It also potentially opens up Qualcomm to litigation by licensees that have over-paid.
Of course the Apple law suit is the first thing that springs to mind. Apple alleged harm very much along the lines of that described in this judgement. They probably settled because Intel wasn't able to supply modems for their next Phone and they couldn't wait any longer to cut a deal with Qualcomm without risking their roadmap. However, this judgement might re-open a window for them to sue again.
>They probably settled because Intel wasn't able to supply modems for their next Phone
I'm very unconvinced that they settled because of 5G or Intel. Apple plotted the world-wide regulatory attacks, the FTC's lawsuit in the Northern District of California, and the pending class-action lawsuit at least two or three years ago. Further, most wireless carriers won't even launch 5G until much later this year, with national wide coverage starting in late 2020 (most likely later). And Apple couldn't wait a couple of weeks? That doesn't make any sense.
It's most likely Apple knew they had very low chance of winning outside Lucy Koh's court in the Norther District of California. It was no coincidence that the FTC went shopping around for forum in Apple's backyard. They didn't however foresee the gov't shutdown early this year that delayed Koh's decision and now Apple was walking into QCOM's den in the Southern District empty handed. So the choice was fairly clear: wait for Koh's decision which might not arrive on time, then settle, or fight QCOM. The latter option carries a lot of risk since, in addition to most likely adverse outcome, Apple's unsavory, embarrassing legal or supply-practices would be exposed (ie, potential lawsuits from investors).
IMO if Apple knew it was 'weeks away' they would have waited to settle, because they would have had the upper hand.
These kinds of big patent litigations are a bidirectional game of chicken. It's possible Apple flinched and settled; they could have anticipated a loss. On the other hand, Apple could well have obtained steep discounts on their 5G modem orders from Qualcomm as part of the settlement to compensate them for their troubles. I think it's hard to speculate on what actually happened without more information.
that's so sad that our so-called justice system is slanted just like a pro-football arena with preferences clearly given to the "home team" in their arena. It is literally etched in stone on the front of the US Supreme Court building: "EQUAL justice under law".
I'm pretty sceptical that Apple would've settled the Qualcomm litigation without some sort of agreement that Apple wouldn't go back and re-litigate later. Even if they did, more litigation would put Apple in a real bind to try and find a new supplier for something Qualcomm now almost has a monopoly on.
If Lucy Koh's decision is upheld, QCOM has to re-write all their existing licensing agreement.
What monopoly? There are at least two other 5G chip makers, Samsung and Huawei and according to a fairly reliable Apple analysis Ming Chi Kuo, Apple will use both Samsung and QCOM's 5 chips next year.
Of course the Apple law suit is the first thing that springs to mind. Apple alleged harm very much along the lines of that described in this judgement. They probably settled because Intel wasn't able to supply modems for their next Phone and they couldn't wait any longer to cut a deal with Qualcomm without risking their roadmap. However, this judgement might re-open a window for them to sue again.