *not* based on what's licensed
from qualcomm, but rather the total price of the product its going in.

There is nothing illegal in this. Its not uncommon for enabling
technology being charged out according to the value of the product
being enabled.
it's extremely uncommon. only qualcomm does it.

See
https://www.royaltyrange.com/home/bl...-royalty-rates

"Most licensing professionals rely on three main methods to work out
royalty rates for a patent:

The income approach: This estimates the income the patent will
generate and bases the royalty rate on that.
The market approach: This bases the royalty rate on the royalties
charged for comparable patents in the market.
The cost approach: This involves working out the cost of
producing a similar patented asset, and basing the royalty on
that."

Qualcomm uses the first method, which it is why it charges in relation
to the sales price of the item.

There is another method, and a joking reference to it here.

https://www.theregister.com/2019/04/...bn_ip_lawsuit/

That is FRAND.

When a patent is, on purpose, plowed into a standard, the
standards body are effectively "passing bags of cash to the patent holder".

This is not the way to set up a standard.

So the deal is, the patent holder agrees to FRAND terms.
That means, they won't gouge users of the standard, for
that particular patent. This prevents the patent holder
from "strangling" the standard, or "milking" it.

In return, the patent holder may have early access to
the technology, start making chips before anyone else,
and so on. They can still become dominant in terms
of their manufacturing interests, while at the same time
charging a penny per unit for the patent.

If there are other patents that have nothing to do with
the standards, then they can use any method they want
for setting or negotiating a price.

And I understand that this is at the heart of the argument.

"fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason...tory_licensing

There have been instances of unfairness in the past, so
some companies just don't get it.

If you have a patent outside a standard, then because it's
not a standard, nobody will buy into it. Say I made a
2048 QAM method, for a radio method that normally
goes to 1024 QAM. All the phones and their makers,
would pay some FRAND royalty for the 1024 QAM method.
The 2048 QAM method would be meaningless to them, because
since it's not incorporated into that particular
standard, nobody cares (at the moment). If a future standards
version agrees to this new mode, then the patent holder
would again have to agree to FRAND terms for the standards
body to use it. Otherwise, if other QAM flavors are available
and work, their patent holder may become the FRAND guy.

But if the 2048 QAM part was commercially significant and nobody else
knew how to do it ... In the early days Intel was in this position
with some of it's chips. The standard was Intel. No FRAND.

When you break your agreement to go FRAND, and try to gouge
people, then it's off to court. And I don't know what legal
standing anyone has in a FRAND situation. I guess it would be
a breach of contract or something, and then it would be up to
the design of the contract to have penalty clauses.

My understanding is that the patents at the heart of the argument were
not subject to anything but a performance standard. But I would rather
keep out of the argument at this point because I haven't been
following it in detail.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 16:18:20 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote:

Qualcomm uses the first method, which it is why it charges in relation
to the sales price of the item.

Hi Eric,

Facts are lost on all Apple apologists (all three types):
o Type I apologists don't even believe what they themselves claim
o Type II apologists simply don't ever bother to check their facts
o Type III apologists, petrifyingly so, actually _believe_ their claims!

Clearly, nospam is a Type I apologist (he's the only one in that class).

Adults will note nospam _always_ takes the position of Apple MARKETING.
o No matter the topic.

The most accurate way to predict what nospam will claim - years in advance
o Is simply to know what Apple MARKETING is trying to foment

Whatever Apple MARKETING would say, is what nospam will say
o It doesn't matter whether they or nospam actually believe what they say.
--
These Type I apologists simply parrot Apple MARKETING mantra; they don't
even believe what they, themselves, claim. They're simply parrots.

Full text of Eric's response, below, for the permanent Usenet record.
On Mon, 13 Jul 2020 07:28:16 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


what apple (and other companies) are reluctant to pay are qualcomm's
illegal and confiscatory fees, which are *not* based on what's licensed
from qualcomm, but rather the total price of the product its going in.

There is nothing illegal in this. Its not uncommon for enabling
technology being charged out according to the value of the product
being enabled.

it's extremely uncommon. only qualcomm does it.

See
https://www.royaltyrange.com/home/bl...-royalty-rates

"Most licensing professionals rely on three main methods to work out
royalty rates for a patent:

The income approach: This estimates the income the patent will
generate and bases the royalty rate on that.
The market approach: This bases the royalty rate on the royalties
charged for comparable patents in the market.
The cost approach: This involves working out the cost of
producing a similar patented asset, and basing the royalty on
that."

Qualcomm uses the first method, which it is why it charges in relation
to the sales price of the item.


In any case Apple did not think the terms were
excessive when they first signed up.

they had no choice in the matter. qualcomm has a monopoly and is
abusing it. that's illegal.

Don't be silly. Patents *are* a legal monopoly.

in other words, the *very* same qualcomm modem chip in a top of the
line phone (any make, not just apple) will incur a higher licensing fee
than if it's in an entry level model, for the *exact* *same* *part*
solely because it has a larger display, more memory or some other
unrelated feature.

And A higher price and a higher profit margin and couldn't be m ade
without Qualcomm technology.

the higher price has nothing to do with qualcomm.

See the income approach above.

qualcomm is *only* entitled to licensing fees for *their* parts and ip,
not the entire product.

That's OK if there were alternative suppliers of technology but in
this case Qualcomm is the only supplier. Without Qualcomm there is no
product for Apple to sell.

qualcomm is also trying to extort licensing fees for frand patents,
which stands for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.

Under the circumstances, Qualcomm's royalties were "fair, reasonable
and non-discriminatory." Of course, Apple didn't think so.

The teerms were certainly not discriminatory.

you don't understand frand.

other companies don't do that, and for good reason. it's illegal.

You don't know the law on this. I cut my teeth as a shareholder in
Rambus.

rambus has nothing to do with it.

Thereby displaying your ignorance.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens