1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,880
Speaker 1: The global legal battle between Apple and Qualcom is escalating,

2
00:00:04,120 --> 00:00:07,200
Speaker 1: and with Qualcom's core business model and billions of dollars

3
00:00:07,280 --> 00:00:10,799
Speaker 1: at stake, it promises to be long and nasty. Qualcom

4
00:00:10,840 --> 00:00:14,040
Speaker 1: is accusing Apple of lying to regulators to push them

5
00:00:14,040 --> 00:00:17,040
Speaker 1: to investigate the chip maker, and of threatening it to

6
00:00:17,160 --> 00:00:20,240
Speaker 1: cover up the use of inferior parts in some iPhones.

7
00:00:20,880 --> 00:00:24,360
Speaker 1: These counterclaims were filed in response to Apple's one billion

8
00:00:24,400 --> 00:00:28,800
Speaker 1: dollar antitrust lawsuit accusing Qualcom of illegally trying to control

9
00:00:28,880 --> 00:00:31,880
Speaker 1: the market for chips and charging at least five times

10
00:00:31,880 --> 00:00:34,720
Speaker 1: more than the going rate for patent fees. Here to

11
00:00:34,760 --> 00:00:39,040
Speaker 1: help us analyze these competing claims are Matt Larson, Bloomberg

12
00:00:39,080 --> 00:00:45,400
Speaker 1: Intelligence litigation analyst and Andrea Mattwitian professor at Northeastern University. Matt,

13
00:00:45,479 --> 00:00:49,200
Speaker 1: let's start with the basics. Explain why Qualcom is allowed

14
00:00:49,240 --> 00:00:52,640
Speaker 1: to charge phonemakers like Apple, whether or not they use

15
00:00:52,720 --> 00:00:57,080
Speaker 1: its chips, and what those charges are. Certainly so, Qualcom's

16
00:00:57,120 --> 00:01:00,200
Speaker 1: business is fairly unique. It's it's twofold. The first art

17
00:01:00,280 --> 00:01:03,360
Speaker 1: is the chip sets they sell ships that um that

18
00:01:03,440 --> 00:01:06,080
Speaker 1: go into wireless devices and basically allow the phones to

19
00:01:06,120 --> 00:01:09,000
Speaker 1: communicate with with radio and wireless networks. So the other

20
00:01:09,040 --> 00:01:11,640
Speaker 1: half of their business um about a third of their

21
00:01:11,680 --> 00:01:15,679
Speaker 1: business by revenue realistically, is patent licensing. So qual Calm

22
00:01:15,680 --> 00:01:18,200
Speaker 1: invests a tremendous amount of money and doing research and

23
00:01:18,240 --> 00:01:22,759
Speaker 1: development and then participates in standard setting organizations that essentially

24
00:01:22,840 --> 00:01:25,440
Speaker 1: dictate what kind of technologies are going to be put

25
00:01:25,440 --> 00:01:29,840
Speaker 1: into three G standards, four G lte um. You know

26
00:01:29,840 --> 00:01:33,479
Speaker 1: there are groups talking about five G. So Qualcom participates

27
00:01:33,480 --> 00:01:36,480
Speaker 1: in these groups. It contributes the technology that it's done,

28
00:01:37,000 --> 00:01:40,520
Speaker 1: that it's developed through its research programs, and then in turn,

29
00:01:40,840 --> 00:01:44,959
Speaker 1: once companies start implementing those technologies, UH, Qualcom asks for

30
00:01:45,040 --> 00:01:48,080
Speaker 1: compensation in the form of patent licensing. So it says,

31
00:01:48,080 --> 00:01:50,880
Speaker 1: we'll let you use these technologies. Uh. In fact, you

32
00:01:50,920 --> 00:01:53,880
Speaker 1: have to use them because they're required to communicate with

33
00:01:53,880 --> 00:01:57,040
Speaker 1: other devices, and in return you pay us licensing fees

34
00:01:57,080 --> 00:02:00,960
Speaker 1: for the use of our patented tech. So, Andrew, before

35
00:02:00,960 --> 00:02:05,040
Speaker 1: we get to Qualcom's lawsuit that follows on the heels

36
00:02:05,080 --> 00:02:08,400
Speaker 1: of a lot of litigation by Apple, So what what

37
00:02:08,600 --> 00:02:16,519
Speaker 1: is Apple suing Qualcom about? Andrea voiced their repeated frustrations

38
00:02:16,639 --> 00:02:22,920
Speaker 1: about their allegedly not getting a stream of payments back

39
00:02:22,960 --> 00:02:28,720
Speaker 1: from Qualcom in accordance with what were the previously stipulated

40
00:02:28,760 --> 00:02:33,120
Speaker 1: deal terms pursuant to their agreements, which the court will

41
00:02:33,200 --> 00:02:36,840
Speaker 1: undoubtedly dig into the minutia of those contracts and will

42
00:02:36,919 --> 00:02:39,919
Speaker 1: learn a lot about the nature of this relationship as

43
00:02:40,480 --> 00:02:45,519
Speaker 1: the case moves forward. And so this relationship between Apple

44
00:02:45,520 --> 00:02:49,840
Speaker 1: and Qualcom also was part of the concerns that are

45
00:02:50,120 --> 00:02:55,840
Speaker 1: reflected in the Federal Trade Commission's recent activity filing UH

46
00:02:56,320 --> 00:03:02,080
Speaker 1: against Qualcom in California accusing Qualcom of anti competitive practice

47
00:03:02,120 --> 00:03:04,440
Speaker 1: and violation of Section five of the Spare Traits of

48
00:03:04,520 --> 00:03:08,080
Speaker 1: the FTC Act. As well, So Matt tell us about

49
00:03:08,120 --> 00:03:13,560
Speaker 1: Qualcom's claims that Apple threatened it and lied to regulators. Yeah,

50
00:03:13,600 --> 00:03:16,560
Speaker 1: as a result of this two fold business UH, namely,

51
00:03:16,639 --> 00:03:18,920
Speaker 1: Qualcom says you can either buy our chips or if

52
00:03:18,960 --> 00:03:20,919
Speaker 1: you buy somebody else's chips, you're gonna have to pay

53
00:03:21,000 --> 00:03:24,280
Speaker 1: us because those chips use our technology. UM. That rubs

54
00:03:24,320 --> 00:03:27,400
Speaker 1: a lot of handset makers the wrong way. UM. And

55
00:03:27,480 --> 00:03:33,120
Speaker 1: so Qualcom has been subject to UM two investigations in

56
00:03:33,200 --> 00:03:37,760
Speaker 1: the EU, in the KFTC and Korea. UM there are

57
00:03:37,880 --> 00:03:41,120
Speaker 1: their investigations it was subject to in China that came

58
00:03:41,120 --> 00:03:43,960
Speaker 1: out with a large settlement deal with the n d

59
00:03:44,160 --> 00:03:47,720
Speaker 1: r C that basically set licensing rates UM and one

60
00:03:47,760 --> 00:03:50,520
Speaker 1: of the allegations that Qualcom has set forth you know,

61
00:03:50,560 --> 00:03:52,840
Speaker 1: kind of in defense of itself and as at striking

62
00:03:52,880 --> 00:03:56,000
Speaker 1: back at Apple in this lawsuit is saying that Apple

63
00:03:56,560 --> 00:04:02,360
Speaker 1: UM participated in these investing gation specifically, the KFTC investigation

64
00:04:02,840 --> 00:04:07,680
Speaker 1: UM inflated facts kind of made a made a case

65
00:04:07,720 --> 00:04:13,400
Speaker 1: that wasn't based in how Calcolm's licensing and chip business worked.

66
00:04:13,680 --> 00:04:16,560
Speaker 1: UM and Qualcom is basically alleging that Apple came forth

67
00:04:17,080 --> 00:04:22,760
Speaker 1: UM and saw this as an opportunistic endeavor whereby it

68
00:04:22,839 --> 00:04:28,520
Speaker 1: could effectively negotiate against Qualcom's high royalty demands by putting

69
00:04:28,520 --> 00:04:33,479
Speaker 1: pressure on them via these the KFTC, the FTC UM

70
00:04:33,480 --> 00:04:36,920
Speaker 1: and similar investigations. We've been talking about the billion dollar

71
00:04:37,040 --> 00:04:41,360
Speaker 1: legal battle between Apple and Qualcom over loyalty over royalties,

72
00:04:41,680 --> 00:04:44,720
Speaker 1: and just today BlackBerry announced that it was awarded nearly

73
00:04:44,800 --> 00:04:48,760
Speaker 1: eight hundred fifteen million dollars after an arbitration hearing concluded

74
00:04:48,800 --> 00:04:54,560
Speaker 1: that Qualcom had been overcharging for royalty payments on smartphone technology.

75
00:04:54,800 --> 00:04:58,560
Speaker 1: Our guests are Bloomberg Intelligence litigation analyst Matt Lawson and

76
00:04:58,600 --> 00:05:03,800
Speaker 1: Professor Andrew Mtwittion of Northeastern University. Matt is the BlackBerry

77
00:05:03,800 --> 00:05:06,920
Speaker 1: award a good sign for Apple and its legal fight

78
00:05:07,000 --> 00:05:11,000
Speaker 1: with Qualcom, or are the circumstances different. Apple will certainly

79
00:05:11,080 --> 00:05:14,960
Speaker 1: parade this decision in its dispute with Qualcom UM. Apple's

80
00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:18,560
Speaker 1: main contention, you know, despite all the the antitrust concerns,

81
00:05:18,640 --> 00:05:21,800
Speaker 1: the the key behind the Apple Qualcom dispute in my

82
00:05:21,880 --> 00:05:24,520
Speaker 1: view is the royalty payments. UM. Apple would love to

83
00:05:24,520 --> 00:05:29,400
Speaker 1: negotiate a very low direct license where it pays Apple

84
00:05:29,600 --> 00:05:32,640
Speaker 1: Qualcom directly for the use of its patents UM, and

85
00:05:32,680 --> 00:05:35,560
Speaker 1: in doing that, it's going to need to show comparable

86
00:05:35,600 --> 00:05:39,159
Speaker 1: licenses that have low roll royalty rates, and so by

87
00:05:39,240 --> 00:05:43,680
Speaker 1: BlackBerry UM apparently in its arbitration securing a lower cap

88
00:05:43,800 --> 00:05:47,599
Speaker 1: on Qualcom royalties UM. That's something that will will certainly

89
00:05:47,640 --> 00:05:50,080
Speaker 1: be highlighted by Apple and UH and will be front

90
00:05:50,080 --> 00:05:52,440
Speaker 1: and center in its UH and its contentions as the

91
00:05:52,520 --> 00:05:55,480
Speaker 1: Qualcom dispute moves forward. But again, you know that dispute

92
00:05:55,520 --> 00:05:58,039
Speaker 1: is going to be a long time in the making

93
00:05:58,080 --> 00:06:01,400
Speaker 1: apps and some kind of settlements, so it'll be lurking

94
00:06:01,400 --> 00:06:03,320
Speaker 1: in the background and we may we may see this

95
00:06:03,360 --> 00:06:06,880
Speaker 1: again in a in a year, a couple of years, Andrea,

96
00:06:06,920 --> 00:06:09,000
Speaker 1: A lot of the time, actually probably almost all the

97
00:06:09,040 --> 00:06:11,080
Speaker 1: time that you see this kind of litigation and counter

98
00:06:11,120 --> 00:06:15,520
Speaker 1: litigation between companies that have had long standing relationships as

99
00:06:15,560 --> 00:06:18,600
Speaker 1: a business matter, it's really a breakdown of the relationship

100
00:06:18,680 --> 00:06:21,640
Speaker 1: that's going on. And so if if uh, if, as

101
00:06:21,920 --> 00:06:25,000
Speaker 1: Matt says, Apple's motivation here is to try to lower

102
00:06:25,040 --> 00:06:29,320
Speaker 1: the fees it's paying, what does you know kind of say,

103
00:06:29,480 --> 00:06:31,240
Speaker 1: you know, if you look at the legal claims of

104
00:06:31,320 --> 00:06:35,000
Speaker 1: qualcom is making, what are there? What's their position in

105
00:06:35,080 --> 00:06:39,560
Speaker 1: terms of why they're really right here? So I think

106
00:06:39,560 --> 00:06:43,479
Speaker 1: you're right that it is a flag that the relationship

107
00:06:43,560 --> 00:06:47,599
Speaker 1: is struggling, particularly since Tim Cook made a statement that

108
00:06:47,680 --> 00:06:51,600
Speaker 1: this was a move of last resort to bring litigation

109
00:06:52,560 --> 00:06:58,000
Speaker 1: reviewing Qualcom's reply to the Apple pleadings. What we're talking

110
00:06:58,000 --> 00:07:01,039
Speaker 1: about here is not simply a single con tract. Even

111
00:07:01,040 --> 00:07:03,760
Speaker 1: though portions are redacted, we can deduce that we're talking

112
00:07:03,760 --> 00:07:10,240
Speaker 1: about at least seven different, undoubtedly extensively negotiated agreements, and

113
00:07:10,440 --> 00:07:13,280
Speaker 1: they'll all come to play when we try to reconstruct

114
00:07:13,680 --> 00:07:17,360
Speaker 1: this relationship. And as the court seeks to evaluate the

115
00:07:17,440 --> 00:07:21,960
Speaker 1: different dynamics that were present in this um set of

116
00:07:22,000 --> 00:07:26,160
Speaker 1: exchanges and in these contracts, and the allegations are everything

117
00:07:26,280 --> 00:07:32,120
Speaker 1: from Apple seeking to UH wind up regulators to bring

118
00:07:32,200 --> 00:07:38,520
Speaker 1: charges and claims against Qualcom versus Apple alleging the Qualcom

119
00:07:38,640 --> 00:07:44,040
Speaker 1: UH sanctioned Apple for cooperating with regulators by withholding the

120
00:07:44,120 --> 00:07:47,280
Speaker 1: stream of payments that the subject of of Apple suit.

121
00:07:47,640 --> 00:07:51,520
Speaker 1: This is a very complicated set of business dynamics, and

122
00:07:51,640 --> 00:07:55,040
Speaker 1: the reply brief from Qualcom reminded me a little bit

123
00:07:55,080 --> 00:07:58,320
Speaker 1: of my first year law students contracts class because they

124
00:07:58,440 --> 00:08:03,960
Speaker 1: raised a whole most of defenses that are very classic

125
00:08:04,080 --> 00:08:06,680
Speaker 1: contract law defenses. So it will be interesting to see

126
00:08:06,680 --> 00:08:11,640
Speaker 1: how this all plays out, Matt, Qualcom's core business model

127
00:08:11,760 --> 00:08:16,560
Speaker 1: is part of this whole lawsuit. Would it be if

128
00:08:16,600 --> 00:08:20,000
Speaker 1: Apple did win way down the line, would that business

129
00:08:20,040 --> 00:08:24,120
Speaker 1: model be in jeopardy? That's the concern that a lot

130
00:08:24,160 --> 00:08:27,800
Speaker 1: of a lot of people who are watching Qualcom have. Um.

131
00:08:27,880 --> 00:08:30,320
Speaker 1: As I mentioned earlier, you know, roughly a third of

132
00:08:30,680 --> 00:08:35,400
Speaker 1: Qualcom's revenue comes from very high margin patent licensing dollars.

133
00:08:35,480 --> 00:08:37,600
Speaker 1: You know that you're not making products, there's very low

134
00:08:37,679 --> 00:08:41,600
Speaker 1: cost um and so as royalty rates go down, you

135
00:08:41,679 --> 00:08:44,120
Speaker 1: eat into that high margin business, and I think that's

136
00:08:44,160 --> 00:08:47,080
Speaker 1: what um that's what people are concerned about is is

137
00:08:47,120 --> 00:08:51,760
Speaker 1: looking at at Apple pushing back kind of testing, the testing,

138
00:08:51,760 --> 00:08:54,080
Speaker 1: the waters and patent licensing. Generally, a lot of the

139
00:08:54,120 --> 00:08:58,439
Speaker 1: handset makers are are being a little bit more defensive

140
00:08:58,440 --> 00:09:02,520
Speaker 1: of their margins, especially as we've moved from the earlier

141
00:09:02,520 --> 00:09:05,520
Speaker 1: iterations of cell phones that really just acted as phones

142
00:09:05,600 --> 00:09:09,960
Speaker 1: that connected to radio networks, whereas now we've got basically

143
00:09:10,000 --> 00:09:12,280
Speaker 1: handheld computers that we're carrying around, and we're looking at

144
00:09:12,280 --> 00:09:15,040
Speaker 1: the advent of of five G where pretty much every

145
00:09:15,080 --> 00:09:17,000
Speaker 1: device is going to be connected to the Internet, and

146
00:09:17,080 --> 00:09:19,400
Speaker 1: so people who are making those products are saying, well,

147
00:09:19,440 --> 00:09:21,600
Speaker 1: you know, the licensing that we're paying for some of

148
00:09:21,600 --> 00:09:24,600
Speaker 1: these technologies should be a lower percentage of the overall

149
00:09:24,640 --> 00:09:27,080
Speaker 1: device or capped at some set limit. And so when

150
00:09:27,080 --> 00:09:29,400
Speaker 1: you're looking at Qualcom, that's a concern is how much

151
00:09:29,400 --> 00:09:33,680
Speaker 1: do those trends start to eat into its licensing business. Andrea,

152
00:09:33,720 --> 00:09:35,400
Speaker 1: one of the interesting parts of all this is that

153
00:09:35,520 --> 00:09:41,360
Speaker 1: the licensing from Qualcom to Apple actually runs through Apple's subcontractors.

154
00:09:41,960 --> 00:09:44,640
Speaker 1: Is it possible that this litigation is sort of the

155
00:09:44,640 --> 00:09:49,000
Speaker 1: prelude to negotiating a more direct licensing deal between the

156
00:09:49,000 --> 00:09:53,080
Speaker 1: two companies. That certainly will be one of the operative

157
00:09:53,200 --> 00:09:57,480
Speaker 1: moving pieces here. So Qualcom and its reply alleges that

158
00:09:57,600 --> 00:10:03,480
Speaker 1: Apple has had opportunities negotiate a direct license or set

159
00:10:03,520 --> 00:10:07,840
Speaker 1: of licenses with Qualcom, and that Apple has not previously

160
00:10:08,000 --> 00:10:11,880
Speaker 1: been interested in doing that kind of direct licensing. That's

161
00:10:11,920 --> 00:10:15,760
Speaker 1: a question of fact that the Court will need to

162
00:10:15,800 --> 00:10:19,200
Speaker 1: decide whether they the Court believes that that is in

163
00:10:19,280 --> 00:10:24,760
Speaker 1: fact the case. But certainly this may end up as

164
00:10:24,800 --> 00:10:29,839
Speaker 1: the first volley across the court to trigger a renegotiation

165
00:10:29,880 --> 00:10:33,080
Speaker 1: of this relationship. And that's something that courts sometimes do

166
00:10:33,840 --> 00:10:37,439
Speaker 1: in terms of handling complex litigation like this. Sometimes courts

167
00:10:37,600 --> 00:10:40,320
Speaker 1: say to the parties, look, we're going to pause things here.

168
00:10:40,440 --> 00:10:44,680
Speaker 1: You need to talk to each other about this and

169
00:10:45,040 --> 00:10:49,920
Speaker 1: uh come back when you've resolved this piece and more

170
00:10:50,040 --> 00:10:55,199
Speaker 1: that piece or uh try to work things out between yourselves,

171
00:10:55,320 --> 00:10:57,840
Speaker 1: and the Court will get involved if it needs to,

172
00:10:58,120 --> 00:11:01,760
Speaker 1: but to provide a nudge for a renegotiation of sorts

173
00:11:02,040 --> 00:11:03,959
Speaker 1: when the court feels that there's room for that kind

174
00:11:03,960 --> 00:11:06,440
Speaker 1: of a renegotiation. I want to thank you both for

175
00:11:06,520 --> 00:11:08,560
Speaker 1: being on Bloomberg Law. I'm sure we're going to be

176
00:11:08,679 --> 00:11:12,480
Speaker 1: coming back to you with more chapters in this a

177
00:11:12,600 --> 00:11:14,880
Speaker 1: long legal battle between Apple and Qualcom