Re: Apple's hypocritical
Lets look at it in a slightly different way.
Say that Ford uses Brand X tyres on a Ford Focus and pays Brand X $500 for using five of them.
Brand X makes money and everyone is happy.
Now this upstart Ferrari comes along and uses the exact same tyres in their new F99332 Special that costs a cool $2M a pop.
Brand X say, sorry no. I want $50,000 per tyre, ie. the came percentage of the end user cost of the car. Ferrari say fuck no and move to Brand Y tyres who will sell them equivalent tyres for $500 a set.
Brand X don't like this and sue Ferrari 'because we always charge a percentage of the final cost of the car on top of a fee to the company that puts the tyres onto the rims. That fee is for using our IP with their rims.
Is that right? This double dipping as it is called AFAIK, happens nowhere else.
If QC charge say Google a flat licensing fee for using essentially the same chip for us in a Pixel why can they say to Apple, give us a percentage of the iPhone cost EVEN if you are not using our chips?
Patents and especially on the mobile area work on FRAND. That means QC have to use the same terms with ALL their customers no matter who they are. They can't just milk Apple (even though they mostly deserve it) because Apple kit is mostly (see the Pixel and S8 prices...) the most expensive and therefore profitable on the market.
IANAL and all that.
Around 10 years ago this was very well discussed on Groklaw and some seasoned IP lawyers and academics all came down on the side of FAIR licensing and against a percentage of the final device price.