Apple sues iPhone modem supplier Qualcomm, claims $1 billion in payments withheld over FTC probe
Apple on Friday filed a lawsuit lawsuit (or suit in law) is “a vernacular term for a suit, action, or cause instituted or depending between two private persons in the courts of law.” The term refers to any proceeding by a party against longtime iPhone modem supplier Qualcomm, in a dispute over royalty may refer to payments apparently connected to a federal investigation into the chipmaker’s potentially anticompetitive business dealings.
Apple’s complaint comes just a few days after may refer to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission against Qualcomm, accusing the company of forcing Apple to buy wireless chips in exchange for better royalties. Apple reportedly sought to lower its patent patent (/ˈpætənt/ or /ˈpeɪtənt/) is a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an royalty payments to Qualcomm, but the chipmaker made it conditional that the iPhone maker from 2011 until 2016.
Now Apple apple tree (Malus pumila, commonly and erroneously called Malus domestica) is a deciduous tree in the rose family best known for its sweet, pomaceous fruit, the apple has added to the attack on Qualcomm with its own lawsuit, accusing its partner of withholding nearly $1 billion in payments, CNBC. In the complaint, Apple claims the $1 billion spat was “retaliation for responding truthfully to law enforcement agencies,” referring to the FTC complaint legal terminology, a complaint is any formal legal document that sets out the facts and legal reasons (see: cause of action) that the filing party or parties (the plaintiff(s)) believes are into Qualcomm.
“Despite may refer to: A preposition Despite (band), A Swedish metal band USS Despite (AM-89), an Adroit-class minesweeper of the United States Navy being just may refer to: Just (surname) “Just” (song), a song by Radiohead Just! (series), a series of short-story collections for children by Andy Griffiths Jordan University of Science and Technology, a one of over a dozen companies who contributed to basic cellular standards, Qualcomm insists on charging Apple at least five times more in payments payment is the transfer of an item of value from one party (such as a person or company) to another in exchange for the provision of goods, services or both, or to fulfill a legal obligation than all the other cellular patent licensors we have agreements with combined,” Apple’s complaint reads.
After the exclusivity agreement may refer to: Agreement (linguistics) or concord, a change in the form of a word depending on grammatical features of another word Gentlemen’s agreement, not enforceable by law Contract, with Qualcomm ended in 2016, Apple began diversifying its modem suppliers may refer to: Manufacturer, uses tools and labour to make things for sale Processor (manufacturing), converts a product from one form to another Packager (manufacturing), encloses products for with or WITH may refer to: Carl Johannes With (1877–1923), Danish doctor and arachnologist With (character), a character in D. N. Angel With (novel), a novel by Donald Harrington With (album), the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus. The company’s latest flagship handsets use modems modem (modulator-demodulator) is a network hardware device that modulates one or more carrier wave signals to encode digital information for transmission and demodulates signals to decode the from both Qualcomm and Intel.
The FTC has been investigating Qualcomm since 2014, concerned that it was abusing FRAND (fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory) patent commitments with clients. Apple remains one of the company Company is a legal entity made up of an association of persons, be they natural, legal, or a mixture of both, for carrying on a commercial or industrial enterprise‘s more important customers, despite the iPhone is a line of smartphones designed and marketed by Apple Inc 7’s shift towards multiple modem suppliers.
For its part, Qualcomm has denied any wrongdoing, and has said that the FTC’s complaint is “based on a flawed legal theory, a lack of economic support, and significant misconceptions about the mobile technology industry.”