what's up with all these glaring defense of Apple?
Apple's success has been narrowly focused in on designing, marketing, and a few technical areas -- wireless tech pioneered and dominated by the likes of Qualcomm, Ericsson, etc for decades is not where Apple's strength lies.
Further, Apple has been accused and convicted of orchestrating ebooks price-fixing ($450M fine in 2016) and colluding with other tech companies not to poach each others' employees (another $450M fine for all tech companies involved in 2015). A US jury also found Apple willfully infringed VirnetX's IP's (ie, facetime VPN OD). So yeah, sure, Apple, however big or successful, is fully capable of engaging in unethical, anti-competitive/trust, illegal activities to gain advantage over others.
Also, let's not forget, Qualcomm's lawsuit (or counter-suit) is just a small subplot of the greater feud between Apple and the wireless industry. Apple, having challenged the wireless industry for a full decade and lost or settled every lawsuit (and failed to squeeze their wireless suppliers), allegedly colluded with mobile OEMs around the world to launch regulatory attacks against Qualcomm. Sure, there are some aspects of Qualcomm's licensing practices that are clearly illegal/anti-competitive (especially respect to their chipset competitors), but Apple's direct accusation (eg, kickback for exclusivity, violation of FRAND -- unreasonable royalty basis and rates) is probably just blatant lies that Apple fabricated to rile up regulators in South Korea, EU, and Taiwan. It's no wonder that Qualcomm is so pissed off and they are engaged in a bitter lawsuit over frivolous IP theft that Qualcomm would have looked away otherwise.
1. We have no evidence that Apple did anything wrong. And so until a court rules either way we should default to them being innocent.
2. Qualcomm is unquestionably more dodgy than Apple. They have been convicted of market abuse and have engaged in anti-competitive practices for quite some time now. I don't think anyone should feel sympathy for them.
3. You have made unfounded allegations that Apple lied to countries around the world. So I would question your bias in this case.
Qualcomm has been found guilty in two separate antitrust actions recently in the EU, with a third antitrust action getting underway in the last couple of months.
They are currently the subject of another antitrust action in the US.
In addition, several other nations have recently found them guilty in antitrust actions of their own.
Given their behavior, and the Billions in fines they have recently been ordered to pay for said illegal behavior, I'm not certain why anyone would still be willing to accept their claims without proof.
1. Sure, contrary to some views here that Apple is too big, too talented, or too successful to do any wrong (see bsimpson's comment), we do have plenty of historical evidence that Apple is fully "capable" of doing so.
2. Nobody said Qualcomm was a model corporate citizen or too big, talented, or successful to do any wrong. All companies including Apple engage in unethical behavior in pursuit of profit.
3. Wrong, I haven't made any unfounded allegation. I stated Qualcomm alleged Apple made false testimony to regulators around the world; hence their cancellation of rebates that started the US lawsuit. Also, wrt Apple's assertion on Qualcomm's FRAND violation, Apple has made the same empty accusation against all wireless IP holders of FRAND violation with absolutely zero evidence over past 10 years -- Apple hasn't provided any evidence this time around either.
> Further, Apple has been accused and convicted of orchestrating ebooks price-fixing ($450M fine in 2016) and colluding with other tech companies not to poach each others' employees (another $450M fine for all tech companies involved in 2015). A US jury also found Apple willfully infringed VirnetX's IP's (ie, facetime VPN OD). So yeah, sure, Apple, however big or successful, is fully capable of engaging in unethical, anti-competitive/trust, illegal activities to gain advantage over others.
Sadly, at this point, this is par for the course for any corporation. This is simply what they do. It comes with the territory.
These types of discussions always devolve into this whataboutism that really is a bottomless pit. Ultimately corporations must engage in unethical behaviors as they are incentivized to. I bet qualcomm's closet is just as full of skeletons.
Won't change until the US and China start governing corporations properly.
Apple's success has been narrowly focused in on designing, marketing, and a few technical areas -- wireless tech pioneered and dominated by the likes of Qualcomm, Ericsson, etc for decades is not where Apple's strength lies.
Further, Apple has been accused and convicted of orchestrating ebooks price-fixing ($450M fine in 2016) and colluding with other tech companies not to poach each others' employees (another $450M fine for all tech companies involved in 2015). A US jury also found Apple willfully infringed VirnetX's IP's (ie, facetime VPN OD). So yeah, sure, Apple, however big or successful, is fully capable of engaging in unethical, anti-competitive/trust, illegal activities to gain advantage over others.
Also, let's not forget, Qualcomm's lawsuit (or counter-suit) is just a small subplot of the greater feud between Apple and the wireless industry. Apple, having challenged the wireless industry for a full decade and lost or settled every lawsuit (and failed to squeeze their wireless suppliers), allegedly colluded with mobile OEMs around the world to launch regulatory attacks against Qualcomm. Sure, there are some aspects of Qualcomm's licensing practices that are clearly illegal/anti-competitive (especially respect to their chipset competitors), but Apple's direct accusation (eg, kickback for exclusivity, violation of FRAND -- unreasonable royalty basis and rates) is probably just blatant lies that Apple fabricated to rile up regulators in South Korea, EU, and Taiwan. It's no wonder that Qualcomm is so pissed off and they are engaged in a bitter lawsuit over frivolous IP theft that Qualcomm would have looked away otherwise.