Now that Apple and Qualcomm have made peace it would be easy to allow the case and the issues to recede into the background. That is likely what Apple would prefer, and almost certainly why Apple made the decision to settle with Qualcomm rather than proceed with trial. The case presented an existential threat for Qualcomm, which would have required the San Diego tech company to fight as if the company depended on victory–because it did. What is most shocking is how successful Apple was in its coordinated effort to manipulate the licensing market and effectively extinguish any reasonable notion of a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rate (FRAND) in the process. Meanwhile, fabricated licensing rates wholly unrelated to the Qualcomm portfolio were used by Apple to dupe regulators into chasing Qualcomm across the world for committing phantom antitrust violations.
Business
- Groups on Both Sides Slam USTR Support for Delaying IP Waiver Extension Pending ITC Investigation
- USPTO Ramps Up Efforts to Promote Women Entrepreneurs
- Sign the Prenup: What Brands Can Learn From the Kanye West/Adidas IP Breakup
- Lessons from the Levandowski Case: Reimagining the Exit Interview as Risk Management
- Advocating for Ethics-Driven Regulation for Blockchain Technologies
Recent Posts
- What I’ll Be Watching for in the Amgen Oral Arguments
- A Dog’s Day in Court: Implications of the ‘Bad Spaniels’ Arguments on Parody Determinations and Noncommercial Use
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, March 24: Non-DOCX Fee Delayed Further; SCOTUS Petition Says Hirshfeld’s Review of PTAB Decision Violated Federal Vacancies Reform Act; Moderna CEO Grilled by Senate Committee over COVID Vaccine Price Hike
- Bayh-Dole Opponents Slam-Dunked Once Again
- SCOTUS Skeptical that Bad Spaniels is Parody, But Questions Need to Overturn Rogers