Apple owes $7 billion in royalties to Qualcomm since halting payments because of its ongoing dispute with the mobile chip maker over unfair licensing practices, according to a court hearing on Friday (via Bloomberg).

Apple began withholding the payments through its manufacturers last year, after the tech giant filed a lawsuit against Qualcomm claiming that the chipmaker was charging unfair royalties for "technologies they have nothing to do with." However, Qualcomm maintains its technology "is at the heart of every iPhone," and that the royalties are entirely valid.
qualcomm iphone 7

"They're trying to destroy our business," Qualcomm lawyer Evan Chesler said at the hearing in federal court in San Diego. "They're now $7 billion dollars behind in royalties. The house is on fire and there is $7 billion of property damage right now."

The two companies have been locked in the wide-ranging legal battle since 2017, with Apple accusing Qualcomm of unfair patent licensing practices and Qualcomm accusing Apple of patent infringement.

Apple argues that the mobile chipmaker is forcing it to pay for the use of its chips in iPhones and then again through patent royalties, a practice Apple refers to as "double-dipping." However Qualcomm claims it is doing nothing illegal and that Apple has agreed to the business model for years.

Both Apple and Qualcomm have filed multiple lawsuits against one another, with Qualcomm also seeking import and export bans on some iPhones in the United States and China.

Top Rated Comments

Carnegie Avatar
88 months ago
A deal is a deal. You pay for the deal you signed. Holding back payments is chicken sh*t.
I'm sure this story is more complex than this article can convey in a few paragraphs, but based on this information it doesn't seem right to me that Apple is holding back those royalties. If you enter a bad agreement, that's your own problem, you can't blame others for that. It's still an agreement and you have to honor it.
If you signed a contract for this deal, no matter how bad a deal it is, then you need to honor it.
To what deal or agreement are you all referring?

That's part of the issue here. (To be clear, there are many other important aspects of this situation - many other improper or illegal or contract-violative things which Qualcomm has been accused, by numerous parties, of doing and which it has been found, by numerous regulatory bodies, to have done.) According to Apple and others, Qualcomm has long refused to enter into direct licensing agreements on FRAND terms with certain parties - to include Apple - despite the reality that it is required to do so.

Instead, Apple had been paying royalties to Qualcomm through its contract manufacturers. Those manufacturers had licensing agreements with Qualcomm, the terms of which they weren't allowed to disclose to Apple. It was to Qualcomm's advantage to have licensing agreements with those third parties rather than with Apple directly; it was one of a number of things which Qualcomm did - many of which were illegal or contract-violative - which worked together as part of a scheme that allowed Qualcomm to collect greater royalties than it otherwise would have been able to.

The point being, in response to your posts, Apple doesn't have a licensing agreement with Qualcomm which it is now refusing to honor. (That's leaving aside the reality that sometimes agreements are entered into under duress, where one party or the other employs illegal or contract-violative tactics in order to, essentially, force the other party to agree to certain terms.)

Apple has had some other agreements with Qualcomm. Some of them are no longer in force. Indeed, their expiration has much to do with the timing of Apple's legal actions. But, at any rate, they weren't direct licensing agreements which Apple is now violating by withholding royalty payments.

Further, there is nothing wrong with withholding royalty payments (for SEPs) in the absence of a licensing agreement if you have acted in good faith to try to reach one. If would-be SEP users weren't able to do that, the process for creating and adhering to industry standards (for, e.g., certain cellular technology) wouldn't work very well. SEP holders would have too much leverage, even when they were the ones acting wrongly - e.g., failing to honor their commitments to license SEP on FRAND terms. They (each of them) would be able to, in effect, shut down other industry participants. They'd be able to greatly constrain competition and demand exorbitant royalties for IP which might not have much inherent value (i.e. where the IP's value came mostly from its inclusion in industry standards, and where they aren't entitled to collect royalties based on such value). That's why SEP agreements generally limit SEP holders' abilities to take actions to stop the use of their IP, even in the absence of licensing agreements, so long as the users of their IP are willing licensees.

Put simply, Apple will pay Qualcomm the royalties it owes when it is determined what those royalties should be. The proper royalties might be the result of, e.g., a negotiation between Apple and Qualcomm or a court's decision. They won't, e.g., be unilaterally imposed by Qualcomm. That is as it should be.
[doublepost=1540650641][/doublepost]
Is the problem double-dipping or charging for items, such as gold trim, that isn’t fair and reasonable? This case has more twists and turns than a spy novel.
That's one of the issues. But there are many more.

If someone really wants to understand the situation well, they should probably read for themselves things such as: Court filings (from both Apple and Qualcomm and amici and those form other cases, e.g., the FTC's action against Qualcomm) and the findings of various regulatory bodies.

Many people, of course, don't have time for that and / or don't care enough to. That's understandable. We could bullet point some of the issues, and some of us have elsewhere. But that doesn't really have a lot of value if time isn't taken to explain the various issues, why they create problems (or, e.g., are illegal or contract-violative), and how they have worked together to lead to (what many consider) improper results.
[doublepost=1540651191][/doublepost]
It’s a real shame. Qualcomm modems are just better, and the crippling of them that Apple did to get them to match the Intel modems was a travesty, though I understand why it was done, under the circumstances. I can’t deny what I see with my S9+ and Pixel vs my iphones. It’s definitely the consumers paying the price.

There’s a possibility that the new Intel modems in the latest generation are finally good, but I didn’t see evidence of that in the few days that I owned a Max and had appalling connectivity issues.

My Xr so far seems about equal to my intel 8 Plus, which is competent but not impressive. I haven’t had time to really put it through its paces yet, though.
Part of the reason Qualcomm's modems were, in certain cases, better was that the scheme it had put in place (which included, e.g., refusing to license to competitors in the modem market and effectively charging device makers higher royalties if they used competitors' modems) severely limited competitors' abilities to compete - to, e.g., spend money to develop competitive modems. That wasn't unintentional. Qualcomm tried to use existing market dominance to prevent competition (and, effectively, stifle innovation) and maintain dominance going forward.

That scheme had to be broken up in order to open up competition and for, e.g., Intel to be able to justify spending the kind of money it would need to (and have real world use to guide its R&D) in order for its modems to be competitive. For all intents and purposes, that scheme has now been broken up (though we don't know what some of the fallout will look like). So, going forward, competitors' modems may well compare favorably to Qualcomms'.
Score: 46 Votes (Like | Disagree)
TehFalcon Avatar
88 months ago
Not good to rely on one company to provide most of your companies income.

If Apple is destroying their business they need a shake up at the executive level.

I agree with Apple they are double dipping. Greedy.
Score: 29 Votes (Like | Disagree)
BMcCoy Avatar
88 months ago
I would hazard a guess that the situation and conflict is slightly more complex than the few paragraphs of this Bloomberg news story..
Score: 27 Votes (Like | Disagree)
technole Avatar
88 months ago
Lol, armchair CEOs that know nothing.

A deal is not a deal when you are getting screwed.
Score: 21 Votes (Like | Disagree)
keysofanxiety Avatar
88 months ago
Not good to rely on one company to provide most of your companies income.

If Apple is destroying their business they need a shake up at the executive level.

I agree with Apple they are double dipping. Greedy.
They don’t just rely on Apple, though. Qualcomm have an absolute monopoly on everything non-Apple. Unfortunately if you’re not looking to buy an Apple phone, the competition will only use Qualcomm chips as both CPUs and modems.

It’s as if somebody boycotted a pop album by buying a metal album. You’re not off the grid — your money’s just going to another massive conglomerate record company instead.

Even Samsung have identified this is a problem and are finally fully transitioning to their own SoCs.
Score: 21 Votes (Like | Disagree)
RickInHouston Avatar
88 months ago
A deal is a deal. You pay for the deal you signed. Holding back payments is chicken ****.
Score: 19 Votes (Like | Disagree)

Popular Stories

iPhone 17 Pro in Hand Feature Lowgo

iPhone 17 Pro to Reverse iPhone X Design Decision

Monday July 7, 2025 9:46 am PDT by
Since the iPhone X in 2017, all of Apple's highest-end iPhone models have featured either stainless steel or titanium frames, but it has now been rumored that this design decision will be coming to an end with the iPhone 17 Pro models later this year. In a post on Chinese social media platform Weibo today, the account Instant Digital said that the iPhone 17 Pro models will have an aluminum...
iphone 16 pro models 1

Here's How the iPhone 17 Pro Max Will Compare to the iPhone 17 Pro

Saturday July 5, 2025 1:00 pm PDT by
Apple should unveil the iPhone 17 series in September, and there might be one bigger difference between the Pro and Pro Max models this year. As always, the Pro Max model will be larger than the Pro model:iPhone 17 Pro: 6.3-inch display iPhone 17 Pro Max: 6.9-inch displayGiven the Pro Max is physically larger than the Pro, it has more internal space, allowing for a larger battery and...
iOS 26 Feature

Everything New in iOS 26 Beta 3

Monday July 7, 2025 1:20 pm PDT by
Apple is continuing to refine and update iOS 26, and beta three features smaller changes than we saw in beta 2, plus further tweaks to the Liquid Glass design. Apple is gearing up for the next phase of beta testing, and the company has promised that a public beta is set to come out in July. Transparency In some apps like Apple Music, Podcasts, and the App Store, Apple has toned down the...
imac video apple feature

Apple Launching These 15+ Products Later This Year

Sunday July 6, 2025 8:05 am PDT by
The calendar has turned to July, meaning that 2025 is now more than half over. And while the summer months are often quiet for Apple, the company still has more than a dozen products coming later this year, according to rumors. Below, we have outlined at least 15 new Apple products that are expected to launch later this year, along with key rumored features for each. iPhone 17 Series iPho...
iPhone Car Key Kia

Here's Which Vehicles Offer iPhone Car Keys

Sunday July 6, 2025 3:03 pm PDT by
In 2020, Apple added a digital car key feature to its Wallet app, allowing users to lock, unlock, and start a compatible vehicle with an iPhone or Apple Watch. The feature is currently offered by select automakers, including Audi, BMW, Hyundai, Kia, Genesis, Mercedes-Benz, Volvo, and a handful of others, and it is set to expand further. Apple has a web page with a list of vehicle models that ...
iPhone 17 Pro in Hand Feature Lowgo

iPhone 17 Pro Coming Soon With These 14 New Features

Friday July 4, 2025 1:05 pm PDT by
Apple's next-generation iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max are just over two months away, and there are plenty of rumors about the devices. Below, we recap key changes rumored for the iPhone 17 Pro models. Latest Rumors These rumors surfaced in June and July:Apple logo repositioned: Apple's logo may have a lower position on the back of the iPhone 17 Pro models, compared to previous...
iphone 17 pro render majin bu

New iPhone 17 Pro Renders Highlight Apple Logo and MagSafe Design Changes

Sunday July 6, 2025 8:43 pm PDT by
New renders today provide the best look yet relocated Apple logo and redesigned MagSafe magnet array of the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max. Image via Majin Bu. Several of the design changes coming to the iPhone 17 Pro model have been rumored for some time, such as the elongated camera bump that spans the full width of the device, with the LiDAR Scanner and flash moving to the right side. ...
iPhone 14 Pro Dynamic Island

iPhone 17 Models Rumored to Feature Redesigned Dynamic Island

Monday July 7, 2025 7:38 am PDT by
iPhone 17 models will feature a redesigned Dynamic Island user interface, according to a post today from Digital Chat Station, an account with more than three million followers on Chinese social media platform Weibo. The account has accurately leaked some information regarding future Apple products in the past. The account did not share any specific details about the alleged changes that are ...
apple account card feature

Apple Account Card Expanding to More Countries

Tuesday July 8, 2025 7:34 pm PDT by
Apple is expanding the ability to add an Apple Account Card to the Wallet app to more countries, according to backend Apple Pay changes. With iOS 15.5, Apple updated the Wallet app to allow users to add an Apple Account Card, which displays the Apple credit balance associated with an Apple ID. If you receive an Apple gift card, for example, it is added to an Apple Account that is also...