{"id":42761,"date":"2024-04-05T19:12:26","date_gmt":"2024-04-05T23:12:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=42761"},"modified":"2024-04-05T19:12:26","modified_gmt":"2024-04-05T23:12:26","slug":"recalling-apple-v-qualcomm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2024\/04\/05\/recalling-apple-v-qualcomm\/","title":{"rendered":"Recalling Apple v. Qualcomm"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reed Albergotti<\/a> (via Eric Migicovsky<\/a>):<\/p>\n

One of the first stories I covered then was Apple’s lawsuit against Qualcomm, which was accused of having a wireless modem monopoly and overcharging companies for the device. Apple paid Qualcomm about $7 per phone.<\/p>

The opening arguments in that trial were riveting. Apple’s slide presentation included a photo of Radar O’Reilly, the comic relief radio operator from M.A.S.H. That was Qualcomm, Apple’s lawyers argued, the company that simply operated the radio on Apple’s otherwise sophisticated device.<\/p>

Then it was Qualcomm’s lawyers’ turn. They revealed bombshell documents that had not been publicly seen before; Apple’s lawyers had accidentally sent them to Qualcomm.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

Apple had tried to replace some of Qualcomm modems with a different model made by Intel. But Qualcomm chips were so much faster that Apple had to secretly throttle<\/a> them so that all of its phones would operate at the same level.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Qualcomm only sought a percentage of the cost of the iPhone, not of all the software and services that used the modem.<\/p>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n