XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone
Bob Campbell <
nunya@none.none> asked
Being allowed to enforce your contracts is not news. That's how contracts work. Of COURSE Apple ban ANYONE who violates contracts.
Particularly when the violation amounts to a public temper tantrum thrown
by a spoiled child.
For once, the ignorant apologist Bob Campbell is (shockingly) correct.
It's true.
He's right.
Apple always throws a public temper tantrum like a spoiled child when anyone (like Qualcomm) simply asks Apple to pay royalties due under contract law.
*Apple stops paying Qualcomm's patent royalties* <
https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/qualcomm-apple-iphone-patents-royalties-manufacturers-chips/>
*Apple is refusing to pay $7 billion in royalties to Qualcomm* <
https://pocketnow.com/apple-destroy-qualcomm-royalties>
*Qualcomm should change its licensing before Apple changes Qualcomm* <
https://www.imore.com/qualcomm-should-change-its-licensing-apple-and-industry-change-qualcomm>
*Here's How Much Apple Was Paying Qualcomm in Royalties* <
https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/01/14/heres-how-much-apple-was-paying-qualcomm-in-royalt.aspx>
Note in that case the end result was that Apple had to pay more, but that's what Apple gets for the courts allowing Qualcomm to enforce its contract.
That's how contracts work.
Particularly when Apple throws a public tantrum like a spoiled child would.
"Before Apple instructed them to stop paying, contract manufacturers were
paying Qualcomm 5% for every iPhone, translating into $12 to $20 per
device.
In exchange for exclusivity and other marketing concessions, Qualcomm
used to give Apple rebates that effectively reduced its royalty burden.
Those rebates brought the per-device royalty down to $7.50."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)