|Slacker, re: - Sewell is out .....................................................|
very interesting turn of events-
First Derek Aberle's departure is announced and now Sewell ( “There’s no way that this case settles, absent a complete reinvention of the licensing model that Qualcomm has adapted in the industry,” Sewell says.)..... “retires”.
Exactly---“.... but the entire interview seemed way more open than you usually see from Apple...”
Sewell’s Bloomberg interview was back in August and it just “saw the light of day” this week... and **bingo** Sewell remarkably departs. A coincidence.... I think not.
Yes, some very telling and embarrassing quotes (snips below) in that Bloomberg piece, exposing many of AAPL’s “lies” and thus damaging their misdirected case against QCOM.
Could Sewell have been the prime instigator against QCOM (and many other AAPL actions against other companies)?
Could Tim Cook have been fed a bunch of BS (lies) by Sewell ---- false details of QCOM’s business model.
Could a favorable QCOM settlement now be in the works (it would be interesting if Tim Cook recently placed a call to Steve and Tim and their attorneys are currently meeting)?
AAPL/ Sewell Snips>>>> from- 17 10 04 Sewell- Bloomberg- AAPL and QCOM Billion-Dollar War Over an $18 Part
+ . Somewhere on the board is the baseband processor, aka the modem, which turns radio waves sent from cell towers into voice and data.
“Here it is,” Apple’s Sewell says, sliding a fingernail-size square covered with electrodes across a conference room table: a Qualcomm modem. “That thing sells for about $18.”
He means the chip itself, before any royalties. Qualcomm’s business model, which is either ingenious or diabolical depending on whom you talk to, is to allow any chip company to use its technology royalty-free. Phone manufacturers can choose to buy chips from Qualcomm or one of the other five companies that make modems using Qualcomm’s technology. Either way, they still have to pay Qualcomm its 5 percent.
Because Qualcomm spends more on R&D than any of its peers, its modems are the most advanced. For years, Apple considered Qualcomm’s to be the only modems good enough for the iPhone. That, Sewell says, is why Apple put up with Qualcomm’s licensing scheme for years. If Apple refused to pay the royalty, Qualcomm could cut off its modem supply, forcing Apple to rely on inferior chips. That calculation changed in 2015, when Apple began working with Intel Corp. to develop a modem that was used in some versions of the iPhone 7. “What prompted us to bring the case now as opposed to five years ago is simple,” Sewell says. “It’s the availability of a second source.”
+ Around the same time, Apple began demanding more drastic concessions from Qualcomm. Although the specifics of the negotiation are secret, Sewell, who spoke to Bloomberg Businessweek in August, two weeks before the big iPhone launch, was able to lay out the company’s thinking. As Apple sees it, a cell phone modem is one of many components—and of no special significance. Sewell points out that if your cellular network is down, it’s possible to get online using Wi-Fi, which uses a different chip. Moreover, phones aren’t just phones anymore; they’re also navigational tools, digital wallets, health monitors, cameras, and more. All of those functions work with or without cell service. “Cellular connectivity is important,” he says, “but it’s not as important as it used to be.” On another table behind Sewell, an Apple representative has laid out two versions of the iPhone 7: One model, which has 128 gigabytes of memory was sold by Apple for $750. The other, which has 256 GB, sold for $100 more. How is it fair, Apple asks, for Qualcomm to charge as much as $5 more for the technology in the more expensive phone, given that the two devices are otherwise identical?
Starting in 2015, Apple argued that it should pay patent royalties to Qualcomm based on the price of the modem rather than the price of the phone, which would imply a much lower figure. Sewell says Apple believes it shouldn’t have to pay more than $4 or so per device, 60 percent less than what it was paying Qualcomm after rebates, according to analyst estimates. Qualcomm, not surprisingly, refused.
+ Qualcomm’s allegation—that Apple got Samsung to use its influence with the Korean government to push regulators to go after Qualcomm as part of a global conspiracy to pressure it to reduce prices—is explosive, particularly given that Lee was later convicted of bribing the country’s former president, Park Geun-hye, in an anticorruption crackdown in Korea. The crackdown also led to the resignation of the vice chairman of the Korea Fair Trade Commission, which brought the case against Qualcomm. Apple says nothing improper happened. “I don’t know what conversation they are talking about,” says Bruce Sewell, the company’s general counsel, in an interview at headquarters in Cupertino, Calif. “For Apple to have said to Samsung, ‘You guys are in Korea and you should be watching this case carefully,’ doesn’t seem to me to be anything beyond simply the kind of conversation two CEOs might have.” Samsung declined to comment on the allegation. A KFTC official, Yoo Young-wook, says the agency began the investigation on its own and that Samsung was “only one of the companies we enlisted for reference.”
+ Apple’s lawyers say that’s self-serving nonsense, and they’re preparing for a trial. “There’s no way that this case settles, absent a complete reinvention of the licensing model that Qualcomm has adapted in the industry,” Sewell says.