?? Well, the MAD principle doesn't apply here since Apple has nothing to hit back -- ie, Qualcomm is not in the consumer business. . Also, the legal cost is really negligible compared to what's at stake here.
6 posts • joined 22 Dec 2018
Siri, how do you wipe that smug smile from Qualcomm's face? Apple wins patent skirmish with chip nemesis
Re: Judge Lucy Koh....
knows her stuff? I'm inclined to believe that there must be a reason why Apple's allies in the FTC initiated the lawsuit at the last minute of the Obama administration, when two of the five panel members were no longer there, and chose Apple's hometown court as their main venue. Judge Koh demonstrated nothing but bias and favoritism in previous cases.
Re: Patently ridiculous?
Qualcomm's practice of collecting royalties from end-product makers at system level vs. component makers is norm in the wireless industry and has been for decades. The component makers like Mediatek in turn are not required to license them and use / manufacture / sell chips to end-product makers. This presumably allows new entrant to enter market freely and, therefore, increases market competition.